TFL 52 Timber Supply Analysis Information Package V9€¦ · TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield...

Appendix A TFL 52 Yield Table Summary Report

West Fraser Mills Ltd.Tree Farm Licence 52

Yield Tables Summary Report

prepared by:Guillaume Therien

2399 7e Avenue,Trois-Rivieres, QC, Canada G8Z 3E2

email: [email protected]

May 12, 2014

TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Report Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 Generating Yield Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.4 Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Spatial Data Preparation 3

2.1 Spatial Data Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 TFL 52 Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.3 BCTS Managed Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.4 TFL 52 VRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.5 TFL 52 Depletions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.6 TFL 52 TEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.7 2008 SIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.8 ESSFwk1 SIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.9 SBSwk1 SIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.10 SBSmw SIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Productive Forest Land Base 5

3.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 Spatial Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 Natural Stand Yield Tables 6

4.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.2 Input Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.3 Ouput Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.4 Ground Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

May 12, 2014

TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page ii

5 Existing Managed Stand Yield Tables 10

5.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.2 Silviculture Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.3 Site Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5.4 Input Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.5 Ouput Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.6 Ground Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 Future Managed Stand Yield Tables 15

6.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6.2 Input Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6.3 Ouput Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7 Addendum 18

7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A Silviculture Regimes 19

B Site Series Distribution in the TFL 52 PFLB 24

C Pl-Sx Site Index Conversion Equation 25

D Managed Stands Site Index Source 26

E Subzone Summary for Future Stand Yield Tables, 2021 and Beyond 27

May 12, 2014

TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page iii

List of Tables

3.1 PFLB netdown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4.1 Natural stand area by biogeoclimatic subzone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.2 Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for natural stands. . . . . . . 7

5.1 Managed stand area by biogeoclimatic subzone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.2 Average TIPSY input by species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.3 Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for existing stands. . . . . . . 12

6.1 Average future managed stand yield tables input by species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6.2 Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for future stands. . . . . . . . 16

7.1 Age correction for yield tables based on CMI analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A.1 Species composition for silviculture regimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A.1 Species composition for silviculture regimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A.2 Regeneration data for silviculture regimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A.2 Regeneration data for silviculture regimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

A.3 Genetic Gain by era, subzone, and species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

A.4 Operational adjustment factors by subzone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

B.1 Site series distribution on TFL 52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

D.1 Area distribution by site index source and species for existing managed stands. . . . 26

D.2 Area distribution by site index source and species for future managed stands. . . . . 26

E.1 Tipsy input for SBSwk1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

E.2 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSwk1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

E.3 Tipsy input for ESSFwk1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

E.4 Culmination MAI statistics for ESSFwk1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

E.5 Tipsy input for SBSmw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

May 12, 2014

TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page iv

E.6 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSmw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

E.7 Tipsy input for ESSFwc3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

E.8 Culmination MAI statistics for ESSFwc3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


E.10 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSmh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


E.12 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSdw1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

E.13 Tipsy input for ICHmk3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

E.14 Culmination MAI statistics for ICHmk3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

E.15 Tipsy input for ICHwk4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

E.16 Culmination MAI statistics for ICHwk4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

May 12, 2014

TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page v

List of Figures

3.1 TFL 52 PFLB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4.1 Area distribution within natural stands by leading species, MoF age class, site index,and basal area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.2 Main biogeoclimatic subzone average volume vs. age curves for natural stands. (Blackdotted line is the overall average.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.3 Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all natural stands. . . . . . . . 9

5.1 Average volume vs. age curves for existing stands. (Black dotted line is the overallaverage.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.2 Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all existing stands. . . . . . . . 13

6.1 Average volume vs. age curves for future stands. (The black dotted line is the overallaverage.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6.2 Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all future stands. . . . . . . . . 17

C.1 Pl-Sx site index conversion equation using TFL 52 data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

E.1 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSwk1. . . . . . . . . . . . 28

E.2 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwk1. . . . . . . . . . . . 29

E.3 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmw. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

E.4 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwc3. . . . . . . . . . . . 31

E.5 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmh. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

E.6 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSdw1. . . . . . . . . . . . 33

E.7 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHmk3. . . . . . . . . . . . 34

E.8 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHwk4. . . . . . . . . . . . 35

May 12, 2014

TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Report Overview

Natural and managed stand yield tables were generated for West Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser)Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 52. The most accurate sources of growth and yield information were usedas input to generate these yield tables. These sources included:

1. the Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) with statistical adjustment,1

2. the Terrestrial Ecological Map (TEM), and

3. the site index adjustment (SIA) projects.2 3 4 5

The natural and managed stand yield tables described in this report were generated with theVDYP7 and BatchTipsy growth models, respectively. These main purpose of these yield tables isto be incorporated in timber supply analysis.

1.2 Report Objectives

The objectives of this report are to:

1. document the natural and managed stand yield tables input, and

2. summarize the tables output.

A database containing the yield tables and a shapefile spatially linking the yield tables to the TFLare also submitted under separate cover.

1.3 Generating Yield Tables

Two yield tables were generated for each polygon in the productive forest land base (PFLB): one forthe current stand and one for the future stand that will replace the current stand when harvested.Subsequent stands are assumed to be similar to the first future stand. Yield tables for current standswere divided into two groups, natural and managed stands, while all future stands were consideredmanaged stands.

1Guillaume Therien. 2011. Tree Farm Licence 52 Vegetation Resource Inventory Statistical Adjustment Update.Unpublished Report, Trois-Rivieres (QC), April 28, 2011. 37 pp.

2Guillaume Therien. 2009. Updating Potential Site Index for Commercial Tree Species on Tree Farm Licence 52.Unpublished Report, Vancouver (BC), November 20, 2008. 17 pp.

3Guillaume Therien. 2011. Site Index Adjustment for Interior Spruce in Tree Farm Licence 52 ESSFwk1 Biogeo-climati Subzone Final Report. Unpublished Report, Trois-Rivieres (QC), January 11, 2011. 17 pp.

4Guillaume Therien. 2012. Updated Site Index Adjustment for Interior Spruce and Lodgepole Pine in SBSwk1Biogeoclimatic Subzone Final Report. Unpublished Report, Trois-Rivieres (QC), January 16, 2012. 19 pp.

5Guillaume Therien. 2013. Updated Site Index Adjustment for Interior Spruce and Lodgepole Pine in Tree FarmLicence 52 SBSmw Biogeoclimatic Subzone Final Report. Unpublishered Report, Montreal (QC), December 14, 2013.23 pp.

May 12, 2014


Natural stand yield tables were generated using the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Land,and Natural Resource Operations (MoF) growth model VDYP7, version 7.7a.33, with input fromthe VRI. The modeling unit for the natural stand yield tables was the intersection between the VRImapstand and the biogeoclimatic zone polygon.

Managed stand yield tables were generated using the MoF growth model BatchTIPSY, version 4.3(January 23, 2013). Input for these tables were defined in silviculture regimes prepared by WestFraser (Appendix A). The silviculture regimes represent current and expected future managed standconditions. The modeling unit for the managed stand yield tables was the intersection between theTEM polygon and the polygons from the different SIA projects.

1.4 Terms of Reference

Guillaume Therien generated the yield tables and prepared the report for West Fraser. Earl Spiel-man was West Fraser’s contact person. Contributions from Jerry Miehm (Ecora Resource Group),Rene de Jong and Sam Otukol (MoF), as well as Earl Spielman and Guohua Li (West Fraser) aregratefully acknowledged.

May 12, 2014


2. Spatial Data Preparation

2.1 Spatial Data Overview

The different spatial layers needed to define the PFLB were:

1. TFL 52 boundary;

2. BC Timber Sales (BCTS) managed areas;

3. TFL 52 VRI;

4. TFL 52 depletions since 2003;

5. TFL 52 TEM;

6. 2008 SIA;

7. ESSFwk1 SIA,

8. SBSwk1 SIA, and

9. SBSmw SIA.

In addition, the VRI was adjusted with the non-spatial VRI statistical adjustment database.

2.2 TFL 52 Boundary

The TFL 52 boundary was dated November 29 2012, and covered 262,988 ha. Over the years, theboundary has been slightly modified a number of times. The TFL VRI and TEM are not coveringthe entire TFL landbase due to these boundary modifications.

2.3 BCTS Managed Areas

Some sliver areas (389 ha) included within the TFL 52 boundary are actually under BCTS juris-diction. These areas were considered BCTS land and excluded from the PFLB.

2.4 TFL 52 VRI

The TFL 52 VRI Phase I was completed in 2001 and 2002 on Block A and B, respectively. Areasnot covered by the TFL 52 VRI (1,232 ha) were assigned data from the East Quesnel Timber SupplyArea (TSA) VRI Phase I, completed in 2009. Consequently, VRI data was available for the entirelandbase. The VRI was adjusted using the statistical adjusment project completed on January11, 2011, with 2005 as the year of adjustment. The adjusted area covered 129,461 ha, while theremaining area was left unadjusted.

2.5 TFL 52 Depletions

The VRI was up-to-date as of 2003. Depleted areas since 2003 were identified and the establishmentyear of VRI polygons covered by depleted areas was estimated as one year after the end of thedepletion. VRI data for depleted areas was ignored.

May 12, 2014


2.6 TFL 52 TEM

The TFL 52 TEM was completed in 1998 and 1994 on Block A and B, respectively. The BlockB TEM included SBSmh-mw ha in the subzone SBSmh-mw which is not an official subzone. Thissubzone was relabeled SBSmw. Some areas not covered by the TFL 52 TEM were assigned datafrom the Quesnel TSA TEM. A total of 1,087 ha within the PFLB were not covered by any TEMand therefore had no TEM information.

2.7 2008 SIA

The 2008 SIA project was completed on November 20, 2008. The project target population covered270,133 ha. Estimates in the SBSwk1 biogeoclimatic subzone from the 2008 SIA project werereplaced by estimates from the 2012 SBSwk1 SIA project while those in the SBSmw were replacedby the 2013 SBSmw SIA project. A total of 34,010 ha from the 2008 SIA remained within the 2012PFLB.

2.8 ESSFwk1 SIA

The ESSFwk1 SIA project was completed on January 11, 2011. The target population for theproject covered 52,244 ha, of which 51,500 ha were included within the 2012 PFLB.

2.9 SBSwk1 SIA

The SBSwk1 SIA project was completed on January 16, 2012. The project target population covered78,276 ha, of which 77,096 ha were included within the 2012 PFLB. Site index estimates from thisproject were considered more accurate than the 2008 SIA estimates and were therefore used whenavailable.

2.10 SBSmw SIA

The SBSmw SIA project was completed on December 14 2013. The project target populationcovered 76,883 ha of which 71,468 ha were included within the 2012 PFLB. Site index estimatesfrom this project were considered more accurate than the 2008 SIA estimates and were thereforeused when available.

May 12, 2014


3. Productive Forest Land Base

3.1 Definition

The PFLB is the area for which stand yield tables are generated. Every polygon in the PFLB wereassigned a current and a future yield table. The timber harvesting land base (THLB), the timbersupply analysis landbase, is a subset of the PFLB. Generating yield tables for every polygon in thePFLB ensures that the same is true for the THLB without knowing the THLB definition.

The PFLB for TFL 52 was defined as out-side BCTS areas, outside the AT zone andESSFwcp3 subzone, not in ownership 50-N, 63-N, or 69-N, and not labeled as non-productiveor non-commercial (ProjectedTypeID 5 or 6in the VRI) (Table 3.1). The PFLB covered241,632 ha (92% of the TFL). For comparisonpurposes, the THLB in the last Timber SupplyReview was 199,376 ha.

Table 3.1: PFLB netdown.

Landclass Area(ha) (% TFL)

Total TFL 52 262,982 100%BCTS Land 389 0%Wrong Ownership 254 0%High Elevation 1,279 0%Non-Forested 19,428 7%PFLB 241,632 92%

3.2 Spatial Distribution

The areas outside the PFLB are located throughout the TFL, making the PFLB spatially repre-sentative of TFL 52 (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1: TFL 52 PFLB.

May 12, 2014


4. Natural Stand Yield Tables

4.1 Description

Natural stand yield tables were generated for all stands not labeled as Not Sufficiently Restocked(NSR), established before 1980 on Block A or before 1950 on Block B, or at least 30 years of ageat reference year.1 These stands covered a total of 142,700 ha (54% of the PFLB).

NSR stands only covered 52 ha. They were assigned their biogeoclimatic subzone average naturalstand yield table. Stands established on eco-polygons that were 100% non-productive (423 ha) orstands without TEM data (1,087 ha) were also assigned their subzone average natural stand yieldtable.

Yield tables were generated from age 1 to 250 by 1-year increment. The output included age, basalarea 12.5 cm+ (BA), quadratic mean diameter (QMD) 12.5 cm+, dominant height, volume net ofdecay, waste, and breakage (Vol) at both 12.5 cm+ and 17.5 cm+. Mean annual increment (MAI)was computed for both 12.5 and 17.5-cm+ utilization limits.

In a few cases, VDYP7 generated implausible output. Implausible output were corrected as follows:

1. When BA and QMD were larger than 0 and whole-stem volume was 0, BA was set to 0 andQMD to NULL.

2. When Vol was larger than 800 m3/ha, Vol was set to 800 m3/ha.

3. When MAI was larger than 12, Vol was set to 12 times the stand age.

Sometimes, the entire yield table was not plausible. This was generally the case when the standattributes were too low and the stand should have been labelled NSR but was not. In some cases,the stand attributes were inconsistent or implausible, in which case the yield table generated byVDYP7 was a flat line based on the stand attribute data. In all these situations, the subzoneaverage will be used in timber supply analysis.

4.2 Input Summary

Area distribution by leadings species, MoF age class, site index, and basal area are presented in(Figure 4.1). For compatibility purposes, MoF age and basal area were projected to 2012.

4.3 Ouput Summary

The SBSmw was the most productive subzone among the main subzones for natural stands, whilethe two ESSF subzones showed below-average productivity (Table 4.2, Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3). Theculmination MAI was 3 m3/ha/yr on average at an average age of 122 years. The mean culminationMAI varied among subzones between 1.4 and 3.0 m3/ha/yr, and 95% of all culmination MAI werebetween 0.1 and 5.0 m3/ha/yr. Stands showing 0 m3/ha/yr will be considered NSR in timber supplyanalysis.

1Reference year is the year of VRI ground sampling (2005) or inventory reference year if outside the VRI adjustmenttarget population.

May 12, 2014


While natural stands occur in eight sub-zones on TFL 52, four of these subzones aremarginal, leaving SBSwk1, ESSFwk1, SBSmw,and ESSFwc3 as the important subzones (Ta-ble 4.1).

A total of 121,031 ha in natural stands (about85% of all natural stands) were adjusted.Height, age, BA 7.5 cm+, and trees/ha 7.5cm+ were adjusted as input to VDYP7. Loreyheight, BA 12.5 cm+, whole-stem volume 7.5cm+ and 12.5 cm+, and close utilization vol-ume 12.5 cm+, less decay, waste, and breakagewere also provided. VRI Phase II ground sam-pling took place between 2001 and 2005 on TFL52. The adjusment was applied at the last yearof ground sampling (2005).

Table 4.1: Natural stand area by biogeoclimaticsubzone.

Total Area Avg.SISubzone (ha) (%) (m)

SBSwk1 39,655 28% 15.1ESSFwk1 37,100 26% 12.3SBSmw 33,260 23% 19.0ESSFwc3 26,670 19% 9.8SBSmh 4,423 3% 20.1SBSdw1 1,534 1% 20.1ICHmk3 265 0% 12.6ICHwk4 207 0% 12.5Total 143,115 100% 14.5

Table 4.2: Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for natural stands.

Area Culm. MAI (m3/ha/yr) Culm. Age (yrs)Subzone (ha) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

SBSwk1 39,655 2.9 0 11.2 113 1 250ESSFwk1 37,100 3.0 0 11.2 137 1 250SBSmw 33,260 3.4 0 12.0 96 1 250ESSFwc3 26,670 2.1 0 8.5 154 1 250Total 143,115 2.9 0 12.0 122 1 250

May 12, 2014


Sx Bl Pl Fd Dec Con

Leading Species Group

Are

a ('0

00 h

a)

010203040506070

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MoF 2012 Age Class

Are

a ('0

00 h

a)

010203040506070

<10 15 20 25 30+

Site Index Class (m)

Are

a ('0

00 h

a)

010203040506070

<10 20 30 40 50+

2012 Basal area ( m2 ha)

Are

a ('0

00 h

a)0

10203040506070

Figure 4.1: Area distribution within natural stands by leading species, MoF age class, site index,and basal area.

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

100

200

300

400

Age (yrs)

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

ESSFwc3ESSFwk1SBSmwSBSwk1

Figure 4.2: Main biogeoclimatic subzone average volume vs. age curves for natural stands. (Blackdotted line is the overall average.)

May 12, 2014


0 50 100 150 200 250

0

2

4

6

8

10

Culm. Age (yrs)

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

Figure 4.3: Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all natural stands.

4.4 Ground Check

There were 66 VRI Phase II plots located in natural stands. These ground plots can be used tovalidate the natural stand yield tables because the plots were randomly located. The ground volumeof these VRI plots was 318 m3/ha while the corresponding yield table volume at age of samplingwas 333 m3/ha, a difference of 5%. This result provides a level of comfort that the natural standyield tables are reasonably accurate.

May 12, 2014


5. Existing Managed Stand Yield Tables

5.1 Description

Existing managed stands were defined as stands with at least one productive site series, not labeledas NSR, established after 1979 on Block A or after 1949 on Block B, or less than 30 years of age atreference year. Existing managed stands covered 98,127 ha (37% of the PFLB).

VDYP7 cannot project growth on stands less than 30 years.1 Thus, stands less than 30 years atreference year were considered managed stands even if they were from natural origin. These standscovered 8,291 ha, about 8% of all existing managed stands.

Yield tables were first generated from 1 to 250 years by 1-year increment for all silvicultural regimesand site index combinations. There were 6,309 such combinations. These tables were then appor-tionned at the eco-polygon level based on the site series distribution within the eco-polygon. Therewere a total of 10,327 stand yield tables for existing managed stands.

Some silviculture regimes assumed a small proportion of At, Ep, or Sb. These three species requiredspecial considerations as a TIPSY input. Sb and Ep were modeled in TIPSY as white spruce and At,respectively. All conifers, except for Sb, were assumed to be planted while Sb and deciduous wereassumed to regenerate naturally. Because of the dichotomy in the regeneration method betweenconifers and deciduous, mixed conifer-deciduous stands were modeled in two steps. First, separateyield tables were generated for the conifer and for the deciduous components. Second, the twotables were combined proportionally into a single table.

The existing managed stand yield table variables included age, BA 12.5 cm+, QMD 12.5 cm+,height, and merchantable volumes 12.5 cm+ and 17.5 cm+. TIPSY does not output BA 12.5 cm+and QMD 12.5 cm+ directly. The two attributes had to be estimated from other attributes: the12.5-cm+ merchantable volume of the 250 prime trees (Vol250), the 12.5-cm+ QMD of the 250prime trees (QMD250), and the 12.5-cm+ tree count (TC). First, the basal area of the 250 primetrees (BA250) was estimated using QMD250 and a tree count of 250 or the actual tree count if lessthan 250. Second a form factor was obtained by dividing BA250 by Vol250. This factor was thenapplied to the 12.5-cm+ merchantable volume to estimate BA 12.5 cm+. The 12.5-cm+ QMD wasthen derived using the BA 12.5 cm+ estimate and TC. TIPSY outputs a QMD of 0 when there areno trees above the DBH utilization limit. This value was replaced by NULL.

5.2 Silviculture Regimes

Silviculture regimes were developed by West Fraser to describe the conditions of managed stands.These regimes were developed by site series and describe species composition, stand density, andsilvicultural treatments. These regimes represent past and current activities that have taken placeon TFL 52. The importance of each regime is defined by the site series area within the PFLB. Thesite series area distribution in the PFLB is provided in Appendix B.

5.2.1 Genetic Gain

The genetic gain for existing managed stands were divided into two time periods. Stands establishedprior to 1992 had no genetic gain applied while stands established after 1991 were assigned a weighted

1Sam Otukol, MOF biometrician, personal communication, May 1, 2012.

May 12, 2014


genetic gain based on expected gain (Table A.3), usage (Table A.3), and survival rate (Table A.2).The TIPSY default selection age was used for genetic gain.

5.2.2 Regeneration Delay

A regeneration delay of two years was assumed on all sites. Regeneration delay will be applied inthe timber supply analysis stage and was not included in the managed stand yield tables.

5.2.3 Operational Adjustment factors

The OAF1 estimate for existing managed stands was localized to TFL 52 using the TEM (Table A.4).This was done by assuming a base OAF1 of 7.5% with an additional amount added to accountfor non-productive areas described within eco-polygons. This additional non-productive area wasapproximated using the proportion of non-productive site series in each subzone. The standardMOF OAF2 of 5% was used for all subzones.

5.2.4 Fertilization

Fertilization of existing managed stands has occurred on the TFL 52 on a small scale (12,241 ha).Fertilization treatment was considered too marginal to be included in the managed stand yieldtables.

5.2.5 Commercial Thinning

No commercial thinning was assumed for existing managed stands. However, the potential to usecommercial thinning to help alleviate possible adjacency constraints may be examined if preliminarytimber supply analysis suggests that this may be a limiting factor.

5.2.6 Juvenile Spacing

Some existing managed stands on TFL 52 have been spaced, however, this was not explicitly includedin the managed stand yield tables. The effects of spacing on stand growth and yield were consideredadequately incorporated in stand descriptions in the silviculture regimes.

5.3 Site Index

Site index estimates were obtained from the four SIA projects for Sx, Pl, Bl, and Fd. Not all SIAprojects, however, provided estimates everywhere for Pl, Bl, and Fd. When not available, the siteindex for these three species was estimated from Sx (for Pl, Bl, and Fd in the ESSF) or Pl (for Fdoutside the ESSF) and a site index conversion equation. The Sx-Pl site index conversion equationwas locally built using TFL 52 data (Appendix C), while the MoF conversion equations was usedfor the two other species.

Unadjusted site index estimates were used in the 2008 SIA project due to a lack of samplingopportunities in two situations: high elevation areas and minor subzones. In high elevation areas,site index estimates were obtained from an elevation model. In minor subzones (ICHmk3, ICHwk4,SBSdw1, and SBSmh), site index was assigned by a panel of experts. These area represented about9% of future stands.

Site index in the ESSFwc3 was assigned an estimate based on an elevation model and that estimatewas not adjusted.

May 12, 2014


For polygons not covered by any of the SIA projects, the four main species (Sx, Pl, Bl, and Fd)were assigned the subzone average site index estimates from SIA projects. Site index for At wasalways estimated using the Sx site index and the MoF site index conversion equation. Ep and Sbwere assigned the subzone average site index from natural stands. Prorated area by species and siteindex source for existing managed stands is given in Appendix D.

5.4 Input Summary

The existing managed stands were mainly located in two subzones: SBSmw and SBSwk1 (Table 5.1).There were some harvesting in the ESSFwk1, but very little in the other five subzones.

Site index and genetic gain are the main drivers of yield tables for managed stands. Pl and Sxwere the two main species in the silviculture regimes for managed stands, The average site indexwas about 22 m, and the average genetic gain was about 6% for Sx and marginal for other species(Table 5.2).

Table 5.1: Managed stand area by biogeoclimaticsubzone.

Total AreaSubzone (ha) (%)

SBSmw 39,299 40%SBSwk1 39,137 40%ESSFwk1 15,495 16%SBSmh 1,735 2%ESSFwc3 1,284 1%ICHmk3 827 1%ICHwk4 253 0%SBSdw1 96 0%

Table 5.2: Average TIPSY input by species.

Spp SI Genetic % Area withSpecies % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain

Pl 50% 21.5 0.4% 53%Sx 37% 22.5 6.3% 53%Bl 6% 21.1 0.0% 0%Fd 3% 21.8 2.7% 24%At 3% 23.5 0.0% 0%Sb 0% 10.8 0.0% 0%Ep 0% 19.2 0.0% 0%

5.5 Ouput Summary

The three main subzones were very similar on average in terms of productivity (Table 5.3, Figure 5.1,Figure 5.2). The average culmination MAI was 6 m3/ha/yr at an average culmination age of62 years.

Table 5.3: Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for existing stands.


SBSmw 39,299 6.2 1.4 7.6 61 50 167SBSwk1 39,137 5.9 2.3 8.9 60 44 118ESSFwk1 15,495 5.7 2.1 8.3 65 46 128Total 98,127 6.0 1.4 8.9 62 44 167

May 12, 2014


0 50 100 150 200 250

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Age (yrs)

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

ESSFwk1SBSmwSBSwk1

Figure 5.1: Average volume vs. age curves for existing stands. (Black dotted line is the overallaverage.)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

2

4

6

8

10

Culm. Age (yrs)

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ●

● ● ●

● ●

Figure 5.2: Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all existing stands.

May 12, 2014


5.6 Ground Check

There were 124 Change Monitoring Inventory (CMI) ground plots located in existing managedstands. Just like the VRI Phase II plots, the CMI plots were randomly located. The most recentmeasurement on these plots can therefore be used to provide a basic check of the managed standyield tables accuracy.

The average ground volume of these CMI plots was 41 m3/ha while the corresponding average yieldtable volume at age of sampling was 43 m3/ha, a difference of 6%. The CMI plots are relativelyyoung (all are less than 50 years), therefore, this basic validation does not mean that the yieldtables will remain accurate in the future. However, the CMI plots represent the best informationavailable on the current accuracy of the managed stand yield tables. West Fraser should maintainits network of CMI plots, as they are the best tool to validate yield tables.

May 12, 2014


6. Future Managed Stand Yield Tables

6.1 Description

Every polygon with at least one productive site series was assigned a future managed stand yieldtable. These stands covered 236,942 ha. Polygons without a productive site series, covering 4,690 ha,were assigned their respective subzone average natural stand yield table.

Two sets of future managed stand yield tables were generated for each polygon. One for the period2012-2020 and one for the period 2021 and beyond. Both sets of future managed stand yieldtables used the same silviculture regimes as the existing managed stand yield tables, except for theexpected genetic gain (Table A.3). For simplicity purposes, only the future managed stand yieldtables for the 2021 and beyond period are presented in this report.

Future managed stand yield tables were generated using the same methodology as for existingmanaged stand yield tables. The different silviculture regimes translated into 6,417 individualtables. These tables were apportionned into 8,427 stand yield tables for future stands. The numberof tables was identical for both time periods. The source of the site index estimates used for futuremanaged stand yield tables is provided in Appendix D. Detailed information is given for futuremanaged stand yield tables for the period 2021 and beyond in Appendix E.

6.2 Input Summary

The Tipsy input for future managed stand yieldtables is similar to the input for existing man-aged stand yield tables (Table 6.1). All pos-sible silviculture regimes are present in futurestands (which is not true for existing stands), andthe proportion of each silviculture regime corre-sponds to the exact proportion of the site serieswithin the PFLB.

Table 6.1: Average future managed stand yieldtables input by species.


Pl 46% 20.6 12.1% 89%Sx 39% 21.4 19.6% 89%Bl 9% 19.5 0.0% 0%Fd 3% 21.8 28.4% 36%At 3% 23.5 0.0% 0%Sb 0% 10.7 0.0% 0%Ep 0% 19.1 0.0% 0%

6.3 Ouput Summary

As expected, the future managed stand yield tables are similar to the tables for existing stands.The average culmination MAI was 6 m3/ha/yr at an average culmination age of 64 years (Table 6.2,Figure 6.1, Figure 6.2).

May 12, 2014


Table 6.2: Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for future stands.


SBSwk1 77,469 6.7 1.7 9.9 53 41 135SBSmw 72,042 7.1 1.6 8.5 55 45 140ESSFwk1 51,986 6.0 2.2 9.1 62 42 127ESSFwc3 26,264 2.4 0.8 5.2 126 69 183Total 236,942 6.2 0.8 10.1 64 41 183

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Age (yrs)

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

ESSFwc3ESSFwk1SBSmwSBSwk1

Figure 6.1: Average volume vs. age curves for future stands. (The black dotted line is the overallaverage.)

May 12, 2014


0 50 100 150 200 250

0

2

4

6

8

10

Culm. Age (yrs)

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ●

●

●● ●

● ●

● ●

Figure 6.2: Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all future stands.

May 12, 2014


7. Addendum

7.1 Overview

At the end of 2013, 82 CMI plots originally established on TFL 52 between 2001 and 2003 hadbeen re-measured for a second time, providing a 10-year growth ground estimate for these plots. Ofthese 82 plots, 71 of them were located in stands where an existing managed stand yield table wasgenerated. The growth estimates of these 71 plots were compared to the growth predicted by theyield tables.1 This addendum summarizes the results and recommends a correction to be appliedto the yield tables to reduce the observed bias.

7.2 Results

The area covered by existing managed stand yield tables was divided into four distinct zones: i) highMPB mortality; ii) natural stands; iii) stands in the ESSFwk1, and iv) all other stands (Table 7.1).The yield tables over-estimated the 10-year growth in all zones with the exception of the ESSFwk1.It is likely that the bias is due to the stands taking longer than anticipated by the yield tablesto reach merchantibility limits. An age-correction delay in the yield tables was proposed as thepreferred method to correct the over-estimation.

Table 7.1: Age correction for yield tables based on CMI analysis.

Area CMI Plots DelayZone (ha) (%) n (%) (yrs)

High MPB Mortality 1,940 2% 7 10% 10Natural Stands 6,878 7% 16 23% 10ESSFwk1 14,856 15% 7 10% 0Others 74,453 76% 41 58% 3

1Guillaume Therien. 2014. Change Monitoring Inventory on Tree Farm Licence 52: Second RemeasurementAnalysis. Unpublished Report, Montreal (QC), April 11, 2014. 31 pp.

May 12, 2014


Appendix A. Silviculture Regimes

Table A.1: Species composition for silviculture regimes.

Site Species CompositionSubzone Series Sp1 Pct1 Sp2 Pct2 Sp3 Pct3 Sp4 Pct4

ESSFwc3 01 Se 50 Bl 30 Pl 20ESSFwc3 02 Pl 60 Se 20 Bl 20ESSFwc3 03 Se 50 Bl 30 Pl 20

ESSFwk1 01 Sx 45 Pl 35 Bl 20ESSFwk1 02 Pl 60 Sx 35 At 5ESSFwk1 03 Pl 55 Sx 40 At 5ESSFwk1 04 Sx 60 Pl 30 Bl 10ESSFwk1 05 Sx 60 Pl 30 Bl 10ESSFwk1 06 Sx 50 Pl 35 Bl 15ESSFwk1 07 Sx 50 Pl 35 Bl 15

ICHmk3 01 Pl 60 Sx 30 Fd 10ICHmk3 04 Sx 50 Pl 30 Fd 20ICHmk3 05 Sx 70 Pl 30ICHmk3 06 Sx 70 Pl 30ICHmk3 07 Sx 70 Pl 30

ICHwk4 01 Pl 60 Sx 30 Fd 10ICHwk4 04 Pl 60 Sx 30 Fd 10ICHwk4 06 Sx 70 Pl 30ICHwk4 07 Sx 70 Pl 30

SBSdw1 01 Pl 40 Sx 30 Fd 25 Bl 5SBSdw1 03 Pl 60 Fd 25 Sx 10 At 5SBSdw1 04 Pl 55 Fd 25 Sx 15 Ep 5SBSdw1 05 Pl 50 Sx 40 Fd 10SBSdw1 06 Pl 35 Sx 35 Fd 30SBSdw1 07 Sx 40 Pl 35 Fd 20 Ep 5SBSdw1 08 Sx 40 Pl 30 Fd 20 Bl 10SBSdw1 09 Sx 45 Pl 40 Bl 10 Ep 5

May 12, 2014


Table A.1: Species composition for silviculture regimes.

Site Species CompositionSubzone Series Sp1 Pct1 Sp2 Pct2 Sp3 Pct3 Sp4 Pct4

SBSmh 01 Sx 40 Pl 30 Fd 20 Bl 10SBSmh 02 Pl 50 Fd 50SBSmh 03 Pl 60 Fd 30 Sx 10SBSmh 04 Fd 50 Sx 20 Bl 20 Pl 10SBSmh 05 Sx 35 Pl 30 Fd 30 Ep 5SBSmh 06 Sx 45 Fd 30 Pl 20 Ep 5SBSmh 07 Sx 45 Pl 30 Fd 20 Ep 5SBSmh 08 Sx 45 Pl 30 Fd 20 Ep 5SBSmh 09 Sx 60 Bl 20 Pl 20SBSmh 10 Sx 60 Bl 20 Pl 20

SBSmw 01 Pl 55 Sx 35 Fd 5 At 5SBSmw 02 Pl 100SBSmw 03 Pl 65 Sx 20 Fd 10 At 5SBSmw 04 Pl 55 Fd 20 Sx 20 At 5SBSmw 05 Pl 60 Sx 40SBSmw 06 Pl 50 Sx 35 Fd 10 At 5SBSmw 07 Pl 55 Sx 45SBSmw 08 Pl 55 Sx 45SBSmw 09 Sx 50 Pl 45 Bl 5SBSmw 10 Pl 50 Sx 40 Ep 5 Sb 5

SBSwk1 01 Pl 50 Sx 35 Bl 10 At 5SBSwk1 02 Pl 100SBSwk1 03 Pl 75 Sx 20 Fd 5SBSwk1 04 Pl 50 Sx 35 Fd 10 At 5SBSwk1 05 Pl 50 Sx 35 Bl 10 Fd 5SBSwk1 06 Pl 50 Sx 45 At 5SBSwk1 07 Pl 50 Sx 35 Bl 10 At 5SBSwk1 08 Sx 50 Pl 40 Bl 10SBSwk1 09 Sx 45 Pl 40 Bl 10 At 5SBSwk1 11 Pl 50 Sx 40 Bl 5 Sb 5

May 12, 2014


Table A.2: Regeneration data for silviculture regimes.

Site Regeneration FTG SurvivalSubzone Series Type Delay Density Rate

ESSFwc3 01 P 2 1,500 90ESSFwc3 02 P 2 1,200 80ESSFwc3 03 P 2 1,200 80

ESSFwk1 01 P 2 2,000 95ESSFwk1 02 P 2 1,500 80ESSFwk1 03 P 2 2,000 95ESSFwk1 04 P 2 1,800 85ESSFwk1 05 P 2 1,700 85ESSFwk1 06 P 2 1,200 85ESSFwk1 07 P 2 1,400 85

ICHmk3 01 P 2 2,000 95ICHmk3 04 P 2 2,000 95ICHmk3 05 P 2 1,800 85ICHmk3 06 P 2 1,800 85ICHmk3 07 P 2 1,800 85

ICHwk4 01 P 2 2,000 95ICHwk4 04 P 2 1,500 85ICHwk4 06 P 2 1,800 85ICHwk4 07 P 2 1,800 85

SBSdw1 01 P 2 1,700 95SBSdw1 03 P 2 2,000 85SBSdw1 04 P 2 2,000 95SBSdw1 05 P 2 1,700 95SBSdw1 06 P 2 1,700 85SBSdw1 07 P 2 1,800 85SBSdw1 08 P 2 1,800 85SBSdw1 09 P 2 1,200 85

May 12, 2014


Table A.2: Regeneration data for silviculture regimes.

Site Regeneration FTG SurvivalSubzone Series Type Delay Density Rate

SBSmh 01 P 2 2,000 95SBSmh 02 P 2 1,200 85SBSmh 03 P 2 2,000 95SBSmh 04 P 2 2,000 95SBSmh 05 P 2 2,000 95SBSmh 06 P 2 1,800 90SBSmh 07 P 2 1,800 90SBSmh 08 P 2 1,800 90SBSmh 09 P 2 1,200 85SBSmh 10 P 2 1,200 85

SBSmw 01 P 2 2,100 95SBSmw 02 P 2 1,200 85SBSmw 03 P 2 1,800 95SBSmw 04 P 2 2,000 95SBSmw 05 P 2 1,200 85SBSmw 06 P 2 2,100 95SBSmw 07 P 2 1,700 85SBSmw 08 P 2 2,000 85SBSmw 09 P 2 1,500 85SBSmw 10 P 2 1,000 80

SBSwk1 01 P 2 2,200 95SBSwk1 02 P 2 1,200 85SBSwk1 03 P 2 2,000 95SBSwk1 04 P 2 2,000 95SBSwk1 05 P 2 2,200 95SBSwk1 06 P 2 1,200 85SBSwk1 07 P 2 1,800 85SBSwk1 08 P 2 2,000 85SBSwk1 09 P 2 1,500 85SBSwk1 11 P 2 1,200 80

Note: The planting density is 1.1 times the FTG density.

May 12, 2014


Table A.3: Genetic Gain by era, subzone, and species.

Fd Pl SxTables Era Subzone Raw Gain Usage Raw Gain Usage Raw Gain Usage

Current Pre-1992 ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AESSFwk1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AOutside ESSF N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1992-2011 ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AESSFwk1 N/A N/A 13.5% 1% 7.2% 46%Outside ESSF 15.6% 36.0% 9.9% 11% 18.2% 82%

Future 2012-2019 ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AESSFwk1 N/A N/A 14.2% 4% 12.0% 70%Outside ESSF 30.0% 93% 14.2% 22% 27.0% 100%

2020-2261 ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AESSFwk1 N/A N/A 16.0% 67% 12.0% 100%Outside ESSF 30.0% 100% 16.0% 100% 27.5% 100%

Note: The effective gain is the raw gain times usage times survival percent.

Table A.4: Operational adjustment factors by subzone.

Subzone OAF1 OAF2

ESSFwc3 16.9% 5.0%ESSFwk1 9.9% 5.0%ICHmk3 8.6% 5.0%ICHwk4 7.5% 5.0%SBSdw1 12.1% 5.0%SBSmh 7.8% 5.0%SBSmw 9.5% 5.0%SBSwk1 10.8% 5.0%

May 12, 2014


Appendix B. Site Series Distribution in the TFL 52

PFLB

Table B.1: Site series distribution on TFL 52.

Site Series Total AreaSubzone NP 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 (ha) (%)

SBSwk1 1,798 35,833 102 2,930 546 18,526 686 12,853 1,576 2,351 268 77,469 33%SBSmw 1,442 41,488 53 3,213 1,579 4,106 5,452 10,345 1,702 1,187 1,473 0 72,042 30%ESSFwk1 1,023 29,464 601 14,461 5,027 1,104 236 71 0 0 0 0 51,986 22%ESSFwc3 1,429 20,373 2,777 1,685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,264 11%SBSmh 0 1,751 10 36 864 1,536 934 687 197 55 5 0 6,075 3%SBSdw1 68 833 0 125 78 2 38 248 143 20 0 0 1,554 1%ICHmk3 14 527 0 0 169 129 177 75 0 0 0 0 1,092 0%ICHwk4 0 293 0 0 5 0 35 127 0 0 0 0 460 0%

Total 5,774 130,562 3,543 22,451 8,267 25,403 7,559 24,406 3,618 3,612 1,478 268 236,942 100%

Note: About 1,087 ha have no TEM information in the PFLB.

May 12, 2014


Appendix C. Pl-Sx Site Index Conversion Equation

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

10 15 20 25 30

1015

2025

30

Sx Site Index (m)

Pl S

ite In

dex

(m) Pl SI = 4.5 + 0.700 * Sx SI

Figure C.1: Pl-Sx site index conversion equation using TFL 52 data.

May 12, 2014


Appendix D. Managed Stands Site Index Source

Table D.1: Area distribution by site index source and species for existing managed stands.

SpeciesMethod Sx Pl Fd Bl At Sb Ep Total

Adjusted SIA 34,721 41,250 1,280 0 0 0 0 77,251MoFR Conversion from Pl 0 0 1,164 0 0 0 0 1,164MoFR Conversion from Sx 0 0 597 6,038 3,073 0 0 9,708Natural Subzone Average 0 0 0 0 0 17 68 85Subzone Avg. PSI 396 504 33 76 0 0 0 1,010Unadjusted Elevation Model 589 285 0 0 0 0 0 873Unadjusted SIA 493 527 0 0 0 0 0 1,019West Fraser Conversion from Sx 0 6,113 0 0 0 0 0 6,113Total 36,198 48,679 3,075 6,114 3,073 17 68 97,224

Table D.2: Area distribution by site index source and species for future managed stands.

SpeciesMethod Sx Pl Fd Bl At Sb Ep Total

Adjusted SIA 76,488 77,534 3,032 0 0 0 0 157,054MoFR Conversion from Pl 0 0 2,358 0 0 0 0 2,358MoFR Conversion from Sx 0 0 1,115 21,109 5,959 0 0 28,184Natural Subzone Average 0 0 0 0 0 87 259 346Subzone Avg. PSI 1,179 1,390 59 220 0 0 0 2,849Unadjusted Elevation Model 11,463 6,020 0 0 0 0 0 17,483Unadjusted SIA 1,172 1,307 0 0 0 0 0 2,479West Fraser Conversion from Sx 0 20,415 0 0 0 0 0 20,415Total 90,302 106,667 6,565 21,329 5,959 87 259 231,168

May 12, 2014


Appendix E. Subzone Summary for Future Stand

Yield Tables, 2021 and Beyond

May 12, 2014


SBSwk1

Table E.1: Tipsy input for SBSwk1.


Pl 51% 21.0 14.8% 100%Sx 35% 22.9 25.5% 100%Bl 9% 21.4 0.0% 0%Fd 1% 21.5 28.5% 29%At 3% 24.0 0.0% 0%Sb 0% 9.9 0.0% 0%Ep 0%

Table E.2: Culmination MAI statistics forSBSwk1.

Site Area Subzone MAI AgeSeries (ha) (%) (m3/ha/yr) (yrs)

01 35,833 47.4% 6.7 5302 102 0.1% 5.8 5303 2,930 3.9% 6.3 5304 546 0.7% 6.6 5505 18,526 24.5% 6.6 5306 686 0.9% 6.6 5707 12,853 17.0% 6.7 5408 1,576 2.1% 6.9 5409 2,351 3.1% 6.6 5611 268 0.4% 5.5 65All 75,671 100.0% 6.7 53

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40Q

MD

(cm

)HeightQMD

Figure E.1: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSwk1.

May 12, 2014


ESSFwk1

Table E.3: Tipsy input for ESSFwk1.


Pl 40% 20.0 10.0% 100%Sx 45% 22.2 11.2% 100%Bl 13% 20.6 0.0% 0%Fd 0%At 1% 23.6 0.0% 0%Sb 0%Ep 0%

Table E.4: Culmination MAI statistics forESSFwk1.


01 29,464 57.8% 5.8 6302 601 1.2% 6.4 5703 14,461 28.4% 6.2 5904 5,027 9.9% 6.2 6205 1,104 2.2% 6.2 6206 236 0.5% 5.6 6807 71 0.1% 5.5 69All 50,964 100.0% 6.0 62

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40Q

MD

(cm

)

HeightQMD

Figure E.2: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwk1.

May 12, 2014


SBSmw

Table E.5: Tipsy input for SBSmw.


Pl 55% 22.2 14.8% 100%Sx 36% 22.4 25.4% 100%Bl 0% 21.2 0.0% 0%Fd 5% 21.8 28.5% 73%At 4% 23.0 0.0% 0%Sb 0% 10.9 0.0% 0%Ep 0% 18.6 0.0% 0%

Table E.6: Culmination MAI statistics forSBSmw.


01 41,488 58.8% 7.3 5402 53 0.1% 3.7 6803 3,213 4.6% 5.4 6104 1,579 2.2% 6.4 5905 4,106 5.8% 6.4 5806 5,452 7.7% 7.6 5107 10,345 14.7% 7.7 5008 1,702 2.4% 8.1 4909 1,187 1.7% 6.7 5610 1,473 2.1% 3.5 102All 70,600 100.0% 7.1 55

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40

QM

D (

cm)

HeightQMD

Figure E.3: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmw.

May 12, 2014


ESSFwc3

Table E.7: Tipsy input for ESSFwc3.


Pl 24% 14.6 0% 0%Sx 47% 12.7 0% 0%Bl 29% 12.6 0% 0%Fd 0%At 0%Sb 0%Ep 0%

Table E.8: Culmination MAI statistics forESSFwc3.


01 20,373 82.0% 2.5 12702 2,777 11.2% 1.7 12403 1,685 6.8% 3.0 111All 24,835 100.0% 2.4 125

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40

QM

D (

cm)

HeightQMD

Figure E.4: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwc3.

May 12, 2014


SBSmh



Pl 24% 24.0 14.9% 86%Sx 37% 22.0 25.7% 100%Bl 3% 16.6 0.0% 0%Fd 28% 22.7 28.0% 99%At 0%Sb 0%Ep 3% 19.4 0.0% 0%

Table E.10: Culmination MAI statistics forSBSmh.


01 1,751 28.8% 7.6 5502 10 0.2% 4.2 8404 864 14.2% 5.5 8806 934 15.4% 8.2 5609 55 0.9% 6.6 6203 36 0.6% 4.4 6805 1,536 25.3% 7.1 5907 687 11.3% 9.0 4908 197 3.2% 9.7 4710 5 0.1% 2.3 142All 6,075 100.0% 7.4 60

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40

QM

D (

cm)

HeightQMD

Figure E.5: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmh.

May 12, 2014


SBSdw1



Pl 41% 20.0 14.6% 100%Sx 31% 18.2 25.1% 100%Bl 4% 17.7 0.0% 0%Fd 23% 19.5 27.4% 99%At 0% 13.4 0.0% 0%Sb 0%Ep 1% 18.4 0.0% 0%

Table E.12: Culmination MAI statistics forSBSdw1.


01 833 56.0% 5.5 7203 125 8.4% 3.6 7404 78 5.2% 4.5 6905 2 0.1% 5.9 6706 38 2.6% 5.1 7607 248 16.7% 5.6 7008 143 9.7% 6.4 6209 20 1.3% 4.9 74All 1,486 100.0% 5.4 71

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40

QM

D (

cm)

HeightQMD

Figure E.6: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSdw1.

May 12, 2014


ICHmk3

Table E.13: Tipsy input for ICHmk3.


Pl 45% 24.5 14.6% 100%Sx 47% 23.2 25.2% 100%Bl 0%Fd 8% 23.5 28.5% 65%At 0%Sb 0%Ep 0%

Table E.14: Culmination MAI statistics forICHmk3.


01 527 48.9% 8.1 5204 169 15.7% 8.1 5205 129 12.0% 8.1 5206 177 16.4% 8.7 4907 75 6.9% 7.9 54All 1,078 100.0% 8.2 52

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40

QM

D (

cm)

HeightQMD

Figure E.7: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHmk3.

May 12, 2014


ICHwk4

Table E.15: Tipsy input for ICHwk4.


Pl 49% 24.5 14.6% 100%Sx 44% 23.1 25.1% 100%Bl 0%Fd 6% 23.6 28.5% 65%At 0%Sb 0%Ep 0%

Table E.16: Culmination MAI statistics forICHwk4.


01 293 63.6% 8.3 5104 5 1.0% 7.4 5706 35 7.7% 7.9 5407 127 27.7% 8.3 52All 460 100.0% 8.3 51

0 50 100 150 200 250

0100200300400500600700

12.5

cm+

Vol

ume

( m3

ha)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cul

m. M

AI (

m3

hayr

)

VolumeMAI

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

20

30

40

Age (yrs)

Hei

ght (

m)

0

10

20

30

40

QM

D (

cm)

HeightQMD

Figure E.8: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHwk4.

May 12, 2014

TFL 52 Timber Supply Analysis Information Package V9€¦ · TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield...

Documents

Transcript of TFL 52 Timber Supply Analysis Information Package V9€¦ · TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield...