Thoughts on “early” harvesting on the Coast
and in the Interior
Jeff McWilliams, RPF B.A. Blackwell & Assoc. Ltd
Presented at:
2014 CSC Conference
Nanaimo, BC
February 27, 2014
Context
•
What is “early” harvesting?
•
•
•
Harvesting below biological culmination age
Why is important?
•
Judicious use is critical to minimize the long term impacts of some
non-timber constraints (visuals, adjacency, ect)
•
Extensive use will reduce LTSY
Is it good or bad or?
•
Depends on objectives and constraints
•
Financial versus biological rotation
•
Long term sustained yield
PG Situation Analysis
14,000,000
AAC
12,000,000
Forecasted Harvest (m3/yr)
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
Base case
2,000,000
0
0
50
100
150
Years from now
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
200
250
PG Situation Analysis
14,000,000
AAC
12,000,000
Forecasted Harvest (m3/yr)
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
Base case
4,000,000
Lower Minimum Harvest Criteria
2,000,000
0
0
50
100
150
Years from now
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
200
250
PG Situation Analysis
14,000,000
Natural
Harvest by Stand Type
12,000,000
High Severity MPB Attack
Low Severity MPB Attack
MPB Attacked Regen
Future Managed
Existing Managed
Forecasted Harvest (m3/yr)
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1 to 5
51 to 55
101 to 105
151 to 155
Years from now
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
201 to 205
PG Situation Analysis
14,000,000
Harvest by Age Class
12,000,000
> 250
Forecasted Harvest (m3/yr)
10,000,000
141-250
121-140
101-120
8,000,000
81-100
61-80
6,000,000
41-60
21-40
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1 to 5
51 to 55
101 to 105
151 to 155
201 to 205
Years from now
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
Situation Analysis
•
Un-certainties associated with managed stands;
•
Inventories;
•
•
FH and modeling impacts on yield;
•
•
use of OAF1?; disease modules?; impact of natural ingress
Modeling impacts of different regimes on quality;
•
•
Do we have accurate up to date data for AC2-3 managed
stands?
what qualities do we expect from different management
regimes?
Modeling yield from different stand types;
•
multi-layered stands [planted vs natural infill, mixed species, ect]
Situation Analysis
•
Main Strategic Responses from interior T4 SIS’s;
•
•
Enhancement of existing natural and managed stands;
•
Fertilization
•
Density management of overstocked dry belt Fdi
Rehabilitation/Reforestation of;
•
MPB damaged stands that won’t be harvested
•
Fires
•
“Enhanced Basic Reforestation”
•
Support for non-silv treatment strategic projects such as;
•
Milling studies of managed stands,
•
Mid-rotation surveys of managed stands,
•
More monitoring!
“Enhanced Basic Reforestation”
•
What is it?
•
•
“Enhanced basic reforestation” is basically a generic description for
doing a better or more preferred job of site prep, re-stocking
treatments and brush control
How can it help?
•
Potential strategy is to invest in “enhanced reforestation” on at least
our better sites to increase resiliency and set up more preferred
stands which have the best potential to be manipulated in the future
(e.g.; density management and fertilization)
•
Strategy can be a hedge against “borrowing from the future” or a
strategy to improve timber quality and supply at the back end of the
“mid-term” or early in the long term
Harry Smith Trials, UBC Research Forest (age 50)
800
50
700
45
40
35
500
400
Fd Mvol
300
meters
cubic meters/ ha
600
CwMvol
30
25
Fd Top Ht
20
Cw Top Ht
15
200
10
100
5
0
0
0.9
1.8
2.7
3.7
4.6
0.9
Initial square spacing (m)
1.8
2.7
3.7
4.6
Initial square spacing (m)
90
60
80
50
60
50
40
Fd Basal Area
30
Cw Basal Area
20
10
centimeters
square meters/ha
70
40
30
Fd DBH
20
Cw DBH
10
0
0.9
1.8
2.7
3.7
Initial square spacing (m)
4.6
0
0.9
1.8
2.7
3.7
Initial square spacing (m)
4.6
Harry Smith Trials, UBC Research Forest (age 50)
1.80
1.60
1.40
cm/meter
1.20
1.00
Fd Taper
0.80
Cw Taper
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.9
1.8
2.7
Initial square spacing (m)
3.7
4.6
Harry Smith Trials, UBC Research Forest (age 50)
Potential Impacts of Enhanced Basic
Reforestation
14,000,000
AAC
12,000,000
Forecasted Harvest (m3/yr)
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
Base case
4,000,000
Lower Minimum Harvest Criteria
2,000,000
0
0
50
100
150
Years from now
Source; FESL, PG T4 SIS
200
250
“Enhanced Basic Reforestation”
•
The Results so far;
•
T4 SISs for most interior MPB-impacted TSAs all have strong
strategic support for “enhanced basic reforestation” as a preferred
strategy however,
•
Current policy and legislation are not conducive to implementation of
these types of strategies