TFL 5 & 52 Uplift Analysis Information Package
Lillooet TSA Type II
Silviculture StrategY
File No. 4611017
Base Case Results
Version 1 - DRAFT
Prepared for:
Lillooet TSA Association
Prepared by:
Timberline Natural Resource Group Ltd.
April 2007
Reference: 4061944
TFL 5 & 52 Uplift Analysis Information Package
Multiple Accounts Decision Analysis Framework
April25, 2007
File: 4061944
Lillooet TSA Association
c/o Cirque Resource Associates
218 Pyper Way
Kamloops, BC
V2C 4R6
Attention: David Cameron, RPF, FFT Effectiveness Evaluations Coordinator
Reference: Base CaseReport –Lillooet TSA Type II Silviculture Strategy (file: 4611017)
Dear Dave,
Enclosed arethe Base Case results for the Type II Strategy for the Lillooet TSA, phase 7 of the project. This information will be distributed to the Type II participants for feedback in preparation for the remaining phases on the project.
Thank you for your input on the project to date. Please call if you have any questions or comments related to this summary or any other aspect of the project.
Yours truly,
TIMBERLINE NATURAL RESOURCE GROUP LTD.
Bill Kuzmuk, RPF
Senior Resource Analyst
Lillooet TSA Type II Silviculture Strategy
Lillooet TSA Association
Lillooet TSA Type II Silviculture Strategy
Table of Contents
1.0Introduction
2.0Description Of Lillooet TSA
3.0Base Case Inputs and Assumptions
3.1Land Base Classification......
3.2Inventory Aggregation......
3.2.1Landscape Units
3.2.2Resource Emphasis Areas
3.2.3Analysis Units
3.3Growth and Yield......
3.3.1VDYP Natural Stand Yields
3.3.2TIPSY Managed Stand Yields
3.4Resource Management......
3.4.1Resource Emphasis Area Objectives
3.4.2Landscape Level Biodiversity
3.4.3Stand Level Biodiversity
3.4.4Disturbance in the Inoperable
3.5Timber Harvesting......
3.5.1Non-Satisfactorily Restocked Area (NSR)
3.5.2Unsalvaged Losses
3.5.3Initial Harvest Rate
3.5.4Harvest Rule
3.5.5Timber Flow Objectives
3.5.6Mountain Pine Beetle Modelling
4.0Timber Supply Analysis Methods
5.0Base Case Results
5.1Base Case Scenarios......
5.1.1Base Case Annual Harvest Levels......
5.1.2Base Case Availability......
5.2Cut Control + NRFL Base Case Scenario......
5.3Summary......
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 – Lillooet TSA
Figure 3.1 – Current age class distribution
Figure 3.2 – Landscape unit area distribution
Figure 5.1 – Base Case harvest levels
Figure 5.2 – Current AAC harvest and availability
Figure 5.3 – Evenflow harvest and availability
Figure 5.4 – Cut control + NRFL harvest and availability
Figure 5.5 – Max MPB + NRFL harvest and availability
Figure 5.6 – Cut control + NRFL growing stock
Figure 5.7 – Current age class distribution
Figure 5.8 – Age class distribution at 20 years
Figure 5.9 – Age class distribution at 100 years
Figure 5.10 – Age class distribution at 250 years
Figure 5.11 – Average annual harvest DBH and age
Figure 5.12 – Average annual harvest volume and area
Figure 5.13 – Annual harvest profile
List of Tables
Table 3.1 – Lillooet TSA Type II Analysis land base classification
Table 3.2 – Areas for REA categories
Table 3.3 – REA forest cover constraints
Table 3.4 – Mature seral forest cover constraints
Table 3.5 – Inoperable Disturbance
Table 3.6 – Unsalvaged losses
Table 3.7 – MoFR Severity Class Definition
Table 5.1 – Base Case annual harvest levels
Lillooet TSA Association / 1 /Lillooet TSA Type II Silviculture Strategy
1.0Introduction
A Type II Silviculture Strategy (Type II) is being prepared for the Lillooet Timber Supply Area (TSA) Association. This Strategy will provide decision support for developing silviculture strategies and assist with prioritizing spending in the TSA. One of the key motivating factors behind the completion of these strategies is the need to understand the expected future impacts of the mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic.
Timberline Natural Resource Group Ltd (Timberline) has completed the Base Case analysis as part of the Type II. Thisdocument summarizes the inputs and results for the Base Case.
The Base Caseis the starting point for the analysis, which uses the best information available and projects the most likely outcome without FFT intervention. Using the results of the Base Case a number of sensitivity analyses are compiled to evaluate the potential opportunities to mitigate the mid-term timber supply impact caused by the MPB epidemic. In addition the impact on habitat supply and other non-timber resources are reviewed in the analysis.
Upon completion of all scenarios, a silviculture strategy will be developed, which may be a combination of various treatment sensitivities. This strategy will be run to reflect funding options for the Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) program. Ultimately the Strategy will provide direction for:
- Areas that should be retained either indefinitely or until the MPB epidemic has passed;
- Areas likely to be harvested with silviculture obligations;
- Areas unlikely to be harvested and therefore present an opportunity for treatment under the FFT program; and
- Recommended silviculture activities that will provide reasonable return on investment (ROI) and mitigate mid-term timber supply impactswithin FFT treatment areas.
2.0Description Of Lillooet TSA
The LillooetTSA is located in south western B.C. between the Coast Mountains and the Thompson-Okanagan Plateau and forms part of the Cascades Forest District administered by the Ministry of Forests and Range (MoFR). The total land base is approximately 1,125,00 hectares, of which approximately 500,000 hectares are productive crown land. The area is characterized by rugged terrain and significant climatic variability. Temperate rain forests conditions are found in the western areas of the TSA, with dry grasslands and semi-arid conditions in the eastern drybelt region.
A broad range of tree species are found on the land base, a result of the climatic and site variability. The predominant species include: lodgepole pine; Douglas-fir; spruce, with minor representation of ponderosa pine; whitebark pine, subalpine fir (balsam); western redcedar; and hemlock.
Lillooet is the largest community in the TSA with several smaller communities and First Nations Reserves found throughout the area including: Seton Portage; Shalalth; Xaxli’p; Lytton; Pavillon; Spences Bridge; Bralorne; and Gold Bridge. Figure 2.1 provides an overview image of the Lillooet TSA.
Figure 2.1 – Lillooet TSA
3.0Base Case Inputs and Assumptions
The Base Case uses many inputs and assumptions from the currenttimber supply review (TSR-3) analysis documented in Lillooet Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review #3 Analysis Report [(version 1.0 Forsite, March 2005) TSR-3 report]. A number of revisions to the Base Case from the TSR-3 analysis have been implemented in the Type II Base Case, based on discussions and consensus reached at an introductory meeting held January 23, 2007 in Lillooet. The changes to the Base Case include:
- Updated land base classification (netdown) using updated inventory, roads, MPB projection data, and old growth management areas (OGMAs);
- Analysis unitdefinitions based on leading species and site series groupings;
- Regeneration site index values based on Provincial SIBEC information and the predictive ecosystem mapping (PEM) completed for the TSA;
- New yield curves for all natural and managed stands based on the new analysis units; and
- Revised seral constraints to reflect the removal of OGMAs from the timber harvesting land base (THLB).
These revisions to the analysis inputs and assumptionsoften affect many aspects of the analysis. The following sectionsprovide details of the changes made for the Lillooet Type II analysis.
3.1Land Base Classification
The updated Lillooet TSA Type II GIS database was prepared using inventory data from both the TSR-3 analysis and other sources, based on the most recent information and the suitability for modelling the Type II Analysis.
Land base classification was completed in the GIS, which gives the ability to model in a spatially explicit manner. In addition revisions to the analysis database can be completed more efficiently. The ordering of the steps in the classification process differs somewhat from the published TSR-3 methods. This changes some of the individual land base withdraw amounts. Table 3.1 summarizes the land base classification for the Lillooet TSA Type II Base Case.
Table 3.1 – Lillooet TSA Type II Analysis land base classification
Land Classification / Area Removed (ha) / Net Remainder (ha)Total Area / 1,124,225
Not administered by MoFR / 165,980
Non-forest, non-productive / 460,158
Non-productive reductions / 626,138
Productive Forest / 498,087
Inoperable / 93,738
Non-commercial / 2
Environmentally sensitive - terrain / 18,630
Environmentally sensitive - forest cover / 6,346
Low site productivity / 41,434
Unmerchantable / 9,315
Community watershed intakes / 0
Riparian / 4,010
Existing roads / 9,528
Spruce lake protected area OIC / 16,801
Cultural heritage resources / 849
Old growth management area / 20,284
Total productive reductions / 220,935
Current timber harvesting land base / 277,152
The THLB developed for the Type II Analysis is approximately 26,700 hectares larger than that developed in the TSR-3 analysis. This increase is due to the following:
- Previously harvested areas were not removed in the low site or unmerchantable steps; and
- Low site removals used updated inventory attributes.
For the purposes of timber supply analysis all of the productive forest is included in modelling. The non-THLB component is available to satisfy non-timber resource objectives including wildlife and seral requirements, but will not contribute to the periodic harvest target. The non-THLB will however be included in “periodic disturbance” based on stand breakup estimates to more closely reflect natural range of variation in the forest.
Figure 3.1 summarizes the current age class distribution for the TSA including the current MPB inventory.
Figure 3.1 – Current age class distribution
As shown in Figure 3.1 there is a lack of inventory between ages 40 and 80 which influences the mid-term harvest on the TSA when the transition to harvesting second growth timber occurs. In addition, the stands affected by MPB (ages 60+) make up approximately 32% of the mature inventory on the THLB, again a factor that will impact both the short and mid-term harvest potential on the land base.
3.2Inventory Aggregation
Aggregation is necessary to facilitate forest level modelling. Stands are aggregated into landscape units (LUs), resource emphasis areas (REAs) and analysis units (AUs) to recognise similarities in management focus and reduce complexity.
3.2.1Landscape Units
Landscape units are large planning units (up to 64,000 ha) within the TSA. For many resource objectives similar areas are aggregated within the LU for modelling, including:
- Seral constraints; and
- REAs for IRM and habitat types.
Figure 3.2 summarizes the productive area by THLB and non-THLB for each LU in the Lillooet TSA.
Figure 3.2 – Landscape unit area distribution
3.2.2Resource Emphasis Areas
The landbase has been divided into REAs to facilitate modelling of forest cover constraints, which reflect objectives for non-timber resources. These include:
- Community watersheds (CWS);
- Spotted Owl long-term activity centres (LTACs);
- Visually sensitive areas with retention (VQO-R), partial retention (VQO-PR) and modification (VQO-M) visual quality objectives (VQOs); and
- Integrated resource management (IRM) areas.
The area of each REA grouping is summarized in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 – Areas for REA categories
REA Category / Non-THLB(ha) / THLB
(ha)
VQO-R-L / 4,944 / 810
VQO-R-M / 3,453 / 1,121
VQO-R-H / 6 / 14
VQO-PR-L / 15,298 / 16,811
VQO-PR-M / 25,667 / 23,123
VQO-PR-H / 2,479 / 1,892
VQO-M-L / 4,005 / 6,068
VQO-M-M / 9,555 / 9,188
VQO-M-H / 1,502 / 1,532
IRM / 0 / 277,152
Community watersheds / 16,716 / 24,057
Spotted Owl LTAC / 9,497 / 9,405
3.2.3Analysis Units
Ecologically based analysis units were developed for this analysis. The AUs are based onleading species and site series from the Lillooet TSA PEM. The result is sets of 100 AUs for each land base category:
- Existing natural stands (AUs 1 – 100);
- Existing and future managed stands (AUs 101 – 200);
- Existing MPB pine stands (AUs 201 – 300);
- Post MPB attack natural pine stands, low severity class (AUs 301 – 400); and
- Post MPB attack natural pine stands, moderate severity class (AUs 401 – 500).
The post MPB attack analysis units will have reduced volumesto reflect pine losses. However these stands will continue to grow the remaining species on a natural stand yield until harvest.
3.3Growth and Yield
Revised growth and yield (yield tables) were developed for the Type II Analysis compared with the TSR-3 Analysis. As noted in Section 3.2.3, analysis units are now based on leading species and site series. This revision was made to allow more detailed modelling of alternative treatments in the Type II Analysis.
3.3.1VDYP Natural Stand Yields
Natural stand yield tables were developed for each forest cover polygon with an inventory age older than 27 years. Yield tables were developed using the forest cover attributes as inputs into the Batch Variable Density Yield Projection (VDYP) (version 6.6d). All individual yield tables were then aggregated based on area-weighting for each analysis unit to provide the final yield table for input to the timber supply model. All natural stand yield tables were reduced for any deciduous content, with the exception of drybelt selection areas, where it is assumed only coniferous stems are harvested.
Minimum harvest ages for natural stands are based on the TSR-3 assumption of 80 years for pine and Douglas-fir, and 100 years for all other species.
Douglas-fir drybelt areas are modelled with a 40% volume removal during the first entry and 30% removal at all subsequent entries, with at least 30 years between future entries.
3.3.2TIPSY Managed Stand Yields
Both existing immature and future managed stands had identical managed stand yield tables. Improved estimates of site index were used as inputs to develop managed stand yield tables for each AU using Batch Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields (TIPSY) (version 3.0a). SIBEC site index values were used for input to TIPSY based on Provincial data and site series attributes from the Lillooet TSA PEM.
Similar to the TSR-3 analysis tree improvement (genetic worth) reflecting class A seed planted in the Lillooet TSA. Only pine (0.7%) and spruce (8.7%) were assigned tree improvement for the managed stand yields in the Type II Analysis.
Minimum harvest age for managed stands is based on stands achieving at least 90% of culmination mean annual increment (MAI). This reflects assumptions from the TSR-3 analysis.
3.4Resource Management
Modelling for non-timber resource objectives follows the assumptions used in TSR-3. This section provides details the modelling methodology used to address non-timber resource requirements.
3.4.1Resource Emphasis Area Objectives
Table 3.2 provides the area of each REA. A summary of forest cover constraints that will be assigned to the REAs in the timber supply analysis is provided in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 –REA forest cover constraints
REA Category / Disturbance Constraint / Mature Constraint / Old Constraint / Land Base ModelledVQO-R-L / 3.8% < 5 m / CFLB
VQO-R-M / 5.5% < 4 m / CFLB
VQO-R-H / 7.2% < 3 m / CFLB
VQO-PR-L / 10% < 5 m / CFLB
VQO-PR-M / 14% < 4 m / CFLB
VQO-PR-H / 18% < 3 m / CFLB
VQO-M-L / 17.5% < 5 m / CFLB
VQO-M-M / 22.5 < 5 m / CFLB
VQO-M-H / 27.5 < 3 m / CFLB
IRM / 33% < 3 m / THLB
Community watersheds / 20% < 6.6 m / CFLB
Spotted Owl LTAC / 67% > 100 yrs / 50% > 140 yrs / CFLB
VQO constraints are applied to the 460 individual VQO polygons. IRM constraints are applied at the landscape unit level. The VQO and IRM constraints were not appliedto MPB affected stands during the first 10 years of simulation. This allows access for salvage of dead or dying pine prior to the loss of all merchantable volume. These constraints were included for the final 240 years of the planning horizon.
There are 23 community watershed and nine Spotted Owl areas to which constraints are assigned in the analysis simulations. Each area must satisfy the respective constraints prior to any harvesting taking place.
3.4.2Landscape Level Biodiversity
Landscape level biodiversity is addressed through explicit OGMA removal from the THLB, an area of 20,284 ha. However OGMAs do not account for all seral requirements. Therefore mature plus old constraints were still applied to LU-BEC-NDT aggregates where the mature plus old requirement is not satisfied by the old constraint, ie. the mature plus old percentage is greater than the old percentage. Table 3.4 summarizes the areas by BEC, NDT and biodiversity emphasis option (BEO) and the mature plus old constraints modelled in the Type II Analysis.
Table 3.4 – Mature seral forest cover constraints
BEC Zone / NDT / BEO / Area / Mature ConstraintCWH / 2 / H / 1,379 / 51 / 80 yrs
ESSF / 2 / I / 24,960 / 28 / 120 yrs
ESSF / 2 / L / 3,811 / 14 / 120 yrs
ESSF / 3 / H / 11,840 / 34 / 120yrs
ESSF / 3 / I / 51,192 / 23 / 120 yrs
ESSF / 3 / IH / 11,741 / 29.6 / 120 yrs
ESSF / 3 / LH / 7,703 / 27.2 / 120 yrs
ESSF / 5 / H / 12,058 / 19 / 140 yrs
ESSF / 5 / I / 9,073 / 19 / 140 yrs
ESSF / 5 / L / 1,581 / 19 / 140 yrs
ESSF / 5 / LH / 3,725 / 19 / 140 yrs
IDF / 4 / H / 14,108 / 51 / 100 yrs
IDF / 4 / I / 70,727 / 34 / 100 yrs
IDF / 4 / IH / 4,603 / 44.2 / 100 yrs
IDF / 4 / L / 90,395 / 17 / 100 yrs
IDF / 4 / LH / 13,316 / 39.4 / 100 yrs
MH / 1 / H / 19 / 54 / 120 yrs
MS / 3 / H / 6,550 / 39 / 100 yrs
MS / 3 / I / 56,401 / 26 / 100 yrs
MS / 3 / IH / 1,121 / 33.8 / 250 yrs
MS / 3 / LH / 5,463 / 30.5 / 100 yrs
PP / 4 / I / 5,459 / 34 / 100 yrs
PP / 4 / IH / 94 / 44.2 / 100 yrs
PP / 4 / L / 9,033 / 17 / 100 yrs
3.4.3Stand Level Biodiversity
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 (WTPs).
As noted in the TSR-3 Analysis a reduction of 5.8% was applied to all yield tables to reflect trees left standing after harvest operations are complete. This reduction was applied to both natural and managed stand yields.
3.4.4Disturbance in the Inoperable
When modelling, the entire productive landbase is available to fulfill various landbase requirements (i.e. CWS and seral requirements). Traditionally, the only form of disturbance modelled is harvesting in the THLB. This is a concern because eventually in the model all the non-THLB becomes old and can lead to the non-THLB fulfilling an unrealistic portion of forest cover requirements, thereby reducing the impact on the THLB. In reality, there will be some level of natural disturbance within the productive non-THLB.