Management Plan 9

MANAGEMENT PLAN 10

TREE FARM LICENCE 30

Canadian Forest Products Ltd.

Draft Authorized Licensee Signature:

Reviewed By: Prepared By: Draft Draft

Submission Date:

Licensee Address: Canfor Administration Center P.O. Box 9000 Seal Prince George, B.C., V2L 4W2 Phone: (250) 962-3259 Fax: (250) 962-3217 E-mail:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 1.1 Purpose ...... 7 1.2 Overview ...... 7 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 7 2.1 Description of Tree Farm Licence 30 ...... 7 2.2 History of TFL 30 ...... 8 2.3 Major TFL Boundary Changes ...... 9 3.0 TFL 30 PLANNING DOCUMENTS ...... 10 4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 11 4.1 Opportunities for Public Involvement ...... 11 4.2 Summary of Comments ...... 11 5.0 APPENDIX A - TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS ...... 12 12.0 APPENDIX B - ACCEPTED TIMBER SUPPLY DATA PACKAGE ...... 56 20.0 APPENDIX C - COMMENT AND REVIEW INFORMATION ...... 101

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Public Comments Received

Table 2. Scenario Themes from the Scenario Planning Project

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location Map for Tree Farm Licence 30

APPENDICES

Appendix A Timber Supply Analysis

Appendix B Accepted Timber Supply Data Package

Appendix C Comment and Review Information

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

This is the first Management Plan (MP) prepared for Tree Farm Licence 30 (TFL 30) to meet the requirements of the Tree Farm Licence Management Plan Regulation (B.C. Reg. 280/2009). This regulation, enacted by the provincial government in November 2009 (with associated amendments to the Forest Act), includes content requirements, submission timing and public review requirements for TFL Management Plans. These content requirements (in regulation) replace the MP content requirements listed in the tree farm licence document and reduce the duplication of Forest Stewardship Plan matters (objectives and strategies).

1.2 Overview

This Management Plan is now submitted to the Chief Forester, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for approval. Coincident with the approval of the MP, the Chief Forester will make an independent determination of the Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) for TFL 30.

Canfor has committed to obtaining Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Certification through the Canadian Standard Association (CSA) certification process. The CSA certification process on TFL 30 began in December of 1999 with a Readiness Review. The SFM plan is complete and has been accepted by the CSA Registrar.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Description of Tree Farm Licence 30

TFL 30 is located just northeast of Prince George in the Prince George Forest District (Figure 1). The TFL stretches from its western boundary near Summit Lake on Highway 97, eastward across the western foothills of the Rocky Mountains to slightly northeast of Sinclair Mills. The total land base for TFL 30 is 180,347 hectares, with a productive forest land base of 152,921 hectares or about 85% of the total area. Forests in the area consist of spruce, balsam, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock and deciduous species.

TFL 30 TFL 30 Tree Farm Licence 30 Tree Farm Licence 30

Figure 1. Location map for Tree Farm Licence 30.

2.2 History of TFL 30

Tree Farm licence 30 is an amalgamation of five smaller TFL's that were originally granted in 1959 to the following companies:

TFL 28: Shelley Development Ltd. TFL 29: Eagle Lake Sawmills Ltd. TFL 30: Sinclair Spruce Lumber Co. Ltd. TFL 31: Upper Fraser Spruce Mills Ltd. TFL 34: Church Sawmill Ltd.

Subsequent corporate acquisitions during the 1960's resulted in combining these TFL's into the present-day TFL 30. The chronology of events were:

1960: Midway Terminals (later National Forest Products) purchased Sinclair Spruce Lumber Co. Ltd. and Upper Fraser Spruce Mills Ltd.

1961: Noranda Mines Ltd. purchased Sinclair and Upper Fraser in addition to other National Forest Products' holdings in southern British Columbia and formed a new company called Northwood Mills Ltd.

1963: Eagle Lake Sawmills Ltd. purchased Shelly Development Ltd.

1964: Northwood Mills combined with Mead Corporation of Dayton Ohio to construct a new pulpmill at Prince George. The name of the new company was changed to Northwood Pulp Limited.

1964: Northwood purchased Church Sawmills Ltd.

1966: Northwood purchased Eagle Lake Sawmills Ltd.

The schedule by which the individual Tree Farm Licences were amalgamated into TFL 30 varied only slightly from the corporate acquisitions. In 1965 TFL's 30, 31 and 34 were consolidated, and in 1967 TFL's 28, 29, and 30 were further consolidated into the present-day TFL 30.

During 1998 Northwood Pulp and Timber Ltd. changed its name to Northwood Inc.

During 1999, Canadian Forest Products Ltd. purchased Northwood Inc. There were no changes to the administrative boundaries of TFL 30 as a result of this acquisition.

2.3 Major TFL Boundary Changes

As noted in Section 2.2, there have not been any major boundary changes to TFL30

3.0 TFL 30 PLANNING DOCUMENTS

The following table indicates the publicly available planning documents used by Canfor to guide management and operations within TFL 30:

Plan Plan Title Description Web Link (as of date) Type

SFMP CSA – SFM This Sustainable Forest Management Plan http://www.canfor.com/docs/respons Sustainable (Canfor and BCTS) was produced to ibility/pg_sfmp_final_signed_2012_07 Forest achieve Canadian Standards Association .pdf?sfvrsn=2 Management (CSA) certification to the CSA Z809-08 Plan standard

FSP Forest A Forest Stewardship Plan shows areas N/A Stewardship Plan on a map where a forest licensee may carry out forest development activities over a period of up to five years. The areas included in the FSP are called Forest Development Units. The plan also states the results, strategies or measures that the forest licensee will achieve in order to be consistent with government objectives for forest values.

LRMP Prince George The Prince George Land and Resource http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/ Land and Management Plan (LRMP) is a long- princegeorge/pgeorge/index.html Resource term plan for land use and resource (as of March 8, 2013) Management development on Crown land within the Plan Prince George Forest District. This plan is based on the principles of integrated resource management and sustainability.

4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

4.1 Opportunities for Public Involvement

To fulfill these requirements we will provide for the following opportunities for interested parties to become involved:

Send notification letters requesting input from all known interested parties during key phases in the Management Plan Advertise in a local newspaper to request input from all interested parties during key phases in the Management Plan

Further details regarding opportunities for interested parties to provide input are identified in the Review Strategy in Appendix 4.

4.2 Summary of Comments

Data Package - As required by our Review Strategy (Appendix 4), the Data Package was advertised in the Prince George Citizen and PG Free Press over the period of August 2nd 2012 to August 17th 2012. Notification letters were sent to all individuals on the Key Contact List attached to the Review Strategy. The public review and comment period was held from August 1st, 2012 to October 1st, 2012.

Draft Management Plan - As required by our Review Strategy (Appendix 4), the Draft Management Plan was advertised in the Prince George Citizen over the period of March 13th 2013 to March 27th 2013. Notification letters were sent to all individuals on the Key Contact List attached to the Review Strategy. The public review and comment period was held from March 13th 2013 to May 13th 2013.

A summary of comments received is provided in Table 1. Appendix 4 contains the Public Involvement Summary Reports, copies of all comments received, and copies of the advertisements.

The following table identifies the comments received as a result of these processes.

Table 1: Summary of Public Comments Received.

To be completed following the completion of the public review process

5.0 APPENDIX A - TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS

TREE FARM LICENCE #30 MANAGEMENT PLAN #10

TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS REPORT

Prepared for:

Canadian Forest Products Ltd

All interested parties are invited to view and comment on the Draft Timber Supply Analysis Report for Management Plan #10, from March 13th, 2013 through to May 13th, 2013. Comments will be accepted until 4:00 pm May 13th, 2013. For further information, please contact:

Sara Cotter, RPF Planning Forester, Forest Management Group Canadian Forest Products Ltd. P.O. Box 9000, Prince George BC V2L 4W2

[email protected] (250) 962-3398

Prepared by:

Resource Group Ltd. Prince George, BC

March 2013

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Analysis Report

Executive Summary The timber supply analysis in support of Management Plan #9 was completed in 2003, followed by the allowable annual cut (AAC) determination effective July 1st, 2003 in which the AAC was set at 330,000 m3/year.

On April 4th, 2006 under a Postponement Order (Section 8 (3.1) of the Forest Act), Canfor provided a letter to the Chief Forester to have the next AAC determination postponed to June 12th, 2013. The Chief Forester concluded that the factors used to assess timber supply have not changed to the extent that they would have an impact on existing timber supply. Consequently, the next AAC determination will occur on or before June 12th, 2013.

Canfor has initiated this timber supply analysis in support of Management Plan #10 and this document describes the results of the recently completed timber supply analysis for Tree Farm Licence (TFL) #30.

The base case harvest forecast presented demonstrates that the land base can support a harvest level of approximately 420,000 m3/yr over the next 45 years before increasing to a sustainable long-term harvest level of approximately 545,000 m3/yr.

The base case harvest level represents a substantial increase over the base case harvest forecast from Management Plan #9 (MP9) and the current AAC of 330,000 m3/yr. This increase can be attributed to the following factors:

An increase in the timber harvesting land base (THLB) of approximately 5,400 ha (4%) over the THLB from MP9.

An accumulated undercut of almost 2.5 million m3 over the last 10 years.

The MP9 base case includes a significant reduction in harvest attributable to modelling patch size objectives. This impact has been eliminated in the current analysis.

Changes to management objectives for seral stage1 and caribou corridors have allowed for increased harvest.

Improvement in the assumptions used to generate managed stand yield estimates.

The use of a spatially explicit optimization model results in an optimized harvest schedule that is capable of minimizing the timber supply impact of harvesting constraints while ensuring that the harvest schedule is operationally feasible.

Sensitivity analysis conducted on TFL 30 seeks to quantify the degree to which uncertainty in data and assumptions might affect timber supply. Table 19 shows a summary of the harvest impacts of each scenario relative to the base case.

Table i: Summary of Analysis Results

1 It is not clear from MP9 documentation as to whether the 2/3 draw down to the seral stage targets was applied. We have assumed that the full seral stage targets were enforced in the MP9 base case.

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Analysis Report

Years 1 to 45 Years 46 to 250 Scenario % % m3/yr m3/yr Change Change Base Case 419,720 544,792

Evenflow 421,353 0% 421,360 -23% Increased IHL 424,990 1% 529,105 -3% 120 m3/ha MHA 420,869 0% 545,781 0% 180 m3/ha MHA 411,028 -2% 532,344 -2% 200 m3/ha MHA 401,257 -4% 522,149 -4% Managed Stand Yields +10% 429,700 2% 596,301 9% Managed Stand Yields -10% 411,231 -2% 490,411 -10% Natural Stand Yields +10% 457,164 9% 545,927 0% Natural Stand Yields -10% 384,620 -8% 543,250 0% Old Age @ 140 437,449 4% 547,901 1% No Seral Draw Down 346,197 -18% 514,429 -6% ERA (>20% old) 417,058 -1% 543,958 0% Patch Size Targets 408,509 -3% 523,997 -4% Relaxed Patch Size Targets 421,324 0% 538,503 -1% OAF1 @ 0.85 416,340 -1% 520,649 -4% Add 3.5% WTP Reduction 403,693 -4% 527,768 -3% No Weevil Impacts 451,661 8% 541,570 -1% No Watershed Constraints 420,661 0% 545,628 0% Remove FSW Constraints 419,753 0% 545,508 0%

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Analysis Report

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 LAND BASE DESCRIPTION 2 2.1 Location ...... 2 2.2 Land Base Classification ...... 2 2.2.1 Changes from the Data Package ...... 4 2.2.2 Vegetation Resource Inventory ...... 5 2.2.3 Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) ...... 8 2.2.4 Site Index ...... 9 2.2.5 Harvest History and Age Class Distribution ...... 11 3.0 BASE CASE TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS 14 3.1 Harvest Forecast ...... 14 3.2 Management Plan #9 Comparison ...... 15 3.2.1 Timber Harvesting Land Base ...... 16 3.2.2 Model Constraints ...... 16 3.2.3 Managed Stand Yields ...... 17 3.2.4 Historic Harvest Levels ...... 18 3.2.5 Forest Estate Model ...... 18 3.3 Base Case Harvest Characteristics ...... 19 3.4 Age Class Distribution ...... 21 4.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 23 4.1 Alternative Harvest Flow Patterns ...... 23 4.2 Minimum Harvest Age...... 24 4.3 Natural and Managed Stand Yields ...... 25 4.4 Old Seral Objectives ...... 27 4.5 Ecosystem Representation Analysis ...... 28 4.6 Patch Size Objectives ...... 29 4.7 Wildlife Tree Patches ...... 31 4.8 Operational Adjustment Factor ...... 32 4.9 Leader Weevil ...... 33 4.10 Watershed Objectives ...... 33 5.0 DISCUSSION 35 6.0 REFERENCES 37

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Land Base Classification...... 2 Table 2: Revised OAF 1 Information ...... 4 Table 3: Inventory Analysis Results ...... 5 Table 4: Base Case Harvest Forecast ...... 14 Table 5: Recent Harvest History ...... 18 Table 6: Sensitivity Analyses...... 23 Table 7: Alternate Harvest Flow Patterns ...... 24 Table 8: Minimum Harvest Ages ...... 25 Table 9: Managed Stand Yields +/- 10% ...... 26

iii

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Analysis Report

Table 10: Natural Stand Yields +/- 10% ...... 27 Table 11: Seral Stage Objectives ...... 28 Table 12: Ecosystem Representation Objectives ...... 29 Table 13: Patch Size Objectives...... 29 Table 14: Patch Size Objectives ...... 30 Table 15: Additional 3.5% WTP Reduction ...... 31 Table 16: OAF1 @ 0.85 ...... 32 Table 17: Remove Leader Weevil Impacts ...... 33 Table 18: Watershed Objectives ...... 34 Table 19: Summary of Analysis Results ...... 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of TFL 30 ...... 2 Figure 2: Area by Land Classification ...... 4 Figure 3: Leading Species Summary ...... 7 Figure 4: Adjusted Inventory Site Index Summary ...... 8 Figure 5: BEC Summary ...... 9 Figure 6: SIBEC Site Index Summary ...... 10 Figure 7: Combined Site Index Summary ...... 11 Figure 8: Harvest History ...... 12 Figure 9: Initial Age Class Distribution ...... 13 Figure 10: Base Case Harvest Forecast ...... 14 Figure 11: Base Case Growing Stock ...... 15 Figure 12: Harvest Forecast – MP #9 ...... 16 Figure 13: Base Case – Harvest from Natural and Managed Stands ...... 19 Figure 14: Base Case – Average Harvest Age ...... 20 Figure 15: Base Case – Average Volume per Hectare Harvested...... 20 Figure 16: Base Case – Annual Harvest Area...... 21 Figure 17: Age Class Distribution – Base Case ...... 22 Figure 18: Alternative Harvest Flow Patterns ...... 24 Figure 19: Minimum Harvest Age ...... 25 Figure 20: Managed Stand Yields +/- 10% ...... 26 Figure 21: Natural Stand Yields +/- 10% ...... 27 Figure 22: Seral Stage Objectives ...... 28 Figure 23: Ecosystem Representation Objectives ...... 29 Figure 24: Patch Size Objectives ...... 30 Figure 25: Additional 3.5% WTP Reduction ...... 31 Figure 26: OAF1 @ 0.85 ...... 32 Figure 27: Remove Leader Weevil Impacts ...... 33 Figure 28: Watershed Objectives ...... 34

ACRONYMS

AAC Allowable Annual Cut AU Analysis Unit BEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification BEO Biodiversity Emphasis Option

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Analysis Report

CFLB Crown Forested Land Base ECA Equivalent Clearcut Area ERA Ecosystem Representation Analysis FDU Forest Development Unit FPPR Forest Planning and Practices Regulations FRPA Forest and Range Practices Act FSP Forest Stewardship Plan FSW Fisheries Sensitive Watershed GWM General Wildlife Measure IHL Initial Harvest Level IWA Interior Watershed Assessment IWAP Interior Watershed Assessment Procedures LRDW Land and Resource Data Warehouse LTHL Long-Term Harvest Level M Modification VQO Classification MFLNRO Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations MHA Minimum Harvest Age MOE Ministry of Environment MOF Ministry of Forests MP Management Plan MPB Mountain Pine Beetle NCD No Channel Defined NDT Natural Disturbance Type NRL Non-Recoverable Losses NSR Not Sufficiently Restocked OAF Operational Adjustment Factor OGMA Old Growth Management Areas PFI Peak Flow Index PFLB Productive Forest Land Base PSI Potential Site Index PR Partial Retention VQO Classification RESULTS Reporting Silviculture Updates and Land status Tracking System RMA Riparian Management Area RMZ Riparian Management Zone RRZ Riparian Reserve Zone SPH Stems Per Hectare TEM Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping TFL Tree Farm Licence THLB Timber Harvesting Land Base TIPSY Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields TSA Timber Supply Area TSM Terrain Stability Mapping VDYP Variable Density Yield Prediction Growth and Yield Model VEG Visually Effective Green-up Height VLI Visual Landscape Inventory VQO Visual Quality Objectives VRI Vegetation Resource Inventory VSU Visually Sensitive Unit WTP Wildlife Tree Patch

6.0 INTRODUCTION The timber supply analysis in support of Management Plan #9 (MP9) was completed in 2003, followed by the allowable annual cut (AAC) determination effective July 1st, 2003 in which the AAC was set at 330,000 m3/year.

Canfor has initiated a timber supply analysis in support of Management Plan #10 (MP10) and this document describes the results of the recently completed timber supply analysis for Tree Farm Licence (TFL) #30.

The Tree Farm Licence #30 Management Plan #10 Data Package (Ecora, 2012) was published in July 2012 and contains a detailed description of the data and assumptions used in the timber supply analysis. This document, to be viewed in conjunction with the Data Package, provides the results of the timber supply analysis. Section 4.0 of this report presents the results of the base case analysis and Section 5.0 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis that has been completed.

7.0 LAND BASE DESCRIPTION

Location Tree Farm Licence #30 is located east of Prince George in the Prince George Forest District (Figure 1). The western boundary of the TFL is located near highway 97 at Summit Lake and stretches eastward across the western foothills of the Rocky Mountains, predominantly north of the Fraser River. The TFL covers a total of 180,347 ha and is characterized by a mixture of rolling terrain with steeper slopes towards the Rocky Mountains to the north.

Land Base Classification The land base classification (netdown) process starts with the gross area of the land base and removes area in a stepwise fashion according to detailed classification criteria. A complete description of the data and assumptions used in the analysis is documented in in the Data Package. Through the netdown, area is systematically removed in order to establish both the productive forest and timber harvesting land base (THLB). Table 1 shows the area removed under each netdown category as well as the current and future THLB.

Table 1: Land Base Classification.

Gross Area % of the Included in Land Classification Area (ha) Productive Classification Forest (ha) Total Area 180,347 180,346

Reductions to CFLB -

Non-TFL - 0

Private Land - -

Non-Forest and Non-Productive 19,202 18,915

Existing Roads and Trails 1,960 1,679

Non-Commercial Cover 10,494 5,674

Existing Unmapped Landings 1,252 1,079

Unclassified Lands 958 77

Total Reductions to CFLB 27,425

Productive Forested Land Base (PFLB) 152,921

Reductions to PFLB

Parks and Protected Areas - - 0% Unstable Terrain 3,739 2,729 2% Caribou High Habitat 12,124 8,484 6% Recreation Areas 3,383 830 1% Recreation Sites 24 17 0% Riparian Management 15,117 6,075 4% Special Riparian Areas 4,341 1,033 1% Difficult Regeneration 6,449 871 1% Deciduous Leading Stands 4,653 3,686 2% Non-Merchantable – Mature 16,033 2,896 2% Non-Merchantable – Immature 12,269 2,353 2% Low Productivity – Immature 697 - 0% Wildlife Tree Patches 2,830 1,430 1% Total Reductions to PFLB 30,405 20% Current Timber Harvesting Land Base 122,516 80% Future Roads Reduction 175 171 0% Long-Term Timber Harvesting Land Base 122,345 80%

A map showing the location of the THLB and each netdown category is included in Appendix I

The netdown process also classifies the land base into three broad categories:

Non- Productive: areas that are non-crown or non-forested and unable to grow viable timber; Productive non-THLB: the productive land base that is unlikely to be harvested for reasons such as inoperability or non-timber resource management; and THLB: the productive land base that is expected to be available for harvest over the long-term. Figure 2 shows the distribution of these categories within the TFL. Of the TFL area, 122,345 ha (68% of the total area) falls within the THLB. Of the non-THLB area, 30,405 ha (15% of the total area) is productive forest lands with the remainder in non-productive or non-forested area.

Changes from the Data Package There have been some minor changes to the data and assumptions described in the Data Package. The following reflects changes to netdown assumptions that affect the THLB:

As described in the Data Package, the Phase II VRI Adjustment had not been completed at the time the Data Package was published and therefore the netdown information does not reflect the adjusted inventory attributes. Table 1 shows the final THLB used in the timber supply analysis and considers the Phase II Inventory Adjustment as described below.

A new blocks layer was incorporated, updating logging disturbance to December 1st, 2012 and incorporating new planned blocks into the summer of 2014. This layer also included several older cutblocks that were not included in the initial data set.

The Data Package states that future roads will be removed once they have been harvested for the first time. Due to the relatively small area occupied by future roads, these areas (171 ha) have been netted out at the start and are not available for the initial harvest in the model.

Overall the final THLB is 526 ha larger than what was reported in the Data Package. This is due to the inclusion of additional older cutblocks as well as the impacts of the Phase II VRI adjustment on the netdown (discussed below).

In reviewing the Data Package, MFLRNO staff provided recommendations on changes to how managed stand yield curves are modelled. The Data Package (Table 27) describes the calculation of TEM-based OAF 1 values for each individual site series. These calculations results in some very high OAF values in some of the less productive site series and very low values in some of the more productive site series. In consultation with MFLNRO staff, these values have been averaged for each BEC variant as and applied to the yield tables as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Revised OAF 1 Information

Silviculture BEC THLB NP Default OAF 1 Era Variant Area (ha) Percent OAF 1 d1 SBSvk 246 0.054 0.075 0.87 r1 ESSFwk 708 0.101 0.075 0.82 r1 ICHvk2 1,570 0.043 0.075 0.88 r1 SBSmk1 861 0.022 0.075 0.90 r1 SBSvk 17,990 0.015 0.075 0.91 r1 SBSwk1 10,843 0.049 0.075 0.88 r2 ESSFwk 612 0.118 0.075 0.81 r2 ICHvk2 456 0.056 0.075 0.87 r2 SBSmk1 1,343 0.012 0.075 0.91 r2 SBSvk 4,407 0.019 0.075 0.91 r2 SBSwk1 3,486 0.059 0.075 0.87 Existing Managed Stands 42,522 0.032 0.075 0.89 r3 ESSFwk 4,524 0.094 0.075 0.83 r3 ICHvk2 7,810 0.037 0.075 0.89 r3 SBSmk1 5,209 0.015 0.075 0.91 r3 SBSvk 58,862 0.016 0.075 0.91 r3 SBSwk1 45,940 0.056 0.075 0.87 Future Managed Stands 122,345 0.035 0.075 0.89 In addition a sensitivity analysis using default OAF 1 values of 0.85 has been completed and is reported in Section 0.

The impacts of leader weevil on the plantations has been modelled through the application of additional regeneration delay values based on the estimated weevil attack percentages as shown in Section 5.4 of the Data Package. The values reported Table 26 of the Data Package represent the expected additional regeneration delay for the spruce component of each managed stand yield table. However, because TIPSY is unable to apply different regeneration delays to individual species within the same curve, these values were pro-rated by the percentage of spruce within each curve and then applied to the entire curve. This approach was reviewed with MFLRNO staff and was accepted as a reasonable approximation of weevil impacts.

Vegetation Resource Inventory The Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) was completed in 2000 using 1995 photos. This inventory has been updated for logging disturbances to December 1st, 2012 and has been projected to January 1st 2013. The inventory has been adjusted according to the VRI Sample Data Analysis Procedures and Standards (MOF, 2011) using 215 Phase II VRI plots established between 1997 and 2011. The results of the Phase II VRI analysis and adjustment are described in Tree Farm Licence #30 Management Plan #10 Inventory Analysis (Ecora, 2012).

The Phase II VRI adjustment was completed after the original data package was published. Once the Phase II VRI adjustment was complete, the netdown was re-run using the adjusted inventory attributes. Overall, the THLB increased by 298 ha as a result of the Phase II adjustment, with the non- merchantable-mature netdown decreasing by 553 ha and the non-merchantable-immature netdown increasing by 262 ha. There are some small changes in subsequent netdown steps that make up the difference in area.

Phase II VRI Adjustment The Phase II VRI adjustment process uses randomly located plot data to statistically adjust Phase I inventory age, height, stems per hectare, basal area and volume per hectare estimates based on Phase II ground sample data. As shown in Table 3, the adjustment decreased overall stand volumes by approximately 3.1% with significant variations between strata. Average age decreased slightly and average height increased, resulting in a higher average inventory site index. Basal area and stems per hectare decreased with variations from strata to strata.

Table 3: Inventory Analysis Results

Balsam- Balsam- Other- Other- Spruce- Spruce- Overall Immature Mature Immature Mature Immature Mature N 32 37 6 13 12 115 215 Total Area 15,863 21,791 3,961 7,144 6,726 52,304 107,789 % of Land Base 15% 20% 4% 7% 6% 49%

Age (years) n 30 35 6 12 12 103 198 Phase II Ground 114 160.1 131.8 118.9 106.9 147.9 129.4 Phase I Inventory 81 167.9 89.0 153.5 88.9 165.7 133.5 Ratio 1.4179 0.9537 1.4812 0.7746 1.2022 0.8922 0.9699 Sampling Error 20.0% 10.9% 23.4% 20.4% 15.3% 5.8% 5.6% Height (m) n 29 35 6 12 12 103 197 Phase II Ground 19 27.5 23.4 28.2 24.4 29.0 24.5 Phase I Inventory 15 27.9 19.5 28.8 18.5 30.2 24.1 Ratio 1.2562 0.9849 1.2022 0.9809 1.3135 0.9591 1.0156 Sampling Error 11.5% 7.0% 25.1% 15.0% 10.5% 3.8% 3.4% Basal Area (m2/ha) @7.5 cm+ dbh n 32 37 6 13 12 115 215 Phase II Ground 30 33.0 42.4 29.8 30.1 33.5 32.7 Phase I Inventory 24 34.4 35.2 41.5 27.8 35.7 33.6 Ratio 1.2192 0.9599 1.2069 0.7184 1.0825 0.9385 0.9725 Sampling Error 17.0% 11.9% 27.9% 23.5% 27.5% 6.7% 5.6% Trees / ha @ 7.5cm+ dbh n 32 37 6 13 12 115 215 Phase II Ground 1,080 517 969 452 946 574 667 Phase I Inventory 1,501 951 1,127 849 1,306 821 991 Ratio 0.7196 0.5434 0.8600 0.5329 0.7242 0.6987 0.6727 Sampling Error 22.4% 19.6% 29.4% 70.2% 33.4% 13.8% 9.6% Unadjusted Volume / ha (m3/ha) @ 12.5 cm+ dbh (net dbw) n 31 37 6 13 12 115 214 Phase II Ground 169 256 255 224 187 264 240 Phase I Inventory 94 251 157 301 137 306 247 Ratio 1.7407 1.0199 1.6280 0.7466 1.3646 0.8626 0.9698 Sampling Error 24.6% 13.1% 44.3% 24.7% 44.2% 8.1% 8.4% Attribute Adjusted Volume / ha (m3/ha) @ 12.5 cm+ dbh (net dbw) n 28 37 6 12 12 115 210 Phase II Ground 169 256.1 255.0 224.4 186.7 263.9 239.8 Phase I Inventory 144 229.7 216.1 204.7 197.2 252.9 224.1 Ratio 1.1353 1.1151 1.1799 1.0960 0.9467 1.0434 1.0697 Sampling Error 21.4% 12.8% 42.5% 24.6% 38.2% 7.9% 6.5% Lorey Height (m) n 31 37 6 13 12 115 214 Phase II Ground 17 22.3 20.6 25.9 19.8 23.8 21.8 Phase I Inventory 16 22.5 19.1 24.9 19.1 23.6 21.5 Ratio 1.0790 0.9920 1.0799 1.0391 1.0362 1.0057 1.0163 Sampling Error 9.8% 7.7% 30.4% 13.3% 19.8% 4.8% 3.7% Leading Species Figure 3 show the productive non-THLB and THLB areas by leading species. Most of the stands within the THLB are either spruce or balsam-leading. Deciduous-leading stands have been netted out of the THLB. There are approximately 6,021 hectares of THLB in the VRI with no leading species information. All of these stands have logging history information and have been assigned to a managed stand yield curve based on the stand’s predominant site series. Ages for these stands have been adjusted based on the logging year information.

Inventory Site Index Figure 4 shows a summary of the adjusted inventory site index for the TFL with the majority of the THLB between 15 and 18 m. Similar to the stands without a leading species, stands that were recently harvested at the time the inventory was completed do not have site index information and are identified as ‘NONE’. As managed stands, these areas will utilize SIBEC site index estimates (see below).

Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) The TFL is located in the western foothills of the Rocky Mountains and experiences heavy snowfall through the winter and substantial summer rain. Consequently the TFL is dominated by the very wet and wet-cool variants of the Sub Boreal Spruce (SBS) BEC zones as shown in Figure 5. Minor components of the Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) and Engelman Spruce Sub-Alpine Fir (ESSF) zones also exist.

Site Index Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) across the TFL facilitates the use of Site Index by Biogeoclimatic Classification (SIBEC) estimates as measures of managed stand productivity. Inventory site index values are used for natural stands. Figure 6 shows the distribution of SIBEC values across the productive land base.

Figure 7 shows the combination of SIBEC site index for existing managed stands and inventory site index for natural stands. With a long history of forest management on the TFL a large percentage is considered to be managed and utilizes SIBEC values.

Harvest History and Age Class Distribution With the success of fire suppression across the province and a lack of large natural stand replacing events on this land base, the age class distribution of the forest is largely influenced by harvest history. Figure 8 summarizes the THLB and non-THLB by the decade of harvesting activities showing a history of forest management back into the 1940s. Harvesting activity on the TFL peaked in the 1980’s and has gradually declined over the past three decades.

The current age class distribution of the forest is shown in Figure 9 with the area in age classes one and two largely a product of past harvesting activity. The predominance of age class eight stands demonstrates the rarity of large stand replacing events within these ecosystems. A shortage of age class nine stands in the TFL suggests that they have all been logged, they are not part of the natural range of variability for these ecosystems or, the current inventory has not adequately identify these stands. Targets for old seral retention in many of the wetter subzones (ICHvk2, ESSFwk2, and SBSvk) are based on maintaining stands older than 250 years meaning that all these targets are currently in a deficit.

8.0 BASE CASE TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS The base case represents the best representation of ‘current management’ on the TFL. It contains the data and assumptions that combine to form our best estimate of timber supply on the TFL. Recognizing that uncertainty exists in both data and assumptions we undertake sensitivity analysis to attempt to quantify the impact of this uncertainty on the overall harvest level for the TFL.

This section presents the results of the base case timber supply analysis and provides background information on different aspects of the timber supply. The base case and all sensitivity analysis has been carried out using the forest estate model Patchworks. All harvest levels reported are net of non- recoverable losses. The forest estate model uses five-year planning periods over a 250-year planning horizon.

Harvest Forecast Figure 10 shows the base case harvest forecast over the 250-year planning horizon. The harvest level starts at approximately 420,000 m3/yr, staying at roughly the same level for 45 years before increasing the to the long-term harvest level (LTHL) of approximately 545,000 m3/yr. Targets in Patchworks are not generally absolute – the levels of targets such as harvest volume are allowed to vary somewhat from the target value and therefore harvest levels may vary from period to period. Therefore, harvest volumes for each scenario have been summarized as average values for the first 45 years and from year 46 to year 250. Table 4 shows the average harvest levels over these periods for the base case.

Table 4: Base Case Harvest Forecast

Base Case Years m3/yr 1 to 45 419,720 46 to 250 544,792 Total merchantable growing stock on the THLB is shown in Figure 11. The starting growing stock of approximately 16 million m3 decreases as the older, existing natural stand growing stock is harvested.

The growing stock reaches its lowest point at year 25. At this point much of the existing natural growing stock has been harvested and many of the future managed stands have not yet reached harvestable age. Harvesting is most constrained at this point in time and this represents the ‘pinch point’ in the harvest schedule. As the more productive managed stands grow and become harvestable the growing stock begins to rise, facilitating the increase in the harvest level to the LTHL in year 46.

Management Plan #9 Comparison The timber supply analysis for Management Plan #9 (MP9) was completed in 2002 (McGregor Resource Analysis Group Ltd.) and produced a base case harvest level of approximately 350,000 m3/yr for the first year (2001). The harvest level then drops to approximately 285,000 m3/yr for the next nine years. The harvest level then declines by approximately 10% per decade until reaching a low of approximately 194,000 m3/yr in 2032. The harvest level then increases over time until it reaches a long-term harvest level of approximately 509,000 m3/yr. This differs considerably from the Management Plan #10 base case where the initial harvest level of 420,000 m3/yr remains relatively constant for the first 45 years of the planning horizon before increasing to the long-term level of approximately 544,000 m3/yr. These two harvest forecasts are shown in Figure 12 and have been shifted to account for the different start date of each analysis. On average, the MP9 Base Case harvest level is approximately 46% lower for the first 50 years and 10% lower for the remaining 200 years.

There are number of factors contributing to the higher MP10 harvest levels. The following sections identify how differences in management policy, data and assumptions as well as analysis methodology have contributed to this increase in harvest level.

Timber Harvesting Land Base Overall, the long-term THLB for the MP9 analysis is 5,393 ha (4.4%) less than this analysis. This is attributable to several small changes in data and netdown assumptions. Changes in data as well as differences in how the netdown was applied make it difficult to quantify the exact differences in each netdown category. The order in which each netdown has been applied is different and therefore the area available for a specific netdown is different.

Generally speaking the non-merchantable (or minimum economic yield) and wildlife tree patch reductions represent the largest differences in netdowns. The assumptions for the non-merchantable netdown are very similar to the MP9 analysis however, this analysis applies the netdown to the Phase II adjusted VRI whereas the MP9 analysis uses the unadjusted inventory. Furthermore, inventory volumes for this analysis were developed using VDYP version 7 while the MP9 inventory volumes came from VDYP version 6. The volume and age adjustments and the use of a different growth and yield model both have an impact on the amount of area removed under this category with approximately 12,000 ha less removed in this analysis. However, it is important to consider the fact that this netdown was applied as one of the first steps in the MP9 netdown but was applied as one of the last netdowns in MP10, contributing significantly to this difference. This significant difference impacts the area available for many of the subsequent netdown steps.

Under MP9, Canfor was required to maintain approximately 9% of the harvest blocks in wildlife tree patches (WTP). Under its current FSP, Canfor has committed to maintaining 3.5% of the gross cutblock area in WTP (7% annual average). Consequently, less area has been removed for WTP in this analysis, contributing to the larger THLB.

Model Constraints The management for non-timber objectives through constraints on harvest in the forest estate model can have a significant impact on harvest levels throughout the planning horizon. As discussed below, the impact of these constraints are generally more pronounced in simulation models versus optimization model due to the ability of optimization model to plan for “pinch points” in the harvest

schedule. There are several differences in how non-timber objectives have been accounted for in this analysis versus the MP9 analysis.

Patch Size In the MP9 analysis, the removal of patch size objectives increases the short-term harvest level by an average of 99,000 m3/yr (38%). The MP10 Base Case harvest level does not include patch size objectives. Comparing these two scenarios shows that the MP9 – No Patch Size scenario is on average, 94,000 m3/yr (22%) less than the MP10 Base Case in the first 50 years and 44,000 m3/yr (8%) less for the remainder of the planning horizon.

Seral Stage The MP9 Data Package outlines a detailed process used to identify potential old growth management areas (OGMA) on the TFL in order to fulfill old seral objectives however it does not specify whether the 2/3 draw down was used to identify OGMA or how or if these areas were incorporated into the timber supply analysis. There is no netdown specified for OGMA and therefore we must assume that harvesting was excluded from these areas. If this is the case then the application of spatial OGMA will be more restrictive than the non-spatial old seral targets used in MP9 and will contribute to the lower harvest levels. If the 2/3 draw down to seral stage target values was not used then the seral stage targets will have been significantly more constraining as is shown in our sensitivity analysis around this factor as described in Section 0 below.

Caribou Corridors The MP9 Data Package specifies 20 different corridor unit / BEC subzone combinations and applies a minimum retention constraint of 70% mature (either > 100 years or > 120 years depending on BEC unit) whereas this analysis applies minimum retention targets of 20% > 100 years and maximum disturbance constraints of 20% < 3m to three different ungulate winter range (UWR) units as per UWR order #U-7-003. In is not clear whether the new caribou data represents a larger area than the MP9 analysis but the constraints used in MP9 are significantly more constraining than the MP10 UWR corridor constraints.

Managed Stand Yields The following outlines some of the differences in managed stand yield assumption between MP9 and MP10 that contribute to increased MP10 harvest levels. Changes to managed stand yield assumptions do not generally affect the short-term harvest level as these stands are generally not available for harvest until several decades into the planning horizon. However, due to the long history of forest management on the TFL, many of the managed stands are currently between 20 and 30 years of age and may become harvestable in the next 30 to 50 years.

Leader Weevil Assumptions Management Plan #9 applied yield curve volume reductions of 6.2% for existing managed stands and 4.9% for future managed stands to approximate the impacts of White Pine Leader Weevil on spruce plantations. In reviewing these assumptions in consultation with MFLNRO staff it was determined that the application of a regeneration delay to affected stands was more appropriate than a yield curve volume reduction. Based on this, an approach was developed in consultation with MFLNRO staff to calculate the regeneration delay attributable to leader weevil impacts and apply this to the spruce component of managed stand yields impacted by weevil.

Genetic Gains In MP9 a 17.9% genetic gain was applied to the spruce component of managed stand yields. Since then the genetic gains on spruce have improved to 28%. In MP10, a genetic gain of 19% has been applied to the spruce component of stands harvest between 1998 and 2008 and a gain of 28% has been applied to stands harvested after 2008. A small genetic gain has also been applied to pine however, the impact of this is minimal.

Fertilization RESULTS records show that approximately 1,863 ha have been fertilized since 2006 and has been modelled accordingly in MP10 with a corresponding increase in managed stand yields. There was no fertilization applied to the MP9 analysis.

Historic Harvest Levels Annual harvest levels for the last 12 years were compiled from a combination of the Harvest Billing System (HBS) and annual cut control (CC) statements as shown in Table 5. These figures are also shown in Figure 12 and demonstrate that harvest levels on the TFL since the last timber supply analysis have been substantially lower than the current AAC and lower than the projected harvest levels from the last analysis. In total there is approximately 2.5 million m3 forecasted in the MP9 analysis but not actually harvested (undercut). If harvested over the next 45 years this undercut volume represents an additional 55,600 m3/yr that is available to the model and contributes, along with the factor mentioned above, to the higher short-term harvest levels in MP10.

Table 5: Recent Harvest History

Harvest Year Volume Source (m3) 2001 192,311 HBS 2002 396,827 HBS 2003 300,260 HBS 2004 201,714 HBS 2005 41,506 CC Statement 2006 46,218 CC Statement 2007 152,922 CC Statement 2008 110,866 CC Statement 2009 4,324 CC Statement 2010 62,680 CC Statement 2011 54,755 CC Statement 2012 311,756 HBS Total 1,876,139

Annual Average 156,345

Forest Estate Model According to the MP9 Analysis Report (McGregor Resource Analysis Group Ltd. 2002) the timber supply analysis was carried out using the spatial simulation model FPS / ATLAS. Because it is a spatial simulation model, harvest scheduling decisions are made on a period by period basis with little or no consideration into how decisions in one period might affect the available harvest volume in other periods. As additional constraints are applied to the model, the ability of a simulation model to maintain harvest levels is further compromised. This is exemplified in the difference between the long-run sustained yield and the actual harvest levels as shown in Figure 13 of the MP9 Analysis Report where the LTHL is almost 280,000 m3/yr (35%) below the long-run sustained yield (LRSY). In comparison, the LTHL for this analysis is only 208,000 m3/yr (28%) below LRSY.

Patchworks, a spatially explicit optimization model, examines the overall impact of harvest scheduling decisions across all periods and can evaluate tradeoffs based on their effect on the overall harvest level. In doing so, the model is able to overcome temporary shortages in available volume that simulation models cannot. Because Patchworks is a fully spatial model we are able to evaluate and implement these harvest schedules on the ground.

The initial ten years of spatial harvest schedules (SHS) from this analysis have undergone a preliminary review from an operational perspective. This review has confirmed that, in a general sense, the harvest schedule is operationally feasible. Furthermore, some harvest blocks from the SHS have already been modified slightly and incorporated in the current operational plan for the TFL.

Base Case Harvest Characteristics Figure 13 shows the distribution of the harvest volume between natural and managed stands. For the first 45 year harvesting is almost exclusively in natural stands. It quickly transitions to managed stands over the next 20 years. Some existing natural stands do not get harvested for over 100 years because they are needed to meet old seral and other non-timber objectives.

Figure 14 shows how average harvest age changes over the planning horizon. It starts at approximately 170 years of age and remains relatively constant over the next 25 years as existing natural stands are harvested. As harvest transitions into younger, more productive managed stands the average harvest age drops to between 60 and 90 years of age.

As shown in Figure 15, average volume per hectare starts off just below 300 m3/ha. As harvest moves into more productive managed stands, the average harvest volume per hectare increases to around 400 m3/ha.

Figure 16 shows that, in the base case, the average area harvested per year generally remains between 1,200 ha and 1,500 ha per year.

Age Class Distribution The age class graphs shown in Figure 17 describe the changing age class distribution of the forest over the 250-year planning horizon. Initially the age class distribution is skewed toward the oldest and youngest stands with very little area in age classes four to seven. As time progresses a more even age class distribution is created. Natural disturbances have been applied to the non-THLB portion of the land base and therefore we can see that these stands do not continually age throughout the planning horizon.

9.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity analysis provides information on the degree to which uncertainty in the base case data and assumptions might affect the proposed harvest level for the land base. The magnitude of the change in the sensitivity variable(s) reflects the degree of risk associated with a particular uncertainty – a very uncertain variable that has minimal impact on the harvest forecast represents a low risk. By developing and testing a number of sensitivity issues, it is possible to determine which variables most affect results and provide information to guide management decisions in consideration of uncertainty.

Each of the sensitivities shown in Table 49 test the impact of a specific variable (or variables) with impacts measured relative to the base case harvest forecast.

Table 6: Sensitivity Analyses.

Sensitivity Range Tested

Increase initial harvest level Alternate Harvest Flow No increase harvest level Maintain initial harvest level 120 m3/ha 3 Minimum Harvest Age 180 m /ha 200 m3/ha Managed Stand Yield +/- 10% Stand Volume Natural Stand Yields +/- 10% Examine impact of full old retention targets (no draw down) Old Seral Retention Reduce old seral age from 250 years to 140.

Ecosystem Representation Enforce draft ERA targets as defined Analysis (ERA) Targets in Canfor’s SFM Plan for the TFL. Patch Size Objectives Enforce as targets in the model. Operational Adjustment Factor Use OAF1 value of 0.85 (OAF Apply an additional 3.5% WTP Wildlife Tree Patches (WTP) reduction Leader Weevil Remove Leader Weevil Impacts Remove Watershed Objectives Watershed Objectives Remove Fisheries Sensitive Watershed (FSW) Objectives

Alternative Harvest Flow Patterns The goal of the base case harvest forecast is to maintain a non-declining harvest level for as long as possible before increasing to a sustainable LTHL. The scenarios in Figure 18 and Table 7 show the impacts of alternate harvest flow patterns. The Evenflow scenario maintains the same harvest level over the 250-year planning horizon. As discussed above, the harvest pinch point occurs around year 25 and therefore this represents a low point in the harvest schedule of approximately 421,000 m3/yr. In the Increase Initial Harvest Level (IHL) scenario, the initial harvest level can be increased to approximately 469,000 m3/yr, gradually decreasing to a low point of approximately 389,000 m3/yr in year 40 before increasing the LTHL. The values in Table 7 show the average harvest levels over the

first 45 years and from year 46 to year 250 and provide a comparison of each scenario relative to the base case.

Table 7: Alternate Harvest Flow Patterns

Base Case Evenflow Increased IHL Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 421,353 0% 424,990 1% 46 to 250 544,792 421,360 -23% 529,105 -3%

Minimum Harvest Age For the base case, the minimum harvest age (MHA) was set at the earliest point where stand volume reaches 140 m3/ha and 95% of culmination MAI is achieved. For this set of scenarios the volume per hectare limit was adjusted to 120, 180 and 200 m3/ha. As shown in Figure 19 and Table 8, increasing the minimum volume requirement to 180 m3/ha and 200 m3/ha drops both the short and long-term harvest levels by 2% and 4% respectively. There is no significant change in harvest levels when the limit is reduced to 120 m3/ha due to the fact that the culmination MAI , not volume per hectare, determines the minimum harvestable age in this scenario.

Table 8: Minimum Harvest Ages

Base Case 120 m3/ha MHA 180 m3/ha MHA 200 m3/ha MHA Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 420,869 0% 411,028 -2% 401,257 -4% 46 to 250 544,792 545,781 0% 532,344 -2% 522,149 -4%

Natural and Managed Stand Yields Figure 20 and Table 9 show the impact on timber supply if managed stand yields are increased and decreased by 10%. Decreasing managed stand yields does not immediately decrease harvest because the natural stands make up majority of the harvest schedule for the first 45 years of the planning horizon. Long-term harvest levels fall by 10% on average. When managed stand yield are increased by 10%, there is a 9% increase in the average LTHL.

Table 9: Managed Stand Yields +/- 10%

Managed Stand Yields Managed Stand Yields - Base Case Years +10% 10% m3/yr m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 429,700 2% 411,231 -2% 46 to 250 544,792 596,301 9% 490,411 -10%

Figure 21 and Table 10 demonstrate that the average short-term harvest level increases by 9% when natural stand yields are increased and decreases by 8% when natural stand yields are decreased. Expectedly, there is no significant change in the average LTHL from either of these scenarios.

Table 10: Natural Stand Yields +/- 10%

Natural Stand Yields Base Case Natural Stand Yields -10% Years +10% m3/yr m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 457,164 9% 384,620 -8% 46 to 250 544,792 545,927 0% 543,250 0%

Old Seral Objectives There are no legally established OGMA on the TFL and therefore landscape level biodiversity is modelled aspatially through a set of retention constraints applied at the landscape unit / BEC variant level. In the base case a 2/3 drawdown to the full seral stage targets is enforced with old seral defined as greater than 250 years of age in the ICHvk2, ESSFwk2, and SBSvk variants and greater than 140 years in the remaining BEC variants. As shown in the age class graph in Figure 9 above there is very little area in age class nine (>250 years) and therefore many of the older seral targets are currently in a deficit.

The Old Age 140 scenario shown in Figure 22 and Table 11 demonstrates that reducing the old seral age to 140 years for all BEC variants increases the initial harvest level by approximately 17,000 m3/yr (4%) for the first 45 years with a small increase over the long-term.

A second scenario examines the impact of modelling the full seral stage requirements by removing the 2/3 drawdown on these targets. This scenario uses the base case seral stage age definitions (>250 years in the ICHvk2, ESSFwk2, and SBSvk variants) and shows the application of the full seral targets has a significant negative impact on both the short (18%) and long-term harvest levels (6%).

Table 11: Seral Stage Objectives

Base Case Old Age @ 140 No Seral Draw Down Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 437,449 4% 346,197 -18% 46 to 250 544,792 547,901 1% 514,429 -6%

Ecosystem Representation Analysis An ecosystem representation analysis (ERA) was conducted in 2011 as part of Canfor’s Prince George / TFL30 Sustainable Forest Management Plan. The objective of the ERA is to provide a coarse-filter tool for biodiversity conservation, by spatially identifying potentially rare ecosystems that are then field- confirmed and reserved from harvest, if assessed as a good representation of the ecosystem by a qualified professional.

This scenario examines the timber supply impact of applying a retention target (minimum of 20% greater than 250 years) to all ecosystem groups identified as ‘rare’ in the ERA. As shown in Figure 23 and Table 12 there is little or no impact of applying these retention targets.

Table 12: Ecosystem Representation Objectives

Base Case ERA (>20% old) Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 417,058 -1% 46 to 250 544,792 543,958 0%

Patch Size Objectives Canfor’s Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) identifies targets for patch size distribution by landscape unit (LU) and natural disturbance type (NDT) groups. The FSP states that, “

a very fluid process, as certain rates of harvest must be maintained in order to create the desired distributions and the ability to achieve a certain patch size distribution is greatly influenced by past harvesting practices as well as past and future natural disturbances. Patch size distribution is monitored annually and reported as part of the Annual Report for the Prince George/TFL30 Sustainable Forest Management Plan, with the results being used to guide operational plans.

For the base case, the patch size objectives from Table 36 have been monitored but not enforced as hard targets. These targets are applied to patches less than 20 years age. In order to be considered part of the same patch, two polygons must have their closest point less than 20 m apart.

Table 13: Patch Size Objectives.

Target Patch Size Patch Size Landscape Unit Distribution Category Class (ha) Range (%) Small < 40 10 – 20 Averil (grouped into Medium 40 – 250 10 – 20 NDT 3) Large 250 – 1000 60 – 80 Extra Large > 1000 0 Small < 40 30 – 40 Seebach (grouped Medium 40 – 80 30 – 40 into NDT 2) Large 80 – 250 20 – 40 Extra Large > 250 0 Small < 40 30 – 40 Woodall (grouped Medium 40 – 80 30 – 40 into NDT 1,2) Large 80 – 250 20 – 40 Extra Large > 250 0 Figure 24 and Table 14 show that the application of the full patch size targets results in an average decrease in timber supply in the short-term of 3% with a 4% long-term decrease. Because patch size targets are applied to stands less than 20 years of age, the model must increase the harvest level in the first period in order to achieve the targets as soon as possible. When the targets are relaxed slightly, patch size targets are achieved over a longer period of time and the timber supply impact is reduced to almost nil.

Table 14: Patch Size Objectives

Base Case Patch Size Targets Relaxed Patch Size Targets Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 408,509 -3% 421,324 0% 46 to 250 544,792 523,997 -4% 538,503 -1%

Wildlife Tree Patches With respect to stand-level biodiversity and wildlife tree patches (WTP), Canfor’s FSP commits to ensuring that at least 7% of the total area of cutblocks harvested over a 12 month period will be covered by wildlife tree retention and that at least 3.5% of each individual cut block will be covered by wildlife tree retention. Operationally, retention requirements are first met using portions of the stand that don’t typically contribute to timber supply (riparian areas, deciduous stands, unstable terrain, non- merchantable areas, and retention for visual quality and wildlife habitat). Existing wildlife tree patches (WTP) represent 2,830 ha within the TFL and have been removed from the THLB.

A review of the portion of the productive forest that will require future WTP shows that 21.3% of this area is non-THLB indicating that there is sufficient non-THLB to fulfill future WTP requirements without the need for an additional netdown to address this. Even if we exclude large contiguous netdowns (i.e. caribou high habitat) based on the assumption that this area will only contribute to meeting WTP requirements in blocks directly adjacent to it, the proportion of productive non-THLB within the remainder of the land base is approximately 16.5% non-THLB. This information strongly suggests that future WTP requirements will be met without removing additional area from the THLB.

Furthermore, management for old forest objectives, visual quality and other habitat requirements increase the amount of stand level retention and contribute to meeting WTP requirements without removing additional areas from the THLB.

However, given this information, Figure 25 and Table 15 show that applying an additional 3.5% WTP netdown results in a 4% reduction in the initial harvest level and a 3% reduction in the average LTHL.

Table 15: Additional 3.5% WTP Reduction

Base Case Add 3.5% WTP Reduction Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 403,693 -4% 46 to 250 544,792 527,768 -3%

Operational Adjustment Factor Operational Adjustment Factors (OAF) are applied to managed stand yield curves to adjust the curve to account for stands not realizing the full volume potential indicated by TIPSY. OAF 1 is used to represent reduced yield due to gaps in stocking; and OAF2 is used to represent decay and losses due to disease and pest. OAF1 is a constant reduction factor that shifts the yield curve down whereas the influence of OAF2 increases with age and therefore alters the shape of the curve.

Under the MP9 analysis an average OAF 1 value of 14.6% was calculated using a 7.5 % default OAF 1 value and adding the percentage of the THLB occupied by non-productive site series from the TEM. A similar approach has been used for base case in this analysis, calculating the non-productive portion for each productive site series as shown in Table 2.

Figure 26 and Table 16 show the impact of using the default OAF 1 value of 0.85 as opposed to the TEM-based OAF 1 estimates. Because OAF 1 values only affect managed stand yields there is very little impact in the short-term. The average LTHL is 3% lower when the default OAF 1 estimates are used.

Table 16: OAF1 @ 0.85

Base Case OAF1 @ 0.85 Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 416,340 -1% 46 to 250 544,792 520,649 -4%

Leader Weevil White pine leader weevil attacks the newly formed leaders of young spruce trees. Depending on the attack intensity and frequency, the attacks will destroy the current year’s growth and reduce the overall wood quality for the years it affects. The impacts of leader weevil on the plantations has been modelled through the application of additional regeneration delay values based on the estimated weevil attack percentages as shown in Section 5.4 of the Data Package. The values reported Table 26 of the Data Package represent the expected additional regeneration delay for the spruce component of each managed stand yield table and have been pro-rated based on the spruce percentage within each yield curve and then applied to the curve in TIPSY.

Figure 27 and Table 17 show that removing the additional regeneration delay’s used to account for leader weevil result in an 8% increase in the short-term harvest level. The slight decrease in the LTHL is attributable to the increase in harvest volume in the short-term.

Table 17: Remove Leader Weevil Impacts

Base Case No Weevil Impacts Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 451,661 8% 46 to 250 544,792 541,570 -1%

Watershed Objectives Watershed objectives in the base case are modelled through the application of peak flow index (PFI) targets applied to each watershed. These targets include enhanced PFI threshold values in the Seebach Creek watershed as prescribed in the draft fisheries sensitive watershed order for the Seebach Creek watershed. The scenarios shown in Figure 28 and Table 18 explore the impact of

removing the FSW objectives as well as the PFI targets themselves and demonstrate that these objectives do not have a significant impact on timber supply.

Table 18: Watershed Objectives

Base Case No Watershed Constraints Remove FSW Constraints Years m3/yr m3/yr % Change m3/yr % Change 1 to 45 419,720 420,661 0% 419,753 0% 46 to 250 544,792 545,628 0% 545,508 0%

10.0 DISCUSSION The role of the base case in timber supply analysis is to present the set of data and assumptions that best reflects current management on the TFL. The base case harvest forecast presented above provides the best representation of timber supply on the TFL over the next 250 years. This scenario demonstrates that the land base can support a harvest level of approximately 420,000 m3/yr over the next 45 years before increasing to a sustainable long-term harvest level of approximately 545,000 m3/yr.

The initial harvest level of 420,000 m3/yr represents a substantial increase over the base case harvest forecast from MP9 and the AAC of 330,000 m3/yr. This increase can be attributed to the following factors:

An increase in the THLB of approximately 5,400 ha (4%) over the THLB from MP9.

An accumulated undercut of almost 2.5 million m3 over the last 10 years, representing an increase in the short-term annual harvest level of approximately 55,600 m3/yr (over a 45 year period).

Removal of patch size objectives from the base case in MP9 resulted in an average increase of almost 99,000 m3/yr (38%) over the first 80 years of the planning horizon. We have not included patch size objectives in the MP10 base case but have demonstrated through sensitivity analysis that these objectives can be achieved over time without impacting the harvest level.

Modification to management objectives for seral stage2 and caribou corridors have allowed for increased harvest.

The application of improved assumptions on the impacts of leader weevil, the application of improved genetic gains estimates and the application of a fertilization program in the TFL have all contributed towards higher managed stand yield estimates.

The use of a spatially explicit optimization model in MP10 has likely increased harvest levels over MP9. Timber supply analysis for MP9 was conducted using a simulation model that can have difficulty achieving optimal harvest schedules, especially in a highly constrained land base. This is supported by the fact that the LRSY for the TFL has not substantially increased in MP10 however the ability of the model to schedule that volume has dramatically increased. Furthermore, the significant increase in harvest from removing patch size targets in MP9 further suggests that the model has difficulty with these types of constraints.

Sensitivity analysis seeks to quantify the degree to which uncertainty in data and assumptions might affect timber supply. Table 19 shows a summary of the harvest impacts of each scenario relative to the base case.

Table 19: Summary of Analysis Results

2 It is not clear from MP9 documentation as to whether the 2/3 draw down to the seral stage targets was applied. We have assumed that the full seral stage targets were enforced in the MP9 base case.

Years 1 to 45 Years 46 to 250 Scenario % % m3/yr m3/yr Change Change Base Case 419,720 544,792

11.0 REFERENCES Alfaro, R.I., 1994. The white pine weevil in British Columbia: biology and damage. Symposium on the White Pine Weevil: Biology, Damage and Management. Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre, Richmond, British Columbia, pp. 7–22. Beaudry and Associates. 1998. Watershed Assessment and Sediment Source Survey for TFL 30. 446p. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1995. Biodiversity Guidebook. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.Strategic Planning Regulations.Operational Planning Regulation. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/biodiv/biotoc.htm British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1999. Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook. Second Edition, August 1999. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2003 Tree Farm Licence 30 – Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination – Effective July 1, 2003. 40pp. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2008. Prince George Timber Supply Area – Timber Supply Review – Data Package. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2011. Prince George Timber Supply Area – Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination. British Columbia Forest Service. 2011. Provincial-Level Projection of the Current Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak: Update of the infestation projection based on the 2010 Provincial Aerial Overview of Forest Health and the BCMPB model (year 8). 15pp. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. 2006. CSA – SFM Sustainable Forest Management Plan for Canfor’s TFL 30 – Prince George Operations. Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. 2010. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Draft 2 Type 2 Silviculture Strategy Data Package. Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. 2010. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Draft 2 Type 2 Silviculture Strategy Analysis Report. J.S. Thrower and Associates Ltd. 2000. Potential Site Index Estimates for the Major Commercial Tree Species on TFL 30. March 31, 2000. 27pp. McGregor Resource Analysis Group Ltd. 2001. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Management Plan No. 9 – Timber Supply Analysis Data Inputs and Assumptions Report. 176p McGregor Resource Analysis Group Ltd. 2002. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Management Plan No. 9 – Timber Supply Analysis Report. 80pp; Taylor, S.P., Alfaro, R.I., DeLong, C., Rankin, L., 1996. The effects of overstory shading on white pine weevil damage to white spruce and its effects on spruce growth rates. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26, 306–312. Taylor, S.P. 1997. Relationships between white spruce vulnerability of the white pine weevil and ecological site conditions in the interior of British Columbia. Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies. Univ. Northern British Columbia. 75 p.

Appendix I – Netdown Map A PDF map of the netdown areas can be downloaded here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24626685/netdown.pdf

12.0 APPENDIX B - ACCEPTED TIMBER SUPPLY DATA PACKAGE

TREE FARM LICENCE #30 MANAGEMENT PLAN #10

TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS DATA PACKAGE

Prepared for:

Canadian Forest Products Ltd

All interested parties are invited to view and comment on the Draft Timber Supply Analysis Data Package for MP 10, from August 1st 2012 through to October 1st 2012. Comments will be accepted until 4:00 pm October 1st 2012. For further information, please contact:

Sara Cotter, RPF Planning Forester, Forest Management Group Canadian Forest Products Ltd. P.O. Box 9000, Prince George BC V2L 4W2

[email protected] (250) 962-3398

Prepared by:

Resource Group Ltd. Prince George, BC

July 2012

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND 1 2.0 LAND BASE INFORMATION AND DATA 2 3.0 TIMBER HARVESTING LAND BASE DEFINITION 4 3.1 Non-TFL ...... 5 3.2 Private Land ...... 5 3.3 Non-Forest and Non-Productive ...... 5 3.4 Existing and Future Roads and Trails ...... 6 3.5 Non-Commercial Cover ...... 8 3.6 Existing Unmapped Landings ...... 8 3.7 Unclassified Lands ...... 9 3.8 Productive Forest Land Base (PFLB) ...... 9 3.9 Parks and Protected Areas ...... 9 3.10 Unstable Terrain ...... 9 3.11 Caribou High Habitat ...... 9 3.12 Recreation Areas...... 9 3.13 Recreation Sites ...... 10 3.14 Riparian Areas ...... 10 3.15 Special Riparian Areas ...... 12 3.16 Difficult Regeneration ...... 12 3.17 Deciduous Leading Stands ...... 13 3.18 Non-Merchantable - Mature ...... 13 3.19 Non-Merchantable - Immature ...... 14 3.20 Low Productivity - Immature ...... 14 3.21 Wildlife Tree Patches ...... 14 3.22 Old Growth Management Areas ...... 15 3.23 Physical Operability ...... 15 4.0 CURRENT FOREST MANAGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS 16 4.1 Resource Management Objectives ...... 16 4.2 Landscape and Stand Level Biodiversity ...... 16 4.2.1 Seral Stage Distribution ...... 16 4.2.2 Patch Size Distributions ...... 17 4.3 Wildlife Habitat ...... 17 4.3.1 Mountain Caribou ...... 17 4.3.2 Grizzly Bear, Marten and Moose Habitat ...... 18 4.4 Watersheds ...... 18 4.5 Visual Quality ...... 19 4.6 Identified Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA)...... 21 4.7 Cultural Heritage Resources ...... 21 4.8 Modelling Approach ...... 21 4.8.1 Forest Estate Model...... 22 4.8.2 Harvest Flow Objectives ...... 22 4.8.3 Minimum Harvest Age ...... 22 4.8.4 Reductions for Future Roads ...... 22 4.8.5 Disturbing the non-THLB ...... 22 4.8.6 Non-Recoverable Losses ...... 23 4.8.7 Mountain Pine Beetle Impacts ...... 24

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

5.0 GROWTH AND YIELD 25 5.1 Growth and Yield Models ...... 25 5.2 Analysis Unit Aggregation ...... 26 5.3 Natural Stands ...... 26 5.4 Managed Stands ...... 26 5.4.1 Regeneration Delay ...... 28 5.4.2 White Pine Weevil ...... 28 5.4.3 Dothistroma Needle Blight ...... 31 5.4.4 Site Index ...... 32 5.4.5 Operational Adjustment Factor ...... 32 5.4.6 Previously Fertilized Stands ...... 34 5.5 Non Satisfactorily Restocked ...... 34 5.6 Utilization ...... 34 5.7 Genetic Gain ...... 34 5.8 Silviculture Systems ...... 35 5.9 Reductions for Deciduous Component ...... 35 5.10 Reductions for Future Wildlife Tree Patches...... 35 6.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 36 6.1 Ecosystem Representation Analysis ...... 36 7.0 REFERENCES 38

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Input Data Layers ...... 2 Table 2: Land Base Classification...... 4 Table 3: Non-Forested Site Series...... 5 Table 4: Prince George Forest District Road Stratifications ...... 6 Table 5: Road Buffer Widths...... 7 Table 6: Non-Commercial Cover...... 8 Table 7: Unstable Terrain...... 9 Table 8: Riparian Reserve and Management Zone Widths for Unclassified Streams...... 10 Table 9: Riparian Reserve and Management Zone Widths...... 11 Table 10: Site Series with Regeneration Difficulties...... 12 Table 11: Deciduous Leading Stands...... 13 Table 12: Minimum Merchantability Limits...... 13 Table 13: Low Productivity Site Index Limits...... 14 Table 14: WTP / Non-THLB Areas ...... 14 Table 15: Resource Management Objective Area Summary...... 16 Table 16: Seral Stage Objectives...... 16 Table 17: Seral Stage Objectives...... 17 Table 18: Caribou Corridor Zones...... 18 Table 19: Hydrological Recovery ...... 19 Table 20: Peak Flow Index Maximum Threshold Values ...... 19 Table 21: Visual Quality Objectives...... 19 Table 22: Non-THLB Annual Disturbance...... 23 Table 23: Non-Recoverable Loss (NRL) Estimates...... 23 Table 24: Silviculture Eras...... 25 Table 25: Managed Stand Yield Input Assumptions...... 26

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Table 26: Additional Regeneration Delay Due to Leader Weevil...... 29 Table 27: OAF Values...... 32 Table 28: Utilization Levels...... 34 Table 29: Genetic Gains by Silviculture Era...... 34 Table 30: Sensitivity Analyses...... 36

ACRONYMS

AAC Allowable Annual Cut AU Analysis Unit BEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification BEO Biodiversity Emphasis Option CFLB Crown Forested Land Base ECA Equivalent Clearcut Area ERA Ecosystem Representation Analysis FDU Forest Development Unit FPPR Forest Planning and Practices Regulations FRPA Forest and Range Practices Act FSP Forest Stewardship Plan FSW Fisheries Sensitive Watershed GWM General Wildlife Measure IWA Interior Watershed Assessment IWAP Interior Watershed Assessment Procedures LRDW Land and Resource Data Warehouse M Modification VQO Classification MFLNRO Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations MHA Minimum Harvest Age MOE Ministry of Environment MOF Ministry of Forests MP Management Plan MPB Mountain Pine Beetle NCD No Channel Defined NDT Natural Disturbance Type NRL Non-Recoverable Losses NSR Not Sufficiently Restocked OAF Operational Adjustment Factor OGMA Old Growth Management Areas PFI Peak Flow Index PFLB Productive Forest Land Base PSI Potential Site Index PR Partial Retention VQO Classification RESULTS Reporting Silviculture Updates and Land status Tracking System RMA Riparian Management Area RMZ Riparian Management Zone RRZ Riparian Reserve Zone SPH Stems Per Hectare TEM Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping TFL Tree Farm Licence THLB Timber Harvesting Land Base TIPSY Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields TSA Timber Supply Area

iii

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

TSM Terrain Stability Mapping VDYP Variable Density Yield Prediction Growth and Yield Model VEG Visually Effective Green-up Height VLI Visual Landscape Inventory VQO Visual Quality Objectives VRI Vegetation Resource Inventory VSU Visually Sensitive Unit WTP Wildlife Tree Patch

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

13.0 BACKGROUND The timber supply analysis in support of Management Plan #9 was completed in 2003, followed by the allowable annual cut (AAC) determination effective July 1st, 2003 in which the AAC was set at 330,000 m3/year.

On April 4th, 2006 under a Postponement Order (Section 8 (3.1) of the Forest Act), Canfor provided a letter to the Chief Forester to have the next AAC determination postponed to July 1st, 2013. The Chief Forester concluded that the factors used to assess timber supply have not changed to the extent that they would have an impact on existing timber supply. Consequently, the next AAC determination will occur on July 1st, 2013.

Canfor has initiated a timber supply analysis in support of Management Plan #10 and this document has been prepared to describe the data and assumptions to be used in the timber supply analysis for Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 30 that are relevant in determining a sustainable harvest level.

Page 1

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

14.0 LAND BASE INFORMATION AND DATA Table 2 describes the input data layers used in this analysis.

Table 20: Input Data Layers

Date Layer Vintage Source Received

Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) 2012 18-Feb-12 LRDW Blocks (Recent Depletion) 2012 12-Apr-12 CANFOR Caribou Habitat 2012 23-Jan-12 LRDW Existing and Proposed Roads 2012 30-Mar-12 CANFOR Forest Health Overview 2011 6-Mar-12 MoFLRNO Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds 2011 23-Feb-12 MoFLRNO Hydrology - Streams 2000 31-Jan-12 CANFOR Hydrology - Polygons 2000 31-Jan-12 CANFOR Landscape Units 2002 23-Jan-12 CANFOR Operability 2012 generated TRIM Operating Areas 2000 1-Feb-12 CANFOR Ownership - Private Land 2010 26-Jan-12 LRDW Ownership - Schedule A Lands 2012 26-Jan-12 LRDW Parks and Protected Areas 2012 2-Mar-12 LRDW Planning Cells 2000 1-Mar-12 CANFOR Recreation Emphasis Areas 2000 23-Feb-12 CANFOR Recreation Sites 2012 14-Mar-12 CANFOR RESULTS - Blocks 2012 27-Jan-12 LRDW RESULTS - Treatments 2012 27-Jan-12 LRDW Special Management Zones 2006 23-Jan-12 CANFOR Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) 2001 23-Jan-12 CANFOR TFL Boundary 2012 23-Jan-12 LRDW Terrain Stability Mapping (TSM) 1996 17-Feb-12 CANFOR Visual Landscape Inventory (VLI) 1999/2005 20-Mar-12 MOFR Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) 2002 23-Jan-12 CANFOR Watersheds - H60 2005 5-Mar-12 CANFOR Watersheds 2005 26-Jan-12 LRDW Weevil Hazard - V2 1999 23-Jan-12 CANFOR Data Source and Comments:

Existing and proposed roads data was reviewed operationally in March 2012 in conjunction with a helicopter flight of the TFL. Additional proposed roads were identified to access the small percentage of the TFL not currently roaded.

An operability layer was created whereby any area with a slope greater than or equal to 35% was classified as cable ground. Area with slope less than 35% was classified as conventional ground.

Page 2

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

The four recreation areas were buffered to create a 4 ha circle around these point features.

The TFL boundary from the LRDW was compared with other versions of the boundary. Through this review it was determined that the LRDW version of the boundary best represents the TFL. Additionally, the LRDW boundary is referred to as the official boundary in the licence document.

The VRI was originally completed in 2000 using 1995 photos. Disturbances in the inventory have been updated to March 2012 and the inventory has been projected to January 1st, 2012.

Approximately 281 Phase II VRI samples have been installed on the TFL between 1997 and 1999 as well as 2011. This data has been used to adjust the VRI.

Page 3

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

15.0 TIMBER HARVESTING LAND BASE DEFINITION The netdown process starts with the gross area of the land base and removes area in a stepwise fashion according to detailed classification criteria. A complete description of the data and assumptions used in the analysis is documented in the sections below. Through the netdown, area is systematically removed in order to establish both the productive forest and timber harvesting land base (THLB). The netdown process classifies area into three broad categories:

Non- Productive: areas that are non-crown or non-forested and unable to grow viable timber; Productive non-THLB: the productive land base that is unlikely to be harvested for reasons such as inoperability or special environmental protection; and THLB: the productive land base that is expected to be available for harvest over the long-term. The following sections describe the steps that were taken to determine the THLB for TFL 30. The TFL covers a total area of 180,347 ha. Table 21 shows a summary of the area removed in each step of the netdown process.

Table 21: Land Base Classification.

Gross Area % of the Included in Land Classification Area (ha) Productive Classification Forest (ha) Total Area 180,347 180,347 Reductions to CFLB Non-TFL - - Private Land - - Non-Forest and Non-Productive 19,202 19,202 Existing Roads and Trails 1,960 1,681 Non-Commercial Cover 10,494 5,789 Existing Unmapped Landings 1,252 1,112 Unclassified Lands 958 77 Total Reductions to CFLB 27,862

Productive Forested Land Base (PFLB) 152,485 Reductions to PFLB Parks and Protected Areas - - 0% Unstable Terrain 3,739 2,755 2% Caribou High Habitat 12,124 8,404 6% Recreation Areas 3,383 829 1% Recreation Sites 24 17 0% Riparian Management 15,117 6,054 4% Special Riparian Areas 4,341 1,032 1% Difficult Regeneration 6,449 893 1% Deciduous Leading Stands 4,653 3,689 2% Non-Merchantable – Mature 16,033 3,220 2% Non-Merchantable – Immature 12,269 2,184 1% Low Productivity – Immature 697 - 0% Wildlife Tree Patches 2,830 1,436 1% Total Reductions to PFLB 30,514 20%

Current Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB) 121,971 80% Future Roads Reduction 175 153 0%

Long-Term Timber Harvesting Land Base 121,818 80%

Page 4

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Non-TFL

All data layers have been clipped to the TFL boundary and therefore there are no removals for non-TFL area. The boundary file for TFL 30 from the LRDW was used in this analysis. This boundary was compared with other boundary versions and reviewed with Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MoFLNRO) staff on February 24th, 2012. It was agreed that this boundary file should be used in the analysis.

Private Land

All private lands within the TFL are not managed by Canfor and consequently were removed from the Crown forest land base. This does not include Schedule A lands that are considered part of the TFL. All private land has been removed from the TFL boundary file and therefore there are no removals under this category.

Non-Forest and Non-Productive

Non-forest and non-productive areas area identified and removed from the THLB using a combination of TEM and VRI data. Stands with non-forested leading TEM site series are removed as non-forest and non-productive areas (Table 22). VRI polygons without a leading species or harvest history as well as those polygons with the non-forest descriptors 'A', 'AF', 'GR', 'ICE', 'LA', 'M', 'R', 'RI', 'S', 'U', or 'NP' are also removed. Areas with a harvest history are not removed. Overall this affects 19,202 ha of the TFL, all of which have been removed from the THLB.

Table 22: Non-Forested Site Series.

BEC TEM Map Code / Description Subzone Site Series CB Cut Bank ES Exposed Soil FS Non-Forest GB Gravel Bar GP Gravel Pit LA Lake All OW Open Shallow Water PD Pond RI River RO Rock RU Unknown TA Talus Slope UR Urban AL Alder - Lady fern ESSFwc3 BG Bluejoint - Arrow-leaved groundsel meadow FH Bl - Heather mesic krumholz forest FR Bl - Rhododendron FV Bl - Valerian wet meadow ESSFwcp3 LC Bracted louse-wort - Palmate coltsfoot SS Leatherleaf saxifrage - Sedge wetland Subalpine fir - Mountain arnica mesic meadow (Mesic forb FA meadow) BB Scrub birch - Sedge - Sphagnum ESSFwk2 AL Sitka alder - Lady fern WS Water sedge - Sphagnum BB Scrub birch - Sedge - Sphagnum ICHvk2 AL Sidka alder - Lady fern

Page 5

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

BEC TEM Map Code / Description Subzone Site Series WM Bog willow-Shore sedge HS Hardhack - Sedge SBSmk1 AS Mountain alder - Skunk cabbage - Lady Fern HW Sitka Willow - Horsetail AA ActSx - Mountain Alder PW Cow-Parsnip - Meadowrue - Wildrye LC Labrodor tea - Cloudberry - Red Peatmoss AD Mountain Alder - Red - osier dogwood AS Mountain Alder - Skunkcabbage - Ladyfern PL Pl - Labrador tea - Red Peatmoss LB Pl - Scrub birch - Sedge - Sphagnum SBSvk SP Scheuchzeria - Shore Sedge - Rusty Peatmoss BB Scrub Birch - Beaked Sedge - Peatmoss BH Scrub Birch - Hardhack - Beaked Sedge SB Shore Sedge - Buckbean - Green Peatmoss WH Sitka Willow - Horsetail SU Sxw - Huckleberry - Sphagnum WF Water sedge fen WB Willow - Water Sedge - Bluejoint AL Alder - Lady Fern SF Beaked Sedge fen WM Bog Willow - Shore sedge - Hook Moss Beaked Sedge HS Hard hack LS Labrador tea - Red peatmoss AD Mountain alder - Red-osier dogwood Floodplain AS Mountain alder - Skunk cabbage SBSwk1 WB Pacific Willow - Beaked Sedge PL Pl - Labrador Tea - Rusty Peatmoss BH Sb - Common Horsetail - Feathermoss BP Sb - Water Horsetail - Buckbean -Red Peatmoss WS Sitka Willow - Beaked Sedge WD Sitka Willow -Red-osier Dogwood WH Willow - Hardhack

Existing and Future Roads and Trails

The majority of the TFL is accessible by either existing or proposed roads. Road data was reviewed prior to the analysis and additional future roads were added to the road network such that 100% of the accessible land base has either an existing or future road to it. Each road was classified into one of the four categories below and attributed as either in-block or out of block based on the existing cutblock layer.

A comprehensive Roads, Trails and Landings inventory was completed for the Prince George TSA in 2011. This project classified roads across the TSA and field measured road widths for 404 randomly located points across the Prince George Forest Districts (another 566 plots were located in the Fort St. James District). Roads were classified into one of the 25 different categories of roads shown in Table 23, which were then grouped into one of 15 strata (numbered 17 to 31 for the Prince George District).

Table 23: Prince George Forest District Road Stratifications

Page 6

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Stratum Status Method Season Class Type ID

17 In-Block Conventional All Main ICAM 17 In-Block Roadside All Main IRAM 17 In-Block Unknown All Main IUAM 18 In-Block Roadside All Operational IRAO 19 In-Block Roadside Summer Spur IRSS 20 In-Block Conventional Winter Operational ICWO 20 In-Block Roadside Unknown Operational IRUO 20 In-Block Roadside Winter Operational IRWO 20 In-Block Unknown Unknown Operational IUUO 20 In-Block Unknown Summer Operational IUWO 21 In-Block Roadside Unknown Spur IRUS 21 In-Block Roadside Winter Spur IRWS 22 In-Block Conventional All Operational ICAO 22 In-Block Conventional Unknown Operational ICUO 23 In-Block Conventional Summer Spur ICSS 23 In-Block Conventional Unknown Spur ICUS 24 In-Block Conventional Winter Spur ICWS 25 In-Block Unknown All Operational IUAO 26 In-Block Unknown Summer Spur IUSS 26 In-Block Unknown Unknown Spur IUUS 27 In-Block Unknown Winter Spur IUWS 28 Outside None All Main ONAM 29 Outside None All Operational ONAO 30 Outside None Winter Operational ONWO 31 Outside None All Trail ONAT In order to relate the average road widths calculated for the Prince George Forest District with the road classification information that exists for the TFL some of the Prince George Forest District strata were combined and related to existing road classifications as shown in Table 24. In combining strata a new average road width was calculated for the combined group based on the weighted distribution of that road across the district. Table 24 shows the original road widths as well as the new weighted mean road widths for each new stratum.

Each road (existing and proposed) has been buffered according to its road class (new stratum) and new weighted mean road width from Table 24. Existing road buffers have been removed form the THLB. Buffer areas for proposed roads will be removed once harvested for the first time.

Table 24: Road Buffer Widths.

Page 7

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Modified Groupings to Reflect TFL 30 Road Original Data from PG TSA RTL Project (2010) Classes New Original Original Mean New Stratum Road Weighted Mean Road Road Width * Strata New Stratum ID Length (m) Mean Road Width (m) Road Length ID Width (m) 17 20.7 738,103 15,308,263 1 In Block - Mainline 20.7 18 9.1 2,318,656 21,050,587 19 9.3 2,390,476 22,320,213 20 10.2 840,794 8,542,464 2 In Block - Operational 8.1 21 7.0 2,721,896 19,020,870 22 7.9 4,510,633 35,716,013 23 5.1 3,040,900 15,523,796 24 5.8 3,255,725 18,831,798 25 7.5 1,444,828 10,815,571 3 In Block - Spur 6.7 26 7.6 1,040,310 7,867,346 27 4.4 684,224 2,976,375 28 23.7 1,371,530 32,493,345 4 Outside - Mainline 23.7 29 11.6 5,531,741 64,137,458 5 Outside - Operational 11.4 30 9.1 433,572 3,945,507 31 3.8 3,049,469 11,679,467 6 Outside – Spur 3.8 Through this process a total gross area of 1,960 ha or existing roads and 175 ha of future roads have been identified.

Non-Commercial Cover

Areas without a harvest history with a non-forest descriptor of ‘NCBR’, ‘NPBR’, ‘NPBU’, or ‘NSR’ are removed from the productive forest as non-commercial cover (Table 25). Areas with a harvest history are not removed.

Table 25: Non-Commercial Cover.

Non-Forest Gross Area Area Descriptor (ha) Removed (ha)

NCBR 9,774 5,568 NPBR 561 125 NPBU 42 23 NSR 118 72 Total 10,494 5,789

Existing Unmapped Landings

Current harvesting practices have evolved such that landings are either not required (i.e. cut-to-length or roadside processing) or are minimized. However, due to previous harvesting practices, unmapped landings exist on the land base. To reflect the loss of productive forest due to unmapped landings, 2% of the THLB is removed in all areas harvested before 1995. Across the TFL there is 62,595 ha of productive forest in blocks harvested prior to 1995.

Page 8

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Unclassified Lands

When the VRI and TEM inventories were created they utilized a different project boundary than the currently approved boundary layer on the LRDW. This issue was noted in the MP#9 analysis as well. VRI and PEM data from the adjacent TSA is also missing for these areas. Without VRI data it is not feasible to model timber supply in these areas and therefore they have been removed from both the productive forest and the THLB. This netdown was applied last in order to assess the true impact of this boundary issue. Of the 958 ha without VRI or TEM data, only 77 ha remains after the other netdowns have been applied.

Productive Forest Land Base (PFLB)

The productive forest land base (PFLB) represents the land base area once non-Crown, non-forest / non-productive, non-commercial cover and existing roads have been removed.

Parks and Protected Areas

Areas identified as parks, protected areas and ecological reserves are considered part of the productive forest but are excluded from the THLB. In the last analysis the Giscome Portage Trail was included as part of the TFL. The approved version of the TFL boundary used in this analysis does not include any parks or protected area (the Giscome Portage Trail has been removed from the TFL boundary) and therefore no area has been removed under this classification.

Unstable Terrain

Level ‘D’ terrain stability mapping has been completed for the entire TFL. Areas identified as ‘unstable’ or ‘reduced stability’ terrain without a harvest history (Table 26) are completely removed from the THLB. Table 26: Unstable Terrain.

Area Gross Area Terrain Class Description Removed (ha) (ha) R Reduced Stability 1,064 708 U Unstable 2,675 2,048 Total 3,739 2,755

Caribou High Habitat

As required by Ungulate Winter Range Order #U-7-003 (MOE, 2009), timber harvesting and road construction is generally excluded from all Caribou – High habitat and therefore this area is excluded from the THLB. Within the TFL there is 12,124 ha of Caribou – High habitat. Management within the caribou corridor zones identified in this order is addressed in Section 0 using forest cover retention constraints.

Recreation Areas

Three areas were identified in a 1999 recreation features inventory as having high value for backcountry recreation value. While not legally established recreation areas, the Tri-Lakes, Woodall and Horseshoe recreation areas represent 3,383 ha and were excluded from the THLB in the MP9

Page 9

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

analysis. As part of Canfor’s management of the TFL, harvesting continues to be excluded from these areas and therefore they are removed from the THLB.

Recreation Sites

There are five recreation sites located in the TFL. Consistent with the analysis for Management Plan #9, each site has been buffered creating a 4 ha area (24 ha total), which is removed from the THLB. The recreation sites are as follows:

1. Pass Lake, 2. Boundary Lake, 3. Amanita Lake, 4. Old Church Site, 5. Averil Creek, and 6. Freya Lake.

Riparian Areas

Sections 47 to 51 and 53 of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulations (FPPR) of the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) govern harvesting activities within riparian areas of the TFL and specify the reserve zone (RRZ) and management zone (RMZ) widths for each type of riparian feature listed in Table 27.

Canfor’s Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) (2011) prescribes RMZ retention targets as a function of windthrow hazard within an RMZ. Areas with a moderate to high windthrow hazard receive >= 25% retention while those with a low windthrow hazard receive no retention. A review of current practices indicates that generally RMZ areas in the TFL are assessed as having moderate to high windthrow hazard and are managed for 25% retention.

A general review of stream classification data indicates that of the 3,713 kms of stream data, classification has been completed on approximately 1,682 kms (47%). It is generally believed that all of the S1 and S2 streams have been classified meaning that the remaining 2,032 kms of unclassified streams reflect a combination of S3, S4, S5, S6 and NCD3 streams. Based on these assumptions Table 27 shows the percent distribution of these stream classes within the S3-S6 and NCD portion of the classified streams. Of the unclassified streams, only the S3 streams will have an impact on timber supply with a 20m RRZ and 20m RMZ with 25% retention. Assuming that the percent distribution of S3-S6 and NCD streams of the unclassified portion of the land base is roughly equivalent to the distribution of the classified portion we can use these percentages to estimate the timber supply impact of the remaining unclassified portion of the streams.

Of the unclassified portion of the streams only the S3 streams have an impact with a total effective buffer width of 25m (20m RRZ + 25m RMZ with 25% retention). Using the information from the classified streams we can assume that S3 streams represent approximately 20% of the unclassified streams. Pro-rating the 25m S3 buffer by 20% (4.95m) and applying this buffer to all the unclassified streams we can approximate the timber impact of the RMA of the unclassified streams.

Table 27: Riparian Reserve and Management Zone Widths for Unclassified Streams.

Page 10

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Pro- % of Total Rated Stream Class Length (Km) Unclassified Reserve Buffer Streams Zone (m) (m) S1 505 25 / 55

S2 256 35

S3 182 20% 25 4.95 S4 208 23% 0 - S5 247 27% 0 - S6 145 16% 0 - NCD3 138 15% 0 - Unclassified 2,032

Total 3,713

Total S3 – S6, NCD 920 4.95

Using this information all streams lakes and wetlands are classified and buffered according to the total RMA buffer from Table 28, resulting in the classification of a total of 15,117 ha of riparian area. The area remaining in the THLB is removed and represents the combined impact of both the RRZ and RMZ management practices.

Table 28: Riparian Reserve and Management Zone Widths.

3 No channel defined.

Page 11

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Riparian Riparian Total Reserve RMZ RMZ Riparian Management RMA Zone Retention Equivalent Class Zone RMZ Buffer (RRZ) (%) (m) Width (m) (m) Width (m) S1-A 0 100 25 25 25 S1-B 50 20 25 5 55 S2 30 20 25 5 35 S3 20 20 25 5 25 S4 0 30 0 0 0 S5 0 30 0 0 0 S6 0 20 0 0 0 Unclassified Streams 4.95 W1 10 40 25 10 20 W2 10 20 25 5 15 W3 0 30 0 0 0 W4 0 30 0 0 0 W5 10 40 25 10 20 L1-A 0 0 N/A 0 0 L1-B 10 0 N/A 0 10 L2 10 20 25 5 15 L3 0 30 0 0 0 L4 0 30 25 7.5 7.5

Special Riparian Areas

Consistent with the MP9 analysis the McGregor River and Seebach Creek Management Zones (4,341 ha gross area) have been designed to protect fish habitat and water quality within these drainages. Beyond the inherent riparian value in these areas, they also present significant operational and silvicultural challenges such that future harvesting is not anticipated within these zones. As such, these areas have been removed from the THLB.

Difficult Regeneration

Historically, environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) data has been used to identify areas in which regeneration difficulties are likely to be encountered. However, the TEM data provides a much more accurate reflection of where these areas are likely to exist. Using TEM data, stands with the leading site series identified in Table 29 (6,449 ha gross area) have been removed from the THLB. These exclusions are not applied in areas in which there is a harvest history.

Table 29: Site Series with Regeneration Difficulties.

Page 12

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

BEC TEM Map Code / Description Subzone Site Series 01 Bl - Rhododendron - Oak fern ESSFwc3 02 Bl - Rhododendron - Queen's cup 03 Bl - Globeflower - Horsetail 02 Bl - Oak fern - Sarsaparilla ESSFwk2 31 Non-forested bog SBSmk1 10 Sb - Scrub birch - Sedge 11 SbSxw - Scrub birch - Sedge SBSwk1 12 SbPl - Feathermoss

Deciduous Leading Stands

Deciduous-leading stands without a harvest history are removed from the THLB. Deciduous leading stands with a harvest history are also removed from the THLB if the RESULTS forest cover layer indicates that that the leading species of a stand is also deciduous and / or the RESULTS stocking class code is not ‘IMM’ or ‘MAT’, indicating that the stand is not considered “stocked”. Table 30 shows the gross area and area removed for deciduous leading stands.

Table 30: Deciduous Leading Stands.

Leading Gross Area4 Area Species (ha) Removed (ha)

ACT 992 290 AT 1,469 1,370 EP 2,192 2,029 Total 4,653 3,689

Non-Merchantable - Mature

Consistent with the MP9 analysis, all stands without a harvest history that do not meet the minimum merchantability limits described in Table 31 are removed from the THLB. The minimum conifer volume threshold values are based on the minimum volume required to be economically viable for each harvest system. Overall, these merchantability limits apply to 16,033 ha much of which has already been removed in previous netdown steps.

Table 31: Minimum Merchantability Limits.

4 Gross area reflects the stands with a deciduous leading species that either do not have a harvest history or have a harvest history with a RESULTS record that indicates the stands is either not stocked or is stocked as a deciduous-leading stand.

Page 13

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Minimum Conifer Harvest System Leading Species Age (years) Volume (m3/ha) Pine / Deciduous5 100 Conventional Balsam 120 140 Other 140 Pine / Deciduous5 100 Cable Balsam 120 250 Other 140

Non-Merchantable - Immature

All stands without a harvest history that are younger than the age listed in Table 31 have had their volumes projected to the respective age. Stands that do not achieve the minimum merchantability limits described Table 31 by this age are removed from the THLB. Overall, these merchantability limits apply to 12,269 ha much of which has already been removed in previous netdown steps.

Low Productivity - Immature

Stands without a harvest history that are younger than the age limits identified in Table 31 above are excluded from the THLB if the potential site index (PSI) value from the Potential Site Index project (J.S. Thrower and Associates, 2000) is less than values identified in Table 32. Overall, the low productivity definitions apply to 697 ha, all of which has been removed in previous netdown steps.

Table 32: Low Productivity Site Index Limits.

Leading Species Minimum Site Index Douglas fir 8.5 Cedar 9.0 Hemlock 8.0 Balsam 8.0 Spruce 7.5 Lodgepole Pine 7.5

Wildlife Tree Patches

With respect to stand-level biodiversity, Canfor’s FSP commits to ensuring that at least 7% of the total area of cutblocks harvested over a 12 month period will be covered by wildlife tree retention and that at least 3.5% of each individual cut block will be covered by wildlife tree retention. Operationally, retention requirements are first met using portions of the stand that don’t typically contribute to timber supply (riparian areas, deciduous stands, unstable terrain, non-merchantable areas, and retention for visual quality and wildlife habitat). Existing wildlife tree patches (WTP) represent 2,830 ha within the TFL and have been removed from the THLB.

A review of blocks harvested since 1995 shows that operationally an average of 7.8% of the productive forest area has been retained as WTP (Table 33). The current THLB definition shows that within these blocks approximately 11.5% of the area is occupied by productive non-THLB (including existing WTP areas).

Table 33: WTP / Non-THLB Areas

5 Deciduous-leading stands classes as ‘stocked’ in RESULTS are not excluded as deciduous-leading stands in the previous step. If these stands do not achieve the minimum conifer merchantability levels in Table 31 they will be excluded as non-merchantable.

Page 14

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Existing Productive Productive % of Productive THLB Existing Log Year WTP Non-THLB Non-THLB Total Area (ha) (ha) WTP % Area (ha) (ha) % THLB <1995 62,595 139 8,084 54,510 0.2% 12.9% 45% 1995 - 2000 10,391 749 1,233 9,158 7.2% 11.9% 8% 2001 - 2011 9,061 772 1,008 8,053 8.5% 11.1% 7% 2012 + 4,347 338 368 3,979 7.8% 8.5% 3% No harvest history 66,091 47 19,820 46,271 0.1% 30.0% 38% Total 152,485 2,044 30,514 121,971 1.3% 20.0%

Area harvested between 19,452 1,521 2,241 17,211 7.8% 11.5% 14% 1995 and 2011 The remainder of the land 133,033 524 28,273 104,760 0.4% 21.3% 86% base (non-WTP area) Total 152,485 2,044 30,514 121,971 1.3% 20.0% 100% Areas harvested prior to 1995 and the proportion of the THLB without a harvest history (the future WTP area) will follow current practices and future WTP areas will be focused in existing non-THLB areas. A summary of the future WTP portion of the productive forest shows that 21.3% of this area is productive non-THLB – almost double that of the area harvested since 1995. Even if the caribou high habitat is excluded as contributing only to the WTP objectives of cutblocks in close proximity to the caribou high areas, the proportion of productive non-THLB within the remainder of the land base is approximately 16.5%.

Additionally, management for old forest objectives, visual quality and other habitat requirements will increase the amount of stand level retention and contribute to meeting WTP requirements without removing additional areas from the THLB. Given the considerable overlap between these factors and the stand level retention objectives there are no additional reductions required to ensure that the timber supply impacts of this objective are being achieved on the land base.

Old Growth Management Areas

As described in Section 5.2 of the FSP, old growth management within the TFL is governed by the Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Order. Spatial old growth management areas (OGMA) have not been defined in the TFL and therefore there are no reductions to the THLB. Management objectives for old growth are discussed in Section 0 below.

Physical Operability

Physical operability was assessed as part of the development of the future road network for the TFL. Through this process the existing road network was buffered by 500m to identify the areas not currently considered “roaded”. Also any areas with a slope between 35 and 60% is classified as cable ground. “Unroaded” areas were then assessed during overview flights of the TFL as well as through an office exercise whereby the location of future roads were identified and digitized such that nearly all of the “unroaded” conventional harvest (slope <= 35%) THLB was accessible with the addition of the future roads. There are small areas of conventional harvest THLB that are > 500m from an existing and future road and these areas are considered to be accessible through slight modifications of the future roads in the development phase and / or skidding beyond the 500m buffer distance. Any other large “unroaded“ areas on the TFL occur within Caribou – High habitat and / or unstable terrain and are otherwise excluded from the THLB. Therefore, there have been no further exclusion to address physical operability on the TFL.

Page 15

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

16.0 CURRENT FOREST MANAGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS The following sections describe management objectives not captured through the land base reductions described above.

Resource Management Objectives

Resource management objectives represent areas in which specific management objectives are applied, generally to reflect non-timber values on the land base. Each resource management objective has specific forest cover objectives (either retention or disturbance requirements) applied. Detailed modelling information on each objective is provided in the sections below.

Table 34 shows the area by resource management objectives in the TFL. Resource management zones often overlap and therefore the sum of the areas is not equivalent to the total TFL area.

Table 34: Resource Management Objective Area Summary.

Area (ha) Resource Management Objective Total Non-THLB THLB Productive Productive Seral Stage Objectives Entire Land Base Watershed PFI Objectives Entire Land Base Caribou Corridors 3,431 892 2,539 Visual Quality Objectives 10,990 3,892 7,098

Landscape and Stand Level Biodiversity

Seral Stage Distribution As discussed above, objectives for old growth management follow the Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Order and are described in Canfor’s FSP. Objectives for old seral retention will be enforced in the model ensuring that, at a minimum, the 2/3 draw down target levels of old forest from Table 35 will be retained within each landscape unit / BEC combination for the duration of the planning horizon.

Table 35: Seral Stage Objectives.

Page 16

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Biodiversity Old Target Natural BEC Landscape Emphasis Productive THLB Seral Target Drawn Disturbance Subzone / Unit Option Area (ha) (ha) Age % Down by Type (NDT) Variant (BEO) (years) 2/3 (%) SBS wk1 50,684 42,307 3 > 140 > 11 > 3.7 SBS mk1 6,350 5,216 Averil Low 1 ICH vk2 977 862 > 250 > 13 > 4.3 1 ESSF wk2 574 547 > 250 > 19 > 6.3 2 SBS vk 52,714 45,913 > 250 > 9 > 3.0 3 SBS wk1 4,311 3,448 > 140 > 11 > 3.7 Seebach Low 1 ICH vk2 676 633 > 250 > 13 > 4.3 ESSF wk2 4,885 3,255 1 > 250 > 19 > 6.3 ESSF wc3 250 - 2 SBS vk 15,020 12,801 > 250 > 9 > 3.0 2 ICH vk2 7,831 6,433 > 250 > 13 > 4.3 Woodall Low ESSF wk2 4,882 554 1 > 250 > 19 > 6.3 ESSF wc3 3,331 3

Patch Size Distributions Section 5.8 of the FSP describes objectives for patch size distribution within the TFL30 FDU. These targets are shown in Table 36 below and apply only to “young forest”. For the purpose of this analysis, “young forest” is defined as any stand with an age <= 20 years. For the base case, patch size objectives will be monitored but not enforced as hard targets. A sensitivity analysis will examine the impacts of hard patch size objectives on timber supply.

Table 36: Seral Stage Objectives. Target Patch Size Patch Size Landscape Unit Distribution Category Class (ha) Range (%) Small < 40 10 – 20 Averil (grouped into Medium 40 – 250 10 – 20 NDT 3) Large 250 – 1000 60 – 80 Extra Large > 1000 0 Small < 40 30 – 40 Seebach (grouped Medium 40 – 80 30 – 40 into NDT 2) Large 80 – 250 20 – 40 Extra Large > 250 0 Small < 40 30 – 40 Woodall (grouped Medium 40 – 80 30 – 40 into NDT 1,2) Large 80 – 250 20 – 40 Extra Large > 250 0

Wildlife Habitat

Mountain Caribou Ungulate winter range order #U-7-003 specifies general wildlife measures (GWM) across three habitat classifications:

Caribou high;

Page 17

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Caribou medium; and Caribou corridors. Only caribou high and caribou corridor habitat types exist in the TFL. As noted in Section 2.2.6, all high value habitat areas are removed from THLB. Within the caribou corridor zones harvesting activities will result in a minimum of 20% of the Crown forested land base within each ungulate winter range (UWR) unit greater than 100 years of age and a maximum of 20% of the Crown forested land base less than 3m in height at any point in time. Table 37 shows the caribou corridor zones and the constraints applied to these zones.

Table 37: Caribou Corridor Zones.

Minimum Maximum Disturbance Non-THLB UWR # Rating Retention THLB (ha) Constraint (ha) Constraint P-042 Corridor 20% > 100 years 20% < 3m 258 334 P-046 Corridor 20% > 100 years 20% < 3m 171 719 P-047 Corridor 20% > 100 years 20% < 3m 464 1,486

Grizzly Bear, Marten and Moose Habitat Under the Management Plan #9 analysis it was assumed that grizzly bear, marten and moose habitat requirements are addressed through the management of other objectives described above. Since the last analysis there has not been any additional information suggesting that additional analysis assumptions are required to address this.

Watersheds

An Interior Watershed Assessment (IWA) was completed for the TFL in February of 1999 using procedures outlined within the FPC Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP) Guidebook, September 1995 edition. Under the IWAP, 27 watersheds were identified and each was assigned an equivalent clear-cut area (ECA) and peak flow index (PFI) threshold based on watershed specific mainstream channel stability, average slope, erosion potential and sediment delivery capability parameters (Beaudry 1999).

Since the 1999 assessment P. Beaudry and Associates Ltd. was commissioned to review and refine the initial set of thresholds set for watersheds under the 1999 IWAP. Based on this review, it was determined that PFI thresholds alone were more appropriate targets for managing and measuring impacts of forest management operations on water quantity and flow than ECA thresholds. In addition, PFI thresholds were reduced from those set under the original assessments for 10 out of the 27 watersheds delineated.

In addition, a draft fisheries sensitive watershed (FSW) order covering the Seebach Creek watershed has been prepared and is expected to be approved in the near future. In addition to limitations on harvesting and road construction, this draft order prescribes additional ECA targets within sub-units of the Seebach Creek watershed.

ECA is calculated using the area harvested within a watershed multiplied by the hydrological recovery of each stand. As stand height increases, hydrological recovery increases with full recovery achieved once the stand reaches 12 meters in height as shown in Table 38. Area above the H60 line6 contributes 1.5 times the area to the ECA calculation. Peak flow index (PFI) is a measure of the ratio of

6 The elevation line above which 60% of the watershed area exists.

Page 18

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

ECA to total watershed area. PFI threshold values, including those prescribed in the FSW order are shown in Table 39 and will be enforced as targets in the model.

Table 38: Hydrological Recovery

Hydrological Stand Height (m) Recovery (%) <3 0 3 to < 5 25 5 to < 7 50 7 to < 9 75 9 to < 12 90 12 + 100 Table 39: Peak Flow Index Maximum Threshold Values

PFI Threshold Watershed (%)

East Olsson 37 Woodall Creek 37 Barney Creek 37 Residual B 37 Horn Creek 37 Residual D 37 Residual C 65 Mokus Creek 90 West Torpy 37 Residual F 65 Averil Creek 65 Herring Creek 65 Lower Olsson 65 Basin 7 80 Residual E 65 Basin 25 80 Basin 4 65 Residual A 65 Basin 20 65 Tay Creek 80 Basin 27 80 Limestone Creek 80 Hubble Creek 80 Upper Olsson 80 Seebach Creek FSW 30 Unit #1 (Lower Seebach) 25 Unit #3 (East-Seebach) 25

Visual Quality

Scenic areas and visual quality objectives (VQO) have been defined through the visual landscape inventory (VLI). The visually effective green-up (VEG) heights and maximum disturbance percentages are calculated for each of the visually sensitive units (VSU) shown in Table 40 as described in the “Procedures for Factoring Visual Resources into Timber Supply Analysis” (BC Forest Service, 1998).

Table 40: Visual Quality Objectives.

Page 19

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Maximum Average VEG Height Non-THLB VSU VQO Disturbance THLB (ha) Slope (m) (ha) (%) 291 M 27.9 25.0 5.5 0 - 802 M 51.4 25.0 7.5 168 25 803 M 35.9 25.0 6.5 184 179 804 M 27.0 25.0 5.5 38 - 805 M 30.0 25.0 5.5 - 16 806 M 15.8 25.0 4.5 1 24 807 M 16.2 25.0 4.5 0 31 808 M 16.4 25.0 4.5 9 14 809 M 8.4 25.0 3.5 1 106 810 M 12.6 25.0 4.0 2 25 811 M 19.2 25.0 4.5 9 31 812 M 15.7 25.0 4.5 0 21 813 M 7.5 25.0 3.5 0 22 814 M 14.4 25.0 4.0 6 2 815 M 9.7 25.0 3.5 11 34 816 M 3.3 25.0 3.0 2 40 817 M 18.8 25.0 4.5 2 29 818 M 12.0 25.0 4.0 1 67 819 M 11.5 25.0 4.0 0 24 820 M 15.7 25.0 4.5 3 35 821 M 18.9 25.0 4.5 16 40 822 M 24.3 25.0 5.0 99 226 823 PR 42.8 15.0 6.5 26 - 824 M 4.6 25.0 3.0 5 42 825 PR 59.4 15.0 8.0 96 51 826 PR 58.3 15.0 8.0 342 58 827 PR 37.4 15.0 6.5 56 250 828 M 14.4 25.0 4.0 14 1 829 M 17.1 25.0 4.5 18 2 830 M 12.5 25.0 4.0 - 9 831 M 31.3 25.0 6.0 - 18 832 M 45.2 25.0 7.0 65 212 833 M 21.3 25.0 5.0 4 76 834 M 20.6 25.0 5.0 16 58 835 M 3.6 25.0 3.0 - 24 836 M 16.1 25.0 4.5 0 19 837 M 23.7 25.0 5.0 0 5 838 M 36.1 25.0 6.5 9 - 839 M 24.6 25.0 5.0 - 43 840 M 12.6 25.0 4.0 1 65 841 M 11.0 25.0 4.0 7 - 842 M 25.3 25.0 5.5 22 - 843 M 40.1 25.0 6.0 42 24 844 PR 17.3 15.0 4.5 10 991 845 M 23.6 25.0 5.0 51 595 846 M 19.0 25.0 4.5 13 285 848 M 9.0 25.0 3.5 - 38 849 PR 31.7 15.0 6.0 54 325 850 PR 24.5 15.0 5.0 34 105 851 M 18.0 25.0 4.5 192 401 853 PR 47.2 15.0 7.0 930 404 854 M 18.3 25.0 4.5 14 174 855 M 23.2 25.0 5.0 - 17 856 M 16.5 25.0 4.5 16 94 857 M 15.1 25.0 4.0 4 105 858 M 13.0 25.0 4.0 4 43

Page 20

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Maximum Average VEG Height Non-THLB VSU VQO Disturbance THLB (ha) Slope (m) (ha) (%) 859 M 2.3 25.0 3.0 19 21 860 PR 45.4 15.0 7.0 264 62 861 M 17.5 25.0 4.5 5 32 862 PR 42.5 15.0 6.5 140 161 863 M 56.6 25.0 8.0 95 28 864 PR 40.7 15.0 6.5 336 459 865 M 35.8 25.0 6.5 3 24 866 M 57.8 25.0 8.0 0 194 867 M 21.6 25.0 5.0 23 - 868 M 53.6 25.0 7.5 386 223 869 M 10.2 25.0 4.0 6 192 871 M 16.9 25.0 4.5 0 50 872 M 38.2 25.0 6.5 11 19 873 M 13.5 25.0 4.0 1 76 874 M 27.6 25.0 5.5 4 38

Identified Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA)

As of July 27th, 2012 there are no identified wildlife habitat areas on the TFL.

Cultural Heritage Resources

A cultural heritage resource is a unique or significant place or feature of social, cultural or spiritual importance. It may be an archaeological site, recreation site or trail, cultural heritage site or trail, historic site, or a protected area. Cultural heritage resources often incorporate First Nations heritage and spiritual sites, but they can also involve features protected and valued by non-Aboriginal people. One such feature within the vicinity of TFL30 is the Giscome Portage Trail, a designated Heritage Trail that is protected as a park.

Canfor’s Forest Stewardship Plan includes results/strategies for the management of cultural heritage resources, and Canfor’s Sustainable Forest Management Plan (http://www.canfor.com/docs/responsibility/pg_sfmp_final_signed_2012_07.pdf?sfvrsn=2) contains a variety of indicators and targets regarding consideration of and management for Aboriginal forest values, knowledge and uses, as well as the protection of sites of cultural significance.

An archaeological predictive model and spatial layers are employed to assess the potential presence of archaeological and cultural heritage resources within proposed harvest areas. Where activities are proposed within areas of high potential, a site-level assessment is conducted to identify, assess and record any resources that may be present. Management measures recommended by the consulting archaeologist are incorporated into operational plans.

Forest management plans, including proposed harvest and road areas, are shared with First Nations and stakeholders to provide an opportunity for communication about cultural heritage resources and First Nations interests (amongst other values). Efforts are made to meet with the representatives of First Nations Chief and Council (i.e. the First Nations forestry coordinators or managers) to facilitate the discussion of concerns, values and management strategies. If site-specific information is received concerning a cultural heritage resource that is of continuing importance to Aboriginal people, an assessment is conducted and the results of the assessment, as well as prescribed management strategies, are communicated back to the individual or group who provided the information. Management strategies include modifying the boundaries of harvest areas to avoid cultural heritage resources, or minimizing the number of times a trail is crossed as well as protecting the trail bed

Page 21

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

through the use of landscape fabric and skid bridges. As archaeological and cultural heritage resources are often located adjacent to riparian and wetland features, there is considerable overlap with riparian reserves and wildlife tree retention areas.

Although there is some overlap with other constrained areas, such as the Giscome Portage Trail (identified as a park), at this time there are no specific, identified cultural heritage resources on the TFL30 that result in areas being unavailable for timber harvesting.

Modelling Approach

Forest Estate Model Forest estate modeling has been conducted using the spatially explicit optimization model Patchworks. Patchworks is developed by Spatial Planning Systems in Ontario (www.spatial.ca) and allows the user to explore trade-offs between a broad range of conflicting management goals while considering operational objectives and limitations into strategic-level decisions. The model provides an easy to use interface that allows users to access and understand information in real-time.

The model has been formulated using five-year planning periods over a 250-year planning horizon.

Harvest Flow Objectives The biological capacity of the land base as well as forest cover and green-up requirements dictate the sustainable harvest level for a particular land base. There are a number of alternative harvest flows possible. In this analysis, the harvest levels will reflect the following objectives:

Maintain the current AAC for as long as possible; Decrease to a non-declining mid-term harvest level that reflects the productive capability of the land base; and Increase to an even-flow long-term harvest level over a 250-year planning horizon. A harvest rule that maintains the existing AAC over the short-term will be applied while the long-term harvest level produces a non-declining growing stock. This is consistent with current practice.

Alternative initial, mid-term and long-term harvest levels will also be considered in sensitivity analyses. For example, if a step-up to a higher long-term harvest level is possible (while maintaining stable growing stock levels), it will be implemented.

Minimum Harvest Age Minimum harvest age (MHA) for both existing natural, existing managed and future managed stands is derived for each analysis unit based on the age at which the stand achieves both 95% of culmination MAI and has achieved at least 140 m3/ha.

Alternative MHA limits will be examined in sensitivity analyses.

Reductions for Future Roads All future roads have been identified spatially, classified and buffered according to the classifications listed in Table 24. These areas will be removed from the THLB once they are harvested for the first time.

Disturbing the non-THLB In traditional timber supply analysis the productive non-THLB ages continuously throughout the planning horizon, which likely overestimates its contribution to meeting old seral targets as natural

Page 22

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

disturbances generally impact the age of these stands. This is addressed by modeling disturbances in the non-THLB.

This section describes the process of disturbing the non-THLB used for this analysis. This approach mimics the natural disturbance regimes and natural range of variation for each Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) zone in accordance with the Biodiversity Guidebook (MOF, 1995). This is done by:

1. Calculating the annual natural disturbance area required to achieve the natural disturbance return intervals within each BEC zone in the Biodiversity Guidebook; and

2. Imposing an annual natural disturbance on the non-THLB that is roughly equivalent to the areas calculated above.

Annual Disturbance The disturbance return interval from the Biodiversity Guidebook (MOF 1995) for each natural disturbance type (NDT) / BEC reflects the number of years in which 100% of the area is affected by natural disturbance. Therefore the annual disturbance percent can be calculated by dividing 100% by that interval. The annual disturbance percent is then multiplied by the non-THLB area within each NDT / BEC to produce the annual disturbance area as shown in Table 41.

Table 41: Non-THLB Annual Disturbance.

Disturbance Percent Total Non- Annual BEC Label NDT Interval Disturbed THLB Area Disturbance (years) Annually (ha) (ha) ESSF wc3 1 350 0.29% 2,832 8 ESSF wcp 1 350 0.29% 747 2 ESSF wk2 1 350 0.29% 5,985 17 ICH vk2 1 250 0.40% 1,556 6 SBS mk1 3 125 0.80% 1,134 9 SBS vk 2 200 0.50% 9,022 45 SBS wk1 2 200 0.50% 9,238 46 At the beginning of the analysis, polygons are randomly selected from the non-THLB until the annual natural disturbance targets are met. A disturbance schedule is then developed for these polygons and this schedule is enforced on the model prior to the harvest schedule optimization, thereby simulating the impacts of natural disturbance on the harvest schedule.

Non-Recoverable Losses Past performance has demonstrated that protection measures within the TFL have been effective at minimizing natural disturbances. When they do occur, Canfor has been aggressive in salvaging damaged timber. Over the last decade, salvaged timber has accounted for 20 to 25% of the annual harvested volume. As a result, very little unsalvaged losses are incurred. Since the last AAC determination, Canfor has determined that unsalvaged losses have remained consistent with figures used under MP8 and that no changes are anticipated. Therefore, the unsalvaged loss estimates used under MP9 will also be applied under MP10 as follows:

Table 42: Non-Recoverable Loss (NRL) Estimates. Gross Volume Volume Salvaged Damaging Agent NRL (m3/year) Loss (m3/yr) (m3/year) Insects (Epidemic) 37,420 35,940 1,480 Wind 19,700 18,540 1,160 Fire 10,200 9,200 1,000 Total 67,320 63,680 3,640

Page 23

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Mountain Pine Beetle Impacts Pine represents only a small proportion of the profile of TFL 30. Small outbreaks of MPB have occurred in the western portion of the TFL and have been promptly harvested. Aside from the NRL estimates above, no additional measures are required to address MPB impacts.

Page 24

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

17.0 GROWTH AND YIELD A stand’s growth in terms of height, diameter and volume is predicted using growth and yield models. The assumptions, inputs and outputs used in these models are documented in the following sections. Stands are either classified as natural or managed depending on their silviculture history and the origins of the stand. In TFL 30, recorded harvest history dates back to the early 1940’s however very little, if any silviculture was practiced until around 1978. A review of RESULTS data for blocks harvested between 1978 and 1985 shows that approximately 88% of regenerated areas is from planted stock (stock type code = ‘ART). This increases to 93% for blocks harvested between 1986 and 1987 and to 96% for blocks harvested after 1998. As shown in Table 44 below, many site series regeneration assumptions include a component of natural regeneration. In 1990, the practice of using genetically improved seed began, gradually increasing as the availability of genetically improved stock increased. By 1998, continuing to present time, all of the planting stock used on the TFL is from genetically improved seed.

Starting in 2010, Canfor began planting weevil tolerant seedlings on blocks harvested in 2008. Walk- through surveys of these plantations suggest that attack rates have been reduced by up to 60% in these plantations (pers. comm. Dale Likes, Canfor Silviculture Forester).

Based on this information, stand yield will be modelled using the silviculture eras described in Table 43 below.

Table 43: Silviculture Eras.

Growth and Yield THLB Harvest Year Silviculture Era Assumptions Area (ha) Use VDYP with stand composition < 1978 or None R0 - existing natural stands 66,013 from the VRI Use TIPSY with regen. assumptions R1/D17 - existing managed 1978 to 1997 39,629 stands – no genetic gains. from Table 44 with no genetic gains. Use TIPSY with regen. assumptions R2 - Existing managed stands 1998 to 2008 from Table 44 with partial 11,607 – partial genetic gains genetic gains from Table 48 Use TIPSY with regen. assumptions from Table 44 with full genetic 2008 + R3 - Future managed stands 4,722 gains from Table 48 + weevil tolerant stock.

Growth and Yield Models

Stands harvested prior to 1978 or those without harvest history information are classified as existing natural stands with yield projections produced using the Variable Density Yield Prediction model version 7 (VDYP7).

All stands with a harvesting history after 1977 are classified as managed stands with yield projections produced using the Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields Version 4.2 (TIPSY4.2).

7 D1 analysis units are those stands affected by Dothistroma.

Page 25

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Analysis Unit Aggregation

Analysis units are aggregations of stands with similar species composition, site productivity and treatment regimes. To capture the diversity of natural stands that exist on the land base and are reflected in the inventory, each existing natural stand is modelled using its own yield curve – there is no aggregation of existing natural stands into analysis units.

Stands harvested after 1978 (including future stands) will be grouped into analysis units by BEC zone, subzone, variant and site series according to the TEM and will be modelled using TIPSY. Analysis units with less than 10 ha of THLB will be grouped into ecologically similar analysis units.

Natural Stands

Natural stands are defined as those stands without a harvest history or those harvested prior to 1978. These stands will be modelled using VDYP7. Adjusted inventory attributes from the VRI will be used as inputs to the model including net volume adjustment factors derived through the Phase II VRI Adjustment (Ecora 2012).

Managed Stands

Managed stands are grouped into analysis units based on BEC zone and site series as shown in Table 44. The planting species mix, densities, regeneration delay and regeneration type reflect current silviculture practices that are expected to continue into the future. Managed stands reflect a combination of planted and natural regeneration as indicated.

Table 44: Managed Stand Yield Input Assumptions.

Page 26

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Planted Natural Planted Natural

Planting Planting

Density Density % SP1 % SP2 % SP4 Regen. % SP1 % SP2 % SP3 Regen.

Delay Delay

SP1 SP2 SP3 SP1 SP2 SP3 THLB Site Series

Area (ha) %

ESSFwk2-01 3 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 100 1,725 4 ESSFwk2-01 3,029 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 100 1,725 4

ESSFwk2-02 8 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 100 1,725 4

ESSFwk2-03 38 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 100 1,725 4

ESSFwk2-04 507 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 100 1,725 4

ESSFwk2-05 642 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 100 1,725 4

ESSFwk2-06 132 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 100 1,725 4

ICHvk2-01 5,285 85 15 Sx 70 Fdi 30 1,500 2 Cw 100 1,725 4

ICHvk2-02 49 85 15 Fdi 70 Pli 30 1,200 2 Cw 100 1,380 4

ICHvk2-03 240 85 15 Fdi 70 Sx 30 1,500 2 Cw 100 1,725 4

ICHvk2-04 1,633 80 20 Sx 70 Fdi 30 1,500 2 Cw 100 1,800 4

ICHvk2-05 660 80 20 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,500 2 Cw 100 1,800 4

ICHvk2-06 51 80 20 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,500 2 Cw 100 1,800 4

ICHvk2-07 10 80 20 Pli 70 Sx 30 1,200 2 Cw 100 1,440 4

SBSmk1-01 2,020 70 30 Sx 60 Pli 40 1,400 2 Pli 67 Sx 17 Bl 16 1,820 4

SBSmk1-04 87 70 30 Pli 50 Fdi 30 Sx 20 1,400 2 Pli 67 Sx 17 Bl 16 1,820 4 SBSmk1-05 632 70 30 Sx 60 Pli 40 1,400 2 Pli 67 Sx 17 Bl 16 1,820 4

SBSmk1-06 1,142 70 30 Pli 60 Sx 40 1,400 2 Pli 67 Sx 17 Bl 16 1,820 4

SBSmk1-07 638 85 15 Sx 60 Pli 40 1,400 2 Pli 34 Sx 33 Bl 33 1,610 4

SBSmk1-08 230 70 30 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2 Pli 67 Sx 17 Bl 16 1,820 4

SBSmk1-09 458 85 15 Pli 70 Sx 30 1,000 2 Sx 67 Bl 33 1,150 4

SBSmk1-10 458 85 15 Pli 70 Sx 30 1,000 2 Sx 67 Bl 33 1,150 4

SBSvk-01 9 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 67 Sx 33 1,725 4

SBSvk-02 36,688 100 0 Sx 80 Pli 20 1,500 2

SBSvk-03 235 100 0 Sx 70 Fdi 30 1,500 2

SBSvk-04 920 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 67 Sx 33 1,725 4

SBSvk-05 5,783 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 67 Sx 33 1,725 4

SBSvk-06 7,817 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 67 Sx 33 1,725 4

SBSvk-07 3,260 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 67 Sx 33 1,725 4

SBSvk-08 579 85 15 Sx 100 1,500 2 Bl 67 Sx 33 1,725 4

SBSvk-09 309 100 0 Sx 80 Pli 20 1,000 2

SBSvk-10 47 100 0 Sx 100 1,000 2

SBSvk-11 1,067 100 0 Sx 100 1,500 2

Dothistroma Affected Stands SBSvk-028 1,764 0 100 Sx 70 Bl 30 1,000 7 SBSvk-044 1 0 100 Sx 70 Bl 30 1,000 7 SBSvk-054 111 0 100 Sx 70 Bl 30 1,000 7 SBSvk-064 32 0 100 Sx 70 Bl 30 1,000 7 SBSvk-094 98 0 100 Sx 70 Bl 30 1,000 7 SBSwk1-01 6 75 25 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2 Pli 60 Sx 20 Bl 20 1,750 4

SBSwk1-02 22,951 100 0 Pli 100 1,200 2

SBSwk1-03 9 100 0 Pli 100 1,200 2

SBSwk1-04 278 75 25 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2 Pli 60 Sx 20 Bl 20 1,750 4

SBSwk1-05 1,951 75 25 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2 Pli 60 Sx 20 Bl 20 1,750 4

SBSwk1-06 7,088 75 25 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2 Pli 60 Sx 20 Bl 20 1,750 4

SBSwk1-07 3,072 75 25 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2 Pli 60 Sx 20 Bl 20 1,750 4

SBSwk1-08 2,645 75 25 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2 Pli 60 Sx 20 Bl 20 1,750 4

SBSwk1-09 4,965 100 0 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2

SBSwk1-10 2,378 100 0 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2

SBSwk1-11 194 100 0 Sx 70 Pli 30 1,400 2

8 Pine-leading stands is the SBSvk-02/04/05/06/09 harvested prior to 1998 have been impacted by Dothistroma. In these stands, the pine component is assumed to have been killed. Natural regeneration of spruce and balsam has occurred in these stands as shown in Table 44 with an extended regeneration delay. These analysis units are prefixed with “d1_”.

Page 27

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Regeneration Delay Regeneration delay is a measure of the time between harvest and establishment of new trees. The average regeneration delay for the TFL is 2 years.

White Pine Weevil In the previous MP9 analysis spruce weevil impacts were modelled by applying reductions to managed yield curves as additional OAF 1 values. Weevil attack rates were calculated from regenerating spruce density and elevation using the following formula (adapted from Taylor, 1998):

Attack Percent = 429.4 – 11.02 * LN(SX sph) – 50.03 * LN(elevation) where: LN equals the natural logarithm; SX sph equals the spruce stems per hectare of a stand; and Elevation equals the average elevation for a polygon These attack percentages were then reduced by half of the existing OAF 1 values and were then applied to the yield curves as OAF1 volume reductions resulting in an average volume reduction of 6.2% for existing managed stand volumes and 4.9% for future managed stand volumes.

This approach assumes that volume losses due to weevil are roughly equivalent to the percentage of trees attacked and likely overestimate the volume impacts at time of harvest. In practice, the weevil rarely kills trees but causes the tree to suffer delayed growth while being attacked.

Following discussions with the MFLRNO Regional Pathologist (pers. comm.), it was decided that the application of a regeneration delay corresponding with the projected level of attack would better reflect the growth and yield impacts of the weevil. It is estimated that the most severely attacked stands will suffer, at most, a 10-year regeneration delay due to repeated weevil attacks on the leader. It is estimated that stands attacked at a rate of 80% or greater would all experience the maximum 10-year regeneration delay and that the regeneration delay suffered by a stand gradually increases as the attack percentage increases.

Starting in 2010 Canfor began planting weevil tolerant spruce seed across the TFL. Walkthrough surveys of these plantations suggest that the incidences of leader weevil attack have decreased by as much as 60% (Dale Likes, pers. comm.).

Based on these assumptions and the fact that TIPSY can only model regeneration delay in whole year increments, the relationship between attack percentage and regeneration delay, shown in Figure 29, is used to model the impacts of leader weevil on stand growth for both standard planting stock (planted prior to 2010) and weevil resistant stock (planted 2010 and beyond). Using this information, an average attack percentage is calculated for each regenerated analysis unit and the corresponding regeneration delay is applied to the yield curve for that analysis unit. Table 45 shows the average attack percentages and regeneration delay applied to each analysis unit. These regeneration delays are applied in addition to the standard regeneration delays shown in Table 44 but are applied only to the spruce component of the stand.

Page 28

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

12.00 Standard Stock 10.00 Weevil Tolerant GI Stock 8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0 1

Figure 29: Regeneration Delay Due to Leader Weevil.

Table 45: Additional Regeneration Delay Due to Leader Weevil.

Average Regeneration THLB Area Analysis Unit9 Attack % Delay (years) (ha) d1_SBSvk002 - 0 1 d1_SBSvk004 2 0 111 d1_SBSvk005 - 0 32 d1_SBSvk006 21 3 98 d1_SBSvk009 - 0 6 r1_ESSFwk201 - 0 514 r1_ESSFwk204 - 0 53 r1_ESSFwk205 - 0 85 r1_ESSFwk206 - 0 21 r1_ICHvk201 14 2 1,207 r1_ICHvk202 - 0 13 r1_ICHvk203 22 3 29 r1_ICHvk204 8 1 389 r1_ICHvk205 9 1 68 r1_SBSmk101 52 6 404 r1_SBSmk104 1 0 50 r1_SBSmk105 16 2 161 r1_SBSmk106 55 7 185 r1_SBSmk107 26 3 114 r1_SBSmk108 39 5 62 r1_SBSmk109 38 5 145 r1_SBSvk001 36 4 14,135 r1_SBSvk002 14 2 16 r1_SBSvk003 11 1 218 r1_SBSvk004 22 3 1,767 r1_SBSvk005 39 5 2,296 r1_SBSvk006 45 6 1,134 r1_SBSvk007 42 5 211 r1_SBSvk008 20 3 74

9 Analysis unit prefixes correspond with the silviculture era of a stand. The “d1_” prefix identifies stands affected by Dothistroma.

Page 29

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Average Regeneration THLB Area Analysis Unit9 Attack % Delay (years) (ha) r1_SBSvk009 90 10 14 r1_SBSvk010 45 6 96 r1_SBSvk011 6 1 471 r1_SBSwk101 49 6 7,958 r1_SBSwk103 11 1 32 r1_SBSwk104 13 2 713 r1_SBSwk105 36 4 1,989 r1_SBSwk106 49 6 1,297 r1_SBSwk107 42 5 955 r1_SBSwk108 45 6 1,574 r1_SBSwk109 48 6 846 r1_SBSwk110 31 4 41 r1_SBSwk111 18 2 94 r2_ESSFwk201 - 0 489 r2_ESSFwk204 - 0 128 r2_ESSFwk205 - 0 130 r2_ICHvk201 3 0 296 r2_ICHvk204 0 0 92 r2_ICHvk205 - 0 101 r2_SBSmk101 28 3 486 r2_SBSmk105 11 1 66 r2_SBSmk106 28 3 456 r2_SBSmk107 33 4 221 r2_SBSmk108 39 5 38 r2_SBSmk109 30 4 74 r2_SBSvk001 12 2 3,031 r2_SBSvk002 4 0 27 r2_SBSvk003 - 0 84 r2_SBSvk004 24 3 741 r2_SBSvk005 11 1 1,003 r2_SBSvk006 19 2 180 r2_SBSvk007 35 4 35 r2_SBSvk008 10 1 20 r2_SBSvk010 9 1 80 r2_SBSvk011 0 0 305 r2_SBSwk101 19 2 1,758 r2_SBSwk104 19 2 119 r2_SBSwk105 12 1 385 r2_SBSwk106 20 2 347 r2_SBSwk107 43 5 131 r2_SBSwk108 26 3 504 r2_SBSwk109 28 4 254 r2_SBSwk111 - 0 29 r3_ESSFwk201 - 0 2,043 r3_ESSFwk203 - 0 31 r3_ESSFwk204 - 0 326 r3_ESSFwk205 - 0 435 r3_ESSFwk206 - 0 102 r3_ICHvk201 3 0 3,783 r3_ICHvk202 - 0 36 r3_ICHvk203 - 0 211 r3_ICHvk204 1 0 1,152 r3_ICHvk205 1 0 508 r3_ICHvk206 28 1 43 r3_SBSmk101 43 2 1,131 r3_SBSmk104 29 1 28 r3_SBSmk105 40 2 414

Page 30

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Average Regeneration THLB Area Analysis Unit9 Attack % Delay (years) (ha) r3_SBSmk106 16 1 501 r3_SBSmk107 42 2 303 r3_SBSmk108 65 3 130 r3_SBSmk109 48 2 248 r3_SBSvk001 19 1 19,522 r3_SBSvk002 - 0 192 r3_SBSvk003 6 0 619 r3_SBSvk004 15 1 3,275 r3_SBSvk005 23 1 4,518 r3_SBSvk006 31 2 1,946 r3_SBSvk007 44 2 333 r3_SBSvk008 10 0 216 r3_SBSvk009 35 2 33 r3_SBSvk010 23 1 891 r3_SBSvk011 2 0 989 r3_SBSwk101 31 2 13,235 r3_SBSwk103 16 1 255 r3_SBSwk104 23 1 1,119 r3_SBSwk105 22 1 4,714 r3_SBSwk106 36 2 1,428 r3_SBSwk107 35 2 1,558 r3_SBSwk108 39 2 2,887 r3_SBSwk109 29 1 1,286 r3_SBSwk110 36 2 144 r3_SBSwk111 8 0 99

Dothistroma Needle Blight Areas within the SBS vk and the transition zone between the SBS wk1 and SBS vk subzones are considered highly susceptible to Dothistroma needle blight which has the potential to kill entire pine plantations. As a result, pine has not been planted in these areas since the late 1970s. Some plantations established in the mid to late 1970’s have been significantly impacted by Dothistroma such that the majority of the pine component of these stands has been killed. These stands were all declared as free-to-grow and therefore there is no reliable information on the status and location of these stands. The VRI shows many of these areas as fully stocked pine-leading stands and RESULTS has no information indicating the incidence of Dothistroma. Through some general aerial overview flights and field visits it is estimated that Dothistroma affects approximately 200 ha of regenerated pine- leading stands within the TFL. Moderate levels of spruce and balsam natural regeneration were observed on these sites; estimated at approximately 1,000 sph.

In order to approximate the growth and yield impacts of Dothistroma, five site series within the SBS vk are identified as the highest risk areas (SBSvk-02/04/05/06/09). Pine-leading stands within these site series with a log year prior to 1998 are identified as being impacted by Dothistroma with a total of 247 ha of THLB impacted. As described in Table 44, these stands are placed on a spruce / balsam natural stand yield curve at 1,000 sph, with a seven year regeneration delay starting at the year in which the stand was last harvested.

While these assumptions may not apply to the specific stands that have Dothistroma impacts, we are confident that they capture the overall timber supply impact and represent that best available information.

Page 31

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

Site Index Managed stand site productivity estimates were identified for each polygon through the Potential Site Index project (J.S. Thrower and Assoc. 2000).

Operational Adjustment Factor Operational adjustment factor (OAF) 1 is used to represent reduced yield due to gaps in stocking; and OAF2 is used to represent decay and losses due to disease and pest when they are present in large magnitudes. OAF1 is a constant reduction factor that shifts the yield curve down whereas the influence of OAF2 increases with age and therefore alters the shape of the curve.

Under the MP9 analysis an OAF 1 value of 14.6% was calculated using a 7.5 % default OAF 1 value and adding the percentage of the THLB occupied by non-productive site series from the TEM. A similar approach has been used for this analysis, calculating the non-productive portion for each productive site series as shown in Table 46. Consistent with MP9, the standard OAF 2 value of 5% will be used for this analysis.

Table 46: OAF Values.

THLB OAF 1 OAF 1 Total OAF 2 Managed AU9 Area (ha) (default) (NP) OAF 1 (%) d1_SBSvk002 1 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 d1_SBSvk004 111 7.5 0.0 7.5 5.0 d1_SBSvk005 32 7.5 5.5 13.0 5.0 d1_SBSvk006 98 7.5 11.7 19.2 5.0 d1_SBSvk009 6 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r1_ESSFwk201 514 7.5 11.9 19.4 5.0 r1_ESSFwk204 53 7.5 10.4 17.9 5.0 r1_ESSFwk205 85 7.5 0.1 7.6 5.0 r1_ESSFwk206 21 7.5 9.2 16.7 5.0 r1_ICHvk201 1,207 7.5 1.2 8.7 5.0 r1_ICHvk202 13 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r1_ICHvk203 29 7.5 24.9 32.4 5.0 r1_ICHvk204 389 7.5 10.4 17.9 5.0 r1_ICHvk205 68 7.5 7.3 14.8 5.0 r1_SBSmk101 404 7.5 1.1 8.6 5.0 r1_SBSmk104 50 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r1_SBSmk105 161 7.5 0.5 8.0 5.0 r1_SBSmk106 185 7.5 2.4 9.9 5.0 r1_SBSmk107 114 7.5 0.9 8.4 5.0 r1_SBSmk108 62 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r1_SBSmk109 145 7.5 3.0 10.5 5.0 r1_SBSvk001 14,135 7.5 1.0 8.5 5.0 r1_SBSvk002 16 7.5 25.3 32.8 5.0 r1_SBSvk003 218 7.5 1.3 8.8 5.0 r1_SBSvk004 1,767 7.5 0.8 8.3 5.0 r1_SBSvk005 2,296 7.5 1.6 9.1 5.0 r1_SBSvk006 1,134 7.5 6.9 14.4 5.0 r1_SBSvk007 211 7.5 7.6 15.1 5.0 r1_SBSvk008 74 7.5 26.2 33.7 5.0 r1_SBSvk009 14 7.5 6.5 14.0 5.0 r1_SBSvk010 96 7.5 18.1 25.6 5.0 r1_SBSvk011 471 7.5 0.5 8.0 5.0 r1_SBSwk101 7,958 7.5 3.7 11.2 5.0 r1_SBSwk103 32 7.5 0.9 8.4 5.0 r1_SBSwk104 713 7.5 0.6 8.1 5.0 r1_SBSwk105 1,989 7.5 2.4 9.9 5.0 r1_SBSwk106 1,297 7.5 6.1 13.6 5.0

Page 32

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

THLB OAF 1 OAF 1 Total OAF 2 Managed AU9 Area (ha) (default) (NP) OAF 1 (%) r1_SBSwk107 955 7.5 8.0 15.5 5.0 r1_SBSwk108 1,574 7.5 6.7 14.2 5.0 r1_SBSwk109 846 7.5 14.8 22.3 5.0 r1_SBSwk110 41 7.5 27.3 34.8 5.0 r1_SBSwk111 94 7.5 49.3 56.8 5.0 r2_ESSFwk201 489 7.5 9.1 16.6 5.0 r2_ESSFwk204 128 7.5 8.2 15.7 5.0 r2_ESSFwk205 130 7.5 14.4 21.9 5.0 r2_ICHvk201 296 7.5 4.4 11.9 5.0 r2_ICHvk204 92 7.5 0.1 7.6 5.0 r2_ICHvk205 101 7.5 12.5 20.0 5.0 r2_SBSmk101 486 7.5 0.3 7.8 5.0 r2_SBSmk105 66 7.5 3.3 10.8 5.0 r2_SBSmk106 456 7.5 1.1 8.6 5.0 r2_SBSmk107 221 7.5 0.1 7.6 5.0 r2_SBSmk108 38 7.5 1.3 8.8 5.0 r2_SBSmk109 74 7.5 17.2 24.7 5.0 r2_SBSvk001 3,031 7.5 0.7 8.2 5.0 r2_SBSvk002 27 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r2_SBSvk003 84 7.5 0.3 7.8 5.0 r2_SBSvk004 741 7.5 0.5 8.0 5.0 r2_SBSvk005 1,003 7.5 0.8 8.3 5.0 r2_SBSvk006 180 7.5 11.3 18.8 5.0 r2_SBSvk007 35 7.5 12.4 19.9 5.0 r2_SBSvk008 20 7.5 14.4 21.9 5.0 r2_SBSvk010 80 7.5 21.4 28.9 5.0 r2_SBSvk011 305 7.5 0.0 7.5 5.0 r2_SBSwk101 1,758 7.5 2.3 9.8 5.0 r2_SBSwk104 119 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r2_SBSwk105 385 7.5 2.7 10.2 5.0 r2_SBSwk106 347 7.5 3.4 10.9 5.0 r2_SBSwk107 131 7.5 10.2 17.7 5.0 r2_SBSwk108 504 7.5 13.7 21.2 5.0 r2_SBSwk109 254 7.5 17.3 24.8 5.0 r2_SBSwk111 29 7.5 38.5 46.0 5.0 r3_ESSFwk201 2,043 7.5 8.6 16.1 5.0 r3_ESSFwk203 31 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r3_ESSFwk204 326 7.5 7.7 15.2 5.0 r3_ESSFwk205 435 7.5 15.3 22.8 5.0 r3_ESSFwk206 102 7.5 5.8 13.3 5.0 r3_ICHvk201 3,783 7.5 3.7 11.2 5.0 r3_ICHvk202 36 7.5 3.8 11.3 5.0 r3_ICHvk203 211 7.5 1.2 8.7 5.0 r3_ICHvk204 1,152 7.5 1.2 8.7 5.0 r3_ICHvk205 508 7.5 7.1 14.6 5.0 r3_ICHvk206 43 7.5 2.8 10.3 5.0 r3_SBSmk101 1,131 7.5 0.5 8.0 5.0 r3_SBSmk104 28 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r3_SBSmk105 414 7.5 0.2 7.7 5.0 r3_SBSmk106 501 7.5 1.7 9.2 5.0 r3_SBSmk107 303 7.5 0.0 7.5 5.0 r3_SBSmk108 130 7.5 4.5 12.0 5.0 r3_SBSmk109 248 7.5 7.9 15.4 5.0 r3_SBSvk001 19,522 7.5 0.6 8.1 5.0 r3_SBSvk002 192 7.5 - 7.5 5.0 r3_SBSvk003 619 7.5 0.1 7.6 5.0 r3_SBSvk004 3,275 7.5 0.3 7.8 5.0

Page 33

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

THLB OAF 1 OAF 1 Total OAF 2 Managed AU9 Area (ha) (default) (NP) OAF 1 (%) r3_SBSvk005 4,518 7.5 1.0 8.5 5.0 r3_SBSvk006 1,946 7.5 6.2 13.7 5.0 r3_SBSvk007 333 7.5 17.6 25.1 5.0 r3_SBSvk008 216 7.5 13.6 21.1 5.0 r3_SBSvk009 33 7.5 27.4 34.9 5.0 r3_SBSvk010 891 7.5 11.2 18.7 5.0 r3_SBSvk011 989 7.5 0.2 7.7 5.0 r3_SBSwk101 13,235 7.5 4.1 11.6 5.0 r3_SBSwk103 255 7.5 0.7 8.2 5.0 r3_SBSwk104 1,119 7.5 1.0 8.5 5.0 r3_SBSwk105 4,714 7.5 2.0 9.5 5.0 r3_SBSwk106 1,428 7.5 11.8 19.3 5.0 r3_SBSwk107 1,558 7.5 11.1 18.6 5.0 r3_SBSwk108 2,887 7.5 7.8 15.3 5.0 r3_SBSwk109 1,286 7.5 19.3 26.8 5.0 r3_SBSwk110 144 7.5 21.0 28.5 5.0 r3_SBSwk111 99 7.5 69.2 76.7 5.0

Previously Fertilized Stands Approximately 1,863 ha of the TFL was fertilized in 2006. Separate yield curves have been generated for these stands using the fertilization information in RESULTS.

Non Satisfactorily Restocked

There are no backlog NSR stands on the TFL and therefore all stands with a harvest history that are classified as non-vegetated or vegetated non-treed in the inventory will remain in the THLB and will be considered current NSR. Standard regeneration assumptions as per Table 44 will be applied to these stands.

Utilization

Yield curves have been generated using the standard utilization levels shown in Table 47.

Table 47: Utilization Levels. Minimum dbh Maximum Stump Minimum Top dib Leading Species (cm) Height (cm) (cm) All conifer except pine 17.5 30 10 Pine 12.5 30 10

Genetic Gain

Since 1998, Canfor has been planting genetically improved stock on the TFL. Initially, the availability of genetically improved stock was limited but this increased over time until all planting occurred using genetically improved stock. Table 48 shows the average genetic gains by species by silviculture era. These genetic gains are applied to all future managed stand yield tables.

Table 48: Genetic Gains by Silviculture Era.

Silviculture % G.I. Stock Planted Genetic Gains (%) Era Pli Sx Fdi Pli Sx Fdi

Page 34

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

1998 to 2008 2 100 0 9 19 0 2008 + 2 100 0 9 28 0

Silviculture Systems

Clearcutting is the predominant silviculture system used on the TFL.

Reductions for Deciduous Component

Consistent with current practices, the deciduous component of conifer leading stands has been modelled as a reduction in volume according to the percentage of deciduous within each stand.

Reductions for Future Wildlife Tree Patches

As discussed in Section 0, wildlife tree patch targets are satisfied through various other land base reductions and objectives and therefore no additional reductions are required.

Page 35

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

18.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity analysis provides information on the degree to which uncertainty in the base case data and assumptions might affect the proposed harvest level for the TFL. The magnitude of the change in the sensitivity variable(s) reflects the degree of risk associated with a particular uncertainty – a very uncertain variable that has minimal impact on the harvest forecast represents a low risk. By developing and testing a number of sensitivity issues, it is possible to determine which variables most affect results and to provide information to guide management decisions in consideration of uncertainty.

Each of the sensitivities shown in Table 49 test the impact of a specific variable with impacts measured relative to the base case harvest forecast. The list of sensitivities may be amended as the analysis is completed and other issues arise.

Table 49: Sensitivity Analyses.

Sensitivity Range Tested

Increase initial harvest level Alternate Harvest Flow No increase harvest level Maintain initial harvest level

120 m3/ha Minimum Harvest Age 180 m3/ha 200 m3/ha

Managed Stand Yield +/- 10% Stand Volume Natural Stand Yields +/- 10%

Ecosystem Representation Enforce draft ERA targets as defined Analysis (ERA) Targets in Canfor’s SFM Plan for the TFL. Patch Size Objectives Enforce as targets in the model. Examine impact of full old retention Old Retention targets (no draw down).

Ecosystem Representation Analysis

In 2011, Canfor and BCTS completed an Ecosystem Representation Analysis (ERA) across their operations in BC. The ERA was used to determine the relative abundance of ecosystem groups and highlight rare or uncommon groupings that may need special management. ERA determined the abundance and representation of ecosystem groups within four distinct regions and 13 management units, by:

Identifying the non-harvesting land base, Classifying the forested land base into ecosystem groups (mapping at the BEC variant or PEM site series levels), and Evaluating the amount and how the ecosystem groups are distributed in the harvesting and non-harvesting land base. The following criteria was used to select the site series that would be considered rare or uncommon:

The ecosystem group is present on the Defined Forest Area (area >0%),

Page 36

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

The forested area is <= 10,000 ha in the West-Central and North – East Mountains regions (TFL 30 is location within the NE Mtns Region), The representation class is: o Low: <20% of the area is in the NHLB. o Rare/uncommon abundance is <0.1% of the forest area, and < 100% of the area of the ecosystem group is in the NHLB. If the rare or uncommon site series are encountered during field layout and determined to be a good representation of the site series, they will be reserved from harvest by excluding them from the harvest area or reserving them in WTP’s. As the timber supply impact of this is not yet known, this sensitivity analysis will examine the impacts on ensuring that at least 20% of the total productive forest area of each rare or uncommon site series is maintained as old forest as defined in Table 35.

Page 37

TFL 30 Management Plan #10 – Timber Supply Analysis – Data Package

19.0 REFERENCES Alfaro, R.I., 1994. The white pine weevil in British Columbia: biology and damage. Symposium on the White Pine Weevil: Biology, Damage and Management. Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre, Richmond, British Columbia, pp. 7–22. Beaudry and Associates. 1998. Watershed Assessment and Sediment Source Survey for TFL 30. 446p. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1995. Biodiversity Guidebook. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.Strategic Planning Regulations.Operational Planning Regulation. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/biodiv/biotoc.htm British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1999. Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook. Second Edition, August 1999. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2003 Tree Farm Licence 30 – Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination – Effective July 1, 2003. 40pp. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2008. Prince George Timber Supply Area – Timber Supply Review – Data Package. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2011. Prince George Timber Supply Area – Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination. British Columbia Forest Service. 2011. Provincial-Level Projection of the Current Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak: Update of the infestation projection based on the 2010 Provincial Aerial Overview of Forest Health and the BCMPB model (year 8). 15pp. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. 2006. CSA – SFM Sustainable Forest Management Plan for Canfor’s TFL 30 – Prince George Operations. Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. 2010. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Draft 2 Type 2 Silviculture Strategy Data Package. Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. 2010. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Draft 2 Type 2 Silviculture Strategy Analysis Report. J.S. Thrower and Associates Ltd. 2000. Potential Site Index Estimates for the Major Commercial Tree Species on TFL 30. March 31, 2000. 27pp. McGregor Resource Analysis Group Ltd. 2001. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Management Plan No. 9 – Timber Supply Analysis Data Inputs and Assumptions Report. 176p McGregor Resource Analysis Group Ltd. 2002. Tree Farm Licence 30 – Management Plan No. 9 – Timber Supply Analysis Report. 80pp; Taylor, S.P., Alfaro, R.I., DeLong, C., Rankin, L., 1996. The effects of overstory shading on white pine weevil damage to white spruce and its effects on spruce growth rates. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26, 306–312. Taylor, S.P. 1997. Relationships between white spruce vulnerability of the white pine weevil and ecological site conditions in the interior of British Columbia. Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies. Univ. Northern British Columbia. 75 p.

Page 38

20.0 APPENDIX C - COMMENT AND REVIEW INFORMATION 20.1 Approved Communication Strategy 20.2 StakeHolder Contact List 20.3 Comments Received

20.1 Approved Communication Strategy

Page 2

20.2

Public Review Strategy Tree Farm Licence 30 – Management Plan 10

Management Plan 10 (MP 10) for Tree Farm Licence 30 (TFL 30) is scheduled for approval and to be implemented on or before July 1st 2013. As part of the preparation of MP 10, this strategy has been developed to address legislation and policy requirements for the stakeholder and public review and involvement in the preparation of MP 10. The public review strategy of MP 10 will be completed in accordance with the actions and approximate timelines in the following table (Table 1). Table 1 - Public Review Timelines

Step Action Approximate Date(s) #

1 Canfor submits review strategy (this document) to RED February 15, 2012

2 RED approves review strategy February 29, 2012

3 Canfor submits, refers and advertises for review a draft April 2012 Info Package (IP)

4 Review period occurs over 60 days April – May 2012

5 Canfor considers any comments received and submits a Early June 2012 final IP

6 IP accepted by FAIB Late June 2012

7 Canfor submits, refers and advertises for review the Early October 2012 draft Management Plan (MP), including the timber supply analysis

8 Review period occurs over 60 days October – December 2012

9 Canfor considers any comments received and submits a December 2012 – final MP January 2013

10 Chief Forester approves the MP and determines the July 2013 AAC

Page 3

Advertisements In April 2012, the attached advertisement (Appendix A) will appear twice in the Prince George Citizen and Prince George Free Press, to inform the public that the Info Package will be available for review at the local Canfor and Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations offices, as well as on Canfor’s public website. This same process will be initiated in October 2012 with regard to the draft MP10, with the advertisement as per Appendix B. First Nations Referrals The attached letter (Appendix C) will be sent to First Nations as per Table 2 below: Table 2 – First Nations Contacts

First Nation Main Contact Forestry Contact

Lheidli T’enneh First Chief Dominic Jackie Brown (Natural Resources Nation Frederick Coordinator)

McLeod Lake Indian Chief Derek Orr Ryan Bichon (MLIB Forester) and Band Alec Chingee (Land Referral Manager)

West Moberly First Chief Roland Willson George Desjarlais (Forestry Officer) Nation

Agency and Stakeholder Notification Letters The attached letter (Appendix D) will be distributed to those identified in the agency (Table 3) and stakeholder contact lists (Table 4). Agency contacts will be sent a CD with the documents and maps; the Prince George District will also be provided with a paper copy. All other stakeholders will be directed to a website or to view a paper copy at either Canfor or the Prince George District office. Table 3 – Agency Contacts

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Forest Analysis and Inventory Qiong Su Natural Resource Operations Branch

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Prince George District John Pousette Natural Resource Operations

Ministry of Environment Environmental Stewardship Brady Nelless Division, Omineca Region

Page 4

Table 4 – Stakeholder Contacts

Non-timber tenure holders (trappers and guide outfitters)

City of Prince George

Regional District of Fraser-Fort George

Omineca Beetle Action Coalition

Resources North Association

BC Timber Sales – Prince George Business Area

Prince George/TFL30 Public Advisory Group members (CSA Sustainable Forest Management Plan)

Other stakeholders as identified from Canfor’s ““Creating Opportunities for Public Involvement” database (forest users, recreationists, general public, etc.)

Public Review Summary Canfor will reply in writing to each person who took the opportunity to comment on MP 10. A public review summary report will be included in the final Management Plan 10 document, noting the following: Name Organization (if applicable) Medium and date of communication Comments and follow-up Actions taken to accommodate Outstanding concerns

Page 5

APPENDIX A NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT – INFO PACKAGE

CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS LTD. DRAFT TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS INFORMATION PACKAGE - TREE FARM LICENCE 30 MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 Notice is hereby given, under section 6 (1) of the Tree Farm Licence Management Plan Regulation, that Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor) is seeking public review and comment on the Draft Timber Supply Analysis Information Package, relating to Management Plan 10 (MP 10) for Tree Farm Licence 30 (TFL 30). MP 10 is being prepared in order to meet the requirements of the Tree Farm Licence Management Plan Regulation. This regulation includes content requirements, submission timing and public review requirements for TFL Management Plans. These content requirements replace the Management Plan content requirements previously listed in the Tree Farm Licence document and reduce duplication with associated Forest Stewardship Plan results and strategies.

TFL 30 TFL 30 Tree Farm Licence 30 Tree Farm Licence 30

All interested parties are invited to view and comment on the Draft Timber Supply Analysis Information Package for MP 10, from month day, year through to month day, year. Viewing appointments can be arranged by calling our office at (250) 962-3398, or by visiting http://www.canfor.com/sustainability/xxxxx. Comments will be accepted until 4:00 pm month day, year.

For further information, please contact: Sara Cotter, RPF Planning Forester, Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Forest Management Group, P.O. Box 9000, Prince George BC V2L 4W2

Page 6

APPENDIX B NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT – DRAFT MP10

CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS LTD. DRAFT - TREE FARM LICENCE 30 MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 Notice is hereby given, under section 6 (1) of the Tree Farm Licence Management Plan Regulation, that Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor) is seeking public review and comment on Draft Management Plan 10 (MP 10) for Tree Farm Licence 30 (TFL 30). MP 10 is being prepared in order to meet the requirements of the Tree Farm Licence Management Plan Regulation. This regulation includes content requirements, submission timing and public review requirements for TFL Management Plans. These content requirements replace the Management Plan content requirements previously listed in the Tree Farm Licence document and reduce duplication with associated Forest Stewardship Plan results and strategies.

TFL 30 TFL 30 Tree Farm Licence 30 Tree Farm Licence 30

All interested parties are invited to view and comment on MP 10, from month day, year through to month day, year. Viewing appointments can be arranged by calling our office at (250) 962-3398, or by visiting http://www.canfor.com/sustainability/xxxxx. Comments will be accepted until 4:00 pm month day, year.

For further information, please contact: Sara Cotter, RPF Planning Forester, Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Forest Management Group, P.O. Box 9000, Prince George BC V2L 4W2

Page 7

APPENDIX C FIRST NATIONS REFERRAL LETTER Chief >>> First Nation>>> Address>>>

RE: Draft Management Plan 10 for TFL 30 Available for Review and Comment Dear Chief>>>: Canadian Forest Products has prepared a Draft Management Plan (MP 10) for TFL 30. The Management Plan is a legislative requirement as well as a requirement of the TFL Agreement with the Provincial Government. The current Management Plan (MP 9) is set to expire on June 30th 2013, at which time MP 10 is anticipated to replace MP 9. TFL 30 is located just northeast of Prince George in the Prince George Forest District. The TFL stretches from its western boundary near Summit Lake on Highway 97, eastward across the western foothills of the Rocky Mountains to slightly northeast of Sinclair Mills. The total land base for TFL 30 is 182,298 hectares, with a productive forest land base of 159,385 hectares or about 87 % of the total area. Forests in the area consist of spruce, balsam, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock and deciduous species. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. requests that the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation review and provide comments on MP 10, a copy of which is enclosed on CD. A paper copy of MP 10 and all maps will be provided at your request.

To facilitate information sharing between Canfor and the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation, we are interested in meeting to discuss MP 10. Given the fiduciary responsibility of the Crown to First Nations, Canfor will be requesting the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to coordinate any such meeting. If you are interested in participating in a meeting, please contact Stacy Perkins, First Nations Consultation Coordinator, at (250) 614-7503. Sincerely,

Sara Cotter, RPF Planning Forester (250) 962-3398 [email protected]

Encls. Draft Management Plan 10 for TFL30, including maps (CD) cc: Stacy Perkins, First Nations Consultation Coordinator, Ministry of Natural Resource Operations

Page 8

APPENDIX D STAKEHOLDER REFERRAL LETTER

Name>>> Address>>>

RE: Draft Management Plan 10 for TFL 30 Available for Review and Comment Dear Sir or Madam: Canadian Forest Products has prepared a Draft Management Plan (MP 10) for TFL 30. The Management Plan is a legislative requirement as well as a requirement of our TFL Agreement with the Provincial Government. Our current Management Plan (MP 9) is set to expire on June 30th 2013, at which time MP 10 is anticipated to replace MP 9. TFL 30 is located just northeast of Prince George in the Prince George Forest District. The TFL stretches from its western boundary near Summit Lake on Highway 97, eastward across the western foothills of the Rocky Mountains to slightly northeast of Sinclair Mills. The total land base for TFL 30 is 182,298 hectares, with a productive forest land base of 159,385 hectares or about 87 % of the total area. Forests in the area consist of spruce, balsam, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock and deciduous species. We are seeking public input on MP 10, which will be available for review and comment from 9 am to 3 pm from at the Canfor Administration Centre, located at 5162 Northwood Pulp Mill Road, Prince George. Alternatively, MP 10 is available for viewing on Canfor’s website at http://www.canfor.com/sustainability/xxxxx, or at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Prince George District office, located at 2000 South Ospika Boulevard.

If you are unable to view the proposed plan at the above times or locations, please contact us to make alternative arrangements.

Sincerely,

Sara Cotter, RPF Planning Forester Canadian Forest Products Ltd.

(250) 962-3398 [email protected]

Page 9

20.2 Stake Holder Contact List

Contact Association Comments Apps, Grace Longworth Recreation Unknown Interest Commission Blackburn, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. William 2012-05-01. CC. Supply Blocks H & T, McGregor, Kenneth, and Otter Operating areas. Calvert, Supply Block D, Bobtail Operating area. Supply Block Q. Supply Jane Block T. Carty, Lyle Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-02. CC. Supply Block T, Barney Creek, Darby Lake, Averil Mtn. Chingee, McLeod Lake Band Contact address changed from P.O. Box 64, Chetwynd, V0C 1J0 to Alec General Delivery, McLeod Lake, V0J 2G0 as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-02. CC. Supply Block E, McLeod Operating area. Supply Block T Doucette, Prince George Forest Watch Former TFL 30 Public Advisory Group representative/observer (pre- Greg 2007) Supply Block T - Did not load all TFL Oper. Areas, not sure where the specific interest is?? DuBois, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Jack 2012-05-02. CC. Supply Block T. Dubois, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Robert G. 2012-05-02. CC. Supply Block T. Elder, Veda Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Gail 2012-05-02. CC. Supply Block T & G, Torpy Operating area. Elmquist, Bear Lake Recreation Supply Block T John Association Everall, Nukko Lake Recreation Supply Block A,B,D,E,F,G,H,T - Should confirm Spatial Areas? Jane Commission Giesinger, Hixon Community Supply Blocks E,G,T, Indianpoint, Government, Stoney Rep. For Valerie Association Hixon Comm. Assoc. - Sent Creating Opp. Form Hooker, Address changed from General Delivery to 13914 Dome Creek Road Kenneth W. as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-03. CC. Supply Blocks T & H, Torpt Operating area. Hunter, Dan Strider Adventures Former TFL 30 Public Advisory Group representative and PG Public Advisory Group alternate. Supply Block T King, Dave Caledonia Ramblers Hiking TFL 30 and PG Public Advisory Group member. Confirm Spatial Club Areas? Kinsey, Prince George Naturalists PTFL 30 and PG Public Advisory Group member. Detailed Sandra Club communication strategies. Highly active member of the PAG's. Public Information Form - Interested in reviewing FDP's. Concerned about habitat management (landscape and wildlife species, management strategies in FDP) and access control strategies to protect wildlife. All operating areas, in Vanderhoof, PG, and FSJ Districts All Supply Blocks - Prince George TSA Latham, First name changed from David J. to Joseph D. Contact address Joseph D. current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-03. CC. Supply Blocks T & H, Kenneth, McGregor, and Otter Operating areas. Lewis, Outdoor Recreation Council Supply Block T, Pan Lake Rd- eastern end of TFL, Giscome Portage Kathy of BC Trail and other hiking trails.

Page 10

Lizotte, Contact address changed from 3865 Salmon Valley, V2K 5X3 to 2110 Ivan Old Summit Lake Rd North, V2K 5X2 as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-03. CC. Supply Block T (West End). Ivan works west of the Highway - leases his trapline east of the highway to Wayne Nedoborski. Mackay, Hixon Community Supply Block A/B/D/E/F/G/T, Government, Stony, and Indian Point Dean Association Operating areas. Maida, Judy North Central Guide Outfitters Association McDowell, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Ernest A. 2012-05-04. CC. Supply Block T & G, Purden Operating area, Upper Fraser area. Mead, Hixon Community Supply blocks E,G,T,Government, Indianpoint, Stoney Hixon Tammy Association Community Assoc. Rep. Mueller, Wayne Mueller Guide & Address changed from Box 65, Upper Fraser, V0J 2Z0 to 37910 Upper Wayne R. Outfitters Fraser Rd, Sinclair Mills, V0J 3M0 as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-04. CC. Supply Block H, Kenneth Operating area. Nash, Mike Nedoborski, Leases Ivan Lizotte's trapline east of Hwy 97. Wayne PG Other members: Lee Sexsmith (see COPI entry); Greg McCallum, Snowmobile President (Nov. 2009) (no other COPI entry); Greg Redmond (past Club, president) See entries for Lee Sexsmith for PGSC communications prior to November 2009. Parker, Ken Alpine Club of Canada Supply Blocks H & T, McGregor, Otter, Herrick, Walker, Torpy, Einar, and Dome Operating areas. Pattison, Sentinel Mountain Safaris Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Roy 2012-05-02. CC. Supply Block E. Purdue, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Allan H. 2012-05-04. CC. Supply Blocks T & H, Kenneth Operating area. Purdue, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Randy 2012-05-04. CC. Supply Blocks T & H, Kenneth Operating area. Purdue, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Richard 2012-05-04. CC. Supply Block T & H, Kenneth Operating area. Schwartz, Address changed from 23605 West Red Rock Road to Box 2132 as Michael E. per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-04. CC. Supply Blocks T & H, Otter Operating area. Schwartz, Previous TR0716T001 owned currently by SHWARTZ, Clinton and Robert E. Michael. As per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-07. CC. Supply Blocks T & H, Otter Operating area. Sexsmith, Prince George Snowmobile Member of TFL 30 and PG Public Advisory Groups; also member of Lee Club PG Snowmobile Club. Supply Block E. Sharpe, Previous Trapline TR0707T007 owned currently by TALLMAN, Richard Monique and Richard and Trapline TR0707T008 owned currently by ANDERSON, Alan W. and TALLMAN, Blaine as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. 2012-05-07. CC. Supply Blocks G & T, Eaglet Lake and Newlands Road areas. Mail Returned - changed from PG Group 1 to Group 3 as per B. Aro Shipley, Supply Block H & T, McGregor Operating area, Pass Lake area Amber surrounding Woodall Mtn.

Page 11

Shroder, Supply Blocks T & H, Kenneth, Torpy, & Dome Operating areas, Mr. Longwoth & Penny areas. Smith, Bear Paw Guides & Contact address changed from General Delivery, Sinclair Mills, V0J Dennis Outfitters 3M0 to Box 354, Chetwynd, V0C 1J0 as per 2011-2012 MOE Guide David Information. 2012-05-09. CC. Supply Block H, Otter Operating area. Also interested in Supply Blocks A, B, E, & T. Smith, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Gordon 2012-05-07. CC. Supply Block D. Supply Blocks H & T, McGregor Operating area, Pass Lake Road. Smith, Irene Supply Blocks H & T. Letter returned - May 2007 (was sent to General Delivery, Sinclair Mills, V0J 3M0) Tallman, Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Blaine 2012-05-07. CC. Supply Block G & T, Hospital Creek area. Tereshuk, Previous Trapline TR0707T008 owned currently by ANDERSON, John E. Alan W. and TALLMAN, Blaine as per 2011-2012 Trapper Information. 2012-05-07. CC Supply Block G & T, Hospital Creek area. Tirrul- Interested in Heritage Trail known as Giscome Portage. Jones, James L. Wilkins, Prince George Trappers Contact address current as per 2011-2012 MOE Trapper Information. Don Association 2012-05-08. CC. Supply Blocks G & T.

Agencies: Resources North Omineca Beetle Action Coalition BC Timber Sales – Prince George Business Area Regional District of Fraser-Fort George Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Landbase Stewardship, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations City of Prince George, Att: Community Forest Manager

Prince George/TFL30 Sustainable Forest Management Public Advisory Group: Betty Abbs Dave King Chris Andreschefski Sandra Kinsey Shannon Carson Gundula Meyer-Eppler Mark Clark Anne Migvar Hilary Crowley Jeff Mohr Jo Graber Esther Perry Norm Holt Ken Pickering Ray Hourie Patience Rakochy Michelle Hourie Laura Ryser Melanie Karjala Lee Sexsmith Virginia Karr Don Wilkins David Kim Ian Wilson

Page 12