timber supply analysis report - british...

Merritt TSA Timber Supply Review #4

TTiimmbbeerr SSuuppppllyy AAnnaallyyssiiss RReeppoorrtt

Final Version: April 28 2010

Prepared for: Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forest Society (NSIFS)

Prepared by

Reg Davis, RPF Forsite Consultants Ltd.

Merritt TSR 4 Timber Supply Analysis Report

PROFESSIONAL FORESTER CERTIFICATION This report was prepared by: __________________________________________ An original, master hardcopy is signed, stamped and archived at the office of the Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch, Ministry of Forests and Range, Victoria, B.C. Reg Davis, R.P.F. Forsite Consultants Ltd. 250-489-4423 [email protected]

More Information on the Timber Supply Review Process

This document was prepared to support an allowable annual cut determination by British Columbia’s Chief Forester. To learn more about this process please visit the following website:

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/ Or contact:

Forest Analysis Branch Ministry of Forests and Range P.O. Box 9512, Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, B.C., V8W 9C2 Telephone: (250) 356-5947

Merritt TSA TSR4 Timber Supply Analysis Report

i

Acknowledgements

Forsite would like to thank each of the parties that contributed to the completion of this document. Government representatives

Jeff Stone (Kamloops office, MoFR) provided quality control and guidance before and during the reviews performed by the MoFR staff. Ed Nedokus (Merritt office, MoFR) provided input on operational and forest planning aspects from the government perspective.

Defined Forest Area Management (DFAM) members

Glenn Thiem (CEO, Manager of NSIF) acted as the contract manager, and the communication link between the licensees and Forsite staff. Technical Advisory Committee members of the NSIFS provided their local knowledge and data used to develop the Data Package, produce the Merritt GIS net landbase file, as well as extensive input into the assumptions used throughout the analysis.

Technical Advisory Committee Members:

Lower Nicola Indian Band Trevor Ball Upper Nicola Indian Band Lynne Jorgesen

Upper Similkameen Indian Band Brenda Gould Coldwater Indian Band, Cooks Ferry Indian

Band, and Siska Indian Band Brenda Aljam and Mary Sandy

Nicola Tribal Association Bernadette Manuel BC Timber Sales Ian Black

Ministry of Environment Michael Burwash Ministry of Forests and Range Ed Nedokus

Stuwix Resources Joint Venture Lyle LeClair Ardew Wood Products Ltd. Corey Kuromi

Tolko Industries Ltd. Rene Thomsen and Bruce Beech Aspen Planers Ltd. Kevin Gayfer

Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd. Brian Drobe

Finally, we thank and acknowledge Derek De Biasio of Crane Management Consultants Ltd for the completion of the socio-economic analysis included in this document.


ii

Executive Summary This document contains a timber supply analysis and socio-economic analysis specific to the Merritt Timber Supply Area (TSA). These analyses are an important part of the provincial Timber Supply Review (TSR) process. The purpose of the review is to examine the short- and long-term effects of current forest management practices on the availability of timber for harvesting in the TSA. A review of this type is completed at least once every ten years in order to capture changes in data, practices, policy, or legislation influencing forest management in the TSA.

The previous timber supply review # 3 (TSR3) Analysis Report was completed in 2003, with an associated annual allowable cut (AAC) of 2,814,171 cubic metres per year, and a partition of 312 500 cubic metres of “smallwood” pine stands, determined starting in July 1 2005.

This current timber supply review (TSR4) is working toward a new AAC determination to be established in 2010.

The Merritt TSA Timber Supply Data Package provides the detailed, technical information and assumptions regarding current forest management practices, policy and legislation which were used in this analysis. Based on the details in the Data Package, the area in the Merritt TSA covers approximately 1.13 million hectares in the south-central portion of British Columbia. The portion of this area considered available for timber production and harvesting under current management practices is called the Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB).

The THLB has been estimated through the analysis of spatial map layers and assumptions detailed in the Data Package Report. Based on these inputs, the current THLB is estimated to be 625,080 hectares. This is a decrease of 7.8% relative to the last timber supply review (625,080 ha in TSR4 versus 678,250 ha in TSR3). Many other changes affecting forest management and timber supply projections have also occurred. The major changes included in the base case are as follows:

• Spatially explicit old growth management areas (OGMA), (45,692 ha) are implemented instead of broad seral constraints for biodiversity, and

• Ungulate winter range (UWR) is now managed under a new set of approved objectives (i.e. a new UWR map and forest cover requirements).

• The area under approved VQOs is now larger (105,649 ha) compared to TSR3 (70,002) and • The current AAC level (2.8 MM m3/yr) includes a larger uplift to address the MPB infestation relative

to the AAC in place at the time of TSR3 (2.13 MM m3/yr), and • The MPB epidemic has impacted substantially more area than at the time of TSR3.

The release of this Merritt TSA TSR4 Analysis Report is the next step in the TSR4 process. Its purpose is to summarize the results of the timber supply analysis and provide a focus for public discussion. The contents of this Analysis Report will provide British Columbia’s Chief Forester with a large portion of the information that is needed to make an informed AAC determination. This report focuses on the Base Case Option, which represents current management practices in the Merritt TSA. It presents a Base Case harvest flow that maintains the current AAC (2,814,171 m3/yr) for 6 years while salvaging MPB impacted stands and then falls 36% (to 1,814,171 MM m3/yr) for a further 34 years, when salvage is substantially complete.


iii

Base Case Harvest Flow

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

0 5 10 15 20 25Decades from present

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

TSR3 BC (K)

AAC less uplift

Base Case 2008

TSR3 BC (K) (grey line) Initial harvest of 2.13 MMdecreasing to 2.00 MM in year 7decreasing to 1.78 MM in decade 6decreasing to 1.61 MM in decade 7increasing to 1.66 MM in decade 23

Current AAC less uplift - 1.81 MM(dashed line)

Base Case 2008 (heavy solid line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MM decreasing to 1.81 MM in year 7 decreasing to 1.58 MM in decade 5 increasing to 1.65 MM in decade 12

A series of sensitivity analyses were completed to assess the impacts of potential changes to modeling assumptions, and gain further understanding of the dynamics at work in the base case forecast.

Uncertainties that altered the harvest level in the short-term (next 20 yrs) by at least 3% were:

• Extending the uplift to 10 years, and • Minimizing the mid-term falldown, and • changes to the size of the timber harvesting land base (±10%), and • changes to existing, natural stand yields (-10%), and • changes to site index values (-3m), and • changes to minimum harvest ages (+10 years; minimum volume threshold), and • assumed 100% mortality of all pine in any MPB-attacked stand, if the stand is not harvested, and • natural stand yields based on VDYP 7, and phase-2 adjusted inventory values.

Uncertainties that altered the long-term harvest level (decades 9+) by at least 3% were:

• changes to the size of the timber harvesting land base (±10%), • changes to future managed stand yields (±10%), • changes to existing, natural stand yields (±10%), and • changes to site index values (±3m), and • changes to minimum harvest ages (100 m3/ha minimum volume threshold), and • assumed 100% mortality of all pine in any mpb-attacked stand, if the stand is not harvested.


iv

A socio-economic assessment of the importance of the forest industry to the Merritt TSA and the province was also completed. Based on facts and data collected, it was concluded that the base case harvest forecast of 2.8 MM m3/yr (for the near short-term period) could annually generate the following key economic impacts.

In the near term, there is no change in projected economic activity as a consequence of implementing the base case timber supply. However, the TSA’s forest industry has only half a dozen years to prepare for a substantial one-third decrease in the local timber supply. The difference in estimated economic activity between the base case forecast and the current AAC is as follows.

• Year 0 to Year 6 – no change at either the TSA or provincial levels. • Year 7 to Year 44 – annual reduction of 651 person years (PYs) of total employment at the TSA level

and 799 PYs of employment and $15 million of BC Government stumpage revenues at the provincial level.


v

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................vii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................ix

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Description of the Merritt TSA ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 First Nations......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Environment......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Integrated Resource Management Considerations............................................................................. 6 2.5 Current Attributes of the TSA .............................................................................................................. 6

3.0 Timber Supply Analysis Methods...................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Land Base Definition ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Forest Inventory Data ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Management Practices...................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Integrated Resource Management............................................................................................. 12 3.3.2 Silviculture .................................................................................................................................. 13 3.3.3 Timber Harvesting ...................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Forest Dynamics................................................................................................................................ 13 3.4.1 Growth and Yield Projections ..................................................................................................... 13 3.4.2 Disturbances............................................................................................................................... 14

3.5 Timber Supply Model......................................................................................................................... 15 3.6 Major Changes from the Previous Timber Supply Analysis .............................................................. 16

4.0 Base Case Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 17 4.1 Alternative Harvest Flow Scenarios................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Selected Base Case Harvest Flow.................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Base Case Attributes......................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.1 Growing Stock ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.3.2 Harvest Attributes....................................................................................................................... 21 4.3.3 Age Class Distribution ................................................................................................................ 29

4.4 Constraints Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 30 4.4.1 Landscape Level Biodiversity..................................................................................................... 30 4.4.2 Greenup...................................................................................................................................... 30 4.4.3 Ungulate Winter Range .............................................................................................................. 33 4.4.4 Visual Quality Objectives............................................................................................................ 35 4.4.5 Community Watersheds ............................................................................................................. 36 4.4.6 Overall Timber Availability.......................................................................................................... 38

4.5 Base Case Differences from the Last Analysis ................................................................................. 39 4.6 Stand dynamics associated with the Base Case............................................................................... 45

4.6.1 Analysis Units: pooling vs. splitting ............................................................................................ 45 4.6.2 MPB Shelf Life Curve ................................................................................................................. 47 4.6.3 Dynamics of stands attacked by MPB........................................................................................ 52 4.6.4 Revisiting the years-since-death chart ....................................................................................... 59

4.7 Base Case Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................................ 59 4.7.1 Size of Timber Harvesting Land Base........................................................................................ 61 4.7.2 Yields from Natural and Managed Stands ................................................................................. 63 4.7.3 Site Index.................................................................................................................................... 65 4.7.4 Minimum Harvest Ages .............................................................................................................. 67 4.7.5 Regeneration of MPB-killed Stands ........................................................................................... 69 4.7.6 Mortality of all pine within the MPB-attacked stands.................................................................. 70


vi

4.7.7 VQOs turned off.......................................................................................................................... 71 4.7.8 VDYP 7-based adjusted forest inventory ................................................................................... 72

5.0 Summary of The Analysis Scenarios................................................................................................ 74 6.0 Socio-Economic Assessment............................................................................................................ 75 7.0 Conclusions......................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix A – Data Inputs and Modeling Assumptions (a copy of the Data Package report) Appendix B – Updates to the Data Package Appendix C – Alternate Base Case harvest flows’ MPB statistics Appendix D – Socio Economic Assessment (a copy of the SEA report) Errata – Updated Base Case Analysis


vii

List of Figures FIGURE 1 OVERVIEW MAP OF MERRITT TSA.......................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2 MERRITT TSA LAND BASE BREAKDOWN .................................................................................................. 6 FIGURE 3 MAP OF MERRITT TSA THLB ................................................................................................................ 7 FIGURE 4 THLB AREA BY DOMINANT TREE SPECIES RELATIVE TO MINIMUM HARVEST AGE (MHA). ............................ 8 FIGURE 5 THLB AND NHLB AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION. .......................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 6 THLB AREA BY AGE CLASS AND LEADING SPECIES................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 7 THLB AND NHLB AREA BY 10-YEAR AGE CLASS ..................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 8 THLB AND NHLB SITE PRODUCTIVITY (SITE INDEX)............................................................................... 10 FIGURE 9 ALTERNATIVE HARVEST FORECASTS FOR THE MERRITT TSA (CURRENT PRACTICE)................................ 17 FIGURE 10 HARVEST FORECAST FOR THE MERRITT TSA BASE CASE SCENARIO: TSR3 VS. TSR4......................... 18 FIGURE 11 BASE CASE - MERCHANTABLE AND TOTAL GROWING STOCK ON THE THLB............................................ 20 FIGURE 12 BASE CASE - CONTRIBUTION OF NATURAL AND MANAGED STANDS TO THE HARVEST PROJECTION ........... 21 FIGURE 13 BASE CASE - MEAN HARVEST AGE....................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 14 BASE CASE - MEAN ANNUAL HARVEST VOLUME/HA ............................................................................... 22 FIGURE 15 BASE CASE - TOTAL HARVEST AREA PER YEAR..................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 16 BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUME BY STAND LEADING SPECIES............................................................... 24 FIGURE 17 BASE CASE – YEARS-SINCE-DEATH PINE HARVEST VOLUMES............................................................... 25 FIGURE 18 BASE CASE – HARVEST IN MPB-ATTACKED AND NOT-MPB-ATTACKED STANDS.................................... 25 FIGURE 19 BASE CASE – PINE AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST.................................... 26 FIGURE 20 AGE CLASS COMPOSITION OF THE MERRITT TSA: SIX SNAPSHOTS FROM THE BASE CASE ...................... 29 FIGURE 21 BASE CASE - IRM YOUNG SERAL - ALL LU COMBINED.......................................................................... 31 FIGURE 22 BASE CASE - IRM YOUNG SERAL IN OTTER LU.................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 23 BASE CASE - IRM YOUNG SERAL IN TIGHT CONDITION. ......................................................................... 32 FIGURE 24 BASE CASE - UWR MATURE SERAL FOR ALL PLANNING CELLS COMBINED.............................................. 33 FIGURE 25 BASE CASE - UWR MATURE SERAL FOR PLANNING CELL #0004 .......................................................... 33 FIGURE 26 BASE CASE - UWR IN TIGHT CONDITION FOR ALL PLANNING CELLS COMBINED....................................... 34 FIGURE 27 BASE CASE - EARLY SERAL FOR ALL VQO POLYGONS COMBINED.......................................................... 35 FIGURE 28 BASE CASE - THLB AREA IN TIGHT CONDITIONS FOR ALL VQO POLYGONS COMBINED ........................... 35 FIGURE 29 BASE CASE - YOUNG SERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CWS COMBINED................................................. 36 FIGURE 30 BASE CASE - EARLY SERAL IN DILLARD WATERSHED ............................................................................ 37 FIGURE 31 BASE CASE - THLB AREA IN TIGHT CONDITIONS IN ALL WATERSHEDS COMBINED ................................... 37 FIGURE 32 BASE CASE - PERIODIC HARVEST AVAILABILITY. ................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 33 MERRITT TSA TSR3 BASE CASE AND TSR4 BASE CASE HARVEST FLOW........................................... 39 FIGURE 34 EXAMPLES OF VOLUME CURVES FOR VARYING SITE INDEX VALUES........................................................ 45 FIGURE 35 EXAMPLE OF THE VOLUME COMPONENTS OF STAND WITH MIXED SPECIES. ............................................ 46 FIGURE 36 EXAMPLE OF THE VOLUME CURVES FOR STANDS POOLED WITHIN ONE AU. ........................................... 46 FIGURE 37 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #1. ................................................................................................ 53 FIGURE 38 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #2. ................................................................................................ 53 FIGURE 39 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #3. ................................................................................................ 54 FIGURE 40 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #4. ................................................................................................ 54 FIGURE 41 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #5. ................................................................................................ 55 FIGURE 42 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #6. ................................................................................................ 55 FIGURE 43 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #7. ................................................................................................ 56 FIGURE 44 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #8. ................................................................................................ 56 FIGURE 45 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #9. ................................................................................................ 57 FIGURE 46 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #10............................................................................................... 57 FIGURE 47 MPB-ATTACKED STAND, EXAMPLE #11............................................................................................... 58 FIGURE 48 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN TIMBER HARVESTING LAND BASE ARE INCREASED AND DECREASED BY 10%...... 61 FIGURE 49 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN NATURAL STAND YIELDS ARE INCREASED AND DECREASED BY 10% .................. 63 FIGURE 50 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN MANAGED STAND YIELDS ARE INCREASED AND DECREASED BY 10% ................. 64 FIGURE 51 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN SITE INDEX VALUES ARE INCREASED AND DECREASED BY 3 M. .......................... 65 FIGURE 52 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN MINIMUM HARVEST AGES ARE INCREASED, OR BASED ON 100M3/HA ................. 67 FIGURE 53 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN REGENERATION DELAYS ARE APPLIED TO ALL MPB-KILLED STANDS.................... 69


viii

FIGURE 54 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN 100% MORTALITY OCCURS IN MPB-KILLED STANDS. ....................................... 70 FIGURE 55 HARVEST FLOWS WHEN VQOS ARE “TURNED OFF” .............................................................................. 71 FIGURE 56 HARVEST FLOW BASED ON THE PHASE-2 ADJUSTED VRI...................................................................... 73 FIGURE 57EXTENDED UPLIFT – YEARS-SINCE-DEATH PINE HARVEST VOLUMES. ..................................................... 86 FIGURE 58 EXTENDED UPLIFT - HARVEST IN MPB-ATTACKED AND NOT-MPB-ATTACKED STANDS ........................... 86 FIGURE 59 EXTENDED UPLIFT - PINE AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST........................... 87 FIGURE 60 MINIMIZED FALL-DOWN - YEARS-SINCE-DEATH PINE HARVEST VOLUMES. .............................................. 88 FIGURE 61 MINIMIZED FALL-DOWN - HARVEST IN MPB-ATTACKED AND NOT-MPB-ATTACKED STANDS .................... 88 FIGURE 62 MINIMIZED FALL-DOWN - PINE AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST.................... 89 FIGURE 63 UPDATED BASE CASE HARVEST FORECAST FOR THE MERRITT TSA (CURRENT PRACTICE) ................... 94 FIGURE 64 UPDATED BASE CASE - MERCHANTABLE AND TOTAL GROWING STOCK ON THE THLB............................. 96 FIGURE 65 UPDATED BASE CASE - CONTRIBUTION OF NATURAL AND MANAGED STANDS TO THE HARVEST PROJECTION

.................................................................................................................................................................. 96 FIGURE 66 UPDATED BASE CASE - MEAN HARVEST AGE........................................................................................ 97 FIGURE 67 UPDATED BASE CASE - MEAN ANNUAL HARVEST VOLUME/HA ................................................................ 97 FIGURE 68 UPDATED BASE CASE - TOTAL HARVEST AREA PER YEAR ..................................................................... 98 FIGURE 69 UPDATED BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUME BY STAND LEADING SPECIES ............................................... 99 FIGURE 70 UPDATED BASE CASE – YEARS-SINCE-DEATH PINE HARVEST VOLUMES................................................ 99 FIGURE 71 UPDATED BASE CASE – HARVEST IN MPB-ATTACKED AND NOT-MPB-ATTACKED STANDS................... 100 FIGURE 72 UPDATED BASE CASE – PINE AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST .................. 100 FIGURE 73 UPDATED BASE CASE - AGE CLASS COMPOSITION: SIX SNAPSHOTS .................................................... 103 FIGURE 74 UPDATED BASE CASE - IRM YOUNG SERAL - ALL LU COMBINED ........................................................ 104 FIGURE 75 UPDATED BASE CASE - IRM YOUNG SERAL IN OTTER LU................................................................... 105 FIGURE 76 UPDATED BASE CASE - IRM YOUNG SERAL IN TIGHT CONDITION. ....................................................... 105 FIGURE 77 UPDATED BASE CASE - UWR MATURE SERAL FOR ALL PLANNING CELLS COMBINED ............................ 106 FIGURE 78 UPDATED BASE CASE - UWR MATURE SERAL FOR PLANNING CELL #0004......................................... 106 FIGURE 79 UPDATED BASE CASE - UWR IN TIGHT CONDITION FOR ALL PLANNING CELLS COMBINED ..................... 107 FIGURE 80 UPDATED BASE CASE - EARLY SERAL FOR ALL VQO POLYGONS COMBINED........................................ 108 FIGURE 81 UPDATED BASE CASE - THLB AREA IN TIGHT CONDITIONS FOR ALL VQO POLYGONS COMBINED.......... 108 FIGURE 82 UPDATED BASE CASE - YOUNG SERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CWS COMBINED............................... 109 FIGURE 83 UPDATED BASE CASE - EARLY SERAL IN DILLARD WATERSHED........................................................... 110 FIGURE 84 UPDATED BASE CASE - THLB AREA IN TIGHT CONDITIONS IN ALL WATERSHEDS COMBINED ................. 110 FIGURE 85 UPDATED BASE CASE - PERIODIC HARVEST AVAILABILITY. .................................................................. 111


ix

List of Tables TABLE 1 FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES WITH ASSERTED ABORIGINAL INTERESTS IN THE MERRITT TSA ..................... 4 TABLE 2 BIOGEOCLIMATIC SUBZONES IN THE MERRITT TSA.................................................................................... 5 TABLE 3. LANDBASE AREA SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 11 TABLE 4 RESOURCE EMPHASIS AREAS AND FOREST REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 12 TABLE 5 AREA DISTURBED IN THE NHLB. ............................................................................................................ 14 TABLE 6 BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUMES............................................................................................................ 19 TABLE 7 BASE CASE - MERCHANTABLE AND TOTAL GROWING STOCK ON THE THLB................................................ 20 TABLE 8 BASE CASE - PINE VOLUME AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME. ............. 27 TABLE 9 BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUME OF MPB-ATTACKED PINE WITHIN TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME ...................... 28 TABLE 10 BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUME OF GREEN PINE WITHIN TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME .................................. 28 TABLE 11 TSR3 VERSUS TSR 4 – INPUT DATA .................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 12 TSR 3 VERSUS TSR 4 – LANDBASE NETDOWNS AND NET LANDBASE...................................................... 40 TABLE 13 TSR 3 VERSUS TSR 4 – MANAGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................... 41 TABLE 14 TSR 3 VERSUS TSR 4 – MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................. 42 TABLE 15 TSR 3 VERSUS TSR 4 – YIELD CURVE ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................ 43 TABLE 16 MPB GROUPS AND THE CRITERIA THAT DIFFERENTIATE THEM ................................................................ 51 TABLE 17 BASE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSES ...................................................................................................... 59 TABLE 18 PINE VOLUME LOSSES IN THE BASE CASE VERSUS THE 100% MORTALITY RUN ....................................... 71 TABLE 19 NVAF VALUES FOR THE MERRITT TSA................................................................................................. 72 TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS....................................................................................................... 74 TABLE 21 AGE, HEIGHT AND VOLUME ADJUSTMENT FACTORS APPLIED TO THE FOREST INVENTORY. ....................... 80 TABLE 22 DEFINITIONS OF THE SMALLWOOD, STS AND GRASSLAND ANALYSIS UNITS ............................................. 82 TABLE 23 MANAGED STAND ANALYSIS UNIT DESCRIPTIONS. .................................................................................. 82 TABLE 24 NON-RECOVERABLE LOSSES DURING THE BASE CASE PLANNING HORIZON. ............................................ 83 TABLE 25 EXTENDED UPLIFT - PINE VOLUME AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME... 87 TABLE 26 MINIMIZED FALL-DOWN - PINE VOLUME AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 89 TABLE 27 EXTENDED UPLIFT - HARVEST VOLUME OF MPB-ATTACKED PINE WITHIN TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME .......... 90 TABLE 28 EXTENDED UPLIFT - HARVEST VOLUME OF GREEN PINE WITHIN TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME ........................ 90 TABLE 29 MINIMIZED FALL-DOWN - HARVEST VOLUME OF MPB-ATTACKED PINE WITHIN TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME.... 91 TABLE 30 MINIMIZED FALL-DOWN - HARVEST VOLUME OF GREEN PINE WITHIN TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME.................. 91 TABLE 31 BASE CASE VERSUS UPDATED BASE CASE HARVEST PROFILE............................................................... 93 TABLE 32 UPDATED BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUMES........................................................................................... 95 TABLE 33 UPDATED BASE CASE - MERCHANTABLE AND TOTAL GROWING STOCK ON THE THLB .............................. 95 TABLE 34 UPDATED BASE CASE - PINE VOLUME AND OTHER SPECIES VOLUMES WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME.

................................................................................................................................................................ 101 TABLE 35 UPDATED BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUME OF MPB-ATTACKED PINE WITHIN TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME ... 102 TABLE 36 UPDATED BASE CASE - HARVEST VOLUME OF GREEN PINE WITHIN THE TOTAL HARVEST VOLUME........... 102


1

1.0 Introduction Timber supply is the amount of timber available for harvest over time. Assessing timber supply involves consideration of a wide range of physical, biological, social, and economic factors that can influence the acceptable rate of timber harvesting within a management unit. These factors encompass both the timber and non-timber values found in our forests and ensure that timber harvesting objectives are balanced against other social and ecological values such as wildlife, biodiversity, watershed health, and recreational opportunities, to name a few.

This document contains a timber supply analysis and socio-economic analysis specific to the Merritt Timber Supply Area (TSA). These analyses are an important part of the provincial Timber Supply Review (TSR) process. The general objective of the TSR process is to examine the short- and long-term effects of current forest management practices on the availability of timber for harvesting in the TSA. A review of this type is completed at least once every ten years in order to capture changes in data, practices, policy, or legislation influencing forest management in the TSA. The previous timber supply review #3 Analysis Report was completed in 2003, with an associated Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) of 2,814,171 cubic metres and a partition of 312 500 cubic metres determined starting in July 1 2005. This current review is working toward a new AAC determination to be in place in 2010.

The TSR4 Data Package, which provides detailed, technical information and assumptions regarding current forest management practices, policy and legislation for use in this analysis, was released in March 31, 2009. The release of this Analysis Report is the next step in the TSR4 process. Its purpose is to summarize the results of the timber supply analysis and provide a focus for public discussion. The contents of this report will provide British Columbia’s Chief Forester with only a portion of the information that is needed to make an informed AAC determination. This report does not define a new AAC – it is intended only to provide insight into the likely future timber supply of the Merritt TSA and recommend a future course of action to the Chief Forester. The final harvest level decision will be made by the Chief Forester and published along with his rationale in an AAC Determination document.

This report contains a baseline forest management scenario that reflects current management practices in the TSA. In addition to this current management or “base case” scenario, several other scenarios are examined. An assessment of how results might be affected by uncertainties has also been completed using a number of sensitivity analyses and critical issue analyses. Together, these analyses and the base case form a solid foundation for discussions among stakeholders about appropriate timber harvesting levels in the Merritt TSA.

1.1 Background The Ministry of Forests and Range (MoFR) has implemented a policy framework that establishes obligations and opportunities for collaborative forest management within the province's 37 timber supply areas (TSA). Under this framework, specified licensees and BC Timber Sales (BCTS) can assume a collective responsibility for timber supply analysis within each timber supply area. In this case, the licensees of the Merritt TSA chose to assume this responsibility.

Under contract to the NSIFS group, Timberline Natural Resource Group prepared the Data Package which was released for public and First Nations review in March 2009. The Data Package (Appendix A) and updates (Appendix B) reflect the final inputs and assumptions used during modeling. Forsite Consultants Ltd., also under contract, has now completed the analysis and compiled this report.


2

2.0 Description of the Merritt TSA

2.1 Location The Merritt TSA is located in the southern interior region of B.C., and contains several communities, including Merritt, Princeton, Tulameen, Brookmere, Missezula Lake, and Allison Lake. The TSA, covering approximately 1.13 million hectares, is within the Southern Interior Forest Region, and is administered by the Cascades Forest District. Figure 1 shows the boundary of the TSA along with the major communities, highways and water bodies. The topography of the TSA varies from the eastern crest of the Cascade Mountains in the west, to the drier and relatively flat Thompson Plateau in the east. The two major river systems in the TSA are the Similkameen River in the south, and the Nicola River in the north

Source: Merritt TSR4 Data Package Report (Timberline, 2009).

Figure 1 Overview Map of Merritt TSA


3

2.2 First Nations A large First Nations population live within or immediately adjacent to the Merritt TSA. First Nations represent approximately thirty percent of the area population. Members of the Okanagan and Nlaka’pamux Nations number approximately 3287 within the TSA and another 7596 are registered to communities immediately adjacent to the TSA (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - 2006 Census Data). Each of these Nations has asserted aboriginal interests over large areas of the Merritt Timber Supply Area (TSA). In addition the Secwepemc Nation to the north has asserted interests in the Merritt TSA. Similarly the Sto:Lo Nation to the south has a small area of asserted traditional territory in the TSA. The Nlaka’pamux Nation is represented by 15 communities totaling approximately 5668 people. Nlaka’pamux Nation communities are located within, or immediately adjacent to, the Merritt TSA. Those living outside of Merritt TSA live close by in the Fraser Canyon area. All Nlaka’pamux member bands have asserted aboriginal interests to areas within the Merritt TSA. While the Nlaka’pamux have asserted aboriginal interests to the entire Merritt TSA (including areas beyond the TSA) the communities are largely located to the north and west between the Fraser/Thompson and Coldwater River systems. The Okanagan Nation has the next largest representation with three communities living within the TSA with a registered population of 1324. In addition, the 4 Okanagan communities that live outside the TSA have asserted interests within the TSA. In total the ONA represents approximately 5215 people. The Okanagan Nation has asserted aboriginal interests to a large portion of the Merritt TSA (2003 WRIT). Okanagan communities are located in the east and south east portions of the TSA. The Nlaka’pamux is represented by two tribal associations and the Okanagan by one tribal association. The Nicola Tribal Association (NTA) the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council (NNTC) and the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) are responsible to varying degrees for strategic planning, economic development and coordination of information for the communities that they represent. Some of the larger communities within the tribal associations, Lytton and Lower Nicola for example, handle most of their own affairs and handle their own referrals. When referring to Table 1 please note that for administrative purposes, Okanagan Nation Upper Nicola Band belong to the NTA. While there has not been a Land and Resource Management Planning process for the Merritt TSA, local First Nations have had a strong involvement in strategic and operational level planning. For example, members of both the Nlaka’pamux and Okanagan Nations are represented on the technical advisory committee of the Nicola Similkameen Innovative Forest Society (NSIFS). It is the NSIFS who worked to develop the data package and timber supply analysis for this timber supply review process. Because of the First Nation representation the NSIFS has strong local First Nation support. The NSIFS provides archeological and cultural heritage resource tools to local planners. For example, the NSIFS has developed a predictive ecosystem mapping tool to help identify traditional use vales. A wealth of archaeological and cultural information is available on the NSIFS web site. This information supports the works of licensees in local area. It should be noted that archeological information sources include the Remote Access to Archaeology Data (RAAD) site. RAAD is used to help identify known (mapped) archaeological sites and RAAD was used in this timber supply analysis to remove (net down) area. RAAD sites mostly occur in valley bottoms but have been discovered in high elevation sites as well. In addition to the archaeological and cultural use information that is available, licensees conduct a large number of Preliminary Field Reconnaissance’s (PFRs). These assessments are used during operational planning to identify sites of archaeological and cultural significance and to develop strategies to protect them. Areas of cultural significance that have been identified during operational referrals include the sacred sites of Stoyoma and Zakwaski Mountains.


4

Operational referrals and PFR work combined with representation on the NSIFS and other coordinated planning functions has ensured that the relationship between area First Nations and licensees is among the healthiest in the Province. The result is very few areas alienated in the short or long term from timber production. Table 1 First Nation Communities with Asserted Aboriginal Interests in the Merritt TSA

First Nation Community

within Merritt TSA

Asserted Territory

within TSA

Nation / Tribal Association* Pop.+

Ashcroft Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 246 Boston Bar First Nation No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 244

Lytton First Nation No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 1695

Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 62 Kanaka Bar Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 206

Skuppah Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 102 Spuzzum Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 210 Boothroyd Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NNTC 266

Nicomen Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NTA 108 Siska Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NTA 286

Coldwater Indian Band Yes Yes Nlaka’pamux / NTA 716 Cook's Ferry Indian Band No Yes Nlaka’pamux / NTA 280 Lower Nicola Indian Band Yes Yes Nlaka’pamux / NTA 949

Nooaitch Indian Band Yes Yes Nlaka’pamux / NTA 186 Shackan Indian Band Yes Yes Nlaka’pamux / NTA 112

Okanagan Indian Band No Yes Okanagan / ONA 1771 Osoyoos Indian Band No Yes Okanagan / ONA 476 Penticton Indian Band No Yes Okanagan / ONA 953 Westbank Indian Band No Yes Okanagan / ONA 691

Lower Similkameen Indian Band Yes Yes Okanagan / ONA 447 Upper Nicola Indian Band Yes Yes Okanagan / NTA 823

Upper Similkameen Indian Band Yes Yes Okanagan / ONA 54

Kamloops Indian Band No Yes Shuswap / SNTC 1785

Chawathil First Nation No Yes Stó:lō / SLTC 534 Shx'ow'hamel First Nation No Yes Stó:lō / SLTC 175

* NNTC - Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council * NTA – Nicola Tribal Association * ONA – Okanagan Nation Alliance * SNTC -Shuswap Nation Tribal Council * SLTC - Stó:lō Tribal Council

+ Department of Indian and Northern Affairs 2006 Census Data, & Canadian Census 2003 data for Bands with FRA’s/FRO’s.


5

2.3 Environment The Merritt TSA contains six biogeoclimatic zones. Four of the zones are characterized by extensive forests. These range from the low elevation, warm and dry ecosystems in the southern portions of the TSA, through cool and very wet forests in mid elevations, to the high elevation, cold, mountainous forests throughout the TSA, and finally up to the alpine tundra zone, which is characterized by little or no forest. Table 2, which is arranged along an elevation gradient, summarizes the contribution of the six zones to the gross area and timber harvesting land base area of the TSA. Table 2 Biogeoclimatic subzones in the Merritt TSA

Subzone Subzone Name

Approximate Elevation Range

(m ASL)

Merritt TSA THLB Area

(ha)

Merritt TSA Forested Area

(ha) IMA (or AT) Alpine Tundra 1650 + 0 0

ESSF Englemann Spruce – Subalpine Fir zone 1200 - 2100 113,771 164,023 MS Montane Spruce 1100 - 1500 253,049 290,940 IDF Interior Douglas-fir 300 - 1450 275,781 363,179 PP Ponderosa Pine 200 - 900 3,507 9,927

CWH Coastal Western Hemlock 0 - 700 1,146 2,506 The Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) zone occurs at low to middle elevations mostly west of the coastal mountains, along the entire British Columbia coast. The CWH zone has cool summers and mild winters. Western hemlock is usually the most common tree species. Western redcedar occurs frequently throughout the zone. In the drier, southern portions of the zone Douglas-fir is common, along with other species such as grand fir, western white pine, and bigleaf maple. The Ponderosa Pine (PP) zone occurs (in or near to the Merritt TSA) as a thin band in the bottoms and/or on lower sidewalls of the valleys of the Fraser River in the Lytton-Lillooet area, the lower Thompson, Nicola, Similkameen and lower Kettle rivers. The PP is the driest and, in summer, the warmest forested zone in British Columbia. The forests of the PP landscape are dominated by ponderosa pine. Douglas-fir, trembling aspen, cottonwood, water birch (Betula occidentalis) and paper birch may be found in wetter sites within the PP. The Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) zone typically occurs between the Ponderosa Pine Zone and the Montane Spruce zone. The IDF is characterized by warm, dry summers, a fairly long growing season and cool winters. Moisture deficits are common during the growing season. Douglas-fir is the dominant tree species in this zone, while ponderosa pine occur at lower elevations; spruce at higher elevations, and lodgepole pine throughout. The Montane Spruce (MS) zone is found at mid-elevations, often between the Interior Douglas-fir Zone and the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Zone. This zone is characterized by cold winters and moderately short, warm summers. Although subalpine fir and spruce are the climax tree species, one of the most distinctive features of this zone is the extensive even-aged stands of lodgepole pine that have formed following relatively frequent wildfire. Other common species found in this zone are Douglas-fir, western red cedar, trembling aspen and cottonwood. The Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF) zone is the uppermost forested zone, usually in steep and rugged terrain. It lies below the Alpine Tundra zone and above the Montane Spruce zone. Growing seasons are cool and short while winters are long and cold. Forests are continuous at the lower elevations of this zone, but at higher elevations clumps of trees occur within areas of heath, meadow and grassland. Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are the dominant climax tree species, while lodepole pine is common after fires. At lower elevations of this zone, western white pine, Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western red cedar can also be found. The Alpine Tundra Zone lies above the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Zone, and is by definition treeless although stunted (or krummholz) trees are common at the lower elevations of this zone. Overall, this zone is dominated by rock, ice and grassy meadows (Meindinger and Pojar, 1991).


6

Subzone descriptions adapted from: Ministry of Forests and Range, Research Branch, Zone and Subzone Descriptions website. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/resources/classificationreports/subzones/index.html Approximately 71% of the Merritt TSA is covered by productive forest. Pine, Douglas-fir and spruce are the dominant tree species making up the productive forest.

2.4 Integrated Resource Management Considerations Integrated resource management is the basic premise for the practice of forestry in the Merritt TSA. Timber harvesting is planned and managed in such a way that allows a wide range of other values to co-exist on the land base. The manner in which each value is considered is dictated by federal or provincial legislation or BC government policy. Examples of these are the federal Fisheries Act, the Forest Practices Code / Forest and Range Practices Act, and Forest District Policies. These documents address requirements for a wide range of non-timber issues. Significant resource values influencing forest management in the Merritt TSA are:

• Biodiversity • Riparian habitat • Ungulate winter range (mule deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats) • Domestic watersheds • Viewscapes

The areas affected by each of these non-timber resource values and the specific forest management practices required to address them are discussed in detail in Appendix A.

2.5 Current Attributes of the TSA This section of the document describes the current state of the Merritt TSA and provides descriptions of the forests that are useful to understanding the timber supply analyses presented later in the document. The Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB) and Crown Forested Land Base (CFLB) referenced in this section are defined in detail in Appendix A. Figure 2 Merritt TSA land base breakdown

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Total Landbase

Non ForestNon ProductiveNon contributing

(29 %)

Productive Forest

Land Base(71 %)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Productive Forested Land Base

Parks (1%)Inoperable (3%)ESA/Terrain (3%)PFT/non-merch (3%)Riparian (2%)OGM A plus other (6%)

THLB (78%)


7

Approximately 71% of the total area of the Merritt TSA is considered productive forest land (Figure 2). The remaining 29% is considered non productive (i.e. rock, ice, alpine, roads, etc). Within the productive land base, 78% is considered available for timber harvesting.

Figure 3 Map of Merritt TSA THLB


8

The timber harvesting landbase of the Merritt TSA is dominated by pine (58%), Douglas-fir (29%), spruce (8%) and true fir (5%) (Figure 4). Other tree species that occur in trace amounts are deciduous species (aspen and cottonwood, on previously logged blocks), western larch, western hemlock, and western red cedar.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Decid Balsam Cedar Fir Hemlock Larch Pine Spruce

Are

a (h

a)

Over MHAUnder MHA

Figure 4 THLB area by dominant tree species relative to minimum harvest age (MHA).

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age Class

Are

a (h

a)

NHLB

THLB

Figure 5 THLB and NHLB age class distribution. Note: Age classes in the figure are the common MoF age classes (Age Class=1 represents stands with age 1-20, Age Class=2 represents stands with age 21-40, etc. Age Class=0 represents stands with no age, or NSR.) Half (50%) of the THLB is currently older than minimum harvest age (Figure 4). The timber harvesting landbase (THLB) has a high proportion of age classes 1 and 4 through 8 (Figure 5). Compared to the THLB, the non-timber harvesting landbase (NHLB) is skewed towards the older age classes, especially in age class 8 (Figure 5).


9

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age Class

Are

a (h

a)

DeciduousFir, LarchCedar, HemlockSpruce, BalsamPine

Figure 6 THLB area by age class and leading species. Within the timber harvesting land base (THLB) only, pine-leading stands are the most predominant forest type, with fir and larch leading stands being the second most predominant forest type. Note that almost all of the fir and larch group are fir-leading, as only 85 ha of larch leading stands occur in the THLB. Spruce and balsam leading types are the third largest stand types, followed by cedar/hemlock and then deciduous-leading types. A 10-year age class structure over the entire crown forest land base (CFLB) is shown in Figure 7. The forest stands are relatively well distributed over a wide range of age classes, with most of the NHLB area falling within age classes over 70 years, and most of the THLB falling within age classes less than 100 years old. The younger age classes have a high percentage of THLB within them because the predominant method of creating young stands in recent years has been through forest harvesting.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

0 50 100 150 200 250

Age

Are

a (h

a)

THLB

NHLB

Figure 7 THLB and NHLB area by 10-year age class Note: See Appendix B for the rules used to assign ages to the youngest stands.


10

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Site Class

Are

a (h

a)

NHLB

THLB

Figure 8 THLB and NHLB site productivity (site index). The distribution of site productivity (inventory site index) is shown in Figure 8. The THLB portion is skewed toward the higher site indexes. Little of the THLB area has a site index less than 8. This is consistent with the low site index net down criteria described in the Data Package Report. The average site index of the THLB, based on the forest inventory, is 14.3 meters. Site index adjustments were applied to the managed (future) stands. The average site index of managed stands is 17.6 meters, or 3.3 meters greater than the forest inventory-based site index.


11

3.0 Timber Supply Analysis Methods A large amount of information is required to complete a timber supply analysis. Information must be obtained in four broad categories: land base, forest inventory, management practices, and forest dynamics. This information is then translated into a computer model formulation that can explore sustainable rates of harvest in the context of integrated resource management. This section summarizes the data inputs, assumptions, and modeling procedures that are provided in more detail in Appendix A.

3.1 Land Base Definition The crown forested land base (CFLB) is the area of productive forest under provincial crown ownership. This portion of the landbase contributes to forest management objectives, such as landscape-level objectives for biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and visual quality. The crown forested land base excludes non-crown lands (these are mostly private lands), and non-forest and non-productive areas. It does not include alpine forest or non-productive areas with tree species. The timber harvesting land base (THLB) is the portion of the management unit where forest licensees under licence to the province of BC are expected to be able to harvest timber. The THLB is a subset of the crown forested land base. It excludes areas that are inoperable or uneconomic for timber harvesting, or are otherwise off-limits to timber harvesting. Table 3 summarizes the land base for the Merritt TSA. A more detailed description of netdown areas can be found in the Merritt TSR4 Data Package, and in this report as Appendix A. Table 3. Landbase area summary

Category Total

Area (ha)

Percent Of Total Area (%)

Percent Of

Productive Area (%)

Total land base 1,129,086 100.0 Reductions

Private, Woodlots, non-contributing administrative classes 210,078 18.6 Non-forest, non-productive forest 99,201 8.8

Roads, trails, landings 16,249 1.4 Total Reductions 325,528 28.8 Total productive land base 803,558 71.2 100.0Reductions

Parks and protected areas 10,915 1.0 1.4Terrain and ESAs 46,521 4.1 5.8

Inoperable 24,392 2.2 3.0PFT / Non-merchantable 20,729 1.8 2.6Archaeological / cultural 535 0.0 0.1

Riparian reserves 19,851 1.8 2.5Heritage trails 115 0.0 0.0Water intakes 3 0.0 0.0WTP reserves 9,727 0.9 1.2

Biodiversity: OGMA 45,692 4.0 5.7Total Reductions 178,478 15.8 22.2Current Timber Harvesting Land Base 625,080 55.4 77.8

Future roads and trails 21,878 1.9 2.7Future WTPs 18,096 1.6 2.3

Net long-term Timber Harvesting Land Base 585,106 51.8 72.8Notes: 1. All totals are subject to rounding. 2. Any overlaps between net-downs are removed. Any overlapping area will accrue to the first (highest) category in the table.


12

3.2 Forest Inventory Data

The Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) was downloaded from the LRDW in 2006 and has been updated for disturbance to 2001 and projected to the end of 2008. A new VRI was made available in January 2009, but the GIS Analyst, MoFR Cascades District has advised against using this new coverage due to problems with the leading species. In order to complete the disturbance, updated RESULTS blocks and licensee forest stewardship plan information has been incorporated into the resultant database. The cut-off date for depletion for this draft data package was December 31, 2008. Licencee depletions were provided March 2009 and are current to December 31, 2008 with the exception of one licencee. Timberline provided block depletion coverage from 2007, but this data does not include status or harvest year. VDYP has been run to determine net volume by species for forested stands. (Ref: Timberline, 2009)

The forest inventory has been adjusted for height, age and volume based on the original statistical adjustment report (JH Thrower, 2001). This forms the basis of the forest cover data for the majority of the analyses. A new Vegetation Resources Inventory Statistical Adjustment report (Jahraus and Churlish, 2009, draft) has been recently completed and will form the basis of future VRI adjustments. The new adjustment factors were used in one of the sensitivity runs.

3.3 Management Practices Management practice assumptions can be grouped into three broad categories: Integrated Resource Management, Silviculture, and Harvesting.

3.3.1 Integrated Resource Management Forest cover requirements are applied within the timber supply model to accommodate the timber and non-timber resource objectives. These requirements maintain appropriate levels of specific forest types needed to satisfy the objectives for wildlife habitat, visual quality, biological diversity, etc. Forest cover requirements are used by the model to limit harvesting within the THLB. A summary of the areas over which various non-timber resource values occur is provided in Table 4 (Current Practice, or Base Case scenario). Additional details of the forest cover requirements modeled for each objective are provided in Appendix A. Table 4 Resource emphasis areas and forest requirements

Name Crown Forested Area (ha)

THLB Area (ha)

Forest resource requirements.

Biodiversity (OGMA) 111,805 0 No harvest within spatially mapped OGMA areas.

Riparian Areas 23,389 0 Reserves around classified streams, lakes and wetlands.

Community Watersheds 11,632 9,939 Maximum NN in stands less than YY height.

Also, reserves around water intakes. Deer Ungulate Winter

Range (UWR) 264,140 186,591 Minimum X% forest of age 121+ years. The percentage varies according to snow zone.

Visual landscapes 105,649 79,440 Maximum of X% < visual greenup of age Y. Applied within each VQO polygon. Values: X, Y vary in each VQO polygon.

Integrated Resource Management Zone (IRM) 398,102 398,102

Maximum of 25% < 2.5 m tall. within LU / IRM zone


13

3.3.2 Silviculture Historical and current silvicultural practices in the Merritt TSA have been included in the model. These include:

• Silvicultural systems, • Regeneration assumptions (establishment method, species distribution, and establishment density), • Regeneration delay (time between harvesting and when the site is stocked with crop trees), and • Use of select seed.

Most harvesting was modeled as clear-cut with reserves. A lesser amount was modeled as single tree selection (STS). For additional details refer to Appendices A and B.

3.3.3 Timber Harvesting Assumptions around timber harvesting practices have also been included in the model. These include the following (see Appendix A for details):

• A minimum harvest age to ensure a viable log is produced and long term volume production is maximized.

• Several minimum economic criteria for mean annual increment and stand volumes. • Land base definition criteria (unstable slopes, inoperable areas, low sites, etc.). • Harvest priorities across the land base.

Harvest priorities were established based on: • Spruce bark beetle (SBB) attacked stands; then • Small pine stands (smallwood stands); then • Mountain pine beetle (MPB) attacked stands, including merchantable pine volume at risk, severity of

MPB attack, and year of MPB attack; then • Oldest first.

3.4 Forest Dynamics Forest dynamics refers to the changing state of the forest through time. Changes occur as the forest ages, or when natural or human caused disturbances occur. The way in which the model addresses these issues is described below.

3.4.1 Growth and Yield Projections Timber growth and yield refers to the prediction of the growth and development of forest stands over time, and of particular interest, the volume and size of trees that would occur at the time of harvest. For modeling purposes, stands of similar characteristics, growth rates, and management are grouped together into Analysis Units (AUs). Analysis Units are described in the Appendices A and B. The attributes of each stand (for natural stands) or for each analysis unit (for managed stands) are input into growth and yield models to predict gross and net volume per hectare at various stand ages. The estimate of net timber volume in a stand assumes a specific utilization level, or set of dimensions, that establishes the minimum tree and log sizes that are removed from a site. Utilization levels used in estimating timber volumes specify minimum diameters near the base and the top of a tree. Each analysis unit is associated with its own yield curve, which is a prediction of the gross and net volume per hectare at various stand ages. Minimum harvest ages are determined by comparing the yield curves to merchantability criteria, such as the minimum volume per hectare, or minimum stand diameter that must be reached before the stand will be eligible for harvest.


14

Two growth and yield models were used to estimate the yield curves used in the Merritt TSA timber supply analysis. The Variable Density Yield Prediction model (BatchVDYP 6.6d) is supported by the Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch, and was used for estimating timber volumes for all the existing natural stands. The Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields model (BatchTIPSY 4.1), developed by the Research Branch, was used to estimate timber volumes for both existing and future managed stands. Existing managed stands are those that are currently under 22 years of age, reflecting a legislative change in 1987. Future managed stands are stands that will regenerate after they are harvested by the model during the planning horizon. Based on forest inventory estimates, the current timber inventory or growing stock on the timber harvesting land base is approximately 98.7 million cubic metres. Approximately 89.9 % of this growing stock (81.98 million m3) is currently merchantable, i.e. in stands older than their minimum harvest age.

3.4.2 Disturbances The timber supply model relies upon three mechanisms to disturb stands. Harvesting is the most common method of disturbance in the model (either clear-cut or partial cut) and occurs only within the timber harvesting land base. In order to recognize that natural disturbances also occur on the land base, the following are also modeled. Natural disturbances in the timber harvesting land base: Each year timber volume is damaged or killed on the THLB and not salvaged or accounted for by other factors. These losses are due to a number of factors that cause tree mortality, including insects (mountain pine beetle included), disease, blowdown, snowpress, wildfires, etc. In order to address losses from catastrophic natural events in the THLB, the model ‘harvests’ an extra volume of timber in each time period that is not counted toward harvest levels. Endemic pest losses are dealt with through factors applied in the growth and yield models. The annual unsalvaged loss applied in this analysis was 143,626 m3/yr for years 41+. For years 0-40 this value was represented by a combination of (a) 74, 785 m3/yr for losses in the non-MPB-attacked stands, and (b) a number of yield curve reductions and/or assumed stand mortality in MPB-attacked stands (See Appendix A and B). Unsalvaged loss estimates address only the loss of merchantable volume from mature stands. The losses associated with immature stands also impact the rate at which timber becomes available in the TSA but little data is available to estimate the extent or impact of these losses. These disturbances are not modeled, but are captured during periodic inventory updates and are therefore reflected in subsequent timber supply analyses. Natural disturbances outside the timber harvesting land base: Because stands outside of the THLB contribute toward several forest cover objectives (i.e. landscape level biodiversity), it is important that the age class distributions in these stands are also modeled in a manner that is consistent with natural processes. By simulating natural disturbance in these stands, a more natural age class distribution can be maintained in the model and a realistic contribution toward seral goals ensured. An area of approximately 555 ha is disturbed each year in the analysis to prevent age classes in the non-THLB from becoming unrealistically old during modeling (Table 5). Table 5 Area disturbed in the NHLB.

NDT BEC Equivalent Rotation Age (yr)

Disturbance Rate

(proportion/yr)

NHLB (ha)

Disturbance (ha/yr)

1 MH 556 0.002 34 0.06 2 CWH 317 0.003 1,285 4.05 2 ESSF 317 0.003 27,596 87.05 3 ESSF 238 0.004 16,241 68.24 3 MS 238 0.004 38,159 160.33 4 BG 397 0.003 187 0.47 4 IDF 397 0.003 87,187 219.61 4 PP 397 0.003 6,066 15.28

Total 555 Note: The methodology inherent in the table is based on the report: Modelling Options for Disturbance of Areas Outside of the Timber Harvesting Land Base (BC Ministry of Forests and Range. 2003).


15

3.5 Timber Supply Model Forest Planning Studio (FPS) version 6.0.2.0 was used to complete the timber supply analysis. This model has been used previously in the timber supply analysis of several other TSA and TFL management units. FPS was developed by Dr. John Nelson at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and is a spatially explicit forest estate simulation model. All events in the model are directly linked to stand level polygons or harvest units and thus allow tracking of individual stand attributes and spatial relationships through time. Each polygon belongs to a specific stand group (analysis unit) and has attributes such as age, harvest system, and land base status (THLB or Non-THLB). Results are typically aggregated for reporting at higher levels, such as the harvest flow for the entire unit. A wide range of constraints can be modeled on the land base: harvest exclusion, spatial adjacency or maximum cutblock size, maximum disturbance/young seral, minimum mature/old seral, and equivalent clear-cut area (ECA) limits. Constraints are applied to groups of polygons (cliques) and harvest is restricted if a constraint is not satisfied. A single polygon can belong to many overlapping cliques and each of them must be satisfied in order to allow harvest of the polygon. Where a mature or old cover constraint is not met, harvesting may still occur if there are any eligible stands remaining after the oldest stands are reserved to meet the constraint. Harvest is implemented using a set of priorities to queue stands for harvest. In each period, the model harvests the highest priority eligible stands until it reaches the harvest target or exhausts the list of opportunities. Harvest periods can be set at single years, multiple year periods or a combination of these. Where periods are used, the midpoint of the period is typically used as the point where harvest opportunity is evaluated because it is a good balance between the start of the period (pessimistic) and the end of the period (optimistic). The purpose of this analysis is to examine both the short- and long-term timber harvesting opportunities in Merritt TSA, in light of current forest management practices. Modeling assists the timber supply analyst in assessing the harvest flows associated with various scenarios. Management scenarios are groups of assumptions that define the extent of the timber harvesting land base, timber volumes, and the management regimes. The dominant scenario in this report is the Base Case Option, or current management scenario. Modeling was completed for a minimum of 300 years for each scenario to confirm that the harvest and growing stock levels remain stable, but only the first 250 years are reported. The results of the analysis are an important part of the annual allowable cut determination process and aim to document future harvest flows that will not restrict future options in the Merritt TSA. The results presented here do not define a new AAC – they are intended only to provide insight into the likely future timber supply of the TSA. The final harvest level decision will be made by the Chief Forester and published along with his rationale in an AAC Determination document.


16

3.6 Major Changes from the Previous Timber Supply Analysis Changes have occurred in both the input data and management assumptions since the last timber supply analysis for the Merritt TSA (April, 2003). The major changes from TSR3 are:

• The size of the current practice timber harvesting land base (THLB) is smaller by 7.8% (625,080 ha vs. 678,250 ha in TSR3). This is mostly due to the spatially explicit mapping of biodiversity reserves (old growth management areas, OGMA), which reduce the current THLB by 45,692 hectares. The difference is only 1.10% if OGMAs were to be added back into the THLB landbase (i.e. 670,772 ha if added, vs. 678,250 ha in TSR3).

• Archaeological and cultural heritage sites were explicitly identified, and removed. • Existing forest inventory age and height values were adjusted based on the JH Thrower report (JH

Thrower, March 31, 2001) • Reserves for biodiversity old seral have been explicitly (spatially) mapped in all landscape units, and

were used to reduce the THLB. The net result after all reductions are applied, compared to last analysis, is a reduction of the current THLB to 625,080 ha vs. 678,250 ha in TSR3 (7.8% less than TSR3), and a reduction in the future THLB to 585,106 ha versus 636,809 ha (8.1% less than TSR3). Differences in input data and management assumptions in the current practice base case also occurred relative to TSR3. The major differences are:

• Existing forest inventory volume estimates were adjusted to reflect VRI ground plot data (JS Thrower, 2001). TSR3 used a constant 6% volume increase.

• Different cover constraints were modeled for ungulate winter range (UWR) in TSR4. These are based on the approved UWR GAR Order. The TSR3 UWR was a 2003 version developed by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. (KWR) and MSRM (KWR 2003b)

• Spatially explicit Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) were implemented in this analysis for all landscape units. TSR3 applied spatially explicit OGMAs within 4 landscape units, and percent landbase reductions to all other landscape units.


17

4.0 Base Case Analysis The Base Case Option (or scenario) presented in this report is based on the best information currently available and reflects current management practices in the TSA. The current allowable annual cut (AAC) for the Merritt TSA is 2.814 MM m3/yr. This is based on a base AAC of 1.814 MM m3/yr, plus a 1.0 MM m3/yr uplift to address the current mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation. Non-recoverable losses in the THLB are estimated to be 143,626 m3/yr. This volume has been subtracted from the graphs, tables, and harvest forecasts in this report. This volume reduction has been applied from years 41 onwards in the modeling. The volume loss has been reduced, by the estimated MPB-related volume losses, to 74, 785 m3/yr for the first 40 years of the planning horizon. This reduction is replaced by a number of MPB-specific volume loss assumptions that are documented in Appendices A and B. Projections were run for a minimum of 300 years. The first 250 years (25 decades) are reported and are summarized by decade (10-year period) in most of the charts, figures, and tables in this report.

4.1 Alternative Harvest Flow Scenarios Numerous alternative harvest forecasts are possible for a given set of modeling assumptions, i.e. the Base Case as defined in detail in Appendix A and B. The alternative flows represent tradeoffs between short, mid, and long term harvest level objectives. Figure 9 shows three potential harvest flows for the Merritt TSA Base Case.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

Extended uplif t

Minimized falldow n

Base Case 2008

Extended uplift (grey line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MM decreasing to 1.81 MM in year 11decreasing to 1.63 MM in decade 4decreasing to 1.55 MM in decade 5increasing to 1.65 MM in decade 11

Minimized falldown (dashed line)Initial harvest of 1.70 MM decreasing to 1.65 MM in decade 3decreasing to 1.62 MM in decade 9increasing to 1.65 MM in decade 13


Figure 9 Alternative harvest forecasts for the Merritt TSA (Current Practice) The Base Case harvest forecast starts at an initial harvest rate of 2.81 MM m3/yr for six years. This assumes a 5 year extension to the current uplift AAC level, if a new AAC determination was made in 2010. The harvest falls to 1.81 MM m3/yr (non-uplift, or “base AAC” level) in year 7, then declines to 1.58 MM m3/yr in decades 5 to 11, then rises to a constant 1.65 MM m3/yr for the rest of the planning horizon. The long term harvest level is 8.8% lower than the current “base AAC” (1.81 MM m3/yr).


18

One alternative is the “extended uplift” option. This forecast extends the current uplift for 10 years, then decreases to the base AAC level (1.81 MM m3/yr) until decade 4, then declines to 1.63 MM m3/yr in decade 4, then declines to 1.55 MM m3/yr in decade 5, then rises to a constant 1.65 MM m3/yr for the rest of the planning horizon. A second alternative is the “minimized falldown” option. The initial harvest is 1.70 MM m3/yr, decreases to 1.65 MM m3/yr in decade 3, then declines to 1.62 MM m3/yr in decade 9, then rises to a constant 1.65 MM m3/yr in decade 13. The apparent contradiction of greatly reducing the initial harvest rate with a significant change in the mid-term falldown is explained later, in section 4.6.3 (stand dynamics). The base case flow was chosen over the alternatives because it was considered to best meet the provincial policy objective of providing for an uplift AAC to address the MPB infestation, with the smallest possible reductions or increases to the mid- or the long-term after the MPB infestation subsides.

4.2 Selected Base Case Harvest Flow The Base Case harvest flow from Figure 9 is shown in Figure 10 relative to the last (TSR3, 2003) analysis’ Base Case harvest flow projection (this was option “K” in the 2003 Analysis Report). The Base Case flow from this analysis (“Base Case 2008” in the figure) is above the TSR3 Base Case (“TSR3 BC (K)”) for the first 6 years during the uplift period, then falls below the TSR harvest forecast from year 7 until decade 12. It is then slightly above the TSR3 forecast until decade 23 when the two become almost equal. Note that the TSR 3 Base Case was a prediction for the period 2003 onwards while the Base Case for TSR 4 is for 2008 onwards (i.e. offset by 5 years, or one half of a decade) but the chart shows them both starting in 2008 (or year=0 in our planning horizon). The harvest attributes and forest level attributes presented later in this section correspond with the base case harvest forecast. The sensitivity analyses are also compared to this base case harvest forecast.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

TSR3 BC (K)

AAC less uplif t

Base Case 2008




Figure 10 Harvest forecast for the Merritt TSA Base Case scenario: TSR3 vs. TSR4


19

Table 6 Base case - harvest volumes

Year Harvest (m3/yr) Year Harvest

(m3/yr) 2 2,814,171 110 1,580,000 4 2,814,171 120 1,650,000 6 2,814,171 130 1,650,000 8 1,814,171 140 1,650,000

10 1,814,171 150 1,650,000 12 1,814,171 160 1,650,000 14 1,814,171 170 1,650,000 16 1,814,171 180 1,650,000 18 1,814,171 190 1,650,000 20 1,814,171 200 1,650,000 25 1,814,171 210 1,650,000 30 1,814,171 220 1,650,000 35 1,814,171 230 1,650,000 40 1,814,171 240 1,650,000 45 1,580,000 250 1,650,000 50 1,580,000 260 1,650,000 60 1,580,000 270 1,650,000 70 1,580,000 280 1,650,000 80 1,580,000 290 1,650,000 90 1,580,000 300 1,650,000

100 1,580,000 Note: While most of the charts and tables use decades as their reporting period, the modelling was actually performed using ten 2-year periods (20 years) followed by six 5-year periods (30 years) followed by 10-year periods for the rest of the planning horizon, as per the above table.

4.3 Base Case Attributes In order to understand and evaluate the base case harvest forecast, this section describes the stands being harvested and the state of the forest over time. Numerous forest management assumptions have been modeled in the base case analysis, many of which impact the condition of the forest through time. Using the information presented in this section, it is possible to validate these assumptions and review their impact on the overall composition of the forest.

4.3.1 Growing Stock Growing stock on the timber harvest land base (THLB) is at a maximum at the beginning of the planning horizon (Figure 11 and Table 7). It rapidly declines, primarily due to the initial, high harvest rate, and to the MPB-attacked pine losses (i.e. the shelf-life curve). A high proportion of the total THLB growing stock is merchantable (older than minimum harvest age), due to the relative absence of middle-aged stands that are not yet old enough to harvest. Stands with any significant amount of volume tend to be old enough to harvest, while those that are not old enough have yet to accrue much volume. Over time, the merchantable proportion stabilizes at approximately 30% of the total growing stock, which is indicative of a more balanced age class distribution (see the age class snapshots through time in Figure 20).


20

Growing Stock

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Volu

me

(mill

ion

m3)

THLB Growing Stock

Merchantable Growing Stock

Figure 11 Base case - merchantable and total growing stock on the THLB Table 7 Base case - merchantable and total growing stock on the THLB

Decade Total (million m3)

Merch (million m3) Decade Total

(million m3) Merch

(million m3) 0 98.75 81.98 13 42.88 12.42 1 77.40 69.74 14 42.33 17.97 2 64.65 56.21 15 42.50 14.31 3 48.49 33.69 16 43.27 15.92 4 43.77 22.17 17 43.25 11.57 5 45.48 13.16 18 42.85 13.49 6 42.46 13.47 19 42.62 15.10 7 43.12 17.30 20 42.84 14.82 8 41.92 19.99 21 43.17 14.23 9 41.10 18.57 22 43.23 15.83

10 41.89 12.29 23 43.15 12.78 11 43.46 12.41 24 43.42 13.82 12 43.65 11.38 25 44.27 13.48


21

4.3.2 Harvest Attributes Figure 12 depicts the transition from harvesting of natural stands to managed stands. Natural stands constitute the majority of the harvest until decade 6, when they begin to be depleted and managed stands start to become merchantable. From decade 6 onwards, managed stands constitute most of the harvest profile. Minor amounts of natural stand harvest is still evident until the end of the planning horizon.

Harvest Volume - Natural vs Managed Stands

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Volu

me

(mill

ion

m3)

Natural Stands

Managed Stands

Figure 12 Base case - contribution of natural and managed stands to the harvest projection

The mean harvest age (Figure 13) provides an indicator of the type and age of stands harvested over time. Harvest ages increase during the first four decades. This trend reflects a shift from relatively younger, but merchantable MPB-attacked stands with a high proportion of pine in them, to stands with less pine and relatively greater ages. From the 5th decade onwards the average harvest age, based on either volume-weighted or area-weighted estimates, is very stable and ranges from 70 to 90 years +/-.


22

Average Harvest Age

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

Age

Volume-weighted Harvest AgeArea-weighted Harvest AgeMinimum Age This PeriodMaximum Age This Period

Figure 13 Base case - mean harvest age The mean harvest volume per hectare is shown in Figure 14. Harvest volumes are largely associated with clear-cuts. Average harvest volume-per-hectare during the first four decades (range of 230-310 m3/ha) is generally higher than during the rest of the planning horizon (range of 200-270 m3/ha for clearcuts). The partial cut harvest volume comes from the single-tree selection (STS) stand types. These are predominantly Douglas-fir and larch types. The harvest priority on spruce, smallwood (pine) and MPB-attacked pine stands results in no harvest from STS stands until the fourth decade. In the 5th and subsequent decades, partial cutting volumes are sporadic, and always constitute a minor portion of the total harvest volume at approximately 85 m3/ha when harvested (Figure 14).

Average Harvest Volume per Hectare

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

Vol

ume

(m3/

ha)

CC Average Harvest/ha

PC Average Harvest/ha

Figure 14 Base case - mean annual harvest volume/ha


23

Figure 15 shows the average harvest area in the TSA each period. The clearcut harvest area line has a reverse relationship with harvest volume per hectare curve. Whenever a greater area is harvested it is correlated with a lower volume per hectare (Figure 14). Harvest area fluctuates widely from decades 1 to 7, then it more-or-less stabilizes, albeit with some fluctuations, around 6,500 hectares per year.

Average Harvest Area

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

Are

a (h

a)

Area Clearcut (ha)

Partial Cut (ha)

Figure 15 Base case - total harvest area per year Harvest by Stand Leading Species Figure 16 shows the harvest volume by stand leading species in each period. Pine-leading stands comprise the great majority of the harvest profile in decade 1, decreasing to their lowest proportion in decade 4, then swiftly rising in decades 5 and 6. From that time forward pine-leading stands comprise the majority of the harvest profile. Spruce/balsam- or fir/larch-leading stands are the second and third highest proportion of the harvest. They intermittently switch their second and third place throughout the planning horizon.


24

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

Cedar/Hemlock

Spruce/Balsam

Fir/Larch

Pine

Figure 16 Base Case - Harvest volume by stand leading species Time-since-MPB-attack MPB-attacked pine is the majority of the harvest volume in the first decade (see following tables and charts), and falls to nothing over the first 40 years. Initially, the MPB-pine that has been recently attacked (e.g. “0-2 yrs”) is a large proportion of both the MPB-attacked pine volume, and the total harvest volume. Over time, the proportion of volume in stands with higher “age-since-attack” values increases. The last year of MPB attack is 2014, i.e. year=6 of the planning horizon. After 2014 (year=6) the younger ‘age-since-attacked’ components begin dropping out of the harvest (Figure 17 and Error! Reference source not found.). In the figure below, the pine volumes are only the pine volume that is MPB-attacked. This may be a portion of the stand volume, and/or only a portion of the pine volume within the same stand, for those stands with S, M and L attack levels. “MPB-attacked stands” were stands which had some level of MPB-attack, and had some volume of merchantable, attacked pine in them. After 32 years from the “year-of-attack” (the year where the maximum attack level is reached, also referred to as “year-of-death”), all the MPB-attacked pine volume is considered to be non-merchantable. So, by definition, no MPB-attacked stands exist after that date. Given that the latest year-of-death is 2014 (year=6 in the modeling), by definition no MPB-attacked stands will exist after year=38 in the planning horizon.


25

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40

Period (start/end)

Volu

me

(m3/

yr)

Non-MPB-Pine/OS 0-2yr3-4yr 5-6yr7-8yr 9-10yr11-15yr 16-20yr21yr+

Figure 17 Base Case – Years-since-death pine harvest volumes. Notes: Contribution of MPB-attacked pine to the total harvest volume, by time-since-attack. “0-2yr” signifies the pine volume in the harvest that was killed up to two years prior to the year of harvest, “3-4yr” is pine that was killed either three or four years prior to the year of harvest, etc. Periods are not equal lengths, some are 2 years and others are 5 years. Non-MPB-pine/OS = pine in the harvest that is not MPB-attacked (such as S-attacked stands), or volume of non-pine/other species (OS).

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

MPB-attacked standsNot MPB-attacked stands

Figure 18 Base Case – Harvest in MPB-attacked and not-MPB-attacked stands MPB-attacked stands comprise the vast majority of the harvest for the first 35 years. In the Base Case scenario, almost all of the harvest is from MPB-attacked stands for years 1 through 35. In the first 8 years, most of the non-MPB harvest comes from the spruce bark-beetle zone (target volume of 300,000 m3/yr).


26

For years 9 to 35 virtually all the harvest is within MPB-attacked stands. From years 36 to 40 very little harvest volume comes from the MPB-attacked stands.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

Other species in MPB-attacked stands

Green pine in MPB-attacked stands

MPB-attacked pine

Not MPB-attacked stands

Figure 19 Base Case – Pine and other species volumes within the total harvest Within the MPB-attacked stands there is MPB-attacked pine, non-MPB-attacked pine and other, non-attacked species (Figure 19 and Table 8). Although fluctuations occur from period to period, the general trends are: • The volume and proportion of MPB-attacked pine is highest in years 1 to 6, i.e. the same period as the

uplift, and then declines rapidly, both in volume and proportion, to approximately 500,000 m3/yr from years 9 to 25. From years 9 to 35 the proportion of MPB-attacked pine volume falls off, eventually reaching 270,000 m3/yr in years 31 to 35.

• The proportion of green pine in MPB-attacked stands becomes significant in years 9+, at approximately 700,000 m3/yr.

• The proportion of non-pine species generally rises to year 9. It then remains fairly constant at 600,000 to 700,000 m3/yr until year 35.

Similar charts and tables for the two alternate Base Case harvest flows (“extended uplift” and “minimized falldown”) can be found in Appendix C.


27

Table 8 Base Case - pine volume and other species volumes within the total harvest volume.

Harvest Years

Volume in not

MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)

Volume in MPB-attacked

stands (MM m3/yr)

MPB-attacked pine volume

in MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)

Green pine volume in

MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)

Other species volume in

MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr) 1-2 0.221 2.593 1.916 0.207 0.470 3-4 0.276 2.538 2.099 0.040 0.398 5-6 0.271 2.543 2.099 0.042 0.402 7-8 0.199 1.615 0.981 0.253 0.382

9-10 0.020 1.794 0.533 0.690 0.572 10-11 0.001 1.813 0.392 0.683 0.738 13-14 0.004 1.810 0.577 0.613 0.620 15-16 0.001 1.813 0.383 0.667 0.763 17-18 0.005 1.809 0.559 0.682 0.568 19-20 0.019 1.795 0.469 0.645 0.682 21-25 0.003 1.811 0.470 0.720 0.621 26-30 0.007 1.807 0.335 0.698 0.773 31-35 0.099 1.716 0.269 0.797 0.650 36-40 1.751 0.063 0.002 0.025 0.036


28

Table 9 Base Case - Harvest volume of MPB-attacked pine within total harvest volume

Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr 1-2 3,706,953 189,480 37,268 0 0 0 0 0 3,933,701 1,966,851 3-4 4,144,542 112,825 39,675 12,806 0 0 0 0 4,309,848 2,154,924 5-6 3,518,394 716,913 38,658 29,711 5,169 0 0 0 4,308,846 2,154,423 7-8 686,003 421,263 859,084 25,468 39,905 10,732 0 0 2,042,455 1,021,228 9-10 0 113,528 244,229 617,190 53,360 80,881 0 0 1,109,187 554,594 11-12 0 0 109,651 178,673 457,115 63,490 7,442 0 816,371 408,186 13-14 0 0 0 329,252 232,430 585,401 54,854 0 1,201,937 600,969 15-16 0 0 0 0 197,525 574,772 25,947 0 798,245 399,122 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 942,968 211,796 9,766 1,164,530 582,265 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 329,580 638,368 7,891 975,838 487,919 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,013,185 433,005 2,446,190 489,238 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,744,196 1,744,196 348,839 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,401,727 1,401,727 280,345 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,128 11,128 2,226 Table 10 Base Case - Harvest volume of green pine within total harvest volume

Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr 1-2 407,653 15,191 1,947 0 0 0 0 0 424,792 212,396 3-4 80,291 66 2,562 0 0 0 0 0 82,918 41,459 5-6 55,082 28,993 0 589 1,221 0 0 0 85,885 42,943 7-8 30,078 18,131 381,696 37,864 54,012 4,157 0 0 525,938 262,969 9-10 0 67,426 88,390 953,114 78,931 247,989 0 0 1,435,850 717,925 11-12 0 0 66,428 146,388 925,981 227,663 56,270 0 1,422,731 711,365 13-14 0 0 0 118,032 228,814 799,746 130,731 0 1,277,323 638,662 15-16 0 0 0 0 188,635 1,087,235 113,084 0 1,388,954 694,477 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 857,003 547,317 15,842 1,420,163 710,081 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 146,163 1,149,044 47,154 1,342,362 671,181 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,471,574 1,279,203 3,750,777 750,155 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,636,454 3,636,454 727,291 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,147,641 4,147,641 829,528 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128,652 128,652 25,730


29

4.3.3 Age Class Distribution Figure 20 provides a temporal forecast of the age-class distribution for the TSA in 50 year increments. The present day stand ages are distributed over a wide range of age classes from 0 to 250+ years, with gaps and spikes throughout the age classes.

Figure 20 Age class composition of the Merritt TSA: six snapshots from the base case

Note: Age classes (X-axis) are 10-year age classes up to 250 years, then all ages greater than 250 grouped together.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a) Forested NonTHLB

THLB

Age Class Distribution Present

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a) Forested NonTHLB

THLB

Age Class Distribution 50 Years

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a) Forested NonTHLB

THLB


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a) Forested NonTHLB

THLB


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a) Forested NonTHLB

THLBAge Class Distribution 200 Years

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a)

Forested NonTHLB

THLB



30

The age class distribution of the majority of the THLB becomes more and more evenly distributed, over time, due to harvesting a more-or-less constant number of hectares each year. In the far future the age class distribution of the THLB becomes concentrated within the age classes under 70 years old. These stands are those that are harvested and re-harvested with minimum harvest ages less than 70 years. Some stands in the THLB end up with very high minimum harvest ages and these stands become very old. This is an artifact of the stands dynamics associated with the MPB modeling assumptions (see section 4.6). In the long term, the modeling of natural disturbances within the non-THLB (NHLB) stands creates a relatively uniform age class distribution. The average rate of natural disturbance is approximately 318 years, so a uniform age class distribution would take approximately 318 years to develop, which has not yet completed during our 250 year reporting period.

4.4 Constraints Analysis In the analysis, cover constraints are modelled to ensure that non-timber values are represented on the land base. These constraints address issues related to wildlife habitat, visual quality, watersheds, etc. This section of the report provides a summary of the cover constraints in the base case, and how the constraints are being met over the 250 year planning horizon.

4.4.1 Landscape Level Biodiversity Spatial OGMAs (for old seral) were used in the model to meet biodiversity objectives for the duration of the planning horizon. These act like THLB net-downs during modeling. No harvesting occurs in these stands.

4.4.2 Greenup The objective of “greenup” is to disperse harvesting across the landscape. Greenup requirements are typically phrased in terms of what conditions must be achieved in one cutblock before an adjacent cutblock can be harvested. For example: “Greenup is achieved when adjacent regeneration attains the height of 3 meters.” Modeling of adjacency-type greenup is difficult. One reason is that future cutblock locations cannot be reliably predicted far into the future. The surrogate used in this project, which is typical of many TSR projects, was to apply an early seral limit of a maximum of 33% of the unit can be in stands which are less than 3 m. in height. This IRM requirement is applied to the THLB portion of each Landscape unit (LU) wherever other resource emphasis areas (REA) are not present, such as VQO, UWR, or community watershed REAs.


31

IRM Young Seral - max 33% less than 3 mAll landscape units combined

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

Young Seral Limit (Ha)Actual Young Seral (ha)

Figure 21 Base case - IRM young seral - all LU combined In general, for all landscape units combined, the maximum early seral requirement (33% in stands below 3 m height) is met during the planning horizon, although in all but decade 4 and 5 the requirements are just being met. IRM requirements are slightly limiting the harvest throughout the planning horizon, except for decades 4 and 5. Note that during the first two decades the IRM requirement was “turned off”, hence the IRM limit is the total area of THLB within the IRM REA, which is effectively “no limit”.

IRM Young Seral - max 33% less than 3 mOtter Landscape Unit

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 22 Base case - IRM young seral in Otter LU Individual landscape units are constrained at different times during the planning horizon, as seen in the Otter LU example (Figure 22). Further harvest in this LU is limited by IRM requirements during many periods (such as 3, 6, 7, 9, and 12) when conditions are “tight”.


32

IRM Young Seral - max 33% less than 3 mTHLB in tight condition - all landscape units combined

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

THLB (Ha)

THLB in Tight Condition (ha)

Figure 23 Base case - IRM young seral in tight condition. The total area of the THLB that is in tight condition due to IRM requirements is depicted in Figure 23. The greatest area in tight condition are in decades 7 through 9, where further harvesting is limited on approximately 190,000 ha of THLB.


33

4.4.3 Ungulate Winter Range UWR requirements are active throughout the planning horizon. There are 1100+ individual UWR planning cells (UWR PC) in the Merritt TSA. Each UWR planning cell has its own target percentage of mature seral forest (age of 121 yrs+) which is based on the snow zone(s) within that planning cell.

Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) Mature Seral(snowzone-specific % min 121yr+, all UWR combined)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

Min 121 yr old Mature (ha)

Actual Mature (ha)

Figure 24 Base case - UWR mature seral for all planning cells combined On a TSA basis, considering all UWR planning cells combined, the UWR requirements are generally met throughout the planning horizon (Figure 24).

Ungulate Winter Range Mature Seral( Planning Cell 0004, min 15% gt 121 yr+ )

0

100

200

300

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

Min 121 yr old Mature (ha)Actual Mature (ha)

Figure 25 Base case - UWR mature seral for planning cell #0004


34

The mature seral that exists in each planning cell will vary over time. One example of the variation is PC 0004 (Figure 25), which requires a minimum of 15% of its forested area is to be maintained in stands above 121 yrs old. This target is achieved throughout the planning horizon, although the requirement is “tight” (just achieved) during decades 4, 24 and 25.

Ungulate Winter Range Mature Seral ( X % of 121 yr+ )THLB in tight condition, all LUs combined

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a) UWR THLB (ha)


Figure 26 Base case - UWR in tight condition for all planning cells combined There are 186,591 hectares of THLB within the UWR in the Merritt TSA. The area in “tight” condition, where UWR mature seral requirements could limit further harvest, ranges from 10+/- % to 33+/- % of the total area, with the maximum area in tight conditions in decade 13 (Figure 26). UWR requirements are slightly, but not significantly limiting further harvest.


35

4.4.4 Visual Quality Objectives Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) were implemented as maximum disturbance constraints, i.e. in the same manner as greenup constraints. VQO requirements are a maximum percentage of forested area in stands less than 3 m height, applied within each VQO polygon. The percentage requirement is dependent on the VQO category (preservation, retention, or partial retention). Note that VQO requirements were “turned off” during the first two decades.

VQO - Maximum Early Seral (aka non-VEG)All VQO polygons combined

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a) Young Seral Limit (Ha)Actual Young Seral (ha)

Figure 27 Base case - early seral for all VQO polygons combined Figure 27 shows that in general, for all VQOs combined, the VQO requirements are met over the whole of the planning horizon.

VQO Early Seral THLB area in tight condition, all VQO polygons combined

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a) THLB (Ha)


Figure 28 Base case - THLB area in tight conditions for all VQO polygons combined


36

The area in “tight” conditions within VQOs is generally small, varying between 5,000 and 25,000 ha, with the maximum area in decade 3, 8 and 21. Based on the above, the conclusion is that VQOs are not significantly limiting the harvest within the Merritt TSA. Note that a sensitivity run was also completed to confirm the impact of VQOs (section 4.7).

4.4.5 Community Watersheds Some water quality requirements were implemented as streamside reserves and thus they act like netdowns during modeling (see the summary of land base netdowns in Table 3). No harvesting occurs within the riparian reserves. Individual community watershed (CWS) requirements are a maximum 30% of young forest (or young seral) below 6.6 m height.

CWS Young Seral - max 30% less than 6.6 mAll landscape units combined

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 29 Base case - Young seral requirements for all CWS combined On a TSA basis, community watershed (CWS) are the only REA category that do not meet their requirement, i.e. they exceed the young seral limit (Figure 29). This starts in the first decade, implying that it is past disturbances (harvesting, fire, or the MPB-caused mortality) that are the source of the non-compliance. By the fifth decade harvesting has been limited in these watersheds, the forest has grown, and the early seral limits are being met.


37

CWS Young Seral - max 30% less than 6.6 mDillard Watershed

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 30 Base case - early seral in Dillard watershed Individual watersheds show a similar trend to the TSA as a whole. One example is Dillard watershed (Figure 30). The ECA exceeds the CWS requirement in the first 4 decades, and then from decade 5 onwards the requirement is met, although from decade 5 onwards this watershed is always in a “tight” condition.

CWS Young Seral - max 30% less than 6.6 mArea in tight condition, all watersheds combined

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

Total THLB Area (Ha)


Figure 31 Base case - THLB area in tight conditions in all watersheds combined The area of THLB within community watersheds is approximately 10,000 ha. Conditions are generally tight” over this area during decades 1, 3 and 4, and for isolated periods in the long term (Figure 31). During “tight” periods the watershed requirement limits further harvesting. However, given the relatively small area of THLB that is affected, CWS requirements are a relatively minor limitation on further harvesting.


38

4.4.6 Overall Timber Availability A “timber availability” chart illustrates at what time periods the timber harvesting options are limited when all the constraints are considered together. Figure 32 illustrates the trend in harvest availability over time for the base case scenario. The availability shown in the chart does not represent a potential harvest flow - it identifies the slack in the system or, the total volume available for harvest in any particular decade assuming the harvest flow was followed for all prior periods. For example, if the harvest in decade 4 was increased so that all the available timber in decade 4 was harvested, then all or most of the slack in decade 5 would likely disappear.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Volu

me

(m3)

Harvest

Available

Figure 32 Base case - periodic harvest availability. Period 7 is an example of a ‘pinch point’ that controls or limits the harvest throughout a portion of the planning horizon. The available wood supply has to be “metered out” prior to a pinch point. Each pinch point is a point in time when the available timber is essentially depleted. Once the model passes though the pinch-point the harvest level might be increased to a higher level, barring other pinch points further in the future. The multiple pinch points seen in Figure 32 indicate that the mid- and long-term harvest levels are controlled by the pinch points in decades 7, 11, 17 and 23. Given that no category of REA in the constraint analyses showed these same periods as being particularly “tight”, and the growing stock chart showed these periods as having the lowest merchantable growing stock, the conclusions are • the volume of standing timber, and • the growth rate of forest stands, are the primary limits on the harvest rate, not the REA requirements.


39

4.5 Base Case Differences from the Last Analysis Relative to the last analysis (TSR3) the Base Case presented here shows an increased harvest forecast for the first six years (Figure 33). From years 7 onwards, the Base Case harvest flow is significantly less than the TSR 3 harvest flow until the 12th decade. From that point onwards the two are very similar. This section discusses the factors that caused the differences between the harvest flows, and provides explanations of how they caused the differences. Note that time zero in the TSR 3 Base Case is actually 5 years (one half decade) earlier than time zero in this analyses’ Base Case (TSR4) although the graph presents them both using 2008 as time zero.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

TSR3 BC (K)

AAC less uplift

Base Case 2008




Figure 33 Merritt TSA TSR3 Base Case and TSR4 Base Case Harvest Flow The most significant similarities and differences between TSR 3 and TSR 4 are summarized in tables of the input data (Table 11), netdowns and net landbase statistics (Table 12), management assumptions (Table 13), modeling assumptions (Table 14), and yield curve assumption (Table 15).


40

Table 11 TSR3 versus TSR 4 – Input data Input data TSR3 TSR4

VRI VRI projected to January 2003 (?) A constant 6% increase in volume was applied to all natural stand volumes.

VRI projected to Dec 2008. Fraser Protocol-type VRI adjustments applied.

Site index adjustments Potential site index adjustments, based on PEM, were applied to managed stands.

Same

UWR - deer

2003 version deer W/R mapping and objectives, developed by Keystone Wildllife Research and Min. of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM).

Approved UWR mapping and guidelines (UWR Order # U-3-003, Feb 21, 2008).

UWR - elk Elk movement corridors.

No Elk movement corridors.

UWR – moose, goat Moose and goat zones. No moose or goat, but irrelevant as there were no forest cover requirements.

Table 12 TSR 3 versus TSR 4 – landbase netdowns and net landbase

Netdowns and net landbase statistics

TSR3 TSR4

Area analyzed 1,130,064 ha 1,129,086 ha Productive landbase (CFLB) with Parks and protected areas and non-Crown ownership

810,412 ha 803,558 ha

Net current THLB 678,250 ha 625,080 ha (670,772 ha if OGMAs were added back in)

Net future THLB 636,809 ha 585,106 ha (630,798 ha if OGMAs were added back in)

Future roads 6,618 ha equivalent (6.9 % yield curve reduction)

21,878 ha equivalent (3.5 % yield curve reduction)

WTP netdown Unstated area. 1.12% yield curve reduction to both natural and managed stands

18,096 ha equivalent (3.0% managed stand yield curve reduction)

Riparian 23,927 ha. 19,851 ha. Likely the same riparian map, difference due to new netdowns.

Biodiversity spatially mapped reserves

0 ha 45,692 ha (net THLB reduction)

Heritage trails. Reserve buffers around heritage trails.

Same.

Archaological sites 51 ha. A 50 m no-harvest buffer around each site.

535 ha. No harvest buffer around each site.

WHA 60 ha THLB for tailed frog WHAs

0 ha

Grassland conversion. 1258 ha.

After harvest, reverts to grassland (NP)

< 1 ha. Too small, ignored.


41

Table 13 TSR 3 versus TSR 4 – management assumptions Management assumptions TSR3 TSR4

Biodiversity Spatial explicit OGMAs in 4 LUs,

3.9% partial netdown in the other LUs

Spatial explicit OGMAs in all LUs.

MPB-modeling – turn off REA requirements

None. Turn off green-up, VQO and IRM requirements for the first 20 years, and turn off spatial adjacency during the MPB-harvest priority period (i.e. the first 40 years).

Greenup – spatially explicit Spatially explicit green-up requirements for adjacent blocks applied for the first 30 years.

None modeled, but would be “turned off” as per the MPB-modeling assumptions (see above).

Greenup – IRM requirement IRM early seral requirement of max 33% under 3 m ht. Not applied where other REAs exist (CWS, UWR, VQO, etc)

Same as TSR3.

Community watersheds 10,683 hectares of THLB

Watershed specific requirement of max 20% under 6.6 meters, plus 100 m. buffer reserve upstream of intakes (3 ha).

9,939 hectares of THLB Watershed specific requirement of max 30% under 6.6 meters, plus 100 m. buffer reserve upstream of intakes (3 ha).

UWR Mule deer winter range (DWR) areas; Min percent retention in 98 mule deer winter range assessment units (~3,000ha each). Cover retention is: Min. age = 100+ years. - deep snow pack zone – min 40% - moderate snowpack zone – min 33%, - shallow snowpack zone - min 15%

Min percent retention in 1100+ individual UWR planning cells. Cover retention is: Min age = 121+ years. - deep snow pack zone – min 40% - moderate snowpack zone – min 33%, - shallow snowpack zone - min 15%

UWR - elk Elk movement corridors (FEN), 4,002 hectares. (1) max of 20% of the productive forest lt 3 m ht. (2) min 40% of the productive forest lt 20 m ht.

None modeled.

UWR: Moose, goats Moose: 694,072 ha, and Goats: 6,916 ha. Both with no timber supply impact.

None modeled, but irrelevant as there were no cover requirements in TSR3.

VQOs MoF District map

70,002 ha (productive forest) Maximum early seral percentages for each VQO polygon based on VAC and VQO class: (max percentage alteration of stands with height less than 3 m.): Preservation: 3-5% Retention: 5-10% Partial Retention: 10-20% Modification: 17.5-27.5%

105,649 ha of productive forest. Maximum early seral percentages for each VQO polygon based on VQO class: (max percentage alteration of stands with height less than 3 m.): Preservation: 5% Retention: 10% Partial Retention: 30% Modification: unlimited.


42

Table 14 TSR 3 versus TSR 4 – modelling assumptions Modeling assumptions TSR3 TSR4 Initial harvest rate 2.13 MM m3/yr.

(base AAC of 2.0 MM m3/yr, + uplift of 0.13 MM m3/yr) 2.8 MM m3/yr (base AAC of 1.8 MM, + uplift of 1 MM m3/yr)

Disturbance of the inoperable

None 555 ha/yr; based on the Biodiversity Guidebook NDT fire return intervals.

Silviculture regimes Mostly clear-cut, some partial-cut (STS = single tree selection)

Same

Harvest scheduling priorities

‘Oldest first’ priority applied for all stands. Harvest priority (highest to lowest) 1) Spruce-bark beetle salvage harvest of 300,000 m3/yr for 8 years. 2) Smallwood target harvest of 312,500 m3/yr for whole of the planning horizon 3) MPB-attacked stands; weighted priority based on year of attack, severity of attack, and pine volume in the stand, then 4) Oldest first for all other stands.

Non-recoverable losses 143,626 m3/yr for the whole of the planning horizon. 143,626 m3/yr for years 41+ (same as TSR3);

74,785 m3/yr for years 1 to 40 (i.e. the above figure reduced by the endemic MPB component, but replaced by MPB modeling assumptions)

MPB-volume losses None Based on the shelf-life recoverable volume table, which is “fibre-based” not “sawlog-based”.

Post-MPB stands Not modeled, normal harvesting assumptions and transition of natural stands to managed stands following harvest.

Harvested stands: Normal transition of natural stands to managed stands following harvest. MPB-killed stands: Several options, depending on BEC and MPB-attack severity: - MS and ESSF: “V” level attack – new stand is regenerated with new species composition. - Other BEC types: “V” level attack – new stand is regenerated with original species composition. - “S”, “M”, “L”, attack level – no new stand, continue aging but a proportion of the pine is no longer recoverable.


43

Table 15 TSR 3 versus TSR 4 – yield curve assumptions

Yield curve assumptions TSR3 TSR4 Analysis unit definitions – natural stands.

1,000 +/- Natural Stand AUs; Individual curves for each polygon, aggregated based on culmination of MAI, age at culmination of MAI, age at 90% culmination of MAI (before and after maximum MAI), and age at 3 m height

9,000 +/- natural stand AUs Individual polygons, aggregated based on BEC, mpb-attack level, year of mpb-attack, leading species, site class, age class, silviculture regime (CC/STS), smallwood (Y/N)

Analysis unit definitions – managed stands.

54 managed stand AU's; PEM map-entity-based silviculture regimes, seemingly aggregated by BEC, site series.

92 managed stand AU’s, defined by BEC, leading species, PEM site series, silviculture regime (CC/STS), smallwood (Y/N)

Yield curve development – natural stands

A detailed methodology was not stated. Area-weighted-within-each-decade within each AU strata.

Yield curve software VDYP 6 (ver?) (natural) and TIPSY (ver?) (managed stands), VAF's not applied to natural stands, instead a constant proportional adjustment of 6%. STS yield curves based on the JS Thrower proprietary SINGROW model.

VDYP6.6d (natural) and Batch TIPSY 4.1 (managed stands) Age, height, and volume adjustment factors (VAF) applied to natural stands. STS yield curves based on VDYP 6.6d.

Yield curves – differences in MHA and volume.

Cannot compare due to differences in the AU definitions.

Cannot compare.

Minimum harvest age rules. For natural stands and managed stands, one rule: age at 90% culmination of MAI

For both natural and managed stands: age at minimum threshold volume of 150 m3/ha, and age at 90% culmination of MAI.

Minimum harvest ages – age window for MPB-attacked stands.

Not applied Age window starts as per above rules, and stops if and when the shelf life curve volume reduction drives the stand volume below 150 m3/ha.

Yield curve reductions for MPB-attacked stands.

Not modeled. A proportion of the pine volume is subject to the shelf-life volume reduction, based on mpb-attack level: “V” level: 100% “S” level: 40% “M” level: 20% “L” level: 5%

Regeneration assumptions – all harvested stands.

An average of 3.4 years. No information on AU-type, silviculture regime, etc

2 year regen delay for all clearcut stands, 0 years for STS stands assuming 75 m3/ha residual volume is left after each harvest entry.

Regeneration assumptions – MPB-attacked stands that are not harvested.

Not modeled. 0 years for MS, mpb-attack level “V” in the MS and ESSF. 15 years for all other mpb-attacked, level “V” stands.

Genetic gain Applied in future managed stands only. Values were: Pl (0.9% to 1.2%) and Sx (3.2%) for Sx

Applied in future managed stands only. Higher values than TSR3: Pl (2%) and Sx (13%)


44

Based on past experience, the factors that will noticeably influence the timber supply in an upwards or downwards direction are Downward pressures on TSR4 base case timber supply relative to TSR3

• The lower net, current THLB landbase: 625,080 ha in TSR4 versus 678,250 ha in TSR3. • Biodiversity old reserves (landbase netdowns): 45,692 ha in TSR4 versus an unknown area of

reserves, in only 4 of the landscape units in TSR3 • Higher future roads netdown: 21,878 ha equivalent (3.5%) in TSR4 versus 6,618 ha in TSR3 • Higher future WTP netdown: 3.0% managed stand yield curve reduction in TSR4 versus 1.12% in

TSR3 • Addition of disturbance of the NHLB: 555 ha in TSR4 versus 0 ha in TSR3 • Higher minimum age required in deer UWR in TSR4 (121+ yr) versus TSR3 (100+ yr) • Greater number of small REA units in UWR in TSR4 (1100+) versus TSR3 (98) • Greater area of VQO units in TSR4 (105,659 ha productive) versus TSR3 (70,002 ha productive) • Two minimum harvest age rules used in TSR4 (90% of CMAI, minimum 150 m3/ha) versus one rule

in TSR3 (90% of CMAI). Increasing the rules will generally raise the MHA, on average, and in turn could limit the available short-term wood supply.

• Grassland conversion: 0 ha in TSR4 versus 1258 ha in TSR3 Upward pressures on TSR4 Base Case timber supply relative to TSR3

• Higher CWS maximum young seral limit in TSR4 (30%) versus TSR3 (20%) • No elk movement corridors modeled in TSR4 versus 4,000 ha modeled in TSR3 • Higher maximum percentage limits within VQOs in TSR4 versus TSR3 • No spatially-explicit adjacency requirements in TSR4 versus modeling of adjacency for the first 30

years in TSR3 • REA requirements turned off during the first 20 years in TSR4 versus always active in TSR3 • Modeling of MPB-induced pine volume losses in TSR4 versus no losses in TSR3. There are many

individual components of this one, general factor. • Harvest scheduling priorities and targets for sub-components of the harvest/landbase in TSR4

versus a simple “oldest first for all stands” in TSR3 • Non-recoverable losses are reduced for the first 40 years in TSR4 (74,785 m3/yr) versus TSR3

(143,626) • Regeneration delay is shorter in TSR4 (2 years) versus TSR3 (average of 3.4 years) • Higher genetic gain values are assumed in TSR4 (2% for Pl, 13% for S) versus TSR3 (0.9-1.2% for

Pl, 3.2% for S). Unknown, but potentially significant pressures on TSR4 Base Case timber supply relative to TSR3

• Unknown total area of deer W/R in TSR3 versus TSR4


45

4.6 Stand dynamics associated with the Base Case

4.6.1 Analysis Units: pooling vs. splitting Generally, as site index increases the stand volume increases, so the problem forest type (PFT) definitions often include a site index threshold, below which stands are excluded from the THLB. For example, in Figure 34, the stands with site index values below 7 do not reach the merchantable volume threshold of 150 m3/ha within 300 years, so they should be excluded from the THLB and placed in the NHLB. Stands with a site index value of 12 reach the 150 m3/ha threshold at age=145 and would normally be included in the THLB.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)

Min harvest volumeSI 24SI 20SI 18SI 14SI 12SI 7SI 6SI 5

Figure 34 Examples of volume curves for varying site index values Pooling of stands into analysis units (AU) is also done partly on the basis of site index. Stands within perhaps, site index range 8 to 12 may be pooled together into one AU with the expectation that they are all merchantable. However, some of those stands are mixes of deciduous and coniferous species, and this deciduous component is removed from the gross stand volume to leave the merchantable, net volume (Figure 35). Figure 36 depicts the stands with site index 8 to 12 that might be pooled into one AU. SI_12_100% represents a 100% merchantable stand, i.e. it is comprised totally of merchantable coniferous species. While the gross stand volume for every stand is very similar, the merchantable volumes will vary according to the proportion of the stand that is merchantable, coniferous volume. As the proportion of merchantable volume falls, the stand is less and less likely to meet the minimum 150 m3/ha threshold within a reasonable time period. Individual stands with a site index values of 12 and less than 83% merchantable coniferous species, in this example, do not reach the minimum volume threshold within the 300 years in the figure.


46

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)

Deciduous (non-merchantable) volume

Conifer (merchantable) volume

Figure 35 Example of the volume components of stand with mixed species.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)

Min harvest volumeSI_12_100%SI_12_95%SI_12_92%SI_12_86%SI_12_83%SI_12_75%SI_12_50%

Figure 36 Example of the volume curves for stands pooled within one AU.

Therefore, an analysis unit might be comprised of a number of stands that were close to the minimum site index threshold, and when averaged together would be considered a “merchantable” analysis unit. Then, if the stands that comprised that AU were examined separately, or pooled into smaller units, then some of those stands (or groups) may not be merchantable. The proportion of “non-merch” individuals within an AU would be influenced by several factors, such as

• the original range of site index values that were pooled (i.e. how much variation existed in site index in the original, pooled AU, stands),

• how much variation there was in the mix of merchantable and non-merchantable species, and • the time period, or harvest age, that is considered to be “reasonable”, etc.


47

In this analysis, it was necessary to subdivide the stands into very small, numerous analysis units to properly model the MPB shelf life curve (Appendix A). An indirect and unintended impact of creating many analysis units (essentially splitting what would normally be large, coarse analysis units into smaller, finer analysis units) is that some of the small units will become non-merchantable by virtue of the splitting process itself. The analysis units used in the TSR2, TSR3 and this TSR4 analysis were 28 units, 1,000+/- units, and 9,410 units respectively. The 9,410 units are composed of 9,318 natural stands analysis units, and 92 managed stand analysis units. The area of Analysis Units at the start of the planning horizon in the Base Case that had less than 150 m3/ha at age=250 of their yield table was 18,438 ha. These analysis units remain as part of the THLB, but they essentially act like a THLB netdown, since many of them will not be harvested within the 250 year planning horizon. However, in partial compensation, these analysis units do help satisfy or ameliorate the forest cover requirements for IRM, UWR, VQOs, and community watersheds.

MPB_GRP Area of stands with less than 150 m3/ha at age=250

02 17 06 914 07 2,169 08 1,205 09 2,542 16 8,721 17 131 18 2,740

Total 18,438

4.6.2 MPB Shelf Life Curve The modeling of mountain pine beetle impacts is complex. To help track the 9,000+ base analysis units (which expands to 28,000+ analysis units in the timber supply model) groups of analysis units where created. These were initially used to track only the MPB-impacted analysis units, so they were called “MPB Groups”. Later, the groups were expanded to completely cover all the landbase, so the group numbers do not form a sequential series, but they prove helpful to discussing the dynamics, and tracking the dynamics in the model. Many of the database tables now include the MPB group field called “MPB_GRP”, which can be directly related to this section. MPB Groups There are 17 MPB groups, named “01” to “18” (# 12 is vacant). Groups are divided by parameters that relate to the modeling rules (i.e. the forest management assumptions, MPB-volume losses, regeneration assumptions, etc.) These are presented, below, starting with the simplest group to the more complex groups.

MPB Group 13: Non-Contributing Land-Base.

MPB_GRP Text in name

(in the database)

Description

Database Fields

13 “NCLB” Not included in the analysis. Example: Private lands. F_CFLB = (.f.) (i.e. false)


48

MPB Group 10 and 11: Non-Harvest Land Base (NHLB)

MPB_GRP Text in name Description

Database Fields

10 “NHLB”, “V” Productive forest, not in the timber harvest land base. MPB-attacked and subject to the Shelf Life curve. Example: Inoperable Pl stand with MPB-attack.

F_NHLB = (.T.) F_SL = (.T.)

11 “NHLB”, “N” Productive forest, not in the timber harvest land base.

Not MPB-attacked and not subject to the Shelf Life curve. Example: Inoperable spruce stand.

F_NHLB = (.T.) F_SL = (.F.)

MPB Group 14: Managed Stands MPB_GRP Text in name Description

Database Fields

14 “Managed” Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, less

than 22 years old. Not MPB-attacked and not subject to the Shelf Life curve. Example: Recently clearcut, harvested stand.

F_THLB = (.T.) F_MSYT = (.T.)

F_SL = (.F.)

MPB Group 09: Natural stands in the THLB, not attacked by MPB


Description

Database Fields

09 “Other” Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, over 21

years old. Not MPB-attacked and not subject to the Shelf Life curve. Example: Operable, 120 year old pine stand with no MPB.

F_THLB = (.T.) F_NSYT = (.T.)

F_SL = (.F.)

MPB Group 05: Pine leading, natural stands in the THLB, “V” level MPB-attack, not in MS or ESSF

MPB_GRP Text in name Description

Database Fields

05 “Other” Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, in the

IDF, over 21 years old. MPB-attacked and subject to the Shelf Life curve, if not logged then stands regenerate to age=0, and a 15 year regeneration delay is applied. The regenerating stand is the same site index and species mix as the original stand. Example: Operable, 120 year old pine stand, in IDF, “V” level MPB-attack.


F_SL = (.F.) NEW_NSYT = (.F.) REGEN_2014 = 15


49

MPB Group 01, 02, 03, 04: Natural stands in the THLB, attacked by MPB, in MS or ESSF

MPB_GRP Text

Description

Database Fields

01 “MS_dry” Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, over 21 years

old, in the MS, in “dry” sites. Over 60% pine component, MPB-attacked, subject to the Shelf Life curve. Regenerates to a new species composition if not logged, no regen delay. Example: Operable, 120 year old pine-leading stand, MPB-attacked, in an MS dry site-series.


F_SL = (.T.) NEW_NSYT = (.T.) REGEN_2014 = 0

02 “MS_moist” Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, over 21 years old, in the MS, in “moist” sites. Over 60% pine component, MPB-attacked, subject to the Shelf Life curve. If not logged then no regen delay and regenerate to the same site index and a new species mix Example: Operable, 120 year old pine-leading stand, MPB-attacked, in an MS moist site-series.



03 “MS_wet” Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, over 21 years old, in the MS, in “wet” sites. Over 60% pine component, MPB-attacked, subject to the Shelf Life curve. If not logged then no regen delay and regenerate to the same site index and a new species mix Example: Operable, 120 year old pine-leading stand, MPB-attacked, in an MS wet site-series.



04 “ESSF” Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, over 21 years old, in the ESSF zone, in any site series. Over 60% pine component, MPB-attacked, subject to the Shelf Life curve. If not logged then no regen delay and regenerate to the same site index and a new species mix Example: Operable, 120 year old pine-leading stand, “V” level MPB-attack, in the ESSF.




50

MPB Group 06, 07, 08: Pine leading, natural, THLB, S, M, or L level MPB-attack, not in MS or ESSF MPB_GRP Text in name

(in the database)

Description

Database Fields

06 “Any” “S”

Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, not in the MS or ESSF, over 21 years old, “S” level MPB-attack, subject to the Shelf Life curve. Example: Operable, 120 year old pine stand, in IDF, “S” level MPB-attack.


F_SL = (.F.)

07 “Any” “M”

Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, not in the MS or ESSF, over 21 years old, “M” level MPB-attack, subject to the Shelf Life curve. Example: Operable, 120 year old pine stand, in IDF, “M” level MPB-attack.


F_SL = (.F.)

08 “Any” “L”

Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, not in the MS or ESSF, over 21 years old, “L” level MPB-attack, subject to the Shelf Life curve. Example: Operable, 120 year old pine stand, in IDF, “L” level MPB-attack.


F_SL = (.F.)

MPB Group 15, 16, 17, 18: Special Management - Smallwood, STS, Grassland.


(in the database)

Description

Database Fields

15 “GL” Forested sites in the THLB that will be converted to grassland after harvest. Example: Operable, 120 year old Py stand, in BG xw1.


F_GL = (.T.)

16 “STS”

Productive forest, in the timber harvest land base, Douglas-fir or larch leading, in the BG, PP, IDF xh, IDFdk, Idk1, or MSxk. Example: Operable, 120 year old Fd leading stand, in IDF dk.


F_STS = (.T.)

17 “SW” “N”

Small diameter pine stands, of selected age and site index combinations, not MPB-attacked. Example: Operable, pine stand, in IDF dk, site index < 14 and age < 60, no MPB-attack.


F_SL = (.F.) F_SW = (.T.)

18 “SW” “V”

Small diameter pine stands, of selected age and site index combinations, MPB-attacked. Example: Operable, pine stand, in IDF, site index < 14 and age < 60, MPB-attacked.


F_SL = (.T.) F_SW = (.T.)


51

Table 16 MPB groups and the criteria that differentiate them

MPB_GRP THLB CFLB NHLB MPB_BEC MPB_MAX F_GL F_SW F_STS F_SL REDN_2014 REGEN_2014 NEW_NSYT

01 TRUE TRUE FALSE MS-dry--V V FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 100 0 TRUE 02 TRUE TRUE FALSE MS-moistV V FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 100 0 TRUE 03 TRUE TRUE FALSE MS-wet--V V FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 100 0 TRUE 04 TRUE TRUE FALSE ESSF----V V FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 100 0 TRUE 05 TRUE TRUE FALSE Other---V V FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 100 15 FALSE 06 TRUE TRUE FALSE Any------ S FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 40 0 FALSE 07 TRUE TRUE FALSE Any------ M FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 20 0 FALSE 08 TRUE TRUE FALSE Any------ L FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 5 0 FALSE 09 TRUE TRUE FALSE Other---N N FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 0 0 FALSE 10 FALSE TRUE TRUE NHLB----V V FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE 100 15 FALSE 11 FALSE TRUE TRUE NHLB----N N FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 0 0 FALSE -- 13 FALSE FALSE FALSE NCLB----- N FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 0 0 FALSE 14 TRUE TRUE FALSE Managed-- N FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 0 0 FALSE 15 TRUE TRUE FALSE GL------- N TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE 0 0 FALSE 16 TRUE TRUE FALSE STS------ N FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE 0 0 FALSE 17 TRUE TRUE FALSE SW------- N FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE 0 0 FALSE 18 TRUE TRUE FALSE SW------- W FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE 100 15 FALSE

Notes:

The table headings are all fields in the project database(s). THLB = timber harvesting land base. CFLB = crown forest land base NHLB = non-harvest land base MPB_BEC = special combinations of BEC and site series (e.g. “MS—dry”) and the MPB-attack level (see MPB_MAX field), or special management regime (.e.g GL=grassland conversion, STS = single tree selection, SW=smallwood pine). MPB_MAX = maximum MPB attack level attained; “L” = low, “M” = moderate, “S” = severe, “V” = very severe, “W” = any of L, M, S, V, “N” = nil or trace F_GL = grassland flag (true/false) F_SW = smallwood flag (true/false) F_STS = single tree selection flag (true/false) F_SL = Shelf Life recovery curve is applicable (true/false) REDN_2014 = percentage of the pine volume in a stand that is subject to the Shelf Life curve; if 100% and if the stand is not harvested, then the stand is regenerated to a new stand with age=0, with or without a regeneration delyay, with or without a new species composition. REGEN_2014 = years of regeneration to be applied to a new stand; only applicable where REDN_2014 = 100% NEW_NSYT = if not logged, then reset to a new natural stand with age=0 and a new species composition. If REDN_2014=100 and NEW_NSYT=false, then regenerate to a new stand with the same species composition.


52

4.6.3 Dynamics of stands attacked by MPB

Stands which are attacked by MPB and experience volume losses, as per the Shelf Life curve, are denoted by F_SL=TRUE in Table 16. These are always stands with an attack level equal to or greater than L (low). The percentage of the pine in the stand that is impacted is noted in column REDN_2014. This ranges from 5% to 100%. The SL curve is applied, starting at the “year of death”, which is defined as the first year to reach “V” attack level, or the (first) year in which the maximum attack level is attained. The range of years in the data was 2004 to 2014. The year-of-death is recorded, in the databases, in the MPB_SLYR field (i.e. MPB Shelf Life YeaR). Starting in the “year of death” the shelf life curve reduces the attacked pine portion of the stand (i.e. REDN_2014) until, 32 years after the year-of-death, none of the attacked pine is recoverable. In some stands, the non-attacked pine (REDN_2014 value is less than 100), so this pine and any other species in the stand will continue growing. Stands that are attacked by MPB will follow one of the following trajectories

1) Logged: Starting in the year of maximum attack level (2004, 2006, … 2014) the pine volume will be reduced according to the Shelf Life curve. After logging the stand will regenerate to a managed stand, with a 2 year regeneration delay. Managed stands yield tables are significantly higher than natural stands, due to full stocking, genetic gains, and the assumed potential site index (PSI). 2) Not logged

a) not-logged, new stand, no regen delay: the stand regenerates to a new stand, with new species, with no regeneration delay. (See Table 16: NEW_NSYT=TRUE, MPB_GRP = 01, 02, 03, 04). As of the date of maximum attack level (2004, 2006, … 2014) all the volume of the stand (for all species) is assumed non-recoverable, the new stand age is 0, and a new species composition is assumed, and the stand immediately starts growing. b) not-logged, new stand, regen delay. the stand regenerate to a new stand, with original species, but with a regeneration delay of 15 years. (See Table 16: MPB_GRP = 05, 10, and 18). Same as “2a” except that a 15 year regeneration delay is assumed. c) not-logged, same stand, impoverished volume: a portion of the pine volume in the stand is reduced, according to the Shelf Life curve, starting in the year of maximum attack level. After the Shelf Life curve expires (in 32 years) the portion of the pine that was attacked will be non-recoverable. The non-attacked pine in the stand, along with the other species in the stand, will continue to add volume. The attacked, non-recoverable pine portion is never regained, and the stand volume is forever “impoverished”. Several alternate assumptions were considered, such as a lengthened regeneration delay, or a “recovery period” during which the MPB-killed pine volume slowly recovered. The FAIB analyst decided to use the “no recovery period and no regeneration period” assumption.

Depending on the percentage of pine in the stand, the percentage impacted by MPB, the stand age that MPB attacks the stand, the impact on the stand’s (or analysis unit’s) yield table varies, and the impact on the minimum harvest age (MHA) becomes complex. The following examples are based on a common yield table, with varying pine component, attack level, and year of death (MPB_SLYR). For all examples, the gross stand volume approaches 300 m3/ha at stand age=300, and the minimum harvest volume threshold is assumed to be 150 m3/yr. Any time that the merchantable stand volume is above the minimum harvest threshold, the stand is “eligible for harvest” in these examples. For simplicity, we have ignored the secondary 90% of culmination of mai (CMAI) merchantability rule.


53

Example #1 (Figure 37) represents a 100% pine stand. The minimum harvest volume is 150 m3/ha. The minimum harvest age is 87 years, and the period of eligible harvest is 87 years+.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)

Recoverable merch volume

Min harvest volume

Eligible harvest period

`

Figure 37 MPB-attacked stand, example #1. Example #1 is modified to example #2 (Figure 38). All the pine volume in the stand is attacked by MPB at year=90. By year=119 (age 90 plus the 32 year shelf life) none of the volume is recoverable and stand volume is 0. The eligible harvest period is a window of time from stand age = 87 to 113 years.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)

Gross volume (if no MPB)


Min harvest volume


`

Figure 38 MPB-attacked stand, example #2.


54

Example #3 (Figure 39) assumes that all the pine volume in the stand is attacked by MPB at year=40. By year=72 none of the volume is recoverable, and there is no eligible harvest period as the stand never reaches the minimum threshold harvest volume.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`

Figure 39 MPB-attacked stand, example #3. Example #4 (Figure 40) assumes all the pine volume in the stand is attacked by MPB at year=150. By year=182 none of the volume is recoverable, and the eligible harvest period is from age=87 to 187.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`

Figure 40 MPB-attacked stand, example #4. If only 20 percent of the pine is impacted by MPB in year=150 (Figure 41) then the window of eligible harvest period remains as in the original stand (87 years+), however the harvest volume from years 150 onwards is reduced, according to the MPB shelf life curve (i.e. the harvest volume is lower than the original stand volume).


55

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`

Figure 41 MPB-attacked stand, example #5. If only 20 percent of the pine is impacted by MPB in year=90 (Figure 42) then the window of eligible harvest period is the same, and the harvest volume from years 90 onwards is reduced.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`



56

If only 20 percent of the pine is impacted by MPB in year=40 (Figure 43) then the eligible harvest period is delayed to 104 years+, and the harvest volume from age=40 onwards is reduced. In this case, the merchantable harvest volume is always 20% less than the same stand with no MPB-attack.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`

Figure 43 MPB-attacked stand, example #7. If 60 percent of the pine is impacted by MPB at stand age=40 (Figure 44) then there is no eligible harvest period, as the stand volume never reaches the minimum harvest threshold of 150 m3/ha.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`



57

If 60 percent of the pine is impacted by MPB in year=80 (Figure 45) then there is a window of eligible harvest period from age=87 to 120 years, and then the stand is never eligible for harvest after that period.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`

Figure 45 MPB-attacked stand, example #9. If 60 percent of the pine is impacted by MPB in year=150 (Figure 46) then the window of eligible harvest increases from age = 87 to 181 years, and then the stand is ineligible for harvest.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)



Min harvest volume


`



58

In this last example (Figure 47) the stand is comprised of 55% pine, 25% other species, and 20% deciduous (80% of the gross volume is merchantable coniferous species). MPB attacks 40% of the pine volume at stand age=80. Two windows of eligible harvest occur, from years = 106 to 120, and from 155 years onwards.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280Years

Volu

me

(m3/

ha)

Gross volume (if no MPB) Pine (MPB-impacted)

Pine (non-MPB) Other conifers

Decid volume Recoverable merch volume

Min harvest volume Eligible harvest period

Figure 47 MPB-attacked stand, example #11. Lastly (without any examples) if the minimum harvest volume increases or decreases, then the period of eligible harvest will trend in the opposite direction, i.e. it will decrease with an increase in minimum volume, or it will increase with a decrease in minimum volume. Similarly, given a fixed minimum harvest volume but with varying stand yields (such as a lower stand volume with a lower site index) then those stands with lower yields (either due to lower site index or an increased proportion of non-merchantable species) will tend to have a decreased period of eligible harvest. In summary, the trends for the period of eligible harvest within the MPB-attacked pine stands are: • As the percentage of pine in the stand increases, and/or as the percentage of pine attacked by MPB

increases, the period of eligible harvest tends to decrease. • As the stand yield decreases, or as the minimum harvest volume threshold rises, then the period of

eligible harvest tends to decrease as well. • Stands that are attacked at a younger age will generally have a decreased period of harvest eligibility,

and they will tend to have a longer period of reduced, merchantable volume. • In the more extreme cases, either a high proportion of pine attacked, and or a younger age of attack,

there may be no period of eligible harvest. • For less extreme cases, there may be one or two periods of eligible harvest. There may be one period of

eligible harvest (i.e. above a minimum harvest age), or there may be a window of eligible harvest (i.e. between two stand ages), or there may be two periods of eligible harvest (the first between two younger stand ages, and the second above an older stand age.)

In summary, the simple concept of one “minimum harvest age” is not relevant to all the MPB-attacked stands. Finally, if an MPB-attacked stand is not allowed to regenerate to a new stand and new yield curve (as per some of our assumptions), either with or without a regeneration delay, then that stand may take a long time to finally reach the minimum harvest volume threshold, or it may never reach that volume threshold. These stands will be referred to as “MPB volume impoverished”.


59

All of these cases can be found within the MPB-attacked analysis units in the Merritt TSR4 Base Case. A simple summary of the Base Case stand dynamics is that there is a competing balance between harvesting stands as soon and fast as possible (i.e. to minimize the MPB-induced volume losses, and to take advantage of the window of harvest eligibility) versus metering out the existing volume to minimize the mid-term falldown. Regardless of how high the initial harvest rate is set, some stands will (or have been) attacked by MPB before they ever reach the minimum harvest volume threshold, and the MPB-induced volume losses are unavoidable. In the worst cases, a portion of these stands will become so “MPB-volume-impoverished” they will never reach merchantable standard volume (unless our modeling assumptions are changed). It also follows that, if we attempt to reduce the mid-term falldown by adopting a lower initial harvest rate, then the MPB-induced volume losses will increase. So, any volume that is put aside in the near-term will be offset, to some degree, by the increased MPB volume losses. This is seen in the Base Case “minimized falldown” option, where a greatly reduced initial harvest level does not significantly change the mid-term falldown (Figure 9).

4.6.4 Revisiting the years-since-death chart A “years-since-death” chart was provided earlier (Figure 17) as part of the Base Case statistics. A simple use of this chart is to estimate the harvest flow if one assumes a different shelf life curve. For example, if one assumed that all the MPB-attacked pine volume that is over 10 years since attack (or 10-years since death) is non-recoverable, then the MPB-attacked pine volume in the “11-15yr”, “16-20yr” and “21yr+” classes might be removed from the harvest flow to estimate a new harvest flow, with a minimum value of approximately 1.25 MM m3/yr occurring in the 17-18 year period (Figure 17). However, that simple assumption does not account for the dynamics of MPB-attacked stands that have been presented (above). For example, if only a portion of a stand is MPB-attacked pine then perhaps the remaining volume will, or will not, meet the minimum volume threshold (150 m3/ha). If not, then some of the non-MPB attacked volume that is shown in Figure 19 must also be removed from the harvest flow. Next, the mid-term harvest level may be reduced if some of the mid-term harvest volume is used to replace the short-term deficit. And then the long-term harvest level may also fall if, by not harvesting some stands, additional stands become “MPB-volume-impoverished”. Therefore, caution is advised if one uses the years-since-death charts, as they are likely to always provide an optimistic estimate of the short-, mid- and long-term harvest level. The following sensitivity analyses, all of which use the 32-year shelf life curve, provide insight into how influential some of these dynamics are in the Base Case.

4.7 Base Case Sensitivity Analyses The data and assumptions used in any timber supply analysis are often subject to uncertainty. To provide perspective on the sensitivity of changes to modeled assumptions, sensitivity analyses are commonly performed. Typically only one variable (data or assumption) from the information used in the base case is changed in order to explore the sensitivity of that variable. Sensitivity analyses help to frame the potential impacts of uncertainty by analyzing scenarios that are more pessimistic and more optimistic than the base case. The sensitivities listed in Table 17 were performed on the base case and the results are presented below. Table 17 Base Case sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analysis Zone/ group / analysis unit subject to uncertainty Suggested Changes in Sensitivity Run

Size of THLB Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB)

The timber harvesting land base will be increased and decreased by +/– 10%. The NHLB is decreased or increased by the same area (hectares) so that the


60

Sensitivity analysis Zone/ group / analysis unit subject to uncertainty Suggested Changes in Sensitivity Run

total area of productive forest remains the same.

Managed Stand Yields Managed Stands The volume associated with managed stand yield curves will be increased and decreased by +/- 10%.

Natural Stand Yields Natural Stands The volume associated with natural stand yield curves will be increased and decreased by +/- 10%.

Minimum Harvest Ages All Stands Minimum harvest ages will be increased and decreased by +/- 10 years.

Minimum Harvest Ages (100m3/ha only) All Stands

Minimum harvest ages will be based only on achieving 100 m3/ha, versus achieving 150 m3/ha and 90% of CMAI.

Site Index All Stands Site index will be increased and decreased by +/- 3 m.

VDYP 7 adjusted VRI inventory Natural Stands

Volume for natural stands will be based on VDYP7 software and volume adjustment factors (VAF) compiled from VRI phase 2 samples.

Regeneration Delays MPB-killed Stands Regeneration delay of 15 years will be applied to all stands that are MPB-killed, versus only applied to some of the MPB-killed stands.

VQOs “turned off” All VQO polygons The forest cover requirements for VQO polygons will be “turned off” (deactivated in the model).


61

4.7.1 Size of Timber Harvesting Land Base Several factors that determine the size of the THLB have uncertainty around their definitions (operable area, problem types, low sites, riparian management, impacts from trails and landings, etc). Different market conditions in the future or changes in harvesting or milling technology can also serve to reduce or expand the land base considered to be economical. It is not known if the THLB used in this analysis is over or under-estimated, so two sensitivity runs have been completed. These runs increase and decrease the size of the THLB by 10%. Methodology

Run How was it analyzed?

Timber harvesting land base + 10%

The modeled size the THLB was increased by 10%. The non-THLB area was reduced proportionately so that the total productive forest landbase remained the same.

Timber harvesting land base - 10%

The modeled size of the THLB was decreased by 10%. The non-THLB was increased proportionately so that the total productive forest landbase remained the same.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

THLB less 10%

THLB plus 10%

Base Case 2008

THLB less 10% (grey line) Initial harvest of 2.81 MM, to 1.81 MM (yr 7) to 1.63 MM (yr 11), to 1.47 MM (dec 3) to 1.40 MM (dec 9), to 1.47 MM (dec 12) to 1.48 MM (dec 19)

THLB plus 10% (dashed line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MM decreasing to 1.81 MM in year 11 decreasing to 1.71 MM in decade 8 increasing to 1.81 MM in decade 12 increasing to 1.86 MM in decade 19

Base Case 2008 (heavy solid line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MMdecreasing to 1.81 MM in year 7decreasing to 1.58 MM in decade 5increasing to 1.65 MM in decade 12

Figure 48 Harvest flows when timber harvesting land base are increased and decreased by 10%


62

Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term Timber Harvesting Land Base + 10%

The Base Case Option harvest level of 2.81 MM m3/yr is not changed. The short-term harvest volume (first 2 decades is increased by 9.5 %).

Increased by 12.8%.

Increased by 10.8%

Timber Harvesting Land Base - 10%

The Base Case Option harvest level of 2.81 MM m3/yr is not changed. The short-term harvest volume (first 2 decades is decreased by 4.3 %).

Decreased by 7 %.

Decreased by 10.8 %

The impacts are to both the existing natural stands (hence the short term wood supply is impacted) and the managed stands (hence the long term harvest level is impacted).


63

4.7.2 Yields from Natural and Managed Stands Stand yields are a critical input into timber supply analysis. The short and mid-term timber supply is heavily influenced by the availability of timber in natural stands that make up the current growing stock. The current standing and mature timber provide all of the timber harvesting opportunities before managed stands come online for harvest. Figure 12 indicates that the harvest of natural stands diminishes very quickly by the 6th decade, at which time managed stands are the greater part of the timber harvest profile. Uncertainty in timber yields can result from many different factors. Natural stand yields are based on the VDYP 6.6d yield model, which predicts yields from stand attributes in forest inventory maps. Inaccuracies in the model, in decay estimates, or stand attributes can create uncertainties around actual stand yields. Managed stand yields are based on the Batch TIPSY 4.1 growth model, which predicts yields from estimates of site index, and stand attributes such as species, density, and expected gains from planting stock grown from select seed. The over or under estimation of any of these factors can lead to uncertainties in the yields of these future stands. Methodology


Natural Stands + 10%

The yield associated with each natural stand analysis unit was increased by 10%. Minimum harvest ages (MHA) were adjusted to align with the new curves.

Natural Stands - 10%

The yield associated with each natural stand analysis unit was decreased by 10%. Minimum harvest ages were adjusted to align with the new curves.

Managed Stands + 10%

The yield associated with each existing managed and future managed stand analysis unit was increased by 10%. Minimum harvest ages were adjusted to align with the new curves.

Managed Stands - 10%

The yield associated with each existing managed and future managed stand analysis unit was decreased by 10%. Minimum harvest ages were adjusted to align with the new curves.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

NSYT less 10%

NSYT plus 10%

Base Case 2008

NSYT less 10% (grey line) Initial harvest of 2.81 MMdecreasing to 1.81 MM in year 7decreasing to 1.63 MM in year 11decreasing to 1.47 MM in decade 3increasing to 1.60 MM in decade 11

NSYT plus 10% (dashed line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MMdecreasing to 1.81 MM in year 7decreasing to 1.65 MM in decade 8increasing to 1.72 MM in decade 14

Base Case 2008(heavy solid line)

Figure 49 Harvest flows when natural stand yields are increased and decreased by 10%


64

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

MSYT less 10%

MSYT plus 10%

Base Case 2008

MSYT less 10% (grey line) Initial harvest of 2.81 MMdecreasing to 1.81 MM in year 7decreasing to 1.63 MM in decade 4decreasing to 1.47 MM in decade 5decreasing to 1.40 MM in decade 6increasing to 1.52 MM in decade 11

MSYT plus 10% (dashed line)MSYT plus 10% Initial harvest of 2.81 MM, to 1.81 MM (yr 7),to 1.70 MM (dec 5), to 1.62 MM (dec 9),to 1.70 MM (dec 12), to 1.85 MM (dec 13)


Figure 50 Harvest flows when managed stand yields are increased and decreased by 10% Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term

Natural Stands +10%

The Base Case Option harvest level of 2.81 MM m3/yr is not changed. The short-term harvest volume is unchanged.

Increased by 6.6 %

Increased by 3.2%

Natural Stands - 10%

The Base Case Option harvest level of 2.81 MM m3/yr is not changed. The short-term harvest volume is decreased by 4.3 %).

Decreased by 12.7%

Decreased by 3.8 %

Managed Stands + 10%


Increased by 4.0%.

Increased by 9.9%

Managed Stands - 10%


Decreased by 7.4 %.

Decreased by 8.3 %

Changes to natural stands yields have significant impacts on the length of time the current AAC can be maintained because it is this stock of existing volume that must be metered out until managed stands become available for harvest in significant volumes. Increased natural stand volume can be used, as seen in Figure 49 to reduce, and in this case to almost completely remove, the mid-term falldown. Changes to managed stand yields usually have no impact in the short term, but do have significant impacts in the long term. The scale of the impact is almost directly proportional with the increase/decrease in the yields.


65

4.7.3 Site Index Stand yields are a critical input into timber supply analysis. The primary driver of stand yield is the site index value. All other factors being the same, as site index increases the stand yields increase (as seen in Figure 34). The over or under estimation of site index will strongly impact stand volumes, and change the harvest flow predictions. This scenario examines the impact of increasing or decreasing the site index value of all stands by a constant 3 m. Methodology


SI up 3m

The site index of all stands was increased. Yield tables and height/age tables for both natural and managed stands were recalculated. Minimum harvest ages changed (according to the yield tables) as did the forest cover requirements for VQO, IRM and watersheds (according to the height/age curves).

SI down 3m

The site index of all stands was decreased. Yield tables and height/age tables for both natural and managed stands were re-calculated. Minimum harvest ages changed (according to the yield tables) as did the forest cover requirements for VQO, IRM and watersheds (according to the height/age curves).

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

SI dow n 3m

SI up 3m

Base Case 2008

SI down 3m (grey line) Initial harvest of 1.00 MM decreasing to 0.90 MM in year 11, decreasing to 0.81 MM in decade 4 increasing to 0.89 MM in decade 8, increasing to 0.94 MM in decade 13

SI up 3m (dashed line), Initial harvest of 2.81 MM, decrease to 1.81 MM (yr 7), to 2.00 MM (dec 4), increase to 2.20 MM (dec 5), increase to 2.41 MM (dec 10)

Base Case 2008 (heavy solid line)

Figure 51 Harvest flows when site index values are increased and decreased by 3 m.


66

Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term Site Index

increased by 3 m. No change. Increased

by 22.7 % Increased by 46.7%

Site Index decreased by 3 m.

The Base Case Option harvest level of 2.81 MM m3/yr is reduced by 64.5%. The short-term harvest volume is reduced by 55.1%

Decreased by 50.2 %

Decreased by 43.5%

The changes to the site index values have very significant impacts on the harvest flow projections. The 3 meter change made here is similar to changing all the analysis units up/down one site class under the older forest inventory, i.e. changing all the “good “sites to “medium”, all “medium to “poor”, etc. (or doing the reverse.) These are huge changes, and hence the harvest projections reflect the huge increase (and decrease) in site index.


67

4.7.4 Minimum Harvest Ages Uncertainty around the age that stands become merchantable for harvest is linked to both our ability to predict the future growth of stands and our ability to understand future conditions that will define merchantability (markets / products). The majority of the minimum harvest ages in the base case scenario were based on achieving the minimum volume per hectare (m3/ha), but a significant number were based on achieving 90 % of the stands maximum mean annual increment (MAI). The ratio of volume-based MHAs to mai-based MHAs was 60:40, respectively. It is important to note that minimum harvest ages are only meant to approximate the time when a stand first becomes merchantable, and that harvesting can and does occur well beyond these ages in the model. The use of minimum harvest ages based on maximum mean annual increment (MAI) tends to optimize long term harvest levels while still providing some flexibility in the transition from short term to long term harvest levels. The transition from short- to mid-term harvest levels in the Merritt TSA is heavily influenced by when managed stand volumes become available in significant quantities. It is unknown if there are more appropriate minimum harvest ages than those used in the base case, so sensitivity runs have been completed to explore the impact of modifying the minimum harvest ages.

Methodology


MHA plus 10yr Minimum harvest age for each analysis unit (AU) was increased by 10 years.

MHA 100 m3

Minimum harvest age for each AU was based on 100 m3/ha minimum, rather than 150 m3/ha in the Base Case. The MHA criteria of 90% of CMAI was not applied so that the volume threshold would apply in all cases.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

MHA 100m3

MHA plus 10 yr

Base Case 2008

MHA 100m3 (grey line), Initial harvest of 2.81 MM, to 1.81 MM in year 7, to 1.63 MM in year 11, to 1.55 MM in decade 3, to 1.58 MM in decade 5, to 1.73 MM in decade 12, to 1.82 MM in decade 13

MHA plus 10 yr (dashed line)Initial harvest of 1.60 MM, to 1.44 MM (yr 11), to 1.30 MM (dec 3), to 1.17 MM (dec 4), to 1.05 MM (dec 5), to 0.94 MM (dec 6) to 1.04 MM (dec 7), to 1.14 MM (dec 8) to 1.26 MM (dec 9), to 1.38 MM (dec 10) to 1.52 MM (dec 11), to 1.67 MM (dec 12)


Figure 52 Harvest flows when minimum harvest ages are increased, or based on 100m3/ha


68

Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term

MHA plus 10yr The Base Case Option harvest level of 2.81 MM m3/yr is reduced by 43.1%. The short-term harvest volume is reduced by 28.1%

Decreased by 33.0 %

Increased by 0.9 %

MHA 100 m3 The Base Case Option harvest level of 2.81 MM m3/yr is unchanged. The short-term harvest volume is reduced by 4.3%

Decreased by 6.9 %

Increased by 8.5 %

The base case forecast is sensitive to both an increase in minimum harvest age, and a decrease in minimum threshold harvest volume. An increase of 10 years in the minimum harvest ages severely reduces the availability of stands in the short- and mid-term by (a) forcing a longer period of metering out of the existing stand volumes, and (b) delaying the time when managed stands become available. The small, net increase in the long-term harvest level (0.9%) is a balance of (a) upward pressure on the harvest level associated with harvesting managed stands closer to their culmination of mean annual increment, and (b) a downward pressure associated with an increase in “MPB impoverished stands” which results from the narrowing of the eligible harvest windows. Decreasing the minimum threshold harvest volume will reduce the minimum harvest ages, and will theoretically result in additional flexibility in the transition from short- to mid-term harvest levels because more natural and managed stand volume will be available earlier. However, the sensitivity results show that the short-term harvest flow is reduced, and the long-term is increased. A clue to the diminished short term harvest is the increased long-term harvest level. A decrease in minimum harvest age should not increase the long-term harvest level. In fact, harvesting of stands too early, and further away from their culmination of mean annual increment, usually leads to a reduction in the long-term harvest level. The increase, therefore, indicates that the downward pressure from harvesting too soon (before culmination of mean annual increment) has been more than compensated for by (a) fewer MPB impoverished stands in the long term, which is a result of a greater proportion (compared to the base case) of the potentially-impoverished stands that are being salvaged and regenerated to high productivity managed stands. The result is that, in the long-term, a greater proportion of the THLB (compared to the base case) is found as managed stands, and a lower proportion is MPB-impoverished stands. The decrease in the short- and near mid-term harvest level indicates that upward pressure associated with the gain in harvest flexibility has been more than offset by downward pressure due to (a) harvesting stands that are too young, i.e. too far from their culmination of mean annual increment, and (b) harvesting too many of the low volume stands (such as smallwood stands, or very young MPB-attacked stands), and allowing higher MPB-related volume losses in other stands. These two sensitivities suggest that if further timber supply analysis was done in the future, it might be beneficial to pursue another combination of harvest priority and minimum harvest ages, such as (a) assign a lower minimum volume thresholds to the smallwood stands, and (b) assign the same (or even higher) minimum harvest ages to the natural, non-smallwood stands, and the managed stands.


69

4.7.5 Regeneration of MPB-killed Stands Regeneration delay is the length of time between timber harvesting and stand re-establishment. Regeneration delays can influence harvest forecasts by impacting the length of time that it takes to meet green-up requirements and/or minimum harvest ages. In the base case, a number of MPB-attacked stand groups (MPB_GRP: 01, 02, 03, and 04, Table 16) were assumed, if they were not harvested, to regenerate to a new stands with age=0, with no regeneration delay. This sensitivity examines the impact of adding a 15 year regeneration delay to these MPB-killed stands. Methodology


Regen all

Analysis units within MPB groups 01, 02, 03, 04 were assigned a 15 year regeneration delay if they were not harvested and regenerated to a new (age=0) stand.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

Regen all

Base Case 2008

Regen all (grey line with X) Initial harvest of 2.81 MM decreasing to 1.81 MM in year 7 decreasing to 1.58 MM in decade 5 increasing to 1.65 MM in decade 12


Figure 53 Harvest flows when regeneration delays are applied to all mpb-killed stands Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term Regen all Unchanged. Unchanged. Unchanged.

Harvest levels were not impacted by the addition of a regeneration delay to these stands. Of note, MPB-killed stands (which are the stands of interest in this scenario) constituted only 474 ha out of the 14,400 ha of MPB groups 06 to 08 in the Base Case. Conversely, the rest of the 14,400 ha was logged (salvaged) because these stands were a top priority for harvest.


70

4.7.6 Mortality of all pine within the MPB-attacked stands MPB groups 06 (“S” level attack), 07 (“M” level attack, and 08 (“L level attack) were assumed to have 40, 20 and 5 percent, respectively, of their pine volumes attacked by MPB. If not harvested, these volumes were considered non-recoverable. All the other MPB-attacked analysis units assumed that 100% of their pine volume was attacked. The non-attacked pine volume within the 06, 07 and 08 MPB group stands could also be attacked and killed, as the trees are immediately adjacent to one another within the same stands. This scenario examines the impact of assuming that all the pine is attacked in all of the MPB-attacked stands. If those stands are not salvaged, then all the pine volume is killed and becomes non-merchantable. Methodology


100% mortality All mpb-attacked stands were assumed to undergo 100% mortality of their pine volume if they were not harvested.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

100% mortality

Base Case 2008

100% mortality (grey line) Initial harvest of 2.81 MM decrease to 1.81 MM (yr 7), decrease to 1.63 MM (yr 11) decrease to 1.47 MM (dec 3), decrease to 1.32 MM (dec 4) decrease to 1.12 MM (dec 5), decrease to 1.07 MM (dec 6) increase to 1.12 MM (dec 7)


Figure 54 Harvest flows when 100% mortality occurs in MPB-killed stands. Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term 100% mortality The Base Case Option harvest level

of 2.81 MM m3/yr is unchanged. The short-term harvest volume is reduced by 4.3%

Decreased by 26.4 %

Decreased by 31.3 %

This factor influences the harvest flow in the • short term - by reducing the volume available for harvest by increasing the MPB losses (Table 18), and • long term - by increasing the number and area of stands that become “MPB-volume-impoverished”. Note that the stands of interest are a large proportion of the total THLB area (Table 18).


71

Table 18 Pine volume losses in the Base Case versus the 100% mortality run MPB

Group Maximum volume loss in Base Case run (%)

Maximum volume loss in 100% mortality run (%)

Area (ha)

01 100 100 760 02 100 100 11,199 03 100 100 149 04 100 100 2,312 05 100 100 3,831 06 40 100 64,950 07 20 100 67,442 08 5 100 33,506 18 100 100 122,157

Note: Grey shading denotes the modelling change in the “100% mortality” run.

4.7.7 VQOs turned off Resource emphasis area (REA) refers to the management emphasis placed on an area, such as “VQO REA” (visual management), “UWR REA” (ungulate winter range management), etc. The constraint analysis section indicated that the VQO REA was not a significant factor in limiting the Base Case harvest projection. This scenario tested that conclusion by removing, or “turning off” the VQO constraints. This change effectively increased the early seral limit within each VQO polygon, and allowed more harvest within each polygon. Methodology


VQOs “off” The forest cover requirements for

visual landscapes (VQOs) were turned off. Effectively, VQOs did not exist.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

VQOs "off"

Base Case 2008

VQOs "off" (grey line) Initial harvest of 2.81 MM decreasing to 1.81 MM in year 7 decreasing to 1.58 MM in decade 5 increasing to 1.66 MM in decade 10


Figure 55 Harvest flows when VQOs are “turned off”


72

Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term VQOs “off” Unchanged. Unchanged. Increased by 1.1 %

This scenario confirms that the VQOs are not perceptibly limiting harvest in the short term. They do allow a slight increase in the near-long-term in decades 10 and 11, and a very slight increase in the far-long-term harvest level, for a total increase of 1.1% over the whole of the long-term. The short term harvest flow is constrained much more by the volume available, not by any limitation caused by the VQOs. Some additional stands are available for harvest in the long-term, which slightly increases the harvest flow.

4.7.8 VDYP 7-based adjusted forest inventory A (draft) Merritt TSA VRI statistical adjustment was completed in 2009 on the Vegetated Treed (VT) polygons greater than 30 years of age. The VRI compilation, development of statistical adjustment factors and the inventory file adjustment was carried out in accordance with the recommended Ministry of Forests and Range (MoFR) procedures as of October 2009. All inventory file adjustment factors were based on using the VDYP7 yield model.

(Paraphrased. Jahraus & Associates, and Churlish Consulting. 2009.) The results were that some stand volumes were under-estimated in the forest cover inventory, and others over-estimated. The NVAF values in Table 19 show that older pine stands and non-pine, non-Douglas fir stands are overestimated, while young pine and all Douglas fir stands volumes are generally underestimated. For example, young pine stands are underestimated by 54.6% (i.e. the value 1.546). Table 19 NVAF values for the Merritt TSA Stratum NVAF Value

Pine <121 years 1.546 Pine 121+ years 0.958 Fir <121 years 1.168 Fir 121+ years 1.063

Other species leading 0.933

Source: Jahraus and Churlish (2009). This scenario examines the impact of incorporating the new VDYP7 based, VAF volume estimates. Methodology


VRI projected_1 Natural stand yield tables were based on the phase 2-adjusted VRI values, i.e. the stand ages, heights, and site index values were adjusted according to the field sample data. Yield tables were derived using VDYP 7 software and the adjusted VRI values. MHA values for natural stands were adjusted accordingly. Managed stand yield tables were not affected.


73

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

VRI projected_1

Base Case 2008

VRI projected_1 (grey line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MM decreasing to 1.81 MM in year 11decreasing to 1.64 MM in decade 4decreasing to 1.50 MM in decade 5increasing to 1.64 MM in decade 10


Figure 56 Harvest flow based on the phase-2 adjusted VRI Results

Run Short Term Mid Term Long Term VRI projected_1 The Base Case Option harvest level

of 2.81 MM m3/yr is unchanged. The short-term harvest volume is increased by 9.5 %

Decreased by 4.9 %

Decreased by 0.4 %

Given the large increased volumes in the young (<121 year old) pine stands, the initial harvest rate was increased by extending the uplift to 10 years versus 6 in the Base Case. This has the effect of increasing the short-term total volume harvested by 9.5%. The mid-term falldown, though, is increased (i.e. the total volume harvested is decreased by 4.9%), and the long term harvest flow is decreased by a (insignificant) 0.4%.


74

5.0 Summary of The Analysis Scenarios In order to assess the impacts of potential changes to modeling assumptions, and gain further understanding of the dynamics at work in the base case forecast, a series of sensitivity analyses were completed. These were individually presented in the previous section. A summary of the harvest volumes from these analyses is presented in Table 20. Table 20. Summary of Analysis Results

Percentage Change Compared to Base Case Run Starting

Value Decades

1-2 Decades

3-8 Decades

9-25 Base Case 2008 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TSR3 BC (K) -24.3 -3.7 11.9 -1.4 Extended uplift 0.0 9.5 -3.4 0.0

Minimized falldown -39.6 -19.6 -2.0 0.3

THLB less 10% 0.0 -4.3 -12.8 -10.8 THLB plus 10% 0.0 9.5 7.0 10.8

MSYT less 10% 0.0 0.0 -7.4 -8.3 MSYT plus 10% 0.0 0.0 4.0 9.9 NSYT less 10% 0.0 -4.3 -12.7 -3.2 NSYT plus 10% 0.0 0.0 6.6 3.8

SI down 3m -64.5 -55.1 -50.2 -43.5

SI up 3m 0.0 0.0 22.7 46.7

MHA plus 10 yr -43.1 -28.1 -33.0 -0.9 MHA 100m3 0.0 -4.3 -6.9 8.5

Regen all 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100% mortality 0.0 -4.3 -26.4 -31.3

VQOs "off" 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

VRI projected_1 0.0 9.5 -4.9 -0.4


75

6.0 Socio-Economic Assessment To help inform the TSR4 process, a socio-economic assessment (SEA) was completed. The SEA estimates the likely economic activity associated with alternative timber supply scenarios. A region’s timber supply is a fundamental determinant of the size of its forest industry, which is often a leading sector in BC regional economies. The Chief Forester determined allowable annual cut (AAC) effectively sets the upper limit on the annual timber supply available for harvest in a TSA. Changes to an AAC can have important economic consequences so gauging their likely impacts provides important decision-making information for TSA stakeholders, including the Chief Forester. The primary output of this socio-economic analysis is a comparison of employment, employment income and government revenues that the current AAC can support with the levels that could be supported by the base case forecast of this timber supply analysis. This analysis shows the potential incremental change in forest sector employment, employment and government revenues from implementing the short term timber supply of the base case as the AAC. The analysis also includes the following elements.

• Brief socio-economic profile of the Merritt TSA • Brief profile of the Merritt TSA’s forest industry • Estimate of employment supported by recent timber harvesting in the TSA

The full text of the Socio Economic Assessment is included as Appendix D.


76

7.0 Conclusions This analysis report presents a harvest flow with a stable short-, mid- and long-term timber supply under the current practice (or Base Case) scenario. The current practice scenario shows the current AAC (2.8 MM m3/yr) can be maintained for 6 more years at the current uplift level. In order to assess the impacts of potential changes to modeling assumptions, and gain further understanding of the dynamics at work in the base case forecast, a series of sensitivity analyses were completed. The short-term harvest levels (decades 1 and 2) and long-term harvest levels (decades 9+) were sensitive to several of the factors that were examined in the sensitivity runs. Factors that impacted the short term harvest levels by at least 3% were:

• Extending the uplift to 10 years, and • Minimizing the mid-term falldown, and • changes to the size of the timber harvesting land base (±10%), and • changes to existing, natural stand yields (-10%), and • changes to site index values (-3m), and • changes to minimum harvest ages (+10 years; minimum volume threshold), and • assumed 100% mortality of all pine in any mpb-attacked stand, if the stand is not harvested, and • natural stand yields based on VDYP 7 s/w, and phase-2 adjusted inventory values.

Factors that impacted long-term harvest levels by at least 3% were:

• changes to the size of the timber harvesting land base (±10%), • changes to future managed stand yields (±10%), • changes to existing, natural stand yields (±10%), and • changes to site index values (±3m), and • changes to minimum harvest ages (100 m3/ha minimum volume threshold), and • assumed 100% mortality of all pine in any mpb-attacked stand, if the stand is not harvested

Most of the short-term harvest projections within the sensitivity runs started with an initial harvest rate set at the current AAC (2.8 MM m3/yr), which includes an uplift to address the MPB-infestation. Two scenarios could not start at this level without dropping more than 10% per decade: “Site index reduced by 3 m” and “Minimum harvest ages increased by 10 years”. A third scenario (“minimized fall-down”) attempted to minimize or eliminate the mid-term falldown, and it too had an initial harvest rate below the Base Case. Most of the harvest projections do exhibit a mid-term fall-down, followed by a rise towards a long, term stable harvest flow. The level of the long term harvest flow is directly related to the final area of managed stands. In most analyses, this would be the same area as the area of the natural stands at the beginning of the planning horizon, and the trajectory of the harvest flow towards the long term harvest level would be dependent on the timing of the conversion of natural stands to managed stands (due to harvest). In this analysis, a significant portion of the natural stands become “MPB-volume-impoverished” after their pine component is killed by MPB. These stands never reach the minimum, merchantable volume after their pine is killed. Therefore, the long term harvest flow level is impacted by how many natural stands are able to be converted to managed stands. Or, stated conversely, the long term harvest flow level is depressed as the proportion of “MPB-volume-impoverished” stands increases. The harvest flow becomes a balance between setting a high, initial harvest rate to capture the pine volume before it is lost to MPB-induced mortality, versus metering out the available, natural stand volume until the managed stands come on-line. The level and timing of the mid-term fall-down is significantly controlled by the “pinch point” in decade 7 in the Base Case. A higher, initial harvest level than the Base Case will move the fall-down forward in time, and will deepen it slightly, as per the alternate harvest flows in Figure 9. Conversely, an attempt to ameliorate the fall-down level, by reducing the initial harvest rate, was only somewhat successful (Figure 9) as it is largely thwarted by increased MPB-induced pine volume losses.


77

Most of the harvest during the first 35 years of the Base Case is MPB-attacked pine volume, although a significant portion of the harvest is the volume of non-MPB-attacked pine, and other species within the MPB-attacked stands (Figure 19). This complicates any strategy of “concentrating the harvest on the MPB-attacked pine”, as the rest of the stand must also be harvested to make the whole stand economically viable. Cover requirements, associated with non-timber objectives, can interact with the age class structure to limit the availability of timber over the planning horizon. Without requirements to limit disturbance and/or maintain older stands on the land base, more timber would be available for harvest in the pinch points. However, cover requirements influence the base case harvest flow to only a small degree. For example, the “VQOs turned off” scenario showed that the cover requirements for visual quality objectives (VQOs) had a very minor influence (i.e. limitation) on harvest flow. The interplay of factors and their tradeoffs is very complex. For example, the simple concept of one minimum harvest age does not apply to all of the MPB-attacked stands. These stands may have a minimum harvest age, or an eligible-for-harvest window, or even two windows of harvest eligibility.


78

References BC Ministry of Forests and Range. June 2003. Modelling Options for Disturbance of Areas Outside of the

Timber Harvesting Land Base. Draft Working Paper. Forest Analysis Branch.

Jahraus & Associates, and Churlish Consulting. 2009. Merritt TSA. Documentation of Analysis for Vegetation Resources Inventory Statistical Adjustment. Draft report. Prepared for:Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society, Merritt, BC. Jahraus & Associates Consulting Inc., Maple Ridge, BC, & Churlish Consulting Ltd., Victoria, BC

Keystone Wildlife Research. 2003a. Biodiversity Netdowns Summary Report. Prepared for the Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society. March 31, 2003.

Keystone Wildlife Research. 2003b. Mule deer winter range definition and management objectives for the Merritt TSA. Report prepared for the Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society. March 31, 2003.

MacLauchlan, L., 2006. Determining susceptibility of young pine plantations to the mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae, and manipulating future stands to mitigate losses. Forest Investment Account (FIA project Y0610003) – Forest Science Program. Ministry of Forests and Range.

Meidinger, Del and Jim Pojar, eds. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Special Report Series 6, February 1991.

Thrower, JH. 2001. Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society Vegetation Resources Inventory Statistical Adjustment for the Merritt TSA. Final Report. Prepared for Lloyd Wilson, R.P.F. Kamloops Forest Region, Ministry of Forests and Range, Kamloops, BC Project: MTI-181-216. March 31, 2001

Timberline. 2003. Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society, Innovative Forestry Practices Agreement, Innovative Timber Supply Analysis. Report prepared for Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society, Merritt, B.C. Prepared by Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Limited, Victoria, B.C. Final Draft. April 30, 2003

Timberline. 2009. Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society, Innovative Forestry Practices Agreement, Merritt TSA TSR 4 Data Package. Report prepared for the Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society, Merritt, B.C. Timberline Natural Resource Group, March 31, 2009


79

Appendix A – Data Package A copy of the Data Package is inserted after this page. This Data Package is best considered a “draft” version, as some amendments to this Data Package are provided in Appendix B.

NICOLA-SIMILKAMEEN INNOVATIVE FORESTRY SOCIETY

INNOVATIVE FORESTRY PRACTICES AGREEMENT

MERRITT TSA TSR 4

DATA PACKAGE

Prepared for:

Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society

Merritt, B.C.

Prepared by:

Timberline Natural Resource Group

September 9, 2009

September 9, 2009

Nicola Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society

1375 Houston Street

Merritt, BC

V1K 1B8

Attention: Glenn Thiem, Manager/CEO NSIFS

Reference: Data Package for the Merritt Timber Supply Area – TSR4

On behalf of Timberline, please accept this Data Package report for the Merritt TSA – TSR4.

Several companion documents to this report have also been included and will be posted on the

NSIFS website at http://www.nsifs.bc.ca/tsr4.php:

• Summary of Comments and Responses, Merritt Timber Supply Areas, TSR4;

• Summary of Meetings, Merritt TSR4; and

• Forest Cover Comparisons (Timberline and MoFR)

Please refer to the Summary of Comments and Responses document for details regarding

MoFR’s final review and how the individual comments have been addressed where appropriate.

The final Data Package report addresses the MoFR’s concerns regarding data set documentation

for sources previously identified as “Type 2” by providing actual data sources and specific

dates for each data layer. Timberline has also completed a detailed forest cover comparison as

requested by the Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch. The comparison is between the TRNG

maintained forest cover and the version available on the LRDW, along with the results from

VDYP6 vs. VDYP 7. These comparisons have provided the FAIB with the information they

requested which allows them to understand the differences between the two versions.

Timberline has also responded to the MoFR Research Branch (Di Lucca’s) concerns in regards

to the managed stand yield curves and made some minor text revisions and references have

been added to the previous version for clarification. All questions raised by the MoFR have

been responded to as of September 9, 2009.

Yours truly,

Jamie Skinner, RPF

Timberline Natural Resources Group Ltd.

Merritt TSA TSR 4 Data Package

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT SCOPE............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS PROCESS................................................................................. 2 2.1 MISSING DATA ............................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 TIMBER SUPPLY OPTIONS ...................................................................................................... 3 3.1 TSR 4 BASE CASE INCLUDING MPB FORECAST........................................................................... 3 3.2 ALTERNATIVE HARVEST FLOWS................................................................................................... 3 3.3 OTHER OPTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 CURRENT FOREST COVER INVENTORY............................................................................. 4 4.1 BASE MAPPING............................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 VEGETATION RESOURCE INVENTORY........................................................................................... 4 4.3 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 5

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF LAND BASE ................................................................................................ 8 5.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 8 5.2 TIMBER HARVESTING LAND BASE DETERMINATION..................................................................... 9 5.3 TOTAL AREA ................................................................................................................................ 9 5.4 NON-CONTRIBUTING LAND ........................................................................................................ 10 5.5 NON-COMMERCIAL, NON-FOREST AND NON-PRODUCTIVE FOREST ............................................ 10 5.6 PARKS ........................................................................................................................................ 11 5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ...................................................................................... 12 5.8 OPERABILITY AND UNSTABLE TERRAIN ..................................................................................... 12 5.9 PROBLEM FOREST TYPES ........................................................................................................... 13 5.10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................. 14 5.11 FIRST NATIONS CULTURAL USE AND SPIRITUAL AREAS ............................................................. 14 5.12 RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS- STREAMS, WETLANDS AND LAKES........................................ 14 5.13 HERITAGE TRAILS ...................................................................................................................... 16 5.14 WATER INTAKES FOR COMMUNITY WATERSHEDS ..................................................................... 17 5.15 EXISTING ROADS, TRAILS AND LANDINGS .................................................................................. 17 5.16 EXISTING STAND-LEVEL BIODIVERSITY (WILDLIFE TREE PATCHES) .......................................... 18 5.17 OLD GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREAS (OGMA’S) ...................................................................... 18 5.18 BACKLOG NOT SATISFACTORILY RESTOCKED AREAS ................................................................ 18 5.19 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS......................................................................................................... 19 5.20 AREA DISTRIBUTIONS BY LEADING AGE AND LEADING SPECIES ................................................ 20

6.0 GROWTH AND YIELD.............................................................................................................. 23 6.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 23 6.2 ANALYSIS UNIT DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................... 23 6.3 NATURAL STAND YIELD TABLES................................................................................................ 24 6.4 MANAGED STAND AU AND YIELDS............................................................................................ 24 6.5 CONVERSION TO GRASSLAND..................................................................................................... 29 6.6 DECAY WASTE AND BREAKAGE – NATURAL STANDS ................................................................ 29 6.7 OPERATIONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS – MANAGED STANDS ..................................................... 29 6.8 YIELD TABLES FOR SINGLE TREE SELECTION MANAGEMENT .................................................... 29 6.9 SITE INDEX- PSI ......................................................................................................................... 30 6.10 PREDICTIVE ECOSYSTEM MAPPING ............................................................................................ 30


ii

7.0 PROTECTION............................................................................................................................. 31 7.1 NON RECOVERABLE LOSSES ...................................................................................................... 31

8.0 MPB MODELLING..................................................................................................................... 32 8.1 MPB PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 32

9.0 MANAGEMENT ZONES, GROUPS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................... 40 9.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 40 9.2 TIMBER HARVESTING................................................................................................................. 42

10.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES ........................................................................................................ 45 10.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 45

11.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 46

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 LEADING SPECIES BY BEC SUBZONE.................................................................................................4 TABLE 2 SOURCE DATA...................................................................................................................................6 TABLE 3 LANDBASE CLASSIFICATION. .............................................................................................................9 TABLE 4 NON-CONTRIBUTING LAND. ............................................................................................................10 TABLE 5 NON-FOREST AREA REDUCTION. ......................................................................................................11 TABLE 6 NON-PRODUCTIVE FOREST AREA REDUCTION. .................................................................................11 TABLE 7 PARK AND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AREA REDUCTIONS .....................................................................12 TABLE 8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA REDUCTIONS .........................................................................12 TABLE 9 INOPERABLE, STEEP OR UNSTABLE TERRAIN AREA REDUCTIONS......................................................13 TABLE 10 PROBLEM FOREST TYPE CRITERIA ................................................................................................13 TABLE 11 RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT ZONE AREA REDUCTIONS .......................................................................15 TABLE 12 HERITAGE TRAILS NETDOWN ........................................................................................................16 TABLE 13 COMMUNITY WATERSHED INTAKES NETDOWN ............................................................................17 TABLE 14 ROADS, TRAILS AND LANDING NETDOWN.......................................................................................18 TABLE 15 WILDLIFE TREE PATCH NETDOWN..................................................................................................18 TABLE 16 OGMA NETDOWN. ........................................................................................................................18 TABLE 17 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS BY SPECIES. .........................................................................................19 TABLE 18 INITIAL AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION..................................................................................................20 TABLE 19 LEADING SPECIES DISTRIBUTION....................................................................................................21 TABLE 20 ANALYSIS UNIT EXAMPLE DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................23 TABLE 21 TIPSY REGENERATION COMPOSITION INPUTS ...............................................................................24 TABLE 22 GENETIC GAIN (2003-2009)..........................................................................................................27 TABLE 23 FUTURE GENETIC GAIN (2008-2014) ............................................................................................27 TABLE 24 UTILIZATION LEVELS .....................................................................................................................29 TABLE 25 MERRITT TSA PSI APPLICATION METHOD BY GROUP ..................................................................30 TABLE 26 CONVERSION EQUATIONS FOR SX AND FD FROM PL......................................................................30 TABLE 27 UNSALVAGED LOSSES....................................................................................................................31 TABLE 28 MOFR SEVERITY CLASS DEFINITION.............................................................................................32 TABLE 29 LOG DATA USED FOR SHELF-LIFE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................33 TABLE 30 SHELF LIFE TABLE FOR PINE............................................................................................................35 TABLE 31 POST MPB ATTACK SPECIES COMPOSITION IN UNMANAGED STANDS..............................................38 TABLE 32 AMOUNT OF ATTACK IN YOUNG PINE STANDS IN THE MERRITT TSA ...........................................39 TABLE 33 PLANNING CELL SNOW INTERCEPTION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................40 TABLE 34 VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS COVER REQUIREMENTS .....................................................................41 TABLE 35 MINIMUM HARVEST AGES, AT 90% OF CULMINATION MAI ...........................................................42 TABLE 36 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES .................................................................................................................45


iii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 MERRITT TSA..................................................................................................................................8 FIGURE 2 INITIAL AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................................20 FIGURE 3 LEADING SPECIES DISTRIBUTION....................................................................................................22 FIGURE 4 PROPORTION OF GRADE BY FIELD ESTIMATED YEAR OF MPB ATTACK ...........................................33 FIGURE 5 MERCHANTABILITY OF GRADE BY FIELD ESTIMATED YEAR OF MPB ATTACK .................................34 FIGURE 6 SHELF-LIFE BY GRADE PROPORTION AND MERCHANTABLE NET VOLUME........................................35 FIGURE 7 MPB AFFECTED STAND CLASSIFICATION AND VOLUME REDUCTION ...............................................37


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This Data Package has been prepared by Timberline Natural Resource Group Ltd. (Timberline) as a

source document for the initial First Nations consultation and public referral of the net-down criteria to

be used for the timber supply review (TSR) 4. The netdown information was made available for viewing

on the NSIFS website and information gathered during this 60 day period was reviewed and incorporated

into the final data package where appropriate. The data package will be finalized by mid-August 2009,

and the timber supply analysis will commence soon after that.

The final data package document will serve as a summary of the inputs and assumptions made in

preparing the draft data package for TSR 4. To be included are inventory and land base summaries and

management assumptions for timber and non-timber resources as they relate to timber supply net-downs.

The analysis involves modeling a Base Case which is intended to represent current management

practices. In addition, a number of sensitivity analyses will also be conducted to test the impact of

different assumptions on timber supply.

Upon acceptance by the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range (MoFR) Timber Supply

Analyst, the assumptions and methodology provided in the Data Package will be used to prepare and

submit a timber supply analysis to the MoFR. All analysis results will be provided to the Chief Forester

of British Columbia, or designate, for allowable cut determination.

1.2 Project Objective

The purpose of this project has been to prepare a data package for the Merritt TSA in support of the

TSR4 timber supply analysis. This data package was presented by the MoFR for First Nations

consultation and public referral.

1.3 Project Scope

The project scope is as follows:

I. Develop Data Package

i. Participate in project initiation, review of technical issues, and clarification of

management assumptions

ii. Confirm all sources of relevant data and management requirements

1. Describe any limitations or constraints with data

iii. Summarize previous analysis factors and assumptions

1. Issues

2. Sensitivities

iv. Summarize on-going or forecasted plans that should be reviewed or revisited for future

Timber Supply analysis

v. Summarize data acquired through item (i.) in preparation/consideration of analysis work

II. Support NSIFS and MoFR in initiating public and First Nations’ review

i. Coordinate package to MoFR

III. Incorporate information received during review period into final data package

i. Review changes with NSIFS TAC, MoFR Cascades District and MoFR Regional Analyst

ii. Complete data package for mid-August 2009 in preparation for the draft analysis report

January, 2010


2

2.0 TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS PROCESS

Multiple management options will be considered and modeled in this analysis. The main models

considered are:

• Base Case - current management practice; and

• Sensitivity analyses (see Section 10).

2.1 Missing Data

The following data are missing:

• In some cases, harvest block information was available, but the harvest year could not be

determined. Blocks that occurred in mature stands (as determined from the VRI) were assumed

to have been harvested in 2008. In cases where these blocks fell in immature stands, the block

information was assumed to have been captured by a previous VRI update, and the harvest block

was ignored; and

• OGMA information was provided by the licencees for this analysis. However, insufficient time

and resources were available to collate and clean up this data to the point that it could be

incorporated into the GIS resultant. The raw data was compared to the OGMA spatial data used

for the Silviculture Type 2 analysis, and the differences were found to be minor. The older

OGMA data has been used for this project.


3

3.0 TIMBER SUPPLY OPTIONS

This section provides an overview of the options that will be evaluated in the timber supply analysis.

3.1 TSR 4 Base Case Including MPB Forecast

Forest cover objectives and the biological capacity of the net timber harvesting land base (THLB)

ultimately dictate the harvest levels. In this analysis, the main objectives will be to:

• Identify the amount of mountain pine beetle (MPB) affected pine able to be harvested to

determine an appropriate initial harvest level;

• Mitigate the impact of MPB on the mid-term timber supply (building on the work in the Type 2);

and

• Find a sustainable long run harvest level that reflects managed stand yields and meets other

forest management objectives.

3.1.1 Changes from the Previous TSR

Many inputs into the analysis process change over time- information is continually updated and

legislation changed. The major changes from TSR 3 are listed below:

• Updated land base summary (see section 5.0);

• Mapped OGMA’s are used instead of aspatial seral requirements;

• MPB modeling methodology: and

• Shelf-life assumptions

3.2 Alternative Harvest Flows

A couple of different harvest flows will be explored, based on tradeoffs between short and medium-

term harvest levels.

• Alternative harvest queue, random vs. oldest first; and

• Extend uplift for 20 year period at highest level possible.

3.3 Other Options

There are no scenarios additional to this timber supply analysis identified at this time.


4

4.0 CURRENT FOREST COVER INVENTORY

This section describes the base mapping, forest cover inventory and other data used in the analysis.

4.1 Base Mapping

All spatial information is registered to the Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping (TRIM), North American

Datum (NAD) 83 base using the Albers projection. Inventory data has been prepared using the

ARC/INFO Geographic Information System (GIS). Use of GIS ensures that spatial relationships

between the various inventory attributes are maintained throughout the analysis process. One example is

existing roads and streams have been buffered to provide specific area reductions from the THLB.

Another example is the classification of THLB vs. non-THLB productive land base. Forest on the non-

THLB productive land base is not available for harvesting but can contribute to forest cover objectives

for non-timber resources (depending on its structural state).

4.2 Vegetation Resource Inventory

The Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) was downloaded from the LRDW in 2006 and has been

updated for disturbance to 2001 and projected to the end of 2008. A more recent VRI was made

available in January 2009, but the GIS Analyst, MoFR Cascades District has advised against using this

new coverage due to problems with the leading species. Both of these dataset are ‘rollovers’ of older

forest cover data (FIP files) that have been reformatted to match the VRI attribute data structure.

In order to complete the disturbance updated RESULTS blocks and licensee forest stewardship plan

information has been incorporated into the resultant database. The cut-off date for depletion for this data

package was December 31, 2008. Licencee depletions were provided March 2009 and are current to

December 31, 2008. VDYP has been run to determine net volume by species for forested stands.

4.2.1 Missing Species in the Inventory

The version of the VRI data set being used for this analysis has no species information for 45,029 ha of

productive land, of which 37,742 ha are in the THLB. These are areas that were updated to reflect

harvesting activity, but for which no updated species data is available. The 2009 version of the VRI

would (most likely) have overcome the problem (by linking to RESULTS data), but it could not be used

due to the leading species problem noted above. For these stands, leading species will be assigned using

the most common leading species by BEC zone/subzone/variant as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Leading species by BEC Subzone

BEC

Subzone

Leading

Species

BEC

Subzone

Leading

Species

AT Douglas-fir IDFdk2 Douglas-fir

AT-Emwp Pine IDFxh1 Douglas-fir

BGxh2 Douglas-fir IDFxh1a Douglas-fir

BGxw1 Pine IDFxh2 Douglas-fir

CWHms1 Balsam IDFxh2a Douglas-fir

ESSFdc2 Pine MHmm2 Balsam

ESSFdcp2 Pine MHmmp2 Balsam

ESSFmw Balsam MSdm2 Pine

ESSFmwp Balsam MSmw Pine

ESSFxc Pine MSxk Pine


5

ESSFxcp Pine PPxh1 Pine

IDFdk1 Douglas-fir PPxh2 Pine

IDFdk1a Douglas-fir PPxh2a Douglas-fir

For blocks that were updated from licencee information, the species composition for the regenerating

stand will be assumed to be the same as that of the original stand.

4.3 Data Sources

Many sources of data were compiled to provide input to this timber supply analysis - these are

documented in Table 2. Where feasible, the most current available has been obtained from the custodian

of the data. In two cases, existing datasets that had been previously prepared were used for this project

where:

1) The dataset is static, and would not have changed since it was last acquired; or

2) Previous investment had been made in preparing, cleaning and reconciling data, and it is unlikely

to have changed significantly since that investment was made.

Several data sets were acquired from the Cascades Forest District. Some of this data is only available

from the District (i.e. operability). Other datasets are also available from the LRDW, but data was

acquired from the District in cases were it was more current than the LRDW version.

Checkplots of the datasets used for this analysis (in PDF format) are available upon request through

Glenn Thiem of the NSIFS.


6

Table 2 Source Data

Spatial Data

Group

Standard Data Layer Source Date Notes

Tenure Community Forest - Princeton MoFR (Smith) March, 2009

Tenure Ownership MoFR FC1 1999 1

Tenure Small Wood MoFR (Smith) 2006 2

Tenure TSA Boundary LRDW 2006 1

Tenure Woodlots MoFR (Smith) March, 2009 3

Forest Depletions - Licencees Licencees March, 2009 4

Forest VRI MoFR FC1 Rollover 2001 with updates

to 2006

5

Operational Cultural Heritage Resources Arch Branch (RAAD) March, 2009

Operational Fence lines MoFR (Smith) March, 2009

Operational Landings Licencees March, 2009 6

Operational Operability MoFR FC1 1999 7

Operational Roads Licencees March, 2009 6

Operational Roads - TRIM TRIM 2006 6

Operational Small Scale Salvage LRDW March, 2009

Environmental BEC PEM Mapping,

NSIFS

2002

Environmental Community Watershed Intakes Timberline (Halford),

MOE

2006 8

Environmental Community Watersheds MSRM (Kachanoski) 2003 8

Environmental Environmentally Sensitive Areas FC1 MoFR 1999 9

Environmental Heritage Trails (Hudson's Bay Trail) MoFR (Smith) March, 2009

Environmental Landscape Units LRDW 2005 10

Environmental OGMA Licencees/ LRDW March, 2009 11

Environmental Parks MOE 2006

Environmental Predictive Ecosystem Mapping NSIFS (Thiem) 2002 12

Environmental Streams - Classified NSIFS (Thiem) March 2002 13

Environmental Wetlands NSIFS (Thiem) March 2002 13

Environmental Lakes NSIFS (Thiem) March 2002 13

Environmental Terrain Stability MoFR (Smith) March, 2009 14

Environmental VQO MoFR 2006 15

Environmental Wildlife Tree Patch Licencees March, 2009 16

Habitat UWR Planning Cells MOE (Burwash) August 17, 2009 17

Habitat “Great Basin” Gopher Snake MOE (Iredale) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat “Interior” Western Screech-Owl MOE (Iredale) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat Coastal Tailed Frog MOE (Iredale) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat Deer MOE (Burwash) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Elk MOE (Burwash) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Flammulated Owl MOE (Iredale) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat Goat MOE (Burwash) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Grizzly Bear WHA MOE (Burwash) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat Moose MOE (Burwash) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Mountain Goat MOE (Burwash) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat Rattlesnake MOE (Iredale) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Sheep MOE (Burwash) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Spotted Bat MOE (Iredale) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat Ungulate Winter Range MOE (Burwash) March 25, 2009 17

Habitat Williamson Sapsucker MOE (Iredale) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Lewis’s Woodpecker MOE (Iredale) March 26, 2009 17

Habitat Spadefoot MOE (Iredale) March 26, 2009 17


7

Note 1 The ownership and TSA boundary from the Type 2 Silviculture Analysis have been used (original

source date 1999). The latest ownership boundary was downloaded from the LRDW and compared to

the version used. The only differences noted were at the TSA boundary at the height of land. The TSA

area according to the LRDW is 1,131,166 hectares. The starting TSA area for this analysis was

1,130.061 hectares. Had the new version of the boundary been used, much work would have been

needed to reconcile the forest cover polygon data.

Note 2 The Smallwood licence coverage is maintained by the MoFR District, and has not changed since the

Type 2 Silviculture Analysis in 2006.

Note 3 The most current woodlot boundary coverage was obtained from Gail Smith at the MoFR District.

This was used instead for the woodlot information in the ownership coverage for netdown purposes.

Woodlot boundary information is also available from the LRDW, but the District data is more current

due to recent and ongoing woodlot awards and top-ups.

Note 4 Current and accurate depletion information is difficult to assemble. It as available through the LRDW,

which publishes data from RESULTS and FTA. However, this is usually at least a few months out of

date, and the FTA data may contain cutblocks that were never harvested. The best source of current

depletion data is the licencee operations records. This data was assembled in March 2009 and cleaned

up to reconcile overlapping blocks (slivers) and inconsistent attribution.

Note 5 Current VRI data is usually downloaded from the LRDW as one of the first step in a timber supply

analysis. That has not been done in this case. MoFR staff cautioned that the current LRDW VRI

dataset had problems related to leading species. The LRDW rollover version of the VRI used for the

Type 2 Silviculture Analysis has been used instead. Updates were applied using licencee cutblock

information (see Note 4).

Note 6 Current forest road and landing information was gathered from the licencees and consolidated into a

single coverage. This was combined with the TRIM roads (circa 2006) and buffered for netdown

purposes. Older TRIM data was used because it was felt that operational road updates would capture

all changes that would have an impact on the THLB.

Note 7 Operability mapping is maintained by the District, and remains unchanged since 1999. When the

netdown is performed, inoperable area is not excluded if it has been previously harvested.

Note 8 Community watershed intakes from the LRDW were compared to the intake buffer which had been

digitized by Timberline for the Type 2 analysis. No differences were noted, so the previously generated

buffers were used.

Note 9 The ESA coverage has not been updated for several years. The version used for the Type 2 Silviculture

Analysis has been used here. The MoFR District is the custodian of this data; it is not available on the

LRDW.

Note 10 The Landscape Unit boundary data is static. The version acquired for the Type 2 has been used which

matches the official version of the LU boundary on the LRDW.

Note 11 An effort was made to incorporate OGMA amendment information provided by the licencees.

However, the data was in several difference formats, and overlapped in many areas. In some instances,

the proposed updates conflicted with one another. The LRDW version has been used.

Note 12 PEM mapping was competed for the NSIFS by J.S. Thrower and Associates in 2002. NSIFS is the

custodian of this data, though MoE may have a copy also.

Note 13 Water body buffer coverages previously prepared for NSIFS have been used for this analysis. This data

set does not get updated with licencee classification changes. Current version of streams, wetlands and

lakes are available through the Corporate Watershed Base, which is published through the LRDW.

Note 14 Terrain stability data is available for parts of the TSA. A project boundary is available for a part of this

data, but not for the remainder. The data is maintained by the MoFR District.

Note 15 Data from 2006 used for the Type 2 has been used for this analysis. VLI data remains unchanged since

from 2006. Current VLI data is maintained by MoFR and is published on the LRDW.

Note 16 An existing WTP coverage was consolidated from data provided by the licencees.

Note 17 Wildlife habitat data was acquired from MoE and may be used for reporting and supplemental analysis.

Only the UWR planning cells have been incorporated into the GIS resultant.


8

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF LAND BASE

5.1 Overview

This section describes the Merritt TSA land base and the methodology used to determine the way in

which land contributes to the analysis. Some portions of the productive land base, while not contributing

to harvest, may be available to meet other resource needs.

The Merritt TSA is located in the southern interior region of B.C., and contains several communities,

including Merritt, Princeton, Tulameen, Brookmere, Missezula Lake, and Allison Lake. The TSA,

covering approximately 1.13 million hectares, is within the Southern Interior Forest Region, and is

administered by the Cascades Forest District. Figure 1 shows the boundary of the TSA along with the

major communities, highways and water bodies.

The topography of the TSA varies from the eastern crest of the Cascade Mountains in the west, to the

drier and relatively flat Thompson Plateau in the east. The two major river systems in the TSA are the

Similkameen River in the south, and the Nicola River in the north (Timberline, 2003a).

Approximately 72% of the TSA area is productive forested land under crown administration and 77% of

this crown productive forested landbase is available for harvesting. Lodgepole pine leading stands

comprise 56% of the productive forested landbase, and Douglas-fir leading stands constitute another

27%. Other common tree species include spruce, ponderosa pine, subalpine fir and trembling aspen, as

well as small amounts of western hemlock, western red cedar, and western larch (Timberline, 2003a).

Figure 1 Merritt TSA


9

5.2 Timber Harvesting Land base Determination

The crown landbase is classified into one of the following four broad categories:

1. Unproductive for forest management purposes;

2. Inoperable, either currently or in the future, under the assumptions of the analysis;

3. Unavailable for harvest for other reasons (e.g. wildlife habitat or preservation of visual quality);

or

4. Available for integrated use (including harvesting).

Table 3 shows the netdown process used to derive the timber harvesting landbase (THLB).

Table 3 Landbase classification.

Land Classification Total Area

(ha)

Crown

Productive

Area (ha)

Net Area

Removed (ha)

Total Area 1,130,061

Non-contributing Land (includes Private, Indian Reserves,

Woodlots, Community Forest) 210,130

Total Crown Landbase 919,932

Non-productive, non-forest, non-commercial 90,856

Productive Forest 829,076

Parks, ecological reserves 15,935 11,032 11,032

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) 66,405 39,957 39,132

Unstable terrain, inoperable 97,274 56,234 37,231

Problem forest types 40,853 22,558 14,170

Cultural heritage resources 1,198 824 541

Riparian management areas 50,912 23,832 20,181

Heritage trails 584 485 117

Water intakes for community watersheds 14 6 3

Existing roads, trails and landings 20,840 16,398 15,586

Wildlife tree patches (WTP's) 12,163 11,564 9,834

Old growth management areas (OGMA's) 114,625 112,601 47,978

Total Productive Reductions 195,805

Current Timber Harvesting Landbase 633,271

5.3 Total Area

The total area of Merritt TSA is 1,130,061 ha, of which 633,271 ha are classified as THLB.


10

5.4 Non-Contributing Land

Land not contributing to the AAC for the TSA includes selected ownership classes, woodlots and

Community Forest Agreements. The ownership classes were identified using the ownership code in the

MoFR ownership layer. The following ownership codes were removed from the productive land base:

0,1,40,50,52,54,75,76,77, 99. Woodlots were identified using a compiled woodlot layer provided by the

Ministry of Forest to include the most recent additions to the woodlot layer. An area top-up which

includes approximately 200 hectares for covers WL 355 was recently approved according to the MoFR

Cascades District (Kossin, 2009). There are additional top-ups expected to be finalized by the end of the

year for WL’s 353, 359, 354 and 350. Two future woodlots may be advertised within the next few years

(approximately 1200 hectares each). Only woodlots approved by the time the final data package is

completed will be considered in the analysis.

The Vermilion Forks Princeton Community Forest Area has not been excluded from the land base at this

time. However, the spatial coverage is available on the NSIFS website. The MoFR Cascades estimates

that the Community Forest Area will be put forward to the Minister for approval within the next 6

months.

Table 4 summarizes the areas circumscribed by the outer boundary of the Merritt TSA, but not

administered by the province of British Columbia or for which legislatively are not considered under the

Chief Forester’s AAC determination for the TSA. These areas are not part of the THLB, nor are their

contributions toward other resource values considered. Thus they are entirely excluded from the

analysis.

Table 4 Non-Contributing Land.

Description

Ownership

Code

Area Removed

(ha)

Area of non-interest 1 15

Private 40 160,996

Federal Reserve 50 42

Indian Reserve 52 34,378

TFL 76 60

Woodlots n/a1 14,579

Crown misc. lease 99 59

Totals 210,130

1 Woodlot information was not summarized from the ownership data, but rather from a current

spatial data set provided by the MoFR District Office.

5.5 Non-commercial, Non-forest and Non-productive Forest

With forest cover files (as opposed to genuine VRI data) non-productive non-forest land would have been

identified using the non-productive descriptor field. In the VRI the B.C. Land Classification fields would

be used to distinguish non-productive areas. Because the Merritt inventory is forest cover rolled over

into a VRI format, both netdowns were applied. In addition to removing NP, U, L, SWAMP, M, NPBR,

R, C, GR, CL, G, RIV, NPBU, AF, A, P identified in the non-productive descriptor field, all vegetated

non-treed land identified by the BC land classifications 1 and 2 were removed. The only exception to

these removals is where logging history is present. Both VRI and RESULTS logging history were taken

into consideration.


11

All land classified as non–commercial, non–forest, or non-productive forest is excluded from the THLB.

The specific components of the non–forested area reductions are summarized in Table 5 Non–productive

forest removals are summarized in Table 6.

Table 5 Non-forest area reduction.

Description Area removed (ha)

Alpine 14,928

Clay Bank 19

Clearing 633

Gravel Bar 98

Gravel Pit 137

Hayfield -

Lake 8,354

Meadow 398

Non-Productive Brush 5,245

Non-Productive Burn 142

Non-Vegetated (BCLS) 2

No Typing Available 236

Open Range 18,389

River 783

Rock 7,234

Swamp 4,627

Urban 5,896

Totals 67,119

Table 6 Non-productive forest area reduction.

Description Area removed(ha)

Alpine Forest 1,291

Non-Commercial Forest(TypeID) 1,555

Non-Productive Forest (TypeID) 20,454

Non-Productive Forest (NPCode) 436

Totals 23,736

The Forest Analysis Branch of the MoFR is currently in the process of identifying a default definition for

non-productive and non-forest. This shall be considered in future analysis once approved.

5.6 Parks

There was a reduction of 11,032 hectares for existing parks and ecological reserves. The Protected Areas

Strategy (PAS) Areas of Interest and Approved Study Areas have not been excluded from the Productive

Forest Landbase as there are no current plans to establish these proposed PAS areas within the Merritt

TSA. Provincial parks, as well as provincial ecological reserves were removed from the THLB, but were


12

allowed to contribute to forest cover requirements for landscape level biodiversity. Table 7 summarizes

the area reductions for these landbase categories.

Table 7 Park and ecological reserve area reductions

Description Ownership

code Area removed (ha)

Crown ecological reserves 60 614

Class A parks 63 693

Provincial parks or equivalent 67 9,726

Totals 11,032

5.7 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally sensitive areas (ESA’s) were identified using ESA mapping from previous forest cover.

The reductions associated with ESA’s are soils (S), regeneration (P), recreation (R), avalanche (A) and

water (W). ESA1’s were fully excluded from the THLB and ESA2’s were fully included within the

THLB. In all cases previously logged stands are excluded from the ESA, and terrain netdown. ESA

reductions amount to 39,132 ha. Areas classified in the forest cover inventory as highly environmentally

sensitive were removed from the THLB, as summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 Environmentally sensitive area reductions

Description ESA code Area removed

(ha)

Avalanche A 361

Avalanche/Regen AP 46

Recreation R 1,028

Regen P 23,810

Regen/Recreation PR 33

Soil S 4,935

Soil/Avalanche SA 5

Soil/Regen SP 8,697

Soil/Regen/Recreation SPR 0

Soil/Wildlife SW 20

Water H 106

Totals 39,132

5.8 Operability and Unstable Terrain

The crown landbase is classified into operable and inoperable areas, based on physical and economic

factors such as topography, soil stability, road access, and timber quality. Areas classified as inoperable

are removed from the THLB. In addition to these areas, detailed terrain stability mapping has been

conducted on some parts of the Merritt TSA. All areas identified as class V terrain in this inventory are

also removed from the THLB. Areas with slopes greater than 65% were also removed from the THLB.

These area reductions are summarized in Table 9.


13

Table 9 Inoperable, steep or unstable terrain area reductions

Area (ha) Description

Total Productive Removed

Inoperable 80,358 43,769 28,719

Slopes > 65 % 21,852 12,778 6,197

Class V terrain 3,466 2,965 2,316

Totals 37,231

Consideration was given to not applying the slope and ESA netdowns in areas where terrain mapping

was completed. This was rejected for two reasons:

1) all netdowns were applied at TSR 2; and

2) no clear project boundary exists for the areas that were terrain mapped.

Note that the categories shown in Table 9 are geographically overlapping; consequently the “Total” and

“Productive” area figures shown do include some double-counting. However, the “Area removed”

figures shown in the table are net figures and therefore accurately reflect the total area deducted from the

landbase for all three categories.

5.9 Problem Forest Types

The following table describes the timber types and areas of "problem forest types" (PFT’s) that have

been excluded from the timber harvesting land base because they are not expected to be utilized due to

marginal economics (low volumes, and/or quality). The area of PFT’s in the netdown has changed since

the last TSR due to several reasons: harvesting; the location of spatial OGMA’s; and changes to site

index (netdown logic was based in adjusted site index rather than inventory site index) have a combined

impact on the amount of PFT.

Table 10 Problem Forest Type Criteria

Species

Type

group

New site

index

(m at 50

years)

Age

class

Height

class

Height

(m)

Crown

closure

class

Crown

forest

area

(ha)

THLB

excluded

area (ha)

Balsam / Spruce /

Hemlock / Cedar 9–27 < 14.0 4–9 < 22.0 <3 or >7 5,573 3,836

Deciduous 35–42 8,706 8,047

Fir / Yellow Pine /

Larch leading

1–8,

32–34 < 10.0 4–9 < 3 7,583 1,849

Pine leading 28–31 < 8.0 1–3 94 90

Pine leading 28–31 < 8.0 4–9 < 3 188 186

All coniferous 1–27,

32–34 < 10.5 1–3 414 162

Totals 22,558 14,170

(a) Stands that have not been assigned silviculture opening numbers have generally not been subjected to management actions in the past (such

as silviculture treatments) and are not considered to be under "active management." These areas are not considered to be available for future

harvesting at this time.


14

5.10 Archaeological Resources

To aid in defining cultural heritage values and landscape planning, archaeological inventory studies,

archaeological impact assessments and traditional use studies have been undertaken within the TSA.

There are 709 archaeological sites identified by the Archaeological Branch within the Merritt TSA. The

majority of these sites are located on lands outside of the crown forest land base or are in areas removed

for other reasons (e.g. lake buffers). The archaeological sites included in this data package are from the

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (Archaeological Branch, March 2009) Remote Access to

Archaeological Data (RAAD) website which is updated with new information on monthly basis.

To account for the cultural heritage resources in the Merritt TSA, a 100% net-down was applied to each

mapped polygon. This removed 541 hectares from the THLB. The total area within the TSA is 1,198

hectares. Additional sites identified through the planning process with forest licencees are protected

within Wildlife Tree Patches and are not part of this total.

5.11 First Nations Cultural Use and Spiritual Areas

This section addresses First Nations uses that are not exclusively archaeological in nature. The 2007

AAC Determination for the Merritt TSA recognized that Stoyoma Mountain has been consistently

identified by First Nations as a sacred mountain. Current practice is to involve First Nations to a very

high degree where requested in the planning and harvest monitoring on Stoyoma Mountain.

Furthermore, licencees are encouraged to communicate any plans to harvest on Stoyoma Mountain with

the District Manager in order that the district may work proactively with the licencees and First Nations

on the planning phases (Zacharatos, 2007).

Another spiritually important area known as the Xe Xe is located in the Missezula Lake area. Currently,

there is no planned harvesting within the Xe Xe which is approximately 619 ha in size according to the

MFR spatial data. The spatial information is not publicly available and the assumption is made that all of

the area is within the THLB. The MoFR Cascades District views the Xe Xe as a long-term reduction to

timber supply. The timber supply impact of these cultural use and spiritual areas will not be modeled in

the analysis.

5.12 Riparian Management Areas- Streams, Wetlands and Lakes

Riparian management areas (RMA's) are designed to minimize the impacts of harvesting in areas

immediately adjacent to water bodies, including streams, lakes, swamps and wetlands. A riparian

management area consists of a riparian management zone (RMZ) in which harvesting activity is

restricted through basal area retention requirements, and may also include a riparian reserve zone (RRZ)

immediately adjacent to the water body in which harvesting is fully excluded. The presence of a RRZ is

dependent on the classification assigned to the water body in question.

For the purposes of timber supply modeling, the RMZ width is reduced by the RMZ retention percentage

and added to the RRZ width to arrive at a composite buffer width, as shown in Table 11. GIS buffering

techniques were used to construct an effective reserve zone inside of which harvesting activity was fully

excluded. Note that the composite buffer width shown in the table was applied to each side of stream

features, and to the terrestrial side of wetland or lake features.


15

5.12.1 Streams

Effective RRZ and RMZ buffers were constructed (as summarized in Table 11) and for this data package.

These buffers were consistent with commitments in the Merritt TSA licencee’s FSP’s. TSR3 had applied

a generic 10 m buffer to all streams which resulted in a greater area removed from the THLB.

Stream classification was derived from the “Local Watershed Expert Model for the Merritt Timber

Supply Area” prepared for NSIFS in March 2002 by Keystone Wildlife Research and Nk’losm resource

Management. Field data was compiled from eight Fish and Fish Habitat Inventories and several local

reports and entered into a single database. Fish presence information was obtained from the Inventories,

Fisheries Information Summary System and local knowledge. The data was stratified by attributes and

analyzed to develop a relationship to predict stream class. The stream class model, when tested on the

data, correctly classified streams with a 68% spatial accuracy. The netdown area calculation, based on

the riparian zones for each class, was predicted with an accuracy of 97%. The Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Mangement considered this model acceptable for strategic planning purposes, but not at an

operational level.

5.12.2 Lakes

Most lakes within the Merritt TSA have been classified through a local planning process (the Merritt

TSA Lakes Classification Process), and were assigned a class of A, B, C, D or E. Each of these

classifications designates a lakeshore management zone (LMZ) that in practice extends beyond the RRZ

dictated by the Riparian Guidebook where one exists, and implies specific basal area retention as shown

in Table 11. The analysis assumed that any RRZ was entirely contained within the LMZ.

Lakes not classified through the local planning process were classified by applying the Riparian

Guidebook criteria of lake surface area and surrounding BEC subzone (as determined from the provincial

BEC ecosystem inventory). This process resulted in the L1 – L4 classifications and associated RRZ

buffers listed in Table 11.

5.12.3 Wetlands

For the TSR2 analysis, wetlands were identified from the forest cover inventory spatial files and

classified according to Riparian Guidebook criteria of wetland surface area and surrounding BEC

subzone. This process resulted in the W1 – W4 classifications and associated RRZ buffers listed in

Table 11. The effective RRZ’s and resulting reductions for RRZ’s to the net landbase are exactly those

applied in the TSR2 and TSR3 analysis, with BEC subzones being determined from the provincial BEC

ecosystem inventory. Management Zone retention targets for wetlands have been derived from Merritt

TSA licencee FSP’s and there are changes from TSR3. The retention targets have been reduced to 10%

(from 25%) for several of the wetlands classifications as per the approved FSP strategies.

Table 11 Riparian management zone area reductions

Reserve

Zone Width

Management

Zone Width

Management

Zone Retention

Buffer

Width1

Productive

Area

Area

Removed

Riparian

Class

m m % m ha ha

Streams:

default 10 22,513 19,046

S1-A 0 100 20 20

S1-B 50 20 20 54

1 Buffer width is added to each side of a stream feature.


16

S2 30 20 20 34

S3 20 20 20 24

S4 0 30 20 6

S5 0 30 10 3

S6 0 20 0 0

Wetlands:

W1 10 40 10 14 1,229 1,055

W2 10 20 10 12

W3 0 30 0 0

W4 0 30 10 3

W5 10 40 10 14

Lakes:

L1 10 0 25 10 90 80

L2 10 20 10 12

L3 0 30 10 3

L4 0 30 10 3

A 200 100 200

B 200 50 100

C 200 25 50

D 200 10 20

E 200 5 10

Totals 23,832 20,181

5.13 Heritage Trails

A “Memorandum of Agreement between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Small Business,

Tourism and Culture” was reached in May 1995 declared that the designated heritage trail width shall be

standardized at 100 meters each side of trail centerline (200 m total). A 200 meter buffer was applied to

all Heritage Trails. Table 12 shows the reductions associated with the designated Heritage Trails within

the Merritt TSA.

Table 12 Heritage Trails Netdown

Area (ha) Trail Name

Length

(km) Gross Productive Removed

Hope Pass 2.6 15 15 3

Dewdney 3.7 73 73 17

Whatcom 4.0 77 75 22

Hudson Bay 25.0 418 321 75

Totals 584 485 117


17

5.14 Water Intakes for Community Watersheds

Table 13 shows the reductions associated with community watershed intakes. As in TSR 2, community

watershed intakes were identified from community watershed maps with a 100-metre upland buffer

applied.

Table 13 Community Watershed Intakes Netdown

Area (ha) Community Watershed Intakes

Gross Productive Removed

Anderson 2 2 1

Bell 2 2 1

Brook 2 2 0

Dillard 1 0 -

Hackett 1 1 0

Kwinshatin 2 - -

Lee 2 - -

Skuagam 2 - -

Thomas 2 - -

Totals 14 6 3

Section 60(2) of the Forest Practices and Planning Regulation states that “An authorized person must not

harvest timber or construct a road in a community watershed if the timber harvesting or road construction

is within a 100 m radius upslope of a licensed waterworks where the water is diverted for human

consumption, unless the timber harvesting or road construction will not increase sediment delivery to the

intake.” For this analysis, GIS techniques were used to buffer the point locations of all community

watershed intakes with a 100 metre radius circle, and excluding the up-slope half of the circle from the

THLB.

There have been attempts by a licencee within the Merritt TSA to have the Dillard Creek CWS de-listed.

However, the MOE Water Stewardship Division (Penticton) still designates it as a community watershed

and it will be shown as such until the application is approved. The spatial definition of community

watersheds is unchanged from the TSR2 analyses.

5.15 Existing Roads, Trails and Landings

15,586 ha of existing roads, trails and landings are removed from the productive land base. This

compares to 11,745 ha aspatial netdown from TSR3. The roads included major and minor highways,

regional access, forest service roads and minor logging roads and spurs. Road, trail and landing data was

compiled through TRIM and licensee roads.

A total width of 10 meters was applied to all permanent logging roads and trails. This width includes the

total area of disturbance from ditchline to ditchline and represents an average for all permanent logging

road and trail types. Due to lack of sampling for actual road widths in the TSA, the average width was

determined based on assumptions made in other TSA’s (a 10 meters was applied to all secondary roads in

the Kamloops TSA) and local operational knowledge. This average was accepted for use by the NSIFS

TAC for the Merritt TSA. In-block trails were not accounted for separately as these are typically

regenerated with the rest of the block. This approach differs from TSR 3 where a further 4.9% aspatial


18

netdown was applied to stands less than 31 years old to account for existing landings and in-block

disturbances, and 13 m width was applied to major roads. A 0.3 ha area netdown was applied to

permanent landings for this data package. Table 14 shows the netdowns for permanent roads and

landings in the Merritt TSA.

Table 14 Roads, trails and landing netdown.

Area (ha)


Roads 19,525 15,110 14,403

Landing 1,315 1,287 1,183

Totals 20,840 16,398 15,586

5.16 Existing Stand-level Biodiversity (Wildlife Tree Patches)

After other land classification is complete additional reductions to the harvesting landbase is required to

provide sufficient reserves of productive timber for wildlife at the site-specific level. These small

reserves are also referred to as wildlife tree patches (WTP’s). Table 15 shows the associated area

netdowns from existing WTP’s as provided by licencees.

Table 15 Wildlife tree patch netdown.

Area (ha)


Wildlife Tree Patches 12,163 11,564 9,834

5.17 Old Growth Management Areas (OGMA’s)

Landscape level biodiversity is addressed through explicit OGMA removal from the THLB - an area of

47,978ha. It was assumed that any changes to OGMA’s over the past few years resulted in no net change

to the THLB and the original OGMA coverage was used for this data package. Table 16 shows the area

netdowns associated with OGMA’s in the Merritt TSA.

Table 16 OGMA netdown.

Area (ha)


Old Growth Management Areas 114,625 112,601 47,978

5.18 Backlog Not Satisfactorily Restocked Areas

Backlog NSR is not easily identifiable, or what has been identified by the forest cover inventory is not

believed to be Backlog NSR and cannot be modelled. The MoFR Cascades District reviewed a sample of

pre-1987 blocks identified as NSR and they were actually old select logging with substantial stocking and

were sufficiently stocked. The Backlog NSR area used in this analysis is zero.


19

5.19 Wildlife Habitat Areas

Policy direction is that the THLB impact from Identified Wildlife Management Species (IWMS) be

limited to 1%. Wildlife Habitat Area depletions to the THLB will not be addressed through explicit

WHA removal from the THLB for the spatially mapped areas at this time. Rather, the Chief Forester will

determine the appropriate approach for the landbase netdown as it applies to Wildlife Habitat Areas.

Notices given under Section 7(2) of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation have been issued, or an

order under the Government Actions Regulation apply for the following wildlife species:

Table 17 Wildlife habitat areas by species.

Species Location Area (ha) Comments

Deer Merritt TSA 312,928 Ungulate Winter Range

Elk Merritt TSA 443,040 Ungulate Winter Range

Bighorn sheep Merritt TSA 2,418 Ungulate Winter Range

Moose Merritt TSA 690,312 Foraging habitat and cover

Mountain Goat Merritt TSA 6,730 Ungulate Winter Range

Coastal Tailed Frog Cascades Forest

District

332 See IWMS

“Great Basin” Gopher

Snake

Cascades Forest

District

4,000 See IWMS

Flammulated Owl Cascades Forest

District

0 Not present in Merritt TSA, mapping

not complete.

“Interior” Western

Screech-Owl

Cascades Forest

District

189 See IWMS

Spotted Bat Cascades Forest

District

0 Wildlife habitat areas not present in

Merritt TSA

Grizzly Bear Merritt TSA 4,680 See IWMS

Western Rattlesnake Merritt TSA 222 Wildlife Habitat areas from MOE

Williamson’s

Sapsucker

Merritt TSA 403 Wildlife Habitat areas from MOE

Spadefoot Merritt TSA 45 Wildlife Habitat areas from MOE

Lewis’s Woodpecker Merritt TSA 96 Wildlife Habitat areas from MOE

NSIFS has additional ecological model data for 22 species of focus in the Merritt TSA. This coverage is

provided as information only on the NSIFS website.


20

5.20 Area Distributions by Leading Age and Leading Species

Figure 2 and Table 18 summarize the distribution of area by age for both the productive and net

harvesting land base2.

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

0-9

10

-19

20

-29

30

-39

40

-49

50

-59

60

-69

70

-79

80

-89

90

-99

10

0-1

09

11

0-1

19

12

0-1

29

13

0-1

39

14

0-1

49

15

0-1

59

16

0-1

69

17

0-1

79

18

0-1

89

19

0-1

99

20

0-2

09

21

0-2

19

22

0-2

29

23

0-2

39

24

0-2

49

25

0-2

59

26

0-2

69

27

0-2

79

28

0-2

89

29

0-2

99

30

0+

Age Class (Years)

Are

a (

ha)

Productive THLB

Figure 2 Initial age class distribution.

Table 18 Initial age class distribution

Area (ha) Age

Class Productive THLB

0-9 139,767 123,066

10-19 31,533 28,562

20-29 11,523 9,052

30-39 13,804 11,305

40-49 19,979 15,822

50-59 38,783 31,339

60-69 59,477 47,341

70-79 26,665 19,730

80-89 49,091 36,641

90-99 39,226 30,670

2 Stands with a harvest history had their ages recalculated based on harvest year. Where harvest had occurred, but

the year was unknown, age was set to zero.


21

Area (ha) Age

Class Productive THLB

100-109 72,303 56,761

110-119 39,985 32,317

120-129 65,317 51,883

130-139 17,172 12,777

140-149 23,910 17,627

150-159 27,163 17,528

160-169 15,710 10,637

170-179 6,444 4,752

180-189 28,267 17,141

190-199 4,436 2,824

200-209 34,208 18,607

210-219 3,687 2,634

220-229 17,429 11,191

230-239 4,920 2,989

240-249 6,298 3,378

250-259 9,476 5,051

260-269 7,115 3,750

270-279 2,616 1,443

280-289 5,251 2,845

290-299 1,099 400

300+ 6,422 3,207

Total 829,076 633,271

Table 19 and Figure 3 summarize the distribution of area by leading species for both the productive and

THLB. As with the leading age distributions, NSR is not included in the summaries.

Table 19 Leading species distribution

Area (ha) Species

Productive THLB

Pine 409,112 349,641

Douglas-fir 238,713 166,012

Spruce 70,184 49,560

Unknown 45,029 37,742

Balsam 55,280 29,159

Hemlock 1,455 803

Deciduous 9,035 252

Larch 207 85

Cedar 62 16

Total 829,076 633,271


22

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Pine Douglas-fir Spruce Unknown Balsam Hemlock Deciduous

Are

a (

ha)

Productive THLB

Figure 3 Leading Species Distribution


23

6.0 GROWTH AND YIELD

6.1 Introduction

In order to reduce the complexity of the forest description for the purposes of timber supply analysis,

aggregation of individual forest stands is necessary. However, it is critical that this aggregation obscures

neither differences in biological productivity nor differences in management objectives and prescriptions.

It is important to note that aggregation of the land base will be consistent in all options and sensitivity

analyses. This is to ensure that differences in results reflect differences in management decisions and not

inventory aggregation.

Grouping stands into analysis units (AU's) on the basis of similar species composition, site productivity

and silviculture regime captures similarities in growth and response to silvicultural treatments.

6.2 Analysis Unit Definitions

Analysis units (AUs) are aggregates of stands of similar characteristics and growth and yield responses.

In order to precisely capture the value from each stand it is important to keep as much stand level

information as possible, which in turn means that there is less opportunity for aggregation. For this

analysis a balance was found by rounding certain stand level attributes and then aggregating in cases

where the rounded attributes were identical. The rounding and classification process involved:

• Rounding age to the nearest 10 years;

• Rounding inventory site index to the nearest multiple of 3;

• Finding the leading species;

• A stands MPB characteristics:

o The 2014 MPB severity rating: very severe (V), severe(S), moderate (M), low (L) or not

affected;

o If a stands is very severe (V) MPB affected: finding the year a stand became “very

severe” MPB affected (from selected years: 2004/06/08/10/12/14 or never);

• Harvest type: clear-cut or partial harvest (MDWR) (the partial harvest methodology will be

discussed in later sections in more detail); and

• BEC zone.

After this classification process, stands with the same rounded age, rounded site index, leading species,

MPB characteristics, harvest type and BEC zone were grouped together in AUs. Table 20 shows a few

examples AU keys.

Table 20 Analysis Unit Example Definitions

Age SI

MPB

2012 V year Leading Species Smallwood

Partial

Harvest

Type

BEC

zone

100 9 V 2014 Pine N N PPxh2

110 12 V 2014 Pine N N BGxw1

110 12 V 2014 Pine N N ESSFdc2



24

Age SI

MPB

2012 V year Leading Species Smallwood

Partial

Harvest

Type

BEC

zone



110 12 V 2014 Pine N N ESSFmw



110 12 V 2014 Pine N N ESSFxcp

This process was used for aggregation purposes only. In other calculations, the attributes are area weight

averaged for each AU which provides for a more accurate representation (for example age, site index and

pine percentage).

6.3 Natural Stand Yield Tables

The MoFR Variable Density Yield Prediction (VDYP) model (Version 6.6d) will be used to develop

natural stand yields at the AU level. A yield curve was first generated for each stand using the species

composition, crown closure and site index of the stand. These yield curves were then area weight

averaged to produce one yield curve for each analysis unit. Volumes were calculated net of secondary

deciduous species volume contributions. The average inputs to VDYP are not presented because of the

large number of natural AUs.

6.4 Managed Stand AU and Yields

Ecologically based analysis units were made for this analysis. They were based on the silvicultural

regimes made by J.S. Thrower for the NSIFS Innovative Timber Supply Analysis (J.S. Thrower, 2003).

Site series based silviculture regimes for the TSA were collated through a licensee questionnaire and

silviculture survey data. These silviculture regimes were subsequently modified to be consistent with the

approved PEM based map entities (J.S. Thrower, 2003).

Combinations of BEC, site series and leading species were aggregated into AU's. There are 92 AU’s; 87

conventional, 3 smallwood partition and 2 single tree selection. All non-THLB productive land was

assigned to AU 99 in order to facilitate disturbance in the non-THLB. The characteristics of these AU’s

are outlined in the sections and Table 21 below. Stands that are undergoing grassland conversion were

assigned to AU 79 which regenerates to AU 99 (non-THLB) after the first rotation.

Existing and future managed stand yields will be developed using MoFR BatchTIPSY (Version 4.1).

The planted species composition used as input for TIPSY are presented in Table 21. The best estimate of

species composition for all managed stands (existing and future) was the silviculture prescriptions

document in the 2003 report by J.S. Thrower. The description column in Table 21 is based on the

Predictive Ecosystem Mapping for the Merritt TSA. Initial planting densities are taken from the Natural

and Managed Stand Yield Tables for the Merritt IFPA Innovative Analysis (J.S. Thrower, 2003).

Table 21 TIPSY regeneration composition inputs

Au Description PSI Sp1 % GG Sp2 % GG Sp3 % GG Stock (st/ha)

101 ESSFdc2-BG-Pl 17 Pl 55 2 Sx 45 13 1,500

102 ESSFdc2-BG-Sx 16 Pl 55 2 Sx 45 13 1,500

103 ESSFdc2-BG-Bl 13 Pl 55 2 Sx 45 13 1,500


25


104 ESSFdc2-BG-Fd 16 Pl 55 2 Sx 45 13 1,500

105 ESSFdc2-PG-Pl 16 Pl 100 2 1,500

106 ESSFdc2-PG-Sx 15 Pl 100 2 1,500

107 ESSFdc2-PG-Bl 13 Pl 100 2 1,500

108 ESSFdc2-BB-Sx 18 Sx 75 13 Pl 25 2 1,350

109 ESSFdc2-BB-Pl 18 Sx 75 13 Pl 25 2 1,350

110 ESSFdc2-BB-Bl 11 Sx 75 13 Pl 25 2 1,350

111 ESSFmw-BR-Bl 12 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,600

112 ESSFmw-BR-Sx 19 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,600

113 ESSFmw-BR-Pl 20 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,600

114 ESSFmw-BR-H 21 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,600

115 ESSFmw-BR-Fd 17 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,600

116 ESSFmw-PG-Bl 13 Sx 55 13 Pl 45 2 1,500

117 ESSFmw-PG-Sx 18 Sx 55 13 Pl 45 2 1,500

118 ESSFmw-PG-Pl 19 Sx 55 13 Pl 45 2 1,500

119 ESSFmw-BF-Bl 14 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,400

120 ESSFmw-BF-Sx 16 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,400

121 ESSFmw-FP-Pl 18 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,400

122 ESSFmw-FP-Bl 13 Sx 75 13 Pl 25 2 1,400

123 ESSFmw-FP-Sx 17 Sx 75 13 Pl 25 2 1,400

124 ESSFmw-SG-Bl 11 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,200

125 ESSFmw-SG-Sx 20 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,200

126 ESSFxc-PG-Pl 16 Pl 100 2 1,500

127 ESSFxc-PG-Sx 14 Pl 100 2 1,500

128 ESSFxc-PG-Bl 13 Pl 100 2 1,500

129 ESSFxc-JL-Pl 15 Pl 100 2 1,400

130 ESSFxc-BR-Pl 15 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,500

131 IDFdk1-FJ-Fd 15 Pl 85 2 Py 15 0 1,300

132 IDFdk1-FJ-Pl 17 Pl 85 2 Py 15 0 1,300

133 IDFdk1-ZA-Pl 20 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,300

134 IDFdk1-ZA-Fd 18 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,300

135 IDFdk1-ZA-Sx 19 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,300

136 IDFdk1-ZA-At 16 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,300

137 IDFdk2-ZG-Pl 21 Pl 70 2 Sx 25 13 Fd 5 0 1,600

138 IDFdk2-ZG-Fd 19 Pl 70 2 Sx 25 13 Fd 5 0 1,600

139 IDFdk2-ZG-Sx 20 Pl 70 2 Sx 25 13 Fd 5 0 1,600

140 IDFdk2-ZC-Fd 16 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,650

141 IDFdk2-ZC-Pl 18 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,650

142 IDFdk2-ZC-Sx 17 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,650

143 IDFdk2-ZD-Pl 20 Pl 95 2 Fd 5 0 1,600

144 IDFdk2-ZD-Fd 18 Pl 95 2 Fd 5 0 1,600

145 IDFdk2-ZD-Sx 19 Pl 95 2 Fd 5 0 1,600

146 IDFdk2-ZD-At 15 Pl 95 2 Fd 5 0 1,600

147 IDFxh1-FP-Pl 14 Py 60 0 Fd 40 0 850

148 IDFxh1-FP-Fd 16 Py 60 0 Fd 40 0 850

149 IDFxh2-FP-Fd 14 Fd 60 0 Py 40 0 900

150 IDFxh2-PS-Pl 13 Fd 80 0 Py 20 0 700

151 IDFxh2-FP-Sx 17 Fd 80 0 Py 20 0 700

152 MSdm2-ZG-Pl 18 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,600

153 MSdm2-ZG-Sx 19 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,600


26


154 MSdm2-ZG-Fd 16 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,600

155 MSdm2-ZF-Fd 17 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,700

156 MSdm2-ZF-Pl 18 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,700

157 MSdm2-ZF-Sx 18 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,700

158 MSdm2-ZF-Bl 13 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,700

159 MSdm2-ZH-Pl 19 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

160 MSdm2-ZH-Sx 19 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

161 MSdm2-ZH-Bl 14 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

162 MSdm2-ZH-Fd 17 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

163 MSxk-ZG-Pl 19 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,350

164 MSxk-ZG-Sx 18 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,350

165 MSxk-ZG-Fd 17 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,350

166 MSxk-ZG-Bl 14 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,350

167 MSxk-LJ-Pl 17 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,200

168 MSxk-LJ-Sx 16 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,200

169 MSxk-LG-Pl 18 Pl 100 2 1,500

170 MSxk-LG-Sx 18 Pl 100 2 1,500

171 MSxk-ZF-Fd 17 Pl 95 2 Sx 5 13 1,350

172 MSxk-ZF-Pl 19 Pl 95 2 Sx 5 13 1,350

173 MSmw-PG-Pl 18 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,600

174 MSmw-FF-Fd 17 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,700

175 MSmw-YU-Pl 19 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

176 MSmw-PG-Sx 18 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

177 MSmw-YU-Bl 13 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

178 MSmw-YU-Fd 17 Pl 85 2 Sx 15 13 1,700

179 BGxw1-WJ-Fd 20 Pl 70 2 Sx 25 13 Fd 5 0 1,600

180 CWHms1-AM-Sx 17 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,600

181 IDFdk1-GM-Sx 20 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,300

182 IDFdk2-BF-Sx 18 Sx 70 13 Pl 30 2 1,400

183 IDFxh1-BB-Sx 18 Py 60 0 Fd 40 0 850

184 IDFxh2a-FB-Sx 18 Fd 70 0 Pl 20 2 Sx 10 6 1,350

185 MSmw-YU-Sx 19 Pl 60 2 Sx 40 13 1,750

186 PPxh2-ZT-Pl 12 Fd 70 0 Pl 20 2 Sx 10 6 1,350

187 PPxh2-ZF-Fd 15 Fd 70 0 Pl 20 2 Sx 10 6 1,350

188 MSxk-ZG-Pl 19 Pl 90 2 Sx 10 13 1,350

189 IDFdk1-ZA-Pl 19 Pl 90 2 Fd 5 0 Py 5 0 1,300

190 ESSFxc-PG-Pl 15 Pl 100 2 1,500

191 IDFdk1-ZA-Fd 15 Fd 85 0 Pl 12 0 Sx 3 1,300

192 IDFdk2-ZD-Fd 17 Fd 86 0 Pl 8 0 Sx 6 1,500

6.4.1 Regeneration Delay

Regeneration delays are deployed separately from yield prediction in the forest level analysis. After

review with the licencees and the SFMP reporting, a regeneration delay of 2 years will be used

throughout the analysis. The 2008 SFMP for the Merritt TSA reports that 99% of areas prescribed for

planting were completed with one year old stock within the third growing season from start date of

harvest. That compares to just under 99% in 2007 and ~94% in 2006. 100% of areas prescribed for

natural regeneration with a regeneration expiry date within the reporting period (7 years) were

successfully regenerated. A random check by the MoFR Cascades District indicated a 2.1 year planting


27

delay which supports the use of a 2 year regen delay. Regeneration delay will be dealt with in the forest

estate model rather than in the yield curves themselves.

6.4.2 Genetic Gains

Tree improvement statistics have been obtained from Matt LeRoy, Tree Improvement Branch, and were

comprised of genetic gain estimates for the years 2003-2009, along with the proportion of class A seed

planted in the Merritt TSA for that same time period. This data has been summarized in Table 22.

Table 22 Genetic Gain (2003-2009)

% improved by spp Genetic Gain Year Pl Sx Pl Sx

2003 18.9 50.3 8 5

2004 18.7 87.1 4 6

2005 29.1 99.2 4 8

2006 13.5 59.6 3 9

2007 13.2 85.9 8 10

2008 8.4 93.5 6 9

2009 10.2 56.0 9 10

Avg. 16.0 75.9 6 8

Future genetic gain for the Merritt TSA as provided by the Tree Improvement Branch is provided in

Table 23 below.

Table 23 Future Genetic Gain (2008-2014)

Genetic Gain %

Year Pl TO

14-1600m

Pl TO

7-1400m

Sx TO

13-1900m

Sx TO

7-1300m

2008 11 10 14 18

2009 13 11 14 18

2010 13 11 15 18

2011 14 12 15 18

2012 15 13 15 18

2013 15 13 15 19

2014 15 13 15 19

Avg. 13.7 11.9 14.7 18.3

Based on this information, no genetic gain will be applied to the yield curves for existing managed

stands, as the seven most recent years can’t be considered to accurately represent all managed stands.

Average historical class ‘A’ seed use will be assumed for future managed stands (16% and 76% for pine

and spruce respectively), and average genetic gain factors for 14% and 17% will be applied. This results

in effective genetic gain on future stands of 2% and 13% for pine and spruce.

6.4.3 Volume Reductions

Volume reductions are to be applied to the yield curves for the following reasons:

• Douglas-fir retention;

• Future Roads, trails and landings;


28

• Deciduous;

• Wildlife tree patches, and

• Shelf-life assumptions (see Section 8.1.1 for details).

Douglas-fir Retention

An overall average of 15 m3/ha is to be applied to the forest estate model for the retention of Douglas-fir

for specified Analysis Units which include Douglas-fir and Lodgepole pine as the two leading species.

This amount is based on estimates provided by NSIFS licencees which reflect current practice and FSP

commitments for stand-level biodiversity and single-tree retention.

Future Roads, Trails and Landings

Upon harvesting, a component of each stand is placed into a category that will remain in a disturbed state

for perpetuity. If the area harvested is included in an area associated with forest cover constraints

relating to integrated resource management, the road area will become part of the disturbance area

permanently. These stands will provide harvest volume on the first entry but not on further entries and

the area contributing to the long-term sustainable harvest is net of this area. The NSIFS estimates that a

3.5% reduction be applied for future roads, trails and landings based on the 2008 Sustainable Forest

Management Plan (SFMP) prepared for the Merritt TSA (March 2009) and local knowledge. The SFMP

shows that the percent of cutblock areas in permanent access structures (e.g. roads, trails and landings)

has declined every year since 2003 from 5% down to 2.8% in 2008. The average area occupied by

permanent access structures in harvested blocks for the past 3 years is approximately 3%. An additional

0.5% was estimated for permanent road outside of blocks within the THLB and to account for the future

trend away from large salvage blocks that have a relatively low percentage of permanent access

structures.

This approach differs from both TSR2 and TSR3 which applied 6.9% for future roads, trails and landings

based on the March 1999 “Report on Roads, Trails and Landings for the Merritt TSA” (Graeme Hope,

MoFR Region). The report assumed 5.7% for road and landing disturbance, and 0.4% for existing

roads.

Deciduous

Currently deciduous species are not being utilized in the Merritt TSA and have been removed from the

yield tables where they occur in mixed species stands.

Future Wildlife Tree Patches

The retention of future wildlife tree patches (WTP’s) is modeled by applying a percentage yield

reduction to future stands in the forest estate model. This modeling approach means that WTP’s are not

counted for their contribution toward landscape level biodiversity requirements, although in reality some

WTP’s may contribute to both landscape level forest structure and old growth habitat.

After other land classification is complete, additional reductions to the harvesting landbase may be

required to provide sufficient reserves of productive timber for wildlife at the site-specific level. These

small reserves are also referred to as wildlife tree patches (WTP’s). NSIFS has determined that a 3%

volume reduction is to be applied for future WTP’s. This target was based upon the Forest and Range

Evaluation Program completed by the MoFR Cascades District in the Merritt TSA that found

approximately 10% of the gross block area was within designated WTP’s. Of this total amount,

approximately 40% of the WTP areas were within constrained areas (steep slopes, riparian areas, etc.)

which reduces the net impact on the THLB to 6% of gross block area in WTP’s. Furthermore, the FREP

monitoring was focused on blocks not managed under FRPA or with spatial OGMA’s designated across


29

the TSA. NSIFS estimates another 50% reduction based on the spatial OGMA’s to arrive at an overall

impact of 3% for future WTP’s.

6.5 Conversion to Grassland

The TSR2 and TSR3 analysis modeled the conversion of grassland ecosystems that have been

encroached upon by Douglas–fir back to grasslands. All portions of the THLB falling within either the

Bunchgrass (BG) ecosystem zone or any of the “a”-phase IDF zone were harvested once, and then

removed from the THLB under the assumption that they would subsequently be managed as grasslands.

This methodology will be applied to the TSR4 analysis.

6.5.1 Silviculture History

For growth and yield application, stands are classified into two categories based on their silviculture

regime: natural stands and managed stands. Managed stand assumptions will be applied to all stands

harvested since 1987 when legislation regarding silvicultural responsibilities came into effect and

silviculture practices changed to predominantly site preparation and planting following harvest.

6.5.2 Current Not Satisfactorily Restocked

Current NSR was assumed to regenerate with normal managed stand regeneration delays.

6.5.3 Utilization Levels

The utilization levels modeled are listed in Table 24. The levels reflect current standards and

performance. Note: dbh = diameter breast height, dib = diameter inside bark

Table 24 Utilization levels

Leading Species Minimum dbh (cm)

Maximum stump

height (cm) Minimum top dib (cm)

Pine 12.5 30.0 10.0

Smallwood 12.5 20.0 7.0

All others 17.5 30.0 10.0

6.6 Decay Waste and Breakage – Natural Stands

Decay, waste and breakage (DWB) factors associated with forest inventory zone (D/G/H) the appropriate

public sustained yield unit (PSYU) 123 were used to model the natural stands. NVAF sampling has not

been completed for the Merritt TSA and NSIFS is reviewing a sampling strategy for the next TSR.

6.7 Operational Adjustment Factors – Managed Stands

Standard Operational Adjustment Factors (OAF’s) were used in managed stands. OAF1 accounts for

stocking holes in stands and OAF2 accounts for age dependent losses such as disease. The OAF1

stocking reduction was 15% and the OAF2 reduction used was 5%.

6.8 Yield Tables for Single Tree Selection Management

Yield tables for the single tree selection stratum are based on the VDYP outputs, but the harvesting

strategy will be implemented in the forest estate model. Only 25% of the volume will be harvested at


30

each pass. The stand will then regenerate to the same yield curve, but at 30 years of age rather than at

age 0. For the regenerating stand to be queued again for harvest, it will have to meet all the harvest

minimum requirements that are applied to clearcut stands (90% MAI and a minimum volume of 150

m3/ha).

6.9 Site Index- PSI

Potential site index (PSI) estimates for Pl were derived from the site index adjustment (SIA) project (J.S.

Thrower, 2002) and were applied to all existing immature and future managed stands in BEC zones

above and below 1650 m elevation3. For Sx and Fd leading species, site index conversion equations

based on Pl were used. Table 25 shows methods of assigning PSI according to BEC, position above or

below 1650 meters elevation and species.

Table 25 Merritt TSA PSI Application Method by Group

Species Group

Pl Fd Sx Other

MSdm2, MSmw, MSxk, IDFdk1, IDFdk2 AdjPSI CE CE InvSI

ESSFdc2, ESSFmw, ESSFxc < 1,650 m AdjPSI CE CE InvSI

ESSFdc2, ESSFmw, ESSFxc > 1,650 m PPSI NA CE InvSI

Note in the table above:

• AdjPSI is the adjusted PSI based on ground sampling;

• CE is PSI from a conversion equation;

• InvSI is the inventory site index;

• PPSI is unadjusted preliminary PSI; and

• NA is not applicable.

Conversion equations are given in Table 26 below. Each stand (resultant polygon) was given a site index

weighted by species composition. The approach used is identical to the NSIFS timber supply analysis.

Table 26 Conversion Equations for Sx and Fd from Pl

Sx PSI = -2.150 + 1.090 x Pl PSI

Fd PSI = 0.709 + 0.935 x Pl PSI

6.10 Predictive Ecosystem Mapping

Predictive ecosystem mapping (PEM) provides a basis for defining the spatial distribution of ecosystems

(i.e., site series) in a given geographic area (TSA). PEM is an ecological mapping tool for use in wildlife,

biodiversity, growth & yield, and inventory programs. It is recognized that there is variation and

uncertainty around PEM predictions. NSIFS completed the PEM to support several innovative forestry

practices and was approved for use in TSR3. PEM was used in this analysis to define analysis units for

managed stands and potential site index adjustment.

3 Area above 1650m elevation had the PSI assigned using the unadjusted preliminary site index instead

of the adjusted PSI due to statistical uncertainty.


31

7.0 PROTECTION

7.1 Non Recoverable Losses

Damage to timber caused by fire, wind, insects, diseases and other pests contribute to loss in harvestable

volumes. This volume loss is difficult to quantify, although losses to insect and disease that normally

occupy stands (endemic losses) are accounted for in empirical yield curve estimates. Depending on the

type of damage and stand accessibility, losses due to catastrophic or epidemic events may be either

salvageable or unsalvageable. These non-recoverable losses are not accounted for in the yield curves.

Unsalvaged loss estimates for this analysis for spruce were updated in 2001 by the Cascades Forest

District. Losses due to Douglas-fir bark beetle and Western Balsam bark beetle are accounted for in the

Operational Adjustment Factors (OAF2). Losses due to Mountain Pine beetle will be accounted for in

yield curve reductions based on the shelf-life assumptions. Harvest volume forecasts derived from all

scenarios described in this report will be reduced by the total annual losses shown in Table 27. The

MoFR Cascades District have indicated that a new process for estimating NRL’s in the Southern Interior

Forest Region is currently being developed and may be available prior to the determination.

Table 27 Unsalvaged losses

Disturbance Agent Annual loss (m3/yr)

Spruce bark beetle 25,000

Wind 18,565

Fire 31,220

Total 74,785


32

8.0 MPB MODELLING

This section details the planned MPB modeling assumptions.

8.1 MPB Projections

Since 1999, the MoFR has been projecting the spread of MPB throughout the province and recalibrating

the projections each year with the forest health overview. The projections have been made using raster

based stochastic modelling in SELES. The output provided from the MoFR are two 400m X 400m (16

ha) grids for each year projected. The first grid has the percent of the pine affected by MPB and the

second has the percent of the stand that is pine. The percent of each grid that is affected is calculated by

multiplying the percent pine MPB affected by the percent pine.

The MoFR released version 6 of this dataset (BCMPB V6) in June, 2009. That information has been

used for this analysis.

To provide consistency in reporting the percent of the stand affected has been classified using the forest

health overview (FHO) classification system. This classification system is shown in Table 28.

Table 28 MoFR Severity Class Definition

Classification Classification abbreviation % of stand attacked by MPB

Trace T 0 – 1 %

Light L 1 – 10 %

Moderate M 10 -30 %

Severe S 30 – 50 %

Very Severe V > 50 %

One important variance from the FHO classification system is that the MoFR MPB projections are

reported showing the accumulative impact of MPB instead of the annual impact. This was done because

the MPB projections rarely showed annual impacts beyond the trace and low classes and because the

overall impact is more important for making strategic level decisions.

8.1.1 Shelf Life

Shelf life is defined as the time a stand will remain economically viable to harvest. This time is taken

from the year that a stand first becomes “very severely” (over 50%) affected by MPB. NSIFS worked

with Timberline to develop a shelf-life curve based on recent studies in the interior plateau of British

Columbia.

The data used were from two projects in which 461 trees were destructively sampled throughout BC

(Table 29). These projects were both completed for the Ministry of Forests and Range (MFR) in 2006

and 2007. The sampled trees were bucked from stump height to 10cm utilization in 5m log lengths or

longer and scaled in the bush to determine grade and merchantable volumes. Scaling was completed by a

certified scaler on the same day the trees were fallen and both projects underwent audits by the MFR.

The estimated age of MPB attack sampled in these projects was from 1 to 9 years. As the data were

collected in two field seasons, a snapshot of degrade for the estimated years of attack rather than a

chronology was developed for each project. An analysis of the two projects indicated that the grade

proportions and average merchantability of the grades were comparable between the two projects and


33

these were used to refine the initially developed shelf-life curve. A conclusive degrade chronology was

not developed with subsequent sampling due to funding constraints.

Table 29 Log data used for shelf-life analysis

Geographic Location Sample Year Log Count Net Volume (m3)

Burns Lake 2006 440 76.7

Quesnel 2006 471 79.6

Vanderhoof 2006 456 78.1

Kamloops/Monte Creek 2007 92 19.1

Quesnel 2007 239 42.9

Total 1698 296.3

While the data indicate there is geographic variability in log grade proportions, this is minor and common

trends for grade proportion and merchantability exist. This has been supported by the mill studies

conducted by Forestry Innovation Investment (FII) over the last three years. Of geographical relevance to

the Merritt TSA, the results from the mill trial in Princeton, BC yielded the lowest LRF reduction and

0.2% greater than the mean log quality reduction when the volume and value recoveries were reported of

the grey-stage pine trees relative to the green control. Differences between the four mills in the FII

studies, volume recovery and grade proportions are discussed in greater detail in the FII report (Taylor,

2008).

The majority of the net volume scaled in the shelf-life projects was consistently grade 2. Grade

proportions in the initial two years after MPB attack reflect a non-MPB attacked stand. The data indicate

that relative to a green tree, some degrade occurs in year one due to checking although this is more

noticeable in year two. Grade proportions from year three onward reflect degrade as trees dry and check

and grade 1 volume degrades to grade 2 (Figure 4). Initial grade 4 proportion is largely due to knot size

in the log.

Figure 4 Proportion of grade by field estimated year of MPB attack

Grade Proportion by Year Classes

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 9

Years Since Attack

Pro

po

rtio

n

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 4

Merchantable percent for grades one and two remains relatively consistent in the initial six years after

MPB attack and starts to decline as of year seven (Figure 5). The merchantable percent of grade four


34

declines steadily over all years sampled. The sample size for stands seven to nine years after attack was

small relative to other years sampled.

Figure 5 Merchantability of grade by field estimated year of MPB attack

Average Merchantability by Year Classes

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 9

Years Since Attack

Merc

han

tab

le (

%)

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 4

The shelf-life curve developed from this data is for net volume and includes grades 1, 2 and 4 and decay

or non-recoverable volumes (Figure 6). Certain assumptions were used to determine the shelf-life curve.

Assumptions:

1) Net merchantable volume is for the pine component in a stand based on the predominant

year of attack. It is weighted for each grade by the proportion of the grade sampled in

the year of attack.

2) In many stands, several years of multiple attacks occur. A reasonable approach to

calculate the net merchantable volume for a stand with multiple years of attack would be

to weight by the proportion attacked in each year.

3) Grade 1 volume, while scaled in the field in trees up to eight (8) years after attack, no

longer exists five (5) years after attack.

4) Decay in standing trees sampled was <2% on average in stands up to 9 years after

attack. Decay and non-recoverable proportions increase as fallen trees in contact with

the ground decay more rapidly than trees standing.

5) While minor amounts of deadfall will occur, the extent of deadfall is projected to

increase 15 to 20 years after attack. Fallen trees become part of the non-recoverable

proportion.

6) Grade 4, while <50% merchantable, includes a component that can be milled.

7) Averages are for the province.

8) Averages are for all piece sizes.

Soil moisture regimes were not assessed in this analysis as no discernable differences in grade,

merchantable percent or LRF were observed in either shelf-life study.


35

Figure 6 Shelf-life by grade proportion and merchantable net volume

Merchantable Net Volume(%) and Grade Proportion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Years Since MPB Attack

Pe

rce

nt

(x1

00

)

Merchantable

Net Volume

Grade 1

Proportion

Grade 2

Proportion

Grade 4

Proportion

Decay & Non-

recoverable

Proportion

Observations of net merchantable volumes and grade proportion in Figure 6 can be made:

1) Grade 1 proportion steadily and rapidly declines to zero after five (5) years.

2) Grade 2 proportion increases in the first five years as grade 1 volume degrades to grade 2.

3) Grade 2 is predicted to be 50% of the net volume in 15 years at 61% merchantable.

4) Grade 2 proportion declines to zero at year 24.

5) Grade 4 proportion increases up to year 24 as the grade 2 proportion degrades.

6) Grade 4 is predicted to be 50% of the net volume in year 17 at 19% merchantable and to be

50% of the net volume in year 30 at 6% merchantable.

7) Decay and non-recoverable volume is relatively low (2-3%) for the first eight years, climbs

steadily from that point until year 26, and then increase rapidly until now recoverable

volume remains at year 32.

Several options exist for using this data to model the shelf life of pine following MPB attack. While the

sawlog decline over time would be useful for operational and medium term planning, the portion of the

stand pine volume that is unrecoverable for any purpose is the most important metric frame an AAC-

determination standpoint. This is shown as the brown line in the graph in Figure 6. Shelf life then

becomes the mirror image of this line, as shown in Table 30

Table 30 Shelf life table for pine

Years Since

Attack

Decay &

Non-

recoverable

Proportion

Recoverable

Fibre (%)

Years

Since

Attack

Decay &

Non-

recoverable

Proportion

Recoverable

Fibre (%)

0 0.0200 98% 17 0.1000 90%

1 0.0200 98% 18 0.1100 89%

2 0.0200 98% 19 0.1200 88%


36

Years Since

Attack

Decay &

Non-

recoverable

Proportion

Recoverable

Fibre (%)

Years

Since

Attack

Decay &

Non-

recoverable

Proportion

Recoverable

Fibre (%)

3 0.0200 98% 20 0.1400 86%

4 0.0200 98% 21 0.1500 85%

5 0.0200 98% 22 0.1600 84%

6 0.0300 97% 23 0.1800 82%

7 0.0300 97% 24 0.2000 80%

8 0.0300 97% 25 0.2200 78%

9 0.0500 95% 26 0.2400 76%

10 0.0500 95% 27 0.2800 72%

11 0.0600 94% 28 0.3300 67%

12 0.0700 93% 29 0.4000 60%

13 0.0700 93% 30 0.5000 50%

14 0.0700 93% 31 0.6000 40%

15 0.0800 92% 32 1.0000 0%

16 0.0900 91%

This shelf life curve will be applied to the pine component of all stands that exhibit greater than trace

amounts of MPB-caused mortality. The reduction will be applied beginning in the year that the stand

becomes very severely affected or, failing that, the year in which the stand first reaches is highest level of

impact prior to 2015.

8.1.2 Pine and Non-pine Harvest

Harvesting performance focused on salvage of mountain pine beetle infested stands in the Merritt TSA

by NSIFS licencees over the past several years has been excellent. The NSIFS MPB Strategy 2007

Annual Report for the Merritt TSA states “The 2007 harvesting was very similar to 2006 in terms of

priority category and continues to consist primarily of heavily infested MPB stands and volume at risk to

MPB. In 2007 licensees reported the volume harvested that was in blocks >70% Pl volume. Licensees

harvested 77% of the volume from >70% Pl stands. The remaining volume was in Lodgepole Pine

leading stands with most being 60 to 70 percent pine. Other harvesting in greenwood was necessary to

either meet mill needs or to manage cutting permit expiry issues. It also states that for 2008 “It is

anticipated that greater than 90% of harvest will be in heavily infested stands and greater than 95% in

heavily infested and volume at risk.” 2007 harvest was 107% of the AAC, and 2008 was planned 114%

of the AAC which shows a strong commitment to harvesting the beetle-killed timber.

8.1.3 MPB Harvest Queuing

Harvest queuing is the order in which the stands are prioritized for harvest. In the basecase, the harvest

queuing is controlled for the first 5 years (2010-2015) with stands affected before or in 2014 queued first.

Stands not harvested in the years identified will remain available for harvest and their volume will be

reduced according to the shelf-life assumptions. When the harvestable volume falls below 150 m3/ha the

stand becomes unavailable until the regenerating stand reaches a minimum harvestable condition. When

MPB-impacted stands are prioritized for harvest:

1. Minimum harvest age is reduced to age 40 to ensure that stands are not inappropriately limited

from harvest;

2. Spatial adjacency and IRM targets are not enforced;


37

3. Visual requirements are not enforced for targeted stands; and

4. All other landbase requirements are enforced (e.g. OGMA’s).

8.1.4 Unharvested MPB stands

When stand conifer volume falls below 150 m3/ha, the stand is no longer considered to be available for

harvesting. MPB affected stands that are harvested regenerate on a managed stand yield curve. Stands

that were impacted but not harvested lose the affected volume according to the rules below. All landbase

requirements are restored to normal (i.e. Visuals and IRM are turned back on). The schema below

(Figure 7) shows how the productive landbase is classified into various MPB classes and the reductions

that apply to each of these classes.

Total Productive

Landbase

THLB Non-THLB Productive

V Affected

(100% Kill)

Non-Affected

V Affected

(100% Kill)S,M,L Affected

Pine Leading S M L

(100% Kill)Non-Pine Leading

S Affected

(40% Reduction)

M Affected(20% Reduction)

L Affected

(5% Reduction)

Total Productive

Landbase

THLB Non-THLB Productive

V Affected

(100% Kill)

Non-Affected

V Affected

(100% Kill)S,M,L Affected

Pine Leading S M L

(100% Kill)Non-Pine Leading

S Affected

(40% Reduction)

M Affected(20% Reduction)

L Affected

(5% Reduction)

Figure 7 MPB affected stand classification and volume reduction

If a stand is not harvested, it is treated according to the following rules:

1. Very Severely MPB affected stands and SML MPB affected pine leading (> 60%) stands in the

ESSF and MS BEC Zones:

• No regeneration delay;

• Grow back on a natural stand yield curve using species composition shown in Table

31 and the inventory site index of the stands.


38

Table 31 Post MPB attack species composition in unmanaged stands

BEC

Zone

Moisture

Regime Species Percent

MS Dry Bl 13

MS Dry Pl 74

MS Dry Fd 13

MS Mesic Bl 80

MS Mesic Pl 9

MS Mesic Fd 5

MS Mesic Sx 6

MS Wet Bl 31

MS Wet Pl 6

MS Wet Fd 37

MS Wet Sx 20

MS Wet Pw 4

MS Wet At 2

ESSF All Pl 2

ESSF All Bl 88

ESSF All Sx 10

2. Very Severely MPB affected stands and SML MPB affected stands pine leading (> 60%), but not

in the ESSF and MS BEC Zones:

• 15-year regeneration delay;

• Grow back on the same natural stand yield curve

3. Severely, moderately and lightly MPB affected stands that are not pine leading continue growing

on the natural stand yield curve with volume reductions according to level of infestation (severe-

40%, moderate - 20% and low - 5%).

4. On non-THLB productive land, pine leading stands that are projected to be very severe impacted

by 2014 have their pine reduced by 100% in 2014. This is being done to facilitate future

landscape modelling, but is not currently needed in order to model timber supply constraints.

The 15-year regeneration delay has been accepted at the provincial level in other MPB impacted TSA’s

(as recently as June 2008 in the Kamloops TSA). However, it is recognized that the regeneration delay is

variable, depending on several factors including advanced regeneration. Actual regeneration in these

areas should be monitored for future analyses.

8.1.5 Secondary Stand Structure

Section 43.1 of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation came into force July 25, 2008 with the

intention of requiring licencees to leave MPB killed stands with an “adequate stocking density” of

“suitable secondary structure” un-harvested and to harvest pine leading stands that have little or no

secondary structure instead. By avoiding harvesting stands with adequate stocking density of suitable

secondary structure, a higher percentage of the land base will be stocked and growing timber which

should improve timber supplies. This regulation applies to the Merritt TSA at this time.

There is no information available for the Merritt TSA as to the impact of this regulation on mid-term

timber supply, or how much of the land base is currently un-available for harvest. No harvest flow

constraints will be modeled for secondary stand structure for TSR4.


39

8.1.6 Managed Stand Mortality

The NSIFS MPB Strategy 2007 Annual Report stated that “In 2007 there were several cases of older

plantations with high level of both red and green attack. It is anticipated that the beetle will not do as well

in these immature stands and the majority of beetle attack is originating from adjacent mature stands.

Once the beetle populations decline within a landscape unit the infestations in these plantations should

subside.”

The impact and severity projections in the Merritt TSA from the “Integration of GIS Analysis and Field

Evaluation to Identify Young Lodgepole Pine at Risk to Mountain Pine Beetle. Phase 3: Impact and

Severity Projections” report were used to model attack levels in susceptible stands. The NSIFS agreed to

apply the 2008 projections to pine-leading stands between the ages of 20 to 60 years of age, but felt that

the 2012 projections were too severe (87% of stands with S or VS attack). The report also acknowledges

that the predictions are likely too severe for 2012. The percentage of young stands by categories of

attack level for 2008 are provided in Table 32 below.

Table 32 Amount of Attack in Young Pine Stands in the Merritt TSA

Attack Level N or T=<3% L=3-10% M=11-30% S=30-50% VS=>51%

% of young

stands 44% 20% 20% 8% 7%

The MPB impact for most of these stands will be captured in the NSYT as they were established prior to

1987 and are not considered to be managed stands (as per Section 6.5.1). For the very young stands (less

than 30 years), 88% of pine-leading stands in the TSA showed either no MPB infestation or only trace

amounts of MPB. Given that impact levels are low in this age class, and that the non-pine component of

these stand will likely see increased rates of growth due to reduced overstorey competition, no yield

adjustment will be made on these stands; the assigned managed stand yield tables will be used with no

reduction to the pine component.

8.1.7 Forests for Tomorrow Program

The provincial government established the Forest for Tomorrow (FFT) program to respond to the

catastrophic wildfires and the mountain pine beetle epidemic. The program is aimed at improving the

future timber supply and addressing risks to the forest values through the re-establishment of young

forests on land that would otherwise remain un-productive. The program focuses on land that is

primarily within the THLB yet outside of forest industry obligations.

The FFT program in the Merritt TSA has completed reforestation on over 1,500 ha in the Merritt TSA to

date. This includes the planting of 1,950,305 seedlings from 2003-2009. The FFT program initially

focused on areas impacted by forest fires (Lawless Fire, Friday Fire) but is now shifting into stands

impacted by mountain pine beetle. The five-year plan for the FFT program in the Merritt TSA is to

target between 1,000-1,500 ha of age-class 3 pine leading stands for overstory removal and planting.

This stand type typically has the least amount of understory regeneration due to high stem densities. The

FFT program operated in 21 hectares in 2008 and 251 hectares of beetle impacted stands to date in 2009.

The five year projection is entirely dependant on the continuation of funding and the amount of eligible

stands on the land-base. The reforestation of the beetle and fire-impacted stands in the TSA will have a

positive impact of the long-term cut levels for the TSA. No impact from the FFT program will be

modeled for this analysis.


40

9.0 MANAGEMENT ZONES, GROUPS AND OBJECTIVES

9.1 Overview

The Merritt TSA supports non-timber resource demands which are expressed in analysis as forest cover

objectives. The analysis will apply forest cover objectives to model wildlife habitat guidelines,

biodiversity, hydrologic green-up, and visual quality objectives. Forest cover objectives place maximum

and minimum limits on the amount of young second growth and/or old growth found in RMZ’s.

Current forest resource management practices are modeled using forest cover requirements. This section

provides a summary of the forest cover objectives.

Unique management characteristics are modeled by grouping areas into resource management zones

(RMZ’s), which are aggregates of area with similar non-timber resource concerns. These include visual

sensitivity and wildlife habitat. Maximum disturbance (based on green-up height requirements) and

minimum mature and old growth forest cover objectives will be assigned to each RMZ forest cover group

to address needs of the resource. RMZ’s are aggregated within each landscape unit to reflect operational

management of the resource. Where RMZ classifications overlap, areas must meet all overlapping forest

cover objectives before harvesting.

9.1.1 Ungulate Winter Range (UWR)

Government Action Regulation

Mule Deer Winter Range in the Merritt TSA is under a Government Action Regulation Order. This

Order also covers winter range for Bighorn sheep, Elk, and White-tailed deer. Ungulate winter range for

deer, sheep and elk identifies a maximum of 315,870 ha, not exceeding a net impact equivalent to 7,000

ha of mature timber harvesting land base at 100% forest cover retention.

One of the objectives of the order is to maintain threshold levels of stands that will provide snow

interception cover. These are defined as stands at least 16 metres in height with sufficient crown closure

to intercept snow. The threshold level in each planning cell is determined by the Snowpack Zone into

which it falls. This is assigned based on BEC zone, subzone and variant. Table 33 summarizes the

constraints that will be modeled.

Table 33 Planning Cell Snow Interception Requirements

Snowpack Zone BEC Units Snow Interception

Requirement

(% of planning cell)

Shallow BG, PP, IDFxh1, IDFxh1a,

IDFxh2, IDFxh2a

15 %

Moderate IDFdk1, IDFdk1a, IDFdk2,

IDFdk3, IDFunk, MS

33%

Deep ESSF, ICH, CWH 40%


41

Section 7(2) Notices

Notices given under Section 7(2) of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation have been issued for

moose and mountain goat. Moose winter range amounts to 694,072 ha with no impact to the timber

supply. Winter foraging habitat and cover is to be distributed within moose winter ranges according to

the attributes within the Notice. Mountain goats require a maximum of 6,916 ha with no impact to the

timber supply. Habitat requirements for escape terrain, foraging, thermal and security cover and snow

interception are identified in the Section 7 Notice.

9.1.2 Community Watersheds (CWS)

Forest Stewardship Plan results and strategies for preventing the cumulative hydrological effects of

primary forest activities within the community watersheds which may result in a materially adverse

impact require that a hydrological assessment be completed for the watershed (or relevant portions

thereof) where ECA >25% (30% for BCTS). No harvesting constraints resulting from assessments have

been identified by NSIFS at this time. However, an Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) of 30% has been

agreed to for modeling in TSR4 as requested by the MoFR Cascades District. The associated disturbance

limits will be represented explicitly in terms of height. Specifically, the proportion of the productive

landbase permitted to be less than 6.6 meters in height will be restricted to 30%. Stands managed under a

selection harvest silvicultural system will be assumed to meet adjacency and green up requirements

within community watersheds at all times.

9.1.3 Integrated Resource Management Areas (IRM)

A three pass harvesting system will be assumed for clearcut stands within the integrated resource

management zone, along with a 3 meter green-up height. The maximum disturbance limit of 33% on the

productive landbase will be applied within each of the twelve landscape units.

9.1.4 Visual Quality Objectives (VQO)

The spatial definition of visually sensitive areas is unchanged from TSR3. The visual landscape

inventory for the Merritt TSA formally established VQO’s on September 30, 2003. The limits to

disturbance within those areas will be represented explicitly in terms of height. Stands managed under a

selection harvest silvicultural system will be assumed to meet green up and thermal cover conditions

within visually sensitive areas at all times. The requirements shown in Table 34 will be applied within

each individual visually sensitive polygon to non-salvage related scenarios only.

Table 34 Visually sensitive areas cover requirements

Disturbance

VQO Max % Alteration Minimum Height

Preservation 5 3

Retention 10 3

Partial Retention 30 3

Modification Unlimited 3


42

9.2 Timber Harvesting

9.2.1 Minimum Harvest Age

Minimum harvest age (MHA) was assessed for each AU, as the age at which the stand volume reaches

90% MAI (mean annual increment) with a minimum volume of 150 m3/ha. Minimum harvest age, MAI,

DBH and volume per ha is shown for each AU. The MHA by AU is shown in Table 35 below.

Table 35 Minimum harvest ages, at 90% of culmination MAI

Natural Analysis Units Managed Analysis Units

AU

MHA

(yrs)

90%

MAI

(m3/ha/yr)

DBH

(cm)

Volume

(m3/ha) AU

MHA

(yrs)

90%

MAI

(m3/ha/yr)

DBH

(cm)

Volume

(m3/ha)

1 70 2.29 19.5 160 101 60 3.10 19.8 186

2 100 1.62 26.5 162 102 60 2.72 19.1 163

3 120 1.38 27.9 165 103 90 1.89 19.4 170

4 110 1.36 29.4 150 104 70 2.77 19.9 194

5 80 2.19 20.3 175 105 60 2.87 19.5 172

6 110 1.54 27.2 169 106 70 2.64 19.9 185

7 120 1.33 28.2 159 107 90 1.91 19.5 172

8 100 1.72 27.3 172 108 60 3.07 21.1 184

9 70 2.39 19.7 167 109 60 3.25 21.4 195

10 130 1.17 28.7 152 110 110 1.61 21.1 177

11 110 1.50 27.4 165 111 90 1.72 19.4 155

12 100 1.59 26.8 159 112 60 3.83 21 230

13 70 2.34 19.5 164 113 50 3.18 19.3 159

14 70 2.70 25.5 189 114 50 4.22 20.6 211

15 80 2.01 26.4 161 115 60 2.62 19.3 157

16 100 1.66 26.9 166 116 80 1.94 19.7 155

17 100 1.72 26.9 172 117 60 3.38 20.9 203

18 70 2.41 19.6 169 118 60 3.63 21.2 218

19 100 1.53 26.9 153 119 80 2.20 20.2 176

20 100 1.60 26.3 160 120 60 2.78 19.9 167

21 70 2.19 19.5 153 121 50 3.26 19.7 163

22 110 1.45 27.4 160 122 90 2.07 21 186

23 90 1.88 26.4 169 123 60 2.87 20.5 172

24 120 1.36 27.9 163 124 110 1.59 21.9 175

25 90 1.74 26.2 157 125 50 3.38 21.5 169

26 80 2.01 19.8 161 126 60 2.77 19.3 166

27 110 1.46 25.2 161 127 70 2.20 19 154

28 110 1.50 27.4 165 128 80 2.14 19.5 171

29 90 1.92 20.9 173 129 70 2.63 20.5 184

30 80 1.88 19.5 150 130 60 2.58 18.9 155

31 130 1.20 31.3 156 131 70 2.59 20.9 181

32 90 1.73 21.7 156 132 60 3.17 21.1 190

33 80 2.06 20.2 165 133 50 4.12 21.6 206

34 120 1.27 30.4 152 134 50 3.02 19.9 151

35 80 1.94 25.2 155 135 50 3.96 21.4 198

36 130 1.18 30.9 153 136 70 2.67 21.1 187

37 70 2.19 20 153 137 40 4.00 18.3 160

38 100 1.59 28.7 159 138 50 3.58 19 179


43


AU

MHA

(yrs)

90%

MAI

(m3/ha/yr)

DBH

(cm)

Volume

(m3/ha) AU

MHA

(yrs)

90%

MAI

(m3/ha/yr)

DBH

(cm)

Volume

(m3/ha)

39 70 2.26 25.9 158 139 50 4.36 20 218

40 120 1.31 30.3 157 140 60 2.87 18.6 172

41 90 1.90 21.8 171 141 50 3.42 18.6 171

42 90 1.70 24.6 153 142 50 3.02 18 151

43 80 2.00 20.1 160 143 40 3.95 18.4 158

44 120 1.35 30.8 162 144 50 3.34 18.7 167

45 90 2.03 27.4 183 145 50 4.02 19.6 201

47 120 1.29 32.8 155 147 100 1.55 22.9 155

48 120 1.28 31.8 154 148 90 1.93 23.6 174

49 140 1.14 33.3 159 149 100 1.53 22.4 153

50 130 1.17 31.5 152 150 140 1.08 24.9 151

51 90 1.83 27.1 165 151 90 1.94 25.9 175

52 80 2.06 20.1 165 152 50 3.66 19.1 183

53 90 1.70 25.8 153 153 50 4.00 19.6 200

54 110 1.37 29.2 151 154 60 3.17 19.4 190

55 110 1.51 29.5 166 155 60 3.28 19.2 197

56 90 1.93 21.5 174 156 50 3.80 18.9 190

57 100 1.73 27.1 173 157 50 3.74 18.9 187

58 110 1.44 28 158 158 80 2.18 18.6 174

59 70 2.14 18.9 150 159 50 4.28 19.5 214

60 90 1.78 25.7 160 160 50 3.96 19.2 198

61 100 1.62 27.4 162 161 70 2.36 18.3 165

62 110 1.56 29.8 172 162 50 3.22 18 161

63 80 2.11 19.5 169 163 50 3.76 20.8 188

64 100 1.72 26 172 164 50 3.54 20.5 177

65 110 1.49 29.1 164 165 60 3.02 20.6 181

66 110 1.54 28 169 166 70 2.14 19.7 150

67 90 1.96 20.5 176 167 60 2.93 21.6 176

68 90 1.74 25.1 157 168 60 2.67 21 160

69 80 1.98 19.4 158 169 50 3.58 19.7 179

70 90 1.77 25.4 159 170 50 3.36 19.3 168

71 120 1.27 29.9 152 171 60 3.18 20.9 191

72 90 1.91 20.8 172 172 50 3.74 20.8 187

73 80 2.05 19.9 164 173 50 3.46 18.9 173

74 90 1.97 28.2 177 174 60 3.33 19.3 200

75 70 2.26 19.4 158 175 50 4.10 19.3 205

76 90 1.94 27.8 175 176 50 3.74 18.8 187

77 100 1.60 25.8 160 177 80 1.99 18.1 159

78 90 1.68 27.2 151 178 60 3.42 19.3 205

79 70 2.66 25.3 186 179 40 3.80 18.1 152

80 80 2.26 25.5 181 180 60 3.32 19.7 199

81 90 2.03 26.9 183 181 50 3.52 21.2 176

82 90 1.74 28.1 157 182 60 3.30 21.2 198

83 80 1.94 29.2 155 183 70 2.30 23 161

84 80 1.98 26.8 158 184 70 2.63 20.7 184

85 80 2.14 26.4 171 185 50 3.84 18.7 192

86 160 0.94 37.1 151 186 140 1.07 19.8 150


44


AU

MHA

(yrs)

90%

MAI

(m3/ha/yr)

DBH

(cm)

Volume

(m3/ha) AU

MHA

(yrs)

90%

MAI

(m3/ha/yr)

DBH

(cm)

Volume

(m3/ha)

87 130 1.25 32.8 163 187 90 1.91 20.4 172

88 120 1.38 20.2 166 188 50 3.62 20.6 181

89 110 1.37 20.3 151 189 50 3.92 21.3 196

90 110 1.38 20.3 152 190 60 2.57 18.9 154

91 140 1.07 34.4 150 191 140 1.07 34.4 150

92 130 1.21 34 157 192 130 1.21 34 157

It should be recognized that the application of cover constraints in particular zones may delay stand entry

well beyond these minimum ages. This will result in realized long-term harvest levels that are lower than

the theoretical Long Run Sustained Yield (LRSY).

9.2.2 Silviculture Systems

There are two harvest methods that will be employed across the Merritt TSA:

1. Conventional clear cut and

2. Single tree selection

9.2.3 Initial Harvest Rate

The current AAC for the Merritt TSA is 2.8 million m3/yr which includes an uplift of 1,000,000m

3/year

for MPB salvage. The base case initial harvest rate will be affected by the amount of pine able to be

harvested while still fulfilling land base requirements. The initial base case model runs will use 2.8

million m3/yr. However, if the beetle forecasting and constraints suggest another level is more

appropriate based on economic, environmental and social objectives then the initial harvest rate will be

adjusted.

9.2.4 Harvest Rule

Harvest rules are used by the simulation model to rank stands for harvest. During the first 10 years of

modeling, pine leading MPB affected stands (in order of severity) will be prioritized for harvest first.

The rule used in this analysis will be driven by oldest first. Harvest rules interact with forest cover

constraints to determine the actual order of harvesting within the model. If a higher ranked stand is in a

constrained zone and cannot be harvested then the model will choose the next highest ranked stand that is

unconstrained to be harvested.

9.2.5 Harvest Flow Objectives

Forest cover objectives and the biological capacity of the net timber harvesting land base (THLB)

ultimately dictate the harvest level. In this analysis, the main objective of the base-case is to:

• Identify the amount of pine able to be harvested to determine an appropriate initial harvest level;

• To mitigate the impact of MPB on the mid-term timber supply; and

• Have a long run harvest level that reflects managed stand yields and non-timber resource values,

and is sustainable.


45

10.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

10.1 Overview

This section briefly describes the sensitivity analyses that will be performed on the base case. The

sensitivities reflect the stability of the base case in the face of uncertainty surrounding specific analysis

assumptions. They also reflect the impact of alternative management or potential changes in forest

practices.

Sensitivity analysis provides a measure of the reasonable upper and lower bounds of the harvest forecast,

reflecting the uncertainty of assumptions made in the base case. The magnitude of the increase and

decrease in the sensitivity variable reflects the degree of uncertainty surrounding the assumption

associated with that given variable. By developing and testing a number of sensitivity analyses, it is

possible to determine which variables most influence results. To allow meaningful comparison of

sensitivity analyses, they are usually performed using the base case (i.e. current performance) and

varying only the assumption being tested (i.e. all other assumptions remain the same as in the base case).

The sensitivities that will be carried out for this analysis are listed in Table 36.

Table 36 Sensitivity analyses

Issue Sensitivity Test

Adjust natural stand yields by ± 10%

Adjust managed stand yields by ± 5%

Adjust minimum harvest age by ± 10 years

Adjust minimum harvest volume to 100 m3/ha

Adjust stand productivity ± 3 meters

Adjust regen delay in beetle-killed stands, 15 years

Growth and Yield

Landbase classification

Adjust net harvesting landbase (THLB) by ± 10%

Alternative harvest queue, random vs. oldest first Harvest Flow

Extend uplift for 20 year period at highest level possible


46

11.0 REFERENCES

Chan, Rocky. July 2009. Forest For Tomorrow, MoFR Southern Interior Region. Personal

Communication.

Eco-concepts Ecological Services Ltd. 2001. Structural Stage Algorithm for the Merritt TSA. Prepared

for Nicola Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society. Kelowna. 24 pp.

Eng, M. 2004. Forest Stewardship in the Context of Large-Scale Salvage Operations: An Interpretation

Paper. Ministry of Forests. 10 pp.

Hodson, Rich. March 2009. Tenures Forester, MoFR Cascades Forest District. Personal

Communication.

Hope, G. 1999. Road, Landing and Trails for TSR – Merritt TSA. March 12, 1999. 4 pp. Personal

Communication, March 2009.

J.S. Thrower and Associates. 2003. Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables for the Merritt IFPA

Innovative Analysis. Contract report to the Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society. 58 pp.

J.S. Thrower and Associates. 2002. Vegetation Resources Inventory Statistical Adjustment for the

Merritt TSA. Final Report. October 24, 2002.

Keystone Wildlife Research and Nk’losm resource Management. March 2002. Local Watershed

Expert Model for the Merritt Timber Supply area for the NSIFS.

Kossinn, Ralph. March, July 2009. Tenures Forester, MoFR Cascades Forest District. Personal

Communication.

LeRoy, Matt. March 2009. Decision Support Analyst, MoFR Tree Improvement Branch, Victoria.

Personal Communication.

Maclauchlan, Lorraine and Hodge, Janice. April 2009. Integration of GIS Analysis and Field

Evaluation to Identify Young Lodgepole Pine at Risk to Mountain Pine Beetle. Phase 3: Impact and

Severity Projections. 11 pp.

Ministry of Forests, 2001. Merritt Timber Supply Area Analysis Report. Victoria. 126 pp.

Ministry of Forests. 2006. Scaling Manual. Amendment No.7. Chapter 6. April 1, 2006.

Ministry of Forests and Range. 2005. Urgent Timber Supply Review for the Merritt Timber Supply

Area Analysis Report. 15 pp.

Nedokus, Ed. March 2009. Stewardship Officer, MoFR Cascades Forest District. Personal

Communication.

Nigh, G., Parish, R., Research Branch MoFR, Victoria, BC, Antos, J., University of Victoria, Victoria,

BC. March 2008. Density and distribution of advance regeneration in pine stands under attack by the

MPB in the MS Zone.

NSIFS Board of Directors. NSIFS MPB Strategy 2007 Annual Report. January 2008. 9pp.

Salomon-de-Friedberg, Elizabeth. March 2009. Nicola Watershed Community Round Table.

Personal Communication.

Sampson, Tracy. March 2009. Nicola Watershed Stewardship and Fisheries Authority. Personal

Communication.

Smith, Gail. March 2009. GIS Analyst, MoFR Cascades Forest District. Personal Communication.


47

Snetsinger, J., Chief Forester, MoFR. July 2005. Merritt Timber Supply Area – Rationale for

Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination. July 1, 2005. 58 pp.

Stone, Jeff. March 2009. Timber Supply Analyst, MoFR Southern Interior Region. Personal

Communication.

Taylor, Dr. John. FPInnovations – Forintek. December 2008. Comparison of Lumber Recovery and

Value Yields from Green Lodgepole Pine Logs and Grey-stage (5+ years) Mountain Pine Beetle

Attacked Logs. 26 pp.

Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2002a. Spatially Explicit Genetic Gain Estimates in

Operationally Applied Timber Supply Analyses. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Tree Improvement Branch.

Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2002b. Timberline Site Index Correlated To

Ecosystems Tree Farm Licence 49. Riverside Forest Products Limited.

Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2003a. Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry

Society Innovative Forestry Practices Agreement, Innovative Timber Supply Analysis. Victoria. 67 pp

plus appendices.

Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2003b. Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry

Society Innovative Forestry Practices Agreement, Innovative Timber Supply Analysis Information

Package. Victoria. 80 pp.

Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2006. Merritt TSA. Type 2 Silviculture Strategy.

Ministry of Forests and Range, Forests for Tomorrow.

Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2007. Merritt TSA. Mule Deer Winter Range Timber

Supply Impact Analysis.

Zacharatos, T.P., Regional Manager Southern Interior Forest Region, MoFR. August 2007. Merritt

Timber Supply Area – Rationale for Increase in Allowable Annual Cut (AAC). IFPA. August 2, 2007.

39 pp.


80

Appendix B – Updates to the Data Package This section describes the updates and/or corrections to the Data Package (see Appendix A). Data Package –Page 7. Forest Cover (Note 5). The forest inventory ages and heights were adjusted, as per the 2001 Statistical Adjustment report (J.S. Thrower, 2001) and the adjusted ages/heights/site indices were then projected to 2009 (end-of-year-2008). This included a volume adjustment, using VDYP 6.6d. Note that the (forest cover) inventory site index values will change indirectly as a result of the adjustments made to the age/height values. Table 21 Age, Height and Volume adjustment factors applied to the forest inventory.

Parameter Age Height Volume VAF 0.961 0.954 1.033

Source: Thrower (2001) Data Package – Pg 7. Forest Cover (Note 5) and Depletions (Note 4) “Updates were applied using licensee cutblock information.” The final stand ages were adjusted using the updates based on these assumptions:

1) if the stand was “logged” and no year of logging is available, assume age=3, 2) if the updates indicated that the stand was very recently logged, and not updated in the forest inventory, then assume age=0, 3) if this is a STS stand type, assume age=age-in-the-forest-inventory 4) if the stand was logged and a year of logging was available, then assume either

a) if age < number-of-years-since-year-of-logging , then age=age-in-forest-inventory, else b) age= a maximum of the number-of-years-since-year-of-logging

Pg. 9. Landbase Classification, Sections 5.4+ (individual netdowns) Netdowns were re-compiled. Two major changes are:

a) Problem forest type thresholds were based on the “inventory” site index values, rather than the “potential site index” (PEM-based site index) values. This changed the PFT netdowns from 14,170 (in the Data Package) to 20,729 ha (in the analysis). b) Existing roads trails and landings (RTL) were treated as a productive forest reduction (i.e. treated as NP rather than productive) rather than a THLB reduction. The entry for RTLs moves from the bottom of the table, from a CFLB/THLB netdown, to the top of the table, into the NCLB/CFLB netdowns.

The net effect is to reduce the existing timber harvesting landbase to 625,080 ha (as in the following table), versus 633,271 ha in the Data Package.


81

Page 9. Landbase Classification.

Category Total

Area (ha)

Percent Of Total Area (%)

Percent Of

Productive Area (%)

Total land base 1,129,086 100.0 Reductions

Private, Woodlots, non-contributing administrative classes 210,078 18.6 Non-forest, non-productive forest 99,201 8.8

Roads, trails, landings 16,249 1.4 Total Reductions 325,528 28.8 Total productive land base 803,558 71.2 100.0Reductions

Parks and protected areas 10,915 1.0 1.4Terrain and ESAs 46,521 4.1 5.8

Inoperable 24,392 2.2 3.0PFT / Non-merchantable 20,729 1.8 2.6Archaeological / cultural 535 0.0 0.1

Riparian reserves 19,851 1.8 2.5Heritage trails 115 0.0 0.0Water intakes 3 0.0 0.0WTP reserves 9,727 0.9 1.2

Biodiversity: OGMA 45,692 4.0 5.7Total Reductions 178,478 15.8 22.2Current Timber Harvesting Land Base 625,080 55.4 77.8

Future roads and trails 21,878 1.9 2.7Future WTPs 18,096 1.6 2.3

Net long-term Timber Harvesting Land Base 585,106 51.8 72.8Notes: 1. All totals are subject to rounding. 2. Any overlaps between net-downs are removed. Any overlapping area will accrue to the first (highest) category in the table. Pg 17: Existing Roads, Trails and Landings (RTL). RTLs were removed from the productive landbase. Note that the Data Package text states this was the intention. Pg 23: Sec 6.2. Analysis Unit Definitions. All natural stand analysis units were partially defined by the “base Managed Stand analysis units”. These are the units depicted in Table 21 of the Data Package. In other words, all natural stand analysis units are nested within the “base managed stand” analysis units, which are the stands they eventually become, if harvested. Hence, the definition of the base managed stands analysis units also form one of the criteria for defining the natural stand analysis units. The other parameters that define the natural stand analysis units are: landbase type (NHLB/THLB), BEC, site series, leading species (or inventory type group), percentage of pine, site index (a range), management regime (CC/STS/Grassland conversion), year (in 10’s) of maximum MPB-attack, level of MPB-attack (nil, trace, low, moderate, severe, very-severe) and regeneration assumptions (if the pine component of the stand is killed by MPB, whether or not the stand starts over at age=0, and whether or not a regeneration delay is applied, and what the species profile is for the regenerating stand). The result is over 9000 natural stand yield tables / analysis units. The small-wood, STS and grassland conversion analysis units are “forest management based”. These were defined by combinations of BEC, ITG, site index and age, and logging status (Y/N).


82

Table 22 Definitions of the smallwood, STS and grassland analysis units AU_TYPE AU_BASE BEC ITG site_index_and_age Logged Smallwood 88 Not IDF and Not ESSF 28,29,30,31 si<10 and age < 60 No Smallwood 88 Not IDF and Not ESSF 28,29,30,31 si<14 and age >=60 No Smallwood 89 IDF 28,29,30,31 si<10 and age < 60 No Smallwood 89 IDF 28,29,30,31 si<14 and age >=60 No Smallwood 90 ESSF 28,29,30,31 si<10 and age < 60 No Smallwood 90 ESSF 28,29,30,31 si<14 and age >=60 No

Selection 91 BG, PP, IDF xh, IDF dk, 1,6,7,8,32,33,34 any N/A Selection 92 IDF dk1, MS xk 1,6,7,8,32,33,34 any N/A

Grassland 79 BG xw 1 Any Any N/A

Pg24: Table 21. Description (of managed stand yield tables). The entries in the “Description” (AU name) column of Table 21 are not unique. The descriptions, below, are more appropriate. The descriptions are based on BEC (e.g. IDFxh1), site series (e.g. PG, or Oth for “all others”) and leading species (e.g. “B” for balsam, or “Oth” for all other species). Notes:

• AU numbers 91 and 92 are STS-type analysis units, which use natural stand (not managed stand) yield table parameters, so they are not truly to be included in this table. AU 99 is non-managed stands, non-THLB, so it also isn’t a managed stand, but it is used in the databases to indicate “not managed stand”.

• Any table of managed stand analysis units, if numbered from 1 to 92 correspond to the same AU’s numbered 101 to 192 (i.e. AU 1 = AU 101, 2=102, etc). Both sets of numbers are found in the Data Package.

Table 23 Managed stand analysis unit descriptions. AU Description AU Description AU Description

1 ESSFdc/p_Oth_Oth 32 IDFdk1/a_FJ_Pine 62 MSdm2_Oth_F 2 ESSFdc/p_Oth_Sx 33 IDFdk1/a_Oth_Pine 63 MSxk_Oth_Oth 3 ESSFdc/p_Oth_B 34 IDFdk1/a_Oth_Oth 64 MSxk_Oth_Sx 4 ESSFdc/p_Oth_F 35 IDFdk1/a_Oth_Sx 65 MSxk_Oth_F 5 ESSFdc/p_PG_Oth 36 IDFdk1/a_Oth_At 66 MSxk_Oth_B 6 ESSFdc/p_PG_Sx 37 IDFdk2_ZG_Pine 67 MSxk_LJ_Other 7 ESSFdc/p_PG_B 38 IDFdk2_ZG_Oth 68 MSxk_LJ_Sx 8 ESSFdc/p_PG_Sx 39 IDFdk2_ZG_Sx 69 MSxk_LG_Other 9 ESSFdc/p_BB_Oth 40 IDFdk2_ZC_Oth 70 MSxk_LG_Sx 10 ESSFdc/p_PG_B 41 IDFdk2_ZC_Pine 71 MSxk_ZF_F 11 ESSFmw/p_BR_Oth 41 IDFdk2_ZC_Pine 72 MSxk_ZF_Other 12 ESSFmw/p_BR_Sx 42 IDFdk2_ZC_Sx 73 MSmw_PG_Oth 13 ESSFmw/p_BR_Pine 43 IDFdk2_Oth_Pine 74 MSmw_FF_Any 14 ESSFmw/p_BR_H 44 IDFdk2_Oth_Oth 75 MSmw_Oth_Oth 15 ESSFmw/p_BR_F 45 IDFdk2_Oth_Sx 76 MSmw_PG_Sx 16 ESSFmw/p_Oth_Oth 46 IDFdk2_Oth_At 77 MSmw_Oth_B 17 ESSFmw/p_Oth_Sx 48 IDFxh1/a_Oth_Oth 78 MSmw_Oth_F 18 ESSFmw/p_Oth_Pine 49 IDFxh1/a_Oth_Oth 79 BGxw1_Any_Any 19 ESSFmw/p_BF_Oth 50 IDFxh1/a_PS_Any 80 CWHms1_Any_Any 20 ESSFmw/p_BF_Sx 51 IDFxh1/a_Oth_Sx 81 IDFdk1/a_GM_Any 21 ESSFmw/p_FP_Pine 52 MSdm2_ZG_Other 82 IDFdk2_BF_Any 22 ESSFmw/p_FP_Oth 53 MSdm2_ZG_Sx 83 IDFdk1/a_BB_Any 23 ESSFmw/p_FP_Sx 54 MSdm2_ZG_F 84 IDFxh2/a_FB_Any 24 ESSFmw/p_SG_Oth 55 MSdm2_ZF_F 85 MSmw_Oth_Sx 25 ESSFmw/p_SG_Sx 56 MSdm2_ZF_Other 86 PP_Any_Other 26 ESSFxc/p_Oth_Oth 57 MSdm2_ZF_Sx 87 PP_Any_F 27 ESSFxc/p_Oth_Sx 58 MSdm2_ZF_B 88 Smallwood_Other 28 ESSFxc/p_Oth_B 59 MSdm2_Oth_Oth 89 Smallwood_IDF 29 ESSFxc/p_JL_Any 60 MSdm2_Oth_Sx 90 Smallwood_ESSF 30 ESSFxc/p_BR_Any 61 MSdm2_Oth_B 91 STS_BG/PPxh/IDF


83

92 STS_MSxk Pg 26: Regeneration Delay. Regeneration delays for the Batch TIPSY 4.1-generated yield tables (managed stands) were incorporated into the yield curves, not through model functionality. Pg 28: Douglas-fir retention. The following “base managed stands” were those designated as having Douglas fir-retention (15 m3/ha): AU: 4, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41, 43, 44, 54, 55, 56, 62, 65, 71, 72, 74, and 78. Pg 28: Future Roads, Trails, and Landings The future RTL reduction is 3.5%, and is applied to (only) the managed stand yield tables. Pg 29: Single Tree Selection partial cutting analysis units’ yield tables. The yield curves for the STS analysis units natural stand yield tables (# 91 and # 92) were based on VDYP6.6d projections. It was assumed that the maximum target volume removal was 50% of the standing volume, and the target, minimum residual volume was 75 m3/ha (half of the minimum harvest threshold volume threshold of 150 m3/ha). The STS harvest entries were modeled as:

1) standing, merchantable volume at time of entry: 1) if the volume was 150 m3/ha then 75 m3 is harvested, and 75m3/ha is left on site, or 2) if the volume was greater than 150 m3/ha, then the stand volume was harvested down to 75 m3/ha.

2) In either case, the new stand age is the age at which 75 m3/ha occurs on the natural stand yield curve. The stand age following a harvest entry will, therefore, vary according to the species mix and the site index of the stand.

Pg 30: Site index - PSI PSI (potential site index) is used in the production of the managed stand yield tables (TIPSY 4.1-based yield curves). Inventory site index is used in the natural stand yield tables (VDYP 6.6d based yield curves). The exception, for the natural stand yield tables only, is in the VDYP7-projected sensitivity analysis run, which used the site index values that were derived from the adjusted age and adjusted height values that came from the (draft) Vegetation Resources Inventory Statistical Adjustment project (Jahraus and Churlish, 2009). Pg 31: Sec 7.1 Non Recoverable Losses (NRL) Unsalvaged losses varied during the planning horizon. No mountain pine beetle (MPB) endemic losses were modeled for the first 40 years of the planning horizon. The NRL value for this period is 74,785 m3/yr. MPB endemic losses were applied in the mid- and long-term (year=41+). The NRL figure for this portion of the planning horizon was 143,626. Table 24 Non-recoverable losses during the Base Case planning horizon.

Disturbance Agent

Annual loss for years 1 to 40 (m3/yr)

Annual loss for years 41+ (m3/yr)

Spruce bark beetle 25,000 25,000 Wind 18,565 18,565 Fire 31,220 31,220 Mountain pine beetle 0 68,841 Total 74,785 143,628 Pg 36: MPB Harvest Queuing, and Pg. 44: Harvest Rule MPB stands are prioritized for harvest during the first 40 years of harvest. The assumptions behind this figure are:


84

1) The Shelf Life curve is potentially in effect for 32 years (as per Table 30 in the Data Package), and 2) The latest year when the shelf life curve starts is 2014 (the last possible year of maximum MPB attack level, aka “MPB_SLYR” in the database). Calendar year 2014 is the 6th year in the modeling. 3) Hence 32+6 = 38 years, rounded to 40 years.

Note that almost all of the MPB attack and harvest/salvage occurs in years=1 to 35 (Section 4.0.) The Smallwood, spruce bark beetle (SBB)-attacked stands and MPB-attacked stands were prioritized for harvest based on

1) SBB-attacked stands were prioritized first, up to a maximum of 300,000 m3/yr. 2) Smallwood stands were prioritized second, up to a maximum of 312,500 m3/yr 3) For all MPB-attacked stands with a minimum net stand volume of 150 m3/ha:

3a) before all other stands (other natural stands without pine, existing managed stands, etc) 3b) earliest MPB_SLYR (e.g. 2004, 2006, … 2014) All other factors being equal, prioritize stands attacked in 2004 versus later years. 3c) MPB attack level. All other factors equal, stands with VS attack are prioritized over S-attack stands. 3d) volume of standing pine in the stand, all else being equal, a stand with 300 m3/ha of pine is a higher priority than one with 200 m3/ha of pine. 3d) Factors “3a” to “3d” are on a weighted scale, such that stands with a very high pine volume in the S category, and a MBP_SLYR=2014, could be prioritized over a S-attack stand, in MPB_SLYR=2010, if that stand had a very low pine volume.

The final, assigned priority value will tend to concentrate the MPB harvest (or salvage) onto the stands with the earliest and highest potential loss of merchantable pine volume. Pg 38/37: Non-harvested MPB stands / Shelf Life Table. A detailed description of the MPB-modeling is included in section 3.4. Shelf life curves will impact the minimum harvest ages (MHA), and create, in some stands, a window of harvest ages where the stand is above the 150m3/ha threshold at one age, but over time and as the shelf life reductions become greater the stand volume falls below 150 m3/ha. The regeneration assumptions for MPB-killed stands (i.e. after the Shelf Life period) will determine the fate, or eligibility of the stand to be harvested) in the future.

1) Stands that continue growing on same yield curve, but the pine volumes have been reduced (by 5, 20, 40 or 100%) Depending on the proportion of the pine in a stand, the stand may again reach the 150 m3/ha threshold even if all the pine is no longer merchantable. Or, the stand may not reach the 150m3/ha threshold any time in the future. These stands become “MPB-impoverished stands”. 2) Regenerate to the same or a new species mix, but after a regeneration delay. 3) Regenerate to the same or different species mix, with no regeneration delay.

Shelf Life Table – Fibre-based Recoverable Volume All the volumes in the analysis are sawlog-based volumes. The shelf life curve, however, is “fibre-based”, in terms of how it is applied to the MPB-attacked pine volume (which is sawlog-based volume). In other words, the shelf life curve determines the proportion of the MPB-attacked (sawlog) pine that is considered to be merchantable, from a fibre-perspective, regardless of whether or not that volume has actually degraded to less-than-sawlog quality. Management Zones: MPB-modeling: The VQO and IRM constraints are “turned off” for the first 20 years of the planning horizon to allow as much harvesting as possible within the MPB-attacked stands.


85

Pg 42: Minimum harvest ages Minimum harvest ages for natural stand yield tables are not provided in hardcopy format, as there are over 9000 natural stand analysis units. Note that for many of the MPB-attacked stands a minimum and a maximum age (an age window) exists where the stand is eligible for harvest, corresponding to when it reaches the minimum volume threshold (150m3/ha), and prior to it falling to below the minimum volume threshold due to the shelf life curve reduction. Pg 42: Table 35. This is a table of managed stand analysis units (or yield tables). The columns on the left (“natural analysis units”) are the “base managed stand” analysis units. They represent potential values (such as a potential minimum harvest age (MHA) based on the inventory site index. The columns on the left are not used, as such, in the analysis. The columns on the right are the values for the managed stand analysis units, and are used in the analysis. They represent MHA values based on the PSI value, and they are generated using the Batch TIPSY 4.1 model and the inputs in Table 21, as well as the managed stand yield table reductions (e.g. RTL and WTP). Pg 44: Initial Harvest Rate. The initial harvest rate is 2.8 million m3/ha (AAC plus MPB uplift), with these components:

• 300,000 m3/yr from the spruce-leading stands within the spruce bark-beetle (SBB) area: Smith-Willis LU and Similkameen LU (east side only)

• 312,500 m3/yr of smallwood harvest (with priority within the smallwood stands on the MPB-attacked stands)

• Remaining harvest is targeted at the MPB-attacked stands first, then other stands.


86

Appendix C – Alternate Base Case Flows’ MPB Statistics Base Case #2 – Extended uplift run

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40

Period (start/end)

Volu

me

(m3/

yr)


Figure 57Extended uplift – Years-since-death pine harvest volumes.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)


Figure 58 Extended uplift - Harvest in MPB-attacked and not-MPB-attacked stands


87

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)



MPB-attacked pine


Figure 59 Extended uplift - Pine and other species volumes within the total harvest. Table 25 Extended uplift - pine volume and other species volumes within the total harvest volume.

Harvest Years

Volume in not

MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)


stands (MM m3/yr)



(MM m3/yr)


MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)


MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr) 1-2 0.221 2.593 1.916 0.207 0.470 3-4 0.276 2.538 2.099 0.040 0.398 5-6 0.271 2.543 2.099 0.042 0.402 7-8 0.204 2.610 1.318 0.624 0.668

9-10 0.019 2.795 0.631 1.044 1.120 10-11 0.000 1.821 0.470 0.673 0.677 13-14 0.004 1.810 0.496 0.659 0.654 15-16 0.000 1.814 0.482 0.700 0.632 17-18 0.027 1.787 0.540 0.602 0.646 19-20 0.000 1.822 0.500 0.683 0.639 21-25 0.003 1.811 0.449 0.722 0.640 26-30 0.008 1.807 0.319 0.736 0.752 31-35 0.695 0.938 0.147 0.439 0.352 36-40 1.568 0.065 0.002 0.025 0.037


88

Base Case #3 – Minimized fall-down run

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40

Period (start/end)

Volu

me

(m3/

yr)


Figure 60 Minimized fall-down - Years-since-death pine harvest volumes.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)


Figure 61 Minimized fall-down - Harvest in MPB-attacked and not-MPB-attacked stands


89

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)



MPB-attacked pine


Figure 62 Minimized fall-down - Pine and other species volumes within the total harvest Table 26 Minimized fall-down - pine volume and other species volumes within the total harvest volume.

Harvest Years

Volume in not

MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)


stands (MM m3/yr)



(MM m3/yr)


MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)


MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr) 1-2 0.141 1.559 1.095 0.153 0.311 3-4 0.219 1.481 1.129 0.034 0.318 5-6 0.153 1.547 1.194 0.041 0.312 7-8 0.263 1.437 1.188 0.017 0.233

9-10 0.146 1.554 1.395 0.000 0.159 10-11 0.064 1.636 1.156 0.199 0.281 13-14 0.003 1.697 0.598 0.600 0.499 15-16 0.001 1.699 0.336 0.696 0.668 17-18 0.005 1.695 0.478 0.534 0.683 19-20 0.000 1.704 0.412 0.593 0.699 21-25 0.009 1.641 0.406 0.652 0.582 26-30 0.005 1.645 0.376 0.657 0.612 31-35 0.012 1.638 0.256 0.676 0.706 36-40 0.006 1.644 0.101 0.811 0.732


90

Tables of MPB-attacked pine and green (non-MPB attacked) pine within MPB-attacked harvested stands. Table 27 Extended Uplift - Harvest volume of MPB-attacked pine within total harvest volume Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr

1-2 3,706,953 189,480 37,268 0 0 0 0 0 3,933,701 1,966,851 3-4 4,144,542 112,825 39,675 12,806 0 0 0 0 4,309,848 2,154,924 5-6 3,518,394 716,913 38,658 29,711 5,169 0 0 0 4,308,846 2,154,423 7-8 755,888 550,948 1,252,170 60,294 75,266 11,983 0 0 2,706,549 1,353,274 9-10 0 130,518 277,737 751,800 32,859 102,340 0 0 1,295,254 647,627

11-12 0 0 174,001 242,863 495,237 63,902 3,704 0 979,708 489,854 13-14 0 0 0 344,113 343,622 333,440 12,714 0 1,033,888 516,944 15-16 0 0 0 0 373,991 593,193 36,113 0 1,003,297 501,649 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 828,111 291,552 5,049 1,124,712 562,356 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 370,454 661,614 8,490 1,040,559 520,279 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,075,828 263,984 2,339,812 467,962 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,660,920 1,660,920 332,184 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 769,679 769,679 153,936 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,359 12,359 2,472 Table 28 Extended Uplift - Harvest volume of green pine within total harvest volume Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr

1-2 407,653 15,191 1,947 0 0 0 0 0 424,792 212,396 3-4 80,291 66 2,562 0 0 0 0 0 82,918 41,459 5-6 55,082 28,993 0 589 1,221 0 0 0 85,885 42,943 7-8 64,949 75,210 907,487 87,286 132,096 13,360 0 0 1,280,387 640,193 9-10 0 105,382 195,640 1,364,054 66,987 411,596 0 0 2,143,659 1,071,830

11-12 0 0 125,087 254,999 821,422 184,466 16,501 0 1,402,475 701,238 13-14 0 0 0 192,787 501,325 649,814 28,626 0 1,372,552 686,276 15-16 0 0 0 0 279,644 1,049,507 127,754 0 1,456,905 728,452 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 592,212 653,308 7,290 1,252,810 626,405 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 220,727 1,142,483 59,974 1,423,184 711,592 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,837,427 919,853 3,757,279 751,456 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,830,029 3,830,029 766,006 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,294,573 2,294,573 458,915 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130,214 130,214 26,043


91

Table 29 Minimized fall-down - Harvest volume of MPB-attacked pine within total harvest volume Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr

1-2 2,185,789 92,538 8,535 0 0 0 0 0 2,286,862 1,143,431 3-4 2,162,188 50,659 114,466 29,975 0 0 0 0 2,357,288 1,178,644 5-6 1,546,323 831,139 84,023 19,825 12,421 0 0 0 2,493,731 1,246,866 7-8 1,070,399 880,684 490,066 28,781 9,769 231 0 0 2,479,930 1,239,965 9-10 0 1,311,885 1,067,157 474,445 37,483 21,453 0 0 2,912,423 1,456,211

11-12 0 0 899,882 746,677 687,284 67,180 11,890 0 2,412,914 1,206,457 13-14 0 0 0 290,112 175,446 707,433 75,675 0 1,248,666 624,333 15-16 0 0 0 0 124,559 498,844 77,272 0 700,675 350,337 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 442,520 548,023 7,581 998,123 499,062 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 217,034 627,730 15,318 860,082 430,041 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,557,730 565,912 2,123,643 424,729 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,966,730 1,966,730 393,346 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,340,220 1,340,220 268,044 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 529,348 529,348 105,870 Table 30 Minimized fall-down - Harvest volume of green pine within total harvest volume Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr

1-2 305,593 11,869 1,476 0 0 0 0 0 318,938 159,469 3-4 67,855 162 2,692 0 0 0 0 0 70,709 35,354 5-6 55,082 28,993 0 589 1,221 0 0 0 85,885 42,943 7-8 18,710 4,326 4,558 0 3,482 3,807 0 0 34,883 17,441 9-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11-12 0 0 10,434 13,105 316,927 74,264 569 0 415,299 207,649 13-14 0 0 0 53,620 82,063 923,671 194,322 0 1,253,676 626,838 15-16 0 0 0 0 50,351 1,082,122 319,807 0 1,452,280 726,140 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 306,651 790,762 16,628 1,114,041 557,021 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 130,223 1,049,391 58,886 1,238,500 619,250 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,739,584 1,668,148 3,407,733 681,547 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,435,433 3,435,433 687,087 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,531,377 3,531,377 706,275 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,237,429 4,237,429 847,486 Note: A keen observer will notice the discrepancies between what should be the exactly the same volume total in different tables. The reason is that proportions (or formulas) were developed to estimate the volume components based on summary strata output by the forest estate model. The application of those proportions to different strata resulted in an error-of-estimate effect around each estimate. The general trends in the tables, however, do agree with each other.


92

Appendix D – Socio Economic Assessment A copy of the Merritt TSA Socio Economic Assessment is inserted after this page.

Merritt TSA Analysis Report – Appendix D – (a copy of the) Socio Economic Assessment 1

1.0 Socio-Economic Assessment

1.1 Introduction

To help inform the TSR4 process, this socio-economic assessment (SEA) estimates the likely economic activity associated with the base case timber supply forecast. A region’s timber supply is a fundamental determinant of the size of its forest industry, which is often a leading sector in BC regional economies. The Chief Forester determined allowable annual cut (AAC) effectively sets the upper limit on the annual timber supply available for harvest in a TSA. Changes to an AAC can have important economic consequences so gauging their likely impacts provides important decision-making information for TSA stakeholders, including the Chief Forester. The primary output of this socio-economic analysis is a comparison of employment, employment income and government revenues that the current AAC can support with the levels that could be supported by the base case forecast of this timber supply analysis. This analysis shows the potential incremental change in forest sector employment, employment and government revenues from implementing the short term timber supply of the base case as the AAC. The analysis also includes the following elements.

• Brief socio-economic profile of the Merritt TSA

• Brief profile of the Merritt TSA’s forest industry

• Estimate of employment and employment income supported by recent timber harvesting in the TSA

1.2 Socio-economic setting

1.2.1 Population and demographic trends

The Merritt TSA is located in the southern interior region of the Province, and contains two incorporated municipalities, the City of Merritt and Town of Princeton and several small unincorporated communities, Tulameen, Brookmere, Missezula Lake, East Gate, Douglas Lake, Lower Nicola, Spences Bridge, and Allison Lake. The TSA, covering approximately 1.13 million hectares, is within the Southern Interior Forest Region, and is administered by the Cascades Forest District. It is bounded to the north by the Kamloops TSA, to the east by the Okanagan TSA, to the west by the Fraser and Lillooet TSAs, and to the south by Manning and Cathedral Parks and the Canada-U.S.A. border. There are seven First Nations communities in the TSA: Coldwater, Nooaich, Upper Nicola, Lower Nicola, Shackan, Lower Similkameen and Upper Similkameen. Their total on-reserve population is approximately 1 500. Approximately15% of Merritt’s population and 8% of Princeton’s is Aboriginal. An estimated 3 000 residents of the TSA self-identify as Aboriginal, almost 20% of its population.

1 There are 24 First Nations (Bands and

Nations) that have asserted aboriginal interests in the Merritt TSA (see Table 1 of the Analysis Report). There are three Traditional Use Study Inventory Projects in MOFR’s TUS database, which include all or a part of Merritt TSA. They are Ktunaxa/KKTC (1998), Adams Lake/Neskonlith Secwpemc (1999) and Little Shuswap Indian Band (March 2000).

2 In addition, the Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society (NSIFS), which

facilitates the implementation of the Innovative Forest Practices Agreements (IFPAs) in the Merritt TSA, has sponsored cultural modeling. In 2008, 62 models were completed between four First Nations groups: Nicola Tribal Association, Upper Nicola Indian Band, Lower Nicola Indian Band and Esh-kn-am (NSIFS April 2009).

The estimated population for the TSA is relatively small, in 2009 it was approximately 17 000. The population growth of each of City of Merritt, Town of Princeton, Merritt Local Health Area (LHA) and Princeton LHA has

1 based on data from the 2006 Census

2 Site specific use information in all three studies has been retained by the respective First Nations and can only be obtained by contacting

that First Nation directly.


lagged the province-wide performance by a wide margin over the past decade.3 The TSA’s estimated

population has risen by approximately 4% over the most recent five- and ten-year periods. However this increase is well behind the provincial rates of 6.2% and 10.3% for the same periods. The TSA’s population is older as well, with its proportion who are 50 years and older comprising 42% of the total population compared to 33% for the province as a whole. Table 1-1 presents population data for the TSA.

Table 1-1 Population (2009-2000)

Areas

2009 Population 2005

Population

2000 Population

change

’09 over ‘05

change

’09 over ‘00

City of Merritt 7 450 7 327 7 461 1.7 -0.1

Merritt rural-residential 4 268 3 946 3 912 8.2 9.1

Merritt Local Health Area 11 718 11 273 11 373 3.9 3.0

Town of Princeton 2 757 2 661 2715 3.6 1.5

Princeton rural-residential 2 302 2 225 2 012 3.5 14.4

Princeton Local Health Area 5 059 4 886 4 727 3.5 7.0

Merritt TSA4 16 777 16 159 16 100 3.8 4.2

BC 4 455 207 4 196 788 4 039 230 6.2 10.3

Source: BC Stats

1.2.2 Economic profile

Personal income data for Merritt based on the 2006 Census indicates that its public sector has grown in importance within the regional economy, along with the forestry sector in Merritt. These sectors are the main sources of personal income in the area.

Forest sector income has become much more important in Princeton too over the 1990-2005 period, along with government transfer income, such as pensions and social assistance. The mining sector is much less prominent in the Princeton area today than it was in the early 90s. The following table shows the distribution of personal income for Merritt and Princeton over the 1990 to 2005 period.

5

Table 1-2 Personal Income by economic sector (2005 and 2000), percentage (%) distribution

Year Forest Mining Fish/

trap

Agri Tour-

ism

Public

sector

Other basic

Trans-fers

ONEI6

Merritt

2005 23 7 0 3 6 22 10 18 12

2000 24 5 0 4 6 27 7 20 8

1995 27 6 0 6 7 22 9 18 6

1990 19 7 0 5 3 17 15 16 17 Princeton

2005 26 5 0 2 3 17 10 22 15

2000 28 1 0 1 5 18 8 25 14

1995 24 14 0 1 8 18 7 18 11

1990 19 16 0 4 5 17 7 13 18

Source: Horne March 2009

3 There is no up-to-date population data that corresponds exactly to the TSA boundaries so population data for the Merritt Local Health Area

(LHA) and Princeton LHA are combined because the aggregation of these two LHAs have similar boundaries to the Merritt TSA. This population data was obtained from BC Stats.

4 See above

5 The labour force data from the Census has a one year lag because Census respondents are asked about their employment as of June 30

of the previous year; June 30, 2005 in the case of the 2006 Census.

6 Other Non-Employment Income (ONEI), mainly investment and pension income


In terms of their forest sector income vulnerability, both Merritt and Princeton rank fairly high in the province. Using an index number to measure forest sector income vulnerability, Merritt’s vulnerability index number was 30 in 2005 and Princeton stood at 38 (pg. 49, Horne March 2009).

7 Not as high as Quesnel (100) or Prince

George (46), nevertheless Merritt was the 18th highest and Princeton was 9

th highest of the 63 ranked

communities.

The next table presents employment numbers for 2005 and 2000 for the Cascades Forest District, which includes Merritt, Princeton, Lillooet and the surrounding rural areas.

8 There was a small drop in forest industry

employment for this region in the first half of the decade. Non-basic sector9 employment registered the biggest

growth, along with mining employment. The overall growth in employment was a modest 8%. Although it is important to see positive growth, from an income perspective, concentration of employment in lower income sectors can mean weaker overall income growth. The growth in before tax income was 12.8% over this period for the overall regional economy, relatively low, as this figure includes inflationary increases over the 2000-2005 period. Where the employment growth came from affected income growth in the region. Although non-basic sector employment growth was strong, its average before tax income per person is less than half of the figure for forestry or mining, so this result weakened income growth for the whole regional economy.

Table 1-3 Cascades Forest District employment by basic and non-basic sectors (2005 and 2000)

Industry 2005

#

2005

%

2000

#

2000

%

% change 2005 vs 2000

Forestry 2 345 18.4 2 385 20.2 -1.7

Mining & mineral products 539 4.2 302 2.6 78.5

Fishing & trapping 19 0.1 35 0.3 -45.7

Agriculture & Food 962 7.5 931 7.9 3.3

Tourism 1 600 12.5 1 729 14.6 -12.9

High technology 38 0.3 3 0 1 166.7

Public sector 3 245 25.4 3 357 28.4 -3.3

Construction 1 114 8.7 769 6.5 44.9

Other basic sector 453 3.5 481 4.1 -5.8

Non-basic sector 2 460 19.3 1 838 15.5 33.8

Total 12 775 100.0 11 830 100.0 8.0

Source: Horne February 2009 The indirect and induced employment

10 of the logging and wood products manufacturing sectors in the region is

much higher than for tourism and slightly higher than for the public sector. The logging industry creates three times the indirect and induced employment of the local tourism sector (0.29 indirect and induced jobs per logging industry job versus 0.10 indirect and induced jobs per tourism sector job). The following table lists indirect and combined indirect and induced multipliers by economic sector for the Cascades Forest District.

7 On a scale of 0 to 100, with Quesnel being the yardstick for the maximum figure of 100.

8 BC Stats did not prepare employment estimates by TSA, only by Forest District.

9 Support industries, such as retail and other services.

10 Generated by the spending of local firms and their employees,


Table 1-4 Cascades Forest District employment multipliers (2006)11

Industry Indirect Multiplier

Indirect/

Induced12

Multiplier

Logging 1.17 1.29

Wood products manufacturing

1.27 1.42

Construction 1.25 1.33

Public Sector 1.13 1.20

Tourism 1.06 1.10

Source: Horne March 2009

Although the region’s public sector has the largest share of the local labour force it does not have the largest share of employment income. A BC Stats study of local economic dependencies based on 2006 Census data showed that the public sector of the Cascades Forest District

13 had employment and income shares of 31% and

22%, respectively (Horne February 2009). The economic importance of the resource extraction industries is more noticeable when the focus is on employment income. This study listed the forestry sector’s shares of employment and income in the Cascades Forest District as 23% in both cases. There was a similar result for tourism, which had an employment share of 16% and an income share of 5%.

Both Merritt and Princeton have important “rubber tire” based tourism sectors due to their locations on busy highway routes. Merritt sits at the intersection of the Coquihalla Highway, the Okanagan Connector, Highway 8, and Highway 5a. Princeton is located at a strategic location on Highway 3, approximately three hours east of Vancouver. The area’s main tourism event, the long-running (since 1993), annual Merritt Mountain Music Festival, may have been staged for the last time in 2009 due to faltering attendance.

14

The main employers in the Merritt area and their estimated work forces are as follows15

.

• Nicola Valley Health Care – 225

• Tolko Industries – 210

• School District #58 – 19516

• Aspen Planers – 170

• Douglas Lake Ranch – 75

• Ardew Wood Products – 60

The main employers in the Princeton area and their estimated work forces are as follows.

• Weyerhaeuser Company – 250

• School District #58 - 90

• Princeton Co-Generation Corp. – 35

• Argo Road Maintenance – 25

The 2006 average total income of Merritt residents ($31 598) is below the province-wide level of $38 523 by a substantial amount, 21.9% (BC Stats September 2009).

17 The average income level is slightly lower in

Princeton, $31 106.

11

These multipliers are for the Cascades Forest District, which includes the Merritt TSA and Lillooet TSA.

12 Assumes no migration in the event of lay-off

13 This study was organized by forest district.

14 The Province, July 14, 2009

15 Information is based on data from the Invest BC web site (http://www.investbc.com/default2.htm) and the author’s research for this project.

16 The School District #58 employment is based on FTE positions.


The portions of the working age population in the Merritt and Princeton areas depending on social safety net income assistance have increased sharply since September 2008. For Merritt, the most recent data point to a high rate of almost 9% of those receiving either basic income assistance or Employment Insurance as a percent of the population aged 19-64 years old.

18 This figure is almost twice the BC average and three times the rate in

Vancouver-City Centre. The rate for the Princeton area is lower, 6%. Other areas of the province sharing a high dependence on resource industry employment have registered slightly higher “social safety net” dependency rates, however. As an example of a more economically stressed community, the June 2009 rate for the Quesnel LHA was 11.4%.

Table 1-5 Dependency on the social safety net (%)19

Region June 2007

Sept 2007

Dec 2007

March 2008

June 2008

Sept 2008

Dec 2008

Mar 2009

June 2009

Merritt LHA 3.3 3.6 5.2 5.7 6.4 3.9 6.2 10.0 8.9

Princeton LHA 3.4 2.5 4.2 5.1 5.7 3.2 5.3 8.1 6.0

Quesnel LHA 5.9 4.4 5.4 6.4 10.7 5.0 7.4 12.5 11.4

BC 2.4 2.2 2.9 2.9 3.8 2.4 3.5 5.2 4.9

Source: BC Stats

The Merritt and Princeton regions rank in the lower half of the province’s 77 health regions on important socio-economic indices.

20

• Overall Socio-Economic Indices (2008) – Merritt ranks 68th and Princeton 52

nd.

• Youth at Risk Indices (2008) – Merritt ranks 72nd

and Princeton 48th

• Health Problem Indices (2008) – Merritt ranks 67th and Princeton 48

th

1.3 Merritt TSA Forest Industry

1.3.1 Allowable Annual Cut (AAC)

The current AAC of 2 814 171 m3 became effective July 1, 2005. It includes a five-year uplift of 1 000 000 m

3

per annum to help address the MPB epidemic in the TSA’s pine stands and a partition of 312 000 m3 for small

diameter pine that has been included in the AAC since 2001. Lodgepole pine stands constitute approximately 55% of the TSA’s THLB. The MPB has been recognized as a serious threat in the TSA since the early 90s and the AAC that became effective January 1, 1999 included an uplift to facilitate the control and harvest of MPB infested timber. The AACs for the TSA since the mid 90s are as follows.

• Jan. 1, 2004 to July 1, 2005 – 1 838 750 m3, which included an uplift of 330 700 m

3 resulting from an

increase in the current AAC associated with the Forest Licenses of the six companies that hold Innovative Forestry Practices Agreements (IFPA) in the TSA.

• Jan.1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2003 – 1 508 050 m3, this AAC maintained the pre-1999 uplift AAC of 1 454 250

m3.

• Jan. 1, 1999 to Dec. 31, 2001 – 2 004 250 m3, which included a small diameter pine partition of 250 000

m3 and a two-year uplift of 550 000 m

3 per annum to help address the MPB epidemic.

• Jan. 1, 1996 to Dec. 31, 1998 - The AAC was increased to 1 454 250 m3.

17

Based on personal taxation statistics

18 This figure understates the impact because it includes those who are retired and not looking for work.

19 Percentage of the 19-64 year old population receiving either Basic Income Assistance or Employment Insurance

20 From BC Stats: Local Health Statistical Profiles 2008


1.3.1 AAC Apportionment and Commitments

Several forest companies hold large AAC commitments associated with their replaceable Forest Licences and in some cases also with non-replaceable Forest Licences. In addition, there are a few joint ventures for non-replaceable Forest Licences between First Nations and non-First Nations forest companies. The major companies and their total AAC commitments are as follows.

• Tolko Industries Ltd. – 504 606 m3, 17.9%

• Weyerhaeuser Company – 504 131 m3, 17.9%

• Aspen Planers Ltd. – 474 116 m3, 16.8%

• Stuwix Resources Ltd. – 265 355 m3, 9.4%

• Ardew Wood Products Ltd. – 64 469 m3, 2.3%

In addition, Stuwix and Aspen share a large IFPA Uplift volume of 190 000 m3. The TSA stands out in the

province on the basis of the involvement of local First Nations holding forest tenures. Stuwix Resources Ltd. holds a replaceable Forest Licence and a significant portion of the IFPA uplift and Upper Nicola, Upper Similkameen and Lower Similkameen First Nations hold non-replaceable Forest Licences and there are three joint ventures involving First Nations. Table 1-7 presents the current apportionment and commitments for the Merritt TSA.

Table 1-6 Merritt TSA AAC Apportionment (m3 & % of AAC)

Licensee by Form of Agreement Total Conventional Small diameter pine

m3 % of AAC m

3 % of AAC

Forest Licences Replaceable 920 705 32.7 920 605 36.8

Forest Licences Non- Replaceable 1 309 607 46.5 1 094 607 43.7 215 000 68.8

BCTS Timber Sale Licence Non- Replaceable

35 000 1.2 35 000 11.2

BCTS Timber Sale Licence/ Licence to Cut

421 870 15.0 359 370 14.4 62 500 20.0

Community Forest Agreement 20 000 0.7 20 000 0.8

Woodlot Licence 11 700 0.4 11 700 0.5

Forest Service Reserve 95 389 3.4 95 389 3.8

Total Allowable Annual Cut 2 814 171 100.0 2 501 671 100.0 312 500 100.0

Source: Revenue Tenures and Engineering Branch, Ministry of Forests and Range September 15, 2009


Table 1-7 Merritt TSA AAC Commitments as of September 15, 2009 (m3 & % of AAC)

Licensee by Form of Agreement Total Conventional Small diameter pine

m3 % of AAC m

3 % of AAC m

3 % of AAC

Forest Licences Replaceable21

A18039–Ardew Wood Products Ltd. 64 469 64 469

A1869 & & A75062 Aspen Planers 282 744 282 744

Aspen/Stuwix 190 000 190 000

A18696, A18697 & A74911 Tolko Industries Ltd.

464 606 464 606

A18698 Weyerhaeuser 484 131 484 131

A65006 Stuwix Resources Ltd. 265 355 265 355

Total 1 751 305 62.2 1 751 305 62.2 A55524 Nicola Pacific Forest Products 67 500 67 500

A55525 Qwa’eet Forest Products Ltd. 60 000 60 000

A55527 Princeton Wood Preservers 30 000 30 000

A55528 Aspen Planers Ltd. 15 000 15 000

A55529 Princeton & Dist. Community 20 000 20 000

A75427 Tolko Industries Ltd. 20 000 20 000

A80929 Upper Nicola First Nation 29 001 29 001


A81878 Upper Similkameen Indian Band

32 043 32 043

A82224 Upper Similkameen Indian Band

19 253 19 253

A82518 Skulqalt Forestry Ltd. 15 593 15 593

A82520 Sungate Timber Ltd. 20 000 20 000

A82523 Sungate Timber Ltd. 20 000 20 000

A82565 Tolko Industries Ltd. 20 000 20 000

A82566 Weyerhaeuser 20 000 20 000

A826 08 Upper Nicola First Nation 30 010 30 010


A84685 Aspen Planers Ltd. 50 000 50 000 50 000



Total 594 772 21.1 258 019 9.2 336 753 12.0

BCTS Timber Sale Licence Non- Replaceable

35 000 1.2 35 000 1.2

A61106 Princeton Forest Products 35 000 1.2 35 000 1.2

A65442 Applied Timber Management 22

Total 2 381 077 84.623

21

There is a core volume amount attached to each replaceable Forest Licence and an IFPA Uplift volume. The following table presents the distribution of core and IFPA Uplift volumes for each Forest Licencee.

Forest Licensee Core AAC commitment

(m3)

Jan. 1 04 IFPA Uplift

(m3)

July 13 05 IFPA Uplift

(m3)

Total AAC commitment

(m3)

Ardew Wood Products Ltd. 35 100 19 015 10 354 64 469

Aspen Planers Ltd. 132 744 92 596 57 404 282 744

Aspen/Stuwix - - 190 000 190 000

Tolko Industries Ltd. 338 255 39 684 86 667 464 606

Weyerhaeuser 413 556 - 70 575 484 131

Stuwix Resources Ltd. 950 179 405 85 000 265 355

Total 920 605 330 700 500 000 1 751 305

22 A lump sum non-AAC volume of 17 000 m

3 was attached to this licence.

23 The TSA’s AAC is not fully committed.


Source: Revenue Tenures and Engineering Branch, Ministry of Forests and Range September 15, 2009 & communications with E. Nedokus, MOFR, March 11, 2010.

1.3.2 Merritt TSA harvest history

The average annual billed harvest level in the Merritt TSA for the 2006-08 period was 2 940 694 m3, compared

to an AAC of 2 814 171 m3. The Merritt TSA’s billed harvest has been slightly above its AAC in seven years of

the 1999-2008 decade. The TSA’s billed harvests averaged 104% of its AACs for the ten-year 1999-2008 period. Table 1-8 summarizes the TSA’s timber billed harvest volume over the 1999-2008 period and it is portrayed graphically in Figure 1-1.

Table 1-8 Merritt TSA Volume (m3) Billed by Form of Agreement (1999-2008)

Tenure 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Forest Licence 1 619 652 1 219 348 1 347 784 1 161 005 1 297 006 1 478 398 1 621 592 2 108 939 2 551 131 1 398 422

Forest Licence, Sec 47.3 F.A.

58 991 113 574

Road Permit 117 353 216 550 120 434 131992 52 723 111 158 102 851 68 429 60 301 19 349

Occupant Licence to Cut

35 2 034 13 921 5 062 -1 084 1 728 459 6 760 7 285 865

Occupant Licence to Cut, short form

288 1 145 1 112 496 1 065 356

Forestry Licence to Cut

60 052 179 286 178 275 89 214 33 260

SB TSL S20 multi-mark

5 972 -1 663

SB Direct TSL S23 multi-mark

109 738 123 234 55 274 556 2 595 41

SB TSL S21 bid proposal multi-mark

20 492 58 143 53 402 35 253 17 858 63 389 8 366 1 648

SB TSL S21 Special Bid Proposal multi-mark

74 889 9 830

SB Non-replaceable Forest Licence S13 1.1 CPs

64 612 65 980 67 348 61 105 108701 27 350 73 697 9 875

SB TSL S21 Bid Proposal CPs

157 547 143 199 103 368 11 965

SB TSL S20 CPs 29 324 45 838 80 219 181 128 457

SB TSL S21 Bid Proposal single mark

6 626 12 829 25 766

SB TSL S20 single mark

21 943 125 861 124 421 59 406 67 587 187 847 148 004 237 281 408 075 367 446

SB Direct TSL S23 single mark

10 615 51 883 27 547 37 624 37 058 43 695 162

Total 2 086 986 2 062 124 2 000 811 1 689 969 1 554 147 2 018 336 2 196 341 2 629 179 3 249 758 2 943 146

AAC 2 004 250 2 004 250 2 004 250 1 508 050 1 508 050 1 838 750 2 814 17124

2 814 171 2 814 171 2 814 171

AAC variance 82 736 57 874 -3 439 181 919 46 000 179 586 -130 119 -184 992 435 587 128 975

Harvest as % of AAC

104.1 102.9 99.8 112.1 103.1 109.8 94.4 93.4 115.5 104.6

Source: BC MOFR data and Enfor Consultants Ltd. compilation

Figure 1-1 Bar Chart of 1999-2008 Merritt TSA Annual Billed Harvested Volume (‘000 m3)

24

The AAC was increased in mid-year from 1 838 750 to 2 814 171 m3. The average AAC for the year is 2 326 460 m

3 and the variance

calculation is based on this average figure.


1.3.3 Merritt TSA major licensees and timber processing facilities

There are four major saw mill complexes in the TSA, three in Merritt and one in Princeton, and several smaller wood processing operations, including a pellet plant in Princeton. A pellet plant is under construction in Merritt. Following is a table that lists the main timber processing facilities, and their location, products and annual production capacity.

Table 1-9 Merritt TSA timber processing facilities

Timber Processing Facility

Location Main Products Annual output capacity

25

Ardew Wood Products Ltd. Merritt Dimension lumber 68 million bd. ft.

Aspen Planers Ltd. Merritt Dimension lumber Poles Posts

275 million bd. ft. 960 000 pieces 480 000 pieces

Tolko Industries Ltd. Merritt Dimension lumber 240 million bd. ft.

Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.

Princeton Dimension lumber 275 million bd. ft.

NMV Lumber Merritt boards -

MWP Cascade Post and Rail Princeton Posts 480 000 pieces

Coldwater Post and Rail Merritt Poles 960 000 pieces

Princeton Post and Rail Co. Ltd.

Princeton Posts Poles

528 000 pieces 144 000 pieces

Nicola Post and Rail Merritt Posts, rails, pressed fire logs

-

Upper Nicola Post and Rail Douglas Lake Posts -

Princeton Wood Preservers Ltd.

Princeton Utility poles 29 000 pieces

Nicola Log Works Ltd. Merritt Log and timber frame homes

-

Princeton Co-Generation Corp.

Princeton Pellets, animal bedding

90 000 tonnes

Source: BC MOFR November 2009 and author’s research for this report

25

Based on 480 8-hour shifts per year


Ardew Wood Products Ltd.

Ardew Wood Products Ltd. (Ardew) has tenure rights for 4.7%26

of the TSA’s AAC commitments and owns a saw mill, planermill, and dry kilns complex at Merritt. The company is privately owned by the Norgaard family, which built a large log single line saw mill in 1975 at Merritt. The company championed the utilization of small diameter in the TSA and was awarded a licence focused on small diameter pine in 1986 and added a small log line to its mill in 1988. In 2002-03, Ardew invested $3.2 million for a planer addition and upgrade. The mill produces SPF dimension lumber for the Japanese and North American markets.

The company’s Merritt complex consumed approximately 200 000 m3 of timber per year on average at 2006-

2008 production rates. All of the fibre input for Ardew’s Merritt operation comes from the Merritt TSA.

In 1996, the Norgaard family and Curtis Sloan jointly started Pine Ideas Ltd., a Merritt manufacturer of pine wood products, such as wine racks, storage racks, shelving and wood components for other manufacturers.

Ardew’s business initiatives and partnerships in the TSA are summarized in the following table.

Table 1-10 Ardew’s Merritt TSA business initiatives and partnerships

Company Location Business initiative

Pine Ideas Merritt Supply fibre for furniture stock

Nicola Valley Custom Logs Merritt Supplies trim blocks and marketing assistance

Nicola Post and Rail Merritt Supply fibre for round wood products

Nicola-Pacific Forest Products Merritt Joint venture non-replaceable Forest Licence

Upper Nicola Post and Rail Douglas Lake Supply fibre for round wood products

Source: 2008 Merritt TSA SFM Plan Annual Report

With the Upper Nicola Band, it helped start one of the first Aboriginal joint venture forestry enterprises in the province, Nicola-Pacific Forest Products, which holds a 15-year small log non-replaceable Forest Licence.

The NSIFS records First Nations employment associated with the TSA’s 830 700 m3 IFPA AAC uplift volume.

Ardew has had 199 PYs of First Nations employment associated with its IFPA uplift over the four-year 2005-2009 period.

27 Over the past two years, Ardew has engaged members or companies from the following First

Nations to provide forestry products or services.

Table 1-11 Summary of Ardew’s First Nations business relationships in 2008 and 2009

Company Purchased timber/logs

FN harvested purchased timber/logs

Logging and/or hauling services

for non-FN timber

Silviculture services

Forestry professional

services

Other forestry services

Upper Nicola � � �

Lower Nicola � � Source: Survey of licensees

Ardew generated an average of 103.8 PYs of timber harvesting, log hauling, silviculture and timber processing employment in the Merritt TSA over the 2006-2008 period. There was an average of 48.5 PYs involved with harvesting and re-planting the Merritt TSA tenures that Ardew is involved with. The saw mill complex at Merritt employed an average of 55.3 PYs per annum over the 2006-08 period and 100% of that employment was tied to Merritt TSA timber. Almost all of the timber harvesting and processing employees resided in the Merritt TSA.

26

Reflecting the AAC commitments for licence #A18039, which is wholly owned by Ardew, and licence #A55524, which is jointly owned by Ardew and Upper Nicola Band through its joint venture, Nicola Pacific Forest Products Ltd.

27 NSIFS annual reports for 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09.


Table 1-12 Ardew’s annual average employment and Merritt TSA Forest Licence harvests (2006-2008)

Result

Harvest Timber volume (m3)

AAC Commitments 148 96928

Annual average billed harvest, 2006-2008 142 745

2009 billed harvest (as of Sept. 30 ’09) 39 493

Employment (avg. for 2006-2008) Person-Years (PYs)

29

Harvesting, planning & administration30

26.9

Log transport 14.6

Road construction & maintenance 5.3

Silviculture 1.7

Timber processing31

55.3

Total 103.8

Source: Survey of licensees, author’s calculations and MOFR

Weyerhaeuser Company

Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser), along with Tolko, has the largest AAC commitment in the TSA, 504 131 m

3. The company owns a saw mill, planermill, and dry kilns located in Princeton. In addition to its Forest

Licences, the company manages several other Merritt TSA licences.32

It is the town’s biggest private sector employer.

Weyerhaeuser is a large multi-national, publicly-traded forestry company headquartered in Tacoma, Washington, which has approximately 20 000 employees worldwide and 65 production facilities.

33

In 2007, Weyerhaeuser announced that it was closing its Okanagan Falls saw mill and re-investing in its Princeton operation. The company made several large capital investments in its Princeton operation in 2007 and 2008: $5.2 million for a replacement trimline, $4 million for a grade optimizer, $1 million for a stacker strip system and $ 250 000 for logyard scales.

The company’s Princeton complex consumed approximately 900 000 m3 of timber per year on average at 2006-

2008 production rates.

Weyerhaeuser’s business initiatives and partnerships in the TSA are summarized in the following table.

28

This total includes the AAC commitments for licence #A18039, which is wholly owned by Ardew, and licence #A55524, which is jointly owned by Ardew and Upper Nicola Band through its joint venture, Nicola Pacific Forest Products Ltd., and the non-AAC commitment for licence #A65442, which is owned by Applied Timber Management Ltd. and managed by Ardew.

29 The shown employment is based on harvesting Ardew’s FL (A18039), Nicola Pacific Forest Product’s non-replaceable FL (A55524) and

Applied Timber Management Ltd.’s non-replaceable BCTS FL (A65442).

30 Woodlands employment is based on harvesting and silviculture operations in the Merritt TSA and includes persons residing inside and

outside the TSA. The processing employment for each of the major licensees is reported in this way.

31 Processing employment is based on processing both Merritt TSA and non-Merritt TSA timber in a Merritt TSA mill complex. The

processing employment for each of the major licensees is reported in this way. Processing employment based on processing only Merritt TSA timber is presented in Table 1-25.

32 See pg. 5 of Weyerhaeuser January 2009

33 As of 2008


Table 1-13 Weyerhaeuser’s Merritt TSA business initiatives and partnerships


Princeton Wood Preservers Princeton Supplying fibre for round wood products

Princeton Post and Rail Princeton Supplying fibre for round wood and rail products

MWP Cascade Wood Products Princeton Supplying fibre for round wood and rail products

SBC Firemaster Princeton Supplying pulp logs for firewood

Princeton Co-Generation Corp Princeton Supplying sawdust


Weyerhaeuser has had 2 547 PYs of First Nations employment associated with its IFPA uplift over the four-year 2005-2009 period. Over the past two years, Weyerhaeuser has engaged members or companies from the following First Nations to provide forestry products or services.

Table 1-14 Summary of Weyerhaeuser’s First Nations business relationships in 2008 and 2009




for non-FN timber



services


Upper Similkameen � � � � �

Lower Similkameen � � Source: Survey of licensees

Weyerhaeuser generated an average of 325.1 PYs of timber harvesting, silviculture and processing employment in the Merritt TSA over the 2006-2008 period. There was an average of 81.1 PYs involved with harvesting and re-planting the company’s TSA tenures. The Princeton saw mill complex employed an average of 244 PYs per annum over the 2006-08 period. Almost all of the timber harvesting and processing employees resided in the Merritt TSA.

Table 1-15 Weyerhaeuser’s annual average employment and Merritt TSA harvests (2006-2008)

Result



Annual average billable harvest, 2006-2008

504 000

2009 billable harvest (as of Sept. 30 ‘09)


Harvesting, planning & administration 56.0

Log transport 15.0


Silviculture 4.1

Timber processing 244.0

Total 325.1


Tolko Industries Ltd.

Tolko Industries Ltd. (Tolko) holds tenure rights over 17.9% of the TSA’s AAC, consisting of three replaceable Forest Licenses with a total AAC commitment of 464 606 m

3 and two non-replaceable Forest Licenses with a


total commitment of 40 000 m3. The company owns a saw mill, planermill, and dry kilns located in Merritt that

produced an annual average of approximately 240 000 bd. ft. of SPF dimension lumber over the 2006-08 period. The mill complex is the city’s biggest private sector employer.

Tolko is a Vernon, BC headquartered forestry company privately owned by the Thorlakson family, which has operations across western Canada that produce dimension lumber, veneer, oriented strand board, plywood and kraft paper. In 2004, Tolko acquired Riverside Forest Products, including its Merritt TSA Forest Licence.

The company’s Merritt complex consumed approximately 900 000 m3 of timber per year on average at 2006-

2008 production rates. Tolko invested $4.6 million in capital improvements (dry kiln and planer improvements) at its Merritt mill over the same period.

Tolko’s business initiatives and partnerships in the TSA are summarized in the following table.

Table 1-16 Tolko’s Merritt TSA business initiatives and partnerships


Pine Ideas Merritt Custom manufacturing

Ska-Lu-La Merritt Purchase of lathe and dunnage from community program for the

disabled


Tolko has registered 5 548 person days of First Nations employment associated with its IFPA uplift over the four-year 2005-2009 period. Over the past two years, Tolko has engaged members or companies from the following First Nations to provide forestry products or services.

Table 1-17 Summary of Tolko’s First Nations business relationships in 2008 and 2009




for non-FN timber



services


Upper Similkameen � �

Lower Nicola � � Upper Nicola � � � � Nicola Tribal Association

�

Esh-kn-am Cultural Services

�

Shakan � � Source: Survey of licensees

Tolko generated an average of 303.1 PYs of timber harvesting, silviculture and processing employment in the Merritt TSA over the 2006-2008 period. There was an average of 108.1 PYs involved with harvesting and re-planting the company’s TSA tenures. The Merritt saw mill complex employed an average of 195 PYs per annum over the 2006-08 period. Almost all of the timber harvesting and processing employees resided in the Merritt TSA.


Table 1-18 Tolko’s annual average employment and Merritt TSA harvests (2006-2008)

Result




594 869

2009 billable harvest (as of Sept. 30 ‘09) 387 696



Log transport 28.0


Other 1.0

Silviculture 10.6

Timber processing 195.0

Total 303.1


Aspen Planers Ltd.

Aspen Planers Ltd. (Aspen) holds tenure rights over 16.8% of the TSA’s AAC, consisting of two Forest Licenses with a total commitment

34 of 282 000 m

3 and five non-replaceable Forest Licenses with a total commitment of

191 372 m3. The company owns a saw mill, planermill, and dry kilns located in Merritt that produced an annual

average of approximately 242 million bd. ft. of SPF dimension lumber over the 2006-08 period. The company’s Merritt complex consumed approximately 1 000 000 m

3 of timber per year on average at 2006-2008 production

rates.

Aspen is a Merritt, BC headquartered forestry company privately owned by the Ghog family, which built its original Merritt saw mill in 1959. Aspen started Coldwater Post and Rail Ltd. on the Coldwater Indian Reserve and MWP Cascade Post and Rail Ltd. in Princeton.

Aspen’s business initiatives and partnerships in the TSA are summarized in the following table.

Table 1-19 Aspen’s Merritt TSA business initiatives and partnerships


Nicola Valley Custom Logs Merritt Supplies trim blocks for sorting

Qwa’eet Forest Products Ltd. Merritt area Joint venture non-replaceable Forest Licence

Shulus Enterprises Merritt area Facilitates its Small Scale Salvage harvesting

Coldwater Post and Rail Ltd. Merritt Manufacture and sale of round wood products

MWP Cascade post and Rail Ltd. Princeton Manufacture and sale of round wood products


Aspen is a joint venture partner with four First Nations (Coldwater, Cook’s Ferry, Nooaitch, and Siska) in Qwa’eet Forest Products Ltd., which holds a 5-year small log non-replaceable Forest Licence. It also facilitates the Small Scale Salvage harvesting of Shulus Enterprises, owned by the Lower Nicola First Nation.

Aspen has had 6 570 PYs of First Nations employment associated with its IFPA uplift over the four-year 2005-2009 period. Over the past two years, Aspen has engaged members or companies from the following First Nations to provide forestry products or services.

34

Includes IFPA Uplift volumes


Table 1-20 Summary of Aspen’s First Nations business relationships in 2008 and 2009




for non-FN timber



services


Cooks Ferry First Nation

� �

Lower Nicola First Nation

� � � � � �

Upper Nicola First Nation

� � �

Shackan First Nation � � � Coldwater First Nation � � � � Upper Similkameen First Nation

� � �

Nooaitch First Nation � � � Siska First Nation � � � � Wikwemikong First Nation

� � �

Source: Survey of licensees

Aspen generated an average of 319.0 PYs of timber harvesting, silviculture and processing employment in the Merritt TSA timber over the 2006-2008 period. There was an average of 157.3 PYs involved with harvesting and re-planting the company’s TSA tenures. The Merritt saw mill complex employed an average of 161.7 PYs per annum over the 2006-08 period and almost all of that employment was tied to Merritt TSA timber. An estimated 99% of the timber harvesting and processing employees resided in the Merritt TSA.

Table 1-21 Aspen’s annual average employment and Merritt TSA harvests (2006-2008)

Result




384 390



Log transport 35.1


Other -

Silviculture 18.9

Timber processing35

161.7

Total 319.0


Stuwix Resources Ltd.

Stuwix Resources Ltd. (Stuwix) holds a replaceable Forest Licence with a commitment of 950 m3 and an IFPA

Uplift volume of 264 405 m3. In addition, it shares an IFPA Uplift volume of 190 000 m

3 with Aspen. This Forest

Licence was transferred to Stuwix from Ardew in 2001. The company is owned by eight regional First Nations (Coldwater, Cook’s Ferry, Lower Nicola, Nooaitch, Shackan, Siska, Upper Nicola and Upper Similkameen). This Forest Licence was the only replaceable one held in BC by a First Nation at the time of its acquisition.

35

Only saw mill employment, does not include employment at Coldwater Post and Rail and MWP Cascade Post and Rail.


As a First Nations owned company Stuwix attempts to maximize its use of First Nations contractors and members. It reported that 73% of its harvested volume over the July 2005 to October 2009 period was logged by contractors affiliated with local First Nations or First Nations members.

36

Stuwix obtained an IFPA in December 2001 to join the TSA’s other Forest Licensees in holding an IFPA. A NSIFS member supported Share Agreement stipulated that Stuwix Resources receive 50% of any AAC increase resulting from IFPA based uplifts and this arrangement facilitated 2004 and 2005 increases in the AAC commitment for Stuwix’s Forest Licence (Walkem March 13, 2006).

Stuwix’s business initiatives and partnerships in the TSA are summarized in the following table.

Table 1-22 Stuwix’s Merritt TSA business initiatives and partnerships


Nicola Post & Rail Merritt Supplies fibre for roundwood products

Princeton Post & Rail Princeton Supplies fibre for roundwood products

Coldwater Post and Rail Ltd. Merritt Supplies fibre for roundwood products

SBC Firemaster. Princeton Supplying pulp logs for firewood --


Stuwix generated an average of 108.6 PYs of timber harvesting and silviculture employment in the Merritt TSA over the 2006-2008 period. Almost all of its timber harvesting employees resided in the Merritt TSA. Stuwix does not operate a timber processing facility in the TSA. It sells its logs to timber processors that are located in the Merritt TSA, however. There was an estimated average of 105.2 PYs of employment associated with processing the company’s logs in TSA manufacturing facilities.

Table 1-23 Stuwix’s annual average employment and Merritt TSA harvests (2006-2008)

Result




350 51437

2009 billable harvest (as of Sept. 30 ‘09) 171 143



Log transport 25.9


Other -

Silviculture 6.8

Timber processing38

105.2

Total 108.6


36

Pers. Comm., L. LeClaire, Feb. 1, 2010.

37 A portion of the AAC under the Stuwix Forest Licence is harvested by Aspen. The average harvest over the 2006-08 period under FL #

A65006 was 601 699 and Stuwix logging crews were responsible for harvesting approximately 60% (350 514 m3) of the total volume.

38 The estimate of timber processing employment associated with Stuwix harvested timber was calculated by multiplying the average timber

processing employment co-efficient for the TSA (0.30 PYs per ‘000 m3) by the average Stuwix harvest for the 2006-08 period.


BC Timber Sales (BCTS)

BCTS has been apportioned 16.2% of the TSA’s AAC, 456 870 m3. The annual BCTS harvest in the TSA

averaged 375 124 m3 over the 2006-08 period. The 2009 billed harvest was much higher than in the recent

past, 571 096 m3, reflecting strong demand for MPB timber.

The companies that acquired the largest volume of BCTS timber in 2008 and 2009 are as follows.

• 489581 Ltd. (Dan Eaton), Merritt, BC

• Gane Eneterprises Inc., Kamloops, BC

• Eli Lennea, Barriere, BC

• M.L. Brown Lumber Ltd., Merritt, BC

• Thompson Okanagan Log, Kamloops, BC

The following table presents recent harvest volumes for BCTS in the Merritt TSA.

Table 1-24 BCTS average annual billed harvest (2006-2008)

Result


AAC Apportionment 456 870

Annual average billed harvest, 2006-2008 375 124

2009 billed harvest 571 096

Source: BC MOFR data

Other Wood Products Manufacturing

There are several smaller wood product companies in the Merritt area, including:

• Princeton Co-Generation Corp. – This company established a pellet manufacturing plant in Princeton 15 years ago. It was purchased in 2008 by Fibregen plc, a publicly traded company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. The pellets are sold under the Eagle Valley band name as fuel and animal bedding. Approximately 35 persons currently work at the facility, which produces about 82 000 tonnes of pellets annually. The company’s main source of timber fibre is sawdust from Weyerhaeuser’s Princeton saw mill.

• Nicola LogWorks – Established in Merritt in 1989, this company manufactures timber frame and log homes for an international market. The company currently employs 12 persons and it consumes approximately 1 000 m

3 of timber per year, which it primarily sources from outside the Merritt TSA.

• Highland Pellet Manufacturing – This new pellet plant is a joint venture between a Merritt businessperson and Ontario headquartered Woodville Pellet. The currently under construction facility is projected to be commissioned in April 2010 and shipping pellets in June 2010. In its first year, it is projected to produce about 35 000 tonnes of pellets. The plant will have the capacity to produce 90 000 tonnes per annum and employ approximately 35 persons. In its initial year of operation, Highland Pellet will source wood residuals from Merritt area wood processors for its timber fibre input requirements. The Merritt businessperson behind this new pellet plant operated Highland Block Sort in Merritt up until December 2008, when it was closed due to falling demand for its trim blocks from finger joint operations. It employed 10 persons. A trim block sort operation, Nicola Valley Custom Logs, continues to operate in Merritt.

• Princeton Wood Preservers – Established in 1983, this Princeton-based company manufactures pressure treated round wood products. It currently employs 9 persons but has employed up to 24, demand has fallen due to the US economic recession. It has a 15-year non-replaceable Forest Licence in a joint venture with the Upper Similkameen First Nations. The private company is owned by a Princeton-based family.


• Princeton Post and Rail – Started in 2001, this Princeton based plant makes air dried posts. Currently employing 12 persons, it has employed up to 18 persons. A related company, Applied Timber Management Ltd., held a now logged non-replaceable Forest Licence in the TSA that was managed by Weyerhaeuser.

• Nicola Post and Rail – Started in 1999, Nicola Post and Rail makes air dried posts and pressed fire logs. It is located near Merritt on a Lower Nicola First Nation Indian Reserve. Almost all employees are First Nations member, there are currently 12 but there has been up to 23.

• Upper Nicola Post and Rail – Started in 2007, this Upper Nicola First Nation-owned pant located on the Douglas Lake Indian Reserve makes air dried posts. It employs 12 persons at full production. It has joint ventures with Tolko and Ardew for harvesting non-replaceable Forest Licences.

• NMV Lumber – This lumber remanufacturer mainly makes boards at its Merritt plant. Started in 1983, the company purchases rough lumber from various local mills. It employs 14 persons.

• Pine Ideas – Located in Merritt, Pine Ideas was established in 1996 and is jointly owned by Ardew and Curtis Sloan, its president and operations manager. The company’s manufacturing facility produces packaged products such as shelving, wine racks and additional storage solutions from pine lumber sourced from Merritt area mills. Pine Ideas also produces wood components for other wood product manufacturers.

39

• Coldwater Post and Rail – An Aspen Planers owned company, it manufactures air dried fence posts, rails and tree stakes in its plant located on the Coldwater Indian Reserve near Merritt. All but one of its 12 employees are First Nations members, and it has employed up to 18 persons.

• MWP Cascade Post and Rail - An Aspen Planers owned company, it manufactures air dried fence posts, rails and tree stakes in its Princeton plant which currently employs 12 persons and has employed up to 18.

1.3.4 Forest sector employment and employment coefficients

The average total direct forest industry employment supported by Merritt TSA harvested timber over the 2006-2008 period is 1 397 PYs in the TSA and 1 605 PYs province-wide. On a province-wide basis, the TSA’s annual harvest supported total

40 employment of approximately 2 352 PYs in recent years.

Table 1- presents estimates of average annual employment over the 2006-08 period supported by the Merritt TSA harvest broken down by forest industry activity. Employment is reported as an annual average and as the average level of employment per ‘000 m

3 of harvested timber. The latter co-efficient is used to calculate

potential employment impacts of alternative timber supply scenarios.41

The average employment levels and coefficients are reported at TSA and provincial levels.

39

Information sourced from Ardew’s web site (available at http://www.ardew.com/Company/History.aspx)

40 Total employment is comprised of direct, indirect and induced employment. Direct employment estimates were calculated by using 2006-

08 employment, production and timber consumption data supplied to this report’s author by Merritt TSA Forest Licence holders and recent employment data and fibre consumption supplied by the TSA’s smaller wood processors, such as Princeton Co-generation Corp. and the post and rail mills. Indirect and induced employment estimates are calculated with the aid of multipliers developed by BC Stats, which uses its input/output model and 2006 census results to estimate local and provincial multipliers. For more explanation about the estimates see the Appendix entitled, Socio-Economic Analysis Background Information.

41 The coefficients represent the direct employment supported by the forest sector. To determine the employment (measured in person-

years) associated with a particular timber supply, the coefficients are multiplied by the timber supply. For example, if 1 000 000 cubic metres were harvested from the land base, the harvest would support 180 person-years of harvesting and silviculture employment ([1 000 000/1000] * 0.18 = 180).


Table 1-25 Merritt TSA timber employment estimate (2006-2008)

TSA Province Activity

Employment (PYs)

Employment Coefficient

(PYs/’000 m3)

Employment (PYs)

Employment Coefficient

(PYs/’000 m3)

Direct employment

Harvesting42

535 0.18 610 0.21

Timber processing43

872 0.30 995 0.34

Total direct employment 1 397 0.48 1 605 0.55

Indirect/induced employment 518 See footnote44

747 See footnote45

Total employment 1 915 NA 2 352 NA

Source: survey of licensee’s and author’s calculations

Employment, tied to harvesting and processing Merritt TSA timber, mainly resides within the boundaries of the TSA. For example, an estimated 98% of Ardew’s harvest employment and 100% of its manufacturing employment resided in the TSA. Typical of the mobile feature of the tree planting labour force in BC, most of the silviculture employees resided outside of the TSA, 72% in the case of Ardew`s Forest Licence generated silviculture employment.

The harvesting employment co-efficient for the 2006-2008 period is lower than the figure used in the previous (March 2001) TSR analysis report, which included a socio-economic assessment.

46 The lower employment

levels per unit of production are due to higher labour productivity, which is largely the result of lower woodlands staff levels, logging crew consolidation by licensees, resulting in more truckloads per day per logging show member, and larger cutblocks and less road development due to the MPB infested timber focus of the TSA’s harvesting activity. The timber processing co-efficient is also lower, mainly due to mill capital improvements. The processing employment located outside of the Merritt TSA timber is largely in pulp mills, mainly the Domtar plant in Kamloops, which consume wood chips from Merritt TSA saw mills

47.

Merritt TSA licensees are responsible for basic silviculture (i.e. establishment of a free-growing stand) on areas harvested under major licences. BC MOFR is responsible for silviculture on backlog not satisfactorily restocked (NSR) areas.

The forest sector employment estimates do not include BC MOFR employment in the TSA48

. The Merritt TSA, along with Lillooet TSA, is part of the Cascades Forest District. Its main office is located in Merritt, and there are satellite offices in Princeton and Lillooet, and it has a 40 person staff as of January 2010.

1.3.5 Forest sector employment income

42

Includes harvesting, log salvage, log scaling and harvest planning and administration, road building and maintenance, silviculture site preparation, planting, spacing, fertilization, pruning and silviculture planning. Note that employment in log transportation is included in the indirect employment estimates and not in direct employment.

43 Includes management and administration as well as facility operations

44 The local indirect/induced co-efficient for timber harvesting is 1.29 and for “Other Wood Processing” (i.e. not pulp & paper manufacturing)

it is estimated as 1.42. The indirect employment coefficients were sourced from a BC Stats publication (Horne February 2009) and are based on 2006 Census employment data.

45 The BC local indirect/induced co-efficient for timber harvesting is 2.05, for pulp & paper manufacturing it is 2.25 and for “Other Wood

Processing” (i.e. not pulp & paper manufacturing) it is estimated at 1.91. The indirect/induced employment coefficients for the provincial level were calculated from multipliers reported in a BC Stats publication (Horne March 2008).

46 The co-efficients in this older report are based on the 1996-99 period..

47 The pulp mill employment is based on consumption of chips that are a residual from milling Merritt TSA timber.

48 Ministry of Forests employment is not included as part of direct forest industry employment because it is related to administration and

statutory requirements and not to timber harvest levels and would not be affected by marginal timber supply changes. MOF employees are accounted for in the public service sector employment estimates reported in Section 1.2.2.


On a province-wide basis, the Merritt TSA harvest supported an estimated average annual total employment income of $110.8 million in recent years; $81.7 million of direct forest industry employment income and $29.1 million of indirect and induced employment income.

The employment income contribution of the forest industry is high in part because of the industry’s relatively higher income levels. Results in Table 1- suggests that there is about $27 773 of forest industry direct employment income in the province per ‘000 m

3 of harvested Merritt TSA timber.

Table 1-26 Merritt TSA timber supported employment income estimates and employment income coefficients (2006-2008)

Activity Employment (PYs)

Annual income per

PY ($)49

Total employment

income50

($million)

Employment income

coefficient ($/’000 m

3)

Direct employment

Harvesting 610 53 037 32.4 11 000

Timber processing 995 61 328 for pulp & paper and 48 550 for “other

wood processing”

49.3 16 774

Sub-total direct employment 1 605 81.7 27 773

Indirect/induced employment 747 38 889 29.1 9 881

Total employment 2 352 110.8 37 654

Source: Statistics Canada and author’s calculations

1.3.6 Provincial government revenues

There are three main sources of BC Government revenues from the forest sector as follows.

• Stumpage51

– The average Merritt TSA stumpage was $15.04/m3 2006-2008 period. This figure

has been falling since 2005 and stood at $10.00 per m3 in 2008. It peaked in 2000 at $26.74

and the average for the 1999-2008 decade is $19.34/m3. The average stumpage for Forest

Licence timber over the 2006-08 period was $14.15 per m3 whereas the average for BCTS

timber was higher, $24.96 per m3.52

The recent stumpage levels for all tenures in the TSA are much lower than in the middle of the decade, reflecting the weak demand for wood products in 2008 and 2009.

• Other forest industry resource taxes and fees – This category includes harvesting rents and fees, SLA export border tax (only in effect since fiscal 2006/07), logging taxes, and export fee in lieu of manufacture against exported logs. The 2007-08 average for the province was $4.67 per m

3, mostly made up of revenues from the Export Border Tax.

• Non-resource taxes and fees – Forest industry employees and employees in the industry’s indirect and induced sectors pay sales taxes on their personal purchases and provincial income taxes. The province collects other revenues from forest industry companies such as corporate taxes, sales tax, gas tax, and Workers Compensation Board premiums.

49

Sourced from Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 281-0027, based on 2008 average weekly earnings by 4-digit NAICS code industry

50 Province-wide basis

51 Includes BC Timber Sales revenues

52 The difference in planning, reforestation and road construction responsibilities is an important reason that BCTS stumpage revenues per

m3 are higher than Forest Licensee stumpage revenues. BCTS pays for and oversees planning, reforestation and main access road

building, not holders of Timber Sale Licenses, in BC TS chart areas whereas Forest Licensees are responsible for these activities in their operating areas.


The BC Government collected annual revenues of an estimated $135.8 million on average over the 2006-2008 period through stumpage, revenues, other resource taxes and fees and non-resource taxes and fees (such as personal income taxes, sales taxes and corporate income taxes) generated from harvesting and processing the TSA’s timber. Table 1- shows estimates of recent average annual BC Government revenues derived from the Merritt TSA timber harvest.

Table 1-27 Average annual BC Government revenues derived from the Merritt TSA timber harvest (2006-2008)

BC Government revenue source Est’d avg. annual

revenues ($million)

BC Govt. revenue

coefficient ($/’000 m

3)

Stumpage 44.2 15 040

Other resource taxes and fees53

13.7 4 670

Non-resource taxes and fees54

77.8 26 465

Total revenues 135.7 46 175

1.4 Socio-economic implications of the base case harvest forecast

1.4.1 Introduction

The socio-economic analysis focuses on harvest level changes in the near- to mid-terms (0 – 30 years). Economic impacts are gauged by comparing economic activity that could be supported by the current AAC with activity that could be supported by the base case harvest forecast. Actual harvest levels drive economic impacts, and they have been slightly above the TSA’s AAC level, on average, over the 1999-2008 decade. Although employment estimates based on AAC timber volume are expressions of possible future forest industry activity, they track closely with the likely activity in the Merritt TSA.

The base case timber supply forecast is 2 814 171 m3 over its initial six years, the same level as the current

AAC, decreasing by 1 million m3 to 1 814 171 m

3 over the Year 7 to 44 period. The AAC reaches its lowest

point in Year 45 at 1 580 000 m3.

Although this reduction over time is significant, it is not as large as projected for the Merritt TSA in other recent studies that examined mid-term timber supply for the BC Interior. The range of projections for mid-term timber supply for the Merritt TSA was 1 017 300 to 1 169 895 m

3 for the Merritt TSA (pg. 32, Southern Interior Beetle

Action Coalition October 2009). In addition, the analysis reports for TSR1 and TSR2 had lower timber supply levels for the TSA over the short- and mid-terms than does the current analysis.

1.4.2 Short- and Mid-term implications of alternative harvest levels

In the near term, there is no change in projected economic activity as a consequence of implementing the base case timber supply. However, the TSA’s forest industry has only half a dozen years to prepare for a substantial one-third decrease in the local timber supply. Over the past decade, the TSA’s harvest has closely tracked its AAC so there is no excess capacity in the local timber supply to absorb the change. However, the TSA’s AAC previous to 2005 was at a similar level for several years to the level of 1.8 million m

3 that will come into effect in

Year 7 of the base case scenario. The difference in estimated economic activity between the base case forecast and the current AAC is as follows.

• Year 0 to Year 6 – no change at either the TSA or provincial levels..

• Year 7 to Year 44 – reduction of 651 PYs of total employment at the TSA level and 799 PYs at the provincial level.

53

Estimated by using the 2007-08 average for the province, which was $4.67 per m3, mostly made up of revenues from the Export Border

Tax.

54 Estimated by using BC level provincial taxes multipliers reported in a BC Stats publication (Horne March 2008).


1.4.3 Requirements of BC timber processing facilities

A lower timber supply starting in Year 7 means that Merritt TSA timber processing facilities would have to rely to an increasingly greater degree on sourcing timber from non-Merritt TSA sources. The reduction of 1 million m

3 is

equivalent to the timber consumption of one of the largest Merritt TSA saw mill operations.

This report does not analyze regional or provincial timber supply and demand issues so no definitive comments can be made about whether a satisfactory supply of economic timber from non-Merritt TSA sources can be used to replace the Merritt TSA fibre that would no longer be available because the Chief Forester sets a lower AAC. There is a substantial amount of exporting logs into and importing logs out of the Merritt TSA but the net effect is seen as almost a break even situation. Most logs are imported from the Kamloops TSA and the Okanagan TSA is the main destination for Merritt TSA log exports (pg. 11, Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. March 2008), Both of these TSAs also have significant MPB infestation issues and face a likely future reduction in their AACs as well.

The Merritt TSA saw mills have operated at almost full capacity over the 2006-2008 period. The current downturn in the main destination for BC wood products, the US housing market, will abate in the short term as the overall US economy improves and the excess capacity in US housing is reduced over the next few years. The log supply issues in the Merritt TSA that will occur by Year 7 of the base case are reflective of the log supply issues generated by the MPB infestation for all mills in central and southern Interior BC. An in-depth analysis reported that between 200 and 350 million m

3 of pine would be non-recovered losses by 2016 and this

will lead to substantially lower AACs in the mid-term in most central and southern Interior TSAs and TFLs (Eng et al April 2006).

1.4.4 Merritt TSA level impacts

The base case timber supply will have no impact on the TSA’s economy in the near-term but a detrimental impact in the short- and mid- terms because of a 35.5% lower AAC. This TSA log supply shortfall will likely not be able to be mitigated through imports of logs from other nearby sources as they are similarly affected by the MPB infestation. The combination of stronger market demand and a lower AAC going forward will likely lead to higher timber prices and challenges for local processors in sourcing suitable, economic timber from non-TSA sources. With 1 million m

3 being taken out of the TSA’s timber supply, all four of the major local mills will face

fibre constraints post Year 7 of the base case scenario.

There will be re-structuring of capacity in the southern Interior sawmilling industry as a consequence of the MPB infestation and resulting AAC reductions in various TSAs and TFLs, including the Merritt TSA’s AAC. How this re-structuring will affect the four major saw mill complexes in the Merritt TSA is not known at this time. Sawmill owners will make re-structuring decisions based on the economics of their overall operations and corporate strategy objectives.

1.4.5 Regional timber supply implications

Although there is a significant volume of logs moving in and out of the Merritt TSA55

, it appears that it is neither a net importer nor exporter, The lower AAC in Year 7 will constrain log exports into other parts of BC but the log supply issues in the BC Interior means that imports into the Merritt TSA will be constrained too.

1.4.6 Summary Comparison Table

28 shows the estimated impact on employment, employment income and BC Government revenues of implementing the base case timber supply rather than the current AAC of 2 814 171 m

3.

55

Approximately 500 000 m3 each for exports and imports in 2006 (pg. 11, Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. March 2008)


Table 1-28 Estimated employment, employment income and government revenue impacts of implementing the base case timber supply

Base Case timber supply

forecast Yr 0 to 6

Impact of Base Case Yr 0 to 6

Base Case timber supply

forecast Yr 7 to 45

Impact of Base Case Yr 7 to 45

Current AAC

m3 m

3 m

3 m

3 m

3

Annual timber supply 2 814 171 0

1 814 171 -1 000 000 2 814 171

TSA level

Employment PYs PYs PYs PYs PYs

Direct 1 336 0 862 -474 1 336

Indirect/induced 496 0 320 -176 496

Total 1 832 0 1 181 -651 1 832

Employment income $M $M $M $M $M

Direct 67.1 0 43.3 -23.8 67.1

Indirect/induced 19.3 0 12.4 -6.9 19.3

Total 86.4 0 55.7 -30.7 86.4

BC level

Employment PYs PYs PYs PYs PYs

Direct 1 535 0 990 -545 1 535

Indirect/induced 715 0 461 -254 715

Total 2 250 0 1 451 -799 2 250

Employment income $M $M $M $M $M

Direct 78.2 0 50.4 -27.8 78.2

Indirect/induced 27.8 0 17.9 -9.9 27.8

Total 106.0 0 68.3 -37.7 106.0

BC Government revenues

$M $M $M $M $M

Stumpage revenues 42.3 0 27.3 -15.0 42.3

Other forest resource revenues

13.1 0 8.5 -4.6 13.1

Non-resource revenues 74.5 0 48.0 -26.5 74.5

Total 129.9 0 83.8 -46.1 129.9

1.5 Summary

The TSA’s population has risen by approximately 4% over the most recent five- and ten-year periods. However this increase is well behind the provincial rates of 6.2% and 10.3% for the same periods. The TSA’s population is older as well, with its proportion who are 50 years and older comprising 42% of the total population compared to 33% for the province as a whole. The TSA’s population is estimated as approximately 17 000.

First Nations members comprise a significant portion of the TSA’s population. An estimated 3 000 residents of the TSA self-identify as Aboriginal, almost 20% of its population.

56 There are six First Nations communities in

the TSA: Coldwater, Nooaich, Upper Nicola, Lower Nicola, Shackan and Upper Similkameen. Their total on-

56

based on data from the 2006 Census


reserve population is approximately 1 500. Approximately15% of Merritt’s population and 8% of Princeton’s is Aboriginal.

In terms of their forest sector income vulnerability, both Merritt and Princeton rank fairly high in the province. Using an index number to measure forest sector income vulnerability, Merritt’s vulnerability index number was 30 in 2005 and Princeton stood at 38 (pg. 49, Horne March 2009).

57 Not as high as Quesnel (100) or Prince

George (46), nevertheless Merritt was the 18th highest and Princeton was 9

th highest of the 63 ranked

communities.

The current AAC of 2 814 171 m3 became effective July 1, 2005. It includes a five-year uplift of 1 000 000 m

3

per annum to help address the MPB epidemic in the TSA’s pine stands. Lodgepole pine stands constitute approximately 55% of the TSA’s THLB. The MPB has been recognized as a serious threat in the TSA since the early 90s and the AAC that became effective January 1, 1999 included an uplift to facilitate the control and harvest of MPB infested timber.

The Merritt TSA’s billed harvest has been consistently close to its AAC in recent years, approximately 104% of the AAC for the 1999-2008 period.

The average total direct forest industry employment supported by Merritt TSA harvested timber over the 2006-2008 period was 1 396 PYs in the TSA and 1 604 PYs province-wide. The TSA’s annual harvest supported total

58 employment of approximately 2 352 PYs in recent years on a province-wide basis.

In the near term, there is no change in projected economic activity as a consequence of implementing the base case timber supply. However, the TSA’s forest industry has only half a dozen years to prepare for a substantial one-third decrease in the local timber supply. Over the past decade, the TSA’s harvest has closely tracked its AAC so there is no excess capacity in the local timber supply to absorb the change. However, the TSA’s AAC previous to 2005 was at a similar level for several years to the level of 1.8 million m

3 that will come into effect in

Year 7 of the base case scenario. The difference in estimated economic activity between the base case forecast and the current AAC is as follows.

• Year 0 to Year 6 – no change at either the TSA or provincial levels.

• Year 7 to Year 44 – annual reduction of 651 PYs of total employment at the TSA level and 799 PYs of employment and $15 million of BC Government stumpage revenues at the provincial level.

These estimates of economic activity assume that harvesting and wood processing employment would decrease in concert with the AAC decrease. Harvesting employment, including logging, road building, log transport, and silviculture employment, will decline in the TSA as a smaller amount of timber is available for harvest and may decline within the province if the gap, between the current AAC and base case timber supply, cannot be closed by harvesting economical timber outside of the TSA.

Employment associated with wood processing at the TSA level is less subject to a direct correlation between timber supply and employment because of mill overhead employment and the potential for importing timber from outside the TSA. However, the option of replacing the gap in Merritt TSA timber at Merritt TSA mills with non-Merritt TSA timber is effectively shut off by similar MPB infestation issues in adjacent areas.

With 1 million m3 being taken out of the TSA’s timber supply, all four of the major local mills will face fibre

constraints post Year 7 of the base case scenario. There will be re-structuring of capacity in the southern Interior sawmilling industry as a consequence of the MPB infestation and resulting AAC reductions in various TSAs and TFLs, including the Merritt TSA’s AAC. How this re-structuring will affect the four major saw mill complexes in the Merritt TSA is not known at this time. Sawmill owners will make re-structuring decisions based on the economics of their overall operations and corporate strategy objectives.

Any decrease in the TSA could be partially mitigated by an upsurge in capital investment in bioenergy facilities in the TSA. There is one operating plant in Princeton that relies on sawdust from a nearby saw mill and an under construction plant in Merritt. It is unknown at this time if other facilities would be economically viable in the TSA. The BC Government has a proactive bioenergy policy and this may contribute to one or more additional bioenergy facilities becoming established in either Merritt or Princeton and/or the existing facilities raising their production and employment levels.

57

On a scale of 0 to 100, with Quesnel being the yardstick for the maximum figure of 100.

58 direct+ indirect + induced = total employment


Bibliography

BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Economics and Trade Branch (November 2009) Major Primary Processing Facilities in British Columbia, 2007.

BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Timber Supply Branch (March 2001) Merritt Timber Supply Area Analysis Report.

BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest Analysis Branch (September 2004) Merritt Timber Supply Area Analysis Report.

BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest Analysis Branch (October 2003) Interim Guidelines for the Preparation of Socio-Economic Assessments for Timber Supply Reviews.

BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2007) Guidelines for Socio-Economic and Environmental Assessment.

Eng, M., Fall, A., Hughes, J., Shore, T., Riel, B., Walton, A., and Hall, P. (April 2006) Provincial–Level Projection of the Current Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak. Prepared for NRCan and BC MOFR.

Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. (2009) Merritt Timber Supply Area Forest Sector Trend Analysis – Fact Sheet. Prepared for Southern Interior Beetle Action Coalition.

Horne, G. (February 2009) 2006 Economic Dependency Tables for Forest District. BC Stats.

Horne, G. (March 2009) British Columbia Local Area Economic Dependencies 2006. BC Stats.

Horne, G. (March 2008) British Columbia Provincial Economic Multipliers and How to Use Them. BC Stats.

Jackie Hamilton & Associates (September 2009) Major Projects Inventory. BC Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development.

Merritt Timber Supply Area Sustainable Forest Management Plan (January 2008), available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/dcs/sustainable_forestry/Merritt_2008_SFM_Plan_final.pdf

Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society (April 2009) 2008-09 Annual Report for the Merritt IFPAs.

Pierce Levebvre Consulting (December 2008) Central Kootenay Region Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey. Prepared for BC MOFR and BC MAL.

Southern Interior Beetle Action Coalition (October 2006) Mountain Pine Beetle Assessment and Mitigation Plan.

Timberline Natural Resource Group (April 2009) SIBAC Princeton Fibre Use and Fibre Supply Study. Prepared for Southern Interior Beetle Action Coalition.

Walkem, D. (March 13, 2006) Forest Policy Changes Needed to Create a New Relationship with First Nations in BC. Presentation to the BC Forum on Forest Economics and Policy.


2.0 SEA Appendix - Forest Industry Employment and Employment Income Estimation Methodology

Estimates of forest industry direct employment are based mainly upon a questionnaire administered to the major holders of Merritt TSA replaceable Forest Licences. They were surveyed about their 2006 to 2008 harvesting, wood processing facility timber inputs and employment. The survey responses provide the basis for calculating direct employment per m

3 in harvesting and processing. In addition, smaller timber fibre processors in the TSA

were surveyed by phone about recent employment, production and fibre consumption.

Employment is tied to timber harvested so it is calculated as an employment (in person-years, PYs)59

per 1 000

m3 co-efficient, which allows for a ready estimate of forest sector employment and income impacts based on

timber harvest level changes. To estimate the share of processing employment supported by TSA timber, mill employment was prorated by the relative contribution of timber from the TSA to a mill’s total timber requirement. Harvesting, silviculture and processing employment was also adjusted to reflect the residences of the workers.

Indirect and induced employment impacts are calculated by applying multipliers to the direct employment figures. Forest District area multipliers have been calculated by BC Stats, based on the BC input/output model, for all areas of the province except the Lower Mainland (Horne February 2009). Indirect employment occurs in businesses supplying goods and services to forest sector companies, while induced employment occurs in businesses supported by the spending of direct and indirect employment income. Table A-1 shows the indirect and induced multipliers for the Cascades Forest District.

Table A-2: Cascades Forest District indirect/induced forest industry multipliers

Industry Harvesting & Silviculture

Pulp & paper Other Wood Processing

Multiplier* 1.29 NA 1.42

Source: Horne (February 2009)

Note: * This multiplier incorporates the assumption that employment insurance and other social safety net programs to employed and displaced workers will temporarily encourage them not to leave the community, thereby reducing the induced impacts of a lower harvest level.

Table A-2 presents province-wide indirect/induced multipliers for the forestry, wood saw milling and pulp and paper processing industries. The multiplier of 1.91 indicates that each PY of direct employment is associated with an additional 0.91 PY of indirect and induced employment.

Table A-2: Province-wide indirect/induced forest industry multipliers

Industry Harvesting & Silviculture

Pulp & paper Other Wood Processing

Multiplier 2.05 2.25 1.91

Source: author’s calculations based on Horne (March 2008)

Forest sector employment income was estimated using Statistics Canada 2008 data on earnings by industry. Annual employment income for a PY of harvesting employment is estimated to be $53 037 and $48 550 in wood product manufacturing (other than pulp and paper making). Indirect and induced employment income per PY is obtained by multiplying the estimated indirect/induced employment by an average annual income of $38 889.

The impact estimates presented in the report are intended as indicators of the magnitude of change, rather than as precise estimates. The following qualifications apply:

• In using co-efficients and multipliers to calculate impacts, the employment changes are shown as immediate and in direct proportion to the change in the harvest level. While this is likely accurate

59

Person-Year (PY) is defined as one person working the equivalent of one full year, which is defined as 180 days of work. A person working for 90 days accounts for 0.5 PYs.


for the harvesting sub-sector, it may not be the case for the sawmilling and pulp/paper sub-sectors, which have weaker links to harvest levels and where employment changes are more likely to occur at threshold levels, at which shifts are added or dropped, or mills are closed. Also, indirect and induced impacts would likely occur over a longer period of time, as business and consumer spending levels adjust.

• The co-efficients were derived from a survey of TSA Forest Licensees, and reflect prevailing productivity, harvest practices and forest management for the survey time frame (2006-08). The co-efficients may not reflect future conditions. While there has been a long-term trend of reduced employment co-efficients due to mechanisation and increased labour productivity, increased requirements for planning and more sensitive harvesting methods could result in higher employment co-efficients.

• The employment multipliers are derived from assumptions regarding which sectors are basic to a region which sectors are non-basic; those assumptions may not always be valid. Also, multipliers are based on a static snapshot, and do not reflect the ability of communities to adjust over time to changes in the economic base.

• Economic forecasts are subject to increasing uncertainty, particularly as the time horizon extends beyond a decade.


93

Errata - Updated Base Case Analysis The Base Case Option (or scenario) presented previously in this report was found to have an error in the model that limited the harvest of smallwood stands. The original intent of the Base Case was to target smallwood stands, up to a maximum of 312,500 m3/yr, similar to the target harvest of spruce bark beetle stand (in that case up to a maximum of 300,000 m3/yr). However, it was found that the control had been “turned off”, and the model harvested all the merchantable smallwood stands it could until it exhausted the supply, then it moved on to other non-smallwood, MPB-attacked stands. The difference in harvest profile between the Base Case and the Updated Base Case, for years 1 to 20, is seen in Table 31. In the Base Case, all but the spruce beetle harvest comes from the smallwood stands. In the Updated Base Case the smallwood stands are limited and non-smallwood MPB-attacked stands comprise the majority of the harvest. Table 31 Base Case versus Updated Base Case harvest profile

Base Case Harvest Profile (% of total harvest)

Updated Base Case Profile (% of total harvest) Period

(years) Smallwood Other-MPB attacked

Spruce Beetle Smallwood Other-MPB

attacked Spruce Beetle

1-2 90 0 10 11 79 10 3-4 90 0 10 11 79 10 5-6 90 0 10 11 79 10 7-8 49 37 15 17 69 15 9-10 5 95 0 17 83 0

11-12 2 98 0 17 83 0 13-14 9 91 0 17 83 0 15-16 2 98 0 17 83 0 17-18 8 92 0 17 83 0 19-20 3 97 0

17 83 0 Notes: Total harvest volume is 2.8 MM m3/yr for years 1 to 6, and 1.8 MM m3/yr for years 7 to 20. The spruce bark beetle salvage harvest proportion (and harvest) is the same in both the Base Case and Updated Base Case. The smallwood harvest is a fixed volume (312,500 m3/yr) in all years in the Updated Base Case and hence is a constant proportion in years 1-6, and in years 7-20 (i.e. a constant proportion of the 2.8 MM m3/yr and 1.8 MM m3/yr total harvest, respectively). The smallwood harvest is the major portion of the harvest in the Base Case in years 1-8, and then it declines to a small proportion for years 9 to 20. It was decided to re-run the model and examine all the Updated Base Case harvest statistics and compare them to the Base Case (Section 4.0). The results of the new base case model run (below) showed that the short term harvest level was not changed, although the mid- and long-term were. Given no change in the short term it was decided to present the Updated Base Case harvest statistics as Errata, for the Chief Forester’s consideration (similar to another sensitivity analysis) rather than making wholesale changes to the Analysis Report. In summary, the statistics that follow are based on an “Updated Base Case” model run that is the same as the Base Case, except that the harvest in smallwood stands is limited to a maximum of 312,500 m3/yr. As in the Base Case, the projections were run for a minimum of 300 years. The first 250 years (25 decades) are reported and are summarized by decade (10-year period) in most of the charts, figures, and tables. Where differences occur between the “Base Case” (Section 4.0)) and the “Updated Base Case” (in this section) they will be commented upon. Otherwise, if no significant difference was seen the trends are only briefly mentioned, rather than the more lengthy descriptions of the Base Case in Section 4.0. Any differences are largely caused by the limited, flowed-out harvest of smallwood stands in the Updated Base Case, versus the unlimited harvest of smallwood stands in the Base Case during the first 8 years.


94

Updated Base Case harvest flow Figure 63 compares the Updated Base Case harvest flow (“BC_Jan30”) and the Base Case harvest flow (Base Case 2008) as well as the TSR3 base case, and the base AAC less uplift level. Note that the TSR 3 Base Case was a prediction for the period 2003 onwards while the Base Case for TSR 4 is for 2008 onwards (i.e. offset by 5 years, or one half of a decade) but the chart shows them both starting in 2008 (or year=0 in our planning horizon). The Base Case and Updated Base Case harvest forecasts both start at an initial harvest rate of 2.81 MM m3/yr for six years. They both assume a 5 year extension to the current uplift AAC level, if a new AAC determination was made in 2010. The harvest falls to 1.81 MM m3/yr (non-uplift, or “base AAC” level) in year 7, then declines to mid-term lows during decades 5 to 11 (at 1.58 MM m3/yr for the Base Case, and 1.42 MM m3/yr for the Updated Base Case). They both rise, in decade 12, to a constant for the rest of the planning horizon (1.65 MM m3/yr for the Base Case, 1.56 MM m3/yr for the Updated Base Case). Both have long term harvest levels lower than the current “base AAC” of 1.81 MM m3/yr (8.8% lower for the Base Case, and 13.8% lower for the Updated Base Case). In summary, the harvest flow pattern is the same, but the Updated Base Case’s mid-term harvest flow is lower, and the Updated Base Case’s long term harvest flow is slightly lower.

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000


Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

TSR3 BC (K)

AAC less uplif t

Base Case 2008

BC_Jan30

Base Case 2008 (no smallwood limit - heavy solid line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MM, decrease to 1.81 MM in yr 7decrease to 1.58 MM in dec 4, increase to 1.65 MM in dec 12

BC_Jan30 (max smallwood harvest - short dash line)Initial harvest of 2.81 MM, decrease to 1.81 MM in yr 7 decrease to 1.58 MM in decade 3, to 1.42 MM in dec 4 increasing to 1.56 MM in decade 12

TSR 3(Grey line)

AAC less uplift(long dashed line)

Figure 63 Updated Base Case harvest forecast for the Merritt TSA (Current Practice)


95

Table 32 Updated Base case - harvest volumes

Year Harvest (m3/yr) Year Harvest

(m3/yr) 2 2,814,171 110 1,422,000 4 2,814,171 120 1,564,200 6 2,814,171 130 1,564,200 8 1,814,171 140 1,564,200

10 1,814,171 150 1,564,200 12 1,814,171 160 1,564,200 14 1,814,171 170 1,564,200 16 1,814,171 180 1,564,200 18 1,814,171 190 1,564,200 20 1,814,171 200 1,564,200 25 1,814,171 210 1,564,200 30 1,814,171 220 1,564,200 35 1,580,000 230 1,564,200 40 1,580,000 240 1,564,200 45 1,422,000 250 1,564,200 50 1,422,000 260 1,564,200 60 1,422,000 270 1,564,200 70 1,422,000 280 1,564,200 80 1,422,000 290 1,564,200 90 1,422,000 300 1,564,200

100 1,422,000 Note: While most of the charts and tables use decades as their reporting period, the modelling was actually performed using ten 2-year periods (20 years) followed by six 5-year periods (30 years) followed by 10-year periods for the rest of the planning horizon, as per the above table. Updated Base Case Attributes The harvest attributes and forest level attributes presented in this section correspond with the Updated Base Case harvest forecast. Only the significant differences between the Updated Base Case and Base Case are focused on and described in detail.

Growing Stock The growing stock on the timber harvest land base (THLB) exhibits the same trend seen in the Base Case. The high initial harvest level and the shelf life curve cause the initial, quick decline in growing stock. Over time, the relatively stable growing stock reflects a stable harvest level. Table 33 Updated Base case - merchantable and total growing stock on the THLB

Decade Total (million m3)

Merch (million m3) Decade Total

(million m3) Merch

(million m3) 0 98.75 81.98 13 42.98 15.65 1 71.94 64.92 14 42.44 17.12 2 58.73 50.49 15 42.60 15.17 3 41.95 27.30 16 43.32 15.45 4 38.80 16.06 17 43.51 13.53 5 40.83 9.94 18 43.27 16.05 6 38.30 11.15 19 42.90 17.06 7 39.54 15.48 20 43.18 15.41 8 39.31 15.39 21 43.76 13.43 9 39.50 15.78 22 44.13 17.07

10 41.23 13.29 23 44.33 13.97 11 43.64 12.64 24 44.62 18.39 12 43.85 14.03 25 45.20 17.56


96

Growing Stock

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Volu

me

(mill

ion

m3)

THLB Growing Stock

Merchantable Growing Stock

Figure 64 Updated Base case - merchantable and total growing stock on the THLB

Harvest Attributes Figure 65 depicts the transition from harvesting of natural stands to managed stands. The trend is the same as seen in the Base Case. Natural stands constitute the majority of the harvest until decade 6, when they begin to be depleted and managed stands start to become merchantable. From decade 6 onwards, managed stands constitute most of the harvest profile. Minor amounts of natural stand harvest is still evident until the end of the planning horizon.

Harvest Volume - Natural vs Managed Stands

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Volu

me

(mill

ion

m3)

Natural Stands

Managed Stands

Figure 65 Updated Base case - contribution of natural and managed stands to the harvest projection


97

Average Harvest Age

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

Age

Volume-weighted Harvest AgeArea-weighted Harvest AgeMinimum Age This PeriodMaximum Age This Period

Figure 66 Updated Base case - mean harvest age The mean harvest age (Figure 66) provides an indicator of the type and age of stands harvested over time. Again, the trend is similar to that seen in the Base Case. The mean harvest volume per hectare is shown in Figure 67. The trends for the Updated Base Case are very similar to the Base Case.

Average Harvest Volume per Hectare

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

Vol

ume

(m3/

ha)

CC Average Harvest/ha

PC Average Harvest/ha

Figure 67 Updated Base case - mean annual harvest volume/ha


98

Figure 68 shows the average harvest area in the TSA each period. Again, the trend for the Updated Base Case is similar to that seen in the Base Case.

Average Harvest Area

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

Are

a (h

a)

Area Clearcut (ha)

Partial Cut (ha)

Figure 68 Updated Base case - total harvest area per year Figure 69 shows the harvest volume by stand leading species in each period for the Updated Base Case. Pine-leading stands comprise the great majority of the harvest profile except for decade 4. In decade 4 the last of the MPB-attacked stands are being harvested (since the pine shelf life curve ends at year=38). The harvest moves from MPB-attacked stands (given a higher harvest priority) to the last of the natural stands that are non-pine leading (with a lower harvest priority). The switch from natural stands to managed stands occurs in decade 5. From decade 5 onwards the leading species harvest statistics are largely (but not wholly) governed by the leading species that was planted when the stand was harvested. The overall trend for the Updated Base Case is the same as in the Base Case, however the proportion of pine-leading stands harvested in the first decade in the Base Case was much higher. The high proportion in the Base Case is due to the high proportion of smallwood stands that were harvested in years 1 to 8.


99

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Decade

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)

Cedar/Hemlock

Spruce/Balsam

Fir/Larch

Pine

Figure 69 Updated Base Case - Harvest volume by stand leading species Years since-death Figure 70 shows the proportion of harvest, with pine volumes separated into years-since-death. Compared to the Base Case, the Updated Base Case shows a much reduced proportion of MPB-attacked pine in years 1 to 8, then a slightly increased proportion of MPB-attacked pine volume in years 9 to 35. Again, this is directly related to the high harvest of smallwood stands in the Base Case in years 1 to 8.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40

Period (start/end)

Volu

me

(m3/

yr)


Figure 70 Updated Base Case – Years-since-death pine harvest volumes. Notes: Contribution of MPB-attacked pine to the total harvest volume, by time-since-death. “0-2yr” signifies the pine volume in the harvest that was attacked up to two years prior to the year of harvest, “3-4yr” is pine that was attacked either three or four years prior to the year of harvest, etc. Periods are not equal lengths, some are 2 years, some are 5 years. Non-MPB-pine/OS = pine in the harvest that is not MPB-attacked (such as S-attacked stands), or volume of non-pine/other species (OS).


100

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)


Figure 71 Updated Base Case – Harvest in MPB-attacked and not-MPB-attacked stands The only significant change from the Base Case, in the proportions of MPB-attacked and non-MPB-attacked stands in the harvest, is a significantly higher proportion of non-MPB attacked stands in years 31-35 (Figure 71). This indicates that the merchantable volumes of MPB-attacked stands have been exhausted five years earlier than in the Base Case, causing an earlier switch to non-MPB-attacked, natural stands. Conversely, this indicates that in the Base Case, the higher, initial harvest of smallwood stands sustains the harvest in MPB-attacked stands for a longer period. The earlier depletion of MPB-attacked volumes is the cause of the earlier and greater falldown in the Updated Base Case.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1-2 5-6 9-10 13-14 17-18 21-25 31-35

Years

Har

vest

(MM

m3/

yr)



MPB-attacked pine


Figure 72 Updated Base Case – Pine and other species volumes within the total harvest Figure 72 divides the MPB-attacked stand volumes into other species, green pine, and MPB-attacked pine. The proportion of MPB-attacked pine volume in the Updated Base Case harvest is lower than in the Base Case in the first eight years. Conversely, the proportions of green pine and other species are higher in


101

the Updated Base Case during the first eight years. After that, the trends are quite similar, except for the 31-35 year period which was discussed, above. Again, the trend in the first eight years is a reflection of the reduced smallwood harvest. For example, many of the non-smallwood MPB-attacked stands that are now harvested during years 1 to 8 have only a portion of their pine volume attacked (Table 16), so the proportion of green pine in MPB-attacked stand increases. Table 34 Updated Base Case - pine volume and other species volumes within the total harvest volume.

Harvest Years

Volume in not

MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)


stands (MM m3/yr)



(MM m3/yr)


MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr)


MPB-attacked stands

(MM m3/yr) 1-2 0.101 2.713 0.857 0.988 0.868 3-4 0.131 2.683 0.750 0.831 1.103 5-6 0.097 2.717 0.779 0.870 1.067 7-8 0.147 1.668 0.574 0.556 0.538

9-10 0.021 1.793 0.629 0.578 0.586 10-11 0.046 1.768 0.651 0.536 0.581 13-14 0.041 1.773 0.605 0.559 0.609 15-16 0.011 1.803 0.643 0.614 0.545 17-18 0.019 1.795 0.622 0.607 0.566 19-20 0.026 1.788 0.596 0.633 0.559 21-25 0.020 1.794 0.524 0.588 0.682 26-30 0.117 1.697 0.502 0.630 0.565 31-35 1.267 0.313 0.220 0.017 0.076 36-40 1.430 0.150 0.038 0.028 0.084

Conclusion – The impact of a limited smallwood harvest

The conclusion is that a higher harvest of smallwood stands in the first decade (such as in the Base Case) will tend to ameliorate the mid-term falldown. A higher smallwood harvest is, therefore, an opportunity to reduce the mid-term falldown. However, any increase in smallwood harvest will have to address the operational cost (or the decreased value) of harvesting in smallwood stands.


102

Table 35 Updated Base Case - Harvest volume of MPB-attacked pine within total harvest volume

Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr 1-2 1,655,077 98,960 6,310 0 0 0 0 0 1,760,348 880,174 3-4 1,387,937 56,437 83,045 11,546 0 0 0 0 1,538,965 769,482 5-6 614,798 833,566 86,133 62,219 3,609 0 0 0 1,600,324 800,162 7-8 183,065 419,980 542,197 20,504 24,262 5,289 0 0 1,195,297 597,648 9-10 0 338,374 431,576 487,031 22,583 29,435 0 0 1,308,998 654,499 11-12 0 0 266,137 442,391 570,792 72,080 4,484 0 1,355,885 677,942 13-14 0 0 0 326,260 441,678 454,011 38,199 0 1,260,148 630,074 15-16 0 0 0 0 377,327 888,249 74,386 0 1,339,962 669,981 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 939,004 353,956 2,843 1,295,803 647,902 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 557,406 680,524 3,419 1,241,350 620,675 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,124,683 601,108 2,725,791 545,158 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,614,034 2,614,034 522,807 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,152,715 1,152,715 230,543 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197,961 197,961 39,592 Table 36 Updated Base Case - Harvest volume of green pine within the total harvest volume

Years 0-2 yr 3-4 yr 5-6 yr 7-8 yr 9-10 yr 11-15yr 16-20yr 21 yr+ Total Avg/yr 1-2 1,747,925 250,977 29,319 0 0 0 0 0 2,028,222 1,014,111 3-4 1,367,367 58,156 222,011 57,637 0 0 0 0 1,705,170 852,585 5-6 532,801 1,028,911 89,838 117,427 17,858 0 0 0 1,786,835 893,418 7-8 180,830 511,728 401,857 38,752 14,783 9,267 0 0 1,157,216 578,608 9-10 0 233,904 435,128 425,660 64,322 45,648 0 0 1,204,663 602,331 11-12 0 0 128,156 399,405 462,734 116,423 9,014 0 1,115,733 557,866 13-14 0 0 0 142,291 480,692 498,998 42,137 0 1,164,117 582,059 15-16 0 0 0 0 256,806 921,451 100,994 0 1,279,250 639,625 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 976,014 282,100 5,567 1,263,681 631,841 19-20 0 0 0 0 0 566,015 741,411 11,307 1,318,733 659,366 21-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,199,043 864,232 3,063,274 612,655 26-30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,280,272 3,280,272 656,054 31-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88,365 88,365 17,673 36-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144,140 144,140 28,828


103

Age Class Distribution Figure 73 provides a temporal forecast of the age-class distribution for the TSA in 50 year increments. There is no significant difference between the trend in the Base Case and the Updated Base Case.

Figure 73 Updated Base Case - age class composition: six snapshots

Note: Age classes (X-axis) are 10-year age classes up to 250 years, then all ages greater than 250 grouped together.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a) Forested NonTHLB

THLB

Age Class Distribution Present

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Area

('00

0 ha

)

Forested NonTHLB

THLB


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Area

('00

0 ha

)

Forested NonTHLB

THLB


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Area

('00

0 ha

)Forested NonTHLB

THLB


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a) Forested NonTHLB

THLBAge Class Distribution 200 Years

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Land

Class 10 30 50 70 90 11

013

015

017

019

021

023

0

Are

a ('0

00 h

a)

Forested NonTHLB

THLB



104

Constraints Analysis In the analysis, cover constraints are modelled to ensure that non-timber values are represented on the land base. These constraints address issues related to wildlife habitat, visual quality, watersheds, etc. This section of the report provides a summary of the cover constraints in the Updated Base Case, and how the constraints are being met over the 250 year planning horizon.

Landscape Level Biodiversity Spatial OGMAs (for old seral) were used in the model to meet biodiversity objectives for the duration of the planning horizon. These act like THLB net-downs during modeling. No harvesting occurs in these stands.

Greenup The objective of “greenup” is to disperse harvesting across the landscape. Greenup requirements are typically phrased in terms of what conditions must be achieved in one cutblock before an adjacent cutblock can be harvested. For example: “Greenup is achieved when adjacent regeneration attains the height of 3 meters.” The surrogate for spatial adjacency, used in this project, which is typical of many TSR projects, was to apply an early seral limit of a maximum of 33% of the unit can be in stands which are less than 3 m. in height. This IRM requirement is applied to the THLB portion of each Landscape unit (LU) wherever other resource emphasis areas (REA) are not present, such as VQO, UWR, or community watershed REAs.

IRM Young Seral - max 33% less than 3 mAll landscape units combined

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 74 Updated Base case - IRM young seral - all LU combined In general, for all landscape units combined, the maximum early seral requirement (33% in stands below 3 m height) is met during the planning horizon except for decade 3 when the requirements are slightly above the upper limit. The excess is rectified in subsequent decades. Note that during the first two decades the IRM requirement was “turned off”, hence the IRM limit is the total area of THLB within the IRM REA, which is effectively “no limit”.


105

IRM Young Seral - max 33% less than 3 mOtter Landscape Unit

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 75 Updated Base case - IRM young seral in Otter LU Individual landscape units are constrained at different times during the planning horizon, as seen in the Otter LU example (Figure 75). The trend is very similar to the trend seen in the Base Case.

IRM Young Seral - max 33% less than 3 mTHLB in tight condition - all landscape units combined

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

THLB (Ha)


Figure 76 Updated Base Case - IRM young seral in tight condition. The total area of the THLB that is in tight condition due to IRM requirements is depicted in Figure 76. The trends are similar to the Base Case.


106

Ungulate Winter Range UWR requirements are active throughout the planning horizon. There are 1100+ individual UWR planning cells (UWR PC) in the Merritt TSA. Each UWR planning cell has its own target percentage of mature seral forest (age of 121 yrs+) which is based on the snow zone(s) within that planning cell.

Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) Mature Seral(snowzone-specific % min 121yr+, all UWR combined)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

Min 121 yr old Mature (ha)

Actual Mature (ha)

Figure 77 Updated Base Case - UWR mature seral for all planning cells combined On a TSA basis, considering all UWR planning cells combined, the UWR requirements are generally met throughout the planning horizon (Figure 77). This is, again, similar to the Base Case.

Ungulate Winter Range Mature Seral( Planning Cell 0004, min 15% gt 121 yr+ )

0

100

200

300

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

Min 121 yr old Mature (ha)Actual Mature (ha)

Figure 78 Updated Base Case - UWR mature seral for planning cell #0004 The mature seral that exists in each planning cell will vary over time. One example of the variation is PC 0004 (Figure 78), which requires a minimum of 15% of its forested area is to be maintained in stands above 121 yrs old. This trend is similar to the Base Case.


107

Ungulate Winter Range Mature Seral ( X % of 121 yr+ )THLB in tight condition, all LUs combined

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a) UWR THLB (ha)


Figure 79 Updated Base Case - UWR in tight condition for all planning cells combined There are 186,591 hectares of THLB within the UWR in the Merritt TSA. The area in “tight” condition, where UWR mature seral requirements could limit further harvest, ranges from 10+/- % to 33+/- % of the total area, with the maximum area in tight conditions in decade 13 (Figure 26). As in the Base Case, the UWR requirements are slightly, but not significantly limiting further harvest in the Updated Base Case.


108

Visual Quality Objectives

Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) were implemented as maximum disturbance constraints, i.e. in the same manner as greenup constraints. VQO requirements are a maximum percentage of forested area in stands less than 3 m height, applied within each VQO polygon. The percentage requirement is dependent on the VQO category (preservation, retention, or partial retention). Note that VQO requirements were “turned off” during the first two decades.

VQO - Maximum Early Seral (aka non-VEG)All VQO polygons combined

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a) Young Seral Limit (Ha)Actual Young Seral (ha)

Figure 80 Updated Base Case - early seral for all VQO polygons combined Figure 27 shows that in general, for all VQOs combined, the VQO requirements are met over the whole of the planning horizon.

VQO Early Seral THLB area in tight condition, all VQO polygons combined

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a) THLB (Ha)


Figure 81 Updated Base Case - THLB area in tight conditions for all VQO polygons combined The area in “tight” conditions within VQOs is generally small, as seen in the Base Case. Based on the above, the conclusion is that VQOs are not significantly limiting the harvest within the Merritt TSA.


109

Community Watersheds

Some water quality requirements were implemented as streamside reserves and thus they act like netdowns during modeling (see the summary of land base netdowns in Table 3). No harvesting occurs within the riparian reserves. Individual community watershed (CWS) requirements are a maximum 30% of young forest (or young seral) below 6.6 m height.

CWS Young Seral - max 30% less than 6.6 mAll landscape units combined

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 82 Updated Base Case - Young seral requirements for all CWS combined On a TSA basis, community watershed (CWS) are the only REA category that do not meet their requirement, i.e. they exceed the young seral limit (Figure 82). This starts in the first decade, implying that it is past disturbances (harvesting, fire, or the MPB-caused mortality) that are the source of the non-compliance. By the fifth decade harvesting has been limited in these watersheds, the forest has grown, and the early seral limits are being met. This is the same trend as seen in the Base Case.

CWS Young Seral - max 30% less than 6.6 mDillard Watershed

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)



110

Figure 83 Updated Base Case - early seral in Dillard watershed Individual watersheds show a similar trend to the TSA as a whole. One example is Dillard watershed (Figure 83). The ECA exceeds the CWS requirement in the first 4 decades, and then from decade 5 onwards the requirement is met, although from decade 5 onwards this watershed is always in a “tight” condition.

CWS Young Seral - max 30% less than 6.6 mArea in tight condition, all watersheds combined

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Are

a (h

a)

Total THLB Area (Ha)


Figure 84 Updated Base Case - THLB area in tight conditions in all watersheds combined The area of THLB within community watersheds is approximately 10,000 ha. Conditions are generally tight” over this area during decades 2 and 3, and 22 (Figure 84). During “tight” periods the watershed requirement limits further harvesting. However, given the relatively small area of THLB that is affected, CWS requirements are a relatively minor limitation on further harvesting.


111

Overall Timber Availability

A “timber availability” chart illustrates at what time periods the timber harvesting options are limited when all the constraints are considered together. Figure 85 illustrates the trend in harvest availability over time for the Updated Base Case scenario. The availability shown in the chart does not represent a potential harvest flow - it identifies the slack in the system or, the total volume available for harvest in any particular decade assuming the harvest flow was followed for all prior periods. For example, if the harvest in decade 4 was increased so that all the available timber in decade 4 was harvested, then all or most of the slack in decade 5 would likely disappear.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Decade

Volu

me

(m3)

Harvest

Available

Figure 85 Updated Base case - periodic harvest availability. Period 7 is an example of a ‘pinch point’ that controls or limits the harvest throughout a portion of the planning horizon. The available wood supply has to be “metered out” prior to a pinch point. Each pinch point is a point in time when the available timber is essentially depleted. Once the model passes though the pinch-point the harvest level might be increased to a higher level, barring other pinch points further in the future. The multiple pinch points seen in Figure 32 indicate that the mid- and long-term harvest levels are controlled by the pinch points in decades 7, 11, 17, 21, and 23. These are largely the same pinch-points seen in the Base Case. Given that no category of REA in the constraint analyses of the Updated Base Case model run showed these same periods as being particularly “tight”, and the growing stock chart showed these periods as having the lowest merchantable growing stock, the conclusions are • the volume of standing timber, and • the growth rate of forest stands, are the primary limits on the harvest rate, not the REA requirements. These are the same conclusions arrived at in the Base Case.

timber supply analysis report - british...

Documents