WOOD SUPPLY ANALYSIS REPORT FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT … · Wood supply analysis is the process of...

WOOD SUPPLY ANALYSIS REPORT FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT 24

Updated: February 28, 2013

Effective April 1st, 2010

Approved by: ____________________________ John Dojack Director, Forestry Branch

Wood Supply Analysis Report For FMU 24

ii


iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the wood supply analysis for Forest Management Unit (FMU) 24 in the Pineland Forest Section. FMU 24 is a newly established unit amalgamated from FMU 20, 23 and a portion of FMU 30 which is outside of Whiteshell Provincial Park. The Forestry Branch completed this analysis using the latest available data and information including:

an updated forest resource inventory � including natural disturbances, harvest depletions, crown land/ownership changes, and proposed protected areas

the latest growth and yield data sustainable forest management objectives such as old growth targets,

requirements for wildlife habitat, green-up delays, and wildlife tree retention practical operational inputs including the new provincial utilization of standards

(2.54 m log length up to a top diameter of 9.1cm (softwood) and 11.1cm (hardwood) inside the bark), and actual wood processing practices employed by the forest industry in south eastern Manitoba

The analysis was completed using the Remsoft Spatial Planning System with linear program Mosek solver. At strategic level (aspatial), the objective of the analysis is to maximize sustainable harvest level while providing even-flow on primary softwood and hardwood volume and maintaining all other constraints over a 200 year planning horizon. The net harvest levels (spatial/tactical level) represent the average of the first 25 year spatial allocation. The preferred management scenario selected as the �Base Case� was the �Provincial Standard 2.54 Log Length�. This scenario sets the sustainable annual harvest level for FMU 24 at 167,223 m3 of Softwood, 102,695 m3 of Hardwood and 20,675 m3 of Tamarack. The analysis used data updated to 2009 and a base year of 2010. Therefore these sustainable harvest levels replace all previous annual allowable cut (AAC) levels and come in effect as of April 1, 2010. This aligns with the start of the latest 5-year Timber Quota Period and the timber allocation commitments in FMU 24. The sustainable harvest level represents the volume of the merchantable portion of the tree as used in traditional forest products (lumber, pulp etc.). However biomass demand for products such as �hog-fuel� for heat and energy is growing. As part of this analysis non-merchantable biomass (from limbs, tops etc) volume was estimated. The approximate potential volume available in FMU 24 from non-merchantable biomass was calculated to be 156,059 tonnes/yr. This is a theoretical maximum including all non-merchantable material. The operational volumes, if approved by Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship will be reduced in order to maintain forest productivity and other objectives.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 2 PROVINCIAL POLICY AND MANDATE .............................................................. 2 3 WOOD SUPPLY ISSUES .......................................................................................... 3 4 FOREST RESOURCE INVENTORY ....................................................................... 4 5 WOOD SUPPLY PROCESS ...................................................................................... 4 6 DATA PREPARATION FOR GIS PROCESSING ................................................... 5

6.1 Map Layers ............................................................................................................. 5 6.1.1 Forest Management Unit (FMU) Boundary ................................................. 5 6.1.2 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) .................................................................. 5 6.1.3 Permanent Sample Plots (PSP) ..................................................................... 6 6.1.4 Heritage Sites ................................................................................................ 6 6.1.5 Riparian Buffers ............................................................................................ 7 6.1.6 Road Buffers ................................................................................................. 7 6.1.7 Depletion Updates ......................................................................................... 8 6.1.8 Protected Areas ............................................................................................. 8 6.1.9 Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) .................................................................... 8 6.1.10 Silviculture Information ................................................................................ 9

7 LAND BASE NET DOWN PROCESS ...................................................................... 9 7.1 Strata Label Assignment ...................................................................................... 9 7.2 Netdown Hierarchy ............................................................................................ 10

8 GROWTH AND YIELD .......................................................................................... 10 8.1 Data Acquisition ................................................................................................. 10 8.2 Eligible tree/species ............................................................................................ 11 8.3 Volume Compilations ........................................................................................ 11

8.3.1 Utilization standards ................................................................................... 11 8.3.2 Merchantable Tree Volume ........................................................................ 13 8.3.3 Merchantable Plot Volume ......................................................................... 15 8.3.4 Mean Merchantable Stand Volume ............................................................ 15 8.3.5 Stand Age Determination ............................................................................ 15

8.4 Yield Curve Development .................................................................................. 15 8.4.1 Yield Stratification ...................................................................................... 15 8.4.2 Yield Curve Fitting ..................................................................................... 17

8.5 Modeling Considerations ................................................................................... 19 8.5.1 The Minimum harvest age .......................................................................... 19 8.5.2 Death age .................................................................................................... 20

8.6 Biomass Estimation ............................................................................................ 21 9 AREA REPORT ....................................................................................................... 22 10 WOOD SUPPLY MODEL AND STRUCTURE ..................................................... 24

10.1 Remsoft Spatial Planning System ................................................................... 24 10.2 Wood Supply Land base ................................................................................. 25 10.3 Model Control ................................................................................................. 26

10.3.1 Planning Horizon ........................................................................................ 26 10.3.2 Even Flow ................................................................................................... 27 10.3.3 Non-declining Yield .................................................................................... 27


v

10.4 Strategic Level, Non-Spatial Constraints ....................................................... 27 10.4.1 Regeneration Lag ........................................................................................ 27 10.4.2 Minimum Operable Harvest Age ................................................................ 28 10.4.3 Minimum Merchantable Volume per Hectare ............................................ 28 10.4.4 Lifespan ....................................................................................................... 28 10.4.5 Old Growth Forest Target ........................................................................... 28 10.4.6 Treatment and Response ............................................................................. 29 10.4.7 Wildlife Habitat .......................................................................................... 30 10.4.8 Yields .......................................................................................................... 30

10.5 �Base Case� strategic level Scenario highlight .............................................. 31 10.6 Tactical Level, Spatial Constraints ................................................................. 31

10.6.1 Harvest Blocking Period ............................................................................. 32 10.6.2 Greenup/adjacency/proximal distance ........................................................ 32 10.6.3 Cut-block Size ............................................................................................. 33 10.6.4 Volume Reduction for Wildlife Trees ........................................................ 33 10.6.5 Volume Reduction for Tamarack ................................................................ 33

11 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 34 11.1 Strategic Level Results ................................................................................... 34

11.1.1 Second Growth Transitional Trends ........................................................... 36 11.1.2 Harvest Volume by Strata ........................................................................... 36 11.1.3 Total Growing Stock ................................................................................... 37 11.1.4 Net Growing Stock ..................................................................................... 38 11.1.5 Operable Growing Stock ............................................................................. 39 11.1.6 Area Harvested by Strata Type ................................................................... 39 11.1.7 Mean Annual Volume Harvested ................................................................ 41 11.1.8 Average Harvest Age .................................................................................. 41 11.1.9 Age Class Distribution ................................................................................ 42 11.1.10 Area of Old Growth Forest ......................................................................... 44 11.1.11 Mortality ..................................................................................................... 45 11.1.12 Habitat Suitability Indices ........................................................................... 45 11.1.13 Biomass ....................................................................................................... 46

11.2 Tactical Level Results .................................................................................... 47 11.3 Discussion and Conclusion for FMU 24 Wood Supply ................................. 49

12 REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 52


vi

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. DIGITAL MAP LAYERS USED FOR ANALYSIS IN FMU 24 ....................................................................6 TABLE 2. SPECIFICATION OF VARIOUS UTILIZATION STANDARDS FOR YIELD CURVES .................................13 TABLE 3. TAPER EQUATION PARAMETERS USED IN DETERMINATION OF MERCHANTABLE VOLUMES .......14 TABLE 4. PROVINCIAL CULL REDUCTION FACTORS (%) .................................................................................15 TABLE 5. YIELD STRATA DEFINITION ..............................................................................................................16 TABLE 6. YIELD CURVE ASSIGNMENT STRATA ...............................................................................................18 TABLE 7. MINIMUM HARVEST AGE AND DEATH AGE ...................................................................................20 TABLE 8. FMU 24 AREA SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................22 TABLE 9. FMU 24 NETDOWN SUMMARY ......................................................................................................23 TABLE 10. TREATMENT AND RESPONSE PATHWAYS ....................................................................................29 TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF STRATEGIC WOOD SUPPLY RESULTS FOR THE FMU 24 IN PINELAND ..................35 TABLE 12. THE AVERAGE HARVESTABLE BIOMASS FOR EACH COMPONENT ...............................................46 TABLE 13. NET HARVEST LEVEL FOR FMU 24 ................................................................................................48 TABLE 14. HARVEST BLOCK SIZE STATISTICS (0-25 YEARS) ............................................................................48 TABLE 15. HARVEST LEVELS BY TREE UTILIZATION STANDARDS ...................................................................50

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. FOREST STRATA PERCENT DISTRIBUTION IN FMU 24 ..................................................................24 FIGURE 2. HARVEST VOLUME AND LRSYA .....................................................................................................35 FIGURE 3. EXISTING AND FUTURE HARVEST VOLUME ..................................................................................36 FIGURE 4. HARVEST VOLUME BY STRATA .....................................................................................................37 FIGURE 5. GROWING STOCK .........................................................................................................................38 FIGURE 6. NET GROWING STOCK ..................................................................................................................38 FIGURE 7. OPERABLE GROWING STOCK ........................................................................................................39 FIGURE 8. HARVEST AREA .............................................................................................................................40 FIGURE 9. HARVEST AREA VS. TOTAL FORESTED AREA OVER 20 YEAR OLD .................................................40 FIGURE 10. HARVEST VOLUME PER HECTARE ...............................................................................................41 FIGURE 11. AVERAGE HARVEST AGE .............................................................................................................42 FIGURE 12. AGECLASS DISTRIBUTION ...........................................................................................................43 FIGURE 13. MORTALITY VOLUME..................................................................................................................45 FIGURE 14. WILDLIFE HABITAT ......................................................................................................................46

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I. MAPS .........................................................................................................................................53 APPENDIX II. MAP LAYERS ............................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX III. YIELD CURVES DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................67 APPENDIX IV. FOREST MODEL CODING .........................................................................................................92 APPENDIX V. COMPOSITE LANDBASE ATTRIBUTES FOR WOOD SUPPLY .......................................................98


1

1 INTRODUCTION

Wood supply is the quantity of timber available for harvest over time. Wood supply is dynamic, not only because trees naturally grow and die, but also because conditions of the environmental, social and economic factors that affect the availability of trees for harvest change through time. Wood supply analysis is the process of assessing and predicting the current and future timber supply for a geographic area. Therefore harvest levels from wood supply analysis fully depend on a series of key ecological, economic and social factors such as: biological conservation, forest development, technological change, and local communities and employment opportunities. Generally speaking, increasing pressures on sustainable forest management, like harvest patch size and old-growth forests at landscape level, species diversity for habitats, demands for more protected areas, non-timber forest products, ecological goods and services and more responsible uses of wood. This results in a frequent update for wood supply analysis across the provincial forest land. Furthermore, emerging bio-energy demand has expended wood supply to biomass analyses on forest fibre as a bio-energy product. This report is to document a wood supply analysis for forest management unit (FMU) 24 in the Pineland Forest Section. The Pineland Forest Section is located in the south eastern corner of Manitoba (Appendix I, Map 1). The Pineland Forest Section is comprised of two ecozones, the Boreal Plain with92,000 hectares (ha) and the Boreal Shield (1.1 million ha), which shape much of the diversity found here. The Pineland Forest Section (Appendix I, Map 2) contains numerous lakes and rivers as well as a number of communities, wildlife management areas, ecological reserves, provincial parks, provincial forests, and First Nations areas. Currently Pineland Forest Section contains 537,224 ha of productive forest area that is dominated by poplar, spruce and pine. FMU 24 was established after the Manitoba announced the �phasing out� of logging in provincial parks. FMU 24 includes the previous whole FMU 20 and 23, and portion of FMU 30 excluding the Whiteshell Provincial Park. The analysis follows the completion of a new forest resource inventory (FRI), undertaken in 1996 and subsequent volume sampling was undertaken during 2002-2004 by Brokenhead, Golder and Manitoba Conservation. New technology and methodologies have been employed in this determination of new harvest levels employing a more consultative approach with the forest industry and local quota holders. The aerial photography, photo interpretation work and map digitizing was undertaken by the Province. The information gathered in these efforts serves as the basis for this analysis and


2

forms part of the information used by the Director of the Forestry Branch in determining a harvest volume [an Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)] for the wood allocation. The wood supply projections presented in this analysis look far into the future. However, because uncertainty surrounding the information and forest management objectives change through time, these projections should not be viewed as static prescriptions that remain in place for that length of time. It is important that re-analysis occurs regularly, using new information and knowledge to update the wood supply picture for land ownership change and catastrophic natural disturbance, new utilization standards, etc. This allows close monitoring of the timber supply and of the implications stemming from changes in management practices and objectives.

2 PROVINCIAL POLICY AND MANDATE

The Forestry Branch is responsible for determining the sustained yield capacity of Manitoba�s forests and the assignment of annual harvest levels on the harvestable land base. The Forestry Branch has adopted a more open and consultative approach to determine wood supply. The wood supply technical advisory committee (TAC) was established with the regional stakeholders. The committee works closely with industry and the Integrated Regional Resource Management Team (IRMT), key inputs into the determination of wood supply are discussed prior to inclusion into the analysis model. The approach allows for more input from other user groups and forestry managers from the operations side. In Manitoba there are three types of tenure on forested crown lands: 1) Forest Management License Agreements (FMLAs), 2) Timber Sale Agreements (TSAs), 3) and Timber Permits. For the Pineland forest section, Timber Sale Agreements are issued as directed in the Forest Act. The TSA is a legal document describing the softwood and/or hardwood volume to be harvested, the specific locations to be harvested, and any special conditions for that harvest. The responsibility for forest management planning for areas under TSAs is assumed by Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship as per the Forest Act available on the web at (http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/f150ei.php). The TSA is a quota allocation system rather than a licensee forest area. Under this system, government will determine the sustainable harvest levels and allocate the volume to the quota holders accordingly. The revised Timber Quota Policy for allocation can be found on the website: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/ forestry/pdf/timber-admin/ timber_quota_policy_ 2010-15.pdf. Harvest areas are determined by the Forestry Branch and comply with the Forest Act and Regulations of Manitoba.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/


3

3 WOOD SUPPLY ISSUES

The FMU 24 is the primary source of forest products for the forest industry located within the Pineland Forest Section. Rising demand of the forest resources in this area and increased pressure on the land base for other uses gave importance to re-evaluate the sustainable harvest level which could be supported on this land base. Since the last inventory, several new resource management issues have been identified, including protected areas initiative, no logging policy in the provincial parks in this area, treaty land entitlement selections and expanded watercourse reserves as well as changing forest operating standards and practices to name a few. These changes and pressures on the land base are significant and require careful consideration in determining the forest�s ability to supply the forest industry. Especially the forest products required by the industry can be met on a sustainable and environmentally sensitive basis. The following is the highlights on no-logging in the provincial park and the Protected Areas Initiative (PAI).

No-logging in parks:

The study area is defined as provincial forests for timber harvest dated to the last century (1900s). In 2008, the Manitoba government announced the suspension of logging by April 1, 2009 in all provincial parks except Duck Mountain Provincial Park. This change to land use policies led to no logging in Whiteshell Provincial Park and the revision of current FMU boundaries. In 2009, the new FMU 24 boundary was amalgamated from the whole FMU 20 and 23 with portion of FMU30 as result of the removal of Whiteshell Provincial Park (Appendix I Map 1). This resulted in re-assessed wood supply analysis with new FMU boundaries, PAI, and provincial utilization standard.

The Protected Areas Initiative (PAI):

PAI process in this area began in 2007. Draft proposed protection areas range in size and cover over approximately 160,000 ha of forested and wetland in the Pineland Forest Section. These areas are accounted for in the land base used to calculate wood supply for the Pineland Forest Section. To be mentioned, Areas of Special Interest (ASI) were also selected while these study areas for discussion purpose and they are not protected in any formal manner. Although


4

this process may take long time from selection to final establishment the latest Proposed Protected Areas in Natural Region 5c data were used for the wood supply analysis. The wood supply integrates the proposed protected areas and also tries to minimize the impact on the forest management. Since the Pineland Forest Section is heavily utilized by the forestry sector and potential gains to the PAI program will add further pressure on the current wood allocation.

In addition, incremental timber dispositions (due to the removal of logging from Nopiming Provincial Park) increase the total softwood and hardwood commitments in the Pineland Forest Section. This is a challenge for government to allocate the current available resource over 60 quota holders.

4 FOREST RESOURCE INVENTORY

The Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) was completed in 1997 for original FMU 20, 23 and 30 using 1996 aerial photography. Manitoba Conservation undertook the photo interpretation, mapping and inventory data management for the land base. Forest stands were delineated from the aerial photographs and each stand was given forest cover and site attributes based on photo interpretation protocols. Thereafter the inventory was used for volume sampling program, wood supply analysis and other resource management.

5 WOOD SUPPLY PROCESS

This analysis determines the sustainable harvest volume that can be sustained on the land base in FMU 24 for Pineland Forest Section. The Remsoft Spatial Planning System, a forest resource planning software developed by Remsoft, was used in the analysis to establish optimal, sustainable harvest level in accordance to stated objectives and actions and constraints. The sustainable wood supply is determined at two levels. At first, the strategic level wood supply is calculated in accordance with the primary objective of this analysis for maximum harvest volume that can be sustained over a 200 year planning horizon. The sustainable harvest volumes are in consideration of forest management policies such as uninterrupted fibre supply from the land base (even flow) and operational constraints that included, for example, defined timber utilization standards, riparian zone protection, minimum harvest age and forest regeneration delay. Secondly, the tactical level wood supply is determined for the net harvest volumes, whereby the harvest blocks and harvest schedules derived from the strategic level optimization analysis are further constrained with spatial considerations, such


5

as flow fluctuation, harvest-block adjacency and proximal distance, green up, and cut-block size. The strategic and tactical level analysis were formulated to best reflect forest policy, operating guidelines and harvesting practices presently followed by the industry and the net harvest volumes are considered to be current forest management practices as the provincial �Base Case� wood supply analysis.

6 DATA PREPARATION FOR GIS PROCESSING

This wood supply analysis was undertaken for FMU 24 in Pineland Forest Section after the new amalgamation. The latest spatial data were collected arrange from the new boundary, land use change and silviculture survey.

6.1 Map Layers

The information for FMU 24 was collected and prepared as digital map layers using ESRI ArcInfo Geographic Information System (GIS) software. The map layers used in this analysis are listed in Table 1. In Appendix II each map layer is described in more detail.

6.1.1 Forest Management Unit (FMU) Boundary

The boundary of the forest management area was used to define the geographic limits for the wood supply analysis. All datasets were clipped to this layer. The wood supply in this area was originally comprised of several FMUs (20, 23 30). Changes in the provincial FMU boundaries have occurred and this area is now considered as one FMU (24)

6.1.2 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI)

The Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for FMU 24 was completed using 1996 aerial photography. The inventory was updated to reflect depletion activities that occurred up to 2009, establishing the base year for this wood supply analysis at 2010. Three layers of resource management information (FMU boundary, land ownership and land status) were combined with the FRI data to create one seamless map for the wood supply area. Combining these layers of information facilitated the analysis for open and closed crown land. The status and ownership codes within the FRI database describe legal land


6

designations and accompanying land use restrictions, providing the ability to filter out specific lands.

Table 1. Digital map layers used for analysis in FMU 24

No. Layer Name Brief Description 1 Wood Supply Boundary Polygon layer defines the geographic limits of the

wood supply area. FMU 24 is the boundary of the wood supply area

2 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI)

Polygon layer contains forest, land and status information.

3 Permanent Sample Plots (PSP)

Polygon buffers delineate no-cut areas around permanent sample plot (PSP) data.

4 Heritage Sites Point buffers identify sites as having cultural, social, historical and scientific importance to provincial heritage values.

5 Riparian Buffers Polygon buffers delineating riparian areas around hydrological features such as lakes, rivers and streams.

6 Road Buffers Polygon buffers delineating areas around provincial roads.

7 Depletion Updates Polygon layer contains areas harvested, burn and/or blow down after the photography forest inventory was completed.

8 Protected Areas Polygon layer contains areas identified for interim protection and areas that are legally protected from development.

9 Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE)

Polygon layer of lands selected by First Nations to fulfill outstanding treaty land entitlement claims.

10 Silviculture Information Polygon area contains regeneration survey data and free to grow data.

6.1.3 Permanent Sample Plots (PSP)

A number of long term or permanent sample plots are maintained in the FMU. These plots are measured periodically to obtain information on forest stand dynamics (e.g. growth, mortality, succession) .Thereafter the plot info will then be used in developing forest growth models. Each PSP plot has been assigned a 100m circular buffer.

6.1.4 Heritage Sites

This layer consists of points identifying provincial heritage values and sites. By establishing a 100m circular buffer around each site, heritage sites are


7

protected from forestry operations (e.g. harvest consideration, forest management operations). Map layers of archaeological sites, centennial farms, designated sites and plaques were received from the Department of Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism. This wood supply analysis contains all of the buffered points from heritage site map. Previous wood supply analysis only contained archaeological sites.

6.1.5 Riparian Buffers

The area immediately surrounding lakes, streams, rivers and other water features is known as a riparian zone. The riparian zone provides value to wildlife and provides protection to streams, rivers and lakes. Buffers placed around the riparian zones and timber volumes within the riparian areas do not contribute to forest harvest in the model and this wood supply analysis. Provincial guidelines on buffer widths around water features are generally interpreted and applied at the regional level by the Regional Integrated Resource Management Team (IRMT). To facilitate the net down process for riparian buffers the IRMT was consulted and a map was prepared illustrating the buffer widths that were likely to be employed on the land base. In some cases the rationale for buffers and the width of the buffer included line of site issues and aesthetics. All water features that were not identified by the IRMT were put in a separate layer and buffered. Single-line streams or rivers received a 50 meter riparian buffer. All lakes and double-lined rivers were coded to indicate if the polygon was a small lake, large lake or double-lined river. Lake polygons greater than 40 ha were considered large lakes and received a riparian buffer of 100 meters, lakes 40 ha and less were considered small lakes and received a riparian buffer of 50 meters, and double-lined rivers were given a 100 meter riparian buffer. Islands within lakes and rivers are considered to be inside the buffer and consequently removed from the harvestable land base. It is recognized that riparian protection zones may require maintenance (e.g. selective harvesting) from time to time to ensure their health and function.

6.1.6 Road Buffers

Harvesting operations are precluded from consideration on land within 100m from a provincial road (e.g. a numbered road or highway). The provincial roads to be buffered were identified by the IRMT and a map layer was created with a �line of site� buffer of 100 meter established along either side of each road.


8

It is recognized that road buffers may require maintenance from time to time to ensure their function. Road side buffer management requests are evaluated on a site by site basis by the IRMT.

6.1.7 Depletion Updates

The depletion layer consists of polygons that represent areas where the forest has been removed (burn) or harvested. Depletion also includes natural occurrences like blow down. Depletion activities that occurred up to 2009 were included in this analysis. The FRI year of origin was updated to reflect stand changes due to harvest activities. For example, if the harvest year was greater than the FRI stand age of origin, the stand age of origin was updated with the harvest year.

6.1.8 Protected Areas

The layer includes all or portions of lands that fall in FMU 24 that are legally designated as protected. These lands may include provincial parks and park reserves, wildlife management areas, provincial forests and ecological reserves. Protected areas are land, freshwater or marine areas, where logging, mining, hydro-electric development, oil and gas development and other activities that significantly and adversely affect habitat are prohibited through legal means. Also included are private lands protected through Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with non government organizations (NGO) (e.g. Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Manitoba Naturalists Society). The layer also includes all or parts of lands in FMU 24 identified as Areas of Special Interest (e.g. proposed ecological reserves, unprotected wildlife management areas). Areas of Special Interest (ASI) were identified to complete the representation of enduring features for each ecoregion in Manitoba and are generally selected in areas with minimal disturbance from development. ASIs have not been legally protected but may be withdrawn from resource activities like forestry and mining. The map layers of Protected Areas and Areas of Special Interest were received from Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Protected Areas Initiative.

6.1.9 Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE)

The polygons in this map layer represent the lands selected by First Nations to fulfill validated Treat Land Entitlement Claims (Crown Lands Act 5(1) (d)). The map layer of the Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) areas was received


9

from Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Crown Land and Treaty Land Entitlement Programs.

6.1.10 Silviculture Information

Silviculture entails the manipulation of forest and woodland vegetation in stands and on landscapes to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis. At the time of analysis, regeneration survey data and free to grow data were limitted. This information (available up to 2008) was used to update silviculture in the landbase. The FRI year of origin was also updated to reflect stand changes due to planting activities.

7 LAND BASE NET DOWN PROCESS

The map layers described in Section 6 (Data Preparation for GIS Processing) were prepared using ESRI ArcGIS software. The map layers were overlaid on the FMU to facilitate the net down of the land base in preparation for the wood supply analysis. Ten map layers were combined into one layer for the FMU analysis. The final layer is called a ‟net down� coverage. Netdown is the process by which areas and associated volumes are identified for inclusion or exclusion in the wood supply analysis. The net down coverage is a combination of all the polygons from the combined map layers shown in Appendix I. Attributes and original source information for the net down coverages is listed in Appendix II. The final net down coverage contains attributes from all contributing layers. Only attributes from the forest resource inventory (FRI), necessary for this analysis, were included in the database.

7.1 Strata Label Assignment

A separate FRI attribute database was developed and used to assign a yield strata label to each forest stand. The yield strata label is used to assign growth or productivity estimates for that stand (polygon). This yield strata label was brought into the database using the FRI polygon unique identifier as a link. New attributes for crown closure and year of origin were also added to the database using the unique identifier link. The yield strata label assignment requires a polygon to have a valid forest cover type.


10

Missing crown closure or height information in polygons with a valid forest cover type is an indication that they once were productive hectares. These areas were further examined to determine whether or not they were treated for forest renewal or underwent surveys indicating the areas were regenerating satisfactorily. Regenerating hectares were assigned appropriate yield strata; all others are considered to be potentially productive forest for this analysis. Potentially productive hectares include fires, plantations and harvested areas, they do not exhibit any interpretable forest cover andhave no forest renewal data that would assist in assigning a yield strata label. It is anticipated that the fire depleted stands will regenerate but it is unclear as to what the stands will regenerate into. During the land base net down process, all map layers are processed into one final layer. Combinations of status and ownership codes assist in determining availability of lands for harvest. The list of status and ownership combinations is extensive but only those pertinent to this analysis were used in the land base net down work. To expedite the wood supply analysis, some attributes in the net down process were redefined by new status and ownership code combinations. Details are provided within the landscape section of the model formulation (theme 6 and 7) outlined in Appendix V.

7.2 Netdown Hierarchy

There is a number of no-harvest or restricted harvest areas that have been identified on this land base and in many instances overlap. For example, a polygon that is within a riparian buffer may also be within a road buffer or a protected area. The land base net down for wood supply was calculated in a specified order that ensured that each polygon was accounted for only once. (See Table 9 � FMU 24 Netdown Summary)

8 GROWTH AND YIELD

8.1 Data Acquisition

Following the completion of the FRI interpretation for the Pineland forest section, a volume sampling program was undertaken during 2002-2004 by Brokenhead, Golder and Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship to collect field data used for yield curve development. The FRI was stratified into different forest development types similar in species composition, density and age class to facilitate the sampling program. An area-weighted stratified design was used to randomly identify stands within the inventory database for sampling. Three 300 m2 (9.77 m radius) circular plots were established within each sampled stand. In total, 1824 plots within 608 stands were sampled. The following information was collected at each plot:


11

Tree species Diameter of all trees within the plot > 7.0cm at breast height Height (measured to nearest 0.1m) Tree condition code FRI crown closure FRI moisture class FRI age Yield strata

8.2 Eligible tree/species

Dead trees, trees with a broken stem or top were not included in the development of yield curves. Eligible trees with missing heights were provided a height estimate using a localized species height diameter model. Commercial softwood species used in the development of softwood yield curves include: jack pine (JP), red pine (RP), white spruce (WS), black spruce (BS), balsam fir (BF) and tamarack (TL). The hardwood species used in the development of hardwood yield curves include: trembling aspen (TA), balsam poplar (BA), and white birch (WB).

8.3 Volume Compilations

The volume sampling field data were entered, compiled and quality assured for use in computer analysis. All subsequent volume calculations and summaries were undertaken using Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS).

8.3.1 Utilization standards

Yield curves were fit based on different levels of utilization standards. The level of utilization used for the �Base Case� analysis is the provincial 8-foot log length standard with TL excluded as a commercial species. Specification of the 8-foot log length utilization and tree length utilization standards is shown below. Provincial 8� Log length: Minimum top diameter inside bark

Softwood = 9.1cm Hardwood = 11.1cm

Minimum diameter at breast height = 11.0cm Merchantable length = the portion of tree length between stump height and minimum top diameter, that is divisible (without remainder) by 2.54 meters Stump height = 0.15m Provincial Tree length: Minimum top diameter inside bark

Softwood = 9.1cm


12

Hardwood = 11.1cm Minimum diameter at breast height = 11.0cm Merchantable length = the portion of tree length between stump height and minimum top diameter. Merchantable length must be >= 2.54m Stump height = 0.15m. Other utilization standards explored throughout the wood supply analysis are specified in Table 2.


13

Table 2. Specification of Various Utilization Standards for Yield Curves

Utilization standard

Merchantable species

With or without TL

Stump height

(m)

Log length

(m)

Soft-wood Hardwood

Top diameter

(cm)

DBH (cm)

Top diameter

(cm)

Conventional 8' log length

JP,BS,WS,TL TA,BA,WB

TL 0.15 2.54 7.62 11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

JP,BS,WS TA,BA,WB

-- 0.15 2.54 7.62 11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

Conventional tree length


TL 0.15 ≥2.54 7.62 11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

JP,BS,WS TA,BA,WB

-- 0.15 ≥2.54 7.62 11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

Conventional enhanced tree length


TL 0.15 ≥2.54 5.08 (BS) 7.62 (others)

11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

JP,BS,WS TA,BA,WB

-- 0.15 ≥2.54 5.08 (BS) 7.62 (others)

11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

Provincial 8' log length


TL 0.15 2.54 9.1 - 11.1

JP,BS,WS TA,BA,WB

-- 0.15 2.54 9.1 - 11.1

Provincial tree length


TL 0.15 ≥2.54 9.1 - 11.1

JP,BS,WS TA,BA,WB

-- 0.15 ≥2.54 9.1 - 11.1

Conventional 16' log length


TL 0.15 5.03 7.62 11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

JP,BS,WS TA,BA,WB

-- 0.15 5.03 7.62 11.0 � 20.0 20.1 � 40.0 ≥40.1

10.16 12.7 15.24

Provincial 16' log length


TL 0.15 ≥5.03 9.1 - 11.1

JP,BS,WS TA,BA,WB

-- 0.15 ≥5.03 9.1 - 11.1

8.3.2 Merchantable Tree Volume

The merchantable volume of each eligible tree within a plot was determined using Kozak�s variable exponent taper equation with the methodology and


14

formulation outlined in Huang (1994). The Kozak model [equation 1] is an allometric function with the general form y= kxc , where y and x are dependent and independent variables, respectively, k is a constant and c is an exponent that changes along the stem to describe stem form (Huang 1994).

[1] )/()001.0ln(

205432

2

11HDbebzbzbzbDa

z

XaDad

where

[2] )1/()/1( pHhX

and d = top diameter inside bark (cm) at h h = height above ground (m) to d, 0 Hh H = Total tree height (m) D = diameter at breast height outside bark (cm) Z = h/H p = location of inflection point e = base of natural logarithm ( 71829.2 ) 54321210 ,,,,,,, bbbbbaaa parameters to be estimated

Provincial stem analysis data was used in the determination of taper equation parameters for Aspen, White Spruce, Black Spruce and Jack Pine. Parameters used for Balsam Poplar, Fir, Tamarack and White Birch were taken from similar studies carried out in Saskatchewan. The parameters of Kozak�s taper equation are listed by species in Table 3.

Table 3. Taper equation parameters used in determination of merchantable volumes

The utilization standards described above were incorporated into the calculation of merchantable volume of each tree. The volume was then reduced for cull using the deduction estimates listed in Table 4.

Parameter BA TA WS Lowland BS

Upland BS

JP BF TL WB

a0 0.7670 0.7855 0.6554 1.1427 0.5191 0.9138 0.8510 0.7456 0.7909

a1 1.0170 1.0580 1.1330 0.8876 1.3059 0.9820 1.0374 1.1232 1.0624

a2 0.9977 0.9950 0.9923 1.0017 0.9785 0.9985 0.9966 0.9904 0.9952

b1 -0.3676 0.1203 0.1801 0.3417 0.4179 0.2919 1.7263 1.1199 -0.1946

b2 0.0564 -0.0713 -0.0592 -0.0900 -0.0841 -0.0414 -0.3742 -0.2954 0.0242

b3 -2.0185 0.3202 0.1254 0.6841 0.7781 0.1462 2.8798 1.5628 -1.8539

b4 1.2385 0.2354 0.0996 -0.2204 -0.3529 0.0168 -1.5350 -0.7565 1.1538

b5 -0.0377 -0.2120 0.1230 0.1648 0.3231 0.1665 0.2057 0.1512 -0.0405

p 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15


15

Table 4. Provincial Cull Reduction Factors (%) AGE

CLASS WS BS JP BF TL BA TA WB

20 0.16 30 0.87 0.94 1.94 40 0.5 1.74 5.7 1.67 2.67 50 0.5 2.64 6 2.86 3.86 0.4 60 1.3 0.5 3.59 6.5 0.5 4.50 5.50 1.1 70 1.3 0.9 4.58 8 0.9 6.60 7.60 1.7 80 3.3 1.0 5.61 10 1 9.16 10.16 2.4 90 3.5 1.6 6.68 14 1.6 12.18 13.18 3.4 100 3.6 2.0 7.78 18 2 15.65 16.65 4.8 110 3.7 2.3 11.9 20 2.3 15.65 16.65 6.7 120 4.0 2.7 14.4 25 2.7 15.65 16.65 9.1 130 4.0 3.3 17.1 28 3.3 15.65 16.65 11.7 140 5.0 3.7 19.6 35 3.7 15.65 16.65 14.5 150 5.0 4.2 22.2 43 4.2 15.65 16.65 17.4 160 7.2 5.0 24.8 50 5 15.65 16.65 20.2

8.3.3 Merchantable Plot Volume

Individual net merchantable tree volumes within each plot were aggregated and converted to volume per hectare on a species base, which in turn were individually summed to provide estimates of total net merchantable softwood, hardwood and total volume per hectare.

8.3.4 Mean Merchantable Stand Volume

The net merchantable volumes (softwood, hardwood and total) of each plot within a stand were summed and averaged to determine the mean net merchantable softwood, hardwood and total volume of each stand sampled.

8.3.5 Stand Age Determination

For yield curve development purposes the stand age is determined based on the FRI year of origin and survey year.

8.4 Yield Curve Development

8.4.1 Yield Stratification

Thirteen types of strata were defined for Pineland forest section based on species composition (Table 5). The strata were further refined based on age class, crown closure class and moisture class. The moisture classes were used for partitioning the black spruce strata into lowland black spruce (LBS) and upland black spruce (UBS). Strata assignment follows hierarchical order. The volume sampling data did not support the development of yield curves for the RP and BF stratum and were therefore assigned yield estimates of the JP (with additional 20%) and SMIX stratum, respectively.


16

Table 5. Yield Strata Definition

*1 � open crown closure (0-50%); 2 � closed crown closure (51-100%), 12- all crown closure (0-100%)

Stratum Code

Stratum Density Class

Crown Closure

Species Composition*

JP

Pure Jack Pine 1 0-50% JP8 or SP8 2 51-100%

RP

Pure Red Pine 1 0-50% RP8

2 51-100% UBS

Upland Black Spruce

1 0-50% BS8; 1Moisture class3 2 51-100%

LBS

Lowland Black Spruce

1 0-50% BS8; Moisture class=4 2 51-100%

BF

Pure Balsam Fir/White Spruce

1 0-50% BF8 or WS8

2 51-100%

STL

Black Spruce /Tamarack � Black Spruce Leading

1 0-50% (BS+TL) 8; 5BS7; Leading softwood BS 2 51-100%

TLS

Tamarack/Black Spruce � Tamarack Leading

1 0-50% (BS+TL) 8; TL5; Leading softwood TL 2 51-100%

MSPF

Mixedwood � Softwood Leading

1 0-50% 5(BS+WS+JP+BF) 7; 5softwood7; Leading softwood BS, WS, JP, or BF

2 51-100%

NSPF

Mixedwood � Hardwood Leading

1 0-50% 5hardwood7; 3(BS+WS+JP+BF) 4; Leading softwood BS, WS, JP, or BF

2 51-100%

SMIX

Softwood Mix 1 0-50% (BS+WS+JP+BF) 8 2 51-100%

HWD

Pure Hardwood 1 0-50% Hardwood8; (TA+BA+WB) 5; Leading TA, BA, or WB

2 51-100%

OTHSW Other Softwood 12 0-100% Softwood5 OTHHW Other Hardwood 12 0-100% Hardwood5


17

8.4.2 Yield Curve Fitting

8.4.2.1 Yield curve model The forest stand is considered to be the ecological unit of interest whose characteristics form the basis for the individual strata definitions. Sampling methodology facilitates the calculation of mean merchantable volume estimates of a stand by locating three plots in each randomly selected stand. The aggregation of these stands under a strata label, allows for the development of strata-specific yield curves that best reflect the productivity of the forest stands. The net mean volume per hectare of each forest stand falling within the stratum is the observed values plotted over the interpreted stand age obtained from the FRI. To describe the mean stand volume/age relationship, the following two parameter non-linear model [equation 1] was used to construct yield curves based on stand level merchantable volume and age of origin from the FRI. The SAS - PROC NLIN least squares procedure was used for the analysis.

[Equation 1] Volume = a* ageb * e �a*age

where: Volume = Merchantable volume per hectare (m3/ha) Age = interpreted FRI stand age a, b = coefficients e = natural log base

8.4.2.2 Final Yield Curve Assignments Limited data associated with a few strata resulted in convergence issues or erroneous results. As a result, density class-specific yield curves could not be developed and were aggregated together to develop useable yield curves. The sampling distribution among strata and density classes are presented in Table 6.


18

Table 6. Yield Curve Assignment Strata Yield Curve

Label Density Class

Number of plots

Number of stands

JP 1 107 36 JP 2 249 83

RP* 1 107 36 RP* 2 249 83

UBS 1 15 5 UBS 2 65 22 LBS 1 15 5 LBS 2 93 31 BF* 1 68 23 BF* 2 139 47 STL 1 39 13 STL 2 90 30 TLS 1 66 22 TLS 2 126 42

MSPF 1 68 23 MSPF 2 159 53 NSPF 1 27 9 NSPF 2 90 30 SMIX 1 68 23 SMIX 2 139 47 HWD 1 69 23 HWD 2 162 55

OTHSW 12 138 46 OTHHW 12 30 10

1815 608 *1 � open crown closure (0-50%); 2 � closed crown closure (51-100%), 12- all crown closure (0-100%)

8.4.2.3 Curve adjustments

For each stratum listed in Table 5, net merchantable softwood, hardwood and total volume were modeled separately. Yield curves were modified to ensure that the sum of predicted softwood and hardwood volume equalled the predicted total volume. The adjustment factor and the adjusted softwood and hardwood volume are calculated as follows:

Adjustment Factor = ((MSV + MHV) � TMV) / (MSV + MHV) where: MSV = Merchantable Softwood Volume MHV = Merchantable Hardwood Volume


19

TMV = Total Merchantable Volume Calibrated MSV = MSV * (1- Adjustment Factor). Calibrated MHV = MHV * (1- Adjustment Factor). Outliers of extreme high or low volumes can result in unreasonable growth projections and can cause difficulty on achieving convergence during regression fitting. Outliers within the volume sampling dataset were examined to determine whether or not its removal was justified and would improve yield curves.

For some strata, the frequent number of observations found around rotation age and/or the low number of observations at older age classes resulted in yield curves with an unreasonable growth trajectory that continued to increase volume at ages well beyond the limits of the data and well past the theoretical stand break-up age. To improve the unreasonable growth trajectories a dummy observation for total merchantable volume was inserted into the dataset at age 200 years. The magnitude and placement of these observations achieved the effect of drawing down the total merchantable volume curve through the older age classes without significantly affecting the position and slope of the original curve within the range of existing data.

Due to the limited data collected for some strata and the clustered distribution of the available data points, sometimes developed yield curves did not reflect expected volume trends associated with different utilization standards. This issue is an artefact of the regression analysis and was observed in some cases within the tail ends of the yield curves (i.e., young and old stand ages). For example a tamarack excluded yield curve may exhibit higher volumes than a yield curve that includes tamarack volume. To correct this artefact of curve fitting, adjustment were made to ensure utilization trends were maintained within the yield curves.

Graphic and tabular displays of yield curves for the �Base Case� utilization--provincial 8-foot Log-Length excluding TL are presented in Appendix III.

8.5 Modeling Considerations

8.5.1 The Minimum harvest age

The mean annual increment and periodic annual increment derived from the strata yield curves were examined to determine minimum rotation age. The data for the mixedwood strata, such as MSPF and NSPF, was carefully examined to avoid compromising the combined potential productive capacity of softwood and hardwood species within the stratum. The minimum harvest age for each stratum is presented in Table 7.


20

8.5.2 Death age

Death age represents the approximated stand age when the current forest stand structure collapses either due to fire or senescence. In the modelling analysis, when a stand achieves death age, the stand age is reset to zero. Death age for each strata were determined by reviewing the distribution of age classes within the FRI and volume sampling data as well as the fire history throughout the forest management unit. The death age for each stratum is presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Minimum Harvest Age and Death Age

*1 � open crown closure (0-50%); 2 � closed crown closure (51-100%), 12 - all crown closure (0-100%)

Stratum Density Class

Minimum Harvest Age

(years)

Death age (years)

JP 1 70 130

JP 2 65 130

RP 1 70 115

RP 2 65 115

UBS 1 85 140

UBS 2 85 140

LBS 1 85 200

LBS 2 75 200

BF 1 65 115

BF 2 65 115

STL 1 80 155

STL 2 85 155

TLS 1 60 155

TLS 2 65 155

MSPF 1 65 130

MSPF 2 65 130

NSPF 1 80 130

NSPF 2 80 130

SMIX 1 65 140

SMIX 2 65 140

HWD 1 70 140

HWD 2 75 140

OTHSW 12 70 155

OTHHW 12 65 155


21

8.6 Biomass Estimation

The demand for forest biomass information has increased substantially in recent years. Estimating and reporting forest biomass in Canada has become increasingly important over the last few decades. In Manitoba, one area of interest that has been identified and included into the wood supply analysis for the Pineland forest section is to estimate forest biomass that could be utilized annually over the forest section.

The approach that was taken to estimate the biomass for the Pineland forest section was based on the work conducted by Boudewyn et al. (2007). Prior to the estimation of biomass, yield curves were developed for each of 13 strata defined for the Pineland forest section based on the following utilization standard: minimum DBH=9.1 cm; top diameter=7.6 cm; stump height=30 cm; and type of volume=gross volume.

The softwood and hardwood merchantable volumes obtained from the yield curves of each stratum at 5 year age classes were then converted to the corresponding merchantable stem biomass based on the volume-to-biomass estimates provided by Boudewyn et al. (2007). To do that, a leading softwood and hardwood species was first identified for each stratum based on the volume sampling data collected from the Pineland forest section, and the volume-to-biomass estimates of those leading species were then used to convert the soft- and hardwood volumes to their respective biomass. Once the merchantable stem biomass at each 5 year age class was obtained, the non-merchantable sized trees biomass and dead standing trees biomass were estimated by using their respectively developed relationships with the merchantable stem biomass. The total biomass of each stratum at 5 year age classes was calculated by summing up the merchantable stem biomass, non-merchantable sized trees stem biomass, and dead standing trees biomass estimated at each age class for both soft- and hardwood leading species. Proportions of total tree biomass found in stem wood, stem bark, branch and foliage for live trees of all sizes were estimated by using the fitted multinomial logic models, as described by Boudewyn et al. (2007).

It is of interests for decision makers/managers to know the amount of biomass that would be left on sites after merchantable stems are harvested and transported out of the sites. As the utilization standard used in the �Base Case� scenario of the wood supply analysis for Pineland forest section differs slightly to the one used in the volume-to-biomass conversion (�Biomass Case� utilization standard), an adjustment was made to obtain the merchantable stem biomass for the �Base Case� utilization standard. This was done by assuming the total merchantable volumes estimated from the �Base Case� were only a portion of the volumes estimated from the �Biomass Case� at each 5 year age class. This would be a valid assumption given that the specification of the �Base Case� utilization standard tends to provide less merchantable volumes than that of the �Biomass Case� utilization standard.


22

The merchantable stem biomass for �Base Case� was then estimated by multiplying the merchantable stem biomass estimated using the �Biomass Case� utilization standard to the ratio of �Base Case� volumes to the �Biomass Case� volumes.

9 AREA REPORT

The total area of the landbase in Forest Management Unit 24 is 1,242,847 ha (see Table 8). A total of 280,747 ha or 22.6% of the area is comprised of non-productive forest and 377,025 ha or 30.3% is non-forested, including 114,429 ha or 9.2% of water. An additional 47,851 ha or 3.9% of the total area have been classed as potentially productive. These areas consist of previously burned or harvested areas which have not been treated and do not support any interpretable forest cover. The total productive forest landbase is 537,224 ha or 43.2% of the total area.

Table 8. FMU 24 Area Summary

Area (ha)

Percent (%) of Total

Non Forested Water 114,429 9.2% Barren/Bare Rock 420 <0.1% Field 115,340 9.3% Meadow 15,702 1.3% Marsh Muskeg 82,718 6.7% Unclassified 48,416 3.9%

subtotal 377,025 30.3% Non-productive Forest

Treed Muskeg 205,996 16.6% Treed Rock 5,052 0.4% Willow/Alder 68,663 5.5% Protected Forests 1,036 0.1%

subtotal 280,747 22.6%

Potential Productive Forest 47,851 3.9 % Productive Forest 537,224 43.2 %

Total

1,242,847

100.0 %

A series of deductions are applied to the remaining productive forest landbase as part of the process used to define the operable harvesting landbase in the wood supply analysis. These deductions account for the factors that


23

effectively reduce the availability or suitability of the forested productive area for ecological, economical or social reasons.

The remaining area deductions, 156,815 ha or 29.2% of the productive forest consists of: hydrological buffers, permanent sample plots (PSP), Protected Areas (PAI, ASI), Treaty Land Entitlements (TLE), Heritage Sites (HST), Isolated Stands (ISL), closed areas and land deferrals.

Table 9 illustrates the netdown summary or net-label assigned in hierarchical order. The total reduction of netdown for harvestable forest is 380,409 ha or 30.6% of the total area.

Table 9. FMU 24 Netdown Summary

Productive Forest Deduction

(ha) Balance

(ha)

Percent (%) of Total Area

Percent (%) of

Productive Area

537,224 43.2% 100%

Private Land 3,817 0.71% Closed 9,183 1.71% Area of Special Interest (ASI)

35,008

6.52%

Heritage Site Buffer 16

<0.01%

Isolated Stands 156

0.03% Permanent Sample Plot 277

0.05%

TLE 228

0.04%

River Buffer Zones 5,450

1.01%

Lake Buffer Zones 1,711

0.32%

Road Buffer Zones 6,458

1.20% Wildlife Management Area, Agriculture land, other land etc.) 94,511

17.59%

Subtotal

156,815 12.6% 29.2% Harvestable Forest Land Base 380,409 30.6% 70.8%


24

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of forest yield strata on harvestable the productive forested land base; The productive forest is comprised of 60% pure softwood stands (S: for BF, JP, LBS, RP, SMIX, STL, TLS, UBS, OTHSW); 24% pure hardwood stands (H for HWD, OTHHW), 9% hardwood-leading mixedwood (N: for NSPF) and 7% softwood-leading mixedwood (M: for MSPF).

Figure 1. Forest Strata Percent Distribution in FMU 24

10 WOOD SUPPLY MODEL AND STRUCTURE

10.1 Remsoft Spatial Planning System

The forest modeling structure was created within Woodstock� and Stanley� developed by Remsoft Spatial Planning System� (RSPS) (version 2010.5). The system is flexible to produce models using both optimization and simulation formulations for strategic and tactical level analysis.

Woodstock is the core of the forest modelling software that handles the complexity of forest planning. In Woodstock all the activities and

BF0%

HWD23%

JP12%

LBS13%MSPF

6%

NSPF8%

OTHHW2%

OTHSW5%

RP1%

SMIX4%

STL9%

TLS15%

UBS2%

BF

HWD

JP

LBS

MSPF

NSPF

OTHHW

OTHSW

RP

SMIX

STL

TLS

UBS


25

interventions, includingharvesting, planting, and any combination of treatments can be projected over the planning horizon, and sustainable harvest levels can be determined while silviculture, old growth forests, and other biodiversity and ecological requirements/objectives are maintained. In addition, Woodstock can also show the change in these activities over time. Stanley assists in the process of developing a spatial harvest plan at tactical level. Stanley is a harvest block scheduling tool that goes beyond the strategic level of forest estate planning to application on the ground. Stanley includes an integrated set of tools for generating stand (polygon) description lists, identifying stands eligible for harvest, finding best fit solutions. In addition, Stanley accounts for any regulation or constraint that may have to be addressed at the spatial level. It deals with, for example, green-up delays, limitations on opening size and other forest operations implementation guidelines. Current forest policy guided the structure of the Woodstock and Stanley model for the current forest harvest practices. The following sections document the wood supply process, detailing model inputs and outputs, structure, and data preparation. The model�s input files, explanation and coding are presented in Appendix IV. The following sections document the wood supply process, detailing model inputs and outputs, structure and data preparation. All GIS processing was undertaken using ESRI ArcInfo and ArcMap software.

10.2 Wood Supply Land base

Previous land base includes FMU 20, 23 in Pineland Forest Section and FMU 30 in Lake Winnipeg East Forest Section. In 2008, the Manitoba government announced no logging by April 1, 2009 for all provincial parks except Duck Mountain Provincial Park. This change to land use policies led to the establishment of a new FMU 24 boundary in 2010, still defined as Pineland Forest Section. FMU 24 is comprised of the whole of FMU 20 and 23, and a portion of FMU 30 outside of the Whiteshell Provincial Park. The FMU 24 land base statistics were generated from the FRI following the land base net down process described in previous sections. The model takes into account the entire forested land base within the FMU 24 boundary. The productive forests are grown in accordance with the yield strata to which they belong. The net down process identifies areas which will be precluded from harvest consideration. For example, riparian zones, protected areas, provincial road buffers, and areas within provincial parks closed to harvesting are precluded from harvest consideration. The productive forested hectares


26

within these areas will, be summarized and reported by the model to assist in meeting the requirements of other resource values. The balance of the area available for harvest is termed the �harvestable land base�. The harvest eligibility of forest stands on the harvestable land base is defined by imposed operability and management constraints (minimum harvest age and volume/ha.). Forest stands on the harvestable land base that satisfy the operability constraints constitute the �net operable land base�. It is the net operable land base where harvesting activities are likely to occur. The hectares contributing to net operable land base and the associated operable volume are not static. They change through time, as stands age and grow and move in and out of the operability range.

10.3 Model Control

The base year for this analysis is 2010 in order to align up with the planning cycle beginning from 2010-2014 for the next 5 years. The land base has been updated with all outstanding spatial information (forest management activities) from year of photography to 2009. The updates, for example include depletion due to harvesting, fires, plantations and land withdrawals. The objective of the model is to maximize merchantable volume under an even- flow constraint for the required forest types (consistent periodic harvest level policy). The model utilizes a linear program solver (Mosek solver, MOSEK Aps) to optimize the objective over the whole planning horizon. The optimization was constrained by current forest management policy such as non-declining operable growing stock, maintenance of old growth forests, harvest volume and area control by stands. A five year planning interval was chosen as one that was best suited to operational planning objectives and tracking change in the forest profile overtime.

10.3.1 Planning Horizon

The planning horizon is 200 years because its length of time would best measure the effects of present day harvest strategies, objectives and constraints on the future forest. It is also a suitable period to allow a reasonable risk assessment to be undertaken on many model assumptions, operational/planning constraints and productivity projections. The longer the planning horizon, the greater the impact on volume maximization under an even flow policy.


27

10.3.2 Even Flow

The even flow policy ensures a zero percent flow tolerance of harvest volume to the processing facility. This was used in this analysis to guide the long-term supply of the resource with certain assurance. Even flow minimizes harvest fluctuations by being sensitive to the age class structure of the forest and the variable productivity rates across the land base. This approach ensures that the demand and supply of wood resources from the land base today can be maintained over a long period of time. Such policy provides for stability and reliability in long term wood supply.

10.3.3 Non-declining Yield

To assist in the assurance of sustainability, a non-declining yield of net operable growing stock constraint was introduced in the last 50 years of the planning period. Without this constraint the model will attempt to liquidate the forest at the end of the planning period to achieve a maximum production level. Furthermore, such a scenario ignores any catastrophic events like fire or insect and disease outbreaks, and also undertakes this maximization based on some assumptions, which may or may not change. Therefore, non-declining yield will provide some insurance for these events and assumptions. These considerations will minimize the supply risks along with the even flow policy. Non-declining net operable growing stock is one constraint imposed in this �Base Case� that addresses these risks.

10.4 Strategic Level, Non-Spatial Constraints

The current forest operating scenario is developed with guidance from the wood supply Technical Advisory Committee for present harvest situation. The main objective in the Woodstock model formulation is to maximize the sustainable harvest level; at the same time an even flow constraint is also used to maintain current harvest volume and area by forest stand types. The harvest level is contingent upon adherence to the accompanying harvest schedule and to all imposed constraints as identified within the model�s formulation.

10.4.1 Regeneration Lag

Softwood and softwood leading mixedwood strata types undergo softwood renewal strategies after harvest. Regeneration lag is used to account the delay in years for them to establish. These stands are not added back into the productive land base for a period of time to reflect an adequate establishment period for the softwood strata types. As result of the study on free to grow data, the regeneration lag is 5 years for red pine and jack pine, while other softwood strata and softwood leading mixed-wood strata types are for 10 years.


28

While softwood strata types require certain years to establish, there is no regeneration lag constraint imposed on hardwood stands. This reflects the findings that adequate hardwood stand regeneration is immediate while softwood strata types require certain years to establish.

10.4.2 Minimum Operable Harvest Age

The operability range of strata is shown in Table 7. The minimum operable harvest age is the earliest stand age that the stand can be harvested within the strata. The minimum operable harvest age reflects the both hardwood and softwood productivity.

10.4.3 Minimum Merchantable Volume per Hectare

The minimum merchantable volume requirement reflects current operating practices. Softwood-dominated strata must have at least 50 m3/ha of softwood volume before becoming eligible for harvest. For TLS strata the minimum merchantable volume is 50 m3/ha including tamarack. If this minimum volume can not be met the total volume must be at least 70 m3/ha to be eligible for harvest. On the other hand, hardwood-dominated strata must have at least 75 m3/ha of hardwood volume.

10.4.4 Lifespan

Lifespan defines the natural break-up of a stratum. The rate and magnitude of tree mortality defines the end of a yield stratum�s lifespan. Stand succession from stand initiation to break-up can follow one or more paths, depending upon species composition, the influence of stand disturbance, and site conditions. The lifespan is determined from current inventory data with range from 115 to 200 years. In the model once a particular yield stratum passes �break-up�, the stand age is then reset to zero. Table 7 shows the stand lifespan for each stratum.

10.4.5 Old Growth Forest Target

Old growth forests are dominated by trees that close to, or older than their age of maturity. Since the trees grow to their own maturity differently the entry age of old growth forest will be depending on their forest stand types. Based on stand life span and its succession, stands are defined as old growth when they are greater than 110 years for pure softwood stands and greater than 90 years for mixed wood and hardwood stands. Since old growth forests have been identified as an important stage of stand development they should be preserved for biological diversity and ecosystem integrity in the resource management. In this wood supply analysis the area was maintained at least 25% of current old growth forest area over the whole planning horizon.


29

10.4.6 Treatment and Response

Table 10 illustrates the post harvest transition pathways from the result of regeneration survey. In this analysis, post-harvest hectares are assigned age and strata type based on survey data with consideration of silviculture renewal, especially the plantation. The strategy must ensure that the stand productivity of the forest is maintained. Periodic assessments and analysis will be carried out to monitor whether or not the projected responses have been achieved and more importantly, the productivity on the operable land base is maintained. For un-harvested stands reaching their lifespan, regeneration survey data, free to grow data, permanent sample plot data and temporary plot data were further examined for their succession pathway. The results of this examination were inconclusive and therefore, for this analysis aging strata hectares revert back to their original forest strata type upon break-up.

Table 10. Treatment and response pathways Strata

Harvested New

Strata Response*

(%)

RP RP** 80

JP 10 MSPF 10

JP

JP** 51 MSPF 31

RP 12 HWD 6

BF SMIX 50 MSPF 30

BF 20

UBS UBS** 57 MSPF 40 OTSW 3

LBS LBS 90 STL 10

MSPF

MSPF 88 UBS 4

OTSW 3 OTHHWD 5


30

Table 10 (Continued)

NSPF HWD 60 MSPF 38

JP 2

SMIX

MSPF 37 JP 35

SMIX 18 NSPF 10

HWD HWD 96 MSPF 2 SMIX 2

STL STL 20 LBS 44

MSPF 36

TLS TLS 90 LBS 10

OTHSW STL 75

SMIX 25

OTHHW OTHHW 100

*:For example, stands belonging to stratum RP are considered to return to RP after harvest in 80 percent of stands, but transition to JP or MSPF for the remaining 20 percent of stands. **: New strata RP, JP and UBS also receive planting for 100%, 50% and 10% of total harvested area respectively , in addition they also treated as closed crown closure because of plantation.

10.4.7 Wildlife Habitat

It was tracked over the whole planning horizon (200 years) while the wildlife habitat suitability indices (HSI) were used. The HSI were adopted from Forest Management Licence Area #1 which is adjacent to the north of the study area. The habitat suitability curves have been built in the yield section which contains four indicator species: Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Magnolia Warbler (Setophaga magnolia), Ruby-Crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula), and Pine Marten (Martes martes).

10.4.8 Yields

There is one yield curve file for each of the scenarios outlined below in section 8.3.1. The primary difference is the inclusion or exclusion of tamarack volume from the total softwood volume. Therefore each yield curve contains a softwood, hardwood and tamarack volume component.


31

Each yield curve file also contains a series of habitat suitability curves for four indicator species: pileated woodpecker, magnolia warbler, ruby-crowned kinglet, and pine marten.

In order to estimate the biomass for the future bio-energy economic development biomass yields also have been produced and used in the current management scenario.

10.5 �Base Case� strategic level Scenario highlight

The �Base Case� is the scenario that maintains all activities at current forest practice conditions. In detail, the �Base Case� can be summarized as:

Even-flow on primary softwood volume for S, M &Ｎstands respectively and hardwood volume in FMU 24 with

o Softwood volume from JP stands >= 40,000 m3/yr o Tamarack volume from TLS stands = 11,000 m3/yr

Even-flow on primary hardwood volume from H stands with o Hardwood volume from pure hardwood stands = 80,000

m3/yr

Areas of old growth forest were maintained in FMU 24 to be at least 25% of current area*.

o Softwood stand land base = 18,738ha o Softwood Leading Mixedwood stand land base = 502 ha o Hardwood Leading Mixedwood stand land base =857 ha o Hardwood stand land base = 2,263 ha

Operable growing stock was constrained to be non-declining in

the last 50 years of the planning horizon. Tamarack harvest volume is tracked from all softwood leading

stands.

The total tamarack harvest volume fluctuates over the softwood harvest volume because it is a function of the harvest profile. Besides TLS stands the incidental tamarack volume is also from the following stands: STL, SMIX, BF, and OTHSW.

10.6 Tactical Level, Spatial Constraints

In addition to the non-spatial constraints at the strategic level there are spatial constraints imposed at the tactical level for this analysis. The strategic level

* Stands were defined as old growth if they were greater than 110 years for softwoods and greater than 90 years for mixedwoods and hardwoods.


32

optimization, undertaken by Woodstock, focuses on long-term planning objectives and provides a sustainable harvest levels that could be achieved from this land base. The strategic level analysis, however, does not account for �on-the-ground� harvest planning logistics. The spatial constraints in this analysis include maximum block size, harvest block distribution and green-up delay. It is import to evaluate the impact of these spatial constraints on the non-spatial strategic harvest level. Stanley was used to analyze the annual harvest for spatial planning at tactical level. Stanley attempts to implement the Woodstock schedule as closely as possible, subject to declared spatial rules or constraints. It uniquely employs both a block building and a block scheduling phase. Furthermore, it offers two forms of spatial allocation: spatial simulation and spatially constrained allocation. Stanley automates the process of mapping these complex models � integrating and sequencing the myriad of activities and showing how they will be manifested on the landscape in certain time frames. Stanley generates a spatial harvest schedule based on the strategic Woodstock harvest plan and overlays the harvest blocks (polygon groupings) on the wood supply area. The maps generated also show where harvest blocks may be located and how much area will be harvested. Stanley greatly assists in formulating strategic management plans that are operationally feasible. The forest management and harvest scenario evaluated in this �Base Case� analysis is one that incorporates multi-period harvest openings (cut-blocks), maximum cut-block size and green-up delays. Stanley�s goal is to find the best fit or configuration of polygon groupings (cut-blocks) to meet the Woodstock harvest schedule for the first 25 years. In doing so Stanley must take into consideration the set spatial constraints for maximum block size, adjacency and proximity rules.

10.6.1 Harvest Blocking Period

The first 25 years (5 periods) of the 200 year harvest sequence from Woodstock are scheduled by Stanley.

10.6.2 Greenup/adjacency/proximal distance

The green-up delay represents the amount of time which must pass before the harvest of adjacent or proximal blocks can occur. A green-up delay of 10 years is applied to softwood and softwood-leading mixedwood stands. This delay for harvested stands addresses wildlife food and cover requirements as outlined in the �Timber Harvesting Practices for Forest Operations in Manitoba� and accompanying guidelines documents.


33

Adjacency is the distance within which a stand is considered to be adjacent to another stand. During the allocation phase, Stanley groups eligible, adjacent polygons into harvest units based on harvest timings specified in the harvest sequence file. The highest constraint level of zero meters is applied, ensuring only polygons that touch are considered to be adjacent and eligible for grouping into cut blocks.

Proximal distance is the distance within which a polygon is considered proximate but not adjacent to another polygon. During the scheduling phase, Stanley checks proximate polygons for compliance with green-up delay. Both adjacent and proximal distances are expressed in linear units within the spatial data set. Previously harvested blocks within zero meters (i.e., touching) are considered to be proximate. A proximate block still in green-up delay would prevent harvest eligibility of a neighbouring polygon. A zero proximity constraint is the least constraining, meaning only blocks that touch are a concern.

10.6.3 Cut-block Size

Provincial policy and harvesting guidelines stipulate the maximum cut-block size is to be 100 ha. Cut-blocks in excess of this size require recommendation for approval from the IRMT to the Director of Forestry. Therefore, the model formulation of Stanley in this analysis restricts cut-block size to a maximum of 100 ha. It should be noted that this goal with consideration of green-up requirements may significantly impact the optimum harvest schedule generated by Woodstock.

10.6.4 Volume Reduction for Wildlife Trees

A global reduction of annual harvest level is used to reflect tree retention for wildlife. According to current harvest practice guided by IRMT, the reduction is 3% of annual harvest volume for both softwood and hardwood harvest levels. This global reduction is applied to the spatially allocated volumes to reflect tree retention for wildlife. This percentage reflects the current operating practices.

10.6.5 Volume Reduction for Tamarack

Tamarack volume is reduced by 3% based on the infection survey result. The 3% reduction was determined using the initial 2008 establishment data along with aerial observations across flight lines/transects. The result also indicates increased mortality and infection within the sampled sites, which is not accounted for in the 3% reduction. If this is a growing concern from the Forest Health and Renewal section, then re-surveying the flight lines may be warranted to determine the current distribution of infected stands. Revised reduction factors could be calculated using the aerial survey information along with new available field data.


34

11 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the results of the wood supply analysis under current operation scenario using Manitoba provincial utilization standard for FMU 24 in the Pineland Forest Section.

The �Base Case�, current operation scenario, documents the two levels wood supply analysis, and determines the net harvest levels/volumes for the next 25-year.

11.1 Strategic Level Results

The strategic level harvest forecasts for the FMU 24 demonstrate both softwood and hardwood volume over the 200 year planning horizon under current operation scenario. The model results, presented in Table 11 of this report, shows the non-spatial sustainable wood supply achieved under Manitoba Conservation�s provincial log-length utilization standard. Under this scenario softwood and hardwood volumes from their primary stands are considered at even flow while their incidental hardwood volumes from softwood and mixed wood stands, softwood volumes from hardwood stands contribute to the total volume. Under the current operation scenario, on average, the softwood harvest level is 174,112 m3/yr and hardwood harvest level is 106,093 m3/yr. This scenario will be the new �Base Case� at strategic level for FMU 24 in the Pineland Forest Section. Over the 200 year planning horizon, the sum of minimum or maximum softwood and hardwood growing stock may not equal to the corresponding total growing stock. This phenomenon exists because softwood and hardwood total growing stock does not occur at the same time. The Long Run Sustained Yield Average (LRSYA) is the theoretical average harvest level that the forest (on the harvestable land base) can support over the long term and it is an important indicator of sustainability in the evaluation of harvest levels. It is calculated by multiplying the mean annual increment of yield strata at minimum harvest age by the harvestable area of those strata. A graphical illustration of the sustainable harvest levels in the FMU 24 is presented in Figure 2.


35

Table 11. Summary of Strategic Wood Supply Results for the FMU 24 in Pineland

Under current operation scenario the total harvest levels is about 60.6% of the total LRSYA. Due to the even flow harvest policy, the treatment and response pathways and old growth forest target, the softwood LRSYA slowly declines across the planning horizon while hardwood LRSYA

Figure 2. Harvest Volume and LRSYA

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Har

vest

Lev

el (

m3 /

yr)

Years from 2010

Harvest Volume and LRSYA

Softwood LRSYA Hardwood LRSYA

Harvest Softwood Harvest Hardwood

Over 200 years Year 1-100 Year 101-200 Minimum Maximum Average Average Average

Harvest softwood (SW) (m3 /yr) 168,116 183,860 174,112 174,328 173,895 Harvest hardwood (HW) (m3 /yr) 100,185 112,149 106,093 106,047 106,138 Total harvest volume (m3 /yr) 268,301 296,009 280,204 280,375 280,034 Softwood LRSYA ((m3 /yr) 262,205 274,070 269,555 272,497 266,613 Hardwood LRSYA ((m3 /yr) 175,444 204,504 192,458 185,025 199,890 SW growing stock ( 000's m3) 7,144 14,23 9,079 9,590 8,568 HW growing stock ( 000's m3 ) 6,421 9,370 7,878 7,769 7,987 Total growing stock ( 000's m3 ) 13,719 23,217 16,957 17,359 16,555 SW operable growing stock ( 000's m3) 1,763 9,395 4,572 5,791 3,353 HW operable growing stock ( 000's m3 ) 2,502 5,734 3,805 4,150 3,461 Total operable growing stock ( 000's m3) 4,472 14,726 8,377 9,941 6,812


36

gradual increase at the end indicates that the hardwood land base is increasing in area. The overall total LRSYA is relatively steady across the planning horizon.

11.1.1 Second Growth Transitional Trends

Figure 3 illustrates transitional trends to second growth forests resulting from current harvest scenario and accompanying silviculture programs. The trends illustrate the timing of transition from existing natural stands to second growth stands (previously depleted and regenerating). Harvesting at maximum sustainable levels will result in harvesting operations moving into second growth stands between 80 and 125 years, and completing the transition into the new forest at 150 years.

Figure 3. Existing and Future Harvest Volume

11.1.2 Harvest Volume by Strata

Figure 4 illustrates volume harvested by forest strata types. The strata contribution to harvested volumes varies over time and is a dynamic process that takes into account all the following factors: forest age class distribution, strata size and productivity, minimum harvest age, old growth forest requirement, death and the effects of transition pathways for non-harvestable hectares.

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Har

vest

Lev

el (

m3 /

yr)

Years from 2010

Wood from Current Forest Wood from Future Forest


37

In the FMU 24 under the current operation scenario, on average pure hardwood stands, MSPF and NSPF contribute 34%, 8% and 7% respectively, while softwood stands of JP and LBS make up 19% and 14% individually, and the rest stands accounts for 18% of total harvest volume. The graph demonstrates that the total harvested volume by strata type reflects current harvest policy while maintaining other forest management requirements. To achieve this harvest volume the harvest strata should be followed closely to the harvest sequence.

Figure 4. Harvest Volume by Strata

11.1.3 Total Growing Stock

Figure 5 shows a projection of total growing stock in cubic meters on all forested lands within the FMU 24 over 200 years. The graph shows that the present level of total growing stock is approximately 33.7 million cubic meters of which 18.5 million are softwoods and 15.2 million are hardwoods. The level of total growing stock increases to 34.8 million at year 15, then gradually declines to 19 million by year 95, and rises to 26.3 million by the end of the planning horizon. The gradual increase and decline in growing stock over the planning horizon is largely due to changing age class structure reflecting the associated changes in forest productivity.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Vo

lum

e (m

3 /yr

)

Years from 2010

LBS

JP

BF

UBS

TLS

STL

SMIX

RP

OTHHW

OTHSW

NSPF

MSPF

HWD


38

Figure 5. Growing Stock

11.1.4 Net Growing Stock

Figure 6 shows a projection of the net growing stock on the harvestable land base. As in the current harvest scenario, net softwood growing stock on the harvestable land base declines gradually during the first 70 years, and remains steady to end of 200 year planning period. The hardwood net growing stock also performs a balanced trend over the planning horizon.

Figure 6. Net Growing Stock

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Vo

lum

e (m

3 )M

illio

ns

Years from 2010

Growing Stock

Total Softwood Hardwood

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Vo

lum

e (m

3 ) Mill

ion

s

Years from 2010



39

11.1.5 Operable Growing Stock

Figure 7 depicts the operable growing stock (OGS). Under the current operation scenario, the OGS graph shows softwood and hardwood volumes within the operability window from the harvestable land base. The softwood OGS at the beginning of the planning horizon is approximately 9 million cubic meters which declines to 2 million by year 90 and maintained at that level until the end of the planning horizon. The hardwood OGS reaches to 5.7 million at year 30 from 2.7 million at the beginning, then drops to the start point at year 85 and recovers to 4.1 million at the end.

Figure 7. Operable Growing Stock

11.1.6 Area Harvested by Strata Type

Figures 8 and 9 show the area harvested from the harvestable forest land base under the current operation scenario. The harvest area varies from a minimum of 2,462 ha to maximum of 3,468 ha, with an average of 2,872 ha over 200 years. Overall, the harvest area remains relatively stable across the planning horizon. Hardwood and mixed wood stands are fluctuated much less than the softwood stands over 200 years. The individual softwood strata types see peaks and valleys over first 100 years while these strata harvest pattern show relatively flatted out over the second 100 years.

0

5

10

15

20

25

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Vo

lum

e (m

3 ) Mill

ion

s

Years from 2010

Operable Growing Stock



40

Figure 8. Harvest Area

Figure 9. Harvest Area vs. Total Forested Area over 20 Year Old

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Are

a (h

a/yr

)

Years from 2010

LBS

JP

BF

UBS

TLS

STL

SMIX

RP

OTHSW

OTHHW

NSPF

MSPF

HWD

010002000300040005000600070008000

01000020000300004000050000600007000080000

5 30 55 80 105 130 155 180

Har

vest

Are

a(h

a)

To

tal A

rea

(ha)

Years from 2010

Harvestable Area >=20years Harvested Area


41

In addition, Fig. 9 shows the total harvest area over time compared to total forested area over 20-year old forest stands.

11.1.7 Mean Annual Volume Harvested

Figure 10 illustrates the mean volume per hectare harvested over time. The mean volume per hectare is the total harvest volume divided by the total harvest area at each planning period and is one of the important indicators in evaluating feasibility of operations. Over 200 year planning horizon, the harvest volume per hectare is 98 m3/hectare on average with a low of 78 m3/hectare at the beginning and a high of 116 m3/hectare at year 120.

Figure 10. Harvest Volume per Hectare

11.1.8 Average Harvest Age

Figure 11 illustrates the strata-area weighted average harvest age over the 200 year planning period. The graph illustrates that the strata are harvested within an acceptable range in age. Over 200 years, the average softwood harvest age is 92 years, with maximum of 121 years at year 50 and minimum of 69 years at year 120. For hardwood, the average harvest age is 99 years with maximum of 122 years at year 95,

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Vo

lum

e (m

3 /h

a)

Years from 2010

Average Harvest Volume


42

minimum of 81 years at year 165. This is the result of the harvest volumes by stand types with their harvest area.

Figure 11. Average Harvest Age

11.1.9 Age Class Distribution

Figure 12 presents the area distribution over age classes of all strata across the FMU 24 in the Pineland Forest Section. The graph illustrates the current and future age class distribution on the harvestable (after netdown) land base and on the total productive forest area. Under the current operation scenario, and in the absence of natural disturbances (fires), the age class distribution on the harvestable forest land base becomes more evenly distributed through time, reflecting the impact dynamics of harvesting, management policies and constraints such as even flow and old growth forest area. A minimum 25% of area in older age classes is maintained to satisfy the ecological and wildlife requirement within the model.

020406080

100120140

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Ag

e (y

r)

Years from 2010

Average Harvest Softwood Age

Average Harvest Hardwood Age


43

Figure 12. Ageclass Distribution

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000A

rea

(ha)

Age Class (years)

Harvestable AreaCurrent

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 25 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Area

(ha)

Age Class (years)

After 50 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 75 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 100 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

Total Forest AreaCurrent

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Area

(ha)

Age Class (years)

After 25 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000A

rea

(ha)

Age Class (years)

After 50 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Area

(ha)

Age Class (years)

After 75 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 100 Years


44

Figure 12 (continued)

11.1.10 Area of Old Growth Forest

Figure 12 also represents the total area of old growth forest over harvestable and total landbase over the planning horizon. Both figures show a significant increase in old growth forest area in the first 75 years of the planning horizon.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 125 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 150 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 175 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 200 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 125 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 150 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000A

rea

(ha)

Age Class (years)

After 175 Years

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Are

a (h

a)

Age Class (years)

After 200 Years


45

Since then a decline in old growth forest is followed in the middle of the planning horizon, and a second increase on old growth forest area in the end. This pattern is consistent with the harvesting that is occurring on the productive land base. As the forest ages, the old growth forest area increases, followed by a decline as the older stands are either harvested or reach stand break-up age and transition to a stand of age 0. The total old growth forest area may fluctuate over time however; old growth levels by stand types in this analysis are restricted to be at a proportion of the total current forest area as one of the management objects.

11.1.11 Mortality

Figure 13 tracks mortality volume occurring through time on the total forest land base. The mortality volumes from the harvestable landbase are minimized while significant volume losses exist on the non-harvestable landbase. This is due to current forest management strategies such as maximizing the harvest volumes on the harvestable landbase, and at the same time maintaining the certain amount of the old growth forest over 200 year planning horizon.

Figure 13. Mortality Volume

11.1.12 Habitat Suitability Indices

Figure 14 illustrates wildlife habitat for pileated woodpecker, magnolia warbler, ruby-crowned kinglet and pine marten. This graphic demonstrates the trend in habitat availability from habitat suitability indices (HSI) in

04000080000

120000160000200000240000280000320000

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40

Vo

lum

e (m

3/yr

)

Years from 2010 (x5)

Harvestable Landbase Non-harvestable Landbase


46

current operation scenario. Overall, the wildlife habitats are maintained with less variation over the planning horizon.

Figure 14. Wildlife Habitat

11.1.13 Biomass

Based on the biomass yields from current utilization the annual biomass levels were calculated for the future bio-energy economic development. Table 12 shows the harvestable biomass for each component.

Table 12. The average harvestable biomass for each component

Component Biomass (tonnes/year)

Merchantable Stem 139,635

Non-merchantable without bark

156,059

Bark 33,058

Total 328,752

0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000

5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185

Hab

itat

Un

its

Years from 2010

Pileated Woodpecker Magnolia Warbler

Ruby Crowned Kinglet Pine Marten


47

The total average harvestable biomass is 328,752 tonnes/yr with merchantable stem biomass for 139,635 tonnes/yr, non-merchantable biomass without bark for 156,059 tonnes/yr, and bark only 33,058 tonnes/yr.

After removal of the merchantable stem for timber the gross biomass of non-merchantable and residual with bark is potentially 189,117 tonnes/yr in Pineland forest section. This biomass analysis is very preliminary and the operable biomass allocation will be subject to change once the biomass strategy and utilization standard becomes available for Manitoba provincial forest land. Generally speaking the deduction factor will be applied in order to maintain the site productivity without liquidating nutrients and other ecological functions. For example in Saskatchewan, the percentage of gross available biomass is 60%, the other 40% is intended to be left on site for ecological considerations. InManitoba the harvestable biomass will be determined when the detail policy and guideline is available.

11.2 Tactical Level Results

Stanley software was used to determine the optimal wood supply solution by incorporating government spatial constraints such as green-up delays and maximum cutover size into the analysis. The tactical level analysis also applied a global reduction for wildlife tree retention. These areas in the harvest blocks with adjacent stands are left standing as cover for wildlife and to provide movement corridors. According to the IRMT three per cent of softwood volume and hardwood volume from the harvestable forest land is left as residual cover for this purpose. The optimal solution achieved 99% and 98% of the softwood harvest levels from Softwood and softwood leading mixedwood stands respectively. On the other hand, hardwood and hardwood leading stands can be allocated 100% produced by Woodstock harvest schedule in the first 25 years. Table 13 presents the results of the simulation exercise and the impact of global spatial reductions on Woodstock harvest levels.

The net softwood and hardwood harvest volumes have been determined as 167,224m3/yr and 102,696 m3/yr respectively for the next 25 year period. The cut-block statistics in Table 14 shows that almost 82 per cent of the blocks scheduled for harvest in the first 25 years are from blocks less than,


48

Table 13. Net Harvest Level for FMU 24 Net Harvest Level

Stands S M N H Total

Softwood volume

Strategic Level (m3/yr)

137,721

14,392 6,304

15,695 174,112

Tactical Level (Volume Deduction)

Stanley Constraints (%) 1 2 Wildlife Tree (%) 3 3 3 3

Subtotal

132,212

13,673

6,115

15,223 167,223

Hardwood Volume

Strategic Level (m3/yr)

5,050

8,205

12,838

80,000 106,093

Tactical Level (Volume Deduction)

Stanley Constraints (%) 1 2 Wildlife Tree (%) 3 3 3 3

Subtotal

4,848

7,795

12,452

77,600 102,695

Total 269,918

Note: S, pure softwood stands; M, softwood leading mixed wood stands; N, hardwood leading mixed wood stands; H, pure hardwood stands or equal to, 10 ha in size; indicating that the harvest operation is highly fragmented. However its harvest area in this range accounts for 32% of total harvest area.

Table 14. Harvest Block Size Statistics (0-25 years)

Block Size Category

(ha) Number of blocks

(% of total) Total area in ha

(% of total) <= 1 5,096 (39.2%) 1,274 (1.6%)

1.1 � 5 3,602 (27.7%) 9,957 (12.6%) 5.1 � 10 1,942 (15.0%) 13,770 (17.4%) 10.1 � 20 1,391 (10.7%) 19,337 (24.3%) 20.1 � 30 464 (3.6%) 11,322 (14.3%) 30.1 � 50 294 (2.3%) 11,063 (13.9%) 50.1 � 70 111 (0.9%) 6,489 (8.2%) 70.1 � 100 74 (0.6%) 6,108 (7.7%)

Total 12,974 (100%) 79,320 (100%)


49

Presently, the harvest operations are guided by regional IRMT. Since the new harvest levels will be allocated over the quota holders, the spatial consideration with block layout should be used accordingly. Otherwise it may cause the fluctuation of harvest volume over time if the harvest sequence is not followed closely.

11.3 Discussion and Conclusion for FMU 24 Wood Supply

The �Base Case� report documents the wood supply in detail for the current forest management practice in the Pineland Forest Section. This includes the new FMU 24 boundary establishment excluding the Whiteshell Provincial Park.

The key resource indicators for this �Base Case� exhibit their trends in growing stock, the mean harvest volume per hectare, average harvest age, and age class distribution over the harvestable and total land base. The �Base Case� is built on the available data and management objectives. For example the free-to-grow survey data were interpreted to generate treatment and response, and this results in the future forest under current management scenario. A additional work is needed to fill in the gap and improve the reliability of some of the interpretations. Further investment in stands from the plantation and natural disturbance events will benefit not only the plantation yield gain but also the response post the disturbance. In addition the potential productive forests, currently without stand interpretation from photo or survey data, were excluded in the �Base Case� which will serve as a cushion for the future. These potential productive land will become the productive forests and contribute to the harvest once they are interpreted in the inventory update process. Over all, the adaptive management will also be applied. In case the future disturbances on the harvestable land base reach certain threshold, this will trigger to re-do wood supply analysis and revise its management plan. Since the economic downturn in the last several years its impact on the lumber and pulp industries is quite significant in Manitoba. However the biomass for bio-fuel is emerging with new green policy and fossil fuel cost. In this report average biomass for bio-energy was calculated for the future economic development. The full detail of usage and allocation will be determined once Manitoba government develops biomass management strategy and guideline. The �Base Case� can be severed as the foundation for the future development of the 20-year forest management plan . During the next phase for the 20-year FMP development, ecological land classification will be considered for ecosystem-based management. The ecosites are valuable not only for silviculture practices but also for wildlife habitats etc. This approach will


50

enhance current forest management for the better forest practices. Recentlythe landscape design guideline has been initiated by the Forest Practice Committee in Manitoba. At landscape level the landscape design guideline will be used to guide the development the harvest block size and identify additional spatial requirements like core area and patch size. In addition, after stakeholder consultation may provide new forest management objectives and/or constraints to meet the volume allocation for quota holders by their timber sale areas. The Forestry Branch also evaluated a number of different utilization levels under current management scenario. Table 15 presents the results of the exercise and indicates harvest levels by different utilization standards at a strategic and tactical levels. The detail utilization standards can be found in the yield section and the appendix.

Table 15. Harvest Levels by Tree Utilization Standards

Utilization level Strategic Level Tactical Level*

Softwood (m3/yr)

Hardwood (m3/yr)

Softwood (m3/yr)

Hardwood (m3/yr)

�Base Case� 10.16cm Top 2.54m Log Length 174,112 106,093 167,223 102,695 10.16cm Top 2.54m Tree Length 200,140 110,311 192,211 106,732 7.68cm Top 2.54m Log Length 199,514 108,288 191,611 104,791 7.68cm Top 2.54m Tree Length 212,334 109,418 203,934 105,874 10.16cm Top 5.08m Log length 150,795 104,736 144,813 101,394 Tamarack Volume from �Base Case� (10.16cm Top 2.54m Log Length) 22,231

20,675**

*: The �Base Case� Stanley constraints and wildlife tree volume deduction factor applied. **:Including a 3% volume reduction on Tamarack defoliation


51

From the strategic level to tactical level, the net harvest volumes accounted the spatial and wildlife deduction additionally, they were calculated for its tree utilization standard. This demonstrates the potential resource for future allocation once the corresponding utilization standard is used to get its harvest volume. In addition, tamarack (TL) volume was tracked separately and shows a net harvest volume of 20,675 m3/yr on average in the �Base Case� under current management scenario for FMU 24.


52

12 REFERENCE

Boudewyn, P., Song, X., Magnussen, S., and Gillis, M.D. 2007. Model-based, volume-to-biomass conversion for forested and vegetated land in Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC. Information Report � BC-X-411. Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Forestry Branch, 2006, Wood supply report for Forest Management Licence area #1. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/pdf/wood-supply/fmla_1_wood_supply_report.pdf, online access, Sept. 2012 Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Protective Areas Initiative, Protecting Manitoba�s Outstanding Landscapes, http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pai/pdf/protected_areas_booklet_web.pdf, online access, Sept. 2012 OMNR. 1997, Silvicultural guide to managing for black spruce, jack pine and aspen on boreal forest ecosites in Ontario. Version 1.1 Ont. 3 books. 882pp Timberline. 2006. Manitoba Conservation �Forest Branch, Land Base Determination, FMUs 20, 23, & 30. Timberline Forest Inventory Consults Ltd, Edmonton, AB. April 2006. Timberline. 2007. Manitoba Conservation � Forest Branch, Wood Supply Analysis Report for FMUs 20,23, & 30. Timberline Natural Resource Group, Edmonton, AB, March 2007.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/pdf/wood-supply/fmla_1_wood_supply_report.pdf

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/pdf/wood-

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pai/pdf/protected_areas_booklet_web.pdf

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pai/pdf/protected_areas_booklet_web.pdf


53

Appendix I. Maps Map 1


54

Map 2


55

Map 3


56

Map 4


57

Map 5


58

Map 6


59

Map 7


60

Map 8


61

Appendix II. Map Layers GIS data layers used in the wood supply analysis are listed and described below. Original data layers contained many detailed attributes but only key attributes were kept in the wood supply. Detailed attributes are listed below and key attributes used in the final wood supply layer are italicized. 1. Wood Supply Boundary The boundary of the wood supply area covers all of FMU 24. The boundary used is a subset from the Manitoba Forest Management Unit composite. The boundary subset (FMU 24) was used to clip other wood supply data.

Attribute Name Value (example)

Description

FMU 24 Forest Management Unit (FMU) identification SECTION 2 Forest section identification SEC_NAME Pineland Forest section name

2. Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) Site Selections

This GIS polygon layer shows the selection of lands that First Nations have chosen to validate their TLE claims. This data has been clipped to the wood supply area. All TLE site selections were netted out of the land base.


Description

SITE_NO 4a Site identification for TLE site selection. This value is unique to TLE site and can be linked back to original coverage to get other attributes.

BCR_ID 324 Band Council Resolution identification for TLE site selection. This number is unique to each TLE site selection and is linked to formal documentation with First Nation communities.

SELECTION Goulds Point Name of TLE site selection BAND_NAME Buffalo Point First Nation that selected the TLE site STATUS_DES Approved

Federal PCO/MO

TLE site status in federal government land transfer process

THEME6 TLE Identifies TLE site selections 3. Permanent Sample Plots (PSP) Buffers The permanent sample plot (PSP) point coverage was buffered. 100 meter buffers were placed around active PSPs. There are many PSP inside of the wood supply area and they were all netted out of the land base.


62


Description

PLOT_ID 064 Unique identification number for Permanent Sample Plot

YEAR_EST 1986 Year the PSP was established STANDTYPE NAT, MAN Natural, managed ACTIVE YES, NO Identifies activity level for each PSP PSPBUFF 1

0 Identifies a PSP with 100 meter buffer All other records are calculated to zero

BUFF_DIST 100 Identifies the buffer distance used around each PSP THEME6 PSP Identifies buffered PSP polygons

4. Heritage Sites Buffers The Heritage Sites point coverage was buffered. Buffers of 50 meters were placed around Manitoba�s historic places and significant heritage sites. There are many heritage sites inside of the wood supply area and they were all netted out of the land base.


Description

SITE_TYPE Designated Site type description (e.g. centennial farm, designated, plaque, archaeological)

SITE_NAME FN Burial, M0234

Site name description (e.g. burial site, monument site, farm)

SITE PLAQ2388 Unique identification for each heritage site HSTBUFF 1

0 Identifies a heritage site with a 50 meter buffer All other records are calculated to zero

THEME6 HST Identifies buffered heritage site polygons 5. Riparian Buffers A number of different buffer sizes were used to buffer the riparian features (lakes, rivers, streams) in FMU 24. Single-line streams or rivers were extracted from the �Line� coverage from each FRI tile in the wood supply area and buffered according to the descriptions listed below or suggestions by the IRMT. All of the riparian buffers were combined and summarized in a final theme created for the wood supply. There are many riparian buffers inside of the wood supply area and they were all netted out of the land base.


Description

THEME6 LAKBUF, RIVBUF

Identifies buffered riparian polygons


63

50 Meter Buffer Option on Single-Line Rivers - Single-line streams and rivers were extracted from the FRI tiles and merged together into one layer for the wood supply area. This line coverage was buffered 50 meters to get the resulting polygon buffer cover.


Description

RIVBUFF50 1 0

A 50 meter buffer was placed around a stream or river Outside of the buffer

100 Meter Buffer Option Double-Lined Rivers - Double-lined streams and rivers were extracted from the FRI tiles and merged together into one layer for the wood supply area. This line coverage was buffered 100 meters to get the resulting polygon buffer cover.


Description

RIVBUFF100 1 0

A 100 meter buffer was placed around double-lined rivers Outside of the buffer

50 Meter Buffer Option on Lakes less than 40 ha - Lakes less than 40 ha were extracted from the FRI tiles and merged together into one layer for the wood supply area. A 50 meter buffer was created for these lakes. Islands within the lakes were considered to be inside the buffer and were netted out of the land base.


Description

LAKBUFF50 1 0

A 50 meter buffer was placed around lakes < 40 ha Outside of the buffer

100 Meter Buffer Option on Lakes more than 40 ha � Lakes more than 40 ha were extracted from the FRI tiles and merged together into one layer for the wood supply area. A 100 meter buffer was created for these lakes. Islands within the lakes were considered to be inside the buffer and were netted out of the land base


Description

LAKBUFF100 1 0

A 100 meter buffer was placed around lakes > 40 ha Outside of the buffer

200 Meter Buffer on Lake Winnipeg and the Winnipeg River - A 200 meter buffer was created for Lake Winnipeg and Winnipeg River. Islands within the lakes were considered to be inside the buffer and were netted out of the land base.

Attribute Name Value Description


64

(example) LAKWPGBUFF 1

0 A 200 meter buffer was placed on Lake Winnipeg and river Outside of the buffer

6. Road Buffers Provincial roads were extracted from Infrastructure and Transportation highways information. The provincial roads were clipped to FMU 24 and buffered 100 meters. IRMT also identified a few roads that should not be buffered.


Description

ROADBUFFER 1 0

Inside of the road buffer Outside of the road buffer

THEME6 RDBUFF Identifies buffered road polygons 7. Protected Areas

This GIS data layer shows proposed and protected areas identified by Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship�s Protected Areas Initiative (PAI). A protected area is designated under legislation. At a minimum, protected areas prohibit logging, mining (including aggregate extraction), oil, petroleum, natural gas or hydro-electric development. There are many protected areas inside of the wood supply area and they are all netted out of the land base.


Description

PA_NSUID 4605053 Protected Area identification number TYPE_E Wildlife

Management Unit

Crown land designation (type) of legal Protected Area (e.g. Park, WMA, Ecological Reserve, private lands)

LEGISL_E Ecological Reserves Act (1981)

Identifies the legislation that protects

STATUS_E Legally Designated

Identifies legal designation and level of protection

NAME_E Lewis Bog ER Name of Protected Area PAPROTDATE 19870912 Official date the land was legally designated

protected MGMT_E Nature

Conservancy Identifies official management authority of protected area

THEME6 PAI Identifies legally protected areas restricted from forest activities

8. Areas of Special Interest


65

Areas of Special Interest (ASI) are voluntarily closed to resource extraction, including forest activities like logging. ASIs may also be called protected areas proposals and are reviewed through the PAI consultation process with the forestry and mining sectors, First Nations and Aboriginal communities, and other stakeholders. There are many ASIs inside of the wood supply area and they are all netted out of the land base.


Description

ASI_NO 173 Unique identification number ASI_NAME Whitemouth

River Name

ASI_TYPE Protected Area proposal

Identifies future type of protected area (e.g. wildlife management area, park, ecological reserve)

STATUS Not legally designated

Identifies current protection levels (if any)

THEME6 ASI Identifies polygons restricted from forest activities 9. Depletions The depletion layer consists of polygons that represent areas where the forest has been removed (burn) or harvested. Depletion also includes natural occurrences like blow down.


Description

BURN_YR 2002 Year of fire HARVEST_YR 1996 Year of actual harvest HARVESTTYP CC Type of harvest (e.g. clear cut) DOMSPECIES JP Dominant tree species (e.g. Jack Pine) THEME 7 BRN, CUT,

STD Identifies polygons that have been burned or harvested. Polygons that have had no activity = STD (natural stand)

10. Siliviculture Silviculture entails the manipulation of forest and woodland vegetation in stands and on landscapes to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis. At the time of analysis, regeneration survey data and free to grow data was available up to 2009 and was used to update silviculture in the landbase.


Description

PLANT_YR 1999 Year of planting activity PLANTTYPE PWS Type of planting (e.g. planting with site prep) PLANT_SPECIES JP Type of tree species planted (e.g. jack pine) TREES_PLANTED 5000 Number of trees planted


66

TREES_HA 50 Number of trees per hectares THEME7 PLT Identifies polygons that have been planted THEME1 JP Strata of forested area identified (e.g. JP � Jack Pine)


67

Appendix III. Yield Curves Development

Presented in this appendix are graphical illustrations of the yield curves developed for the provincial 8-foot log length (excluding TL) utilization standard. Specification of this utilization is detailed in Table 2.


68

Stand Age Volume Estimates (m3/ha)1 Mean Annual Increment (m3/ha/yr)1

Softwood Hardwood Total Softwood Hardwood Total 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 2.24 7.33 9.57 0.07 0.24 0.32 40 16.93 15.09 32.01 0.42 0.38 0.80 50 43.34 9.06 52.40 0.87 0.18 1.05 60 61.47 2.86 64.33 1.02 0.05 1.07 70 66.65 0.67 67.32 0.95 0.01 0.96 80 63.53 0.14 63.67 0.79 0.00 0.80 90 56.11 0.02 56.13 0.62 0.00 0.62 100 47.01 0.00 47.02 0.47 0.00 0.47 110 37.87 0.00 37.87 0.34 0.00 0.34 120 29.57 0.00 29.57 0.25 0.00 0.25 130 22.52 0.00 22.52 0.17 0.00 0.17 140 16.80 0.00 16.80 0.12 0.00 0.12 150 12.32 0.00 12.32 0.08 0.00 0.08 160 8.90 0.00 8.90 0.06 0.00 0.06 170 6.35 0.00 6.35 0.04 0.00 0.04 180 4.48 0.00 4.48 0.02 0.00 0.02 190 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.02 0.00 0.02 200 2.17 0.00 2.17 0.01 0.00 0.01

1 Based on provincial log length 8 foot (2.54 m) utilization standard


69

Stand Age Volume Estimates (m3/ha) Mean Annual Increment (m3/ha/yr)



70




71




72




73




74




75




76




77




78




79




80




81




82




83




84




85




86




87




88




89




90




91




92

Appendix IV. Forest Model Coding

Overview of Forest Modeling Structure This appendix outlines the various sections of the Woodstock model, and some of the specific parameters used in Remsoft Spatial Planning System. 1. Woodstock Model Formulation1 Section Description of Input Files Control Section Model Control File (objectives, planning horizon, period length) Landscape Section Aggregation of polygon attribute into themes Area Section Aggregation of areas in accordance with defined themes Lifespan Section Describes death age of yield strata Yields Section Merchantable volume yield equations and habitat suitability yields Transition Section Forest response to harvest and death Action Section Describes which actions (harvest, death) can be applied and

associated constraints Output Section Where indicators (outputs) are setup for use in optimize section and

results Optimize Section Describes model objective and constraints Schedule Section Solution provided by LP solver Reports Section Contains user-defined output reports

1 The informational text in this appendix has been paraphrased from �Woodstock and the Woodstock User�s Guide, Copyright Remsoft Inc. 1998


93

Control Section: The control section is where the parameters used to execute the Woodstock model are specified. Beyond establishing the planning horizon for the model the control section keywords allow image file activation and warning message controls. In this model, OPTIMIZE is set to on, generating a linear programming matrix in the format specified in the OPTIMIZE section (MOSEK). The linear programming matrix is then passed to the linear programming solver software to find an optimal solution. The solver generates a file that details which of the decision variables were selected in the optimal solution. A utility program to convert a solution file to a management schedule file is included in Woodstock. This file uses the format for the SCHEDULE section, and is processed by the Woodstock interpreter. If reports and graphics are defined, the interpreter will create report files and display graphics as the schedule file is processed. Landscape Section: Landscape themes describe a variety of characteristics about the forest. They are analogous to different map layers in a GIS system or stand attributes in a database. Themes are numbered sequentially and denoted with a descriptive label indicating its purpose or nature. For a given landscape theme, there can be many attributes attached that describe the various conditions or site attributes found throughout the forest. The database upon which the themes are constructed rely heavily on GIS to encode polygons with spatial attributes (buffers, protected areas) developed through layering and the database net down process. For example, the polygons within the forest resource inventory database contain species composition. Using this data and an algorithm that aggregates species composition into strata types, a new field is defined, and each polygon is populated with the resulting strata type code. This code is then listed under a landscape theme. You may also describe a forest condition that is based on an aggregate of theme attributes. For example, by combining forest strata codes RP, and JP into an aggregate coded PINE stands. Specific polygons or areas of interest within the forest can be referenced by specifying a landscape theme �mask� which is simply a line of code representing the sequence of themes (theme 1, theme 2, theme 3, �). The attribute code appropriately placed on the theme mask will identify (filter) the desired information from the data set. When you use a question mark (?) as a thematic attribute code, all attribute codes within that theme are represented. In this analysis there are 8 themes illustrated in the Appendix V. Areas Section: The areas section defines the development types that populate a forest. A development type is simply a portion of your forest database that is defined or redefined by a particular set of landscape theme attributes: each unique combination of thematic attributes represents a


94

different development type. The area file is a product of the attribute layering and GIS netdown work on the forest land base. The area database and attributes of interest are organized into associated age classes and restructured to match the fields of the thematic mask presented in the themes section. The main purpose of this file is to:

a) describe the existing forest in terms of landscape themes and attribute codes, b) provide an age-class structure of the existing forest, c) detail the distribution of area associated with development types across the

forest, and d) provide a means of recognizing discrete portions of the forest within a

stratum based forest model. Lifespan Section: The lifespan specification indicates the maximum age a yield stratum may reach before it is assumed to die or be replaced by another development type through succession. In this analysis a lifespan is specified for every yield strata present in the forest. The _DEATH function in the Transitions Section determines the outcome of the development type in the case of death. Yields Section: The yields section is the part of a Woodstock model that associates stand volumes with the development types in the model. Whereas landscape themes describe the land base in static terms (attributes that remain the same over time), the yield tables provide dynamic information about the forest. The yields section contains the growth information needed to move the model forward in time. In this model, the yield components represent two characteristics of interest: volume and habitat indices. Both are age dependent, with the value of the component varying with the age of the development type. The yield tables used in the model are based on periods rather than years. Yield table entries represent 5-year intervals. Transitions Section: The transition section is key to forest dynamics in a Woodstock model. Transition specifications describe how the forest will respond to actions or events in terms of forest development represented using landscape themes. Transitions are specific in terms of source and target so it is possible to model complex management prescriptions or outcomes of actions.


95

The transition section also provides a means for restricting access to development types following an action or prevents any actions from occurring on a target development type for a specified number of periods following the action. The transitions section allows the user to:

a) document the changes that areas of the forest undergo following an action, b) represent forest dynamics in the form of a transition matrix, c) provide a mechanism for restricting access to development types following

treatment, and d) provide a mechanism for changing the default age of development types arising out

of an action. Actions Section: This section provides the mechanism for effecting changes in the model. Without defining actions, development types within the model would just grow older and eventually die. Woodstock models need interventions defined by the user such as silvicultural treatment or harvesting. The only inherent activities Woodstock can perform are death and inventory � the user must define all others. The outcomes of actions are not part of the Actions Section, but are specified in Transitions Section. In a Woodstock model, actions are defined by three parameters:

a) whether the development type arising from the action is assumed to have an age different from the pre-treatment development type from which it originated.

b) the circumstances in which the action may be applied (eligibility or operability windows), and

c) whether outputs arising from the action should be a direct function of yield components and area treated, or as a function of area treated and the difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment yield components (complete harvest or partial harvest).

Outputs Section: The output section calculates the various measures of interest such as total softwood harvest or area harvested. Most outputs are triggered by actions and a function of a per unit area estimate in a yield table multiplied by the area effected by the triggering action. Outputs are the basis for evaluating a management regime, and the levels of output produced are used to control activities across the forest and across the planning periods. The objective function (maximize volume) can be composed of one or more outputs (e.g., total softwood harvest + total hardwood harvest). Constraints such as minimum age or minimum volume/ha can be established on various outputs as well. Almost any output defined can be part of an objective function or constraint. The output section provides:


96

a) a means of reporting on benefits and/or costs arising from actions as well as areas

affected by them. b) provides a mechanism for controlling actions by limiting production of one or

more outputs. c) provides a basis for comparison among different management strategies.

Optimize Section: This section is used to formulate the model as a linear program, which requires a different viewpoint than is required with simulation models. In a simulation model, the user decides what prescriptions to implement, determines what order to implement them in and review the outcome as the simulator executes the model. In a linear programming model, the user decides the kind of outcome is desired and the model determines the best means of accomplishing that objective. Objective Function In this section the objective function is presented. In this model the objective function maximizes the amount of wood harvested from the forest by summing the outputs of interest. The Woodstock interpreter uses the output definitions to formulate the objective function as the sum of all decision variables that generate harvest volume multiplied by the appropriate yield entries. In defining an objective function not only do you specify the outputs you want but also the time interval when the specified outputs will contribute to the objective function. In this model the maximization occurs over the 200 year planning horizon. Constraints Harvest flow constraints are typically used to control the flow of outputs on a period by period basis. For example, non-declining yield would allow the harvest level to increase or remain at the previous period level over the planning horizon, but the harvest level could not decrease. Strict even-flow would force the harvest to remain constant throughout the planning horizon and a sequential flow would allow the harvest to fluctuate by a fixed or proportional amount each period. Schedule Section: This section is created by the linear program solver (MOSEK), which provides the optimal solution to Woodstock through a solution file. Woodstock processes that solution file and creates a management schedule file. The management schedule file is then included with the other sections of the Woodstock model. The Woodstock model carries out the actions selected in the optimal solution, allowing the creation of reports and graphics. The SCHEDULE section is simply a listing of actions performed on specific ha associated with specific age classes within development types in each planning period. Each line in the SCHEDULE section represents one decision variable and so a development type mask, age, area, action code and planning period will be listed.


97

Reports Section: The report section specifies the outputs that are to be reported numerically, in several formats and is completely customizable. This model generates reports of all outputs on a period to period basis. The reports provide:

a) a mechanism for evaluating management strategies by reporting outputs generated by a Woodstock model run,

b) custom reports that are helpful in testing and debugging models c) user-definable reports that can be read directly and/or

imported into other software for additional analysis and generation of high quality graphs.

2. Stanley Model Setup for the �Base Case� Scenario

Objective Weight

1. Oswstandsconvol5yr (SW Stands Coniferous Volume) 1 2. Omxstandsconvol5yr (MSPF Stands Coniferous Volume) 1 3. Onxstandsconvol5yr (NSPF Stands Coniferous Volume) 1 4. Ohwstandsdecvol5yr (H Stands Deciduous Volume) 1 5. Convol (Coniferous Volume) 1 6. Oconvol20jp5yr (JP Sw Volume) 1 Rule set "Rule Set 1": Softwood and softwood leading stands Adjacent distance 0 Minimum block size None Target block size None Proximal distance 0 Greenup delay 1 (10 years) Maximum opening size 100 ha Allow multi-period openings Yes Rule set "Rule Set 2": Hardwood and hardwood leading stands Adjacent distance 0 Minimum block size None Target block size None Proximal distance 0 Greenup delay 0 Maximum opening size 100ha

Allow multi-period opening Yes


98

Appendix V. Composite Landbase Attributes for Wood Supply

Field Name Field Type

Field Width

Field Description

Theme 1

character 5 Yield Stratums BF � Balsam Fir HWD � hardwood JP � Jack Pine LBS � Lowland Black Spruce MSPF � softwood leading mixedwood NA � Not available NF � Non Forested NP � Non Productive NSPF � hardwood leading mixedwood OTHHW � other hardwood OTHSW � other softwood PP � Potentially Productive RP � Red Pine SMIX � softwood mix STL � Spruce / Tamarack TLS � Tamarack / Spruce UBS � Upland Black Spruce

Theme 2 numeric 1 Crown Closure 0 � 0-10 % 1 � 11-20 % 2 � 21-30 % 3 � 31-40 % 4 � 41-50 % 5 � 51-60 % 6 � 61-70 % 7 � 71-80 % 8 � 81-90 % 9 � 91-100%

Theme 3 numeric 2 Forest Management Unit (Old FMU) 20 23 30 (new FMU 24 is consisted of the above FMUs)

Theme 4 numeric 2 Status of Land 0 � Agriculture (no forest) 1, 11, 14, 18 � Provincial Forest 13 � Agricultural � one time harvest 2, 22 � Permanent Forest 4, 44, 49 � Wildlife Management Area 7, 77, 17 � Provincial Park


99

10 � Outdoor Recreation 12 � Proposed Ecological Reserve 99 � Other land

Theme 5 numeric 4 Ownership of Land 0 � Prov Crown Land � Closed 1 � Prov Crown Land � Open 2 � Prov Crown Land � Restricted 4 � Municipal Land 5 � Patented Land 6 � Rural Municipality Land 7 � Indian Reserve

Theme 6 character 3 Special Buffer identifier for Depletions PAI � inside protected area (legislated) ASI � inside area of special interest (not legislated) PSP � inside permanent sample plot ISL � inside isolated stand HST � inside heritage site buffer TLE � inside treaty land entitlement LAKBUF � inside lake buffer RIVBUF � inside river buffer RDBUF � inside road buffer OUT � not in any of the above buffers

Theme 7 character 3 Management Status � Forest Interests CUT � harvested stands BRN � burned stands PLT � planted stands STD � current natural stands, not burned OUT � not in the above categories

Theme 8 numeric 1 Identifies polygons contributing to the net harvestable land base 0 � not in net landbase 1 � part of net landbase

WOOD SUPPLY ANALYSIS REPORT FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT … · Wood supply analysis is the process of...

Documents

Transcript of WOOD SUPPLY ANALYSIS REPORT FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT … · Wood supply analysis is the process of...