Tree Species Harvested in Areas Affected by Mountain Pine Beetles

Marvin EngManager, Special Investigations

British Columbia’s independent watchdog

for sound forest practices

Audits of forest and range practices

Complaint investigations

Special investigations and reports

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2000

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2001

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2002

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2003

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2004

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2005

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2006

20 34

Million m3

Increases in the AAC

Increases in the AAC

Alberta

Yukon Territory Northwest Territories

Washington

Alaska

MontanaIdaho2008

76

Million m3

50

Over the entire interior of BC

Objective for this report

Does the profile of species harvested meet MoFR expectations?

Why are species other than pine being harvested?

Does it make any difference?

Methods

Examination of Harvest Billing System records:

Volume

Species

License (type)

Interviews with MoFR staff and licensees.

“to the extent possible, the [harvest] is completely dedicated to removing, as a first priority, timber that has already been affected” by MPB.

Pedersen, L. 2004.

“it is essential to ensure in the wake of this epidemic that non-pine stands are reserved for future timber supply.”

Benskin, H. 2005.

Does the harvest meet MoFR expectations?

-

10

20

30

40

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Volu

me

harv

este

d (m

illio

ns o

f met

ers3

)

Year

Pine

Other

Spruce

BalsamDouglas Fir

Allowable Annual

Cut

Allowable Annual

Cut

Does the harvest meet MoFR expectations?

-

10

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Volu

me

harv

este

d (m

illio

ns o

f met

ers3

)

Year

Other

Spruce

Balsam

Douglas Fir

-

10

20

30

40

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Volu

me

harv

este

d (m

illio

ns o

f met

ers3

)

Year

Pine

Other

Spruce

BalsamDouglas Fir

Allowable Annual

Cut

Allowable Annual

Cut

Does the harvest meet MoFR expectations?

Why are non-pine species harvested?

Not all wood products can be made from pine.

Why are non-pine species harvested?

Pine often occurs in mixed stands

Why are non-pine species harvested?

0%

50%

0% 50% 100%Percent Pine on Landbase

Perc

ent P

ine

in H

arve

st100% -

“Expected”% in harvest = %

on landbase

“Observed” Trend

Quesnel

Vanderhoof

Lakes

Merritt

Prince George

Fort St. James

Kamloops

Okanagan

Why are non-pine species harvested?

Replaceable Forest Licences

BC Timber Sales

Non-Replaceable

Forest Licences

Other

Volume Harvested by Licence Type

Why are non-pine species harvested?

-

2.5

5.0

0-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80-100%

Percent Pine Category

Volu

me

(mill

ions

of c

ubic

met

res)

Replaceable Forest Licence

BC Timber Sales

Non-Replaceable Forest Licence

Other In areas where theinventory is:

> 60% “pure pine”

Vanderhoof&

Quesnel

Percent Pine in Cutting Permit-

4

8

12

0-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80-100%Percent Pine Category

Volu

me

(mill

ions

of c

ubic

met

res)

Replaceable Forest Licence

BC Timber Sales

Non-Replaceable Forest Licence

Other

Inventory is:< 50% “pure pine”

Percent Pine in Cutting Permit

Vol

ume

Har

vest

ed (M

illio

ns M

3 )

-

2.5

5.0

0-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80-100%

Percent Pine Category

Volume (millions of cubic metres)

Replaceable Forest Licence

BC Timber Sales

Non-Replaceable Forest Licence

Other

5

Inventory is:> 60% “pure pine”

Why are non-pine species harvested?Licensees are constrained to operating areas with little pure pine.

Other forest health issues (spruce bark beetle).AAC partitions for cedar/hemlock & deciduous.Infestation is in low % pine stands.High priority stands for regeneration are high site index (not pure pine).Pure pine stands are past shelf life.Administrative impediments (now resolved)

Does it make any difference?

-

200

400

600

0 -19% 20 -39% 40 -59% 60 -79% 80 -100%Percent Pine Categories

On the Landbase

Harvest (Actual salvage to date)

Harvest (10 years at Full AAC)

Vol

ume

(Mill

ions

m3 )

Does it make any difference?

H

#*

#*

!.

!.!(

!(

LAKEBURNS

Stuart

Lake

L

GEORGE

PRINCE

VE

RS A L M O N

RST U

A R T

R

ST JAMES

FraserLake

VANDERHOOF

NE

C

HA

KO

R I V E Rncois Lake,

QUESNEL

Nazko

C H I L A K O

RI

VE

R

R I V E R

W E S T

R O A D

A N

RI

V

huckL

F

RA

S

FORT

Conclusions

All of the increased AAC has been devoted to harvesting pine.

Non-pine trees are harvested because:Not all wood products can be made from pine.

Pine often occurs in mixed stand and we clearcut.

If we continue with the current harvest profile:At least 1.5 million ha of dead pine will not be harvested.

Up to 80% of the “mixed stands” will be harvested.

Concerns –

about monitoring harvest

The cutting permit is the finest level of spatial resolution in the Harvest Billing System.

CP 12345 CP 54321

Concerns –

about monitoring harvestThe Harvest Billing System records volumes brought to mills – there is no record of much of the volume that is harvested but left on site.

Summary

The harvest profile is meeting MoFRexpectations.Non-pine trees are harvested because of:

Economic imperatives.Physical constraints.

The current harvest profile may have negative consequences in the future.There are concerns about our ability to monitor harvesting.