Section VI:Landscape-level effects of Herbicide Reduction

- Preliminary Results -

Kandyd Szuba, Domtar Inc.

on behalf of the VMAP team

Category Area (ha) % of Provincial Crown Forest

% of the Crown Forest in the

AOU

% of the Area Harvested Each Year

Total Provincial Crown Forest

63,589,200 100

Total Provincial Crown Forest in the Area of the Undertaking

31,357,800 49.31 100

Total Crown Forest Harvested 2005-2006

205,000 0.32 0.65 100

Total Crown Forest Chemically Tended 2005-2006

75,000 0.12 0.24 36.59

From OMNR Annual Report on Forest Management 2005/2006

A small area is treated chemically each year, but over time it adds up!

~ 12% of the Provincial Crown Forest in total, or

~ 24% of the AOU over 100 years.

Background

Background cont.

• Past focus on effects of herbicides on growth and yield and composition at the plot level and stand level

• Potential for effects at landscape level over time

Objectives

Use case studies to model potential effects of herbicide reduction in the context of:

• The forest level (i.e., Sustainable Forest License [SFL])• Approved forest management plans (FMPs)

Assess:• What is the impact of reduced herbicide use on the ability to achieve the social, ecological, and economic objectives of an FMP?• Without herbicides, how much does it cost to achieve FMP

objectives?

Approach2 Forest Management Units

Spanish Forest Romeo Malette Forest1,018,037 524,417

Spruce % 23 49Jack Pine % 25 10Hardwood % (Po, Bw) 23 20Mixedwood % 24 22

2005-2010 2009-2019SFMM (non-spatial) SFMM input into

Patchworks (spatial)

21 species 9 speciesvariety of age preferences

weighted to old growth

within BNV (no more than 20% less than the lowest null value over 100 years)

within BNV (70% of null in each 10 year term)

Forest CompositionOld GrowthWood Supply targets = current levels or controlled decline

disturbance sizes for 5 years

disturbance sizes for 60 years

Other

Attribute

Productive Crown Forest (ha)

Vintage of FMPModeling Approach

FMP Objectives

marten cores for 60 years

Habitat Supply

control renewal costs

Landscape Configuration

maintain or restore to BNVmaintain within BNV

ApproachThe Forests and Their Associated FMPs

ApproachModels, Objectives, and Constraints

I) Use SFMM models approved by MNR for the FMPsi) SF – non-spatial SFMM analysisii) RMF – feed SFMM model into Patchworks for spatial analysis

II) Add a brushsaw option for tending (with realistic cost)

III) Modify growth & yield curves for brushsawing based on experimental trials*

IV) Maintain existing FMP objectives and constraintsi) SF ecological objectives = constraints in SFMM; wood supply = an outcomeii) RMF – Patchworks seeks a “good solution” that achieves all objectives; weights ecological

objectives heavily

* G&Y task team – Todd Little (Domtar – management forester), Mike Malek (MNR Resource Analyst), Ken Lennon (MNR Forest Productivity Specialist), with input from Wayne Bell (MNR research scientist)

ApproachYield Curve Modifications (NMV)

0

50

100

150

200

250

A5A25

A45A65

A85A105

A125A145

A165A185

A205A225

A245

Age

Yie

ld (

Cu

bic

Me

tre

s/h

a)

Brushsaw Po Brushsaw Totals Original Totals

Original SPF Brushsaw SPF Orignial Po

Yield Curves for SP1 With and Without Brushsaw Treatments

original = with herbicide treatments

SP1=upland black spruce; may contain up to 30% poplar

ApproachYield Curve Modifications (NMV)

0

50

100

150

200

250

A5

A1

5

A2

5

A3

5

A4

5

A5

5

A6

5

A7

5

A8

5

A9

5

A1

05

A1

15

A1

25

A1

35

A1

45

A1

55

A1

65

A1

75

A1

85

A1

95

A2

05

A2

15

A2

25

A2

35

A2

45

A2

55

Age

Yie

ld (

Cu

bic

Me

tre

s/h

a)

Brushsaw Sb Brushsaw Bw Brushsaw Totals

Original Totals Original Bw Original Sb

Yield Curves for SB1 (Intensity 1) With and Without Brushsaw Treatments

original = with herbicide treatments

0

50

100

150

200

250

A5A25

A45A65

A85A105

A125A145

A165A185

A205A225

A245

Age

Yie

ld (

Cu

bic

Me

tre

s/h

a)

Brushsaw Po Brushsaw Totals Original Totals

Original SPF Brushsaw SPF Orignial Po

Yield Curves for SP1 With and Without Brushsaw Treatments

original = with herbicide treatments

0

50

100

150

200

250

A5

A15

A25

A35

A45

A55

A65

A75

A85

A95

A10

5

A11

5

A12

5

A13

5

A14

5

A15

5

A16

5

A17

5

A18

5

A19

5

A20

5

A21

5

A22

5

A23

5

A24

5

A25

5

Age

Yie

ld (C

ub

ic M

etre

s/h

a)

Brushsaw Total Original Intn1 Totals

Original Conifer Brushsaw Conifer

Brushsaw & Original Hardwood

Yield Curves for SF1 (Intensity 1) With and Without Brushsaw Treatments

original = with herbicide treatments

No change to curves for brushsawing in:

• jack pine (PJ1, PJ2),

• lowland Ce-La-Sb mix (LC1),

• boreal mixedwood (MW1, MW2),

• poplar (PO1), birch (BW1)

ApproachEight Scenarios

Run these scenarios:

1) Selected management alternative (SMA) from the approved FMP (normal budget (NB), full area available for herbicide application)

2) SMA & brushsawing (BR) & unlimited silviculture budget3) SMA & BR & NB4) SMA & BR & NB but only 75% of the SMA area available for herbicides5) SMA & BR & NB with 50% area for herbicides6) SMA & BRwith NB and 25% area for herbicides7) SMA with NB and 0% of the area for herbicides8) SMA with 0% of the area for herbicides and an unlimited silviculture budget

Assess scenarios up to 60 years

ApproachSilviculture Costs

Aspects Extensive Basic 1 Intensive 1

Intensive 3

Brushsawing

General Description

Natural Regeneration

SIP and seeding: CLAAG

SIP and planting

SIP and planting improved stock

Only shown for intensive treatments

Spanish $32 $380 to $565 $880 $1,000 $1347 to $1365

Romeo Malette

$30 to $62 $177 to 484 $1041 to $1158

$1362 to $1525

$1374 to $2012

Notes Varies depending on forest type and seeding vs. planting

Treatment PackageExamples of Silviculture Cost Per Hectare Treated

Results Highlights – Harvested Area

Forecast of Annual Area Harvested - Spanish Forest

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Year Plan term

Are

a (

he

cta

res

)

FMP BR-U$-H100 BR-H100BR-H75 BR-H50 BR-H25BR-H0 BR-H0-U$

Spanish Forest Case

Harvest Area (hectares; 60

Year Average)

% of Case 1 (SMA - FMP)

1 - SMA-FMP 10,894 100.0

2 -SMA-BR-U$ H100 10,992 100.9

3 - SMA-BR-H100 10,914 100.2

4 - SMA-BR-H75 10,788 99.0

5 - SMA -BR-H50 10,510 96.56 - SMA-BR-H25 10,060 92.37 - SMA-BR-H0 7,580 69.68 - SMA-BR-U$ H0 7,101 65.2

Results Highlights – SPF Volume

Forecast of Annual Harvest Volume of SPF - Spanish

30000

130000

230000

330000

430000

530000

630000

730000

830000

930000

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Year Plan term

Vo

lum

e (

cu

bic

me

tre

s)

FMP BR-U$-H100 BR-H100BR-H75 BR-H50 BR-H25BR-H0 BR-H0-U$ Industrial Demand

Results Highlights – SPF Volume

Species Group

Romeo Malette Scenario (60 Years) Targets First 20 years

Targets 30 Years+ in the Future

Mean Annual Volume Available

% of the SMA-FMP Level

SMA-FMP + brushsaw option 327,600 305,000 304,362 100.0SMA + brushsaw option + unlimited silviculture 306,223 100.6SMA + brushsaw + 25% herbicide reduction 291,856 95.9

SMA + brushsaw + 50% herbicide reduction 284,908 93.6SMA + brushsaw + 75% herbicide reduction 276,661 90.9SMA + brushsaw + 100% herbicide reduction 273,091 89.7SMA + brushsaw + 100% herbicide reduction + unlimited silviculture

297,534 97.8

SPF

Results Highlights – Stumpage to the Crown

Forecast of Annual Stumpage to the Crown- Spanish - All Species

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Year Plan term

Stu

mp

ag

e (

1,0

00

s o

f D

olla

rs)

SMA-FMP BR-U$-H100 BR-H100 BR-H75

BR-H50 BR-H25 BR-H0 BR-H0-U$

Direct revenue to the province. Excludes the stumpage charges paid for forest renewal & FRI.

Results Highlights – Road Distribution & Cost

Sample Road network at 40 years – more dispersed with 100% herbicide reduction (right)

Results - HighlightsRoad Distribution & Cost

Herbicide reduction requires a larger active road network. This results in higher maintenance cost and higher hauling cost per cubic metre

harvested.

Aspect Value SMA-FMPBR-U$-H100

BR-H75 BR-H50 BR-H25 BR-H0 BR-U$-H0

Mean 60 Yrs 0.67 0.59 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.63% of SMA-FMP 100.0 88.8 94.1 96.6 99.5 99.4 93.8Mean 3.06 3.37 3.44 3.50 3.45 3.54 3.47% of SMA-FMP 100.0 110.2 112.4 114.5 112.7 115.5 113.5Mean

2.16 1.85 2.09 2.23 2.37 2.38 2.19% of SMA-FMP 100.0 85.9 96.9 103.2 109.5 110.0 101.3Mean 5.89 5.81 6.16 6.38 6.49 6.59 6.29% of SMA-FMP 100.0 98.6 104.6 108.3 110.2 111.9 106.8Total cost

Average Road Cost Per Cubic Metre of Wood Harvested - Romeo Malette Forest

Construction Cost

Hauling Cost

Maintenance Cost

Results - Ecological Effects

LOTS of Old Growth!Forecasted Supply of Old Growth Mixed Conifer Upland (MCU) - Spanish

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

10 Year Plan term

Are

a (h

ecta

res)

FMP

BR-U$-H100

BR-H100

BR-H75

BR-H50

BR-H25

BR-H0

BR-H0-U$

Lower BNV

MCU = SF1+SP1+PJ2

Some SFMM models would not solve because ecological targets were limiting

Results - Ecological Effects

Supply of Preferred Habitat for the Black-backed Woodpecker - Spanish

15000

25000

35000

45000

55000

65000

75000

85000

95000

105000

115000

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Year Plan term

Are

a (h

ecta

res)

FMP BR-U$-H100 BR-H100

BR-H75 BR-H50 BR-H25

BR-H0 BR-H0-U$ Lower BNV

And other mature and old-forest loving species as less area was harvested

Lots of habitat for the Black-backed Woodpecker!

Results - Ecological Effects

Supply of Preferred Habitat for the American Kestrel - All Cases

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Year Plan term

Are

a (h

ecta

res)

FMP BR-U$-H100 BR-H100

BR-H75 BR-H50 BR-H25

BR-H0 BR-H0-U$ Lower BNV

Less habitat for the American Kestrel

Results - Ecological Effects

Supply of Preferred Habitat for the White-throated Sparrow - Spanish

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

120000

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Year Plan term

Are

a (h

ecta

res)

FMP BR-U$-H100 BR-H100BR-H75 BR-H50 BR-H25BR-H0 BR-H0-U$ Lower BNV

Less habitat for the White-throated Sparrow

Results - Ecological Effects

Supply of Preferred Habitat for the Moose (Browse) - Spanish

15000

25000

35000

45000

55000

65000

75000

85000

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Year Plan term

Are

a (h

ecta

res)

FMP BR-U$-H100 BR-H100BR-H75 BR-H50 BR-H25BR-H0 BR-H0-U$ Lower BNV

Less moose browsing habitat

Preliminary Modeling Conclusions

Herbicide reduction resulted in:

• Less area harvested

• Less SPF volume harvested (also with unlimited silviculture $$)

• Lower net revenue to the Crown (also with unlimited silviculture $$)

• A larger network of active roads

• Higher cost for maintaining roads and hauling wood

•More old growth (more than needed to meet ecological targets)

• More habitat for wildlife preferring mature and old forest

• Less habitat for species of young or recently disturbed forest (kestrel, moose, white-throated sparrow)

Some SFMM models would not solve for ecological reasons. Model choices were influenced by G&Y penalties (lower yield in some cases with

brushsawing treatments), higher silviculture cost (up to ~2 times greater for brushsawing), and ecological constraints.