1. 1 MPB Mitigation Silviculture Treatments To mitigate timber supply problems in management units affected by catastrophic mountain pine beetle Presentation to MOF Executive 20-Jun-05

2. 2 Context n On Jan 17, 2005 FPB made a presentation on ”Timber restoration strategies for Interior BC" n During that presentation, the executive requested that FPB provide further information that would clarify the merits of mitigation silviculture treatments n This presentation will provide information for a decision to support fertilization as a mitigation treatment

3. 3 Presentation Objectives n Clarify u How MPB affects timber supply

4. 4 Presentation Objectives n Clarify u How MPB affects timber supply n Identify u How fertilization can mitigate short and mid-term timber supply shortfalls u Anticipated fertilization response in Interior stands u Potential areas for fertilization u Proposed fertilization program

5. 5 Presentation Objectives n Clarify u How MPB affects timber supply n Identify u How fertilization can mitigate short and mid-term timber supply shortfalls u Anticipated fertilization response in Interior stands u Potential areas for fertilization u Proposed fertilization program n Confirm u MOF Executive direction regarding program components and budget

6. 6 Context Mountain pine beetle n MPB mortality and salvage is disrupting forest age class distributions, creating a timber supply problem

7. 7 Context Mountain pine beetle n MPB mortality and salvage is disrupting forest age class distributions, creating a timber supply problem n Every tree to be harvested in the next 40–60 years is in the ground now

8. 8 Context Mountain pine beetle n MPB mortality and salvage is disrupting forest age class distributions, creating a timber supply problem n Every tree to be harvested in the next 40–60 years is in the ground now n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands

9. 9 Context Mountain pine beetle n MPB mortality and salvage is disrupting forest age class distributions, creating a timber supply problem n Every tree to be harvested in the next 40–60 years is in the ground now n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands n Fertilization can be used strategically to mitigate “pinch points” in the timber supply

10. 10 Context Mountain pine beetle n MPB mortality and salvage is disrupting forest age class distributions, creating a timber supply problem n Every tree to be harvested in the next 40–60 years is in the ground now n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands n Fertilization can be used strategically to mitigate “pinch points” in the timber supply n Many jurisdictions in similar latitudes (e.g., Sweden, Finland) have used fertilization effectively to improve timber supply

11. 11 Context Mountain pine beetle n MPB mortality and salvage is disrupting forest age class distributions, creating a timber supply problem n Every tree to be harvested in the next 40–60 years is in the ground now n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands n Fertilization can be used strategically to mitigate “pinch points” in the timber supply n Many jurisdictions in similar latitudes (e.g., Sweden, Finland) have used fertilization effectively to improve timber supply n Preliminary analysis of Williams Lake, Prince George, Quesnel, and Lakes TSAs indicates positive opportunities for fertilization to improve timber supply shortfalls

12. 12 Forest Dynamics (conceptual) How fertilization mitigates MPB effects harvest volume area age class distribution years from now2500 MPB mortality area n Fertilizing 30- to 70-year-old stands (blue) can increase harvest volumes 20–40 years from now

13. 13 Forest Dynamics (conceptual) How fertilization mitigates MPB effects harvest volume area age class distribution years from now n Fertilizing 30- to 70-year-old stands (blue) can increase harvest volumes 20–40 years from now n Fertilizing 15- to 30-year-old stands (green) can increase harvest volumes 40–70 years from now 2500 MPB mortality area

14. 14 Fertilization Response n The ministry has done 25 years of fertilizer research in the interior and has published scientific information for several species, sites, and ages n Work has been done in close cooperation with universities, industry, and others leading to good support for operational fertilization

15. 15 Fertilization Response n The ministry has done 25 years of fertilizer research in the interior and has published scientific information for several species, sites, and ages n Work has been done in close cooperation with universities, industry, and others leading to good support for operational fertilization n Fertilizer response potential of interior lodgepole pine is well documented and local fertilizer response information for other species (Fdi, Sx) is available

16. 16 Fertilization Response n The ministry has done 25 years of fertilizer research in the interior and has published scientific information for several species, sites, and ages n Work has been done in close cooperation with universities, industry, and others leading to good support for operational fertilization n Fertilizer response potential of interior lodgepole pine is well documented and local fertilizer response information for other species (Fdi, Sx) is available n Local response data for Fdi and Sx can be supplemented with data from other jurisdictions

17. 17 Fertilization Response Six-year volume increment (m 3 /ha) range of response (m 3 /ha) 20 Douglas-fir Interior spruce 28 24 16 12 8 4 0 range mean BC Interior

18. 18 Stand Age (years)406080100 Poor--121313 Medium15161615 Good14151413 Fertilization Response Norway spruce Northern Sweden (Pettersson 2001) Site Class Yield (m 3 /ha)

19. 19 Fertilization Response Douglas-fir 6-year mean volume increment (m 3 /ha) Inland Northwest (Moore et al, 1991) volume increment (m 3 /ha) Central Wash. N. Idaho 120 100 80 40 20 0 NE. Wash. 16% 13% 25% fertilization response unfertilized

20. 20 Fertilization Response Multiple treatments, 10-yr old interior spruce 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0369 Control NSB ON1 ON2 256% 181% 94% years following establishment standing volume (m 3 /yr) Brockley and Simpson (2004)

21. 21 Fertilization Key concepts n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands

22. 22 Fertilization Key concepts n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands n Interior forests are nutrient deficient; Douglas-fir and spruce stands respond positively to fertilization

23. 23 Fertilization Key concepts n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands n Interior forests are nutrient deficient; Douglas-fir and spruce stands respond positively to fertilization n Young and early-mature stands respond favourably to nutrient additions

24. 24 Fertilization Key concepts n Fertilization is a proven method for increasing harvest volume and accelerating the operability of established stands n Interior forests are nutrient deficient; Douglas-fir and spruce stands respond positively to fertilization n Young and early-mature stands respond favourably to nutrient additions n Growth gains from repeated fertilization are potentially very large

25. 25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 TFL 52100 Mile TSA Williams Lake TSA Quesnel TSA Prince George TSA 000s ha Regional Opportunities for Fertilization Fd- and S-leading stands ages 0–60 years 0–20 years 20–40 years 40–60 years

26. 26 Fertilization Program Goals, objectives 1.Mitigate timber supply shortfalls that will occur in 20 to 70 years u add merchantable volume to 15- to 70-year old stands (make operable sooner, redistribute timber availability) u reduce depth and duration of timber supply shortfall

27. 27 Fertilization Program Goals, objectives 1.Mitigate timber supply shortfalls that will occur in 20 to 70 years u add merchantable volume to 15- to 70-year old stands (make operable sooner, redistribute timber availability) u reduce depth and duration of timber supply shortfall 2.Help reduce community/regional economic impacts from MPB u provide short- and mid-term employment u invest in timber assets on public forest land

28. 28 Fertilization Program Goals, objectives 1.Mitigate timber supply shortfalls that will occur in 20 to 70 years u add merchantable volume to 15- to 70-year old stands (make operable sooner, redistribute timber availability) u reduce depth and duration of timber supply shortfall 2.Help reduce community/regional economic impacts from MPB u provide short- and mid-term employment u invest in timber assets on public forest land 3.Complement other strategic investments in timber supply mitigation efforts

29. 29 Fertilization Program Strategic approach n BC Interior n Areas facing major timber supply impacts from MPB, wildfire n Within key units, initially focus on spruce, Douglas- fir stands n Identify sites for treatment in 15- to 70-year old stands n Treat large, contiguous blocks of eligible stands n Focus on stands close to roads and rail lines

30. 30 Fertilization Program Initial program focus and implications FocusImplications Key areas of MPB and fire losses No funding to Coast or to management units unaffected by catastrophic events

31. 31 Fertilization Program Initial program focus and implications FocusImplications Key areas of MPB and fire losses No funding to Coast or to management units unaffected by catastrophic events Strategic allocation of resources Funding to specific forest districts, management units, and stands

32. 32 Fertilization Program Initial program focus and implications FocusImplications Key areas of MPB and fire losses No funding to Coast or to management units unaffected by catastrophic events Strategic allocation of resources Funding to specific forest districts, management units, and stands Fertilization goalsMulti-year funding commitment

33. 33 Fertilization Program Initial program focus and implications FocusImplications Key areas of MPB and fire losses No funding to Coast or to management units unaffected by catastrophic events Strategic allocation of resources Funding to specific forest districts, management units, and stands Fertilization goalsMulti-year funding commitment Mid-term timber supply Complements FFT activities to address long-term timber supply

34. 34 Fertilization Program Proposed budget Program $ 2005/062006/072009/102008/09 10M 8M 6M 4M 2M 0M Implementation Planning (assess / select sites, review with districts) Administration, auditing (PwC portion) Overhead (auditing, reporting) 2007/08 12M

35. 35 Fertilization Program Proposed area to be treated 000s ha 2005/062006/072009/102008/09 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 2007/08 40 35 29,000 23,000 18,000 35,000

36. 36 Economics n When done on the right sites and for the right objectives fertilization of stands can return u 15 m 3 /ha of additional volume within 10 years u shorten technical rotations by 3-4 years u 3-12% mid-term timber supply impacts u 2-5% internal rates of return u 0.15 pdays/ha employment in fertilization u 2.77 direct and indirect jobs per 1000 m3 produced

37. 37 Risks n Water u protect through fertilizer free zones n Watershed impacts u limit applications in sensitive watersheds n Insects u limit fertilization of pine till epidemic runs it course u avoid areas with defoliating insects

38. 38 Timber Volume Response Proposed five-year fertilization program n Area fertilized: 128,000 hectares

39. 39 Timber Volume Response Proposed five-year fertilization program n Area fertilized: 128,000 hectares n Expected volume gain: ~ 2.0 million m 3

40. 40 Timber Volume Response Proposed five-year fertilization program n Area fertilized: 128,000 hectares n Expected volume gain: ~ 2.0 million m 3 n Availability: 2020 (or as needed)

41. 41 Questions for Executive 1.Do you approve fertilization as a MPB mitigation silviculture treatment? Options: Yes/No 2.If yes, do you authorize investigation of possible funding sources? Options: Yes/No