EFFICACY OF MIFOS ELK SILVICULTURE STRATEGIES z 0

EFFICACY OF MIFO’S ELK SILVICULTURE STRATEGIES z 0 0

» Point: » Sub-point <#> 1

A) B) A) 2 y/o Fdctrampled and browsed B) 3 y/o Fdcbrowsed, recovering A) 5 y/o Fdccontinuous browse, no clear leader D) C) 2 B) 10 y/o Fdc. NFG, cambial scarring led to leader death

A) B) C) A) Browsed 3 y/o unconed Cw B) 6 y/o coned Cw C) 8 y/o unconed Yc 3

STRATEGIES 1. Delay planting until April 2. Protection 3. Natural Regeneration » Point: » 4. Replants Sub-point 5. Plant more browse resistant species: » Pw, Ss, Dr, Bp, Bg 6. Plant at higher densities <#> 4

Plant 1200 sph w/ Ss 100% Plant Up to 100% Cw/Yc Up to 20%Cw/Yc » Point: » Sub-point Up to 20% Cw/Yc Max 10% Cw/Yc Plant mm 1/mm 2 Nat regen vm 1/vm 2/MH Plant 1200 sph w/ Pw 10 ha/yr Cw caging <#> 5

IMPACTS » What are the impacts of these strategies? » Point: » » Costs? » Species shift? Sub-point » Timber Supply? » How effective is each strategy? <#> 6

COSTS High elk densities will increase costs due to: -Replants -Coning/Caging -Planting larger stock (412 A vs 410) » Point: » -Planting higher densities (1200 vs 1000) Sub-point -Using more expensive seed (Pw vs Fdc) -Additional surveys & 1. 5 p/ha vs 1 p/ha = $250, 000/year =$400/ha in xm 2 or $120/ha TFL 39 Blk 2 <#> 7

EFFICACY- NATURAL REGENERATION » 900 ha of stocking surveys in 2016/17 » Only 10% area needed planting » Point: » » Saved approx. $780, 000 on Initial Planting Sub-point » No significant change in density or species » WS Nats in vm 2: Hw 48 Ba 29 Yc 12 Hm 9 Cw 2, 875 WS sph » WS Planted in vm 2: Hw 55 Ba 23 Yc 10 Hm 5 Fdc 4 Cw 2 Bp 1, 830 WS Sph Species Comp & WS Density <#> 8

EFFICACY-NATURAL REGENERATION » Point: » Genetic Gain Regen Delay » With 100% survival, genetic gain » Timber supply regen delay ≠ silv increases AAC for TFL 39 Blk 2 by 2. 4% milestone » In the vm 1/vm 2, we have 43% mortality » Natural regen is extending timber Sub-point of our planted stock. » In the MHmm 1, we have 80% mortality of our planted stock Genetic Gain & Regen Delay supply regen delay by 0. 5 years, from 0. 2 to 0. 7. » Currently modeled at 1 yrs <#> 9

EFFICACY-NATURAL REGEN Planted 0. 85 OAF 800 700 Yield (m 3/ha) 600 -20% 500 400 » Point: » 300 Sub-point Natural 0. 85 OAF 200 100 0 1 2 Plant, OAF 0. 85 3 4 5 Decade Plant, OAF 0. 7 6 7 8 Nat, OAF 0. 85 *Accuracy questionable- TIPSY limitations* Spatial Distribution <#> 10

MODELLED VS. REALITY Plant OAF 0. 7 » Point: » Sub-point Spatial Distribution <#> 11

EFFICACY- REPLANTS » $150/ha on replants in xm 2 (700 ha across 2500 ha sample) » Benefits: » Increasing WS average by 100 sph » Point: » » Increasing Fdc WS component (67 to 76%) » Improving stem distribution-> less clumpy Sub-point » Which generates 68 m 3/ha » Current wood price= $102/m 3 » $102/m 3 * 68 m 3/ha= $6940/ha <#> 12

EFFICACY-BROWSE RESISTANT » 55% Fdc survival, 95% Pw/Ss survival, MSS=600 » Plant 100% Fdc @ 1000 sph= 550 WS, NSR » Plant Fdc 80 Pw/Ss 20 @ 1000 sph= 630 WS, SR » End up with Fdc 70 Pw 30 » Point: » Sub-point » TIPSY: 3% increase Ss, 8% decrease Pw » Fdc 77 Pw 23 570 FG sph- FAIL Yield (m 3/ha) » Long term: 65% Pw survival 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 Decade Pw Fdc Ss <#> 13 6 7 8

EFFICACYHIGHER DENSITIES » 55% Fdc survival » MSS=600 » Point: » Plant 100% Fdc @ 1000 sph= 550 WS, NSR » Sub-point » Plant 100% Fdc @ 1200 sph= 660 WS, SR » Yay! Elk did not eat proportionally more » Yr 60 = 4% gain in xm 2, 3% gain in vm 1 <#> 14

EFFICACY- COMBINED 1200 SPH + PW/SS Plant Fdc 80 Pw 20 @ 1200 sph=755 WS, SR + Hw nat infill: We are averaging 825 WS sph (but with 16% WS Hw) » Point: Sub-point Replant Area (ha) » 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 <#> 15

TIMBER SUPPLY- XM 2 YIELDS 800 700 » Point: » Yield (m 3/ha) 600 -23% 500 400 -33% 300 Sub-point 200 100 0 1 2 Potential 3 4 Decade High Elk-Current 5 6 High Elk-No Replants <#> 16 7

DO THEY PAY OFF? Activity Short Term (licensee) Long Term (government) Natural Regen Yes- cheapest strategy Yes/No Replants Yes- to meet regen obligations, higher density can be cheaper Higher Density Yes, but only if a replant is guaranteed at 1000 sph No, unless you expect 2 -3 replants No Ss 20% Yes- Meet RD & FG with lowest costs Yes-$150/ha now will generate $7, 800/ha in Yr 60 for the whole xm 2 Yes, $161/ha now will generate $2652/ha in Yr 60 Improved spatial distribution would lead to increased volumes Yes- $4500/ha now to generate $55, 000/ha more than planting Fdc No- more volume, less value. $8800/ha less than straight Fdc. Pw 20% Yes-Meet RD with lowest costs No- Not guaranteed to meet FG No- less volume, less value. $9300/ha less than straight Fdc. » Point: Coning Fdc » Sub-point Caging Cw <#> 17

SUMMARY- STRATEGIES » Positive strategies to meet Regen Delay: Replants, caging, higher densities, browse resistant species, natural regen » Positive strategies for future timber supply: Replants, caging, higher densities » Point: » » Planting Ss/Pw help meet RD obligations, but are less profitable than Sub-point planting 100% Fdc and accepting a lower density » Elk spending: $400/ha in the xm 2 or $250, 000/year » Elk may decrease yields by 33% in the xm 2 ($24, 000/ha future value) » Poor spatial distribution (for both planted and natural stands) may cause 20% yield reductions in the vm 2 ($8700/ha future value) <#> 18

OPPORTUNITIES » Offset timber supply implications with fertilization » FIA and LBI funding (ex. Carbon funding initiative) » Cost recovery for additional elk related treatments (direct or appraisal) » FRPA Section 108(2)-> amend FPPR Section 96(1. 1) to include elk » Point: » » Improve communication regarding elk transplant plans Sub-point » Better access to Elk Population Unit (EPU) population data » Industry input on EPU objectives » Further analysis: elk impact on timber quality and species composition » Share your experiences! <#> 19

QUESTIONS? » Point: » Sub-point <#> 20

ACTIVITY SUMMARY 2009 -2017: 47 ha caging * $4500/ha= $211, 500 152 ha coning * $3000/ha = $456, 000 » Point: 1428 ha » replants * $530/ha= $756, 840 Sub-point 750 ha High density * $161/ha=$120, 900 (2014 -17) 3, 470, 000 412 A * $0. 12= $416, 400 (2011 -17) 159, 000 512 A * $0. 18=$28, 620 (2011 -17) TOTAL= $1, 990, 220 or $221, 000 per year <#> 21

EFFICACY- SS » 55% Fdc survival, 95% Ss survival, MSS=600 » Plant 100% Fdc @ 1000 sph= 550 WS, NSR » Point: » Plant Fdc 80 Ss 20 @ 1000 sph= 630 WS, SR » Sub-point » End up with Fdc 70 Ss 30 » 3% Yield Increase Yr 60 <#> 22

INCREASED COSTS? In the CWH xm 2 (16, 500 ha THLB- 18%): Low (1994 -2002) $42 High (2009 -2017) $150/ha No surplus $130/ha Higher Densities No surplus $113/ha TOTAL= $42/ha $393/ha Elk Related Replants Coning/Caging » Point: » Sub-point At a landscape level (91, 666 ha THLB): Elk Related Replants Coning/Caging Higher Densities TOTAL= Low (1994 -2002) $7/ha High (2009 -2017) $52/ha $4/ha no surplus $11/ha $37/ha $32/ha $121/ha <#> 23

MID ISLAND • 96, 500 ha with high elk density (>1 elk/2. 5 km 2) – 62% • 45, 000 ha with moderate elk density (1 elk/2. 5 -10 km 2)- 28% • 1300 elk or 25% of coastal BC’s elk population! Estimated Elk Current Trend Habitat Population (Stable/Increasing/ Suitability Unit Estimate Decreasing) (low/mod/high) Estimated Carrying Capacity (K) Target Pop’n objective Eve/Tsitika 202 S H 386 232 Maintain Adam 182 S VH 315 189 Maintain Lower Salmon 231 S-I VH 361 231 Maintain Amor 95 S-I H 146 95 Maintain White 196 S VH 340 204 Maintain Upper Salmon 422 S-I VH 670 422 Maintain 24

SPECIES SHIFT Are we causing a species shift? » Planting less Cw/Yc » Point: » » Increase in Ba due to natural regeneration strategy » Hardwood management Sub-point » Pushing browse resistant species <#> 25

PLANTED SPECIES % Low Elk: 1994 -2002 High Elk: 2009 -2017 3% 1% 1% 7% 16% 4% 34% » Point: » 8% 35% 9% Sub-point 13% 9% 23% 37% <#> 26

PLANTED VS WS - 2009 -2017 2% 3% 1% 3%1% 7% 6% 8% » Point: » 5% 35% 9% 45% 14% Sub-point 37% Planted Species % 24% WS Species % <#> 27

NATURAL REGEN- GENETIC GAIN » Point: » xm 2 mm 1 mm 2 vm 1 vm 2 MHmm 1 % Area Planted 100 87 82 84 75 73 Average Plant Density (FP + IP) 976 931 821 840 836 775 SPH w/ Genetic Gain Sub-point based on planting 898 931 771 790 744 217 Max SPH w/ Genetic Gain based on survival 600 490 474 405 40 % Difference in Genetic Gain Crop Trees 33% 47% 37% 40% 46% 82% Weighted average by area= 45% loss of genetic gain stock due to survival issues <#> 28

EFFICACY- PROTECTION » Cones on Fdc: » Guarantees SR status » Meets Y 2 BH, GU, FG faster » Cones on Cw: » Point: » » Approx. 2 -3 longer to achieve FG Sub-point » Cw rarely make it into FG label » Caging on Cw: » Assuming you wait long enough to remove, guarantees SR status & Cw component <#> 29