Are Free-Growing Stands Meeting Expectations? Alex Woods, Regional Pathologist, NIFR, MOFR Wendy Bergerud, Senior Biometrician, Research Branch, MOFR Funded by FREP, Effectiveness Evaluation Program and the BCMOFR Forest Health Program

Overall Objective: To test if the Free-Growing declaration point-in-time assessment is an accurate predictor of future stand productivity and if the assumptions of stand performance are valid.

Strathcona TSA (2006) Lakes TSA (2005) Okanagan TSA (2006)

“ This photo illustrates a successful free-growing stand of trees” (Forest Practices Board 2003)

Sampling Design: Sample population consisted of all openings declared FG prior to 2002 in the Lakes, Okanagan and Strathcona TSAs. 60 stands randomly selected from each TSA, 15, 3.99 m radius plots established in each stand, Height and dbh measured for all well spaced trees, Site Index determined using growth intercept method Strict adherence to Free-Growing damage criteria.

Questions: (1) Do TIPSY projections of declaration attributes projected to the present differ from current measured attributes? (2) Do TIPSY projections of harvest volumes at age 80 differ between runs based on declaration values and runs based on current stand attributes? (3) Has the composition of leading species changed significantly since Free-Growing declaration?

Questions: (4) Does Site Index differ between the Free-Growing declaration estimate and the current estimate based on the growth intercept method? (5) Have stocking levels changed significantly since Free-Growing declaration? (6) Have losses to forest pests increased since declaration?

What was I thinking??? I’m sure “Free-Growing” is fine…??? Miller Time? Photo: Tim Ebata

18% of Free- growing stands in the Lakes TSA no longer contain the minimum 700 fgsph based on the LCL rule. Results: Forest Health/Free Growing

Photo: Dave Weaver Stand (93F ), spaced and pruned, age class 2 lodgepole pine, now has 70-75% of the trees attacked by MPB (but no Free-Growing Damage Criteria for MPB) Lakes TSA

Oh, to be a pine in the Lakes TSA…, sorry about your folks! I wonder how the Okanagan looks? Photo: Tim Ebata

A gem from the Okanagan TSA (2006) “This block is SR and FG when root rot is not taken into consideration. There is a fair amount of DRA in this block and when the 3m rule is applied the WS drops to 767/ha with 544 FG/ha. Since this area would be FG if not for the DRA and nothing can be done to alleviate the root rot problem, consider this block FG and roll over to the MoF."

Forest pests are having a considerable influence on Free- growing density but how does that affect Timber Supply projections?

TIPSY projected volumes and Free-growing density Lakes TSA

The degree of reliance that the Crown has placed on TASS/TIPSY mirrors the extent of trust placed on Free-Growing policy. However…

TIPSY vs current measured attributes, Lakes TSA

We need a standardized approach to field verifying TASS/TIPSY projections mid-rotation. If TASS/TIPSY was able to project the volume of the well-spaced trees throughout a rotation, field verification of the model would be much easier.

How are Free-Growing, TASS/TIPSY and Timber Supply Linked?

Declared (Lakes TSA)

TASS/TIPSY volume projections are based on Total Trees not Free-growing trees

How closely are Free- growing trees related to Total trees? It depends on how old the stand is…

Declared (Lakes TSA) Over 10,000 tsph at Declaration, No pests noted Now <700 fgsph (LCL) and 39% hard pine rusts

Declared (Lakes TSA)

Is there a fundamental disconnect between our current results-based goal of Free-Growing, and the Growth and Yield model that drives nearly all Timber Supply Reviews in the Province, TASS/TIPSY?

It’s not clear that Free-growing stands are currently meeting our expectations given the disconnects we have highlighted. How well will free-growing policy uphold the ministry’s stewardship mandate given the uncertainty associated with the direct and indirect impacts of climate change? A free-growing designation pre-supposes that young trees will continue to grow and thrive in a relatively stable environment. Closing Thoughts:

Acknowledgements: Silvicon Services (Brad Leroux) JCH Forest Pest Management (Janice Hodge) Nadina Forest District (Carolyn Stevens) Okanagan Shuswap Forest District (Don Purdy) Campbell River Forest District (Carolyn McLeod) David Rusch Westfor (Nigel Ross) Erin Havard, NIFR Stefan Zeglen, Coast Forest Region Jim Goudie, Research Branch MOF Peter Bradford, and Anthony Britneff MOF HQ