1. Section VI: Landscape-level effects of Herbicide Reduction - Preliminary Results - Kandyd Szuba, Domtar Inc. on behalf of the VMAP team

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. Approach 2 Forest Management Units

6. Approach The Forests and Their Associated FMPs

7. Approach Models, Objectives, and Constraints I) Use SFMM models approved by MNR for the FMPs i) SF – non-spatial SFMM analysis ii) 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 constraints i) SF ecological objectives = constraints in SFMM; wood supply = an outcome ii) 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)

8. Approach Yield Curve Modifications (NMV) SP1=upland black spruce; may contain up to 30% poplar

9. Approach Yield Curve Modifications (NMV) 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)

10. Approach Eight 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 budget 3) SMA & BR & NB 4) SMA & BR & NB but only 75% of the SMA area available for herbicides 5) SMA & BR & NB with 50% area for herbicides 6) SMA & BRwith NB and 25% area for herbicides 7) SMA with NB and 0% of the area for herbicides 8) SMA with 0% of the area for herbicides and an unlimited silviculture budget Assess scenarios up to 60 years

11. Approach Silviculture Costs

12. Results Highlights – Harvested Area

13. Results Highlights – SPF Volume

15. Results Highlights – Stumpage to the Crown Direct revenue to the province. Excludes the stumpage charges paid for forest renewal & FRI.

16. Results Highlights – Road Distribution & Cost Sample Road network at 40 years – more dispersed with 100% herbicide reduction (right)

17. Results - Highlights Road Distribution & Cost Herbicide reduction requires a larger active road network. This results in higher maintenance cost and higher hauling cost per cubic metre harvested.

18. Results - Ecological Effects LOTS of Old Growth! Some SFMM models would not solve because ecological targets were limiting

19. Results - Ecological Effects And other mature and old-forest loving species as less area was harvested Lots of habitat for the Black- backed Woodpecker!

20. Results - Ecological Effects Less habitat for the American Kestrel

21. Results - Ecological Effects Less habitat for the White- throated Sparrow

22. Results - Ecological Effects Less moose browsing habitat

23. 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.