Parkside Gully Tolerant Hardwood Selection Harvest and Product Recovery Study

Parkside Gully Tolerant Parkside Gully Tolerant Hardwood Selection Harvest Hardwood Selection Harvest and Product Recovery Studyand Product Recovery Study

Bill Cole, Elaine Mallory, Jeff Kokes, Jennie Pearce

OMNROntario Forest Research Institute

30 April 2008

30 April 200830 April 2008 Cole/OFRICole/OFRI 22

Study LocationStudy Location


Brief Project HistoryBrief Project History 3 demonstration projects 3 demonstration projects

started in 1965-1967 at started in 1965-1967 at Swan LakeSwan Lake

Two stands harvested Two stands harvested (12 ha) (12 ha)

Two stands uncut (12 ha)Two stands uncut (12 ha) Harvests occurred in 1967, Harvests occurred in 1967,

1980, 1992, 20051980, 1992, 2005 Data collection years:Data collection years:

1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2005, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2005, 20062006

Harvest

Uncut

Harvest

Uncut

Hwy Hwy 6060

TeaTea LakeLake

SwanSwan LakeLake

Swan Lake Swan Lake Forest Research Forest Research

ReserveReserve


Current Current ProjectProject

StudyStudy objectives: objectives: To compare growth rates and stem quality development To compare growth rates and stem quality development

in managed stands vs. uncut control stands over 40 years; in managed stands vs. uncut control stands over 40 years; To compare managed and unmanaged stands after To compare managed and unmanaged stands after

40 years using two indicators:40 years using two indicators:- downed coarse wooddowned coarse wood- understory vegetation composition; - understory vegetation composition;

To compare the quantity, quality and economic To compare the quantity, quality and economic values of products generated from 2005 harvest values of products generated from 2005 harvest to average regional yields from two perspectives:to average regional yields from two perspectives:

- forest land manager- forest land manager- forest products manufacturer.- forest products manufacturer.


MethodsMethods We used lots of methods…includingWe used lots of methods…including

Measuring trees and stands Measuring trees and stands before and after 2005 harvestbefore and after 2005 harvest

Tallying and scaling logs during Tallying and scaling logs during the December 2005 harvestthe December 2005 harvest

Tracking all logs through the Tracking all logs through the Huntsville sawmillHuntsville sawmill

Summarizing Summarizing board grades board grades and yield from and yield from the sawlogsthe sawlogs


Parkside Gully Single-Tree Selection StudyDiameter Distribution

5 cm DBH Class

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Tre

es/h

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Theoretical "reverse-J" curve (q=1.38)2006 Post-harvest 1967 Pre-harvest

ResultsResults


Net stand basal area(10 cm class and above)

Year

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Sta

nd b

asal

are

a (m

2 /ha

)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

ResultsResults

19671967Harvest Harvest 10.6 m10.6 m22/ha/ha 19801980

HarvestHarvest5.5 m5.5 m22/ha/ha

19921992HarvestHarvest4.6 m4.6 m22/ha/ha

20052005HarvestHarvest4.9 m4.9 m22/ha/ha

GLSL & South.GLSL & South.Residual BAResidual BA targettarget

13 yr interval13 yr interval 13 yr interval13 yr interval12 yr interval12 yr interval

North Shore North Shore Residual Residual BA targetBA target


ResultsResults

Basal area growth, 1992-2005Basal area growth, 1992-2005(m(m22/ha/yr)/ha/yr)

1992 1992 Basal area Basal area

(m(m22/ha)/ha)Survivor Survivor growthgrowth IngrowthIngrowth

Gross Gross growthgrowth MortalityMortality

Net Net growthgrowth

PG1 – harvestPG1 – harvest 17.717.7 0.350.35 0.090.09 0.440.44 0.050.05 0.380.38

PG3 – controlPG3 – control 29.229.2 0.220.22 0.040.04 0.260.26 0.410.41 -0.15-0.15

Parkside Gully - Average annual basal area growthParkside Gully - Average annual basal area growth


ResultsResults Logging DamageLogging Damage

Provincial logging damage standard: Provincial logging damage standard:

• 85% of residual BA ( trees > 10 cm) free from major damage85% of residual BA ( trees > 10 cm) free from major damage

• 90% of residual AGS trees free from major damage90% of residual AGS trees free from major damage

• damage not concentrated in one size classdamage not concentrated in one size class

Parkside Gully logging damage (2005 winter harvest):Parkside Gully logging damage (2005 winter harvest):

• 98.5% of residual basal area (trees > 10 cm dbh) free from 98.5% of residual basal area (trees > 10 cm dbh) free from

major damage after 1992 harvestmajor damage after 1992 harvest

• 97.8% of residual basal area free from major damage after 97.8% of residual basal area free from major damage after

2005 harvest2005 harvest

• Woods et al. (2007) found 90.6% residual basal area free from Woods et al. (2007) found 90.6% residual basal area free from

major damage in their sampled crown land stands major damage in their sampled crown land stands


ResultsResults

• Very little difference in observed patterns of species Very little difference in observed patterns of species

distribution in overstory or understorydistribution in overstory or understory

• Uncut and harvested stand overstories were dominated by Uncut and harvested stand overstories were dominated by

sugar maple and beech, with small amounts of yellow birch, sugar maple and beech, with small amounts of yellow birch,

hemlock, and white sprucehemlock, and white spruce

• Tree regeneration dominated by sugar maple and beechTree regeneration dominated by sugar maple and beech

• Scattered patches of yellow birch, white spruce, balsam fir Scattered patches of yellow birch, white spruce, balsam fir

and ironwood regeneration in bothand ironwood regeneration in both

• Shrub layer dominated by hobble bush and striped maple, Shrub layer dominated by hobble bush and striped maple,

with small amount of mountain maple and beaked hazel with small amount of mountain maple and beaked hazel

Vegetation impacts after 40 years of Vegetation impacts after 40 years of single-tree selection management:single-tree selection management:


ResultsResults

HarvestedHarvested ControlControl

PG1PG1 SISI PG3PG3 TMTPTMTP

11 Stand size (ha)Stand size (ha) 1010 2.22.2 7.67.6 44

22 Mean DBH (cm)Mean DBH (cm) SnagsSnags 25.825.8 23.323.3 36.436.4 37.437.4

33 Downed woodDowned wood 19.519.5 15.715.7 25.125.1 22.022.0

44 Density (stemsDensity (stems SnagsSnags 1010 1212 4040 3838

55 or # pcs./ha)or # pcs./ha) Snags/100 live treesSnags/100 live trees 2.52.5 3.13.1 10.810.8 10.510.5


77 Basal area (mBasal area (m22/ha)/ha) Live treesLive trees 22.922.9 22.822.8 27.627.6 26.026.0

88 Live trees ≥ 60cm DBHLive trees ≥ 60cm DBH 1.11.1 0.830.83 4.34.3 4.04.0

99 SnagsSnags 0.70.7 0.70.7 5.45.4 5.35.3

1010 Volume (mVolume (m33/ha)/ha) Downed woodDowned wood 40.340.3 21.121.1 73.873.8 99.099.0

1111 Mean decay classMean decay class SnagSnag 3.23.2 3.63.6 3.73.7 3.93.9


40-year management impacts on 40-year management impacts on snags and downed coarse woodsnags and downed coarse wood


MethodsMethods

Parkside Gully Study assumptions and calculationsParkside Gully Study assumptions and calculations

• Tonnes harvested and transported to Huntsville-Tembec mill Tonnes harvested and transported to Huntsville-Tembec mill

(44.4 tonnes/ha)(44.4 tonnes/ha)

• Calculate gross revenue for logs harvested using 2005 log prices ($)Calculate gross revenue for logs harvested using 2005 log prices ($)

• Summarize total gross logging costs ($)Summarize total gross logging costs ($)

• Calculate total gross logging cost ($/tonne)Calculate total gross logging cost ($/tonne)

• Calculate total 2005 net log revenue Calculate total 2005 net log revenue

(gross revenue – gross logging cost) ($)(gross revenue – gross logging cost) ($)

• Calculate net revenue per ha harvested ($/ha)Calculate net revenue per ha harvested ($/ha)

Economic analysis – Forest managerEconomic analysis – Forest manager


ResultsResults

2005 Parkside Gully Harvest 2005 Parkside Gully Harvest (observed) (observed) %% tonnestonnes %% tonnestonnes %%

tonnetonness

2005 2005 $/tonne$/tonne

Gross Gross revenuerevenue

Total volume to mill (tonnes)Total volume to mill (tonnes) 541.7541.7

Hardwood volume Hardwood volume 100100 541.7541.7

Hardwood sawlogsHardwood sawlogs 75.175.1 407.0407.0

Hard maple logs Hard maple logs 91.391.3 371.4371.4 $ 99 $ 99 $ 36,678 $ 36,678

Soft maple logsSoft maple logs 0.30.3 1.01.0 $ 50 $ 50 $ 52 $ 52

Beech logsBeech logs 8.28.2 33.433.4 $ 45 $ 45 $ 1,503 $ 1,503

Yellow birch logsYellow birch logs 0.20.2 0.70.7 $ 60 $ 60 $ 42 $ 42

Hardwood pulp Hardwood pulp 24.924.9 134.7134.7 100.0100.0 134.7134.7 $ 30 $ 30 $ 4,041$ 4,041

Softwood volumeSoftwood volume 00



MethodsMethods

Bush run assumptions and calculationsBush run assumptions and calculations

• Average tonnes harvested from recent operations (50 tonnes/ha)Average tonnes harvested from recent operations (50 tonnes/ha)

• Multiply by Parkside Gully harvest area for comparable expected Multiply by Parkside Gully harvest area for comparable expected

tonnes harvestedtonnes harvested

• Calculate expected log yield by species and log grade usingCalculate expected log yield by species and log grade using

average bush run data and expected tonnes harvestedaverage bush run data and expected tonnes harvested

• Calculate expected bush run gross revenue using estimated yield and Calculate expected bush run gross revenue using estimated yield and

2005 log prices ($)2005 log prices ($)

• Calculate expected gross logging costs using average costs and Calculate expected gross logging costs using average costs and

expected tonnes harvested ($/tonne)expected tonnes harvested ($/tonne)

• Calculate expected net revenue for 2005 bush run harvest ($)Calculate expected net revenue for 2005 bush run harvest ($)

• Calculate expected net revenue per ha harvested ($/ha)Calculate expected net revenue per ha harvested ($/ha)



ResultsResults

Bush run Harvest Bush run Harvest (Expected)(Expected) %% tonnestonnes %% tonnestonnes %% tonnestonnes



Average tonnes expected from Average tonnes expected from 12.2 ha @ 50 tonnes/ha12.2 ha @ 50 tonnes/ha 610.0610.0

Hardwood volume (% total Hardwood volume (% total volume)volume) 9090 549.0549.0

Hardwood sawlogs Hardwood sawlogs 4040 219.6219.6

Hard maple logsHard maple logs 8080 175.7175.7 $ 99 $ 99 $17,348 $17,348

Soft maple logsSoft maple logs 44 8.88.8 $ 50 $ 50 $ 439 $ 439

Beech logsBeech logs 44 8.88.8 $ 45$ 45 $ 395 $ 395

Yellow birch logsYellow birch logs 1212 26.426.4 $ 60 $ 60 $ 1,581 $ 1,581

Hardwood pulp Hardwood pulp 6060 329.4329.4 $ 30 $ 30 $ 9,882 $ 9,882

Softwood volume (% total Softwood volume (% total volume)volume) 1010 61.061.0

Softwood sawlogsSoftwood sawlogs 8585 51.951.9

Hemlock logsHemlock logs 6060 31.131.1 $ 35$ 35 $ 1,089 $ 1,089

Spruce & balsam logsSpruce & balsam logs 4040 20.720.7 $ 60 $ 60 $ 1,244 $ 1,244

Softwood pulpSoftwood pulp 1515 9.29.2 $ 20 $ 20 $ 183 $ 183



ResultsResults

2005 Parkside Gully Harvest 2005 Parkside Gully Harvest (observed) (observed) %% tonnestonnes %% tonnestonnes %% tonnestonnes



Total volume to mill (tonnes)Total volume to mill (tonnes) 541.7541.7

Hardwood volume Hardwood volume 100100 541.7541.7

Hardwood sawlogsHardwood sawlogs 75.175.1 407.0407.0

Hard maple logs Hard maple logs 91.391.3 371.4371.4 $ 99 $ 99 $ 36,678 $ 36,678

Soft maple logsSoft maple logs 0.30.3 1.01.0 $ 50 $ 50 $ 52 $ 52

Beech logsBeech logs 8.28.2 33.433.4 $ 45 $ 45 $ 1,503 $ 1,503

Yellow birch logsYellow birch logs 0.20.2 0.70.7 $ 60 $ 60 $ 42 $ 42

Hardwood pulp Hardwood pulp 24.924.9 134.7134.7 $ 30 $ 30 $ 4,041$ 4,041

Softwood volumeSoftwood volume 00



ResultsResults

Estimated 2005 Estimated 2005 AFA bush run AFA bush run

harvestharvest

2005 observed 2005 observed Parkside Parkside

Gully harvestGully harvest

Total gross revenue ($) Total gross revenue ($) aa $ 32,162 $ 32,162 $ 42,316$ 42,316

Logging costs ($/tonne) Logging costs ($/tonne) bb $ 40$ 40 $ 43$ 43

Total logging costs Total logging costs cc $ 24,400$ 24,400 $ 23,206$ 23,206

Total net revenue Total net revenue dd $ 7,762 $ 7,762 $ 19,110$ 19,110

Total net revenue/ha ($/ha)Total net revenue/ha ($/ha) $ 636 $ 636 $ 1,566$ 1,566

Economic values – Forest managerEconomic values – Forest manager

a. From 12.2 haa. From 12.2 ha

b. Bush run logging costs range from $34-$46/tonneb. Bush run logging costs range from $34-$46/tonne

c. Logging cost x tonnes harvestedc. Logging cost x tonnes harvested

d. (total gross revenue) – (total logging costs)d. (total gross revenue) – (total logging costs)


MethodsMethods Economic analysis – Forest managerEconomic analysis – Forest manager

• Many (but not all) natural resource economists assume that $100 Many (but not all) natural resource economists assume that $100

in hand today is worth more than $100 expected to be received in in hand today is worth more than $100 expected to be received in

the futurethe future

• To compare equivalent value of benefits in one year with those in To compare equivalent value of benefits in one year with those in

a future year, a a future year, a discount ratediscount rate is applied to the future expected is applied to the future expected

dollar value when estimating its net present value (NPV):dollar value when estimating its net present value (NPV):

NPVNPVbase yrbase yr = (future value) , where = (future value) , where

(1+DR)(1+DR)yy DR = discount rate, usually 0 < DR < .10DR = discount rate, usually 0 < DR < .10

y = (future year) – (base year), ory = (future year) – (base year), or number of years over which the number of years over which the

discount is calculateddiscount is calculated


Economic analysis question:Economic analysis question: What is the expected net present value (NPVWhat is the expected net present value (NPV20052005) of the ) of the

Parkside Gully harvests vs. average bush-run harvests Parkside Gully harvests vs. average bush-run harvests over 26 years ($/ha)?over 26 years ($/ha)?

But for But for whichwhich 26 year harvest cycle? 26 year harvest cycle?

ResultsResults Economic analysis – Forest managerEconomic analysis – Forest manager

Harvest YearsHarvest Years

19801980 19931993 20052005 20182018 20312031

Bush runBush run XX XX XX

Parkside GullyParkside Gully XX XX XX XX XX

Option 1Option 1Option 2Option 2

Option 3Option 3



$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

NP

V

2005

($

/ha)

0.00 0.02 0.07

Discount rate

Net Present Value (2005) - Option 2

Bush run

Parkside Gully

Δ = 3.4 - 4.9x

$636 $636 $636

$3133$2777

$2216



$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

NP

V

2005

($

/ha)

0.00 0.02 0.07

Discount rate

Net Present Value (2005) - Option 3

Bush run

Parkside Gully

Δ = 4.9 - 8.4x$636 $380 $110

$3133

$2145

$ 920


MethodsMethods

Mill analysis assumptions and calculationsMill analysis assumptions and calculations

• Observed actual Parkside Gully product yield for maple and Observed actual Parkside Gully product yield for maple and

beech, based on 407 tonnes processed at Tembec-Huntsvillebeech, based on 407 tonnes processed at Tembec-Huntsville

• Value ($/FBM) for each product class from February 2006 Value ($/FBM) for each product class from February 2006

mill pricesmill prices

• Sawlog costs at mill gate to forest manager Sawlog costs at mill gate to forest manager

(pulpwood costs and revenues not included in mill analysis)(pulpwood costs and revenues not included in mill analysis)

• Net revenue for logs sawn from Parkside Gully harvest Net revenue for logs sawn from Parkside Gully harvest

(excl. other mill costs, e.g., depreciation, energy, labour)(excl. other mill costs, e.g., depreciation, energy, labour)

• Net revenue per tonne processedNet revenue per tonne processed

Economic analysis – Mill managerEconomic analysis – Mill manager


MethodsMethods

Mill analysis assumptions and calculationsMill analysis assumptions and calculations

• Estimated equivalent bush run product yield for maple and beech, Estimated equivalent bush run product yield for maple and beech,

based on same tonnage used to calculate log costs based on same tonnage used to calculate log costs

(220 tonnes)(220 tonnes)

• Value ($/FBM) for each product class from February 2006 mill Value ($/FBM) for each product class from February 2006 mill

pricesprices

• Sawlog costs at mill gate to forest manager Sawlog costs at mill gate to forest manager

(estimated for bush run)(estimated for bush run)

• Pulpwood costs and revenues not included in mill analysisPulpwood costs and revenues not included in mill analysis

• Net revenue and net revenue per tonne processedNet revenue and net revenue per tonne processed



ResultsResults

Net revenue calculationsNet revenue calculations

Estimated Estimated equivalent bush equivalent bush

runrun Parkside GullyParkside Gully

Maple sawn product revenue ($)Maple sawn product revenue ($) $34,341$34,341 $67,407$67,407

Beech sawn product revenue ($)Beech sawn product revenue ($) + $2,337+ $2,337 + $9,529+ $9,529

Total sawn product revenue ($)Total sawn product revenue ($) $36,678$36,678 $76,936$76,936

Hardwood log cost Hardwood log cost (excluding pulp) ($)(excluding pulp) ($) - $19,764- $19,764 - $38,275- $38,275

Net revenue ($)Net revenue ($) $16,914$16,914 $38,661$38,661

Tonnes processedTonnes processed 220220 407407

Net revenue/tonne ($/tonne)Net revenue/tonne ($/tonne) $77$77 $95$95



ConclusionsConclusionsProductive site with little or no high-grading historyProductive site with little or no high-grading history

Provincial single-tree selection management guidelines, Provincial single-tree selection management guidelines, marking for quality improvement using careful loggingmarking for quality improvement using careful logging

Periodic annual increment (0.38-0.47 mPeriodic annual increment (0.38-0.47 m22/ha/yr) as /ha/yr) as expected from silviculture guide and some Ontario field expected from silviculture guide and some Ontario field studies (e.g., Stokes study); Not extreme or unrealisticstudies (e.g., Stokes study); Not extreme or unrealistic

We have sustainable basal area growth with commercial We have sustainable basal area growth with commercial harvest every 12-13 years over 40 years, although harvest every 12-13 years over 40 years, although may not be practical for all sites or standsmay not be practical for all sites or stands


ConclusionsConclusionsAfter 4 cuts stands are approaching but have not quiteAfter 4 cuts stands are approaching but have not quite

reached desired diameter/basal area structure – reached desired diameter/basal area structure – (still a bit understocked in high-quality small sawlogs) (still a bit understocked in high-quality small sawlogs)

Minimal impacts detected on overstory and understory Minimal impacts detected on overstory and understory woody species compositionwoody species composition

Snags in harvested stands had smaller diameter and Snags in harvested stands had smaller diameter and lower density (#/ha) than uncut controlslower density (#/ha) than uncut controls

Downed coarse wood in harvested stands had similar Downed coarse wood in harvested stands had similar number of pieces as uncut stands (#/ha), but smaller number of pieces as uncut stands (#/ha), but smaller diameter and lower volume than uncut control stands diameter and lower volume than uncut control stands


ConclusionsConclusionsForest land manager yielded ~ 3.4 – 8.4x net revenue Forest land manager yielded ~ 3.4 – 8.4x net revenue

from well-managed high-quality hardwood stand from well-managed high-quality hardwood stand compared to current average crown land over 26 compared to current average crown land over 26 year management cycle, depending on economic year management cycle, depending on economic assumptions made.assumptions made.

Forest mill manager yielded ~ 1.2x net revenue in sawn Forest mill manager yielded ~ 1.2x net revenue in sawn boards from high-quality Parkside Gully harvest boards from high-quality Parkside Gully harvest compared to typical bush run (conservative – no compared to typical bush run (conservative – no veneer from Parkside Gully)veneer from Parkside Gully)


Closing Closing thoughtsthoughts

Careful long-term Careful long-term tolerant hardwood tolerant hardwood silviculture on good silviculture on good sites pays!sites pays!

If you have good quality If you have good quality within stands, try to protect within stands, try to protect or improve it.or improve it.

Through policy, guidelines, practices, and science transfer, we Through policy, guidelines, practices, and science transfer, we should be encouraging tolerant hardwood management on should be encouraging tolerant hardwood management on 15-20 year re-entry cycles, not accepting 25+ yrs as the norm.15-20 year re-entry cycles, not accepting 25+ yrs as the norm.

Contact OFRI or the Forestry Research Partnership to arrange Contact OFRI or the Forestry Research Partnership to arrange a tour of the Parkside Gully study area.a tour of the Parkside Gully study area.


AcknowledgementAcknowledgementss

Thanks to Thanks to Living Legacy Research ProgramLiving Legacy Research Program

Enhanced Forest Productivity ProgramEnhanced Forest Productivity Program

Forestry Research Partnership – Al Stinson, Nancy YoungForestry Research Partnership – Al Stinson, Nancy Young

Algonquin Provincial Park – Jim Murphy, Brad Steinberg, Algonquin Provincial Park – Jim Murphy, Brad Steinberg, Joe Yaraskavitch, John Swick Joe Yaraskavitch, John Swick

Algonquin Forestry Authority – Bill HubbertAlgonquin Forestry Authority – Bill Hubbert

Tembec-Huntsville – Gerald Kroes, Alex EncilTembec-Huntsville – Gerald Kroes, Alex Encil

Southern Science and Information staff - Murray Woods, Southern Science and Information staff - Murray Woods, Wayne Reid, George Sanshagrin, Johnny Belanger, Andrea KnappWayne Reid, George Sanshagrin, Johnny Belanger, Andrea Knapp

Harvey Anderson, Elaine Mallory, Jeff Kokes, Jim Rice, Randy Fawcett Harvey Anderson, Elaine Mallory, Jeff Kokes, Jim Rice, Randy Fawcett

Al Corlett, Margaret Penner, Tony Kennedy, Marvin ChartrandAl Corlett, Margaret Penner, Tony Kennedy, Marvin Chartrand


Thank Thank youyou


ResultsResults

Diameter class (cm)Diameter class (cm)

YearYear 10-2410-24 26-3626-36 38-4838-48 50+50+ TotalTotal

1967 Pre-harvest (m1967 Pre-harvest (m22/ha)/ha) 3.73.7 8.18.1 10.110.1 5.65.6 27.427.4

1967-1979 Periodic 1967-1979 Periodic Annual Increment Annual Increment

(m(m22/ha/yr)/ha/yr)-0.01-0.01 0.000.00 0.210.21 0.240.24 0.450.45


(m(m22/ha/yr)/ha/yr)0.090.09 0.020.02 0.070.07 0.280.28 0.470.47


(m(m22/ha/yr)/ha/yr)0.100.10 0.030.03 0.090.09 0.170.17 0.380.38

2006 Post-harvest 2006 Post-harvest (m(m22/ha)/ha) 4.14.1 3.83.8 6.06.0 3.93.9 17.817.8

Marking targets (2005) Marking targets (2005) (1998 Silv. Guide)(1998 Silv. Guide)

6666

6 6 88

5 5 33

3 3 33

2020

Basal area by diameter class & basal area growthBasal area by diameter class & basal area growth


ResultsResults2006 hardwood board prices

Hard maple $/MFBM Beech $/MFBM

Select Sapwood & better $2,275 Select Unspecified $625

4&5' clear No.1 common sapwood &better boards and 6' select sapwood & better boards $1,680 7x9 Ties $590

No.1 Common Sapwood & better $1,632 6x8 Ties $460

No.2 & No. 3a common #1&#2 White $960

No.1 Common Unspecified $425

No.2 & No.3a common Sapwood $8604'' x 6'' Heartwood

squares $390

No.2 & No.3a Unselected for color 6¼” $657

4'' x 4'' Heartwood squares $390

No.2 & better Regular $625No.2 Common

Unspecified $300

2”x3” heartwood squares $403 No.3 Common $240

3”x3” heartwood squares $403

No.2 & No.3a Regular (Truck Flooring) $374

No.3b Common $235

Documents

Parkside Gully Tolerant Hardwood Selection Harvest and Product Recovery Study