Presentation on theme: "Type 4 Strategy Update Winter SISCO What’s done and what have we learned…. 1 February 25, 2014 Winter SISCO - Kamloops. BC."— Presentation transcript:
Type 4 Strategy Update Winter SISCO What’s done and what have we learned…. 1 February 25, 2014 Winter SISCO - Kamloops. BC
Update Complete or Near Complete: Quesnel Williams Lake Lakes Okanagan Morice 100 Mile Prince George Just Started Kamloops On Radar for 2014 Invermere, Cranbrook, Strathcona, Arrow 2 August 16, 2013 Web Meeting For More Info: HFP/silstrat/index.htm
What Have We Learned: Ideas Fall into Three Broad Themes 1.Technical Analysis / Solutions 2.Planning Process 3.Information Gaps See abstract for details – lets dig into just one of them here: Fertilization vs Rehabilitation Treatments – which one? August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 3
Quesnel and Williams Lake TSAs Prioritize Rehab Treatments in short term because Fert Treatments can wait (but do both). Preferred Strategy Expenditures (Williams Lake) August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 4
Why Rehab over Fert? Rehab has potential to provide merchantable volume for mills at the time of treatment AND increase the effective landbase in the long term. Example – a dead Pl stand with 35m3/ha of green spruce scattered throughout is currently uneconomic and not expected to amount to much in next 80 years. If rehabbed now (FLTC or ITSL) it provides 35 m3/ha of merch volume into the timber supply + capture the sites potential with a new managed stand. Costs to treat are offset by realized merch volume. August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 5
Why is Fert Lower Priority? Limited number of currently suitable stands. Risk of loss reduced and ROI increased when fert done closer to harvest. Still plenty of time to treat stands prior when they will be harvested (midterm). Example – in fires t August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 6
Fertilization vs Rehabilitation Fertilization +15m3/ha in 10 yrs Cost is $450/ha Rehabilitation Re-establish stands rendered uneconomic by MPB related mortality – with + ~30m3/ha now? +100m3/ha in 60 yrs Cost is $ /ha August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 7
Base Case Review 8 August 16, 2013 Web Meeting Short term: 3.2 M Midterm: 1.8 M Long term: 3.6 M Midterm: Yrs % Pl in Yrs 1-5 Lowest Point of Available Growing Stock is in Years
Base Case Review 9 August 16, 2013 Web Meeting Salvage in first two periods. Small but important role for IDF. Transition to managed stands starts in 20 yrs. Heavily reliant by 40 yrs.
Base Case Review 10 August 16, 2013 Web Meeting Most >60% dead stands salvaged – leaving lesser impacted stands for Midterm Youngest stand profile (smallest timber) harvested between yrs
Base Case Review 11 August 16, 2013 Web Meeting Average harvest volume in short term is 100m3/ha and then improves. Average harvest age is ~90 years in the long term but gets a low as 68 in year 50. Harvest area is very high during salvage period (30,000 ha/yr) but reaches a long term average of 15,000 ha/yr.
BASE CASE SENSITIVITIES Harvest Flows Min Harvest Volumes Shelf Life Min Harvest Ages August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 12
Alternative Base Case Harvest Flows August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 13 Alternative approaches to short term harvesting can yield different outcomes in the midterm. Avoiding the harvest of stands that remain viable in the midterm – improves the midterm but foregoes the economic value of the pine lost.
Sensitivity: Revised Min Harvest Criteria August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 14 Short (+12%) Mid (+21%) Rise (+13%) Long (+5%) Short (-4%) Mid (-9%) Rise (-1%) Long (-6%) Base Case: 80 m³/ha for salvage, 110 m³/ha for second growth
Sensitivity: Revised Shelf-Life August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 15
Sensitivity: Revised Shelf-Life August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 16 Short (+15%) Mid (~) Rise (+23%) Long (+5%)
Sensitivity: Longer MHAs (Quesnel Ex) August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 17
Sensitivity: Longer MHAs August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 18
Sensitivity: Deciduous Currently very little utilization of deciduous material Estimate opportunity Deemed lower priority August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 19
Sensitivity: Limit the Harvest of Small Pine Harvesting small pine becomes less economic with longer haul distances Deemed lower priority – not completed August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 20
Key Points: Base Case and Sensitivities WL TSA is heading towards a low in available volume after the 4 th decade (29.3 MM m³) Harvest forecasts are very sensitive to: Salvage effort and stand types salvaged Shelf-life Minimum harvest criteria (MHA) August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 21
SILVICULTURE STRATEGIES August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 22
Strategy: Fertilization August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 23 Incremental volumes achieved after 10 yrs (single or multiple treatments) 12m³/ha 15m³/ha 15m³/ha (Mulitple Sx fertilization done every 5 yrs, with larger gains) Area Treated Over Time
Strategy: Fertilization August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 24 Budget maximized after 15 years The model harvests all stands that are treated and does not treat stands that are not harvested. Half of volume harvested in midterm is comes from natural stands. Multiple Sx fertilization is prioritized (most cost efficient).
Strategy: Fertilization August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 25 Short (~) Mid (0-10%) (little to no ACE effect occurs) Rise (+5%) Long (+8%)
Strategy: PCT and Fertilize August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 26 Relatively little area eligible (6,800 ha) Lower priority than to fertilize existing stands with appropriate density – higher cost and gain is similar. Low priority – dropped
Strategy: Spacing Dry-Belt Fd (Thinning young thickets in NonUWR stands 10% volume increase at harvest August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 27 Area Treated $’s Spent
Strategy: Spacing Dry-Belt Fd August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 28 Short (~) Mid (+3%) Rise (+1%) Long (not investigated) Delayed response as have to wait 30 yrs after treatment to harvest.
Strategy: Rehabilitation Reforest MPB impacted stands that are non-merch (<80m 3 /ha) August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 29 Area Treated $’s Spent Extensive opportunity, full budget spent (~1,500 ha/yr).
Strategy: Rehabilitation August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 30 Short (~) Mid (+8%) - volume at time of treatment + some THLB back in Rise (+13%) – Non merch stands brought back into production Long (+13%) – Non merch stands brought back into production
Strategy: Partial Cut in Constrained Areas Harvest of 1/3 volume in constrained areas, no impact to non timber values August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 31 Area Treated $’s Spent
Strategy: Partial Cut in Constrained Areas August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 32 Short (~) Mid (+14) Rise (no attempt to improve) Long (no attempt to improve) Significant improvement in midterm due to accessing stands that would otherwise not be available.
Strategy: Enhanced Basic Reforestation Improved well-spaced densities, fewer gaps ( OAF1), more planting / class A seed August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 33 Area Treated $’s Spent Budget max reached in several periods, about 70% of stands logged in midterm get enhanced reforestation.
Strategy: Enhanced Basic Reforestation August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 34 Short (~) Mid (+5%) Rise (+2%) Long (+12%) First stands are ready in years as min harvest volumes are reached sooner. Mid and long term benefit from enhanced yields. Little to no ACE effect.
Optimized Mix – $3 Million/yr Budget August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 35 Area Treated $’s Spent Budget max reached every year Rehab and Enhanced Basic are dominant initially (first 5 yrs) Fertilization ramps up over time (almost all eligible stands treated before harvest) Majority of the budget spent on Rehab in all time periods Partial cutting is key to improving early midterm. Spacing of drybelt Fd is a focus in early periods.
Optimized Mix – $3 Million/yr Budget August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 36 Short (~) Mid (+22%) Rise (+2%) Long (+11%) Midterm increased as priority over longterm.
Optimized Mix – $5 Million/yr Budget August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 37 Budget max reached every year (5 Million) Treatment decisions very similar to 3 million budget. Heavy spending on rehab Ramp up of fertilization Steady spending on enhanced reforestation Partial cutting to help the front end of the midterm. Most thinning of Drybelt fir in early periods Area Treated $’s Spent
Strategy: Composite $5M/yr August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 38 Short (~) Mid (+28%) Rise (+10%) Long (+17%) Midterm increased as priority over longterm.
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 39
Stand-Level Economics - Assumptions August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 40 2% discount rate Net economic benefit of $25/m 3 on the additional volume realized (net benefit to crown from additional cubic meter harvested and moving through the economy).
Stand-Level Economics - Results August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 41 Multi Spruce Fert (3-5) most attractive fert option. Rehab, Partial Cut, and Enhanced Basic have positive return at 2%.
Forest-Level Economics August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 42 $3M Budget NPV = $122 M $5M Budget NPV = $182 M
Forest-Level Economics August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 43
Key Points: Silviculture Strategies Rehab appears to be the largest opportunity and warrants significant investment. It buys wood in the short term from stands that will never be eligible, plus adds to the long term harvest by putting them into production. Partial harvesting in constrained areas is the only strategy to help fill in the front of the midterm. It borrows volume from later in the forecast (i.e., no extra volume) Fertilization is important but not as time sensitive as other treatments. There are several decades before any of these stands will be harvested so time exists to treat them. Both Composite Scenarios (3M and 5M budgets) are similar in treatment selections/proportions and have positive NPV at the forest level (2% discount rate). August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 44
PREFERRED STRATEGY Based on the finding shown here and general knowledge of the TSA and its options – what is the preferred strategy for the next 5-10 yrs? August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 45
Optimize $5 M Budget? August 16, Web Meeting
Next Steps and Timing Modelling and Analysis Report Distribute for review - end of August Silviculture Strategy Report Distribute for review – end of August Tactical Plan Deferred August 16, Web Meeting
48 August 16, 2013 Web Meeting
Harvest Flow Differences August 16, 2013 Web Meeting 49 Base Case Change relative to Base Case (m³/yr) ScenarioShort-TermMid-TermRise to Long-TermLong-Term Fertilization of Sx, Pl, Fd 2,0000% 42,0002% 138,0005% 297,0008% Spacing dry-belt Fd (4,000)0% 50,0003% 15,0001% -0% Rehabilitation (3,000)0% 147,0008% 353,00013% 463,00013% Enhanced Basic Reforestation (4,000)0% 83,0005% 69,0002% 433,00012% Partial cut in constrained areas (4,000) 241,00014% (8,000)0% (2,000)0% Combined Silviculture ($3 M/yr) (4,000)0% 140,0008% 202,0007% 595,00017% Combined Silviculture ($5 M/yr) (4,000)0% 237,00013% 290,00010% 865,00024%