Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Thoughts on “early” harvesting on the Coast and in the Interior. Presented at: 2014 CSC Conference Nanaimo, BC February 27, 2014. Jeff McWilliams, RPF B.A . Blackwell & Assoc. Ltd. Context. What is “early” harvesting? Harvesting below biological culmination age Why is important? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Thoughts on “early” harvesting on the Coast and in the Interior
Jeff McWilliams, RPF B.A. Blackwell & Assoc. Ltd
Presented at:2014 CSC Conference
Nanaimo, BCFebruary 27, 2014
Context• What is “early” harvesting?
• Harvesting below biological culmination age• Why is important?
• Judicious use is critical to minimize the long term impacts of some non-timber constraints (visuals, adjacency, ect)
• Extensive use will reduce LTSY• Is it good or bad or?
• Depends on objectives and constraints• Financial versus biological rotation• Long term sustained yield
PG Situation Analysis
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
0 50 100 150 200 2500
2
4
6
8
10
12
AAC
Base case
Years from now
Fore
cast
ed H
arve
st (m
3/yr
)
PG Situation Analysis
0 50 100 150 200 2500
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Base case
Lower Minimum Harvest Crite-ria
Years from now
Fore
cast
ed H
arve
st (m
3/yr
)
AAC
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
PG Situation Analysis
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25
26 to 30
31 to 35
36 to 40
41 to 45
46 to 50
51 to 55
56 to 60
61 to 65
66 to 70
71 to 75
76 to 80
81 to 85
86 to 90
91 to 95
96 to 100
101 to 105
106 to 110
111 to 115
116 to 120
121 to 125
126 to 130
131 to 135
136 to 140
141 to 145
146 to 150
151 to 155
156 to 160
161 to 165
166 to 170
171 to 175
176 to 180
181 to 185
186 to 190
191 to 195
196 to 200
201 to 205
206 to 210
211 to 215
216 to 220
221 to 225
226 to 230
231 to 235
236 to 240
241 to 245
246 to 250
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000NaturalHigh Severity MPB AttackLow Severity MPB AttackMPB Attacked RegenFuture ManagedExisting Managed
Years from now
Fore
cast
ed H
arve
st (m
3/yr
)
Harvest by Stand Type
PG Situation Analysis
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25
26 to 30
31 to 35
36 to 40
41 to 45
46 to 50
51 to 55
56 to 60
61 to 65
66 to 70
71 to 75
76 to 80
81 to 85
86 to 90
91 to 95
96 to 100
101 to 105
106 to 110
111 to 115
116 to 120
121 to 125
126 to 130
131 to 135
136 to 140
141 to 145
146 to 150
151 to 155
156 to 160
161 to 165
166 to 170
171 to 175
176 to 180
181 to 185
186 to 190
191 to 195
196 to 200
201 to 205
206 to 210
211 to 215
216 to 220
221 to 225
226 to 230
231 to 235
236 to 240
241 to 245
246 to 250
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
> 250
141-250
121-140
101-120
81-100
61-80
41-60
21-40
Years from now
Fore
cast
ed H
arve
st (m
3/yr
)
Harvest by Age Class
Situation Analysis• Un-certainties associated with managed stands;
• Inventories; • Do we have accurate up to date data for AC2-3 managed
stands?• FH and modeling impacts on yield;
• use of OAF1?; disease modules?; impact of natural ingress
• Modeling impacts of different regimes on quality;• what qualities do we expect from different management
regimes? • Modeling yield from different stand types;
• multi-layered stands [planted vs natural infill, mixed species, ect]
Situation Analysis• Main Strategic Responses from interior T4 SIS’s;
• Enhancement of existing natural and managed stands;• Fertilization• Density management of overstocked dry belt Fdi
• Rehabilitation/Reforestation of;• MPB damaged stands that won’t be harvested• Fires
• “Enhanced Basic Reforestation”• Support for non-silv treatment strategic projects such as;
• Milling studies of managed stands,• Mid-rotation surveys of managed stands,• More monitoring!
“Enhanced Basic Reforestation”• What is it?
• “Enhanced basic reforestation” is basically a generic description for doing a better or more preferred job of site prep, re-stocking treatments and brush control
• How can it help?• Potential strategy is to invest in “enhanced reforestation” on
at least our better sites to increase resiliency and set up more preferred stands which have the best potential to be manipulated in the future (e.g.; density management and fertilization)
• Strategy can be a hedge against “borrowing from the future” or a strategy to improve timber quality and supply at the back end of the “mid-term” or early in the long term
Harry Smith Trials, UBC Research Forest (age 50)
0.9 1.8 2.7 3.7 4.60
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Fd MvolCwMvol
Initial square spacing (m)
cubi
c met
ers/
ha
0.9 1.8 2.7 3.7 4.60
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fd Top HtCw Top Ht
Initial square spacing (m)
met
ers
0.9 1.8 2.7 3.7 4.60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fd Basal AreaCw Basal Area
Initial square spacing (m)
squa
re m
eter
s/ha
0.9 1.8 2.7 3.7 4.60
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fd DBHCw DBH
Initial square spacing (m)
centi
met
ers
Harry Smith Trials, UBC Research Forest (age 50)
0.9 1.8 2.7 3.7 4.60.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
Fd TaperCw Taper
Initial square spacing (m)
cm/m
eter
Harry Smith Trials, UBC Research Forest (age 50)
Potential Impacts of Enhanced Basic Reforestation
0 50 100 150 200 2500
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Base case
Lower Minimum Harvest Cri-teria
Years from now
Fore
cast
ed H
arve
st (m
3/yr
)
AAC
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
“Enhanced Basic Reforestation”• The Results so far;
• T4 SISs for most interior MPB-impacted TSAs all have strong strategic support for “enhanced basic reforestation” as a preferred strategy however,
• Current policy and legislation are not conducive to implementation of these types of strategies
