D.R. systems inc. - CLCCFclccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CLCCF-Timber-Supply-Analysis... ·...

Coast Forest Region Small Tenures Timber Supply Analysis Proposed Hope Community Forest Agreement Timber Supply Analysis Report Draft Prepared For: Doug Stewart, RPF Coast Reallocation Officer 2100 Labieux Road, Nanaimo, BC Prepared By:

D.R. systems inc.

Hope Community Forest Agreement June 2006

D . R . s y s t e m s i n c . Page II

Executive Summary

This report documents the timber supply analysis for the proposed area of the Hope Community Forest Agreement (Hope CFA). The analysis follows the management and modelling assumption of the Fraser Timber Supply Area Analysis completed in 2003 (TSR III), with updates for recent disturbances (January 1, 2005), ownership changes and other land management directives. The analysis was conducted using the public software Forest Planning Studio - Atlas version 6.0.2.0 (FPS or ATLAS).

The total area of the proposed CFA is approximately 28,813 hectares (ha). Approximately 24,194 ha is productive forestland, and approximately 8,661 ha is currently within the timber harvesting landbase (THLB).

The current THLB is comprised largely of fir types (40%), with approximately 36% hemlock/balsam timber types, 7% spruce and 6% alder types, with minor components of pine (less than 2%) and cedar (0.5%). Approximately 20% of the proposed timber harvesting landbase is comprised of good sites, 50% is classified into the medium site group, 11% is classified as poor and 4% is considered low site. The all-inclusive site classification for the cedar, spruce and pine type groups represent approximately 9% of the THLB. The remaining 6% of the THLB area is unclassified alder types.

Approximately 83% of the Hope CFA THLB is less than 80 years of age and 33% is less than 30 years old. Currently, 15% of the THLB is at, or above, the minimum mean area-weighted harvest age and 2% of the THLB is older than 250 years.

The THLB area-weighted average site class is 20.8 m at breast height age 50, with a mean area-weighted MAI of 4.6 m3/ha/yr. These values result in a theoretical long-run sustained yield (LRSY) of 39,682 m3/yr. Based on this analysis the short-term harvest level is approximately 35,546 m3/yr. By year 71 of the forecast, the long-term harvest level for the Hope CFA can be increased to approximately 36,386 m3/yr, approximately 92% the CFA’s theoretical LRSY. This increase is attributable to the conversion of existing unmanaged stands to managed stand types, the conversion of existing alder stands to the more productive fir stand types and from the minor contribution of land currently managed as Timber Licences being reverted to the Hope CFA.

The transition from harvesting unmanaged forests to managed forests is expected to begin around year 40 and continue through to year 125. Within the first decade the average stand harvest age drops from over 220 years to approximately 100 years. Stand volume per hectare declines from approximately 550 m3/ha to approximately 350 m3/ha indicating a binding constraint due to the small age class gap in the short term.

Approximately 74% of the forested THLB portion of the ungulate winter range (UWR) units do not meet the target minimum habitat criteria. Approximately 45% of the Spotted Owl special resource management zones (SRMZ) areas meet the target minimum habitat requirements. Similarly, only 21% of the SRMZ area meets the target minimum criteria for long-term owl habitat. Due to these shortfalls, 74% of THLB within UWR and nearly all of the area within the Owl SRMZs are constrained from harvest in the short-term.

All of the community watersheds fall below the target maximum for disturbance and as such, should not impact the timber supply in the short term. Approximately 65% (5,656 ha) of the Hope CFA THLB is classified as IRM, and within this land classification less than 1% exceed the target maximum disturbance levels for adjacency. Approximately 35% (3,005 ha) of the Hope CFA THLB are managed for visual quality, and approximately 15% (1,330 ha) of the THLB is constrained as the disturbance levels in the visual polygons currently exceed the targets for the Recommended Visual Quality Class.

Sensitivities completed after the basecase identified a number of downward pressures on this forecast:

• Removing 879 ha (349 ha within the THLB) from the Hope CFA that were identified as ‘overlap’ areas by the Chilliwack Forest District staff decreased the timber supply by 4.6% in the short-term and by 3.5% in the long-term.


D . R . s y s t e m s i n c . Page III

• A number of sensitivities were performed to test the impacts on timber supply of the various owl habitat constraints and as expected, applying the owl constraints in the basecase adversely impacts both the short and long-term timber supply.

• The impact of applying the revised deer coverage with a 100% harvest deferral in accordance with the Information Concerning Wildlife Habitat for the Winter Survival of Ungulate Species in [the] Fraser Timber Supply Area, was found to decrease the timber supply throughout the planning horizon by 1.9% in the short-term and 2.5% in the long-term.

Accordingly, small upward pressures on the timber supply projection were also identified:

• A sensitivity analysis showed that adding the stand types with projected low growth potential that were deferred from harvest in the basecase, increased the short and long-term harvest volume.

• Changing the minimum harvest ages from the age of meeting a volume requirement to the age where 95% of maximum MAI occurs, was found to increase the timber supply over the entire planning horizon by nearly 2% in the short- and mid-term portion of the planning period, and by 3.6% in the long-term.

Tree improvement and the fertilizer treatments were not modelled in the Hope CFA analysis. Based on the sensitivity analysis conducted under TSR III, a 5% increase in the long-term harvest level may be expected depending upon the proportionate use of select seed in future fir and cedar types within the Hope CFA. Shifting the re-establishment of hemlock/balsam types from natural regeneration to planting improved stock would likely show a favourable gain to timber supply, although this would have to be quantified. Approximately 36 ha were identified as having had fertilizer treatments within the Hope CFA – due to the small area, no increase in harvest flow volume was attributed to fertilization in this analysis.


D . R . s y s t e m s i n c . Page IV

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... II

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................8

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HOPE CFA ................................................................................................................8

3 LAND BASE ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................................................9 3.1 AREAS NOT MANAGED BY THE MINISTRY OF FORESTS AND RANGE ..............................................................10 3.2 TIMBER LICENCE REVERSIONS .......................................................................................................................10 3.3 NON-FOREST AND NON-PRODUCTIVE LAND....................................................................................................10 3.4 INOPERABLE STANDS......................................................................................................................................10 3.5 UN-HARVESTED TIMBER TYPES......................................................................................................................10 3.6 LOW TIMBER GROWING POTENTIAL TYPES ....................................................................................................11 3.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (AVALANCHE) ..................................................................................11 3.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (REGENERATION)..............................................................................11 3.9 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (SOILS) .............................................................................................11 3.10 SPOTTED OWL LONG TERM HABITAT.............................................................................................................11 3.11 HIGH RECREATION VALUE AREAS..................................................................................................................12 3.12 EXISTING LOW VOLUME AREAS .....................................................................................................................12 3.13 OLD GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREAS.............................................................................................................12 3.14 RIPARIAN AREAS ............................................................................................................................................12 3.15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE ........................................................................................................................12 3.16 WILDLIFE TREE RETENTION ...........................................................................................................................12 3.17 COMBINED PARTIAL AREA INTERSECTIONS....................................................................................................13 3.18 HYDROLINES/URBAN NON-PRODUCTIVE AREAS ............................................................................................13 3.19 ROADS, TRAILS AND LANDINGS .....................................................................................................................13 3.20 INTEGRATED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ........................................................................................13

4 CURRENT FOREST CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................14 4.1 AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................................................................14 4.2 SPECIES DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................................................16 4.3 SITE PRODUCTIVITY........................................................................................................................................18

5 GROWTH & YIELD ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................................21 5.1 YIELD MODEL ASSIGNMENT...........................................................................................................................21 5.2 ANALYSIS UNITS CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................................................................................21 5.3 YIELD CURVE ATTRIBUTES ............................................................................................................................23 5.4 UTILIZATION LEVELS / DECAY WASTE AND BREAKAGE ................................................................................23 5.5 OPERATIONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS...........................................................................................................23

6 MANAGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS....................................................................................................................24 6.1 RECENT DISTURBANCES .................................................................................................................................24 6.2 NOT SATISFACTORILY RESTOCKED AREAS.....................................................................................................24 6.3 MINIMUM HARVEST AGE................................................................................................................................24 6.4 UNSALVAGED LOSSES ....................................................................................................................................26 6.5 GENETIC GAIN................................................................................................................................................26 6.6 FERTILIZED AREAS .........................................................................................................................................26


D . R . s y s t e m s i n c . Page V

6.7 SILVICULTURE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................................................26 6.8 COMMUNITY WATERSHEDS ............................................................................................................................28 6.9 UNGULATE WINTER RANGE ...........................................................................................................................28 6.10 GOAT WINTER RANGE AREAS ........................................................................................................................28 6.11 GRIZZLY BEAR HABITAT ................................................................................................................................28 6.12 VISUAL QUALITY – GREEN UP CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................28 6.13 SPOTTED OWL MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................30

7 MODELLING RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................31 7.1 HARVEST PRIORITIES......................................................................................................................................31 7.2 HARVEST VOLUME .........................................................................................................................................32 7.3 TRANSITION FROM UNMANAGED TO MANAGED STANDS................................................................................33 7.4 GROWING STOCK............................................................................................................................................34 7.5 HARVEST VOLUME CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................................................................................35

8 SHORT-TERM CONSTRAINTS.......................................................................................................................40 8.1 ADJACENCY CONSTRAINTS AND VISUAL QUALITY.........................................................................................40 8.2 COMMUNITY WATERSHEDS ............................................................................................................................44 8.3 UNGULATE WINTER RANGE ...........................................................................................................................45 8.4 GOAT WINTER RANGE....................................................................................................................................46 8.5 SPOTTED OWL HABITAT .................................................................................................................................47

9 UNCERTAINTIES AND SENSITIVITIES.......................................................................................................50 9.1 INCLUDING PROJECTED LOW GROWTH POTENTIAL STAND TYPES .................................................................51 9.2 REMOVAL OF THE ‘OVERLAP’ AREAS.............................................................................................................52 9.3 REVISED UNGULATE WINTER RANGE.............................................................................................................53 9.4 CHANGING MINIMUM HARVEST AGE TO AGE AT 95% OF MAXIMUM MAI....................................................55 9.5 NO OWL MATRIX CONSTRAINT ......................................................................................................................57 9.6 NO FMA OR OWL MATRIX CONSTRAINTS......................................................................................................58 9.7 NO OWL MATRIX, FMA, OR SRMZ FOREST COVER CONSTRAINTS ..............................................................59 9.8 INCLUDING LONG TERM OWL HABITAT IN THE THLB ...................................................................................60

10 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................61

List of Figures Figure 1: The proposed boundary of the Hope CFA. ............................................................................... 8 Figure 2: Age-class distribution of the Hope CFA. ................................................................................. 14 Figure 3: Cumulative percentage of landbase area for the Hope CFA. ................................................. 15 Figure 4: Years until minimum harvest age by species and operability type of the existing THLB........ 16 Figure 5: Species distribution of the Hope CFA timber harvesting landbase......................................... 17 Figure 6: Species distribution of the non-contributing portion of the hope CFA..................................... 17 Figure 7: Species distribution of the timber harvesting landbase. ......................................................... 19 Figure 8: Site class distribution of the THLB, by age class and area..................................................... 20 Figure 9: Timber supply forecast for the Hope CFA............................................................................... 32 Figure 10: Transition of harvest volume from unmanaged stands to managed stands. .......................... 33 Figure 11: Growing Stock for the Hope CFA............................................................................................ 34 Figure 12: Species type composition of harvest volume.......................................................................... 35 Figure 13: Harvest volume by timber productivity class for the Hope CFA.............................................. 36


D . R . s y s t e m s i n c . Page VI

Figure 14: Volume weighted stand harvest age for the Hope CFA.......................................................... 37 Figure 15: Area weighted stand harvest stand volume for the Hope CFA............................................... 38 Figure 16: Annual area harvested over the planning horizon. ................................................................. 39 Figure 17: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each Landscape Unit. ...... 40 Figure 18: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the

RVQC of modification. ........................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 19: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the

RVQC of partial retention-high. ............................................................................................................. 42 Figure 20: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the

RVQC of partial retention-low................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 21: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the

RVQC of partial retention-moderate. ..................................................................................................... 43 Figure 22: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the

RVQC of retention. ................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 23: Current actual and target (maximums) disturbance levels of each community watershed

within the Hope CFA.............................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 24: Current actual and target (minimums) of each deer management unit. ................................. 45 Figure 25: Current actual and target (minimums) of each goat management unit. ................................. 46 Figure 26: Current actual and target (minimums) of each SRMZ unit. .................................................... 47 Figure 27: Current actual and target (minimums) for LTOH and RPA area within each SRMZ. ............. 48 Figure 28: Habitat attributes for Owl Matrix areas.................................................................................... 49 Figure 29: Timber supply in the basecase and with the inclusion of projected low growth potential stands

in the THLB............................................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 30: Timber supply in the basecase and with the removal of 849 ha of ‘Overlap’ area. ................ 52 Figure 31: Timber supply in the basecase and with the revised UWR coverage and a 100% harvest

deferral applied. ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 32: Current actual target (minimums) forested area of each revised UWR unit with a 100%

harvest deferral applied. ........................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 33: Timber supply in the basecase and with the minimum harvest age at 95% of Max MAI........ 55 Figure 34: Timber supply in the basecase and with removal of the spotted owl Matrix constraint. ......... 57 Figure 35: Timber supply in the basecase and with the removal of the spotted owl Matrix and FMA

residual stand condition constraints. ..................................................................................................... 58 Figure 36: Timber supply in the basecase and with the spotted owl habitat forest cover constraints

applied. 59 Figure 37: Timber supply in the basecase and with the spotted owl long term owl habitat included in the

THLB. 60

List of Tables Table 1: Timber harvesting land base of the Hope CFA. ........................................................................... 9 Table 2: Criteria for sites with low timber growing potential. .................................................................... 11 Table 3: Species distribution of the Hope CFA......................................................................................... 16 Table 4: Site Class definitions for the Hope CFA as used for reporting and graphing purposes. ............ 18 Table 5: Area weighted site index and area weighted maximum mean annual increment (MAI), by

species type group................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 6: Analysis Unit characteristics by species type group................................................................... 22 Table 7: Minimum volume requirements by species and operability type for the Hope CFA................... 24 Table 8: Minimum harvest ages by analysis unit, management status and operability classification. ..... 25 Table 9: Regeneration assumptions of future managed stands............................................................... 27


D . R . s y s t e m s i n c . Page VII

Table 10: Green-up heights, age and maximum allowable disturbance specifications. ......................... 29 Table 11: Minimum harvest ages at 95% of maximum MAI.................................................................... 56


D . R . s y s t e m s i n c .

1 Introduction

The BC Ministry of Forests and Range is in the process of reallocating timber harvest volume from major licensees, such as Tree Farm Licence holders and Forest Licence holders, to expand the areas of the “Community Forest Agreement” (CFA) and “Woodlot Licence” (WL) program.

To ensure that the proposed tenures provide sufficient harvest opportunities that sustain an even harvest rate over the short-, mid- and long-terms, the Coast Forest Region of the Ministry of Forests and Range requires a timber supply analysis for each identified new area.

Econ Consulting (ECON) in collaboration with D.R. systems inc. (DRSI) were contracted to complete the timber supply analyses for 20 Woodlot Licence (Woodlot or WL) areas and 7 Community Forest Agreement (CFA) areas. ECON assumed responsibility for the analysis of the 20 Woodlots while DRSI is responsible for the CFA analyses.

This report outlines the land base, growth and yield and management assumptions, as well as the modelling results for the timber supply analysis of the Hope Community Forest Agreement (CFA).

2 Description of the Hope CFA

The Hope CFA encompasses a total area of approximately 28,813 ha, and is located within the Chilliwack Forest District and the Fraser Timber Supply Area (TSA). As shown in Figure 1, the Hope CFA is located adjacent to the community of Hope and is bisected in a north/south direction by the Fraser River.

Figure 1: The proposed boundary of the Hope CFA.



Under Section 169 of the Forest Act, and through B.C. Reg. 363/2005, the Minister of Forests and Range established the Yale AIP Designated Area1. As shown in Figure 1, the Hope CFA is contiguous with, but does not overlap, the Yale AIP Designated Area boundaries.

3 Land Base Assumptions

Approximately 84% (24,194 ha) of the Hope CFA is productive forest land and approximately 30% (8,661 ha) of the productive forest land is within the current Timber Harvesting Landbase (THLB), as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Timber harvesting land base of the Hope CFA. Landbase Reduction Total Area Reduction Net AreaTotal Hope CFA Area 28813.1 28813.1Area not managed by the MoFR 723.3 723.3Existing Timber Licences 186.4 186.4Non-Forest 2139.7 2105.8Non-productive Forest Types 1604.1 1604.1TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST LAND 24193.5Inoperable 10800.5 10691.4Un-harvested Timber Types 400.7 345.6Low Timber Growing Potential 155.4 155.2High Avalanche Hazard 0.0 0.0High Regeneration Concerns 1745.8 162.4Highly Sensitive Soils 6796.4 2077.1Spotted Owl Long Term Habitat 2182.1 842.6High Recreation Values 0.0 0.0Existing Low Volume Stands 83.5 83.5Old Growth Management Areas 2454.1 128.0TOTAL DEFERRED LAND 14485.8Riparian Buffers 3243.5 291.1Archaeological Sites 112.4 5.2Wildlife Tree Patches 918.7 391.1Combined Partial Area Intersections 724.4 0.0Hydro Lines 438.0 144.7Existing Roads Trails & Landings 3717.8 182.3TOTAL PARTIALLY DEFERRED LAND 1014.5Integrated Wildlife Management Strategy 31.8 31.8TOTAL NETDOWN LAND 31.8TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST LAND REDUCTIONS 15532.1CURRENT TIMBER HARVESTING LANDBASE 8661.4Future Road Area 56.5 56.5Future TL Additions 36.1 36.1FUTURE TIMBER HARVESTING LANDBASE 8641.1

1 The Yale AIP Designated Area identified under B.C. Reg. 363/2005 is in effect until December 31, 2007.



Table 1 describes the hierarchical reductions applied to the total area within Hope CFA. Collectively, these reductions determine the timber harvesting landbase. Generally these reductions are consistent with the 2003 Fraser Timber Supply Review report (TSR III) and 2004 Fraser Timber Supply Area Rationale for Allowable Cut Determination, although some deviations were necessary to reflect the specific conditions of the Hope CFA or to allow for a more appropriate modelling technique. Each of the land base assumptions is described briefly below.

3.1 Areas Not Managed by the Ministry of Forests and Range

Within the Hope CFA boundaries, lands classified in the owner-schedule combinations as private land, Indian Reserve, Crown U.R.E.P. Reserve, Provincial Parks and miscellaneous reserves were excluded entirely from the THLB. This is consistent with TSR III. Lands identified as protected areas in the Protected Area Strategy coverage supplied by the Integrated Land Management Branch were also excluded.

There are approximately 723 ha of areas not managed by the MoFR, of which parks and protected areas constitute approximately 29 ha.

3.2 Timber Licence Reversions

Merchantable timber within existing Timber Licences (TLs) was excluded from the analysis, although it is expected that eventually these areas will eventually revert to the CFA over the next 10 years. In TSR III the TL lands younger than 103 years of age in 2001 were assumed to have been harvested and already reverted. Existing TLs older than 103 years were assumed to revert to the crown in the first decade of the projection. Given the reversion schedule outlined in TSR III, for the purpose of this analysis it was assumed that 1/2 of the current TL areas will revert to the crown over the next 5 years, and the remaining portion during the following 5 year period. To model these reversions the total area of merchantable stands (stands older than 107 years of age in 2005) within existing TLs were introduced into the THLB as regenerated stands over the first two 5-year periods of the projection.

There are a total of approximately 186 ha of existing merchantable TL areas with the proposed CFA. Approximately 36 ha of this area was unconstrained and reintroduced into the THLB within the first 10 years of the planning horizon.

3.3 Non-forest and non-productive Land

All land classified as non-forested, such as lakes, swamp, rock and alpine, were excluded from the productive forest land base. Potentially productive non-commercial (such as NC and NCBR) types were also removed from the THLB. This analysis used the same classifications for non-forested and non-productive types used in TSR III. There are approximately 2,106 ha of non-forested and 1,604 ha of non-productive land based on the TSR III classification within the Hope CFA.

3.4 Inoperable Stands

Operability designations were based on the procedures outlined in TSR III. Stands considered operable using conventional and non-conventional logging methods were included within the THLB. Within the Hope CFA there are approximately 598 ha of helicopter operable stands, and approximately 314 ha of this area is within the THLB. Based on the TSR III classification schemes approximately 10,691 ha of inoperable stands were removed from the THLB.

3.5 Un-harvested Timber Types

Inventory type groups comprised predominately of the un-harvested leading species of aspen, birch and maple were excluded from the THLB. This is consistent with TSR III. Approximately 346 ha of un-harvested leading species stands were removed from the THLB.



3.6 Low Timber Growing Potential Types

In TSR III, existing stands meeting the criteria of Table 2 were identified as being ‘low_prod’ and were removed from the THLB. To be consistent, this analysis removed approximately 155 ha of stands with the ‘low_prod’ identifier in the TSR III database from the THLB of the Hope CFA.

Table 2: Criteria for sites with low timber growing potential. Volume (m3/ha) at >150 yrs Site Index (m @ BHA 50) Leading Species Conventional Helicopter Conventional Helicopter Fir <350 <400 <16 <18 Cedar <350 <400 <13 <15 Hemlock/balsam <350 <400 <11 <13 Spruce* <300 All <11 All heli Pine <300 All <13 All heli Alder <150 <150 N/A N/A * The Spruce variety found in the Hope CFA is Se.

Diverging slightly from TSR III, stands that were projected in the yield curves to not meet the minimum volumes at age 150 as shown in Table 2 were retained in the THLB, but were excluded from harvest in the basecase. The site index criteria of Table 2 was applied indirectly, as the Analysis Units for hemlock/balsam and fir were grouped by species into 1m site classes and AU yield tables were reviewed for meeting the criteria of Table 2. Approximately 497 ha were retained in the THLB but were excluded from harvest in the basecase due to the low projected volumes in the yield curves.

Broken down by leading species type, there was 206 ha of fir types, 289 ha of hemlock/balsam types, and 2 ha of spruce types retained in the THLB, but excluded from harvest in the basecase due to low projected growth. By operability type, the helicopter component of the fir was 17%, while 75% of the HB and 100% of the spruce was helicopter.

3.7 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Avalanche)

No avalanche areas were identified within the boundaries of the Hope CFA.

3.8 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Regeneration)

Using the ESA_1 criteria, 1,746 ha were identified as being environmentally sensitive for regeneration. After accounting for the prioritised reductions, a 100% reduction was applied to the areas sensitive to regeneration, resulting in approximately 163 ha being removed from the THLB. This reduction is consistent with TSR III.

3.9 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Soils)

Under the ESA_1 criteria 6,796 ha were identified as having environmentally sensitive soils. Approximately 843 ha were removed from the THLB after accounting for prioritised reductions. The 100% reduction for sensitive soils was consistent with TSR III.

3.10 Spotted Owl Long Term Habitat

The Spotted Owl Management Plan, released in May 1999, directed 67% of the Special Resource Management Zones (SRMZ) to be Long Term Owl Habitat. The SOMP allows for 1/3 of the volume in 1/3 of the area of Special Resource Management Zones to be harvested with the objective of improving owl habitat.



Under TSR III, this 1/3 of the volume from 1/3 of the area was deemed to be relatively insignificant to the timber supply projection, and as such all areas identified as being Long Term Owl Habitat (LTOH) were assumed to be completely unavailable for harvest and were excluded from the THLB. In the Hope CFA, there are 2,182 ha of LTOH. Consistent with TSR III, a 100% netdown was applied to the LTOH area resulting in the removal of 843 ha from the THLB after consideration of prior deductions. Replacement areas (RPAs), forest management areas (FMAs) within the SRMZs and Matrix areas outside of SRMZs were modelled using forest cover constraints.

3.11 High Recreation Value Areas

In the Fraser TSA, only 102 ha were identified as having a provincial or higher recreation feature significance class in the Fraser TSA and were removed from the THLB in TSR III. No areas were deemed to have a provincial or higher recreation feature significance class in the Hope CFA.

3.12 Existing Low Volume Areas

Table 2 above shows the criteria for existing stands that were identified as having low productivity.

Alternatively, stands that possess adequate productivity estimates from the yield curves but for some reason (i.e. stocking class, species composition, crown closure) fail to have enough merchantable volume in the existing inventory, were identified as low volume stands in the TSR III dataset. Based on the TSR III classification scheme, all 83 ha of these low volume stands were removed from the THLB.

3.13 Old Growth Management Areas

TSR III incorporated the draft and Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) where they were in place and dynamically created OGMAs for Landscape units where the OGMAs were not in place. In the Hope CFA, all five landscape units (Coquihalla, East Harrison, Manning, Silverhope and Yale) are approved Landscape Units and OGMAs within each of these Landscape Units have been formally established. The OGMAs total 2,454 ha within the Hope CFA. A 100% netdown was applied to the OGMAs, although only 128 ha were removed from the THLB specifically as OGMAs, due to the prior net-downs.

3.14 Riparian Areas

Under TSR III, riparian buffers were captured as a GIS layer and the riparian area proportion of each polygon was identified in the TSR III database. For the Hope CFA, the proportion of each polygon attributed to riparian areas was determined and was deducted from the THLB of the Hope CFA resultant polygons. There were approximately 3,244 ha of riparian buffers in the Hope CFA, of which 291 ha were deducted from the THLB after consideration of prior net-downs. The riparian deductions are consistent with the methods used in the TSR III analysis.

3.15 Archaeological Heritage

To be consistent with TSR III, a one-hectare reduction was made to the THLB for each identified archaeological site. Using the archaeological site area determined in the TSR III database, the proportion of each polygon attributed to archaeological sites was determined and was deducted from the THLB of the Hope CFA resultant polygons. There were approximately 112 ha of archaeological sites in the Hope CFA, of which 5 ha were deducted from the THLB after consideration of prior net-downs. The archaeological site deductions are consistent with the methods used in the TSR III analysis.

3.16 Wildlife Tree Retention

In TSR III, wildlife tree patches (WTPs) were randomly determined, without restriction on the amount of area that contributed to old forest. As a sensitivity in TSR III, a minimum area requirement of 2 ha was applied for WTP areas, yet no significant differences were found in the timber supply projection of TSR III.



For the Hope CFA analysis, the same WTP area proportions of each polygon were used as in the TSR III basecase. The proportionate WTP area of the TSR III database was applied to the Hope CFA resultant and the Hope CFA THLB was accordingly. In the Hope CFA, the total area attributed to WTPs was approximately 919 ha. After prior deductions the THLB was reduced by 391 ha. This reduction is consistent with TSR III.

3.17 Combined Partial Area Intersections

The TSR III data captured intersections of riparian buffers, archaeological sites, wildlife tree patches, hydro lines and existing roads, trails and landings. These intersections amount to 724 ha of the Hope CFA, as determined using the proportionate area from the TSR III resultant. After consideration of prior deductions, no area was reduced from the THLB for the partial area intersections.

3.18 Hydrolines/Urban Non-productive Areas

The proportion of each polygon attributed to hydro lines/urban NPF in the TSR III database was determined, and the area was deducted accordingly from each polygon in the Hope CFA resultant. The Hope CFA has 438 ha of hydro line/urban NPF area, of which approximately 145 ha was removed from the THLB. This deduction is consistent with TSR III.

3.19 Roads, Trails and Landings

TSR III determined a 1.5% reduction to the crown forest following an analysis using GIS to assign buffers to the existing roads, trails and landings. An equivalent proportion of the Hope CFA resultant polygon area was removed from the THLB as attributed to roads, trails and landings in the respective polygons in the TSR III database. There are currently approximately 3,718 ha of existing roads, trails and landings within the Hope CFA, a figure equivalent to about 13% of the entire CFA. After consideration of previous deductions, the THLB of the Hope CFA was reduced by 182 ha for existing roads, trails and landings. Future roads were accounted for with a 5.0% reduction to existing stands in the THLB that are older than 120 years. Both reductions are consistent with the TSR III analysis.

3.20 Integrated Wildlife Management Strategy

Under TSR III no accounting was made for the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy. The Chief Forester considered the THLB area to be over-estimated by 1% when making his determination of the AAC. In addition, there is one Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) established in the Fraser TSA for Mountain Beaver, however this WHA is not within the boundaries of the Hope CFA. Since the determination, directives have been provided in the Information Concerning Wildlife Habitat for the Survival of Species at Risk in the Chilliwack Forest District. A 1% impact budget associated with the existing THLB is directed at the short-term timber supply. To model the strategy, a 1% reduction was applied to the THLB area of all stands older than 60 years. Reductions associated with the IWMS are approximately 32 ha within the Hope CFA.



4 Current Forest Conditions

4.1 Age Class Distribution

Figures 2 and 3 represent the productive forest portions of the Hope CFA. Within each age-class both the timber harvesting landbase and non-contributing landbase (NCLB) are distinguished. Non-forested inventory type groups and merchantable stands within future TL additions (36 ha) are not included in either the THLB or the NCLB.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

290

stand age in years

area ('000 hectares)timber harvesting landbaseoutside timber harvesting landbase

Figure 2: Age-class distribution of the Hope CFA. Figure 3 illustrates the cumulative area proportion for both the contributing and non-contributing areas, beginning with the youngest age class. Within the THLB, 83% of the area is less than 80 years of age, and 33% is less than 30 years old. Correspondingly, in the non-contributing portion of the CFA, 38% of the area is less than 80 years old, and 10% of the area is less than 30 years. Two percent of the THLB is older than 250 years, compared with the NCLB where approximately 3% of stands are older than 250 years.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

290

stand age in years

cumulative % of landbase area

timber harvesting landbaseoutside timber harvesting landbase

Figure 3: Cumulative percentage of landbase area for the Hope CFA.

The analysis unit area-weighted mean minimum harvest age for the existing THLB is 89 years. For timber supply purposes the THLB, in Figure 2 appears to have a small age class gap that may, on average, theoretically impact the short and early mid-term portion of the timber supply projection. This is due to the fact that nearly 83% of the THLB is more than 10 years away from reaching the mean weighted minimum rotation age, while only 15% of the THLB is at the mean weighted minimum harvest age, or older. Additionally, older stands are usually more constrained from harvest for IRM considerations. While 15% of the THLB is comprised of stands at or beyond the mean area-weighted mean minimum harvest age, these same stands may be managed under forest cover constraints, thereby further limiting harvest opportunities.

Nearly 12% of the THLB is in the 70 and 80 year classes (70 to 89 years of age) and this second growth coming into, or at minimum harvest age will have to supplement any shortfalls in the existing eligible stands that are under forest cover constraints for the next 20 years. In the short-term, this may not be as limiting as it seems since 39% of the THLB is between 50 and 89 years. It is suggested that the small age class gap may be theoretical since stands are modelled for harvest at their respective Analysis Unit minimum harvest age, rather than at the overall mean area weighted minimum harvest age for the THLB. The more productive stand types in the 50 to 89 year age group will have a younger harvest age than the 89-year average age for the THLB.

Figure 4 shows the existing THLB broken down by the number of years until the stands meet the minimum harvest age, by species and operability type. Stands considered ‘eligible’ are at minimum harvest age or older, while the number of years represents years until stands meet the minimum age. Figure 4 does not consider forest cover constraints for non-timber attributes. Non-productive inventory type groups and merchantable stands within the 36 ha of future TL additions are not included in this figure. It is important to note that nearly 500 ha of existing alder types are eligible for harvest (without considering any forest cover constraints), and these types will contribute to the timber supply in the short-term when a pinch-point in the harvest flow occurs due to the age class gap.



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

ALDERConv

CEDARConv

FIRConv

HBConv

PINEConv

SPRUCEConv

FIRHeli

HBHeli

SPRUCEHeli

Years until harvest eligibility by species type and operability criteria for the THLB

area ('000 hectares)

eligible1 to 1011 to 2021 to 3041 to 5051+

Figure 4: Years until minimum harvest age by species and operability type of the existing THLB.

4.2 Species Distribution

The Hope CFA is split almost evenly between hemlock/balsam and fir type groups, representing 45.5% and 43.3% respectively of the forested portion of the entire CFA. Fir types lead in the THLB portion at approximately 40%, followed by the hemlock/balsam type at 36%. Spruce and alder types represent 7% and 6% of the THLB, respectively, while pine comprises less than 2% and cedar a mere 0.5% of the THLB. Non-productive and non-merchantable inventory types are not found in the THLB, yet they are 13% and 1.4% of the entire CFA, respectively.

Table 3: Species distribution of the Hope CFA. Leading Species Timber Harvesting

Landbase (ha)Future TL Additions

(ha)Non-contributing

Landbase (ha)Total (ha)

Alder 523.0 0.0 628.3 1151.3Cedar 41.1 4.0 155.9 201.0Fir 4,202.2 0.0 6,652.2 10,854.4Hemlock/Balsam 3,132.0 32.1 8,243.5 11,407.5Non-merchantable 139.6 0.0 398.0 537.6Non productive 0.0 0.0 3,743.8 3,743.8Pine 0.0 0.0 64.0 64.0Spruce 623.5 0.0 229.9 853.4Total 8,661.4 36.1 20,115.5 28,813.1

Figures 5 and 6 show the species distribution, further broken into broad age class groups for the timber harvesting landbase and the non-contributing portion of the Hope CFA. Future Timber Licence (TLs) additions, the 36 ha of stands currently within TLs and greater than 107 years of age which are assumed to



revert to the Hope CFA after harvesting, are not shown. There are no non-merchantable or non-productive types in the THLB. In Figure 6, the non-productive types are assigned an age of 0.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

ALDERTHLB

CEDARTHLB

FIRTHLB

HBTHLB

PINETHLB

SPRUCETHLB

leading tree species in the timber harvesting landbase


110+41 to 1090 to 40

Figure 5: Species distribution of the Hope CFA timber harvesting landbase.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ALDERNC

CEDARNC

FIRNC

HBNC

NON-MERCHNC

NPNC

PINENC

SPRUCENC

leading tree species in the non-contributing portion


110+41 to 1090 to 40

Figure 6: Species distribution of the non-contributing portion of the hope CFA.



4.3 Site Productivity

Under TSR III, each unique stand was considered an individual analysis unit (AU) based on the inventory type group and site index value, resulting in too many species and site index combinations to be presented in a reasonable manner.

For reporting and graphing purposes only (the actual modelling was based on the AU’s described in Section 5.2), the THLB was classified into the general categories of good, medium, poor site classes, based on the criteria used in the second Timber Supply Review (TSR II). Stand types that failed to meet the growth potential criteria were further defined as low sites in this analysis, departing slightly from the criteria in the second TSR. Table 4 shows the species groups and site classification as defined by site index range, as used for reporting purposes in this analysis.

For the Hope CFA, the actual AU’s as modelled were based on inventory type group and site class (down to 1 metre for HB and fir types). Specific details on the AU’s are presented in Section 5.2 and Table 6 of this report.

Table 4: Site Class definitions for the Hope CFA as used for reporting and graphing purposes. Species Group Site Index Class Site Index Range (m) Fir Good >27.4 Fir Medium 19.5 through 27.4 Fir Poor 17.5 through 19.4 Fir Low <17.5 Hemlock/balsam Good >21.4 Hemlock/balsam Medium 14.5 through 21.4 Hemlock/balsam Poor 13.5 though 14.4 Hemlock/balsam Low <13.5 Cedar All Sites (Conifers) all sites Pine All Sites (Conifers) all sites Spruce All Sites (Conifers) all sites Alder All Sites (Deciduous) all sites Non-Merchantable All Sites (Deciduous) all sites

Approximately 20% of the THLB is comprised of good sites, 50% of the THLB is classified into the medium site group, 11% of the THLB is classified as poor and nearly 4% of the THLB is considered low, based on the site class categories shown in Table 4. All site classes within the cedar, spruce, and pine type groups represent 9% of the timber harvesting landbase. The remaining 6% of the THLB is comprised of a range of site classes supporting the alder type groups. Figure 7 presents the leading stand type by site class within the timber harvesting landbase, including the 36 ha of future TL additions.



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

ALDER CEDAR FIR HB PINE SPRUCE

leading tree species in the timber harvesting landbase including future TL addtions


GOODMEDIUMPOORLOWALL Cw, S, PlALL DECIDUOUS

Figure 7: Species distribution of the timber harvesting landbase.

Figure 8 shows the species and site class distribution by stand age for the existing THLB, excluding the future TL additions (36 ha). The pine, cedar, spruce and alder type groups each have a single site class.

Much of the Hope CFA is comprised of medium site fir stands 41 to 109 years of age (19.4%), followed by good site hemlock/balsam of the same age and medium fir types less than 41 years of age, both at 10% of the THLB. Good site hemlock/balsam and good site spruce, both less than 41 years of age, and medium site hemlock/balsam 41 to 109 years comprise 7% of the THLB each. Young stands of poor site fir and medium site hemlock/balsam are 5% of the THLB, as are the alder stands 41 to 109 years of age. The old medium site hemlock/balsam and fir types represent 3 and 4% of the THLB respectively, with the remaining 18% coming from the species site and age class combinations that each represent less than 3% of the THLB.

Table 5 presents the species types, the area weighted site index values, and the area weighted managed stand maximum MAI values derived from the yield curves. These values are based on the TIPSY yield curves values for future stands, which include a 5% reduction for future roads. Future TL additions (36 ha) are included in this table.



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

FIR_G

OOD

FIR_M

EDIUM

FIR_P

OOR

FIR_L

OW

HB_GOOD

HB_MEDIU

M

HB_POOR

HB_LOW

SPRUCE_ALL

_CONIF

CEDAR_ALL

_CONIF

PINE_A

LL_C

ONIF

ALDER_A

LL_D

ECID

leading tree species and site class in the existing timber harvesting landbase


110+41 to 1090 to 40

Figure 8: Site class distribution of the THLB, by age class and area.

Table 5: Area weighted site index and area weighted maximum mean annual increment (MAI), by species type group. Species Type Area (ha) Area Weighted SI Maximum MAI Site Quality (ha) (m @ BHA 50) (m3/ha/yr) Alder – all sites 523.0 25.2 5.7 Cedar – all sites 45.1 21.5 5.6 Fir – good 260.9 29.8 7.7 Fir – low 186.4 12 1.6 Fir – medium 2925.0 22.9 4.6 Fir – poor 830.0 18.3 2.8 HemBal – good 1483.3 24 6.9 HemBal – low 128.1 11.3 1.6 HemBal – medium 1393.9 17.6 4 HemBal – poor 158.8 12.9 2.1 Pine – all sites 139.6 19.4 3.9 Spruce – all sites 623.5 13.5 2.5

When including all site and species combinations in the THLB along with the 36 ha of future TL additions, the area weighted site index is 20.8 m at BHA 50, and the mean weighted MAI is 4.6 m3/ha/yr).

The area-weighted average site class of the THLB including the 36 ha of future TL additions, but excluding the low growth potential stand types (identified in this table as the low and poor site hemlock/balsam and low site fir with projected growth ≤ 350m3/ha projected by age 150) is 21.3 m at breast height age 50 (BHA 50), with a mean weighted MAI of 4.7 m3/ha/yr.



5 Growth & Yield Assumptions

5.1 Yield Model Assignment

The table interpolation program for stand yields (BatchTIPSY, ver. 3.2k), developed by the BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Research Branch was used to estimate timber volumes for existing and future managed stands. Managed stands were defined as Douglas-fir leading stands 39 years of age or younger, western hemlock and balsam stands 29 years or younger, and cedar, spruce and pine/larch stands 19 years of age or younger.

These management assumptions are consistent with TSR III, given the four year age adjustment to the inventory.

The variable density yield prediction (BatchVDYP 6.6d) model developed by the BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Resources Inventory Branch, was used for estimating the timber volumes of unmanaged stands and for all deciduous stand types. Unmanaged stands were defined as those older than the managed stand ages defined above. All existing alder stands were assumed to be unmanaged.

5.2 Analysis Units Characteristics

Under TSR III, each stand was considered an individual analysis unit (AU) and assigned its own yield curve for existing and future stand conditions. For the Hope CFA analysis, stands were grouped into the analysis unit descriptions shown in Table 6 based on the inventory type group. Further stratification were made to the fir and hemlock/balsam types based on the general analysis unit descriptions presented in Table A-3 of the Fraser Timber Supply Area Analysis Report (December 2003) and site index. The cedar type was stratified on the basis of age, whereby stands 105 years of age and older were grouped into a separate category. These AU descriptions depart slightly from the individual stand yield curves of TSR III, however this departure was necessary given the limitation to input parameters in the ATLAS timber supply model.



Table 6: Analysis Unit characteristics by species type group. Analysis Unit Inventory Type Area (ha) Area Weighted SI Maximum MAI (ha) (m @ BHA 50) (m3/ha/yr) ALDER 37 – 38 523.0 25.2 5.7 CEDAR_105+ years 9 – 11 12.0 16.7 3.3 CEDAR_≤105 years 9 – 11 33.2 23.2 6.5 FIR_17 (SI ≤17.4)* 1 - 8 186.4 12.0 1.6 FIR_18 1 – 8 588.5 18.0 2.6 FIR_19 1 – 8 241.5 19.1 3.1 FIR_20 1 – 8 453.1 20.0 3.4 FIR_21 1 – 8 462.6 20.8 3.7 FIR_22 1 – 8 474.8 21.9 4.1 FIR_23 1 – 8 570.2 23.0 4.7 FIR_24 1 – 8 247.2 24.0 5.1 FIR_25 1 – 8 184.2 24.9 5.5 FIR_26 1 – 8 188.8 26.0 5.9 FIR_27 1 – 8 344.0 27.0 6.2 FIR_28 1 – 8 62.6 27.8 6.6 FIR_29 1 – 8 81.1 29.1 7.4 FIR_30 1 – 8 45.1 30.1 7.9 FIR_31 1 – 8 32.0 31.3 8.6 FIR_32 1 – 8 14.8 31.6 8.3 FIR_33 1 – 8 3.5 32.6 9.9 FIR_34 1 – 8 16.6 33.8 9.3 FIR_35+ (SI ≥34.5) 1 – 8 5.1 35.4 10.8 HEM_10 (SI ≤10.4)* 12 - 20 5.6 8.5 1.3 HEM_11 12 – 20 73.6 11.0 1.5 HEM_12 12 – 20 48.9 12.0 1.8 HEM_13 12 – 20 158.8 12.9 2.1 HEM_14 12 – 20 220.6 13.9 2.5 HEM_15 12 – 20 265.1 14.9 2.9 HEM_16 12 – 20 59.9 15.9 3.2 HEM_17 12 – 20 33.0 16.9 3.6 HEM_18 12 – 20 182.0 17.9 4.0 HEM_19 12 – 20 180.5 19.1 4.6 HEM_20 12 – 20 179.7 20.0 4.9 HEM_21 12 – 20 273.1 20.9 5.3 HEM_22 12 – 20 247.3 21.9 5.9 HEM_23 12 – 20 506.9 23.0 6.1 HEM_24 12 – 20 172.3 24.0 6.8 HEM_25 12 – 20 209.5 24.6 7.4 HEM_26 12 – 20 87.3 25.7 7.9 HEM_27 12 – 20 155.3 26.8 8.5 HEM_28 12 – 20 89.6 27.5 8.9 HEM_29 (SI ≥29.5) 12 – 20 15.1 29.4 10.0 PINE 27 – 31 139.6 19.4 3.9 SPRUCE 21 - 26 623.5 13.5 2.5

Comments: Fir types with SI between 17.5 to 34.4 m and hemlock/balsam types with SI between 10.5 and 29.4 m are in 1m SI class increments. *The minimum allowable SI value in TIPSY is 10m; 45 ha were adjusted to this minimum SI value for projecting managed stand yield curves in TIPSY.



5.3 Yield Curve Attributes

Yield curves were derived for each analysis unit, by area-weighting yield tables generated for each polygon into an aggregate table. Each polygon yield curve considered the stand species composition2, site index, initial density (TIPSY) and crown closure (VDYP). The procedure is consistent with the methods outlined in Supplemental Guide for Preparing Timber Supply Analysis Data Packages. Analysis unit leading species site index values were used, and the default site index values as applied by BatchTIPSY or BatchVDYP for additional species were used. Yield volumes are net of the un-harvested species type volumes in the stand. The minimum allowable SI value in TIPSY is 10m, and TIPSY excludes stands with an SI < 10m from the yield curve projection. Therefore, stands with an SI < 10m were assigned the minimum SI value of 10m for the yield curve compilation. Approximately 45 ha in the Hope THLB were effected.

5.4 Utilization Levels / Decay Waste and Breakage

All unmanaged stands were calculated to a minimum top diameter inside bark (DIB) of 10 cm, a minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) of 17.5 and a maximum stump height of 30 cm.

Managed stands were calculated to a minimum top diameter inside bark (DIB) of 10 cm, a minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) of 12.5 and a maximum stump height of 30 cm. Decay, waste and breakage factors were enabled in TIPSY, and activated in VDYP through the use of the PSYU. These standards are depart slightly from the utilization levels in TSR III, although they reflect the merchantable limits of the growth and yield models.

5.5 Operational Adjustment Factors

Operational Adjustment Factor 1 (OAF1) was set to 15% for all managed regeneration regimes and Operational Adjustment Factor 2 (OAF2) was set at 5% for managed stands. An additional OAF1 of 5% was applied to future managed stands to account for the future loss of productive land associated with development of permanent roads, trails and landings. 2 VDYP accepts up to 6 species, either conifer or deciduous, and TIPSY accepts up to 5 species types, but only conifer. Actual species compositions of the existing stands within each analysis unit were used and prorated to the maximum number of species accepted by the growth models.



6 Management Assumptions

6.1 Recent Disturbances

Areas disturbed since the TSR III analysis were updated to January 1, 2005 by spatially overlaying the January 1 2005 forest inventory file with the TSR III data. Recently disturbed areas were assigned the attributes in the 2005 inventory file.

Two GIS coverages were used to identify disturbed areas not yet updated in the 2005 inventory file. Areas without opening status in the 2005 inventory file, but identified as openings in the VRI Changes Detection coverage supplied by the Ministry of Forests and Range were assigned an age of 0 in the modelling database. To account for current and/or recent harvest units, areas identified as cut-blocks in the Interim Forest Tenure Cut Block (ten_cutblk) coverage supplied by Land and Resource Data Warehouse but not yet updated as openings in the 2005 inventory file were also assigned an age of 0 and assumed to have been harvested. A preliminary review of the resultant file after overlaying the depletions was made by Chilliwack Forest District staff and incorporated into the resultant modelling database.

6.2 Not Satisfactorily Restocked Areas

Consistent with TSR III, the amount of NSR was determined using the latest inventory file. Approximately 150 ha were considered NSR in the 2005 inventory file, and approximately 75 ha of the NSR were in the THLB. As with the recently disturbed areas, stands were assumed to have an age of 0. This departs slightly from the TSR III NSR age assignment, but was necessary given the differences in the how yield curves were derived for the Hope CFA.

6.3 Minimum Harvest Age

To be eligible for harvest, stands must reach a minimum harvest age. The minimum harvest age is used as a surrogate for specific stand attributes in ATLAS, such as minimum stand diameter, minimum height, maximum growth rate or minimum volume. To be eligible for harvest, stands within the Hope CFA must meet the minimum volume limits presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Minimum volume requirements by species and operability type for the Hope CFA. Species Type Conventional Helicopter Alder 150 250 Cedar 350 450 Fir 350 450 Hemlock/Balsam 350 450 Non-merchantable 350 450 Pine 300 400 Spruce 300 400

Table 8 presents the minimum harvest age associated with the minimum volume requirements presented in Table 7, for each of the analysis units. Not all combinations of analysis unit, management status and operability types are present in the Hope CFA. Minimum harvest ages are shown for all Analysis Units, including those not modelled for harvest in the basecase due to their projected low growth potential.

This approach is consistent with TSR III although the exact values depart from the TSR III analysis because of differences between the Fraser TSA and the Hope CFA landbase.



Table 8: Minimum harvest ages by analysis unit, management status and operability classification. Analysis Existing Stands Future Stands Unit Unmanaged Managed Managed Managed Conventional Heli Conventional Heli Conventional Heli ALDER 40 68 -- -- 63 79 CEDAR_<105 yrs 82 -- 62 -- 60 -- CEDAR_>105+ yrs 82 -- -- -- 107 -- FIR_17 181 350 196 350 350 350 FIR_18 121 350 115 156 142 248 FIR_19 105 155 99 -- 113 163 FIR_20 105 157 94 -- 104 148 FIR_21 92 124 87 -- 97 133 FIR_22 78 100 83 -- 85 113 FIR_23 81 108 80 -- 77 97 FIR_24 71 90 71 88 71 89 FIR_25 70 90 70 -- 67 82 FIR_26 73 95 63 -- 63 77 FIR_27 62 77 58 69 60 73 FIR_28 62 -- 55 -- 57 -- FIR_29 69 -- 54 -- 53 -- FIR_30 55 -- 82 -- 51 -- FIR_31 47 -- 49 -- 48 -- FIR_32 58 -- 58 -- 49 -- FIR_33 53 -- 43 -- 43 -- FIR_34 63 -- -- -- 44 -- FIR_35+ 46 -- 40 -- 41 -- HEM_10 350 -- 350 -- 289 -- HEM_11 168 228 168 -- 230 350 HEM_12 155 217 186 -- 190 261 HEM_13 138 187 160 -- 167 222 HEM_14 130 179 149 195 144 184 HEM_15 113 149 125 -- 126 157 HEM_16 100 130 100 -- 114 140 HEM_17 89 114 89 -- 104 126 HEM_18 92 117 97 -- 97 116 HEM_19 84 -- 98 -- 86 -- HEM_20 76 95 83 -- 82 97 HEM_21 74 92 77 90 77 90 HEM_22 69 85 72 84 70 82 HEM_23 64 -- 68 79 69 81 HEM_24 58 -- 63 -- 63 -- HEM_25 57 68 57 -- 60 69 HEM_26 56 -- 54 -- 56 -- HEM_27 52 -- 52 59 53 61 HEM_28 47 -- -- -- 52 -- HEM_29 44 -- -- -- 48 -- HEM_30+ -- -- 44 -- 48 -- NON-MERCH 114 -- -- -- -- -- PINE 88 -- 55 -- 82 -- SPRUCE 105 136 144 199 120 179



6.4 Unsalvaged Losses

TSR III estimated the average annual unsalvaged losses to be 18,425 m3/yr for the Fraser TSA. Within the Hope CFA unsalvaged losses were estimated as a proportion of the Fraser TSA losses, based on the ratio of the Hope CFA THLB area to the Fraser TSA THLB area. Based on this ratio of 3.3%, the total modelled annual harvest volume was reduced by approximately 614 m3/yr.

6.5 Genetic Gain

TSR III altered the basecase yield tables by an average of 2% to reflect the planting of genetically improved stock in accordance with seed planning zones. A sensitivity was conducted in TSR III that showed the use of Class A seed had no impact on the short term harvest levels, although the use of Class A seed impacted the harvest levels in the long term by about 5%. For the Hope CFA analysis, no assumptions about the use of Class A seed were considered in constructing the yield tables or in the harvest flow projections from the analysis.

6.6 Fertilized Areas

Under TSR III, a flat rate of 30m3 per ha was applied in the timber supply model to stands identified as having been fertilized, as opposed to applying the increment to the yield tables. Within the THLB of the Hope CFA, approximately 36 ha were identified as having had fertilizer treatments. Due to the small area in question, no increase in harvest flow volume was attributed to fertilization.

6.7 Silviculture Systems

It is currently assumed that within the Hope CFA all stands outside of the spotted owl Forest Management Areas (FMAs) will be managed under an even-aged, clearcut regime. Under the Spotted Owl Management Plan, harvesting in the spotted owl FMAs requires a residual stand retention of 40 large trees per ha.

Assumptions for the regeneration method, regeneration delay, initial density and species composition are provided in Table 9, below. Existing managed stand species composition is based on the inventory attributes. Generally, these values are consistent with TSR III, however TIPSY now incorporates planting stock height rather then planting stock age. The planting stock heights are also presented in Table 9.



Table 9: Regeneration assumptions of future managed stands. Analysis Spp. 1 Spp. 1 Spp. 2 Spp. 2 Initial Regen Regen Spp. 1 Spp. 2 Unit (%) (%) Density Method Delay Ht (cm) Ht (cm)ALDER FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 30 -- CEDAR_<105 CW 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 27 -- CEDAR_>105+ CW 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 27 -- FIR_17 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 30 -- FIR_18 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 30 -- FIR_19 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 30 -- FIR_20 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 30 -- FIR_21 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_22 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_23 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_24 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_25 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_26 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_27 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_28 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_29 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_30 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_31 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_32 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_33 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_34 FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- FIR_35+ FD 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 30 -- HEM_10 BA 54 HW 46 1700 N 4 22 22 HEM_11 HW 56 BA 44 1700 N 4 22 22 HEM_12 HW 52 BA 48 1700 N 4 22 22 HEM_13 BA 52 HW 48 1700 N 4 22 22 HEM_14 HW 55 BA 45 1700 N 4 22 22 HEM_15 BA 53 HW 47 1700 N 3 22 22 HEM_16 HW 57 BA 43 1700 N 3 22 22 HEM_17 HW 62 BA 38 1700 N 3 22 22 HEM_18 BA 58 HW 42 1700 N 3 22 22 HEM_19 HW 58 BA 42 1700 N 3 22 22 HEM_20 BA 53 HW 47 1700 N 3 22 22 HEM_21 HW 61 BA 39 1700 N 3 22 22 HEM_22 HW 72 BA 28 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_23 BA 74 HW 26 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_24 HW 63 BA 37 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_25 HW 61 BA 39 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_26 HW 78 BA 22 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_27 HW 65 BA 35 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_28 HW 58 BA 42 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_29 HW 51 BA 49 1700 N 2 22 22 HEM_30+ HW 82 BA 18 1700 N 2 22 22 NON-MERCH FD 100 -- -- 1700 N 4 30 -- PINE PL 100 -- -- 1200 P 2 13 -- SPRUCE SE 100 -- -- 1200 P 3 21 --



6.8 Community Watersheds

There are four community watersheds (CWS) located within the Hope CFA. Collectively, these CWS total approximately 275 ha, of which 253 ha are comprised of productive forest. Within each CWS a forest cover requirement was applied so that up to a maximum of 5% of the productive forest area could be less than or equal to 5 years of age at any point in time.

6.9 Ungulate Winter Range

The Hope CFA has 1,502 ha of ungulate winter range, and approximately 1,468 ha are considered productive forest. The are 268 ha of UWR found in the THLB are all comprised of productive forest, while the remaining 1,200 ha of productive forest are found in the non-contributing portion.

At present, no UWRs have been approved for the Fraser TSA. The Information Concerning Wildlife Habitat for the Winter Survival of Ungulate Species in [the] Fraser Timber Supply Area recommends a 100% net-down applied, rather than a forest cover constraint. To be consistent with TSR III and the Chief Forester’s comments around a formal decision on the UWR areas being made by the appropriate statutory authority and not through the TSR process, the Hope CFA analysis followed the TSR III analysis which was deemed to adequately reflect current requirements and practices associated with the management of UWR, to the extent that such areas are formally identified.

For the basecase modelling in the Hope CFA, the UWR areas from TSR III had a 50% forest cover retention applied to stands >100 years to UWR areas that fell within the THLB. This is consistent with TSR III.

A sensitivity analysis was carried out by applying a 100% harvesting deferral to the revised UWR coverage provided with the Information Concerning Wildlife Habitat for the Winter Survival of Ungulate Species in [the] Fraser Timber Supply Area. Details on this sensitivity are presented in Section 9.3.

6.10 Goat Winter Range Areas

There are approximately 1,388 ha of Goat Winter Range (GWR) in the Hope CFA, of which 1,012 ha is classified as forested. Only 10 ha of GWR is within the THLB, while the remaining 1,002 ha is in the non-contributing portion of the Hope CFA.

Under TSR III, the GWR was not modelled, as the goat habitat was not deemed to significantly impact the THLB. At present, no approved goat winter range areas exist for the Fraser TSA.

Departing slightly from the TSR III analysis, the GWR was modelled by applying a 100% harvesting deferral to the 10 ha of GWR coverage found in the THLB. Due to the small area in question, this harvesting deferral is not expected to have any noticeable impact on the timber supply projection.

6.11 Grizzly Bear Habitat

No grizzly bear management areas in either approved or in draft form are found within the Hope CFA. Allowances are made in a general manner for the grizzly bear through the 1% impact on the short-term timber supply under the Integrated Wildlife Management Strategy discussed in Section 3.20.

6.12 Visual Quality – Green Up Constraints

Within the Hope CFA, the District Manager has assigned recommended visual quality classes (RVQCs). Specific green-up heights and the maximum allowable percentage of area not greened-up were assigned to each class, by visual unit (Table 10). For modelling purposes, green-up age was used as a surrogate for height. The species-and-site-weighted green-up age was calculated from the yield tables for the respective class within each visual unit. Table 10 reports the green-up age and maximum allowable disturbance area



for each class within each visual unit. Integrated Resource Management (IRM) green-up heights apply at the landscape unit level, to all forest management areas outside the visual polygons.

Table 10: Green-up heights, age and maximum allowable disturbance specifications. Class Visual Unit Green-up Area Weighted Maximum Allowable Height (m) Greenup Age Disturbance (%) IRM Coquihalla 3 18 25 IRM East Harrison 3 23 25 IRM Manning 3 14 25 IRM Silverhope 3 15 25 IRM Yale 3 15 25 RVQC=m 218 5.3 19 28.4 RVQC=m 240 5.3 18 28.4 RVQC=m 241 5.3 20 28.4 RVQC=m 368 5.3 36 28.4 RVQC=prH 261 5 23 5 RVQC=prH 284 5 32 5 RVQC=prH 301 5 18 5 RVQC=prH 340 5 16 5 RVQC=prH 347 5 21 5 RVQC=prH 354 5 22 5 RVQC=prH 357 5 17 5 RVQC=prH 363 5 29 5 RVQC=prH 374 5 20 5 RVQC=prH 384 5 27 5 RVQC=prL 189 5.4 21 16.4 RVQC=prL 192 5.4 18 16.4 RVQC=prL 193 5.4 24 16.4 RVQC=prL 206 5.4 19 16.4 RVQC=prL 222 5.4 16 16.4 RVQC=prL 263 5.4 28 16.4 RVQC=prL 267 5.4 15 16.4 RVQC=prL 296 5.4 16 16.4 RVQC=prL 358 5.4 28 16.4 RVQC=prL 396 5.4 23 16.4 RVQC=prM 184 5.2 16 9.8 RVQC=prM 186 5.2 16 9.8 RVQC=prM 248 5.2 22 9.8 RVQC=prM 251 5.2 15 9.8 RVQC=prM 282 5.2 19 9.8 RVQC=prM 329 5.2 17 9.8 RVQC=prM 399 5.2 20 9.8 RVQC=prM 422 5.2 31 9.8 RVQC=prM 461 5.2 18 9.8 RVQC=prM 466 5.2 20 9.8 RVQC=r 173 5.1 23 2.5 RVQC=r 178 5.1 20 2.5 RVQC=r 277 5.1 16 2.5 RVQC=r 348 5.1 27 2.5

VQO Unit numbers are the visual polygons.



6.13 Spotted Owl Management

The Spotted Owl Management Plan released in May 1999 provides policy direction for forest management, although it has not been formally declared a Higher Level Plan. The SOMP includes direction for the permanent protection of owl habitat with Special Resource Management Zones (SRMZs) that allow integrated resource management and owl ‘matrix’ areas that provide for transition habitat for areas where owls are known to occur. Owl ‘matrix’ areas exist where owls are found outside both the SRMZs and protected areas, and are intended to provide temporary protection for known owl sites for a period of 50 years.

The spotted owl SRMZs are comprised of the Long Term Owl Habitat area (LTOH), forest management areas (FMA) and replacement areas (RPA) which are held in reserve until recruitment areas within the LTOH have reached 100 years of age.

As discussed in Section 3.10 of this report, the LTOH areas were assumed to be completely unavailable for harvest and were excluded from the THLB. Replacement areas (RPAs) and forest management areas (FMAs) within the SRMZs, as well as Matrix areas outside of SRMZs were modelled using forest cover constraints.

Given that the LTOH areas were unavailable for harvest, a forest cover constraint ensuring 67% of the SRMZ area was greater than 100 years of age was applied to the forested portion of the SRMZ. An additional constraint was applied to the RPAs and LTOH portion of the SRMZ area whereby 75% of the forested portions of the RPA and LTOH area combined had to be >140 years of age. Harvesting in the FMA portion of the SRMZ was modelled by applying a 20% area retention to approximate the 40 standing, large trees per hectare requirement. These modelling assumptions are consistent with TSR III and with the intent of the Spotted Owl Management Plan.



7 Modelling Results

The timber supply analysis was conducted using the public software Forest Planning Studio - Atlas version 6.0.2.0 (FPS or ATLAS). ATLAS is a simulation based, spatially explicit, forest estate model developed by Dr. John Nelson at the University of British Columbia. The model has been used extensively academically and industrially, and has been model used on numerous Timber Supply Analyses throughout British Columbia recently.

The planning horizon for this analysis was 250 years, with the planning periods set to 5-year increments. In ATLAS the length of the planning period influences growth and yield estimates, management objectives and constraints. Overly narrow planning periods tend to overstate the operational reality of targets and constraints while overly broad planning periods provide unrealistic flexibility in meeting these targets and constraints. We believe that a planning period of 5 years depicts operational circumstances reasonably.

7.1 Harvest Priorities

Under TSR III, stands were harvested based on the difference between their current age and the age when 95% of the maximum growth has been reached. In TSR III, stands younger than the later age were given equal priority for harvest.

Harvest priorities in ATLAS have to be either by geographic zone, or under an oldest first priority rule. For the Hope CFA analysis, stands were prioritized by age so that oldest stands were harvested first. Given that only 15% of the THLB is comprised of stands at or older than the minimum harvest age, the oldest first harvesting rule is not likely to vary significantly from the intent of the TSR III harvest rule whereby 20% of the total harvest was to come from stands under 105 years of age.



7.2 Harvest Volume

Based on this analysis the projected short-term harvest level for the Hope CFA is approximately 35,546 m3/yr. Timber supply is expected to increase to a level of approximately 36,386 m3/yr by year 71. The long-term harvest level is approximately 92% the CFA’s theoretical long-run sustained yield (LRSY)3 of 39,682 m3/yr. This level of harvest is sustained throughout the planning horizon without depleting the THLB growing stock. Figure 9 presents the ATLAS model harvest projection for the Hope CFA basecase, after accounting for 614 m3/yr of unsalvageable losses.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Har

vest

Lev

el (m

3 /yr)

Basecase Forcast Harvest Volume

Basecase Target Harvest Volume

Figure 9: Timber supply forecast for the Hope CFA. 3 For comparison, the theoretical LRSY is based on the assumption of a fully managed timber harvesting landbase, including the contribution of low growth potential sites within the THLB, and does not account for forest cover management objectives such as spotted owl, visual quality objectives or community watershed forest cover requirements. It also does not consider the unsalvageable losses.



7.3 Transition from Unmanaged to Managed Stands

In the first 40 years of the planning horizon harvest volume is largely comprised of unmanaged stands4, a transition from unmanaged to managed stands is expected through to year 100, beyond which harvest volumes will primarily be from managed stands. Figure 10 presents graphically the transition from unmanaged stands to managed stands in the basecase.

The harvest level increases by year 71 in Figures 9 and 10, reflecting the increase in harvest levels from existing managed stands, the conversion of existing alder stands to managed fir, and from the 36 ha of future TL additions (approximately 0.4% of the THLB) becoming available for harvest towards the later half of the mid-term of the projection. This fact is further demonstrated in Figure 9.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Har

vest

Lev

el (m

3 /yr)

Managed Stands Harvest Volume

Unmanaged Stands Harvest Volume

Figure 10: Transition of harvest volume from unmanaged stands to managed stands. 4 For the Hope CFA analysis, unmanaged stands were defined as fir leading stands greater than 39 years of age and older, hemlock/balsam stands leading stands greater than 29 years of age and older, and cedar, spruce and pine leading stands greater than 19 years of age and older.



7.4 Growing Stock

Total growing stock within the Hope CFA is expected to increase rapidly in the first 80 years as the large proportion of young stands continue to grow in their most productive phase. The conversion of existing unmanaged stands, the conversion of existing alder to managed fir types and the very small contribution of the 36 ha of future TL additions to the THLB also increase the growing stock.

The growth of young stands will allow areas currently constrained or reserved by forest cover targets to move into the THLB as the young stands meet the target criteria. For the entire 250 years, the total growing stock increases as deferred stands increase in volume, although the deferred stand volume increment levels off corresponding with the yield curve trajectory. Throughout the entire projection, the growing stock in the THLB remains relatively constant. Figure 11 presents the growing stock within the non-contributing land base, the timber harvesting landbase and overall, for the basecase.

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Gro

wing

Sto

ck ('

000

m3)

Total Growing StockGrowing Stock in ReservesGrowing Stock in THLB

Figure 11: Growing Stock for the Hope CFA.



7.5 Harvest Volume Characteristics

Throughout the planning horizon the harvest volume is largely comprised of fir (52% of all harvest volume) and hemlock/balsam (41% of all harvest volume) type groups. The spruce types represent 4% of the total harvest volume. Alder, cedar and pine types represent approximately 1% each of the total harvest volume. In the 2nd 5-year period, a large proportion of the harvest volume comes from existing alder stands. As the model is harvesting under an oldest first rule, the alder harvest in the 2nd period is indicative of the model searching for eligible stands and being forced to harvest the relatively young stands of alder to get through the age-class gap. Once harvested, the existing alder types are converted to fir types. Figure 12 presents harvest volume by species group over the planning horizon for the basecase.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Har

vest

Lev

el (m

3 /yr)

PineAlderSpruceHw/BaFirCedar

Figure 12: Species type composition of harvest volume.



Figure 13 illustrates the source of the harvest volume over the planning horizon for the basecase. For the first 65 years of the planning horizon, harvesting activities will largely occur (approximately 54%) in unmanaged stands located on medium quality, followed by good quality sites (approximately 32%), on average. This is consistent with the existing conditions of the THLB with its large proportion of the medium quality fir and hemlock/balsam types (see Figure 8). As the existing alder types are harvested, they are converted to fir and the regenerated fir stands are not distinguished by site type in Figure 13.

For the remainder of the planning horizon, this pattern continues with medium quality sites making up 54% of the harvest volume, followed by good quality at 31%. The remainder comes from the indistinguished sites (approximately 15%) and the poor quality sites (6%). Analysis Units comprised of low sites classes were not harvested in the basecase.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Har

vest

Lev

el (m

3 /yr)

IndistinguishedPoorMediumGood

Figure 13: Harvest volume by timber productivity class for the Hope CFA.



Figure 14 depicts the average weighted harvest volume stand age for the planning horizon for the basecase. The shortfall of existing older stands available for harvest (approximately 15% of the THLB area is at or above the minimum harvest age) results in a decrease in the average harvest age and corresponding harvest volume. In the immediate future the volume-weighted stand harvest age is approximately 220 years, and drops over the first 3 decades to a volume-weighted average of approximately 100 years. After 3 decades the volume weighted harvest age varies slightly around 100 years of age to the end of the planning horizon. Variations in stand age reflect the harvesting of old stands periodically throughout the planning period, corresponding with the transition to unmanaged stand types as shown in Figure 10.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Stan

d Ag

e (y

rs)

Volume Weighted Harvest Age

5 per. Mov. Avg. (Volume Weighted Harvest Age)

Figure 14: Volume weighted stand harvest age for the Hope CFA.



Figure 15 presents the area-weighted harvest stand volume over the planning horizon of the basecase. For the first 40 years, the stand volume fluctuates between a high of approximately 550 m3/ha to a low of approximately 350 m3/ha, identifying the impact of the existing small age class gap in the short term as the harvest volume comes from younger stand types with lower yields. This corresponds with large proportion of alder harvested in the 5 to 10 year period, as shown in Figure 12. For the remainder of the planning horizon, stand volume becomes less variable, ranging between 450 and 500 m3/ha.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Stan

d Ha

rves

t Vol

ume

(m3 /h

a)

Area Weighted Stand Harvest Volume5 per. Mov. Avg. (Area Weighted Stand Harvest Volume)

Figure 15: Area weighted stand harvest stand volume for the Hope CFA.



Figure 16 presents the annual area harvested over the planning horizon for the basecase. Corresponding with the fluctuations in the stand harvest volumes, the area harvested annually also fluctuates for the first 40 years and then begins to level out for the remainder of the planning horizon. Large drops in the area harvest around 35 years correspond with the harvest of good site cedar and fir managed stands at that time (see Figures 10, 12 and 13).

In the initial planning period the area harvested is expected to be approximately 110 ha. In the mid– and long-term approximately 80 ha will be harvested annually, although this area is expected to fluctuate to a lesser degree than the initial period. There is an approximate decline of 27% in the harvest area after the first 20 years. This reflects the change from harvesting older unmanaged stands to harvesting younger, more productive growth types that have reached the minimum harvest age.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Har

vest

Are

a (h

a)

Annual Area Harvested5 per. Mov. Avg. (Annual Area Harvested)

Figure 16: Annual area harvested over the planning horizon.



8 Short-term Constraints

Actual harvest levels often depart from the theoretical long-run sustained yield in part because of non-timber forest management objectives that define levels of disturbance associated with timber harvesting activities. For the Hope CFA, four forest level management objectives have been defined. These include cutblock adjacency and visual quality, community watersheds, deer and goat winter range targets and spotted owl management objectives. Based on the management criteria for each of these objectives, current forest conditions are described below.

8.1 Adjacency Constraints and Visual Quality

To be consistent with TSR III, the recommended visual quality classes used in TSR III were used in the Hope CFA. At the forest level, visual quality targets are set by forest cover requirements. All areas are subject to visual quality targets; those areas not assigned to the more restrictive Recommended Visual Quality Classes (RVQCs) were assigned to the IRM targets to approximate the adjacency constraints. Adjacency requirements were modelled for areas not subject to other green-up requirements. Table 10 in Section 6.12 outlines the target requirements for each visual polygon. In Figures 17 through 22 the target values define the maximum level of area within a classification, based on current management assumptions.

A total of approximately 5,656 ha were subject to the cutblock adjacency requirements (IRM) in the five Landscape Units. In four of the Landscape Units the actual level of disturbance was less than the target maximum. In the East Harrison Unit (7.05 ha), the level of disturbance is more than the target maximum (1.76 ha). Based on current management assumptions green-up does not appear to constrain forest management activities in the short-term

0

500

1,000

1,500

IRM_Coq

uihalla

IRM_Eas

t Harr

ison

IRM_Man

ning

IRM_Silve

rhope

IRM_Yale

Landscape Unit and IRM Code

Are

a (h

a)

THLB AreaNCLB AreaTarget Maximum Area

Figure 17: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each Landscape Unit.



Visual quality forest cover requirements were applied to the forested portions of each visual polygon. The classification excludes areas not managed by the Ministry of Forests and Range. A total of 10,237 ha were assigned to visual quality polygons, of which 3,005 ha are in the THLB. Figures 18 through 22 illustrate the actual target maximum levels of disturbance for the recommended visual quality conditions of modification (m), partial retention – high (prH), partial retention – low (prL), partial retention – moderate (prM) and retention (r), respectively.

None of the four modification (m) units exceed the target maximum level of disturbance, as shown in Figure 18.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

m_218 m_240 m_241 m_368

Visual Units

Are

a (h

a)

THLB Area

NCLB Area

Target Maximum Area

Figure 18: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the RVQC of modification.

Figure 19 demonstrates that three of the partial retention – high (prH) units; 261, 354 and 384, exceed the target maximum level of disturbance. The constrained portion of the prH units represent 70% of the THLB area within all of the prH units.



0

50

100

150

200

250

prH_261 prH_284 prH_301 prH_340 prH_347 prH_354 prH_357 prH_363 prH_374 prH_384

Visual Units

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 19: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the RVQC of partial retention-high. Figure 20 shows that three of the partial retention – low (prL) units exceed the target maximum level of disturbance. This represents approximately 20% of the THLB within all of the prL units.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

prL_189 prL_192 prL_193 prL_206 prL_222 prL_263 prL_267 prL_296 prL_358 prL_396

Visual Units

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 20: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the RVQC of partial retention-low.



Figure 21 shows that two of the ten partial retention – moderate (prM) units have exceeded the target maximum level of disturbance. This represents approximately 30% of the THLB area within this classification.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

prM_184 prM_186 prM_248 prM_251 prM_282 prM_329 prM_399 prM_422 prM_461 prM_466

Visual Units

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 21: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the RVQC of partial retention-moderate.

The final classification, retention (r), is shown in Figure 22. In this classification, three of the four units (99% of classification area) exceed the target maximum level of disturbance.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

r_173 r_178 r_277 r_348

Visual Units

Are

a (h

a)


Figure 22: Current actual and target (maximums) forest cover conditions of each visual unit under the RVQC of retention.



Adjacency does not appear to be binding in the short term, as the four large Landscape Unit areas do not appear to exceeding the target maximums. Based on current management assumptions, a total of 1,337 ha of the 3,005 ha in the THLB exceed the target maximums for RVQC objectives. The 1,337 ha of constrained area amounts to approximately 15% of the existing THLB area, not considering the 36 ha of future TL addition areas. The constrained area will have a negative impact on the immediate short-term timber supply, until enough area with each visual unit has exceed the target height criteria.

8.2 Community Watersheds

There are four community watersheds (CWS) within the Hope CFA. Community watershed areas are subject to forest cover requirements; these requirements represent targets for maximum disturbance. Stands less than 5 years are considered disturbed, and a maximum of 5% of the forested area within each watershed may be disturbed at any time. Figure 23 presents the target maximum disturbance and actual area disturbed for each CWS within the Hope CFA. Based on current management assumptions and forest inventory information, all the community watersheds are within the target maximum levels of disturbance, and as such, no impact on the short-term timber supply is expected from CWS.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CWS_289 CWS_304 CWS_359 CWS_447

Community Watershed Units

Are

a (h

a)

THLB Area < 5 YearsNCLB Area < 5 YearsTarget Maximum Area < 5 Years

Figure 23: Current actual and target (maximums) disturbance levels of each community watershed within the Hope CFA.



8.3 Ungulate Winter Range

In Figure 24, the target area defines the minimum habitat area for the deer management units within the Hope CFA. To meet the deer winter range objective, 50% of the forested area in the THLB portion of the deer winger range must be greater than 100 years of age. Within one unit, Yale, the target minimum for habitat area is not met. The target for this unit is 99 ha and the unit only contains 79 ha of suitable habitat (greater than 100 years of age). Due to this shortfall, the timber supply will be constrained slightly in the short term.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Coquihalla TSR III Deer Silverhope TSR III Deer Yale TSR III Deer

Deer Management Units

Are

a (h

a)

THLB Habitat Area >100 Years

Target Minimum Area > 100 Years

Figure 24: Current actual and target (minimums) of each deer management unit.



8.4 Goat Winter Range

Figure 25 presents the minimum target area defines the minimum habitat area for the goat winter range units within the THLB. To meet the goat winter range objective, 100% of the forested portion of the THLB within the goat winger range must greater than a 100 years of age. Using the GWR habitat coverage from TSR III, only the Yale Landscape Unit has forested goat habitat polygons within the THLB, and all forested areas are less than 100 years of age. Due to the small area in consideration, no noticeable impacts to timber supply are expected.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Coquihalla Silver Yale

Goat Management Units

Are

a (h

a)

THLB Habitat Area > 100 Years

Target Minimum Area > 100 Years

Figure 25: Current actual and target (minimums) of each goat management unit.



8.5 Spotted Owl Habitat

In consideration of the Spotted Owl Management Plan directives, two forest cover constraints were simultaneously applied to the spotted owl SRMZs. First, the entire SRMZ (LTOH, RPA and FMA portions combined) had to have a minimum of 67% of the area greater than 100 years of age. Second, the LTOH and RPA portion of the SRMZ had to have a minimum area of 75% of the area greater than 140 years of age. Harvesting in the FMA portion of the SRMZ required a minimum residual stand retention of 40 large trees per ha. The 40 large tree per ha retention was approximated in the ATLAS model by applying a 20% area retention to all FMA areas.

Figure 26 presents the existing condition of the forested portion of the SRMZ areas with regards to meeting the habitat criteria applied in TSR III (greater than 100 years of age).

There are various proportions of three SRMZ units in the Hope CFA, and two of these units (4 and 4a) do not meet the minimum habitat target based on the 100-year minimum age requirement. Both SRMZ 2E and SRMZ 4 comprise small areas (108 ha and 114 ha respectively) compared with SRMZ 4A at 3,066 ha.

While more than 67% of the portion of SRMZ 2E within the Hope CFA meets the habitat criteria, only 33% of SRMZ 4 and 44% of SRMZ 4A are greater than 100 years of age. As such, area within the three SRMZ’s is constrained from any management activities in the short-term. Due to the shortfall of suitable spotted owl habitat in the SRMZs, the timber supply will be impacted in the short term.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

SRMZ 2E SRMZ 4 SRMZ 4A

Owl Habitat Units

Area

(ha)

Unsuitable THLB HabitatUnsuitable NCLB HabitatSuitable THLB HabitatSuitable NCLB HabitatTarget Minimum Area > 100 Years

Figure 26: Current actual and target (minimums) of each SRMZ unit.



Figure 27 displays the existing conditions of the forest cover constraint whereby 75% of the LTOH and RPA portions of the SRMZs must be over 140 years of age. Only two of the three SRMZs have LTOH and RPA portions within the boundary of the Hope CFA, Only 7% of SRMZ 2E and 22% of SRMZ 4A meet the habitat target whereby 75% of the area is >140 years of age in the combined LTOH and RPA areas.

Although the LTOH areas are in the non-contributing portion of the CFA landbase, the RPA areas within the THLB will be constrained in the short term until the combined LTOH and RPA areas meet the minimum habitat targets. As only small portions of SRMZ 2E and SRMZ 4 are in the Hope CFA, it is likely the forest cover constraints on these two areas will be different when considering areas in these SRMZs that are outside of the Hope CFA boundaries.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

SRMZ 2E SRMZ 4A

Owl Habitat Units

Are

a (h

a)

Unsuitable THLB HabitatUnsuitable NCLB HabitatSuitable THLB HabitatSuitable NCLB HabitatTarget Minimum Area > 140 Years

Figure 27: Current actual and target (minimums) for LTOH and RPA area within each SRMZ.



Contributing to Spotted Owl habitat, but not part of the SRMZs are the Owl Matrix areas. Figure 28 displays the breakdown of habitat type found in the Owl Matrix units within the Hope CFA. As with the SRMZs, forested areas over 100 years of age were considered to be suitable habitat.

Owl Matrix areas exist where owls are found outside both the SRMZs and protected areas, and are intended to provide temporary protection for known owl sites for a period of 50 years. As the Matrix areas are expected to be phased out over the next 50 years, harvesting was constrained by scheduling deferral removals on the concentric circles over the course of the first 50 years of the planning period. Harvesting can occur in a concentric circular pattern, working from the outside(i.e. “D”) towards the centre of the Matrix circle (i.e. “A”). Only portions of some Owl Matrix areas overlapped with the Hope CFA.

There was no target minimum for Matrix areas, however Figure 27 presents the existing habitat attributes for Owl Matrix areas.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Owl_Matr

ix_0C

Owl_Matr

ix_0D

Owl_Matr

ix_2C

Owl_Matr

ix_2D

Owl_Matr

ix_3A

Owl_Matr

ix_3B

Owl_Matr

ix_3C

Owl_Matr

ix_3D

Owl_Matr

ix_4C

Owl Matrix Units

Are

a (h

a)

Unsuitable THLB HabitatUnsuitable NCLB Habitat Suitable THLB HabitatSuitable NCLB Habitat

Figure 28: Habitat attributes for Owl Matrix areas.



9 Uncertainties and Sensitivities

The primary purpose of this analysis was to provide the BC Ministry of Forests Coast Forest Region, BC Timber Sales and the proponents of the Hope CFA, an assessment of the potential harvest opportunities from areas within the proposed CFA boundaries. This assessment was based on the most recently approved timber supply review and allowable annual cut determination. However, this analysis was not intended to represent or restrict the management objectives and principles of the future licensee. We expect the future licensee will implement management objectives and modelling methodology that will differ from the techniques applied here.

Although this analysis followed closely the 2003 TSR III methodology, for a variety of reasons this was not always achieved, possible or preferable. Some TSR III modelling assumptions were not initially available, or were not incorporated accurately. In some circumstances historic data was not available and, additionally, a number of recent land status changes required the updating of some modelling approaches. The following section addresses these discrepancies, and where possible provides some quantifiable assessments of their impacts.



9.1 Including Projected Low Growth Potential Stand Types

A sensitivity analysis was carried that included 497 ha of projected low growth potential stands that exist in the THLB, but were deferred from harvest in the basecase since they did not meet the minimum volume criteria by age 150 as presented in Table 2.

The removal of the harvest deferral on the 497 ha of low growth potential stand types increases the short-term level approximately 1,560 m3/yr or 4.4%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 37,106 m3/yr. Long-term harvest levels were increased by approximately 720 m3/yr or 2.0%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 37,106 m3/yr.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Harv

est L

evel

(m3/

yr)

Include Low Sites Target Harvest Volume


Figure 29: Timber supply in the basecase and with the inclusion of projected low growth potential stands in the THLB.



9.2 Removal of the ‘Overlap’ Areas

At the request of the Ministry of Forests Chilliwack District staff, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the impact of removing approximately 879 ha of ‘overlap’ areas that may not be considered for the Hope CFA.

The corresponding reduction in THLB area of 349 ha decreased the short-term harvest level by approximately 1,640 m3/yr or 4.6%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 33,906 m3/yr. Long-term harvest levels were decreased by approximately 1,280 m3/yr or 3.5%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 35,106 m3/yr.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Harv

est L

evel

(m3/

yr)


No Overlap Target Harvest Volume

Figure 30: Timber supply in the basecase and with the removal of 849 ha of ‘Overlap’ area.



9.3 Revised Ungulate Winter Range

Since TSR III, a revised UWR coverage has been produced in conjunction with the Information Concerning Wildlife Habitat for the Winter Survival of Ungulate Species in [the] Fraser Timber Supply Area notice (referred to as the Information notice). While the UWR coverage of TSR III was used in the basecase, a sensitivity analysis was made using the revised coverage and applying a 100% harvesting deferral as suggested in the accompanying Information notice. The revised coverage contains a larger area of forest (2,125 ha vs. 1,468 ha in the TSR III coverage), but the UWR area within the THLB is only slightly higher at 278 ha vs. 268 ha in the TSR III coverage. The impact on the timber supply in this sensitivity comes from applying a 100% harvest deferral to the revised coverage, while the basecase had a forest cover constraint requiring 50% of the THLB portion of forested area within the UWR to be 100 years of age or older.

The application of the revised deer coverage and the accompanying 100% harvest deferral (or 100% net-down as suggested in the Information notice) decreases the short-term level approximately by 680 m3/yr or 1.9%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 34,866 m3/yr. Long-term harvest level decreased by approximately 940 m3/yr or 2.5%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 35,446 m3/yr.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Harv

est L

evel

(m3/

yr)


New Deer Target Harvest Volume

Figure 31: Timber supply in the basecase and with the revised UWR coverage and a 100% harvest deferral applied.



Figure 32 displays the existing conditions and the target objectives requiring 100% of the revised UWR to be 100 years of age or older. None of the three revised UWR units in the Hope CFA meet the target objective. If the revised UWR are formally approved and the 100% deferral management strategies as suggested in the Information notice are applied, the timber supply will be constrained as shown in Figure 31.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Coquihalla Silver Yale

Deer Managem ent Units

Area

(ha)

THLB Habitat Area > 100 Years

Target M inim um Area > 100 Years

Figure 32: Current actual target (minimums) forested area of each revised UWR unit with a 100% harvest deferral applied.



9.4 Changing Minimum Harvest Age to Age at 95% of Maximum MAI

The basecase used the minimum age when stands meet the minimum volume criteria presented in Table 7 as the minimum harvest age (see Table 8 for the actual minimum ages). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact on the timber supply of changing the minimum harvest age to the minimum age when stands have reached 95% of maximum MAI (Table 11 shows the minimum ages for this sensitivity). Overall, the change resulted in an increase in the timber supply throughout the entire planning horizon. This change generally resulted in lower harvest ages for the medium, poor and low sites thereby lowering yields at harvest, and higher harvest ages for the good sites corresponding with increased yields at harvest.

Changing the minimum harvest ages increases the short-term level approximately 600 m3/yr or 1.7%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 36,146 m3/yr, as shown in Figure 33. The medium-term harvest level increases by approximately 700 m3/yr or 1.9% from 36,386 m3/yr to 37,086 m3/yr. Long-term harvest level also increased by approximately 1,320 m3/yr or 3.6%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 37,706 m3/yr. Corresponding with higher harvest volumes, the area harvested increased throughout all periods in the projection. After the first 25 years, the total area harvested is approximately 4.5% higher than the basecase while after 250 years, approximately 7% more area is harvested in comparison to the basecase.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Harv

est L

evel

(m3/

yr)

95% Max MAI Target Harvest Volume


Figure 33: Timber supply in the basecase and with the minimum harvest age at 95% of Max MAI.



Table 11: Minimum harvest ages at 95% of maximum MAI. Analysis Existing Stands Future Stands Unit Unmanaged Managed Managed Managed Conventional Heli Conventional Heli Conventional Heli ALDER 40 68 -- -- 63 79

CEDAR_<105 yrs 82 -- 62 -- 60 --

CEDAR_>105+ yrs 82 -- -- -- 107 --

FIR_17 181 350 196 350 350 350

FIR_18 121 350 115 156 142 248

FIR_19 105 155 99 -- 113 163

FIR_20 105 157 94 -- 104 148

FIR_21 92 124 87 -- 97 133

FIR_22 78 100 83 -- 85 113

FIR_23 81 108 80 -- 77 97

FIR_24 71 90 71 88 71 89

FIR_25 70 90 70 -- 67 82

FIR_26 73 95 63 -- 63 77

FIR_27 62 77 58 69 60 73

FIR_28 62 -- 55 -- 57 --

FIR_29 69 -- 54 -- 53 --

FIR_30 55 -- 82 -- 51 --

FIR_31 47 -- 49 -- 48 --

FIR_32 58 -- 58 -- 49 --

FIR_33 53 -- 43 -- 43 --

FIR_34 63 -- -- -- 44 --

FIR_35+ 46 -- 40 -- 41 --

HEM_10 350 -- 350 -- 289 --

HEM_11 168 228 168 -- 230 350

HEM_12 155 217 186 -- 190 261

HEM_13 138 187 160 -- 167 222

HEM_14 130 179 149 195 144 184

HEM_15 113 149 125 -- 126 157

HEM_16 100 130 100 -- 114 140

HEM_17 89 114 89 -- 104 126

HEM_18 92 117 97 -- 97 116

HEM_19 84 -- 98 -- 86 --

HEM_20 76 95 83 -- 82 97

HEM_21 74 92 77 90 77 90

HEM_22 69 85 72 84 70 82

HEM_23 64 -- 68 79 69 81

HEM_24 58 -- 63 -- 63 --

HEM_25 57 68 57 -- 60 69

HEM_26 56 -- 54 -- 56 --

HEM_27 52 -- 52 59 53 61

HEM_28 47 -- -- -- 52 --

HEM_29 44 -- -- -- 48 --

HEM_30+ -- -- 44 -- 48 --

NON-MERCH 114 -- -- -- -- --

PINE 88 -- 55 -- 82 --

SPRUCE 105 136 144 199 120 179



9.5 No Owl Matrix Constraint

Owl Matrix areas exist where owls are found outside both the SRMZs and protected areas, and are intended to provide temporary protection for known owl sites for a period of 50 years. In the basecase, Owl Matrix areas were identified and harvesting was constrained by scheduling deferral removals, beginning at the outer concentric ring and moving inwards, over the course of the first 50 years of the planning period. This strategy was consistent with the TSR III analysis, where each Matrix Area was released for harvest over a 50 year period by moving the harvest activities inward from the periphery of the Matrix area toward the centre.

To test the impact of the Matrix area constraint, a sensitivity analysis was performed where no scheduled deferrals on the Matrix area circles were applied and the Matrix areas were eligible for harvest. With the removal of the scheduled deferral constraint (although other constraints could still apply), the timber supply increased over the short- and long-term.

Removing the scheduled deferrals on the Matrix concentric circles increases the short-term level approximately 300 m3/yr or 0.8%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 35,846 m3/yr. Long-term harvest level also increased by approximately 140 m3/yr or 0.4%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 36,246 m3/yr. Figure 34 presents the results of this sensitivity.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Harv

est L

evel

(m3/

yr)

No Matrix Target Harvest Volume


Figure 34: Timber supply in the basecase and with removal of the spotted owl Matrix constraint.



9.6 No FMA or Owl Matrix Constraints

In the basecase, Owl Matrix and Forest Management Areas (FMAs) were identified and harvesting was constrained in these areas. Partial harvesting in the FMA portion of the SRMZ was modelled by applying a 20% area retention to approximate the requirement of leaving 40 large standing trees per hectare in the residual stand.

The first owl habitat sensitivity did not apply the Matrix constraint (see section 9.5 above). This sensitivity examined the impact of removing the minimum 20% area retention to the FMAs, in combination with removing the scheduled deferrals on the matrix. As expected, by removing both of these constraints (although other constraints could still apply) the timber supply increased over the short- and long-term.

Removing the scheduled deferrals on the Matrix concentric circles along with removing the 20% area retention on the FMAs increases the short-term level approximately 660 m3/yr or 1.9%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 36,206 m3/yr, as shown in Figure 35. Long-term harvest level also increased by approximately 220 m3/yr or 0.6%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 36,606 m3/yr.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Har

vest

Lev

el (m

3/yr

)

No FMA or Matrix Target Harvest Volume


Figure 35: Timber supply in the basecase and with the removal of the spotted owl Matrix and FMA residual stand condition constraints.



9.7 No Owl Matrix, FMA, or SRMZ Forest Cover Constraints

In the basecase, spotted owl SRMZ’s were identified and harvesting was constrained in these areas through two forest cover constraints. Each SRMZ (consisting of the FMA, RPA and LTOH ) was modelled using a forest cover constraint where 67% of the forested portion had to be greater than 100 years of age. Additionally, the area consisting of long-term habitat and recruitment portions within each SRMZ (LTOH and RPA areas, respectively) were required to have at least 75% of the combined area greater than 140 years of age.

This third test on the impact of the owl habitat constraints examined the cumulative impact of removing all spotted owl forest cover constraints on the SRMZ and Matrix areas. As expected, the removal of all spotted owl forest cover constraints in the Owl SRMZ’s and Matrix areas increased the timber supply over the short-term by approximately 920 m3/yr or 2.6%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 36,466 m3/yr. After 220 years into the planning period, the Long-term harvest level increased by approximately 800 m3/yr or 2.2%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 37,186 m3/yr. Figure 36 presents the results of this sensitivity.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Harv

est L

evel

(m3/

yr)

No FMA, Habitat, Matrix or SRMZs Target Harvest Volume


Figure 36: Timber supply in the basecase and with the spotted owl habitat forest cover constraints applied.



9.8 Including Long Term Owl Habitat in the THLB

In the basecase, long term owl habitat (LTOH) was removed entirely from the contributing portion of the Hope CFA, although the LTOH contributed to the forest cover targets in the SRMZ. In addition, various forest cover constraints were applied to the other owl habitat types (i.e. RPA, FMA, Matrix, SRMZs), as discussed in sections 9.5 to 9.7.

To test the impacts on timber supply of including the LTOH in the THLB, two further sensitivities were performed. The first sensitivity analysis added the LTOH back into the THLB, but retained all the forest cover constraints on the Owl Matrix areas and in the Owl SRMZs as in the basecase. Adding the 2,182 ha of LOTH increased the THLB by 753 ha, after consideration of prioritized net-downs. The second sensitivity also included the LTOH in the THLB, but no other forest cover constraints were applied for owl habitat management (i.e. no Matrix or SRMZ forest cover constraints). As expected, in both scenarios the timber supply increased throughout the planning horizon.

As shown in Figure 37, adding the LTOH into the THLB and maintaining the other owl forest cover constraints, increases the short-term level approximately 1,300 m3/yr or 3.6%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 36,846 m3/yr. Long-term harvest level also increased by approximately 2,340 m3/yr or 6.4%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 38,726 m3/yr.

Figure 37 also shows that adding the LTOH into the THLB and removing of all of the owl forest cover constraints increases the short-term level approximately 4,600 m3/yr or 12.9%, from 35,546 m3/yr to 40,146 m3/yr. Long-term harvest level also increased by approximately 4,600 m3/yr or 12.6%, from 36,386 m3/yr to 40,986 m3/yr, however no considerations are made for spotted owl management under this scenario.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Planning Year

Har

vest

Lev

el (m

3/yr

)

Owl Habitat in the THLB with no Owl Constraints Target HarvestVolumeOwl Habitat in the THLB with Owl Constraints Target Harvest Volume


Figure 37: Timber supply in the basecase and with the spotted owl long term owl habitat included in the THLB.



Summary

The basecase of the Hope CFA analysis indicated a short- term timber supply of approximately 35,546 m3/yr, with an expected to increase to a level of approximately 36,386 m3/yr at year 71. This increase is attributed to unmanaged stands being converted to managed stand types, the conversion of a large proportion of alder types to managed fir stands in the 1st decade and to a minor extent, as the 36 ha of future TL additions contribute to the harvest volume.

Existing constraints have being identified that create a downward pressure on timber supply in the short term. Collectively, the Recommended Visual Quality Classes, management for Deer Winter Range, the various strategies under the Spotted Owl Management Plan, are likely contributing to lower short term harvest flow projections. Existing Green-up constraints and the presence of community watersheds and the very minor impact on the THLB of managing for Goat Winter Range, do not appear to be contributing significantly to impinging short term timber supply.

Sensitivities completed after the basecase identified a number of downward pressures on this forecast:

• Removing 879 ha (349 ha are within the THLB) from the Hope CFA, identified as ‘overlap’ areas by the Chilliwack Forest District staff, decreased the timber supply by 4.6% in the short-term and by 3.5% in the long-term.

• A number of sensitivities were performed to test the impacts on timber supply of the various owl habitat constraints and as expected, applying the owl constraints in the basecase adversely impacts both the short and long-term timber supply.

• The impact of applying the revised deer coverage with a 100% harvest deferral in accordance with the Information Concerning Wildlife Habitat for the Winter Survival of Ungulate Species in [the] Fraser Timber Supply Area, was found to decrease the timber supply throughout the planning horizon by 1.9% in the short-term and 2.5% in the long-term.

Accordingly, small upward pressures on the timber supply projection were also identified:

• A sensitivity analysis showed that adding the stand types with projected low growth potential that were deferred from harvest in the basecase, increased the short and long-term harvest volume.

• Changing the minimum harvest ages from the age of meeting a volume requirement to the age where 95% of maximum MAI occurs, was found to increase the timber supply over the entire planning horizon by nearly 2% in the short- and mid-term portion of the planning period, and by 3.6% in the long-term.

The largest increase to harvest volume over the entire planning period came from including the long-term owl habitat in the THLB. In contrast, removing the 839 ha of ‘Overlap’ area from the Hope CFA had the largest downward impact across the entire planning horizon.

Tree improvement and the fertilizer treatments were not modelled in the Hope CFA analysis. Based on the sensitivity analysis conducted under TSR III, a 5% increase in the long-term harvest level may be expected depending upon the proportionate use of select seed in future fir and cedar types within the Hope CFA. Shifting the re-establishment of hemlock/balsam types from natural regeneration to planting improved stock would also likely have a favourable gain to timber supply, although this would have to be quantified. Approximately 36 ha were identified as having had fertilizer treatments within the Hope CFA – due to the small area, no increase in harvest flow volume was attributed to fertilization in this analysis.

D.R. systems inc. - CLCCFclccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CLCCF-Timber-Supply-Analysis... ·...

Documents

Transcript of D.R. systems inc. - CLCCFclccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CLCCF-Timber-Supply-Analysis... ·...