UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Single and integrated use of forest lands in British Columbia - theory and practice Sahajananthan, Sivaguru 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-060586.pdf [ 5.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075321.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075321-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075321-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075321-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075321-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075321-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075321-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075321-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075321.ris

Full Text

SINGLE AND INTEGRATED USE OF FOREST LANDSIN BRITISH COLUMBIA - THEORY AND PRACTICEbySIVAGURU SAHAJANANTHANB.Sc. Special (Hons.). University of Colombo, Sri Lanka 1971Diploma in Forestry. Indian Forest College, India 1976M.Sc. University of Oxford, U.K. 1981A THESIS SUBMITTED N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Forest Resources Management)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOctober 1995© Sivaguru Sahajananthan, 1995In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of_____________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ‘‘ ! I7YaDE-6 (2188)11ABSTRACTThis study deals with the multiple use management of forests. The mainobjectives of the study are i) to review the literature on economic theory of multiple useand examine various approaches taken by foresters to practice multiple use, and ii) tocompare, with respect to timber supply, rent and selected environmental indicators, twoalternative forest land use systems under three timber management intensities (basic,medium and high).A review of the literature suggests that benefits accruing from multiple useforestry can be measured in terms of rent and the provision of amenity values (non-timbergoods and services). There is an inverse relationship between timber rent and the flow ofnatural amenity values. Current forest practices in British Columbia (BC) attempt tomaintain a constant flow of natural amenity values by retaining certain structuralelements in the landscape through a system of resource emphasis rules (RER). Thesestringent RERs may lead to high amenity flow and low rent.These theoretical findings were empirically tested by simulation with spatiallyexplicit models, ATLAS and SIMFOR, in a sub-unit of the Revelstoke Timber SupplyArea, Revelstoke 1 in British Columbia. The study shows that the opportunity costs ofintegrated management, as currently practiced, is equivalent to 60% of potentialsustainable timber supply. Analysis of RERs shows that universally applied adjacencyconstraints reduce sustainable timber harvests and rents by 58% and 65% respectively,when compared to an unconstrained base case. Visual quality constraints reducesustainable timber harvests to as low as 9 % of the base case. The study also estimatesthat, in the absence of RERs, 46% of the net operable area of Revelstoke 1 can produceevenflow volumes equivalent to those currently produced by the whole area of the Unit.This area can be further reduced to 35% with intensive timber management.111Two types of multiple use systems, integrated use (IU) system and single use(SU) system were devised. The IU system treats the whole operable’ area as an integralunit, while the SU system has a timber zone and an integrated zone. This research showsthat the SU system rent is higher than that of IU system at all assumed managementintensities, and at “high intensity”, can be as much as 216% relative to that of the IUsystem at basic intensity. Rents from both systems were found be to very sensitive todiscount rates. Rent from the IU system is found to be more sensitive to changes inprices than from the SU system but their relative performance does not change.Environmental indicators suggest that the IU system leads to higher fragmentationof critical “interior forest” wildlife habitats and consequent loss of amenity valuescompared to the SU system. The road density in the SU system is found to vary from65% to 68% of that of the IU system under “basic” and “high” intensities. As for theprotection of biodiversity, the SU system is likely to help maintain a system of smallreserves scattered throughout the working forest as a complement to the system of largereserves in the protected areas.This research has implications for short timber supply, rent and foreststewardship. In the short term, the SU system will release for immediate harvest, highlyproductive sites carrying high timber volumes hitherto locked up by adjacencyconstraints. Timber production zones will facilitate the creation of secure tenurearrangements designed to protect public investments and provide incentives for theprivate sector to invest in timber production on public land. The study, also,demonstrates the high potential for single use management through land use zoning as astrategy to balance economic and environmental values from British Columbia’s forestsand offers an innovative method for achieving sustainablility of timber and non-timberresources.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract. iiTable ofcontents ivList oftables xiiList offigures xivAcknowledgment xxDedication xxi1. INTRODUCTION 11.1 Background 11.2 Research problem 41.3 Organization of the thesis 72 ECONOMIC THEORY OF MULTIPLE USE 122.1 Introduction 122.1.1 Firm theory aspects of multiple use 122.1.2 Capital theory aspects of multiple use 122.1.2.1 Appropriate discount rates 13V2.2 Cost function in multiple use production 162.2.1 Interdependence in multiple use production 162.3 Case for specialization in production 192.3.1 Site productivity 212.3.2 Diseconomies ofjointness and diseconomies of scale 232.3.3 Management efforts 252.3.4 Empirical evidence 262.4 Marginal costs in multiple use production 262.5 Aggregate human welfare 292.5.1 Timber rent 302.5.2 Timber rent and amenity values from a multiple use forest 312.6 The economic problem facing the forest manager 333 MULTIPLE USE MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE 393.1 Multiple use forest harvest models 393.1.1 Single stand models 403.1.2 Forest level harvest models 413.1.2.1 Strata based models 42vi3.1.2.2 Area based models .423.1.3 ATLAS (A Tactical Land Analysis System) model 433.2 Landscape pattern modeling 444 EMPIRICAL STUDY 464.1 Introduction 464.2 Description of the study area 464.2.1 General 464.2.1.1 Access units 474.2.1.2 Stand groups 474.2.1.3 Site quality 474.2.2 Resource use conflicts 484.2.3 Current management practices 494.2.3.1 Resource emphasis areas 515 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 535.1. Introduction 535.2 Total resource planning 535.2.1 Temporal modification of forests 54vii5.3 Methodology for stand level analysis 555.3.1 Silvicultural treatments 555.3.1.1 Artificial regeneration 555.3.1.2 Pre-commercial thinning 565.3.1.3 Commercial thinning 565.3.1.4 Pruning 575.3.1.5 Fertilization 575.3.2 Silvicultural regimes 575.3.2.1 Simulation modeling for growth and yield 595.3.2.2 Simulation modeling for bucking and sawing 605.3.3 Selection of rotation age 615.3.4 Stand level economic analysis 625.3.4.1 Assumptions used in the stand level economic analysis 635.4. Methodology for forest level analysis 655.4.1 Alternative land use systems 655.4.2 Simulation modeling for forest level harvesting 655.4.2.1 Planning horizon 66viii5.4.2.2 Parameters determined by ATLAS simulation modeling 665.4.2.3 Harvest scenarios 675.4.2.3.1 Scenario modeling current management practices 675.4.2.3.2 Scenario modeling alternative land use systems 675.4.2.3.3 Scenario modeling enhancement of non-timber values within the timber zone 685.4.3 Simulation modeling for landscape pattern responses 695.4.4 Forest level economic analysis 705.4.4.1 Assumptions used in the forest level analysis 715.4.4.2 Price sensitivity analysis 735.5 Indicators of net benefit to society 735.5.1 Economic parameters 745.5.2 Environmental parameters 746 STAND LEVEL ANALYSIS 766.1 Introduction 766.2 Analysis of growth and yield 766.2.1 Growth patterns of stand groups 766.2.2 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on age of maximum mean annual increment 77ix6.2.3 Determination of rotation ages .776.2.4 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volume and diameter at breast height 806.3 Stand level economic analysis 836.4 Implications for forest level analysis 887 FOREST LEVEL ANALYSIS 907.1 Current management practices 907.1.1 Impact of resource emphasis rules on timber supply 907.1.1.1 Timber emphasis 937.1.1.2 Wildlife emphasis 947.1.1.3 Visual quality 947.2 Timber supply under alternative land use systems 957.2.1 Alternative land use systems 957.2.1.1 Integrated use system 957.2.1.2 Single use system 967.2.2 Timber supply under alternative land use systems 967.3 Intensive timber management on a 240 year planning horizon 997.3.1 Economic parameters 99x7.3.1.1 Maximum evenflow volume .997.3.1.2 Timberrent 1017.3.1.3 Sensitivity of rent to discount rates 1027.3.1.4 Sensitivity of rent to changes in price of logs 1037.3.1.5 Delivered wood costs 1047.3.2 Environmental parameters 1077.3.2.1 Seral stages 1077.3.2.2 Ecosystems represented in seral stages 1107.3.2.3 Edge habitats 1127.3.2.4 Influence of old-growth edge on regeneration 1167.3.2.5 Patch sizes 1197.3.2.6 Harvest pattern in old-growth 1257.3.2.7 Density of roads 1267.4 Enhancement of non-timber values in the timber zone 1287.4.1 Impact on even-flow volume 1287.4.2 Impact on rent 1308 DISCUSSION 131xi8.1 Opportunity cost of resource emphasis areas 1318.2 Implications for timber supply 1348.2.1 Even-flow volumes 1348.2.2 Rent 1358.3 Implications for wildlife 1388.4 Implications for visual quality 1428.5 Implications for forest stewardship 1438.6 Implications for Forest Renewal Plan 1468.7 Implications for short term timber supply 1488.8 Strategy for the future 1509 SUMMARY AN]) CONCLUSIONS 152BIBLIOGRAPHY 165APPENDIX 174xl’List of TablesTable 1 List and description of codes used in the tables and figures 8Table 2 Site indices of selected species @ 50 years 48Table 3 Resource Emphasis Rules for Revelstoke TSA 50Table 4 Distribution of resource emphasis areas in Reveistoke 1 and the whole TSA . .51Table 5 Summary of resource emphasis rules and their area of application inRevelstoke 1 52Table 6 Silvicultural treatments examined for development of silvicuitural regimes 59Table 7 Harvest scenarios in the SU and the IU systems with intensive timbermanagement 68Table 8 Harvest scenarios for the timber zone with enhanced non-timber values 68Table 9 Seral stages distinguished in the land use systems and their description 70Table 10 Silvicultural treatment regimes selected for stand level economic analysis 84Table 11 Additional silvicultural treatment regimes selected for Douglas-fir 85Table 12 Silvicultural treatment regimes showing economic feasibility 87Table 13 Additional silvicultural regimes for Douglas-fir showing economicfeasibility 88Table 14 Ecosystem types represented in very old-growth as percent area of totalland base at the start and end of the 240 year planning horizon 110xliiTable 15 Average area of edge habitat as percent area of old-growth habitats, andaverage area of regeneration edge as percent of regeneration area overa 240 year planning horizon 115Table 16 Average area covered by the four types of patches in the very old-growthseral stage at the end of 240 year planning horizon 120xivList of FiguresFigure 1 Types of production possibilities for two products on a tract of land 20Figure 2 Relative productivities of sites determining the selection of productionof goods and services 21Figure 3 Optimal production of two products on two sites with varying siteproductivities 23Figure 4 Optimal production with two substitute products 25Figure 5 Marginal cost of timber production with no constraints compared separatelywith production under visual quality and wildlife constraints 29Figure 6 Rent under the IU and the SU systems 31Figure 7 Relationship between timber rent and amenity in multiple use systems 33Figure 8 Growth curves for Douglas-fir (SI=19), cedar (SI=21) and spruce (SI=18) 78Figure 9 Effect of silvicultural treatments on growth curves of Douglas-fir (SI=19) 78Figure 10 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on age of maximum MAI ofDouglas- fir (SI=19) 79Figure 11 Rotation ages of stand groups used in the regenerated forest 79Figure 12 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on Volume and DBH of finalharvest in Douglas-fir on good and medium sites (SI=19) 80Figure 13 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on Volume and DBH of finalharvest in Douglas-fir on poor sites (S112) 81xvFigure 14 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on Volume and DBH of finalharvest in redcedar on good and medium sites (SI=2 1) 81Figure 15 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volumes and DBH of finalharvest in redcedar on poor sites (SI=1 3) 82Figure 16 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volume and DBH of fmalharvest in spruce on good and medium sites (SI=1 8) 82Figure 17 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volumes and DBH of finalharvest in spruce on poor sites (SI=10) 83Figure 18 Percent of clear lumber in pruned logs of different diameter classes inDouglas-fir (SI=19) that is commercially thinned @70 years andharvested @130 years 85Figure 19 Percent increase in value of pruned logs of different diameter classes inDouglas-fir (SI=19) that is commercially thinned @ 70 years andharvested @130 years 86Figure 20 Redcedar (SI=21): Actual and affordable costs for selected silviculturaltreatment regimes 86Figure 21 Redcedar (SI=21): Feasibility as indicated by discounted net revenues ofselected silvicultural treatment regimes 87Figure 22 Impact of resource emphasis rules on timber supply 91Figure 23 Impact of resource emphasis rules on rent 92Figure 24 Opportunity cost in terms of timber values of selected resource emphasisrules when applied individually to the entire land base 92xviFigure 25 Impact of adjacency, disturbance and cover constraints of timber emphasisrule on timber supply 93Figure 26 Integrated use system showing composition of harvest area by forest typesover the 120 year planning horizon 98Figure 27 Single use system showing composition of harvest area by forest typesover the 120 year planning horizon 99Figure 28 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated and single usesystems on maximum evenflow volume on a 240 year planning horizon 100Figure 29 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated use and single usesystems on rent (2 % discount rate on a 240 year planning horizon) 101Figure 30 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated use and single usesystems on rent (0 % discount rate, 240 year planning horizon) 102Figure 31 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated use and single usesystems on rent (4% discount rate, 240 year planning horizon) 103Figure 32 Percent change in rent to increase and decrease in log prices by 12% 104Figure 33 Delivered wood costs in integrated use and single use systems with mediumintensity management showing its components viz., hauling cost, harvestsystem cost, and road construction and maintenance costs 105Figure 34 The IU and the SU systems at medium management intensity showingperiodic cost of road construction and maintenance on a 240 yearplanning horizon 106xviiFigure 35 Single Use showing the distribution of seral stages for basic intensitymanagement over a 240 year planning horizon 109Figure 36 Integrated Use showing the distribution of seral stages for basic intensitymanagement over a 240 year planning horizon 109Figure 37 Single Use showing the distribution of ecosystem types within very old-growth seral stage (>240 years) for basic intensity management on a240 year planning horizon 111Figure 38 Integrated Use showing the distribution of ecosystem types within very old-growth seral stage (>240 years) for basic intensity management on a240 year planning horizon 112Figure 39 The SU and the IU systems showing area of edge habitat (as percent areaof old-growth (>120 years) and very old-growth (>240 years)) at basicintensity management on a 240 year planning horizon 113Figure 40 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of edge habitat (as percentarea of old-growth (>120 years) and very old-growth (>240 years) formedium intensity management over a 240 year planning horizon 113Figure 41 The SU and the IU systems showing the distribution of edge habitats (aspercent area of old-growth (>120 years) and very old-growth (240 years)for high intensity management over a 240 year planning horizon 114Figure 42 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of regeneration affected(as percent of the regeneration area) by old-growth and very old-growthedges for basic intensity management on 240 year planning horizon 118xviiiFigure 43 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of regeneration affected(as percent of the regeneration area) by old-growth and very old-growthedges for medium intensity management on 240 year planning horizon 118Figure 44 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of regeneration affected(as percent of the regeneration area) by old-growth and very old-growthedges for high intensity management on 240 year planning horizon 119Figure 45 The SU system showing the distribution of patch sizes in veryold-growth (>240 years) for basic intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon 122Figure 46 The IU system showing the distribution of patch sizes in veryold-growth (>240 years) for basic intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon 123Figure 47 The SU system showing the distribution of patch sizes in veryold-growth (>240 years) for medium intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon 123Figure 48 The JU system showing the distribution of patch sizes in veryold-growth (>240 years) for medium intensity management over a240 year planning horizon 124Figure 49 The SU system showing the distribution of patch sizes in veryold-growth (>240 years) for high intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon 124xixFigure 50 The IU system showing the distribution of patch sizes in veryold-growth (>240 years) for high intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon 125Figure 51 Percent of old-growth (OG) retained with integrated use and single usesystems at the end of the 240 year planning horizon 126Figure 52 Road density with integrated use and single use systems at basic, mediumand high management intensities showing average length of roadsmaintained per period, and constructed during the planning horizon 127Figure 53 Impact of wildlife and visual quality emphases on volume from thetimber zone 129Figure 54 Impact of wildlife and visual quality emphases on rent from thetimber zone 130xxACKNOWLEDGMENTFirst of all, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Professor David Haley forselecting me as his graduate student, for employing me as his teaching and research assistant,for suggesting an excellent research topic for my PhD and for giving me continued guidancethroughout my stay as a graduate student at the University ofBritish Colunthia. I am very muchindebted to him.Jam very grateful to my supervisory committee members Professors John Nelson, PhilipBurton and Hans Schreier. I am much obliged to Professor John Nelson who, as a member ofmy supervisory research committee and as interim supervisor for one year provided thedigitized data on Revelstoke 1, trained me to use ATLAS, provided me financial support atdfflcult times, and gave me continued guidance at every stage of my research project. The helpgiven by Professors Burton and Schreier was also invaluable. They, in spite of their busyschedules have always found time to do a thorough and critical review ofmy draft reports. Theirconstructive criticism, followed byfruiful discussion have helped a lot infine tuning my thesis.I appreciate the support and encouragement given for my research effort by severalother members of the faculty, notably Dean Clark Binkley and Professors Peter Marshall, PeterPearse, Gordon Weetman, G.C. Van Kooten and Les Lavkulich. I am particularly grateful toProfessor Peter Marshallfor employing me as his teaching assistant. Jam thankful to computerwizards: Tim Shannon and Dave Daust -for helping me with ATLAS and SIMFOR software.They were always there to help me whenever I had any problems.I am grateful to many people from outside the University of British Columbia,particularly fromB.C. Ministry ofForests and Ministry ofEnvironment and Parks andfrom theprivate industrial sector, who have helped me in many ways to conduct this research. Foremostamong them is Mr. David Raven, District Forest Officer for the Reveistoke District. In spite ofhis busy schedule, he was always available to lend supportfor my research. Another key personis my friend Ken Polsson who was responsible for running the TASS model and providing mewith growth andyield data. Addtionally, Mr. Jim Blake and Mr. Ken Talbot of the B.C. MinistiyofForests in Revelstoke, Mr. Barry Wagnerfrom Downie Timber LTD., and Mr. Cohn PikefromBell Pole & Co. deserve special recognition and thanks. In fact, every one I have come incontact with in the B.C. Ministry of Forest offices at Reveistoke and in Victoria have beenextremely helpful.I also would like to thank Professor ilan Vertinsky for providing me a place to study atthe FEPA research unit. My thanks are also due to Ms Mabel Yee, the secretary at FEPA, and toour former graduate student secretary Ms Natalie Cole and the present one Ms Lily Liew whohave always taken the interests ofthe students to heart.I appreciate the support given by my friends and graduate student colleagues at FEPAand at Forest Operations. I also would like to thank my wfe ‘s maternal uncle PonnampalamBalasundaram who supported and encouraged me in many ways to help me achieve my goal. Mythanks are also due to the Forest Department and the Government ofSri Lankafor releasing meon no-pay leave. Lasz, but not the least, I would like to thank my dear wfe Thulasifor her moralandfinancial support. She has endured lots ofhardship, and sacrficed many things for the sakeof my studies and to make my 23 year old dream coming true. If not for her I may not havesurvived my return to graduate studies after many years ofprofessional career.xxiDEDICATIONThis research work is dedicated to my belovedparents Sivaguru and Nallammahand to my beloved wife Thulasi who sacrificed a lot oftheir happinessfor the sake ofmyeducation.1. INTRODUCTION1.1 BACKGROUNDForests produce a multitude of goods and services. However, historically, inBritish Columbia (BC), except for the protection of some areas set aside as parks andecological reserves, forests have been managed mainly for the production of timber. Ageneral philosophy prevailed that when a forest is managed for timber, other resourcevalues will follow in sufficient amounts. In other words, management for other resourcevalues was passive rather than active.Multiple use management became mandatory in BC with the passage of theMinistry ofForests Act which for the first time spelled out the objectives of the Ministry(Ministry of Forests Act, 1978. RS Chap. 272, Section 5). While changes in practicewere slow to follow, the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980’s turnedconcern for “the environment” into a mainstream phenomenon which has since beenreflected in political action.The capability of a tract of land to produce goods and services which meet humandemands depends on its biological and physical characteristics. The production of anymix of products is in delicate balance. Attempts to produce more of one productinvariably affect others either positively or negatively. It is not possible to satisfy allsocietal demands simultaneously from the same tract of land. Land management formultiple products involves many trade-offs. The task of the land manager is to seek anoptimum strategy which provides the highest attainable level of social welfare, orsatisfaction, for the resources (land, labor and capital) available.2Governments and the bureaucracy have responded to increasing demands onforest resources by imposing additional constraints on timber harvesting, and bycompletely withdrawing an increasing number of areas from timber production. This hasresulted in land use problems of crisis proportions for the forest industry of BC, which isa major driving force of the province’s economy.Many of the steps taken since 1990 were precipitated by the work of the BritishColumbia Forest Resources Commission (Peel 1991). The Provincial Government thatcame to power in 1991 introduced a number of new administrative procedures,regulations and statutes designed to address land use problems in the forestry sector.These include:• Commissioner on Resources and Environment (CORE)• CORE Land Use Charter• Protected Area Strategy• Forest Practices Code• Forest Renewal Plan.CORE established the “process objectives” to ensure sustainability of naturalecosystems and the economy they support through meaningful public participation anddue consideration of the concerns of the aboriginal people (CORE 1992. Chap. 34, BCReg. 234/92). The CORE Land Use Charter sets out the fundamental principles ofenvironmental, social and economic sustainability that should guide natural resourceplanning and management in British Columbia (Owen 1994). This charter was adoptedin principle by the BC Government in June 1993. The objectives of the Protected Area3Strategy are (i) to protect viable representative samples of natural diversity of theprovince, and (ii) to protect the special natural, cultural heritage and recreational featuresof the province (Government of B.C. 1993). It has set a target to increase the amount ofprotected area in the province from the current 8% to 12 % in the form of Parks,Ecological Reserves and Wilderness Areas, by the year 2000 (Owen’1994). The ForestPractices Code sets out regulations and standards that will ensure good stewardship forthe management of forests for multiple uses (Forest Practices Code ofBritish ColumbiaAct, SBC Chap 41 Vol 2 Bill 40, 1994). The Forest Renewal Plan provides forinvestment in long term growth and diversity of the forest and for sustaining forestdependent communities (British Columbia Forest Renewal Act, SBC Chap 3 Vol 1 Bill32, 1994).Based on the above policies, the Government has released the CORE’s strategicregional plans for four regions: Vancouver Island; Cariboo-Chilcotin; West KootenayBoundary; and East Kootenay. These regional plans attempt to solve land use problemsby designating zones (protected, special management, integrated and dedicated) formanagement with varying intensities of timber management under a multiple use framework as specified in the Forest Practices Code. On one end of the scale are the protectedareas with absolutely no industrial resource extraction or timber production which wouldcompromise natural ecosystem functions. On the other end are the dedicated zones wheremanagement interventions which may compromise natural ecosysterñ functions to meethuman values are allowed but basic environmental quality is maintained (that is, intensivemanagement of timber production is allowed or, indeed, promoted).4Current regulations on multiple use emphasize the simultaneous production ofmultiple goods and services from the same tract of land. The intensity of production forparticular uses varies according to the management emphasis for the resource in question.Management involves trade-offs among the various uses in order to achieve an“optimum” mix. Since the physical relationships between the inputs and outputs for evensingle uses are not well known, not to mention complex interactions between uses, this isnot an easy task. It is further confounded by the fact that many of the products forestsproduce do not have values established in the market place. The designation of land usecategories under the CORE Land Use Plans are based on a broad regional scale. Noattempt has been made to analyze in detail land use on the scale of a management unit.The purpose of this research is to explore alternative approaches to land use planning on adiscrete forest management unit. Specifically, the intention is to compare the integratedmultiple use approach, in which each hectare of land is managed for several usessimultaneously, to the zoned multiple use approach incorporating a mosaic of single orspecialized uses across the forest.1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMThere are two basic approaches to multiple use management:i) the management of all hectares of land within a unit for an optimum mix of products;andii) the zoning of land within a unit for specialized uses (single or dominant use) andmanaging it as a mosaic or composite of single, specialized uses.5Current management practices in BC essentially belong to the first category wherean attempt is made to produce a mix of products simultaneously. The proportion of theproducts in the mix are being constantly challenged by various interest groups. Inresponse to the pressures from these groups, attempts are being made by the governmentto resort to zoning of areas with varying intensities of management for identified resourcevalues within a frame work of multiple use. However, neither the current practices northe proposed zoning system under CORE Regional plans advocate the establishment oftimber zones exclusively for the production of timber.Multiple use theory suggests that optimum use of a forest will generally includesome areas where a single use dominates and other areas where several uses will prevail(Gregory 1987). However, practical applications of multiple use theory on a forest levelare rare and, in my opinion, are deficient in several respects:i) They do not consider multiple use production in a spatial and temporal manner. Newperspectives, particularly those relating to biodiversity, require more attention tospatial and temporal details.ii) There is inadequate attention to the production of non-market goods such as wildlifeand visual quality.iii) Too little consideration is given to the impact of management intensification onoptimum multiple use planning.iv) Little attention has been paid to the “external” benefits of dominant use zoning,particularly for timber. For example, dedicating areas for timber production may6release additional areas for management of other resource values and thus mitigate theincidence and severity of costly land use conflicts.There is an urgent need to take into account the above factors and investigate thepractical economic implications of multiple use practices in spatial and temporalcontexts. Most of the guidelines that are aimed at either maintaining or enhancing otherresource values from the forest have spatial and temporal implications which directlyaffect the timber supply.Sustainability of natural ecosystems and the economy they support are sointerdependent that one cannot be achieved without the other. Caring only forecosystems without any concern for the economy can only compromise its very survival(Brundtland 1987).The objective of this research is to investigate the economic implications (asmeasured by timber supply and rent) of regulations relating to the production of timberand two non- timber resource values (wildlife and visual quality), under two alternativeland use systems. The study quantifies inputs to forest management and investigatessome of the spatial and temporal changes in selected indicators of landscape pattern(environmental indicators) and discusses their environmental significance. Finally, thisstudy also sets up an analytical framework which will help guide decision making whenconsidering future options.The following alternative land use systems will be investigated on a discretemanagement unit.7• An integrated multiple use system in which all products are produced simultaneouslyon every hectare ofland.• An integrated multi:ple use system with intensive managementfor timber.• A multiple use system with timber zonesfor the production oftimber.• A multzle use system with intensive managementfor timber in timber zones.1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESISThe thesis is organized into nine chapters. The first gives a historical background tothe problem and states the specific objectives of the research. The second chapter is areview of literature relating to multiple use theory. In the third chapter, the development ofplanning models (including area based planning) for multiple use management arediscussed. The fourth gives a description of the area selected for empirical study. The fifthdiscusses the analytical methodology, assumptions and data collection. The sixth chapteraddresses the stand level analysis of the problem, while the seventh chapter reports anddiscusses the results of the forest level analysis. The eighth chapter is a discussion of theresults and speculates on implications and zoning policy for British Columbia. The lastchapter gives a summary and the conclusions that were reached from this research.A list and description of codes used in the tables and figures in this study are givenin Table 1. A glossary of terms used in the thesis is given in Appendix.8Table 1 List and description of codes used in the tables and figuresCode Description1 basic timber management intensity2 medium timber management intensity3 high timber management intensityA natural amenity values under the JUsystemnatural amenity values under the SUsystemb basicc13 western redcedar (Sfr43)c21 western redcedar (SI=21)const/240PH constructed during 240 year planning horizonCT commercial thinningCT(112) commercial thinning with removal of1/2 volume ofstandCT(1/3) commercial thinning with removal of1/3 volume ofstandCw western red cedarDBH diameter at breast heightDf Douglas-firEAF equivalent annualflowESSF Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir ZoneFl first application offertilizerfl2 Douglas-fir (S1 12)f19 Douglas-fir (5fr49)F2 second application offertilizerg&m good and medium sitesh highHaul_C hauling costHsys_C harvest system cost9Table 1 (Continued). See titleDescrivtionCodeIU integrated use system1 lowICHmw Moist Warm Interior Cedar - Hemlock ZoneICHwk Wet Cool Interior Cedar - Hemlock Zonem mediummature mature seral stage (61 - 120 years)MAI_max age ofmaximum MAIMC marginal cost oftimber production under the lUsystemMC marginal cost oftimber production under the SUsystemMCT marginal cost oftimber production with no constraintsMCVQ marginal cost oftimberproduction with visual quality constraintsMC marginal cost oftimber production with wildlife constraintsMgt managementNatural Regen naturally regenerated crop after harvestingnotreat no silvicultural treatmentOG old-growthOG_harvested old-growth harvested duringplanning horizonOG_remaining old-growth remaining at end ofplanning horizonold old-growth seral stage (121 - 240 years)open/pd opened during a periodOppCost opportunity costp poor sitesP1 pruning withfirst lfi (3m height)P2 pruning with second lfi’ (Sm height)pat_i habitatpatch size 1 (0 -100 ha)pat_2 habitatpatch size 2 (101 - 500 ha)10Table 1 (Continued). See titleCode Descriptionpat_3 habitatpatch 3 (501 - 1000 ha)pat_4 habitatpatch 4 (> 1000 ha)PC12 precommercially thinned to 1200 sphPC5 precommercially thinned to 500 sphPC8 precommercially thinned to 800 sphPCT precommercial thinningPH planning horizonP1 artjficially plantedpole pole seral stage (21 - 50 years)r regenerated crop after harvestingR rent under the lUsystemrent under the SU systemREA resource emphasis arearegen regeneration seral stage (0 - 20 years)Regimes silvicultural regimesRER resource emphasis ruleRevi Reveistoke 1 or Akolkolex drainageRoad_C cost ofopening and maintaining roadsRSV reserves orforest lands where timber is not harvestedslO spruce (S1=10)s18 spruce (SI=18)Sec-growth second-growthSI @50 site index at 50 yearssph stems per hectarespp species type11Table 1 (Continued). See titleCode DescriptionSU single use systemSe Engelmann spruceTimber timber emphasis equivalent to wildlife basic quality RERTvolume total volumeU Unconstrained timber harvestveryold very old-growth seral stage (>240 years)VM visual quality modfIcation RER or basic level visual qualityvol volumeVPR visual quality partial retention RER or high level visual qualityWC1 wildlfe class 1 equivalent to wildlife high quality RERWC2 wild4fe class 2 equivalent to wild4fe low quality RERWC3 wildlfe class 3 equivalent to wildlife medium quality RERWLD wildiands or economically operableforest landsWilfe wildflfe122 ECONOMIC THEORY OF MULTIPLE USE2.1 INTRODUCTIONThe economics of multiple use forest management deals with four fundamentalquestions: i) Is production of more than one good technically feasible? ii) If feasible, is itsocially and economically desirable to produce it? iii) What are the best combination ofproducts? iv) What are the economically efficient levels of production for each combinationof products that will generate the highest social value? These questions have beenextensively researched (Gregory 1955; Hagenstein and Dowdie 1962; Hartman 1976;Pearse 1969; Walter 1977; Bowes and Krutilla 1985, 1989; Swallow et al. 1990; Vincentand Binkley 1993). The most extensive assessment of multiple use forestry can be found inthe book by Bowes and Krutilla (1989). Essentially, the economic theory of multiple use isbased on the theory of the multiproduct firm and on capital theory.2.1.1 Firm theory aspects of multiple useMultiple use theory is based on the theory of the multiproduct firm because it isconcerned with combining quantities of factor inputs to produce outputs of goods andservices and their pricing and output decisions. Production of goods and services from aforest is commonly related to the conditions of the timber growing stock and on the fixedinput, land.2.1.2 Capital theory aspects of multiple useMultiple use theory is based on capital theory as it deals with valuation of costs andbenefits over time. Capital stock in forestry is the timber growing stock. The flow of goods13and services from a multiple use forest at any point in time is strongly dependent on thegrowing stock conditions at that time. The output mix is often manipulated by adjusting thelevel of growing stock through timber harvests. Comparison of the impact of variousmanagement options on a multiple use forest would require summing up of costs andbenefits spread over time to a single value. This is achieved by using appropriate rates ofinterest which represent the opportunity costs of capital over time. Future values can beobtained by compounding the present values with an appropriate rate of interest. In asimilar manner, present value can be obtained by discounting the future values with theappropriate rate of interest. Discounting is used to mean any process of revaluing a futureevent, condition, service or product to give a present equivalent (Price 1993).2.1.2.1 Appropriate discount ratesThe issue of choosing of the appropriate social discount rate may play a criticalrole in intertemporal decisions concerning the use of environmental resources. Twoconcepts i) the social opportunity cost (SOC) of capital, and ii) the social rate of timepreference (SRTP) shape the discount rate. The rate based on SOC of capital measuresthe value to society of the next best alternative investment in which funds mightotherwise have been employed. The SRTP is defined as a rate that reflects thecommunity’s marginal weight on consumption at different points in time (Kula 1992).In an ideally functioning market, the interest rate equals both the marginal rates of timepreference and return on capital. In practice, however, market failures and governmentpolicies lead to divergence between these rates (Munasinghe 1993). The economic14theory suggests that in the choice of a social rate of discount, the two rates, i.e. the SOCand the SRTP, should play a joint role (Feldstein 1964; Marglin 1963).Higher discount rates may discriminate against future generations as projects withsocial costs occurring in the long term and the net social benefits occurring in the nearterm, will be favored by high discount rates (Munasinghe 1993). This is likely to lead tothe rejection of projects with delayed returns under high discount rates thusdiscriminating against future generations.During the last two decades, there has been a lot of discussion about the ways todeal with time, particularly when it involves intergenerational comparisons. Suggestionsinclude: i) the use of very low discount rates (as low as 0 %, Mishan 1976; or 2 %,Hampson 1972; Hartman 1990), ii) the use of declining discount rates (Cline 1992), andiii) a modified discounting system which treats all generations as equal (Kula 1992). Asan alternative to the various methods of discounting, the imposing of sustainabilityconstraints have been proposed by some economists (Jacobs 1993; Munasinghe 1993;Pezzy 1992). The aim of these constraints is to ensure that the overall stock of capital ispreserved or enhanced for future generations. There are several arguments for andagainst these suggestions.Most of the empirical studies done to estimate the social discount rate are basedon short periods (Lowenstein 1987). Studies on appropriate discount rates to long timehorizons are rare. One particular study of relevance is that of Cropper and Portney (1991)who conducted a survey on the value of lives saved at various points over a long timehorizon. They found that the discount rate dropped from 7% to 3.5% for 50 years and to150% for 100 years. A phenomenon that shows some similarity to forest management, asfar as delayed returns and environmental implications are concerned, is global warming.Management activities that prevent global warming in the future are supposed to showbenefits only after about 250 to 300 years. For economic analysis of global warmingCline (1992) recommends the use of 1.5% as the discounting rate. This is based onseveral theoretical and empirical studies. For similar reasons, Thompson et al. (1992)used a discount rate of 1.5% to evaluate alternative strategies for evaluating therehabilitation of the backlog of unstocked forest lands in British Columbia.The B.C. Ministry of Forests uses a discount rate of 4% for its analysis (Stone1993). Most of these analyses generally involve only a few decades, though sometimesare extended to a rotation of about 120 years (Stone 1994; Laing and McCulloch 1993).For government investment projects, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in theUnited States uses a discount rate of 2% and employ a sensitivity analysis, showing theresults for ± 2 percentage points around “the” rate, i.e., 0% to 4% (Hartman 1990).In this research, forest level analysis was done for a 240 year planning horizonwith a real data set having old-growth and second-growth stands which, upon harvest, areconverted to modified forest. The effect of intensive management can only be seen overthe second rotation starting after 120 years. At a discount rate of 4% (used by the MOF),a single dollar return after 240 years is worth only 0.008 cents. As such, at a 4% discountrate the analysis cannot discriminate between benefits of incremental silviculture. Inorder to capture these benefits this research used a discount rate of 2% and provides asensitivity analysis at 0% and 4%.162.2 COST FUNCTION IN MULTIPLE USE PRODUCTIONThe production of goods and services from a forest can be technically defined by acost function which represents the least cost of producing any mix of outputs. It can berepresented as,C(Q:R,M)where Q is the mix of outputs, R is a vector of variable input prices and M isa vector of fixed inputs.The cost function is useful in computing some basic measures such as marginal costs,separable costs and isocost curves. Marginal cost is the incremental cost of increasingproduction (by one unit) while keeping the levels of production of the other productsconstant. Separable cost refers to the increase in cost of including an additional output (newoutput) in an overall production mix. Isocost curves represent the production possibilitiesachievable with least cost means; they are particularly useful in evaluating a set of costefficient possibilities for a given budget expenditure or for developing equal costmanagement options for various budget levels.2.2.1 Interdependence in multiple use productionMultiple use forestry is characterized by jointness in production of marketable andnon-marketable products (goods and services). The versatility of the factors of productionallow the transformation of one product into another along a production possibility ortransformation curve. The shape of the transformation curve at any point in time isdependent on the degree of technical interdependence between the products. Theinterdependence could be for a specific level of outputs (a local measure) or for all levels of17output (a global measure). Multiple use products, based on their local measure ofinteraction (that is, specific to certain levels of output) can be classified as mutuallyexclusive, complements, substitutes or independents. Examples of these productionpossibility curves are illustrated in Figure 1 (a through 1).i) Mutually exclusive uses: In this case the uses are entirely incompatible and it is notpossible to produce these products simultaneously from the same tract of land. Anexample of a production possibility curve for timber production and wilderness areas isillustrated in Figure 1(a).ii) Complementary uses: Complements show a positively sloping curve where one formof production enhances the other. That is, an increase in production of one leads to areduction in the marginal cost of producing the other. For instance, timber productionimproves some wildlife habitats and vice versa at certain levels of output or timberroads provide access for public recreation. This is illustrated in Figure 1(b).iii) Substitute uses: Substitutes show a negatively sloping curve where one form ofproduction competes with the production of the other and therefore replaces it in variousways. In this case, an increase in production of one leads to an increase in marginal costof producing the other. The degree of substitutability is indicated by the rate oftransformation. A concave (to the origin) production possibility curve with increasingmarginal rate of transformation of one product for the other indicates competitive uses.The curvature reflects the degree of competitiveness and varies over the range ofpossibilities. This is the most common relationship seen in multiple use forests. Figure1(c) illustrates the production possibility curve of two competitive uses, timber18production and recreation. A convex (to the origin) production possibility curve impliesa decreasing marginal rate of transformation of one output for another indicating highlyconflicting uses. That is, successive increments in the output of one product can beaccommodated with progressively smaller sacrifices of the other. Figure 1(d) illustratesa convex production possibility curve for timber production and aesthetic values whichare considered to be highly conflicting. In this case, as we successively increase theproduction of one product the sacrifice in terms of the other product become smaller. Anegatively sloping straight line indicates constantly substitutable uses, where themarginal rate of transformation is constant. In this case, the marginal cost remainsconstant. Figure 1(e) illustrates the production possibility curve for constantlysubstitutable uses of a forest for sawlogs and pulpwood.iv) Independent uses: In this case the production of one product does not have any effecton the production of others. This situation is illustrated by two curves that are at rightangles to each other. The marginal cost of producing one product is independent of therate of production of the other products. Figure 1(f) illustrates the production possibilitycurves for two independent products, watershed protection and recreation.In a multiple use forest production system, there will always be eventualdiminishing returns to scale caused by the limited land area. In addition, the type anddegree ofjointness and differing scales of production are associated with varying levels ofeconomies and diseconomies. For instance, global complements result in economies inproduction while global substitutes cause diseconomies of production. The economies ofscale, a local measure specific to a particular output mix, may change with output mix. In19multiple use, timber production may be associated with scale economies to some outputlevel but it is soon affected by diminishing returns to scale caused by the other products inthe mix. The cost of production is also affected by the differences in site productivity. Asite may be more productive for a particular product or a set of products and, therefore, itscosts of production will be less than that for less productive sites.2.3 CASE FOR SPECIALIZATION IN PRODUCTIONSome of the peculiarities in costs exhibited by multiple use forests suggest that it ismore economically efficient to specialize in the production of some goods and service(either as single use or as dominant use) rather than producing all products from everyhectare of land (integrated use). The peculiarities are: i) differences in site productivity, ii)diseconomies of joint production and economies of scale, and iii) responsiveness ofproducts to management efforts. These are discussed in the following sections. Theillustrations are taken from Bowes and Krutilla (1989).20Pulpwood (m3/halyr)1(e) Constantly substitutable uses 1(f) Independent usesRecreation daysFigure 1 Types of production possibilities for two products on a tract of land.(Source. Pearse (1990)Timber(m3/halyr)Wilderness area (ha)1(a) Mutually exclusive usesTimber(m3lhalyr)Some1(b) Complementary usesTimber(m3/halyr)Grazing /ha1(c) Competing usesAesthetic values /ha1(d) Highly conflicting usesTimber(m3/halyr)WatershedqualityN212.3.1 Site productivityA site is considered to be more productive than another when more of a certainproduct can be produced at lower cost. The decision to allocate the production of specificproducts to their respective sites is generally based on the relative productivity of thosesites. This situation is illustrated in Figure 2. In the production of two products q1 and q2,Site A is more productive in q while site B is more productive in q1. In this case it is betterq1Figure 2 Relative productivities of sites determining the selection ofproduction of goods and services.to produce both products separately under single use management, allocating site A for theproduction of q and site B for the production of q1. For example, some sites with lowtimber productivity may be good for some types of recreation (for example, skiing) and viceversa.Sometimes one site can be more productive with respect to the production of twoproducts than another, but vary in the relative productivities of each product. An example isillustrated in Figure 3, where site A, though more productive in q1 arid q2 than site B, isBAq222relatively more productive for q than for q1. Suppose it is decided to produce the equalquantities of q1 and q2 from both sites A and B, then the point of production can beindicated by EA and EB, on the isocost curves A and B, respectively. At the point ofoptimal production mix (that is, at least cost of producing q1 and q2), the ratio of themarginal cost of producing q1 and q at site A will be equal to the ratio of the marginal costsof producing q1 and q2 at site B (that is, MC_Aqi/ MC_Aq2 MC_Bqi / MC_Bq2). From thepoint EB, production can move along the isocost curve of site B to the point XB by giving upone unit of q2 and increasing the quantity of q1 in proportion of the slope of the curve.Similarly, on the isocost curve of site A, there can be movement in production from EA toXA by gaining one unit of q by giving up q1 in proportion to the slope of the isocost curve.The slope of the isocost curve of site A is flatter than that of the curve B. Therefore, thegain on q1 in site B is much more than the loss in q1 on site A for exchanging equal units of• Thus it can be seen that without losing any q2 we can produce more of q1 at the samecost. Therefore, it will be economically efficient to produce q1a and q2a from site A andproduce q1b and q from site B. This shows that specialization will be more economical inthe production of some goods.232.3.2 Diseconomies of jointness and diseconomies of scaleThe diseconomies ofjointness exhibited by substitute products with convex isocostcost curves favor specialization even if there are no differences in site productivity. Anexample is illustrated in Figure 4. In this figure three isocost curves C1, C2, and C3 for twoidentical sites for the production of two products q1 and q2 are shown. The required overallproduction mix is q1 and q which is labeled as Y. The balanced product mix where eachsite produces q1/2 and ci2 is indicated by the point labeled X which is on the highestisocost curve C3. Therefore, the overall cost of producing Y will be 2C3. It can be seen thatthe tangent (when the marginal cost of production of q1 and ci are equal) that meets C3 at Xmeets the isocost curve C2 at XB and the isocost curve C1 at XA. By producing at points XAAq1q1baq2 q2Figure 3 Optimal production of two products on two sites withvarying site productivities.24and XB the same quantity of q1 and q can be produced at a lower cost. This can be inferredfrom the position of the isocost curves since 2C3 is greater than C1+ C2. This indicates thata given quantity of the products q1 and q2 can be produced at a lower cost when theproduction of both goods are specialized (single use in site A for q2, and dominant use ofsite A for q2).In the case of constantly substitutable products, if the isovalue curve has the sameslope as that of the isocost curve any combination of products will give the same value. Inthese situations there will be indifference between specialized and integrated production.But when the isovalue curve does not have the same slope as the isocost curve, cornersolutions are possible indicating that specialization will be more beneficial than integratedproduction.Specialization, however, may not always lead to least cost production.Specialization requires an increase in the scale of production which may result indiseconomies of scale. For example, specialized production of timber may be moreprofitable with very large cut blocks. But these large cutblocks may. substantially affectother ecosystem functions such as biodiversity and hydrological regimes. Thus,specialization in the production of substitute products is desirable only when thediseconomies ofjointness outweigh the diseconomies of scale (Bowes and Krutilla 1989).25Figure 4 Optimal production with two substitute products2.3.3 Management effortsAny expenditures on the factors of production aimed at increasing the level ofproduction of a single product, or a set of products, from a multiple use forest can be termeda management effort. Any management effort applied to increase production of an outputfrom a planning unit will invariably affect the production of others. However, the degree ofresponsiveness of different products may vary. Vincent and Binkley (1993) have shownthat provided that there are no rapid diminishing returns, even with two sites of identicalq1q126productivity, optimum management will tend towards specialization in production of theproduct that responds most to management effort.2.3.4 Empirical evidenceThe peculiarities in cost of production of a multiple use forest discussed insections 2.3.1 through 2.3.3 show that any fixed amount of products .such as timber andvisual aesthetics (or wildlife) that are competitive may be produced at a lower cost whenproduced separately as a single use or as a dominant use than it can by producing it in anintegrated manner. Empirical evidence supporting the establishment of zones thatspecialize in one or a small number of goods and services are rare. However, research inthe Olympic peninsula by Sedjo and Bowes (1990) on the different ecological regimes ofNew Forestry, such as green tree retention and set asides, have shown that set aside regimesgive a higher return than other options. This is also a form of specialization where anattempt is made to set aside a parcel of land for non-timber uses.2.4 MARGINAL COSTS IN MULTIPLE USE PRODUCTIONIn a multiple use forest, active production of one product such as timber (say aquantity q1) may positively or negatively affect the production of amenity services or othernon-timber goods (this relationship can be represented by a function q2 = p(q1)). Lowlevels of timber production may enhance the production of some of the non-timber valuesbecause of its complementary nature at these production levels. At high levels ofproduction some of the non-timber products may be negatively impacted. Maintaining ahigh level of timber production while maintaining a high level of amenity services would27increase the cost of producing timber. Thus, conceptually, the cost of timber production inmultiple use forests can be assumed to be made up of two components:i) the cost of producing timber by the least cost means, kq1, without regard to the amenityservices , where k is constant and q1 is the quantity of timber produced; andii) the cost of maintaining amenity services above the base level p(q1) that results fromsingle purpose management.The cost function for timber and wildlife, for example, can be represented thus:C(q1,q2) = kq1 + c(q2 -where: c(q2-p(q1)) refers to the cost of producing wildlife, and kq1 refers to the costof timber productionMarginal cost also can be considered to be made up of two components as follows:dc/dq1 = k- c’i’where: k refers to the cost of timber production, c’p’ reflects the change in the costof maintaining wildlife services at the chosen level, and measures the expenses ofcompensating for changes in base level of wildlife services caused by increasedtimber production.At low levels of timber production, the marginal cost may be even less than k wheni(q1) is positive and p’ is also positive. At higher levels of timber production ji’ will benegative and therefore marginal cost will be higher than k.Wildlife and visual quality constraints increase the marginal cost of timberproduction. At low levels of timber production wildlife constraints may cause a negativemarginal cost for timber production due to the complementary nature of wildlife and timber28production. However, at high levels of timber production small increases in timberproduction may increase the marginal cost of timber production several fold. Visual qualityconstraints, due to their highly conflicting nature with timber production, may increase themarginal cost of timber production from the moment the timber harvesting begins. Themarginal cost of producing timber with visual quality constraints rises much faster than thatwith wildlife constraints. The marginal costs of timber production with no constraints, withvisual quality constraints, and with wildlife constraints are illustrated in Figure 5. In thisexample, in order to illustrate the impact of wildlife and visual quality constraints, themarginal cost of timber production (with no constraints) is assumed to be constant, thoughdue to diminishing marginal returns it is likely to show an initial decrease and then anincrease with increasing timber production.In Figure 5, the curves MCT, MCw, and MCVQ represent marginal costs of timberproduction with no constraints, with wildlife constraints, and with visual quality constraints,respectively. At low levels of timber production, the MC may be even lower than themarginal cost of producing timber as a single use (MCT) due its complementary nature. Butat higher levels of timber production, it increases rapidly. The MCVQ, on the other handrises rapidly with the commencement of timber production and is steeper than MC. Thefigure illustrates that the cost of timber production with visual quality and wildlife habitatsmay be very expensive when compared to single use timber production.29Cost($/m)C3C2ClFigure 5 Marginal cost of timber production with no constraints comparedseparately with production under visual quality and wildlife constraints.(Refer to Table] (Page 8) for description ofcodes)2.5 AGGREGATE HUMAN WELFARERent is the residual value of land or the net return the land can generate bycombining all factors of production. Multiple use management will be efficient when allvariable factors of production are combined with the fixed factor of land to generate themaximum rent. If all products and services produced by the forest can be priced, then it canbe said that the net rent generated is a measure of human welfare. Unfortunately, sincemany of the products produced by forests are non-marketable, rent alone, as measured bymarket prices, is an unsatisfactory measure of welfare. Forest products from multiple useMCT130can be broadly categorized into timber and amenity. Amenity refers to naturalness and tothe goods and services that are associated with naturalness. A major component of theforest rent is the rent generated from timber production. Therefore, timber rent along withamenity values generated by a tract of forest land could be considered to be a good indicatorof aggregate human welfare. Maximizing the sum of these two values is likely tomaximize the net benefit from the forest.2.5.1 Timber rentThe amount of timber rent generated depends on the relative values of timberproduced and the costs of production. If timber values are assumed to be constant, then thetimber rent will be directly proportional to the cost of production. The marginal cost oftimber production under unconstrained single use (MC5)and under integrated use (MC)is illustrated in Figure 6. The marginal costs rise with increases in timber production due todiminishing returns to scale, but rise more sharply under integrated use. In this example itis assumed that the price of timber is fixed and determined exogenously. At a fixed priceP1, the rent generated will be equal to the area above the marginal cost curve and below theprice curve. This will be equal to the area A + B for integrated use (IU), and to the area A +B + C + D + E for single use (SU). If evenflow volume harvesting is practiced then the rentfrom the SU system will only be greater than that of the IU by the area C + D. Removal ofthe evenflow constraint, or changing to area based management, will help maximize rent byan addition of the area E to rent.31Price($/m3)P1Figure 6 Rent under the IU and the SU systems.(Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for descrztion ofcodes).2.5.2 Timber rent and amenity values from a multiple use forestIn a multiple use forest there is a general relationship between the production oftimber and amenity. Amenity is not much affected at low levels of timber production, butaffected severely at high levels of timber production. This is illustrated in Figure 7.Amenity value is shown on the left vertical axis. In the case of integrated use, amenity isrepresented by harvesting constraints on every hectare of timber production, while forsingle use it is represented by equivalent areas being withdrawn from timber production.MC1/T132Timber rent for the total area is shown on the right vertical axis. At low levels of timberproduction, the impact of timber production on amenity values is so low there is hardly anydifference between single use and integrated use. In fact in this case the single use is morelike integrated use where timber production is limited to very small areas. At 100% timberharvest, there are no amenity constraints and again there is no difference between integrateduse and single use as all areas are single use. Thus at this level of timber production, therent generated under both forms of use will be the same. The difference in rent between thesingle and integrated use widens when there is a need for high degree of amenity value andhigh volume of timber production. The figure 7 shows the rent generated for single use(Rsu) and integrated use (R) for varying levels of timber production. Rent generated bysingle use at high levels of timber production with high amenity constraints will be verymuch higher than that for integrated use. At any level of production, while the amenityvalues are maintained constant, the rent from single use can be increased up to its intensivemargin by varying the intensities of management. At high levels of timber production, thedispersed harvests in integrated use may even negatively affect the level of amenity valuescompared to single use. Thus the curve A1 is shown at somewhat lower levels.In multiple use management, the flow of timber at any point in time is fixed by anannual allowable cut (AAC) after taking into account a fixed flow of amenity services.Timber rent generated by a fixed flow of timber and a fixed flow of amenity from a multipleuse forest is likely to vary based on the economics of production. For example, if thetimber flow is fixed at level Q on the X axis (Figure 7), rent generated under single use willbe equal to R1 which will be higher than the rent R2 generated under integrated use. This is33because single use production takes into account factors such as productivity of the site,diseconomies of jointness and management effort. Though amenity levels are expected tobe maintained at constant levels through resource emphasis rules set at single stand levelsunder both single and integrated uses, there is always the possibility .of diseconomies ofscale in timber production under integrated use that may reduce the level of amenity fromA1 to A2.NaturalamenityvaluesI TotalareaA1A20% Timber harvest (m3/total area) 100%Figure 7 Relationship between timber rent and amenity in multiple use systems.(Refer to Table 1 (page 8) for description ofcodes).2.6 THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM FACING THE FOREST MANAGERHuman values put on many of the goods and services that are produced by forestsappear to have increased dramatically over the last decade with increasing environmentalQ34awareness. With the prevailing set of values it can be said that the public demands theproduction of some products (timber, recreation, hunting etc.) in amounts above those thatcan be produced under natural conditions, while demanding that the production of otherproducts such biodiversity, wilderness, water yield and quality, air quality etc. bemaintained at natural levels. Production of all goods and services in nature are in a state ofequilibrium that can be likened to the economist’s Pareto efficient condition where: i) it isnot possible to increase the production of any one of the outputs without decreasing theoutput of another, and ii) where it is impossible to achieve the same level of a specific mixof output with less of any one input without correspondingly increasing the level of anotherinput. Thus, the production of any good or service beyond its natural level will affect theproduction of some other goods or services. The question of the technical limit ofdisturbance will be determined by the resiliency of the ecosystem.The general economic problem facing the forest manager is, therefore, to fmd theoptimum mix of outputs that provides the greatest overall value of net benefits whilemaintaining the integrity of the ecosystem. A forest ecosystem has integrity if its structureand species composition, the rate of its ecological processes and its ability to resist changein the face of disturbance or stress are within the characteristic range exhibited historicallyby that ecosystem (Kimmins 1994). Bowes and Krutilla (1989) define the economicproblem for the forester as ‘the selection of a sequence of harvests and stocks that willmaximize the net present value from all current and future flows of harvests and servicesfrom the area’. For integrated use management this applies to every hectare of land,35whereas for single use management it applies to a patchwork of single uses within a largerunit of land.The foresters problem can be represented as follows:Max {B(Q) - C(Q)}selecting that output mix Q* that will generate the highest net value.Where: Q = output mix, B(Q) = benefit from output mix Q, and C(Q) = costofproducing output mix Q.A product mix is optimal when it satisfies the conditionB(Q*)- B(Q) >= C(Q*) - C(Q)Economically efficient multiple use management should take into consideration allthe costs and benefits associated with jointness in production, site productivity, economiesof scale, and management effort. This requires the following information:i) the assessment of production possibilities for various combinations of uses;ii) the relative demands for and economic values of the various goods and servicesproduced by the forest; andiii) relative response of outputs to management effort.Unfortunately, for a practicing forester, the inherent uncertainty and the long timehorizon associated with forest production make it al.most impossible to have perfectinformation in all these areas. The problem is further complicated by the scale of planning,as to whether it is local, regional or national. Foresters have circumvented this problem byattempting to maximize timber harvests while maintaining certain structural features of thegrowing stock that are thought likely to ensure a continuous flow of some of the non-timber36resource values through time. These structural features are maintaind through time bydesigning harvesting patterns with temporal and spatial constraints. Some of the structuralfeatures maintained in the forest are to:i) maintain a certain percent of various seral stages at all points in time (forest coverconstraints);ii) limit spatial disturbance at any point in time by limiting size of cut blocks (or openingsize) and by having adjacency constraints (or exclusion periods); and briii) limit temporal disturbance by having a minimum harvest age.When such modifications are done, it is assumed that there will be a steady flow ofnon-timber benefits from the forest. Thus, the practical economic problem for forestersmanaging for multiple use centers on maximizing the net present value from the flow oftimber harvests subject to certain resource constraints. Timber production with integrateduse (IU), can be represented as follows:37=Max>[A+6 ‘13,I-L--oSince the flow of non - timber values A from the whole forest is constant over time, the maximization problemcan be expressed as,wa [o ‘Hö‘C1(h,aiwhere,= net present value from the multiple use forestt = time of harvest= identity of the harvest cut block at time tn number of cutblocks= discount factor =1 / (1 + r)t where r equals the rate of discountA = net present value of non timber goods and services. This is constant over time= price of timber per cubic meter at time t= volume harvested from harvest cutbiock i at time tH = volume of timber harvested at time tH,=h,,aj = constraints to timber production in harvest cutblock i. It is constant over time but not spacec, = cost of producing timber at time t from cutbiock i with constraints aTimber production under single use or specialized production can also berepresented as follows:= [A+o ‘13,H-o’1=1Sire the flowofinflimber values A is constant over tin the imximization problem lSecome=i[ö ‘RIi-oEC,(h,,1=1Ct = cost ofxkxing given volun oftinixr in harvest cutbiock i with no constraints.38The difference between timber production under integrated use and single use is thatthere are no constraints on the harvest of timber in the area selected for single use timbermanagement, therefore, no symbol “a” in the equation. It is assumed that the value ofamenity “A” that is provided by constraints “a” in integrated use is provided by a non-timber production zone in single use.In this research no attempt is made to maximize net present value from timberproduction under any of these constraints. But an attempt is made to represent theconstraints in a spatially explicit manner in two types of multiple use production (IntegratedUse and Single Use) scenarios and compare their feasible solutions with a view to seewhether they behave in the theoretically predictable way.393 MULTIPLE USE MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICESince the 1 940s the ways of practicing multiple use management have been asubject of much controversy. Dana (1943) and Pearson (1944) argued for different ways ofpracticing multiple use forestry. Dana argued for the production of all possible goods andservices from the same parcel of land at the same point in time, whereas Pearson argued forsegregation of small parcels of land for special functions, and wanted to consider multipleuse on a larger unit of land. Burton (1995) proposes a combined system of zoned single andintegrated use designed to maximize net benefit from a discrete management unit. In NorthAmerica, the dominant use option was very much prevalent until the 1960’s. Latterly, dueto a new environmental awareness, there has been a trend towards Dana’s approach whichfavors integrated management. This philosophy has been further strengthened by theconcept of “New Forestry”, which advocates the modification of forest practices in anattempt to achieve old growth like structure in all forested areas (O’Keefe 1990). In BritishColumbia, current multiple use management practices reflect these trends and emphasizeintegrated management in which an attempt is made to produce all possible values fromevery hectare of forest land.3.1 MULTIPLE USE FOREST HARVEST MODELSIn order to plan for multiple use forestry, a number of models have beendeveloped to simulate harvesting practices that could help achieve maximum benefitsfrom a multiple use forest. This section discusses the various models that have been40developed to address this problem. Originally the problem was addressed only at thesingle stand level but was then extended to multiple stands.3.1.1 Single stand modelsThe earlier models developed to analyze multiple use problems were based onsingle stands. The first model to account for resource values other than timber generatedby stands was developed by Hartman (1976). This is a modification of a single use timberproduction model originally developed by Faustman (1849), which describes the optimaleconomic management of an even aged stand of timber under conditions of unchangingproductivity and prices over time. Forestry literature abounds with extensions andreformulations of the Faustman model (Newman 1988). The Hartman model assumes theflow of net benefits from timber to be a function of stand age, and identifies a rotation agethat maximizes the combined present value from timber harvests and from other servicesprovided by the standing stock. In other words, the optimum rotation age is the age whenthe increase in value from marginal delay of holding the stock is equal to the opportunitycost of that delay. Hartman’ s model was followed in the development of other models thatexamined various other aspects of multiple use (Calish et al. 1978).There is an inherent weakness in the single stand models. They assume that standsare independent of each other. But, in reality, non-timber resource values of a stand arevery much dependent on its setting within the larger forest. Any activity that changes thegrowing conditions of an adjoining stand will positively or negatively affect one or moreresource values over time. To maximize net present value from all goods and services41produced over time, optimal management of forests, therefore, has to consider relatedstands simultaneously.3.1.2 Forest level harvest modelsForest level models take into account the presence of many stands of differentspecies and ages. The flow of goods and services from a forest is maximized byestablishing a timber harvest pattern through time. The harvests control the flow of timberand non-timber benefits by controlling the conditions of growing stock. The amount oftimber that is estimated to flow for a given period over the planning horizon is known as thetimber supply. In many jurisdictions, it is through timber supply planning that the flow ofnon-timber resources is also generated and controlled. Timber supply planning helpsestablish an Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for an area, which is the maximum volume oftimber that can be harvested while realizing desired goals from the flow of non-timbervalues. In British Columbia, AAC is a policy decision after having taken into accountsocial, economic and technical factors.Various techniques such as linear programming (LP) (Thompson et al. 1973; Davisand Johnson 1986); mixed integer programming (Kirby et al. 1986; Nelson and Brodie1990; Nelson and Finn 1991; Murray and Church 1993), Monte Carlo integer programmingand other heuristic approaches (Nelson and Brodie 1990; Dahlin and Sallnas 1993),interchange (Murray and Church 1993), simulated annealing (Lockwood and Moore 1993;Nelson and Liu 1994), and genetic algorithms (Liu 1994) have been tried to find optimalsolutions to harvest scheduling problems. However, no one particular approach has beenwidely accepted, and the appropriate mathematical programming is still evolving.423.1.2.1 Strata based modelsMost popular forest level harvest scheduling models are homogenous strata basedmodels which use linear programming or simulation (Nelson and Howard 1991). They arehomogenous in that each analysis unit consists of the same timber type, age class and siteclass (Leuscbner 1990). In British Columbia, FSSIM which is a forest strata basedsimulation model is used for harvest scheduling. The United States Forest Service uses alinear programming based model known as FORPLAN for their timber supply planning.These models currently lack the spatial resolution needed to address specificharvesting regulations, such as maximum opening size and exclusion periods for adjacentblocks. Ignoring these factors may result in overestimating the sustainable harvest (Nelsonand Howard 1991); however, they are efficient in determining long term strategic harvestlevels (Nelson et al. 1991).3.1.2.2 Area based modelsPlanners have recently attempted to develop spatially feasible models (Tanke 1985;Nelson and Brodie 1990; Nelson et al. 1991, Clements et.al. 1990; O’Hara et al. 1989).These models are specific to a contiguous area and are likely to be heterogeneous in thatseveral different cover types including non forest land are included (Leuschner 1990). Thedecision variables in these models define treatments for specific harvest units.Since this approach requires integer solutions, optimization of this problem has beenattempted using techniques such as Mixed Integer Programming, Monte Carlo Integer43Programming, and other heuristic approaches such as interchange, simulated annealing andgenetic algorithms.There have also been attempts to link the strata based plans and area based plans(Johnson and Crim 1981; Johnson and Stewart 1987; and Nelson et al. 1991). For largeforest level problems, there is currently no analytical tool available that can guaranteeoptimal solutions by simultaneously considering the spatial and temporal feasibility whenestimating the Allowable Annual Cut (AAC).3.1.3 ATLAS (A Tactical Land Analysis System) ModelATLAS is a simulation model developed at the University of British Columbia(Nelson et al. 1993). This spatially explicit model does not provide optimal solutions,rather it generates feasible solutions. It simulates forest level harvests subject to spatialconstraints such as adjacency, green-up, and forest cover. Harvest units, zones and accessunits constitute the spatial hierarchy of the model with access units at top. Harvest prioritiescan be assigned to all three levels. The order of the harvest is: i) go to the top ranked accessunit, ii) go to the top ranked zone within this access unit, and iii) go to the top rankedharvest unit within this zone. When all eligible blocks (harvest units) within a zone are cut,the harvest is then scheduled in the next ranked zone within the access unit. When alleligible zones within this access unit are harvested, harvest commence in the next rankedaccess unit. When the periodic harvest is complete (periodic harvest is satisfied or no moreeligible blocks exist), harvesting stops. Blocks are then aged by one planning period andharvesting begins in the next period. If the harvest target is not satisfied, the user mustadjust the periodic harvest targets in order to achieve the desired volume flows. As such,44this model can be used to examine the short term and long term effects of spatial harvestingrestrictions and silvicultural treatments. It is ideally suited to examine the alternative landuse planning systems proposed in this report.3.2 LANDSCAPE PATTERN MODELINGThe word “landscape” commonly refers to the landforms of a region in theaggregate (Websters New Collegiate Dictionary 1980). Forman and Godron (1986)define landscape as a heterogenous area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystemsthat is repeated in similar form throughout. In this research, it refers to a spatiallyheterogeneous forested land surface and its associated habitats, ranging in size from asingle hectare to thousands of hectares. The fundamental structural element of alandscape is a patch, which is defined as a region that is similar with respect to someattributes. Patches consist of core and edge. Core is the portion of a patch that isunaffected by neighboring patches, and usually is considered to be the interior of thepatch. Edge habitat is the band on the periphery of a patch that differs abiotically fromthe core and may also differ biotically from the core.The spatial patterns observed in a landscape are the result of complex interactionsbetween physical, biological and human (social) forces. Landscape patterns may responddifferently to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Since multiple use managementincludes maintaining visual quality and a mosaic of habitats, it is also necessary toconsider landscape response to multiple use management. The forested landscapes in thevicinity of Revelstoke, British Columbia have been very much influenced by past forestrypractices, and are used as a case study in this project. There have been several studies on45natural landscape patterns aimed at understanding the underlying ecological processes(Turner 1989; Cale et a!. 1989; Paine and Levin 1981). But studies of landscaperesponses to human manipulated disturbance are rare (Wallin et al. 1994). In this study,an attempt is made to simulate the landscape response to disturbance created by forestharvesting and regeneration. The extent and rate of change of the landscape pattern willreflect the availability of a mosaic of habitats over the planning horizon. Some forestryland use practices will adversely affect particular habitats while others may not.In this research I use the spatially explicit forest simulation model SIMFOR(Daust 1994) to quantify the landscape pattern response to forest harvesting andregeneration. The model uses ATLAS output of harvest schedules in a managementregime and generates statistics on the resulting landscape pattern over the planninghorizon. These landscape statistics are derived from the composition and pattern ofecosystem classes and seral stages. Seral stages are different ages in the succession anddevelopment of forest stands. In this study, land occupied by any seral stage that isbounded and internally homogeneous is considered to be a patch. These statistics areused to derive useful indices which help to characterize some of the long term cyclicalchanges in landscape composition, diversity and its biological consequences. SIMFORhelps in predicting landscape changes and in developing our understanding of thelandscape dynamics associated with the likely progression of resource development inmanaged forested ecosystems.464 EMPIRICAL STUDY4.1 INTRODUCTIONThe empirical study for this research was carried out in Revelsioke Forest District.Reveistoke has severe resource use conflicts, and the management strategies developedby the District to deal with this problem are fairly advanced when compared to otherdistricts in the province. This district has tried to design special harvesting patterns andrules to maintain a continuous flow of visual quality and wildlife habitat values.4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA4.2.1 GeneralThe study site is located in a sub-unit of the Revelstoke Timber supply Area (TSA),and falls under the jurisdiction of Revelstoke Forest District. Appendix Figure 1 showsthe general location of the study area in British Columbia. The topography of the TSA isrugged and mountainous. It consists of three major biogeoclimatic zones: AlpineTundra(AT), Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) and Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir(ES SF). The dominant tree species groups are mixtures of Engelmann spruce (Piceaengelmanni Parry ex Engelm.) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.),western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.), western redcedar (Thuja plicataDonn ex D. Don in Lamb) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). Withsuch diverse biogeoclimatic zones, the region supports diverse fauna and flora.474.2.1.1 Access UnitsThe TSA has been divided into 12 Access Units or Compartments based onwatershed boundaries and accessibility. This research is focussed on one of these accessunits, Reveistoke 1, also known as Akolkolex drainage.4.2.1.2 Stand groupsThe timber supply review of the TSA (Ministry of Forests 1993a) has grouped theoriginal forest cover types (old-growth) into nine species groups. Each of them exhibit aspecific growth and yield pattern over time. It is assumed that the same species groupswill be regenerated after harvest to form an additional (second-growth) nine groups, thusmaking a total of 18 species groups. These are called stand groups in this study. Theonly difference between the old-growth and the regenerated stands will be the levels ofstocking and the size distribution of tree at the time of harvest. Predominant speciesgroups in Revelstoke 1 are Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock and spruce. The composition ofstand groups and their distribution in Revelstoke 1 are illustrated in Appendix Figure 2.4.2.1.3 Site qualitySite quality is a measure of timber productivity and is an indicator of themaximum wood volume that the land can produce over a given period of time (Davis andJohnson 1987). It is commonly measured by site index which is the average total heightof dominant trees at specified ages. For purposes of comparison, site indices in BritishColumbia are based on heights when trees are 50 years old at breast height. ForRevelstoke, the timber supply review (Ministry of Forests 1993 a) uses two indices: i)48those for good-medium sites and ii) those for poor sites. The averagç. site indices for thethree species considered in this research are given in Table 2.Table 2. Site indices of selected species @ 50 years measured at breast height (1.3mabove ground)Species Good and medium PoorDouglas-fir_Interior 19 12Spruce 18 10Western redcedar 21 134.2.2 Resource use conflictsHistorically, the local economy of Revelstoke was heavily dependent on resourceextraction. This, however, has changed in the recent past to include more service basedindustries. Social values have also changed dramatically. Now there are increasedpressures to maintain wildlife and visual quality at the expense of timber production.This shift in social values in an originally timber dependent economy, with a limited landbase, has led to repeated conflicts over land use issues.For management purposes, the Ministry of Forests (MOF) has classified the landbase into three types: i) economically operable, ii) economically inoperable and iii)reserves. For purposes of the ATLAS analysis, these are grouped into two broad categoriesi) wildlands (WLD) and ii) Reserves (RSV). Wildlands refer to the productive operableforest land, while the Reserves (RSV) refer to forest lands which are economicafly49inoperable and where timber harvests are prohibited for environmental reasons. In thewildiands, integrated management for multiple use is practiced.Reveistoke 1 consists of 66.3 % (11649 ha) wildiands and 33.7 % (5926 ha)reserves. This research will focus on three forest land use conflicts, namely; timber,wildlife and visual quality.4.2.3 Current management practicesThe MOF is attempting to balance the production of resource values from timber,wildlife and visual quality from the Reveistoke TSA. This is done by practicing “totalresource planning” and management by “resource emphasis areas” (REAs). Total resourceplanning takes into account all resource values that have to be managed and it involvesidentification of not only cut blocks for harvest but also the road networks, harvest systemsto be used in each cut block and other related activities. The REA designation indicates theresource value and the management objectives for a specific area within the TSA (Price andBlake 1993). Management objectives may emphasize the production of some products overothers, within a multiple use framework, based on resource values and the inherentcapabilities of the land. Management practices are governed by a set of 14 ResourceEmphasis Rules (Table 3), based on the silviculture system, minimum harvest age, cutblock adjacency, green-up and forest cover objectives. The rules relating to the protectionof wildlife habitat are based on the requirements for ungulates. It is believed that theseconditions would meet the habitat attribute requirements (Daust et al. 1993) of many othercategories of wildlife.50Table 3. Resource Emphasis Rules for Revelstoke TSA. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for additional descrztion on codes).Rule No. Resource Emphasis Description1 Timber: Unconstrained no constraintsU2 Basic Timber adjacency and 20 year greenup, maximum disturT bance rate of 40% of area, disturbance age of 20 yrs,retain 30% of area in height class 2 (40 years orolder)Note: All subsequent Resource Emphasis Rules are incremental to the Basic Timber rule3 Wildlife(h) retain 60% of area in height class 3 (stands 80 yearsWC1 or older)Wildlife(l) retain 40% of area in height class 34 WC25 Wildlife(m) retain 52% of area in height class 3WC36 VQ(modification) maximum disturbance rate of 25%; Green-up age 40VM years7 VQ(modification) & Wildlife(h) maximum disturbance rate of 25%; green-up of 40VM-WCI years and retain 60% of area in height class 38 VQ(modification) & Wildlife(l) maximum disturbance rate of 25%; green-up of 40VM-WC2 years and retain 40% in height class 39 VQ(modification) & Wildlife(m) maximum disturbance rate of 25%, green-up of 40VM-WC3 years and retain 52% of area in height class 310 VQ(Partial Retention) maximum disturbance rate of 10%, green-up of 40VPR years11 VQ(PR) & Wildlife(h) maximum disturbance rate of 10%, green-up of 40VPR- WC1 years and retain 60% of area in height class 312 VQ(PR) & Wildlife(l) maximum disturbance rate of 10%, green-up of 40VPR- WC2 years, and retain 40% of area in height class 313 VQ(PR) & Wildlife(m) maximum disturbance rate of 10%, green-up of 40VPR- WC3 years, and retain 52 % of area in height class 314 Total Retention - No cut No loggingTR514.2.3.1 Resource emphasis areas (REAs)The Reveistoke TSA has four broad categories of Resource Emphasis Areas: i)timber, ii) wildlife, iii) visual quality obj ectives(VQO), and iv) VQO and wildlife. Onlytwo REAs, wildlife and VQO-wildlife, are represented in Reveistoke 1. The distributionof REAs in the whole TSA and in Reveistoke 1 is shown in Table 4.Table 4. Distribution of resource emphasis areas in Reveistoke 1 and the wholeTSA. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) and 3 (page 50) for description ofcodes).Resource Emphasis Area TSA(ha) Percent Revl(ha) PercentTimber (7) 31,017 18 0 0Wildlife (WCJ, WC2, WC3) 112,607 63 7,924 45Visual quality objectives (V VPR) 4,507 3 0 0VQO & Wildlife (vM-WCJ, VM-WC2, 28,814 16 9,651 55VM- WC3, VPR- WC1, VPR- WC2, VPR- WC3)TOTAL 176,945 100 17,575 100Only four of the fourteen rules, (4,5,11 & 12) apply to Reveistoke 1. The rules andthe areas to which they are applicable in Revelstoke 1 are listed in Table 5 which gives abreakdown of the REAs of Reveistoke 1 shown in Table 4.52Table 5. Summary of resource emphasis rules and their area of application inReveistoke 1. (Refer to Tables] (page 8) and 3 (page 50) for descrztion ofcodes).Rule No. Descrzption Code Area (ha) %4 Wildlife (low) WC2 1324 7.55 Wildlife (medium) WC3 6601 37.611 Visual quality partial retention and VPRWC1 4550 25.9wildlife (high)13 Visual quality partial retention and VPR_WC3 5100 29.0wildlife (medium)Total 17575 100535 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY5.1 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter describes the research methodology used for the empirical study.The research was conducted in two main phases, stand level analysis and forest levelanalysis. Methodology for the stand level analysis consists of: i) identifying silviculturaltreatments for possible inclusion in stand management; ii) defining silvicultural regimeswith various combinations of silvicultural treatments; iii) simulation modeling for growthand yield of various silvicultural regimes; iv) economic analysis of selected silviculturalregimes to determine their economic feasibility at the stand level and their underlyingassumptions; and v) defining basic, medium and high intensity silvicultural regimes forinclusion in the forest level analysis. The methodology for forest level analysis consistsof: i) designing two alternative land use systems; ii) simulation modeling of forest leveltimber harvesting in the two systems; iii) simulation modeling of landscape patternresponses to forest level harvesting in the two systems; and iv) economic analysis offorest level harvesting and its underlying assumptions. Finally, some economic andenvironmental parameters that could possibly be used as indicators of net benefit tosociety are identified.5.2 TOTAL RESOURCE PLANNINGPrior to discussing methodology it is necessary to understand the planning processfor multiple use management in the Revelstoke Forest District. This is done through aprocess called “total resource planning” which identifies all resource values, both local (e.g.54timber, critical wildlife habitat, hydrologically sensitive areas, visual quality etc.) and global(e.g. biodiversity), and develops long term management strategies to maintain and enhancethem. This aids in the achievement of multiple use objectives and also avoid the dangers ofpiecemeal development of certain areas for specific uses. The Reveistoke Forest Districthas already developed such a plan for the Reveistoke TSA. The following data pertainingto the plan for Reveistokel was supplied by the Ministry of Forests:digitized data for the total resource plan for Reveistoke 1, showing Resource EmphasisAreas, harvest cut blocks (or polygons), and road networks;• resource emphasis areas and the resource emphasis rules applicable to them;• harvest system used for each cut block; and• costs for harvesting, tree-to-truck, hauling, road construction and maintenance.5.2.1 Temporal Modification of ForestsPast management practices relied on natural regeneration augmented by artificialregeneration which generally resulted in the regeneration of the original species groups.Under current management practices, however, all harvested areas are artificiallyregenerated with selected species. In this research, it is assumed that:• all existing regenerated species (second-growth) are similar to the original speciesexcept for the reduction in areas (11% of the area) resulting from roads and skid trails(Ministry of Forests, 1993a), and• all future harvest areas will beregenerated with Douglas-fir, spruce or cedar (which arethe predominant species planted).55The conversion of old-growth and regenerated species groups to modified standsgenerally follows the pattern advocated in Table A14 of the Reveistoke TSA TimberSupply Review (Ministry of Forests 1993a) where a specific mixture of species replaces aparticular species group. In this research, to facilitate growth and yield modeling, it isassumed that instead of regenerating a mixture of species, the dominant species in the groupis regenerated as a pure crop. The conversion pattern is given in Appendix Table 2.Using these assumptions, this research distinguishes the following three classes of standgroups:• old-growth stands that have never been harvested or affected by natural calamities,• second-growth stands with the same species composition as the old-growth stands, and• modified stands with selected tree species.5.3 METHODOLOGY FOR STAND LEVEL ANALYSIS5.3.1 Silvicultural treatmentsSilvicultural treatments are techniques used to increase the quantity and quality oftimber produced from fixed units of land. Silvicultural treatments generally involve a highratio of capital and labor input to a fixed unit of land. A description of the silviculturaltreatments considered in this research are given below.5.3.1.1 Artificial regeneration (P1)1600 stems per hectare (sph) are planted within one year of harvest. Noregeneration delay is assumed.565.3.1.2 Pre-commercial thinning (PCT)The objective of pre-commercial thinning is to attain the greatest possible residualtree diameter with the least amount of input (Smith 1986). Trees are pre-commerciallythinned when they are approximately 4m in height. Trees are removed so that the resultingstand retains well spaced, large diameter at breast height (DBH) trees. Two types of PCTare distinguished, based on the residual crop density: i) 1200 stems per hectare (sph) and ii)800 sph.5.3.1.3 Commercial thinning (CT)Worthington and Staebler (1961) define commercial thinning as thinning programsthat produce merchantable products that have a value equal to or greater than the cost ofextraction. Smith (1986) explains thinning as a way of allocating production to someoptimum number of trees of highest potential to increase value: while removing the othertrees systematically in such a sequence as to obtain the maximum economic advantage. It isnot clear from the literature as to what should be the ideal residual stock that will maximizereturns as this varies considerably with species and site. The essence of good thinningpractice is not only to realize a present profit, but also leave the stand in a condition that willenhance future returns. Stone (1993) in his study of commercial thirinings in coastalDouglas-fir (site indices 36, 30 and 24) used 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 and 800 sph as postthinning densities.In this research, commercial thinning was only considered for stands growing ongood and medium sites. Thinning was scheduled when half of the rotation age volume is57attained. At the time of thinning, one of the following two options was applied: i) retaintwo thirds (2/3) volume in the residual crop, and ii) retain one half (1/2) of the volume inthe residual crop. These generally resulted in post-thinning densities of 800 sph and 600sph respectively.5.3.1.4 Pruning (P)The main objective of pruning is to improve the quality of wood by increasing theproportion of clearwood in the timber. Pruning was applied to stands growing on good andmedium sites. Two pruning lifts were modeled. The first lift was up to 3m height and itwas done at an average stand height of 6m. The second lift was up to 5.5m height and wasdone at an average stand height of 1 0.5m. All trees that meet the requirement of retaining50% of the live crown were pruned. This amounts to roughly fifty percent of the standingcrop.5.3.1.5 Fertilization (F)Fertilizer application was modeled only for Douglas-fir stands because the TASSmodel (discussed in Section 5.3.2.1) that was used for stand growth simulation can simulatefertilizer application only for this species (Polsson 1994). Fertilizer was applied at a rate of225 kg per hectare. Two applications of fertilizer (first at 4m height and second at 6mheight) were modeled.5.3.2 Silvicultural regimesSilvicultural regimes refer to a series of silvicultural treatments applied to a standover its life. In this research, an attempt is made to push timber production towards its58intensive margin by employing three different silvicultural regimes namely, basic, mediumand high. These intensity levels based on their respective levels of investment. The broadcategory of treatments that were included for each of the above silvicultural regimes weredecided a priori based on Ministry of Forests experience and from personal observation.Specific treatments to be included in each silvicultural regime was done after an economicanalysis discussed in Section 5.3.4. The broad category of silvicultural treatments includedin the three silvicultural regimes are given below:• Basic: Natural regeneration of stands• Medium: Artificial regeneration and pre-commercial thinning (PCT). Only standsgrowing on good and medium sites were treated with PCT.• High: Artificial regeneration, fertilization, pruning, and commercial thinning.Fertilization, pruning and commercial thinnings were only applied to stands growing ongood and medium sites. Due to difficulties encountered in predicting the growthresponse of various species to fertilization, it was used only for Douglas-fir.A total of 135 silvicultural regimes formulated by a combination of silviculturaltreatments (planting, pre-commercial thinning, pruning, fertilization, and commercialthinning) were modeled on TASS by the Ministry of Forests (MOF). Table 6 shows thenumber of silvicultural regimes developed for each species and the type of silviculturaltreatments examined in each regime. Details are given in Appendix Table 3.59Table 6 Silvicultural treatments examined for development of silvicultural regimes.(Refer to Table ifor descrzption ofcodes).Spp SI Silvicultural treatments Regimes(total)@50 P1 PCI2 PC8 PC5 P1 P2 Fl F2 CT CT(sph) (sph) (sph) (sph) @6m @lOm @4m @6m (112) (113)Df 19 1600 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 54Df 12 1600 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no 43Se 18 1600 yes yes no yes yes no no yes yes 13Se 10 1600 yes yes no yes yes no no no no 6Cw 21 1600 yes yes no yes yes no no yes yes 13Cw 13 1600 yes yes no yes yes no no no no 6Total number of regimes 1355.3.2.1 Simulation modeling for growth and yieldTimber growth and yield refers to the prediction of growth and development ofindividual stands in response to management inputs over time. Timber volumes for the old-growth and naturally regenerated stands are based on the variable density yield prediction(VDYP) model developed by the B.C. Forest Service Inventory Branch (Ministry of Forests1993b). VDYP is an empirical yield prediction system for natural stands. It providesestimates of merchantable volumes for existing and regenerated stands according to theircomposition and age.Timber volumes for the modified stands are generated by the Tree and StandSimulator (TASS) model. TASS is a biologically oriented model designed to assess the60effects of cultural practices and environmental factors on the growth and yield of forest treespecies (Mitchell 1975). In using these models, it is assumed that the effects of irregularstocking, pests and other factors that contribute to mortality have been compounded into theempirical calibration of the model.The growth and yield of Douglas-fir, western redcedar and Engelmann spruce weremodeled with respect to two site indices using TASS. Descriptions of the types oftreatments used are discussed in Section 5.3.1.5.3.2.2 Simulation modeling for bucking and sawingBucking and sawing of logs to specific sizes was necessary to estimate the valueof wood of different sizes and quality to carry out economic analysis. Bucking wassimulated by means of a program custom made for this study by the MOF using the datagenerated by the TASS model. This program groups pruned and unpruned logsseparately. The harvested timber up to 10 cm top diameter was bucked into 5.3 m logsand sorted into five top diameter classes (less than 10 cm, 10-19 cm, 20-29 cm, 30-39 cm,40-49 cm). The top end of the timber below 10 cm in diameter was taken as pulpwood.To estimate the premium on pruned logs, sawing was simulated on pruned logsusing the SAWTAB program in the SAWSIM model developed by Halco SoftwareSystems Ltd. This program is used to maximize the value of lumber from a particularlog given the values of different types of boards. In this study, this’ program was usedonly to produce 2 by 2 squares from pruned logs and to sort them into clear and knottylumber,615.3.3 Selection of rotation ageAn important variable in any analysis of silvicultural operation is the rotation age.Selection of a rotation age for timber depends on management objectives as to what is to bemaximized, whether it is a specific technical product, biological yield or return oninvestment. Accordingly, these are termed technical, physical and economic rotations,respectively. The MOF mostly uses physical rotations in their estimation of AAC. In thisresearch, I also use the physical rotation age (which is the age at which the mean annualincrement culminates). This is applicable for all species regenerated in the modified forests.When intensive management is practiced on a particular species, the physical rotation age iseither shortened or extended. Ideally this research should use different physical rotationages for different silvicultural regimes. Considering the limited time and other resourcesavailable, it was necessary to assume that the rotation age for a particular species (with aspecific site index) will remain constant irrespective of the silvicultural regime.Determining optimal rotation ages at the stand level is a complex problem in its own right,and this is not an objective of this study. Clearly, the stand level optimization of valueultimately needs to be incorporated into the decision making frame work developed here.Since the old-growth consists of a mixture of species of varying age classes, it is notpossible to define rotation ages specific to each species. They are generally over 120 yearsand are ready for harvesting at any time. For regenerated stands, depending on theproductivity of the site, and species, rotation ages varying from 100 to 140 are used. Theserotation ages are the same as those used by the MOF in its recent Timber Supply Review(Ministry of Forests 1993a) but are probably conservative for managed stands.625.3.4 Stand Level economic analysisIn British Columbia, stand level economic analysis is not normally used for makingdecisions. However, for purposes of this research, those treatments were chosen which willyield a rate of return to capital investment of 3% or more for a single rotation.Based on the information obtained from growth and yield analysis of thesilvicultural regimes identified in Table 6 in Section 5.3.2, fifty four (54) silviculturalregimes were selected for stand level economic analysis. This was done to determine theireconomic feasibility and ranking according to the following criteria.i) Affordable costper treatmentThis is the value of discounted total revenue at 3%. As long as the cost of aparticular treatment (discounted at an annual rate of 3%) is less than this value, thetreatment will generate positive returns.iz) Actual costs oftreatmentsThese values were obtained (when available) from the MOF. Since many of thesetreatments have never been implemented, it is difficult to obtain experienced costs.Therefore, in order to generate these figures, information has been pooled from varioussources within the Ministry of Forests, from licensees and from the author’s ownexperience.iiz2 Discounted Net RevenueThis is the difference between discounted total revenue and discounted costs of atreatment. When this figure is negative, the treatment is not feasible. Higher valuesimply higher returns.63The treatments that were found to be economically feasible and that gave thehighest net discounted revenue were considered for inclusion in the silvicultural regimes ofintensive timber management.5.3.4.1 Assumptions used in the stand level economic analysisThe following major assumptions were used for the stand level analyses.i) Silvicultural treatments except pruning are assumed to affect only the diameter andheight of the trees and not the quality of the wood. Pruning increases the clearwoodin the timber.Ii;) The total volume in modified forest is considered merchantable because the lowerdiameter classes (which cannot be utilized as lumber) are utilized as chips.iii) All prices are current. Logs of different diameter classes belonging to differentspecies were priced as per prevailing prices in the Interior. Prices used are theaverage of the prices given by Downie Street Mills at Reveistoke and by FederatedCooperatives Ltd. of Salmon Arm. The class which is less than 10 cm top diameteris considered suitable for pulpwood (chips). An examination of the selling priceindex for British Columbia softwood lumber over the last two decades indicates thatthe last price cycle was during the period 1986 to 1994. The current prices appear tofall on the peak of the cycle. Price sensitivity analysis based on long term trend wasdone for forest level analysis. Prices used in the analyses are given in AppendixTable 4.64iv) When pruning is considered as a treatment, the logs are sorted into two broad sorts,primed and unpruned. Pruned is sorted into 4 diameter classes excluding the lowestdiameter class which constitutes the chips, while unpruned is sorted into 5 diameterclasses including the lowest diameter class.v) It is extremely difficult to estimate the price of pruned logs as pruning has neverbeen done on a management scale in the Interior. Mitchell et al. (1989) state thatclear lumber could bring in a premium of 3 00%. For the purpose of this analysis, Iestimated the value of pruned logs as follows. First, estimate the percent of clearlumber in pruned logs of different diameter classes by comparing logs from a treatedstand with an untreated stand. Then increase the price of that percent of clearwoodper log class by 300 percent, while using the normal price for the knotty portion ofthe log. Price increases vary slightly with species and time of harvest. In the interestof time and simplicity, I have assumed that this percentage is constant across speciesand time of harvests (i.e., I have used the Douglas-fir premiums for the other twospecies).vi) Real price increases of 0.1% to 1% per annum were assumed depending on speciesand diameter (Appendix Table 5). These price trends were obtained from Laing &McCulloch (1993).vii) Clear felling cost is assumed to be $23/rn3, while commercial thinning cost isassumed to be 25% higher at $ 28.75/m3(Nelson 1994).viii) Hauling cost is assumed to be $7.65/rn3ix) A real interest rate of 3 % was assumed.65x) Administrative costs are assumed to be constant across all treatments.5.4. METHODOLOGY FOR FOREST LEVEL ANALYSIS5.4.1 Alternative land use systemsHaving completed the stand level analysis which consists of designing suitablesilvicultural regimes for inclusion in the forest level model, the next stage is to definealternative land use systems to be analyzed. Two types of multiple use land use systems,referred to as the Integrated Use (IU) system and the Single Use (SU) system, were devised.The IU system treats the whole operable area as an integral production unit where timber isproduced as one of the multiple uses, with all spatial and temporal constraints in place.This system requires that each hectare be managed for multiple use according to theappropriate resource emphasis rules. In the SU system, a portion of the operable area isallocated as a single use area, specifically for timber production. The balance of the area ismanaged for production of multiple uses (wildlife and visual quality) other than timber.The timber production zone of the single use system is the minimum area required toproduce an even-flow volume, equivalent to the maximum even-flow achievable withcurrent management practices from Revelstoke 1, under unconstrained conditions. This isdetermined by several iterations involving the systematic reduction of the number of zones.5.4.2 Simulation modeling for forest level harvestingThe spatial timber supply model ATLAS version 1.3 (Nelson et al. 1993) was usedfor harvest simulation of the forest. Harvest cut blocks are assigned as harvest units ofATLAS and different resource emphasis rules are then assigned to zones to simulate66resource emphasis areas. Harvest priority was based on the minimum distance from thestart of the road network. This “most accessible block first” priority minimizes the amountof road construction which is an important consideration in spatially constrained harvestscheduling (Nelson et al. 1994).5.4.2.1 Planning horizonHarvest simulations are analyzed for two planning horizons (PH); i) long term (120years - approximately one rotation), and ii) very long term (240 years - approximately tworotations). The very long term is explored so that the forest reaches a steady state, whereall, or most, of the yields are from regenerated stands. Planning periods are defined as 10years and 20 years for long and very long term, respectively. Harvest flows are constrainedby an even-flow policy. Evenflow policy was adopted because i) the forest planning inBritish Columbia is volume based and ii) sustained yield is the premise on which cutregulations are based (Williams 1993). This is a departure from the current MOF practicewhich determines the annual allowable cut (AAC, the volume to be harvested each year)administratively by taking into account the Long Run Sustained Yield (LRSY), and othersocial, economic and environmental factors.5.4.2.2 Parameters determined by ATLAS simulation modelingThe following attributes for each planning period were determined by means ofATLAS simulations:• even flow volume;• area harvested;67• harvest system costs;• length of roads constructed and maintained and the respective costs;• delivered wood costs; and• ratio of length of edge to total area.5.4.2.3 Harvest scenariosHarvest scenarios that were designed can be grouped into three broad categories: i)current management practices, ii) alternative land use systems, and iii) enhancement of non-timber values within the timber zone. These are described in the following sections.5.4.2.3.1 Scenario modeling current managementpracticesCurrent management practice with all resource emphasis rules in place wasmodeled. Having this as the base case scenario, other scenarios were developed bysystematically relaxing each of the resource emphasis rules. This helps to estimate theimpact of each of these rules in terms of timber volume.5.4.2.3.2 Scenario modeling alternative land use systemsEconomically feasible silvicultural regimes at basic, medium and high intensitiesthat yielded the highest net discounted revenue (as per stand level economic analysisdiscussed in Section 5.3.4) were used to define three intensities (basic, medium and high) oftimber management at forest level. These three intensities of timber management were usedfor forest level harvest simulation of both the SU and the IU systems. A summary of theharvest scenarios simulated are given in Table 7.68Table 7 Harvest scenarios in the SU and the IU systems with intensive timbermanagement. (Refer to Table ifor description ofcodes).Intensity of Single Use Integrated Usetimber management (SU) (IU)Basic SU_1 lU_iMedium SU_2 IU_2High SU_3 IU_35.4.2.3.3 Scenario modeling enhancement ofnon-timber values within the timber zoneThis scenario was modeled to determine the impact of various harvesting constraintson intensive timber management. In this case, the single use area designated for timberproduction is treated as an independent unit. Fourteen other scenarios were developed fromthe base case scenario of unconstrained timber production at basic intensity by includingintensive timber management and by systematically introducing of wildlife and visualquality constraints. The harvest scenarios developed are given in Table 8.Table 8 Harvest scenarios for the timber zone with enhanced non-timber values.(Refer to Table 3 & 7 for description of codes. First part of the code refers to land usesystem(Table 7) and the secondpart refers to resource emphasis rule (Table 3))Intensity Single Use Wildlife_basic Wildlife_medium VQ_basic VQ_medium(SU_U) (‘I’) (WC1) (YM) (VPR)Basic SUI SUiT SU1WC1 SU1VM SU1VPRMedium SU_2 SU2_T SU2_WC 1 SU2_VM SU2_VPRHigh SU_3 SU3_T SU3_WC1 SU3_VM SU3_VPR695.4.3 Simulation modeling for landscape pattern responsesSIMFOR was used to model the response of landscape patterns to intensivemanagement practices for both the SU and the IU systems over a 240 year planninghorizon. The even-flow harvest schedules generated by ATLAS simulations for each ofthe management option were used as input data to SIMFOR. The SIMFOR modelgenerates a set of landscape statistics. From these landscape statistics, the followinglandscape pattern indices were derived.z) Distribution of seral stages over the 240 year planning horizon. The seral stages usedin this study are given in Table 9.ii) Types of ecosystems represented within various seral stages over the 240 yearplanning horizon. Three biogeoclimatic zones, the Moist Warm Interior Cedar -Hemlock Zone (ICHmw), Wet Cool Interior Cedar - Hemlock Zone (ICHwk), andEngelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir Zone (ESSF) are recognized within themanagement unit (Meidinger and Pojar 1991; Braumandl and Curran 1992).Detailed ecosystem mapping complete with biogeoclimatic subzones and theirvariants were not available for this study.iii) Percent of area within old-growth (121 - 240 years) and very old-growth (>240years) that constitute the edge habitats. The width of the edge band is assumed to bei) 100 meters for contrasting patches of regeneration seral stage and old-growth orvery old- growth, and ii) 50 meters for contrasting patches of pole seral stage andold-growth or very old-growth seral stages. This is based on the premise that theedge influence extends one or two times the height of the trees (Bradshaw 1992).70iv) Percent of area within the regeneration seral stage that is affected by adjoining old-growth. The width of the regeneration edge affected is assumed to be 100 meters forcontrasting patches of regeneration and very old-growth (> 240 years) seral stages,and 50 meters for contrasting patches of regeneration and old-growth (120 - 240years) seral stages.v) Patch sizes and their distribution in very old-growth (>240 years) during a 240 yearplanning horizon. Patch sizes used in this study are:a) patch 1 = 0 - 100 ha;b) patch 2 = 101 - 500 ha;c) patch 3 = 501 - 1000 ha; andd) patch 4 greater than 1000 ha.Table 9 Seral stages distinguished in the land use systems and their descriptionSeral stage Age class (years) Descriptionseral 1 0 - 20 regenerationseral2 21 - 60 poleseral 3 61 - 120 matureseral 4 121- 240 old-growthseral 5 >240 very old-growth544 Forest level economic analysisThe forest level economic analysis was carried out for all harvest scenariosdeveloped in section 5.4.2.3. The following economic parameters were determined.71z) Total revenueThis is revenue earned from harvested timber in each planning period.iz) Delivered Wood CostsThis includes the following phase costs: tree to truck; road construction; roadmaintenance and hauling.iii) Administrative costsThese are the public costs incurred for administration, planning andimplementation.iv) Timber rentThis is the return to the productive capacity of the land under timber management.It is approximated in this study by summing the net present values for all planningperiods.5.4.4.1 Assumptions used in the forest level analysisThe assumptions used are essentially the same as those for the stand levelanalysis. Additional and modified assumptions are listed under two categories i) generaland ii) economic.5.4.4.1.1 General assumptionsz) The forests are publicly owned and publicly managed.ii) There is no loss in site productivity with the second and third rotation crops for boththe IU and the SU systems.72iii) Watershed management practices are assumed to be the same in both the IU and theSU systems and, therefore, water quality is assumed to be the same under bothsystems.iv) Natural calamities such as fire will not affect the forest management unit during theplanning period.5.4.4.1.2 Economic assumptionsi) A real interest rate of 2% is assumed (sensitivity to interest rates of 0% and 4% werecarried out later).ii) Commercial thinning cost is assumed to be 25% higher than that of clearfelling. Thecost of commercial thinning is estimated to be $28.75 /m3.iii) Analysis is carried out with and without real price increase assumptions.iv) For purposes of simplification average price was used for all species and pricedistinctions were not made among species.v) The average price of logs of different diameter classes is obtained by weighting thevolumes produced by each species in one rotation (Appendix Table 6).vi) The cost of silvicultural treatments (compounded or discounted appropriately) arededucted from final crop revenues and not from the thinnings, as the return toinvestment occurs only with the final crop.vii) At the forest level, timber may not always be harvested at the exact rotation agesprescribed by stand level analysis. As more and more resources are managed, withina limited land area, harvesting of some of the stands often gets postponed. This is73likely to either increase or decrease returns depending whether the delay moves theharvest age towards or away from its economic rotation age.viiz)Administrative costs consist of two categories: i) management and protection, and ii)planning, implementation and monitoring. They are estimated at $6.76 and $8.22 perhectare, respectively. These estimates were compiled by using budgeted expendituresfor these programs in Revelstoke Forest District for the year 1993. For the IU system,both costs are applied to the gross area of Revelstoke 1. For the SU system,management and protection costs are applied to the gross area of Revelstoke 1 whilethe planning, implementation and monitoring costs are applied to the timber zoneonly (as there are no timber management activities outside of the timber zones).5.4.4.2 Price sensitivity analysisPrice sensitivity analysis was carried out with increases and decreases in currentprices by 12%. This was arrived at by examining selling price indices for B.C. Interiorsoftwood lumber for the period 1981 to 1994. On the assumption that the last price cyclewas from 1986 to 1994, the average price increase was estimated to be 12% above thebase year 1986=100. Price sensitivity analysis was done for the IU and SU systems atbasic, medium and high timber production intensities.5.5 INDICATORS OF NET BENEFIT TO SOCIETYThe following economic and environmental parameters determined for both theIU and the SU systems were used as measures or indicators of net benefit to society.Economic parameters reflect the contribution to the material well-being of society, while74the environmental parameters reflect the impact of multiple use management onecosystem integrity. The parameters are determined for a 240 year planning horizon.5.5.1 Economic parametersi) Opportunity cost of resource emphasis rules, measured in terms timber supply andrent forgone over a period of 120 years.ii) Timber rent for a 240 year planning horizon, measured in dollars.iii) Periodic (20 years) cost of construction and maintenance of roads measured in dollarsover a 240 year planning horizon.5.5.2 Environmental parametersi) Road density measured in terms of average length of roads (in kms) maintained foreach 20 year period and the length of road (in kms) opened during a 240 yearplanning horizon.ii) Periodic (20 years) distribution of seral stages of timber expressed as percent area oftotal land base.iii) Biogeoclimatic zones represented within the very old seral stage, expressed as percentarea of total land base per 20 year period, over a 240 year planning horizon.iv) Periodic (20 years) distribution of edge habitats available in the landscape expressedas percent area of the very old-growth.v) Regeneration area affected per 20 year period by edges of the old and very old seralstages, expressed as percent area of regeneration per period.75vi) Periodic distribution of patch sizes within the very old seral stages of timber,expressed as percent area of the total land base.766 STAND LEVEL ANALYSIS6.1 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter gives the results of the stand level growth and yield analysis and theeconomic analysis for the six stand groups (Table 2 in page 48) that constitute themodified forests. It also discusses the relevance of stand level analysis to the forest levelanalysis.6.2 ANALYSIS OF GROWTH AND YIELD6.2.1 Growth patterns of stand groupsGrowth curves of all six stand groups were modeled using TASS. Growth curvesof three species: Douglas-fir (SI= 19), cedar (SI=21), and spruce (SI=18) are illustrated inFigure 8 which shows that cedar consistently produces a higher volume than spruce andDouglas-fir. Spruce produces higher volumes than Douglas-fir between 60 and 180years.Patterns of growth exhibited by stands subjected to silvicultural treatment regimeswere also modeled. Figure 9 illustrates the pattern of growth with pre-commercialthinning and commercial thinning in Douglas-fir stands (SI=19). It shows that standssubjected to PCT converge with the untreated fully stocked stand around 180 years, butthe growth in stands subjected to CT do not converge. The time it takes to converge withthe growth curve of the untreated stand is dependent on the type, intensity and timing ofthe silvicultural treatments. Treatments such as fertilization and genetic improvementwill not only converge early but may also shift the growth curve upwards. This77information is very important in interpreting even flow volumes with respect to the areasharvested and in planning area-based management of forests.6.2.2 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on age of maximum meanannual increment (MAI) in volumeSilvicultural treatments increase or decrease the age of maximum MAT of a stand.These effects of silvicultural treatment regimes on maximum MAIs were determined forthe six stand groups. Results showing the effect of pre-commercial thinning (PCT),commercial thinning (CT) and fertilizer applications on maximum MAI of Douglas-fir(SI=19) are illustrated in Figure 10. While PCT and CT increase the age of maximumMAI, applications of fertilizer decrease it.6.2.3 Determination of rotation agesRotation ages of any stand based on the maximum MAT will vary with the type ofsilvicultural treatment. This study uses the maximum MAT of the untreated stand of eachof the six stand groups as its rotation age, irrespective of the type of silviculturaltreatment regimes they are subjected to. The rotation ages of the six stand groups of themodified forest as determined by the growth and yield analysis are given in Figure 11.E0ENE0E781600140012001000800600400200.:010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200Stand age (years)__ fi 9_c21__•__ sI 8Figure 8 Growth curves for Douglas-fir (SI=19), cedar (S121) and spruce (S118).(Refer to table 1 (page 8)for descr4’tion ofcodes).800700600 ..500E100 .+ .10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200Stand age (years).. NOTREAT—A— PC8CT(1/2)&F2Figure 9 Effect of silvicultural treatments on growth curves of Douglas-fir (SI=19).(Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for descrztion ofcodes).Figure 10 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on age of maximum MA! ofDouglas-fir (S119). (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).Figure 11 Rotation ages of stand groups used in the second-growth forest. (Refer to(Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).79>.Q14012010080604020 -0-Silvicultural regimes8006040200Stand groups806.2.4 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volume and diameter atbreast height (DBH)The effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volume and DBH of the fmalharvest varies with stand groups. In this study, since the final harvest of all stand groupstakes place at the culmination age of an untreated stand, depending on the type oftreatment there are varying degrees of compromise between the volume harvested and theincrease in DBH achieved. These effects for the six stand groups are illustrated inFigures 12 through 17. These figures show that, in all cases, there is loss in volume andincrease in DBH. In the case of Douglas-fir, on both good and poor sites, it is possible tomake up for the loss in volume while increasing the DBH through the application offertilizers.35302520 ToIume15 __dbh J1050E0Ez0>PC8 CT(1/2) CT(1/2)&F2Silvicultural treatmentsFigure 12 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on Volume and DBH of finalharvest in Douglas-fir on good and medium sites (SI=19). (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).900800700600500400300200100045403530252015105081210 25200 20‘ 19015180 oI@120X_._dbh@120E io1705160150 0•NOTREAT PC8 PC12 PC12&F2Silvicultural treatementsFigure 13 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on Volume and DBH of finalharvest in Douglas-fir on poor sites (S112). (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) for descrzptionofcodes).V01x_._dbhNoTreat PC8 CT(1/2)Silvicultural treatmentsFigure 14 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on Volume and DBH of finalharvest in redcedar on good and medium sites (S121). (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)fordescription ofcodes).82Figure 15 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volumes and DBH of finalharvest in redcedar on poor sites (S113). (Refer to Table] (page 8) for descrztion ofcodes).Silvicultural treatmentsFigure 16 Effect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volume and DBH of finalharvest in spruce on good and medium sites (SI=18). (Refer to Table] (page 8) fordescription ofcodes).42041040039038037036035034033030252015VoI_._dbh1050NOTREAT___________I!;..:______PC12Silvicultural treatmentsPC8530520510500490480470460450440••• . •1•.•47035302520 EUx151050VoI_._dbhNOTREATI.83Figure 17harvest incodes).6.3 STAND LEVEL ECONOMIC ANALYSISStand level economic analysis was carried out for 54 selected silvicultural regimesfrom the six stand groups, based on the information obtained from the growth and yieldanalysis. The selected silvicultural regimes are given in Tables 10 and 11. Table 10consists of treatments carried out in all six stand groups. Table 11 consists of additionaltreatments carried out in Douglas-fir, because application of fertilizer could be modeledonly for Douglas-fir.Premiums on various sizes of pruned logs was estimated by first determining thepercent of clear wood in various diameter classes of Douglas-fir pruned logs by using52051050049048047046045020 EVoI[ . .dbhL 15Silvicultural treatmentsEffect of silvicultural treatment regimes on volumes and DBH of finalspruce on poor sites (SI=10). (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) for description of84TASS. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 18. As expected, a higherproportion of clear wood can be seen in larger diameter classes. Then, the prices of logsin each diameter class were increased by a premium of 300% on the percent of clearwood in that diameter class. Results showing the percent increase in the value of prunedlogs of different diameter classes in Douglas-fir are shown in Figure 19. The resultsshow pruned log premiums range from 49% for the lowest diameter class to 114% for thehighest diameter class.Tables 12 and 13 summarize the results of the economic analysis indicatingwhether a particular treatment is economically feasible or not. Results of the economicanalysis for redcedar from good and medium sites are illustrated in Figures 20 and 21.The results of other stand groups are illustrated in Appendix Figures 3 through 14.These figures clearly show the ranking of treatments with respect to their net discountedrevenues (3% discounted rate).Table 10 Silvicultural treatment regimes selected for stand level economic analysis.(Refer to Tables ](page 8) and 6 (page 59) for descrztion ofcodes).Species Silvicultural treatment regimesPCI2 PCI2_P2 PC8 PC8_P2 CT(113) CT(113)_P2 CT(112) CT(112)_P2f19 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesc21 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yessIB yes yes yes yes yes yes yes jyesf12 yes yes yes yes no no jno noc13 yes yes yes yes no no no noslO yes yes yes yes no no no85Table 11 Additional silvicultural treatment regimes selected for Douglas-fir (S119&12). (Refer to Tables 1 (page 8) and 6 (page 59) for description ofcodes).Spp. Silvicultural treatment regimesPCI2 PCI2 PCI2 PC8 •PCBPC8 iCT(1!3) ICT(1/3) CT(113) ICT(112)CT(112)ICT(112)_F1 _F2 _F2P2 _F1 _F2 ;_F2P2 _F1 _F2 _F2P2 _F1 _F2 _F2P2119 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes112 yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no60a020_29Diameter classes (in cms)Figure 18 Percent of clear lumber in pruned logs of different diameter classes inDouglas-fir (S119) that is commercially thinned @70 years and harvested @130years.86SSS0SSUC6000S44______0,0USE(0SI-Figure 20 Redcedar (SI=21): Actual and affordable costs (with real price increases)for selected silvicultural treatment regimes. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) for descrztionofcodes).12010080604020010_19 20_29 30_39 40_49Diameter classes (in cms)Figure 19 Percent increase in value of pruned logs of different diameter classes inDouglas-fir (SI=19) that is commercially thinned at 70 years and harvested @130years.80007000500040003000200010000PCI2 PC8 CT(1/3) CT(1/2) PCI2_P2Treatment TypeAff$Act$PC8_P2 CT(1/3)_P2 CT(1/2)_P287Figure 21 Redcedar (SI=21): Feasibility as indicated by discounted net revenues(with real price increases), of selected silvicultural treatment regimes. (Refer toTable 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).Table 12 Silvicultural treatment regimes showing economic feasibility. “Yes” refersto feasible regimes. (Refer to Tables 1 (page 8) and 6 (page 59) for description of othercodes).45004000 ,3500 -3000 -2500200015001000-05000-ITreatment TypeSpp. Silvicultural treatment regimesPCI2 PCI2_P2 PC8 PC8_P2 CT(1!3) CT(113)_P2 CT(112) CT(1!2)_P2f19 no no no no yes yes yes yesc21 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yessIB no yes yes yes yes yes yes yesf12 no no no no not done not done not done not donec13 no no no no not done not done not done not donesIC no no no no not done not done not done not done88Table 13 Additional silvicultural regimes for Douglas-fir showing economicfeasibility. “Yes” refers to feasible regimes. (Refer to Tables 1 (page 8) and 6 (page 59)for descrztion ofother codes).Spp.Silvicultural treatment regimes;PCI2 PCI2 PCI2 PC8 PC8 :PC8 CT(113) CT(113) CT(1I3)CT(1I2) CT(112) CT(112)Fl F2 F2P2 Fl F2 F2P2 Fl F2 F2P2 Fl F2 F2P2f19 no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yesf12 no no no no no no not not not not not notdone done done done done done6.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR FOREST LEVEL ANALYSISStand level analysis has shown that the rotation age of any species will vary withsite productivity and with type, age and intensity of silvicultural treatments. Selection ofa single rotation age for any species for any silvicultural treatment will result in trade-offsin either volume or in diameter (or quality). The economic feasibility of any treatmentregime is dependent on the relative values of costs and benefits and on the timing of theiroccurrence. Stand level optimization of value of various silvicultural treatment regimesshould be carried out and the ones that gives the highest net preent value and lowsensitivity to rotation ages should be selected for forest level implementation. Sensitivityof net present values to rotation age is very important as forest level harvesting invariablyhas constraints that prevent the harvesting of the stand at optimum age. The more severethe constraints (e.g. even-flow) the more variations will occur in the age of harvest ofstands at the forest level. In these cases a larger window of feasible rotation ages shouldbe identified for forest level harvesting.89In this research, due to lack of resources, optimization at the stand level was notundertaken. The selection of rotation age was based on the culmination age of MAI ofan untreated stand. Based on the stand level economic analysis, the followingsilvicultural regimes that showed the highest returns were selected for inclusion in thethree silvicultural intensities at the forest level.• Basic intensity:natural regeneration of all harvested stands• Medium intensity:-artificial regeneration of six stand groups belonging to Douglas-fir (SI=12 & 19),western red cedar (SI=13 & 21) and Engelmann spruce (SI=1O & 18).-PCT to 800 sph for Douglas-fir (SI=19), western red cedar (SI=21) andEngelmann spruce (SF1 8)• High intensity-artificial regeneration of six stand groups belonging to Douglas-fir (SI=12 & 19),western redcedar (SI= 13 & 21) and Engelmann spruce (S1 10 & 18)-two applications of fertilizer to Douglas-fir (SI=19)-commercial thinning to 1/3 rd volume for Engelmann spruce (SI=1 8)-commercial thinning to 1/2 volume for Douglas-fir (SI=19) and western redcedar (SI=21)-two levels of pruning for Douglas-fir (SI=19), western red cedar (SI=21) andEngelmarm spruce (SI=1 8)907 FOREST LEVEL ANALYSIS7.1 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICESSimulation runs on Revelstoke 1 shows that the current management practices ona 120 year planning horizon, with all resource emphasis rules in place, will yield an even-flow timber supply of 14,000 m3 per year. This timber supply could be increased to amaximum of 35,000 m3 by relaxing all harvesting constraints imposed by the resourceemphasis rules. In economic terms, the timber rent of 18 million dollars (at 3% discountrate) that is generated with current management practices could be increased by aboutthree and a half times to 64.2 million dollars under unconstrained timber production.Current management practice is a mix of rules applied to different resource emphasisareas.7.1.1 Impact of resource emphasis rules on timber supplyEach of the thirteen resource emphasis rules affect timber supply to differentdegrees according to adjacency, cover constraints and allowed maximum disturbancerates. Impacts of these rules on timber supply are determined by systematic imposition ofdifferent resource emphasis rules on the unconstrained condition of the entire land base.The results of the analysis are illustrated in Figure 22. The economic timber rentdetermined by an economic analysis of the timber supply scenarios under the variousresource emphasis rules is illustrated in Figure 23. The opportunity costs of foregonerevenue in terms of harvestable timber values of some of the key resource emphasis rules91are illustrated in Figure 24. The impact of each rule, in terms of timber supply volumeand rent, are discussed under the three resources; timber, wildlife and visual quality.Figure 22 Impact of resource emphasis rules on timber supply. (Refer to Table 1(page 8)for description ofcodes).Current MgtVPR & WIife(h)VPR & Wflfe(m)VPR & WUfe()02 VPRVM&Wr-’.-’VM & Wlife(m)VM & Wlife(I)VMWlife(h)Wlife(m)Wlife(I)limberlimber(U)20 30 40 50 80 70Percent of unconstrained supply (% Volume)80 90 16092Current MgtVPR & Wlife(h)VPR & WUfe(m)VPR & WUfe(I)VPRVM & Wlfe(h)VM & Wlife(m)VM & Wlife(I)VMVh)WIife(m)VJ1ife(I)limberllmber(U)-10Figure 23 Impact of resourcedescrztion ofcodes).Opportunity cost (million $)0—*-0 10 20 30 40 50 60Rent (million $)70emphasis rules on rent. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for0I(00E00U,0VPRVMWlife(m)limberr:: - V — ,— / .V0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Figure 24 Opportunity cost in terms of timber values of selected resource emphasisrules when applied individually to the entire land base. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) fordescription ofcodes).937.1.1.1 Timber emphasisRule 2 emphasizes the production of timber with a minimum flow of other valuesfor wildlife habitat and visual quality. This is achieved through adjacency and otherconstraints relating to cover and maximum disturbance rates. The timber emphasis rulecauses a sharp decline to 68 percent from the unconstrained case. When each of theconstraints (adjacency, cover constraints and disturbance rates) that are built into thetimber emphasis rule were examined independently, it was found that it is the adjacencyconstraint that restricts the timber supply to this level (Figure 25). In economic terms,the loss in timber rent due to this rule is equivalent to 24.8 million dollars.Figure 25 Impact of adjacency, disturbance and cover constraints of timberemphasis rule on timber supply.Adjacency 1. Disturbance0C.)Co’erU 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Percent of unconstrained supply (%Volume)947.1.1.2 Wildlife emphasisA total of nine rules (3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13) emphasize the maintenance orenhancement of wildlife quality. Essentially these rules have a 40 percent maximumdisturbance rate and some forest cover requirements. The first three rules (3, 4 and 5)that are an enhancement of the timber emphasis rule, bring about an additional reductionin timber supply volume of about 6 to 10 percent of timber emphasis rule. This isequivalent to a further reduction in timber rent of 4.3 to 10.6 million dollars relative tothe timber emphasis rule. The opportunity cost for the rule which emphasizes mediumquality wildlife is 29.4 million dollars.The second and third set of three rules (7, 8 & 9 and 11, 12 & 13) are anenhancement of wildlife quality along with visual quality modification and visual qualitypartial retention, respectively. In these cases, the maximum disturbance rate is lower thanthat for wildlife. As such, when wildlife emphasizing rules are associated with visualquality constraints, their impacts both in terms of timber supply and timber rent are notapparent.7.1.1.3 Visual qualityA total of eight rules (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13) emphasize the maintenance orenhancement of visual quality. The first set of four rules (6, 7, 8 & 9) involve visualquality modification where the allowed maximum disturbance rate is 25 percent. These95rules reduce the timber supply to 49 percent of the unconstrained supply. Theopportunity cost of visual quality modification is 39.1 million dollars.The second set of four rules (10,11,12 & 13) involve visual quality “partialretention” where the allowed maximum disturbance rate is 10 percent. These rulesreduce the timber supply to 7% of the base case. This gives a negative rent of about 6.4million dollars because the small revenue generated towards the end of the planninghorizon is heavily discounted, and is not sufficient to cover costs generated in the earlierperiods. In other words, the opportunity cost in terms of timber rent forgone for visualquality with partial retention is approximately 70 million dollars.7.2 TIMBER SUPPLY UNDER ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SYSTEMS7.2.1 Alternative land use systemsTwo types of land use systems were identified. One is the integrated use systemand the other is the single use system.7.2.1.1 Integrated use system (IIJ)In this case, the whole of Revelstoke 1 (covering 17575 ha) is considered as anintegral unit of production where timber and other uses are produced on every hectare.The distribution of resource emphasis areas under integrated use system is illustrated inAppendix Figure 15. Current management practices on a planning horizon of 120 and240 years produce a timber supply of 14,300 m3 and 11,800 m3 per year, respectively.The 240 year value is lower because the high volume, old-growth stands have beenliquidated (fall down effect).967.2.1.2 Single use system (SU)This system includes a zone specializing in the production of timber rather thanone integral unit of production. The balance of the area is devoted to the production ofmultiple uses other than timber (i.e.: no timber production in these zones). The timberzone in this case is the minimum area which, under unconstrained conditions, couldproduce periodic timber volumes equivalent to that produced under current managementpractices from the whole of Revelstoke 1. The single use area was identified by repeatediterations with ATLAS simulations to select contiguous zones that satisfied the volumetargets (14,000 m3 on 120 year PH and 11,800 m3 on 240 year PH). This method hasbeen discussed in detail elsewhere (Sahajananthan 1994). The single use, area or timberproduction zone, covers 5362 ha which is about 31% of the gross area and 46% of the netarea of Revelstoke 1. The distribution of timber zone and integrated use zone under thesingle use system is illustrated in Appendix Figure 16.7.2.2 Timber supply under alternative land use systemsHarvest scenarios under both integrated use and single use systems were modeledusing ATLAS. Evenflow volumes on a 120 year planning horizon for the integrated use(IU) system and single use (SU) system were determined to be 14,000 m3 and 14,300 m3per year respectively. For a 240 year planning horizon, the evenflo volume for the IUsystem is 11,800 m3/year and 11,200 m3/yr for the SU system. On a 120 year planningperiod, single use evenflow is marginally higher than that of integrated use because ofpossible aggregation of more harvest cut-blocks (i.e., individual yield units within zones)97than is required to produce an equivalent volume when entire contiguous zones wereaggregated. This slight increase in harvest flow in the single use system does not affecteither the methodology or outcome of this research.Composition of harvest area by forest types in the IU system and SU system overa 120 year planning horizon is illustrated in Figures 26 and 27. The followingobservations can be made.i) The second-growth requires a larger area to produce an equivalent volume to thatproduced by old-growth. This is because of: i) the smaller volume harvested atrotation age from the second-growth compared to old-growth at an older age, and ii)an 11 percent reduction in productive area occupied by roads and skid trails.ii) Of the total area harvested during the planning horizon, the second-growth standsconstitutes 24 % in the single use system and only 7% in the integrated system. Thisis because more old-growth is available in the IU system. In the SU system, there is aneed to switch more quickly to second-growth.iii) In both systems, the second-growth is harvested from decade nine onwards. Thismeans that modified forests that were established by converting old-growth andsecond-growth can only be harvested beyond the ninth period, unless the harvestingpriority system is changed. As such, any investments in the form of intensivesilviculture on the modified forests will not likely be realized during a 120 yearplanning horizon.Due to the third observation above, it was decided to extend my analysis to a 240year planning horizon instead of 120 years. Rent generated on a 240 year planning98horizon is slightly lower than that with 120 year planning horizon because there is areduction in the evenflow harvest caused by relatively low volumes in the regeneratedstands and also due to discounting of net benefit for the period 121 - 240.The rent at a 2% discount rate generated under JU on a 120 year planning periodamounts to $17.9 million while under SU it amounts to $17.1 million. The rent does notappear to be commensurate with the slightly higher evenflow volume seen under singleuse. This is because of higher harvest system costs associated with the areas selected forsingle use timber production (which was not intentional).700600500400300200100•Sec-growth•OIdgrowth10 year periodsFigure 26 Integrated use system showing composition of harvest area by foresttypes over the 120 year planning horizon.99•Sec-growth•OldgrowthFigure 27 Single use system showing composition of harvest area by forest typesover the 120 year planning horizon.7.3 INTENSIVE TIMBER MANAGEMENT ON A 240 YEAR PLANNING HORIZONSimulations with the three levels of intensity (basic, medium and high) werecompleted for both land use systems. The results are discussed under the categories of: i)maximum evenflow volume, ii) rent, iii) delivered wood costs, and iv) environmentalindicators.7.3.1 Economic parameters7.3.1.1 Maximum evenflow volumeThe maximum evenflow volume that could be obtained under varying intensitylevels of timber management was estimated. The results are illustrated in Figure 28.500400J.300], 20010 year periods100Figure 28 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated (IU) and singleuse (SU) systems on maximum evenflow volume on a 240 year planning horizon.(Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for descrzption ofcodes).With the basic level of management, the IU system yields a higher maximumeven-flow(11,800m3/yr) than the SU system (1 1,200m3/yr). This is because in a SUsystem, the slow rate of growth of the second-growth coupled with alimited availabilityof old-growth constrains the harvest level. The JU system, on the other hand, placesmany constraints on timber production, so the harvest level throughout Revelstoke 1 islow. This results in slow liquidation of the old-growth, relative to the SU system, hence aslightly higher harvest. With medium and high intensity levels of management, thesituation is reversed where the single use system yields a higher evenflow (15,700 m3/yr).In these cases, the faster growth rates exhibited by the modified forest overcomes thelimitations of limited area and thus leads to a higher maximum flow (i.e., SU can capturethese increases while IU cannot).1614121oE0o8.Iu.s UBasic Medium HighManagement Intensity1017.3.1.2 Timber rentTimber rent was calculated at a 2 percent discount rate, using real price increaseassumptions, for both land use systems at the three intensity levels on a 240 year planninghorizon. The results are illustrated in Figure 29. Results show that the SU systemgenerates a higher rent than the IU system at all levels of management intensity. At thebasic level, rent from the SU system is 118% of that from the IU system. This is becauseof the lower administrative costs in the SU system relative to the IU system resultingfrom the concentration of the harvest in the timber zone. At the’ medium and highintensity levels the rent is as high as 216% of integrated use at the basic level. Thisresults from the increased value and levels of harvest during the second half of theplanning horizon, and from the reduction in length of roads opened and maintainedduring each planning period.302544c20._____i.Iu15-•su‘10—150Figure 29 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated use (IU) andsingle use (SU) systems on rent (2 % discount rate on a 240 year planning horizon).(Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes),Mediummanagement intensity1027.3.1.3 Sensitivity of rent to discount ratesSensitivity of rent to discount rates was tested by determining the rents at 0% and4% discount rates. Results of this sensitivity are illustrated in Figures 30 and 31. Thepattern of rent at both discount rates is consistent with that seen at 2% where the SUsystem rent is higher than that from the IU system. But the absolute rent is highlysensitive to changes in the discount rate. At 0%, SU rent at medium and high intensitiesbecomes as high as 424% and 444% respectively, relative to IU at basic intensity. At 4%the, difference between systems is not so sharp. Rent from medium and high intensitymanagement has fallen because the beneficial effect resulting from high value timber thatis harvested in the second half of the planning horizon is heavily disco!lnted.Figure 30 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated use (IU) andsingle use (SIT) systems on rent (0 % discount rate, 240 year planning horizon).450400350c 3000250200150& 100500.Iu[suBasic Medium HighManagement intensity103•lu• sulFigure 31 Impact of intensive timber management with integrated use (IU) andsingle use (SU) systems on rent (4% discount rate, 240 year planning horizon). Referto (Table 1 (page 8) for description ofcodes).7.3.1.4 Sensitivity of rent to changes in price of logsSensitivity of the rent to a 12% change in price of all logs shows that all IUsystems are more sensitive to prices than the SU systems. This is illustrated in Figure32. This happens because of the higher percent of old-growth and second-growth thatgets harvested in the IU system. The prices of timber from old-growth and naturallygrown second-growth are relatively higher priced than the timber from modified forests.Therefore, when a higher proportion of old-growth gets harvested in a scenario, thechange due to price changes is higher. This is seen at the basic intensity levels in both IUand SU systems. The reduction in rent associated with a change in prices is more at themedium intensity because the harvest contains higher value timber than any otherscenario. At low prices the total premium on high value logs gets reduced, and there is a760E4E0iMediumManagement intensity104proportionately greater reduction in rent. At high intensities, low value thinningscontribute little towards rent and therefore this scenario is less sensitive to changes inprice.LEE2oflu_i IU_2 IU_3 SU_i SU_2 SU_37.3.1.5 Delivered wood costsSeveral observations can be made about the delivered wood costs in the two landuse systems.z) First, delivered wood costs in the SU system are slightly higher than that for theintegrated use system. The components of the delivered wood cost (harvest system,road construction and maintenance, and the hauling costs) are illustrated for mediumintensity timber management for both land use systems in Figure 33. Harvest160140120_-12% low_•_Current__i2% highLand use systems and their management intenstilesFigure 32 Percent change in rent to increase and decrease in log prices by 12%.(Refer to Table 7 (page 68) for description ofcodes).105system costs under single use constitute 72 % of delivered wood cost as opposed to69 % in the integrated use. This is caused by the more difficult terrain conditions inthe single use area. Had areas with identical terrain conditions been selected, harvestsystem costs in both systems would have been equal. Road costs and hauling costsare lower in the case of single use. This is understandable as there are fewer activeroads and shorter hauling distances. Also, new roads are being constructed in a morelimited area.ii) Second, road costs constitute only about 5% of the delivered wood costs. The roadcosts are generally front loaded in both systems and decrease gradually towards theend of the planning horizon. Figure 34 illustrates the pattern of periodic road costsover time for single and integrated use with medium intensity timber management.iii) Third, delivered wood costs in both systems decline over time. This trend is causedby the declining road costs.35302520 0Hsys_C15 [oad_CC,1050Figure 33 Delivered wood costs in integrated use (IU) and single use (SU) systemswith medium intensity management showing its components viz., hauling cost,IU_2 SU_2Land use system106harvest system (hsys) cost, and road construction and maintenance costs (road_C).(Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).1.20i.ooi ::::0.401 2 3 4 5 6 78910 11 1220 yr planning periodsFigure 34 The IU and the SU systems at medium management intensity showingperiodic cost of road construction and maintenance on a 240 year planning horizon.(Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).Some general observations can also be made on the possible behavior of thecomponents of the DWC in the SU and the IU systems. Since the timber zones in the SUsystems will be selected mostly in less difficult areas, its harvest system costs are likelyto be very much lower than that of the IU system. In this study, though the timber zonewas selected from productive sites, less attention was paid to terrain conditions and theirassociated costs. This is why the harvesting system costs in the SU are higher than thatof the IU. With respect to the road costs, the SU system is likely to cost less than that ofthe IU because of the smaller area covered. Expenditure on roads during the early part ofthe planning horizon in the IU system will be very much more than in the SU system asthe harvesting areas in the IU system will be more dispersed. As for the SU system, road107construction can be spread over most of the planning horizon depending on the progressof harvesting and silvicultural activities. Further, with the present day requirements fordeactivation of roads (when not actively used for more than a specific period of time) theIU system road costs will increase several fold. As for the SU system, the limited lengthof roads will be maintained throughout the year and it will have less deactivation andactivation costs. As for hauling cost, it is difficult to predict the hauling distance for thetwo systems. If, however, it is assumed that both the SU and the IU systems are placed atequal distance from the mill site, then the SU system costs will be slightly lower than thatof the IU system due to the concentration of harvesting within the operable harvestingarea.7.3.2 Environmental parametersThis section summarizes landscape pattern responses to IU and SU management,in terms of landscape indices calculated by SIMFOR and ATLAS, and discusses theirbiological significance.7.3.2.1. Seral StagesResults of the simulation runs on the SU and the JU systems at the basic timbermanagement intensity showing the distribution of seral stages for all of Revelstoke 1 overa 240 year planning horizon are illustrated in Figures 35 and 36. These Figures showthat, in both cases, the very old-growth (seral stage 5) increases from 29% to nearly 70%,while the regeneration, pole and mature seral stages each stabilize at 10 % of the area108around period 7. Both the IU and the SU systems appear quite similar as nearly 34% ofthe Revelstoke 1 is made up of reserves that cannot be harvested.The pattern of seral stage distribution is similar for SU and IU systems at mediumand high timber intensities. At medium timber management intensity, the regenerationseral stage drops to about 7% of the total area near the end of the planning horizon in bothSU and IU systems. This is because of the larger volume (resulting from PCT) harvestedfrom a smaller area. At high intensity, the area of the regeneration seral stage is slightlyhigher (12%) than expected (7% to 8%) because the model does not distinguish betweencommercial thinning and clear felling operations.The evenflow volume management strategy adopted in this study results in theharvest of approximately equal areas. As such, no significant differences in seral stagedistribution can be observed between SU and IU systems. Since evenflow volumemanagement prevents the harvest of available higher volumes during the earlier part ofthe planning horizon, this leads to a higher proportion of old seral stages. Had an area-based management strategy been adopted, the accumulation of old-growth could havebeen reduced. The simulation with area-based management would also have shown thetime it takes for the forest in both systems to normalize.Natural calamities such as wildfire and insect attacks also affect the periodicdistribution of seral stages in both systems. However, since it is assumed that both the IUand the SU systems will be affected in the same way, the natural calamities do not affectthe outcome of the comparison.109Figure 35 Single Use showing the distribution of seral stages formanagement over a 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to Tabledescription ofcodes)(5(50>(5EU(5(5en(5(a(50enbasic intensity1 (page 8) for•.eryoIdsold HO mature• pole.regen(5(50>(5E(3(0Cu(0(5(5(0(5(0•eryoldD oldO mature•pole•regen0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1220 year period20 year periodFigure 36 Integrated Use showing the distribution of seral stages for basic intensitymanagement over a 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to table 1 (page 8) fordescription ofcodes).1107.3.2.2 Ecosystems represented in seral stagesThe results of the simulations on the SU and the IU systems at basic timbermanagement intensity showing ecosystems represented in the very old-growth (seralstage 5) stage are illustrated in Figures 37 and 38. The overall pattern appears similar inthat the percentage of very old ICHmw stands increases substantially in both the SU andIU systems. But distinct differences in the percentages of ecosystems represented ineach system can be observed. Ecosystems represented by very old stands in each landuse system as a percentage of all ecosystem areas at the start and at the end of the 240year planning horizon are given in Table 14.Table 14 Ecosystem types represented in very old-growth (>240 years) as percentarea of total land base at the start and end of the 240 year planning horizon. (Referto Table 1 (page 8)for descrztion ofcodes)Ecosystem type Start ofPH (% area) End ofPH (% area)sU&IU su luICHmw 8 46 36ICHwk 15 10 17ESSF 5 13 14From Table 14, it can be seen that the percentage representation of all threeecosystem types, except for ICHwk in SU, increase at the end of the planning horizon.This is because of the accumulation of old-growth during the planning horizon asdiscussed in Section 7.3.2.1. Since more area has been harvested in the ICHwk type in111706050E 400030201100Figure 37 Single Use showing the distribution of ecosystem types within very old-growth seral stage (> 240 years) for basic intensity management on a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) for description ofcodes)the SU system, this type shows a decrease. As stated earlier, the ecosystem data used inthis analysis did not have details related to biogeoclimatic subzones and variants. Hadthese been available, more information on the pattern and distribution of ecosystem typesin each of the seral stages over the planning horizon would have been possible. Theseresults depend on the original distribution of ecosystem types both within and outside thetimber zone. If most of the timber zone is dominated by one or two ecosystem types,then it is obvious that those old-growth forests will be harvested under the SU system.In multiple use management strategies, it is important to maintain a certainpercentage of the total area as a network of reserves comprised of each ecosystem type.The percentage to be maintained should be based on the natural distribution and oncritical habitats. This type of analysis will help to determine whether all ecosystem typesare adequately represented in the system.0ESSF•ICHwkICHmw,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1220 year period112ho40 DESSF&CHwk30.ICHmw201000Figure 38 Integrated Use showing the distribution of ecosystem types within veryold-growth seral stage (>240 years) for basic intensity management on a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).7.3.2.3 Edge habitatsEdge habitat is a band of interface between old-growth and regeneration or polestages (defined in Sections 3.2 and 5.4.3). The percentage area of old-growth (>120years) that has edge habitats under the SU and the IU systems with basic, medium andhigh intensities of management are illustrated in Figures 39, 40 and 41, respectively.Edge influence on old-growth depends on several factors. Some of the key factors are: i)size and shape of cut blocks; and ii) size and distribution of patches of remnant old-growth in the management unit. Some obvious correlations to certain notable features ofthe landscape can be observed and are discussed in this section.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1220 year period113Figure 39 The SU and the IU systems showing area of edge habitat (as percent areaof old-growth (>120 years) and very old-growth (>240 years) at basic intensitymanagement on a 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) fordescription ofcodes)Figure 40 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of edge habitat (as percentarea of old-growth (>120 years) and very old-growth (>240 years) for mediumintensity management over a 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes)20 year periods16.014.012.010.08.06.0.4.0.2.0.0.0su_._Iu0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1220 year periods114j20 year periodsFigure 41 The SU and the IU systems showing the distribution of edge habitats (aspercent area of old-growth (>120 years) and very old-growth (240 years) for highintensity management over a 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes)The average area of edge habitat over the planning horizon as a percentage of theold-growth for basic, medium and high intensities area is given in Table 15. Figures 39through 41 indicate that, currently, 11% of the area constitutes edge habitat. In basic,medium and high silvicultural intensities it is seen that the edge habitat (expressed as anaverage percentage of the old-growth for the whole planning horizon) in the IU system(12%) is more than twice that of the SU system (5%). One reason for this is thecessation of felling in nearly 60% of the area which results in closing of the edge habitats.In the SU system, edges stabilize at around 4%, possibly after closing up of the canopy inthe non-timber zone.115Table 15 Average area of edge habitat as percent area of old-growth habitats, andaverage area of regeneration edge as percent of regeneration area over the 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to table 1 (page 8) for description ofcodes).Intensity Average old-growth edge Average regeneration edge(as % old-growth area) (as % regeneration area)su lu su luBasic 5 10 10 44Medium 5 11 11 42High 6 14 14 45At medium intensity the smaller area harvested in the second half of the planninghorizon appears to influence the percentages. As such, both the IU and the SU systemsshow a lower than average edge percent near the tail end of the planning horizon. At highintensity, the average is higher than those at basic and medium intensities because of thecommercial thinning. In this research, commercial thinning is assumed to disrupt theinterior habitat since one third to one half of the available volume is removed at thesethinnings.Generally, the percent area of edge habitat in an undisturbed natural forest islikely to be very much lower than that in a managed forest. Edge habitats are beingportrayed as both good for game species (Dasmann 1964; Thomas et al. 1979; Lovejoy etal. 1990) and bad particularly for non-game species and interior dependent wildlifespecies (Wilcove 1985; Wilcove et al. 1986; Noss 1991) by many scientists. But there isa fine distinction between the edge habitat formed by natural disturbance and by forestmanagement practices. Edges created under natural conditions are not sharp and would116have reached a stage of equilibrium with the interior and exterior of the patch thusproviding special habitats for some animals. Whereas the edge created by forestpractices are generally sharp and most would not have reached the stage of equilibriumwith the interior and exterior of the patch due to frequent disturbances caused byharvesting. Thus the habitat found in these edges are likely to differ from those createdunder natural conditions.7.3.2.4 Influence of old-growth edge on regenerationThe microclimate within the regeneration area is always affected by the adjoiningold-growth stands. This altered microclimate within the regeneration area influences theseedling establishment and competitive interactions between individual plants results inchanges in forest structure and composition (Saunders et al. 1991; Chen et al. 1992). Forexample, growth rates of shade-intolerant species such as Douglas-fir may be reduced ina wide band along the south side of a plantations due to shading from adjoining forests(Hansen et al. 1993). The depth of edge influence on regeneration area estimated in thisresearch is given in Section 5.4.3. The area of regeneration affected by edge will dependon the size of cut blocks, and the relative area occupied by the regeneration seral stage ata particular time. The results are illustrated in Figures 42, 43 and 44.The results indicate that like the old-growth edges, here too the regeneration areaaffected by old-growth edge in the IU area is more than twice that of the SU area.Average regeneration area affected for basic, medium and high intensity silvicultural117regimes are given Table 15. The results also indicate that 42% to 45% of theregeneration area is affected by the edge effects of the old-growth. At high intensity oftimber management the area affected is the highest (45%). This is because of thestandard adjacency requirement in commercial thinnings which spreads the thinningsover much of the landscape. The percent of regeneration edge affected (e.g., 42% - 45%in IU) appears higher than edge habitat (e.g., 10% - 14% in IU) in old-growth because thearea of regeneration is relatively small when compared to the area of old-growth in anyspecific period.If forest practices rely only on natural regeneration for restocking the forest, it islikely that species established in the center of the regeneration area will be slightlydifferent from those at the periphery, due to differences in seed dispersal effectivenessand changes in the microclimate. Consequently, this may require different silviculturalapproaches to management. Shade and other microclimatic effects due to old-growthadjoining the regeneration areas will affect the establishment and growth of both naturalregeneration and planted seedlings in the edge zones, and will thus reduce overall second-growth stand productivity for some time (Bradshaw 1992). Since nearly 40% of theregeneration is affected in this way, it also possible that artificial regeneration and otherrelated intensive management efforts may encounter difficulties.118Figure 42 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of regeneration affected (aspercent of the regeneration area) by old-growth and very old-growth edges for basicintensity management on 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) fordescription ofcodes).Figure 43 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of regeneration affected (aspercent of the regeneration area) by old-growth and very old-growth edges formedium intensity management on 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page8) for descrzption ofcodes).(U(U(U(3(UC0(U(UC(U50.040.030.020.010.00.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1220 year periods(U(U(UI50.040.030.020.010.00.0_._su—‘U0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1220 year periods11960.050.040.0________30.00 1 2 3456789 10 11 1220 year periodsFigure 44 The SU and the IU systems showing the area of regeneration affected (aspercent of the regeneration area) by old-growth and very old-growth edges for highintensity management on 240 year planning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) fordescription ofcodes).7.3.2.5 Patch sizesVarious patch sizes and their distribution among five seral stages were examined.Different seral stages can form habitat for various animals. There is much concern aboutpossible endangering critical habitats found in seral stage 5 (>240 years). The results ofthe analysis showing the response of patch sizes in seral stage 5 to forestry practicesunder the SU and the IU systems at basic, medium and high intensities are illustrated inFigures 45 through 50. The average area of each patch size (as percent of total land base)under the SU and IU systems for the three intensities of management over the planninghorizon are given in Table 16. The following general observations can be made on theseresults.120z) At the start of the planning horizon the management unit does not have any patcheslarger than 1000 ha in size. It is dominated by a patch size 3 (501 -1,000 ha) coveringnearly 48 % of the total area.ii) The largest patch size (>1000 ha, patch size 4) appears at different periods during theplanning horizon and comes to dominate the landscape at the end of the planninghorizon.iii) At all intensities of management, the smaller patch sizes (patch size 1 and patch size2) cover a larger area in the IU system than in the SU system.iv) At all intensities of management, the largest patch size (patch size 4) cover a largerarea in the SU system than in the IU system (Table 16).Table 16 Average area covered by the four types of patches in the very old-growthseral stage (indicated as percent area of total land base) at the end of 240 yearplanning horizon. (refer to table 1 (page 8)for descrzption ofcodes).Patch size Code Basic Medium High(ha) (% area of total (% area oftotal (% area of totalland base) land base) land base)su lu su iu su lu(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)0-100 pat_i 6 7 6 7 6 8101-500 pat2 ii 15 12 17 12 16501- 1000 pat_3 5 5 4 5 4 6>1000 pat_4 22 16 20 12 20 11121At basic intensity, both in the SU and in the IU, patch size 4 (>1000 ha) is formedfrom the first period onwards and continues to increase until the end of the planninghorizon, when it covers 71% of the area in the SU system and 64% of the area in the IUsystem. The reason for the larger area under SU is due to the moratorium on felling inareas other than the timber zone. As for the IU system, the high percent of patch size 4 iscaused by the evenflow management strategy which effectively prevents higher harvestlevels during some periods even when areas are otherwise available for harvest.At medium intensity in the SU system, there is a steady increase in area coveredby patch size 4 from period 1 until it covers nearly 70% of the area in period 12. Patchsize 3 disappears from the scene either by being aggregated into larger patches or byfragmenting to smaller patches in periods 5, 9, 10, and 11. In the IU system, on the otherhand, the large patch sizes (patch 4) appear only from period 7 onwards and steadilyincrease to cover 64% of the land area in period 12. The patch size 2 (501-1000 ha)nearly doubles its area from period 2 to the end of the planning horizon by possiblyfragmenting patch size 3. Therefore, the total area covered by patch size 3 decreases anddrops to as low as 12% for the whole area during periods 2 through 5. During theseperiods, the largest patch size existing is patch size 3. These landscape structures mayhave severe biological consequences. For example, they are likely to affect wildlife thathave a minimum home range requirement. If this is true, then it can be predicted thatintense management cannot be practiced in IU systems that show this type of landscapepattern response.122At high intensities, the SU system again shows a steady increase in patch size 4area from period 1 to the end of the planning horizon, where it reaches 71% of the totalarea. From period 9 to end of the planning horizon, patch size 3 disappears from thescene. In the IU system at high intensity, patch size 4 appears only in period 2 and itdisappears in periods 4, 5 and 6, thus creating a gap. In period 5, when there is not even asingle patch size 4, the average area covered by patch size 3 is only 988 ha (16% of thearea). From periods 2 through 11 the area under patch size 2 is nearly one and a halftimes that found in the SU system. In summary, it can be stated that at high intensity, theIU system has not only a higher proportion of smaller patch sizes and a small proportionof large patch sizes, but it also has gaps in the larger patch sizes. These are likely to haveserious biological consequences some of which are discussed Chapter 8.I8000. 600040000pat_4o pat_3• pat_2•pat_i20 year periodsFigure 45 The SU system showing the distribution of patch sizes (as area in ha) invery old-growth (>240 years) for basic intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for descr4#ion ofcodes).123Figure 46 The IU system showing the distribution of patch sizes (as area in ha) invery old-growth (>240 years) for basic intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes).Figure 47 The SU system showing the distribution of patch sizes (as area in ha) invery old-growth (>240 years) for medium intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) for descr4’tion ofcodes).12000100008000. 6000! 4000N0.5 200000pat40pat3• pat2•patl0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1220 year periodsN0(VQ.12000100008000 -6000 -4000 -2000 -0pat_40pat_3• pat_2•pat_10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1220 year periods124‘C0‘ao..N0,20.INen‘C20.120001000080006000400020000-pat_40pat_3•pat_2•pat_I20 year periodsFigure 48 The IU system showing the distribution of patch sizes’ (as area in ha) invery old-growth (>240 years) for medium intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8)for description ofcodes),1200010000 -80006000400020000pat_4’O pat_3•pat_2•pat_i0 1 2 3 4 520 year periods6 7 8 9 10 11 12Figure 49 The SU system showing the distribution of patch sizes (as area in ha) invery old-growth (>240 years) for high intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 (page 8) for description ofcodes).125Figure 50 The IU system showing the distribution of patch sizes (as area in ha) invery old-growth (>240 years) for high intensity management over a 240 yearplanning horizon. (Refer to Table 1 for description ofcodes).7.3.2.6 Harvest pattern in old-growthAn analysis was done to examine whether all old-growth stands (>120 years)available at the start of the planning horizon would be harvested by the end of theplanning horizon in the two systems. The results illustrated in Figure 51, are veryinteresting. Under integrated management at varying intensities of management, 50% to53% of the original old-growth remains unharvested. Under single use management, ahigher percentage, ranging from 62% to 63%, remains unharvested. Even within thetimber production zone, approximately 35% of the old-growth remains unharvestedbecause more accessible, modified forest crops rapidly become available for harvesting.If short term harvests had been maximized and subsequently allowed to decline in thelong term (rather than even-flow), there would be no old-growth in the single use area. In12000100008000. 60004000N(a,.5 2000pat_4Qpat_3•pat_2•pat_I20 year periods9 10 11 12126hindsight, a declining harvest flow policy would have been a better choice for this study.The evenflow policy is too rigidly fixed to the long term, steady state of the forest. Thedeclining flow policy would have pushed both systems to their respective limits, andlikely have produced greater differences than observed here. This is especially importantfor short term timber supplies - an issue of great concern to British Columbians.Implications of altering harvest flow policy are discussed in Chapter 8.7.3.2.7 Density of roadsThe density of roads in the SU and IU systems was estimated in terms of theaverage length of roads maintained during a planning period and on the total length ofroads constructed to the planning horizon. Results (Figure 52) show that at all three7060C 5040302200100• % OG remainingSU_1 SU_2 SU_3 Ui IU_2Land use system and its management intensityIU 3Figure 51 Percent of old-growth (OG) retained with integrated use (IU) and singleuse (SU) systems at the end of the 240 year planning horizon (all of Revelstoke 1).(Refer to Table 7 (page 68) for description ofcodes).127levels of intensity, the length of roads maintained and constructed in single use is lessthan (65% to 68%) that of integrated use. The SU system requires a smaller area toaccess than the IU system. The length of roads constructed and maintained is higher athigh intensity levels because of the thinnings. At medium intensity levels, fewer roadsare required than at basic levels because a higher volume per hectare is harvested. This ismostly due to evenflow policy, otherwise it is likely to be the same across all SU systems.Figure 52 Road density with integrated use (IU) and single use (SU) systems atbasic, medium and high management intensities showing average length of roadsmaintained per period, and constructed during the planning horizon. (Refer toTables 1 (page 8) and 3 (page 50) for description ofcodes).250200E150i00_050 -0• Rd open/pda Rd constl24oyrsU_i lU_2 lU_3 SU_1 SU_2 SU_3Management intensity1287.4 ENHANCEMENT OF NON-TIMBER VALUES IN THE TIMBER ZONE7.4.1 Impact on even-flow volumeThe impact on even-flow volumes of introducing selected wildlife and visualquality rules to unconstrained timber production at the three management intensities isillustrated in Figure 53. Two rules relating to wildlife are tested. The first is the timberemphasis rule that is treated as a basic requirement for maintaining wildlife. It isabbreviated as wildlife (basic). The second is rule number 3 or wildlife (high) where thecover constraint is 60% (i.e.,> 60 % of the area must be covered by stands > height class3). Results show that there are minor differences in impact between the basic and highwildlife quality. A sharp drop in evenflow volumes down to 58% (that is, a 42%reduction) occurs due to the introduction of adjacency constraints in the timber emphasisrule. The drop is higher on a 240 year planning horizon than on a 120 year planninghorizon. Further increases in cover constraints, from 30% with height class 2 to 60%with height class 3, marginally lower the volume by an additional 2%. These resultssuggest that it may be possible to maintain wildlife with medium or large home rangesand large dispersal distances by modifying the adjacency requirement and by introducingthe required cover constraints and disturbance rates, thus avoiding the large sacrifice oftimber related to existing adjacency rules. This reduction in volume caused by adjacencycould be reduced by resorting to intensive management which at medium and highintensities lower the reduction from 42% to 15% and 30%, respectively. The lowervolumes at high intensity can be attributed to additional adjacency constraints caused bythinnings. Relaxing adjacency rules for thinnings would alleviate these losses.129The introduction of visual quality (modification) lowers volume to 50%, 73% and57% of the unconstrained (basic intensity) case for basic, medium and high intensities ofmanagement, respectively. The lower volume for high intensity management is again dueto additional adjacency constraints imposed by thinnings. Visual quality (partialretention), reduces the evenflow volumes down to 9% of the unconstrained case. Underthese visual rules, intensive timber management practices do not help to increase thetimber supply. This is understandable as the allowed disturbance rate of 10% andadjacency constraints permit no room for high timber production. However, there issome possibility of faster green-up with intensive management, thus resulting in earlyrelease of areas locked up in adjacency and cover constraints.Figure 53 Impact of wildlife and visual quality emphases on volume from thetimber zone(SU). IU system volume is also shown. (Refer to Tables 1 (page 8) and 3(page 50) for description ofcodes)Ea00E.Basic•MediumHigh-ISU_Wlife(h) SU_VM&Wlife(b) SU_VPR&Wlife(b)Resource emphasis1307.4.2 Impact on rentThe impact of selected wildlife and visual quality rules on rent from theunconstrained production of timber is illustrated in Figure 54. Results show that theintroduction of the timber emphasis rules lowers the rent to 35% of the unconstrainedrent. This reduction can be reversed by intensive timber management. With medium andhigh intensities, the rent can be increased to 151% and 149%, respectively of the basiclevel of unconstrained production. The situation is similar for high wildlife qualitywhere the reduction at basic levels could be reversed by intensive timber management.With visual quality modification emphasis there is reduction in rent at allintensities of timber management. In the case of visual quality “partial retention”, onlynegative rents are produced at all intensities of management.The results of the analysis shows that wildlife and visual quality can beaccommodated, to some degree, without reductions in current levels of rent. But this isalways accompanied by high opportunity costs.Figure 54 Impact of wildlife and visual quality emphases on rent from the timberzone (SU). IU system rent is also shown. (Refer to Tables 1 (page 8) and 3 (page 50)for description ofcodes)4,0ECCaResource emphasis1318 DISCUSSIONManaging by resource emphasis rule is an important development in themanagement of forests for multiple uses in British Columbia. These rules are supposedto ensure a steady flow of various goods and services during the planning period. Someof these rules (adjacency and basic cover constraints) are universally applied while others(some types of wildlife habitats and visual aesthetics) are site-specific. Under integrateduse management, the value of timber production is usually residualized, that is, timberproduction only becomes possible after all resource emphasis rules have been met.Consequently, these rules necessarily have an opportunity cost associated with them interms of timber values forgone. Simulation of harvesting with variou resource emphasisrules under the SU and the JU systems leads to some of the very interesting resultspresented in Chapter 7. These results have far reaching consequences which arediscussed in this section.8.1 OPPORTUNITY COST OF RESOURCE EMPHASIS AREASTo facilitate the discussion on the opportunity cost of managing the differentresource emphasis areas, their equivalent annual flow of opportunity cost in the whole ofRevelstoke TSA was determined by extrapolating the results of the study area. Thisextrapolation was found to be useful as Revelstoke TSA has an area dedicated for timberemphasis which is not present in Revelstoke 1. The extrapolation for wildlife REA wasdone with the wildlife (medium) rule (Rule 5) and that of visual quality was done withvisual quality modification (Rule 6). The results showed that the equivalent annual flows132of opportunity costs of REAs for timber emphasis, wildlife(m) and visual quality(modification) were 2 million, 8.8 million and 6.2 million dollars per year, respectively.This result leads to three interesting questions: i) whether the values maintainedby the application of these rules are higher or equivalent to the opportunity cost in termsof the value of timber forgone; ii) whether these resource emphasis rules are achievingthe desired results over the long period; and iii) whether any other land use system couldimprove this situation. Application of adjacency and basic cover constraints in theresource emphasis area for timber emphasis probably protects wildlife with a small homerange at a cost of 2 million dollars per year and at a cost to animals with large homeranges (bear, caribou etc.)Some of the resource emphasis rules prescribing adjacency conditions to dispersethe harvest across the landscape are essentially a legacy of the past. In the past, dispersedharvesting was important for several reasons: i) to ensure adequate natural regenerationfrom seeds from adjoining stands; ii) to maintain the road network for purposes of firesuppression and stand tending; iii) to reduce erosion and sedimentation resulting fromharvesting operations; iv) to minimize visual effects; and v) to create edge and early seralhabitats favored by game animals (Smith 1986). Now, with improved understanding ofthe nature of forested landscapes and improved forestry technology, many of thesereasons are no longer tenable. Current timber management practices rely more on a fewspecies that are artificially regenerated and possibly genetically improyed, than on naturalregeneration. Fire suppression is no longer totally dependent on the road network asinterior areas are increasingly accessed by air. It should also be noted that, in many cases,133the network of roads found inside the forest is associated with much of the anthropogenicorigin of fire (Wallin 1994). Indeed, the high costs of road maintenance in mountainousterrain, and the impacts of overhunting caused by improved access, now favor policies ofroad deactivation in much of B.C. Since harvesting operations have improved severalfold over the earlier methods, erosion and sedimentation rates resulting from theseoperations are likely to be the same under both the IU system and the SU systems.However, it is likely that more roads in the IU system may cause more sedimentation. Asfor edge and seral habitats for game animals, the current environmental knowledgesuggests that the sustainability of forested ecosystems urgently requires protection ofinterior habitats, and not the creation of additional edge and seral habitats (Alverson et al.1994). Further, it is also difficult to have large patch sizes in the future, if you createsmall patch sizes now.There is also the question of whether the severe restrictions, such as 52% to 60%of the cover requirements, are required across all 64% of the land area at a cost of nearly8.8 million dollars per year. Much of the wildlife may be protected by making smalladjustments in the harvesting pattern and by having set-asides and clumps of snags withinthe landscape (Sedjo and Bowes 1990). More studies should be undertaken to determinethe trade-offs involved between maintaining large cover constraints and setting asidesmaller areas of trees and clumps of snags.Resource emphasis areas for visual quality impose the highest opportunity cost.Maintenance of visual quality does not effect ecosystem function. It is essentiallyprovided for the consumption of the present generation as there will always be134uncertainty about future generations’ demands in this regard. The question that shouldbe asked is, “are we generating visual quality value equivalent to 6.2 million dollars peryear?”. If not, ways and means should be sought to reduce this opportunity cost. Oneway of decreasing this cost is to invest in economically feasible recreation and tourismactivities in the region.8.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR TIMBER SUPPLY8.2.1 Even-flow volumesMultiple use management of forests in British Columbia is enforced throughvolume based timber supply management. Under this system, an annual allowable cut(AAC) of timber is determined using biological, social and economic information. ThisAAC is a subjective decision aimed at maximizing human welfare. This researchsimulated even-flow volume calculated at maximum MAI. There are severaldisadvantages in using volume based management particularly when there is a large stockof old-growth and wide variation in site qualities. In this research, four observations canbe made about even-flow timber harvests for Revelstoke 1.i) Maximum even-flow timber harvests decrease with longer planning horizons (forexample, 14,000 m3/year for the 120 year planning horizon, and ‘11,200 m3/year forthe 240 year planning horizon) of the forest. This is due to the lower volume contentof the second-growth compared to old-growth at a later age (that is, the fall downeffect).ii) Even-flow timber management leads to a slow liquidation of old-growth in the IUsystem. This is caused by the difference in available harvestable volumes in various135periods. Had the strategy been declining volume flow to LRSY this problem maynot have occurred.iii) Even-flow timber management fails to capture the full benefits of intensive timbermanagement. Benefits of intensive management, though reflected in increased levelsof even-flow timber supply, are not fully captured due to the ca on the even-flow.This invariably postpones the optimal age window for harvesting.iv) With intensive forest management, the revenue from evenflow harvests will varywidely in different periods, based on the proportion of thinnings and final harvest ineach period. This is because thinnings have a low value compared to final harvest.All of these four problems might be solved by resorting to area-basedmanagement or by declining volume flow to LRSY. This will allow for early conversionof old-growth and second-growth to managed modified forests. Fluctuations in volumecaused by site and species interactions could be adjusted by having some amount ofvolume control. The effect of this volume control will not be as severe as experiencedwith pure volume based management. Further, area- based management would be mucheasier to practice within the timber zone of the SU system than with the IU system, astimber zones are likely to be more homogeneous than the whole area within the IUsystem.8.2.2 RentRent is affected by the relative values of the products, delivered wood costs(DWC) and administration costs. Since it is assumed that the relative values of productsremain constant across both land use systems, they do not affect the outcome for136comparative purposes. The higher the DWC the lower will be the rent. The componentsof the DWC (road costs, harvesting costs and hauling costs) in the SU system can besubstantially lowered by suitably locating the timber zones. For example, road costs inthe SU system can be very much lowered by locating the timber zones on easy terrainwith easy access. This, however, is not possible under the IU system as the roads willhave to access all areas.Harvest system costs are usually higher within difficult and sensitive terrain.Under the TU system the resource emphasis rules restrict the harvesting of timber fromeasy terrain, leading to a necessity to go into more difficult terrain. If timber zones arelocated on easy terrain, then all harvesting could be done more cheaply. In this research,the timber zone was selected by trial and error on an area which produced the highestvolume of timber, and attention was not paid to terrain conditions. This resulted inlocating the timber zone in difficult terrain where the harvesting costs are slightly higherthan average, which has resulted in a slightly higher DWC for the SU system. Thisshows that a sophisticated technology (incorporating economics and ecology) will have tobe developed for selecting timber zones.Hauling cost is also an important component of the DWC. The difference in thehauling cost between the IU and the SU systems depends on where timber zones areplaced relative to the whole IU system. The shorter the hauling distance, the lower thecosts. Since the timber zones occupy only a portion of the IU land area, the haulingdistance for the SU system are shorter than that of the IU system.137In this research, it is assumed that adjacency constraints will be applicable to areassubjected to commercial thinnings. The assumption of adjacency is made here becausethe commercial thinnings remove between 1/3 to 1/2 of the total volume available in thestand at the time of thinning. This operation will create large openings in the canopy andit is very unlikely that these areas will provide sufficient cover or meet winter rangerequirements of ungulates. Applicability of the adjacency constraint to commercialthinning is debatable. It depends on the intensity and the weight of thinnings and it maybe possible to have light thinnings (e.g. <25% weight) in areas constrained by adjacency.Adjacency in commercial thinning causes a reduction in the harvest of timber and thusleads to a reduction in rent. In the absence of adjacency constraints, we would expect theharvests to increase. But, since fmal treatment in all stands is clearcut and regenerationwith adjacency you still get an adjacency pattern that cannot be easily broken (Wallin etal. 1994). Therefore, there is unlikely to be much difference in rent between commercialthinning systems with and without the adjacency assumption.Administrative cost is an important determinant of the timber rent. It consists oftwo cost categories: i) management and protection and ii) planning, implementing andmonitoring. Administrative costs for the IU system are likely to b much higher thanthose for the SU system for two reasons: i) a relatively larger area to be managed underthe IU system, and ii) higher transactions cost of ensuring a constant flow of non-timbergoods and services from every hectare of land. In ensuring the flow of non-timber values,there are additional costs involved in establishing, implementing and monitoringminimum standards and site-specific guidelines for each resource. For example, once the138guidelines have been set to maintain a percent of cover with specific height, there willhave to be a specialist monitoring the status of cover types each time the forest isrevisited for harvesting. With all these additional expenditures there still remains thequestion of whether standards are adequate to ensure an adequate flow of other services.8.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR WILDLIFEThe present set of resource emphasis rules in the Revelstoke forest district aredesigned to protect ungulate wildlife in the forested landscape. Some rules that providehabitat for caribou (with 52% thermal cover) are also expected to adequately provide forthe habitat requirements of other species. The main question that has to be answered iswhether the universal application of these rules is justified. Many of the critical wildlifehabitats could be easily accommodated even within the timber zone at very low cost byleaving structures like snags and clumps of old-growth. This would release substantialforests for identifying and protecting various other critical wildlife habitats.Wildlife can be broadly categorized into i) Core (those preferring interiorhabitats), ii) Edge (those preferring edge habitats) and iii) Neutral (those indifferent tointerior and edge habitats) species (Daust 1994). Landscape pattern response analysisshowed some interesting results with respect to patch sizes, interior habitats and seralstages represented in the landscape.The size and isolation of patches of wildlife habitat are good indicators offragmentation and are helpful in analyzing the biological consequences of different forestpractices. In a natural environment, the size and isolation of forest patches are generallycorrelated with groups of environmental variables such as soil type, drainage, slope and139disturbance regime (Sharpe et a!. 1987). But under commercial forestry, these aredictated by the harvesting pattern and the extent of protection and fire managementpracticed in the area.Presently, a major concern of the public is the fast rate at which interior naturalhabitats are disappearing, particularly those associated with natural old-growth areas.Maintaining a mosaic of habitats within old-growth forest depends on the size andisolation of patches of habitats (i.e., the level of fragmentation). Large patches are likelyto accommodate a mosaic of habitats. The higher the level of fragmentation, the lowerthe availability of various habitats. These are particularly important for certain speciesthat require a minimum size or specific arrangement of patches, such as, the spotted owlin the Pacific Northwest (Gutierrez et al. 1985). The current issue, therefore, is theidentification of suitable patches that will have practical conservation values and how tomanage them to retain these values (Saunders 1987).The analysis of the SU and the IU systems shows that maintenance of largepatches (>1000 ha) is possible only at basic intensity. At high irtensities of timbermanagement, large patches of old-growth become heavily fragmented. This suggests thathigh intensity timber management may not be compatible with maintaining large patchsizes within the landscape for the IU system as a whole and for the timber zone in the SUsystem.There is an important difference between patches found in the SU and TV systems.In the SU system, most of the large patches will be maintained pennanently in non-timberzones. A likely management strategy might be to select a network of ideal patch sizes of140endemic vegetation, possibly representing each ecosystem subzone. In the case of the IUsystem, the patches would show temporal variation in their size, distribution andcomposition. A patch size 3 (501 ha to 1000 ha) in a particular period may eitheraggregate with other patches and grow into a patch size 4 (>1000 ha), or it may be furtherfragmented and become a patch size 1 or 2. This temporal variation can have seriousbiological consequences. A patch will include both edge and interior habitat. Undernatural conditions they reach a point of equilibrium with time. Natural disturbances,often with long return intervals, keep them in a state of equilibrium. But with integratedforestry practices, the patch sizes in the IU system will change more frequently and all thepatches will be in different stages of reaching an equilibrium. In this equilibratingsequence, there will be a process of “species relaxation” (Saunders et al. 1991) wheresome species which can only live in interior habitat are likely to disappear. Meanwhile,there will also be an influx of a suite of new species more adapted to the changingenvironment. The “floating patch” behavior, where there is systematic movement ofpatches across the landscape, is therefore likely bring in new species (included manyexotics to the region) forming a synthetic community, which is constantly adapting to thechanging balance of interior and edge habitat. The species that are considered to beendangered through loss of old-growth forests will likely disappear at a much faster ratewith the IU system of management. Further, new species may significantly alter the fuelstructure within the forest (McDonald et al. 1989; Panetta and Hopkins 1991) leading toincreased fire hazard.141Dispersed harvesting is also associated with changes in microclimatic conditionssuch as wind. Wind can be responsible for direct damage in the form of either windpruning (Caborn 1957) or windthrow of trees (Saunders et a!. 1991). Trees near the edgeof recently isolated patches are more prone to the windthrow risk, as they have maturedwithin a closed canopy and have therefore grown in the absence of wind and lack thenecessary support mechanism to deal with it. The creation of gaps created by windtbrowis likely to further extend the edge influence into interior habitats.For some time there has been debate as to whether the most appropriate strategyfor biodiversity conservation should be to protect a Single Large reserve Or SeveralSmall reserves (the so-called SLOSS debate) (Simberloff and Abele 1984; Gilpin andDiamond 1980; Higgs and Usher 1980; Simberloff 1986). The IU system will notprovide either of these, as it can only have small patches that support a synthetic bioticcommunity with high mobility. It will be difficult to control both the external andinternal influences on the patch. On the other hand, the SU system will help to create anetwork (or a satellite) of fairly large patches of remnants that can be linked to (oraround) the protected area network. In the SU system it should be possible to manageexternal influences by complementing strategies in the timber zone and by having specialstrategies to manage the internal dynamics of reserve areas and to maintain the patches asnatural as possible. Thus, instead of debating SLOSS, it should be possible to have asystem of Single Large reserves (representing the protected areas) 4nd Several Smallreserves from the multiple use forest areas (SLASS). The large reserves in the SLASS142would consist of the large reserves in the protected area network, while the small reserveswould be scattered throughout the working forest.In many countries, most of the vast expanses of forests have already been reducedto patches of remnants, and they have the burden of identifying patches of practicalconservation value and then managing them to retain their value. Fortunately, BritishColumbia still has vast tracts of natural forests where representative patches could still beselected outside the protected area network to ensure connectivity of the forestecosystems. The SU system will help this management strategy.8.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR VISUAL QUALITYThe analysis shows that the opportunity cost of maintaining visual quality is veryhigh. If the SU system of management is adopted it may be possible to select timberzones away from areas that have a very high visual quality requirement. This will meetthe twin objectives of meeting the timber supply requirement as well as maintainingvisual quality in critical areas. This choice is not available with the IU system as many ofthe resource emphasis rules lead to a shortage of timber areas. Furtfier, the fragmentedlandscape caused by dispersed felling under the IU system is likely to negatively impactthe beauty of the landscape.Recreation is an important use of the forests. This research did not focus on thistopic due to a lack of data in the area concerned. Like visual quality, some forms ofrecreation such as hiking and cross-country skiing also are in conflict with timberproduction. The analysis of these uses is likely to produce results similar to that of visualquality.1438.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR FOREST STEWARDSHIPIn British Columbia, 96% of the forest lands are publicly owned (Forestry Canada1993). They are managed through a system of crown forest tenures. These tenures are ameans of ensuring private management of public property to achieve efficient allocationof resources in the context of the market system. The tenures give property rights forspecific uses of forests to the tenure holders. The term “property rights” refers to theentire range of rules, regulations, customs and laws that define rights over appropriation,use and transfer of goods and services (Kula 1992). In other words, they are sociallysanctioned and enforceable claims of individuals or groups to the benefits (pecuniary ornon-pecuniary) flowing from the property (Haley and Luckert 1995).At the time the current tenure system was designed in British Columbia the forestswere seen only as trees and the primary objective of forest management was to liquidatethe old-growth as a means of generating direct revenue and providing stable regionalemployment (Pearse 1988). Hence, the tenure arrangements mostly evolved around thetransferring of the right to harvest timber. As stated in my introductory chapter, seeingthe forests as only trees has radically changed and now the public views the forests as partof the natural ecosystem that is required for the sustenance of all life on Earth. At thesame time, the social values of many of the products produced by the forest haveincreased tremendously.Successive governments have responded to the call by the public for managementof the forest for multiple uses, by modifying public forest policies. However, theunderlying framework for management of forests through timber tenures has essentially,144remained intact. The production of other values has been achieved mainly through asystem of command and control type regulations on the harvest and management oftimber which have increasingly attenuated existing property rights, and, consequently,have reduced benefits derived by tenure holders. Tenure holders now tend to manage theforests for other values only to the minimum required standards and at the least cost.This no longer encourages the efficient allocation of resources as originally intended.The system has now deteriorated to such an extent that the goals of the public and that ofthe tenure holders are no longer coincidental. Originally, when the tenures was designed,it was thought that the achievement of private goals would also, to a great extent, helpachieve public goals. But now, with changed social values, many of the initiatives takenby tenure holders to achieve their objectives lead to negative social effects (Haley andLuckert 1995). Beside the lack of management for non-timber resources (other than thatrequired by regulation), there is evidence to indicate that tenure holders do not eveninvest adequately in measures to ensure the continued timber productivity of theirleasehold lands (Luckert 1988; Zhang 1994). This is because the tenures do not grantcomprehensive property rights to the growing and harvesting of timber.Currently there is a pressing need to re-examine the forest policy of BritishColumbia and restructure the economic instruments embodied in the forest tenure system(Haley and Luckert 1995). The adoption of the SU system and the equitable allocation oftimber zones among tenure holders would help solve many of the problems associatedwith the current tenure systems. Timber zones as a form of tenure automatically confersome amount of security (for example, no withdrawals, limited harvesting regulations).145One of the reasons why governments are reluctant to give full security to tenure holders isbecause this would involve sacrificing of much of the flexibility considered necessary todeal with inevitable changes in social values and aspirations. The wisdom and foresightof the early forest planners is now evident with the recent radical change in the socialsystem of values. Managing limited areas of forest lands as timber zones (similar toagricultural land) is less likely to jeopardize the choice of future generations. Timberzones would be useful in creating perpetual, fully transferable and secure tenures as thereis less likely to be much need for attenuation of rights to protect and provide for theproduction of other values. Such tenures for single use would not only simplify theresponsibilities of tenures holders and reduce management costs but are also more likelyto provide incentives for intensive timber management.Pearse (1988) examined the possibility of extending rights granted over forestland to include other values, particularly wildlife, fish and some forms of recreation.Under the SU system of management, it should also be possible to grant limited propertyrights for a combination of marketable non-timber goods and services produced fromforests so that the tenure holders could manage for an optimal mix. These lands shouldbe selected away from forest land required for the generation of critical non-marketablevalues. This type of allocation system is not feasible under the current IU system.Under the SU system of management, the forests that have been allocated for theproduction of non-marketable goods and services could be directly managed by publicagencies in the pursuit of social objectives. This system of management is very commonin countries like United States of America, France, Germany, New Zealand, and in many146developing countries. Such a system would prevent conflicts between private and publicinterests and thereby avoid high transaction costs involved in protecting the publicinterests in privately managed public forests (Haley and Luckert 1995)..There has been an increasing level of enthusiasm amongst British Columbians forthe establishment of Community forests (Haley and Luckert 1995). Management offorests through a system of single and integrated use zones, as proposed in this study,may help in developing simple tenure arrangements for community forests. Dependingon the interests of the community, Crown tenures could be designed with fairly secureand comprehensive property rights for specific uses relating to the single use zones(timber or some forms of recreation) or to the integrated use zones (managing for non-timber multiple uses).According to Haley and Luckert (1995), one form of tenure will not serve today’svaried and frequently conflicting public objectives. They suggest a system of diverse butcomplementary tenure arrangements that will depend upon the mix of values the land inquestion is expected to produce. This type of tenure reform may not be easy toimplement with the current practice of integrated management. On the other hand, theadoption of a system of single uses and complementary integrated uses as proposed inthis research will facilitate such reforms.8.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR FOREST RENEWAL PLANThe BC Forest Renewal Act (SBC Chap.3 Vol. 1 Bill 32, 1994) has an ambitiousplan to rehabilitate neglected forest areas. One of the main goals of this plan is therenewal of the forest with major investments in replanting, spacing, pruning and147fertilization. Currently, some timber harvests are taking place in marginally productivelands. These harvests fall within the extensive margin because of the accumulation ofmany years of growth. Replanting and intensive silviculture in some of these marginallyproductive areas will not be economically feasible. Rehabilitation of these areas willrequire a strategy different from that of simply increasing timber productivity.About 80% of the so-called Not satisfactorily Restocked (NSR) lands in BC(874,000 hectares in 1988) is found on poor and medium sites (Ministry of Forests 1988).In 1993, the extent of NSR lands is estimated to be 1,362,407 hectares (Ministry ofForests 1994). For purposes of allocating funds for restoration of the NSR lands,Thompson et al. (1992) ranked all NSR sites according to their cost! benefit ratio.Restoration in this study meant the restoration of timber productivity of the land. Costsrefer to cost of planting and benefits refer to financial benefits accruing from harvest ofcommercial timber. Except for spruce on good quality sites near mills, all of the speciestypes when established in poor and medium sites are estimated to have a benefit cost ratioof less than one at a discount rate of 1.5%. In fact, the performance of many speciestypes on good sites also show a benefit cost ratio of less than one. In order to utilize theavailable funds for restoration, Thompson et al. (1992), recommended that the sites thatshow a benefit!cost ratio of 0.81 or greater should be considered for reforestation. Thisis based on the assumption that increasing timber productivity will also enhance othernon-timber values and therefore increase the actual benefit! cost ratio of the site. This isquestionable as this research shows intensive silviculture practices under the IU system is148likely to bring about more damage to the natural environment in terms of fragmentationof interior habitats.Timber value should be enhanced only when it is economically feasible to do soand this should be done only on areas of NSR lands that could be permanently maintainedas timber zones. NSR lands other than those identified for timber zones should berehabilitated by other means designed to enhance their intrinsic values (possibly based onpriorities for wildlife and visual quality enhancement). In these areas, the type of speciesselected for reforestation and the method of reforestation may be quite different fromthose used for timber production. Carrying out intensive silvicultural practices toincrease timber productivity under the IU system framework may negatively impact suchecosystems and, consequently, many social values.8.7 IMPLICATIONS FOR SHORT TERM TIMBER SUPPLYCurrently, much of British Columbia’s forest is locked up under variousconstraints and forest harvesting is extending towards its extensive margin or evenbeyond. As harvesting moves towards its extensive margin two things happen. First, thecost of harvesting increases and second, more roadless areas will be harvested leading tothe disturbance of these habitats.Adoption of the SU system will confer several types of immediate benefits tosociety. First, it will release for immediate harvest substantial areas of productiveoperable land, hitherto locked up under adjacency and cover constraints. The benefitsfrom harvesting these newly released areas are likely to be higher than that of themarginal lands that are currently harvested. This assertion is based on the assumption149that relatively more productive areas were harvested in the past than are being harvestedat present and that the relaxation of adjacency constraints would release productive areascarrying high quality timber which had been set aside in the past. The delivered woodcost of timber from these areas is also likely to be lower due to shorter hauling distancesand easier accessibility.Second, the SU system, unlike the IU system, will liquidate old-growth faster and,therefore, allow the modified forest with higher volume productivity to be harvestedearlier. Intensive silviculture such as spacing and precommercial thinning, thoughpostponing the age of culmination of MAI, will ensure early availability of high valuemerchantable timber. Rotation ages for the modified forests can, therefore, be loweredbased on the window of economically feasible ages. By carefully planning these harvestsover the faildown period, the falldown effect can be averted or mitigated.Third, the effect of falldown can be mitigated to some extent by timingcommercial thinnings during the fall down period in the SU system. Though this couldbe done in the IU system too, the accompanying negative environmental impacts may notjustify such practices.Fourth, the SU system will lead to immediate savings in expenditure. This willcome from three sources: i) savings in delivered wood cost; ii) savings in silvicultureexpenditure; and iii) savings in administrative costs.Fifth, with the adoption of the SU system, the extension of the margin of operableareas into roadless areas can be halted. This will release more areas for non-timber usesand substantially reduce resource use conflicts.1508.8 STRATEGY FOR THE FUTUREThis research has analyzed the impacts of current resource emphasis rules inBritish Columbia on timber supply and on the environment. The results and theforegoing discussion indicate that the SU system can generate higher rents with lessenvironmental impact. Therefore, one way of ensuring continuous timber supply atreasonable prices, while maintaining ecosystem integrity, is the adoption of the SUsystem. The bulk of timber production in the future should be from tree farms dedicatedsolely for that purpose. This will encourage the practice of intensive silvicultureincluding genetic improvements and the application of other types of bio-technology.This is very much like intensive farming of agricultural lands.Areas that require special protection within and outside the timber zones, such asriparian areas and environmentally sensitive areas, should be zoned and special resourceemphasis rules should be drawn up to protect them. Other than timber production and afew recreation activities such as snowmobiling, production of most of the other multipleuses of forests do not conflict with each other. In these cases, timber could be harvestedwhen it is seen to be complementary to the production of other goods and services.Having such a mosaic of single use zones and multiple use zones in a management unitmay appear to be a SU system but at a regional level it is really a form of integratedmanagement of multiple use forests. Crown forest tenures through which the privatesector participates in the management of the public forests could be restructured assuggested by Haley and Luckert (1995) to meet the provincial objectives of sustaining the151natural ecosystems and the economy they support. In this way the efficiency of forestmanagement can be improved.1529 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThis study deals with multiple use management in forestry. The main objectivesof the study were: i) to review the literature on the economic theory of multiple use andexamine various approaches taken by foresters to the practice of multiple use forestry; ii)to estimate the impact, in terms of timber supply and rent, of integrated managementpractices designed to maintain a specific quality of wildlife habitat and visual aesthetics;iii) to develop alternative land use systems that incorporate zones ‘specializing in theproduction of timber (timber zones); iv) to compare with respect to timber supply, rentand selected environmental indicators, the integrated use management system with thealternative systems emphasizing timber zones; v) to estimate the impact (with respect totimber supply, rent forgone and selected environmental indicators) of intensive timbermanagement on both systems; and vi) to estimate the impact of enhancing wildlife habitatand visual aesthetics on timber zones in terms of timber supply and rent forgone.The literature review shows that the benefits of multiple use forests can bemeasured in terms of timber rent and a few environmental indicators (or landscapestatistics). When the price of timber is constant, rent is dependent on the level of harvest,the delivered wood cost and the administrative costs of forest management. Since there isan inverse relationship between the flow of non-timber goods and services (amenityservices), the higher the flow of amenity services demanded, the lower the timber rent,and vice versa. Current forest management practices in British Columbia, except forzoning for parks and protected areas, emphasize integrated management where each153hectare of forest land is expected to be managed for multiple use. Under this system ofmanagement the flow of amenity services through time is fixed by enforcing resourceemphasis rules which determine the harvestable volume of timber. When delivered woodcosts, administration costs and the price of timber are constant the harvest volume willdetermine the value of timber rent. The literature review also shows that certainpeculiarities (such as differences in site productivity, diseconomies of jointness inproduction and the pattern of response to management efforts) exhibited by multiple useforests may favor specialization in the production of timber. Economic theory suggeststhat when management is constrained by the production of a fixed flow of amenityservices, multiple use systems that emphasize special timber productibn zones generate ahigher timber rent than systems that emphasize integrated production of all uses at thesame time from each hectare of land. These theoretical findings were empirically testedby simulation modeling with ATLAS and SIMFOR.For the empirical study, the Akolkolex drainage, which is a sub-unit of theReveistoke Timber Supply area in the Reveistoke Forest District of British Columbia wasselected. Reveistoke has severe resource use conflicts, and the management strategiesdeveloped by the District to deal with this problem are fairly well advanced whencompared to other districts in British Columbia. This District has designed specialharvesting patterns and rules to maintain a continuous flow of visual quality and wildlifehabitat values throughout the planning horizon.This study shows that the opportunity cost of current management practices on a120 year planning horizon is about 60% of the potential timber supply and about 46154million dollars (at a 3% discount rate) in foregone rent, which is equivalent to a loss of123 dollars per hectare per year in present terms. The opportunity costs of wildlife andvisual quality management per year for the whole timber supply area amount to 8.8million dollars and 6.2 million dollars, respectively. In other words, these are the tradeoffs involved in managing for non-timber values. A major cause of the reduction intimber supply and rent in these practices is the adjacency requirement. Two questionsshould be raised in this context: i) Can these opportunity costs be justified in terms ofresulting benefits? and ii) are there other ways of managing land to produce the same oran enhanced mix at lower cost?.Two types of multiple use systems, referred to as the Integrated Use (IU) systemand the Single Use (SU) system were devised. The IU system treats the whole operablearea of Reveistoke 1 as an integral production unit where timber is produced as one of themultiple uses, with all spatial and temporal constraints in place. In the SU system, aportion of the operable area (46% of Reveistoke 1) is allocated as a single use area,specifically for timber production, while the balance is allocated for non-timber multipleuses.The study indicates that with unconstrained timber production, it should bepossible to produce the same evenflow volume currently possible through integratedmanagement within Reveistoke 1 from 46% of the net productive area of the unit. Thiswill effectively release 54% of the forest lands solely for the production of values otherthan timber.155Two planning horizons: i) 120 years, and ii) 240 years were investigated. Both ofthese systems at basic levels of management (that is, relying only on natural regenerationfor restocking) produce almost equivalent evenflow volumes of timber at each of theplanning horizons. In both cases, it was found that going from a 120 year to a 240 yearplanning horizon reduced the sustained timber supply (evenflow volume). For example,in the IU system there was a reduction in evenflow volume from 14,000 m3/year to11,800m3/year.The impact of intensive timber management at three levels (basic, medium andhigh) on timber supply, rent and a few selected environmental indicators (density ofroads, distribution of seral stages in the planning horizon, distribution of ecosystemswithin seral stages, percent edge habitat, percent of regeneration area affected by edge,and distribution of patch sizes in very old-growth) were investigated for both land usesystems on a 240 year planning horizon. Intensive timber management increases both thequantity and quality of timber harvested. At medium and high management intensities,evenflow volume from the SU system is increased by approximately 38%. For the IUsystem, the evenflow value rises by approximately 32% under medium intensitymanagement and by 25% at high intensity. The drop at high intensity is the result ofadditional adjacency requirements caused by thinnings.Rent (@ 2% discount rate) from the SU system under medium and high intensitymanagement is approximately 216% relative to the basic IU system. This reflects theincreased quality of timber harvested. This relative value is as high as 444% when 0%discount rate is used. The beneficial effects of intensive management are not as obvious156at high discount rates, because the benefits occur during the second half of the planninghorizon and are heavily discounted. While the choice of discount rate drastically affectsthe selection of management intensity, it does not alter the superior performance of SUover IU systems (Figures 30 and 31). Sensitivity analysis of timber rent to 12% changesin price show that the SU system is less sensitive than the IU system, and their relativeperformance does not change.The timber zone selected in this study consists of nearly 11.5% poor sites by area.If the timber zones were selected from good and medium sites only, then the evenflowvolumes and the rent would be proportionately higher.By practicing intensive timber management it is also possible to further reduce theminimum area of the timber zone required to produce an evenflow of volume of timberequivalent to what the IU system would provide at basic intensity. With medium andhigh intensities (on a 240 year planning horizon), the timber zone could be reduced from46% to 35% of the net Revelstoke 1 land base. The minimum area of the unconstrainedtimber zone required to produce rents equivalent to those produced by the IU system atbasic intensity could range from 10% (@ 0% discount rate) to 50% (@4% discount rate)of the net area of Revelstoke 1. At high discount rates, long term benefits are heavilydiscounted and, therefore, more area is required.Currently the road system cost is only about 5% of the delivered wood cost. Butthis is likely to increase severalfold if road deactivation and reactivation costs areincluded. These costs are likely to be less with the SU system, as a permanent roadnetwork will be maintained for intensive timber management operations. Further, higher157quality roads will be built within the timber zone thus reducing detrimentalenvironmental effects. Hauling costs may be lower under the SU system because timberhas to be hauled for shorter distances. More research is required in this area.Environmental indicators suggest that, in addition to higher volumes and rentproduced by the SU system compared to the IU system at varying intensities ofmanagement, the SU system offers higher environmental quality. Road density in the SUsystem is only 65% of that of the TU system. Roads are considered to be one of the keyfactors contributing to the destruction of pristine environments by increasing slopefailure, erosion, siltation, and accessibility for hunters. If the IU system is practiced, thenall the forests other than the Protected Areas will be dotted with deactivated andreactivated roads and ecosystem functions will be compromised everywhere. The SUsystem appears to be one of the best ways of protecting much of the environment, thusguaranteeing high option and bequest values.Modeling of landscape pattern response to harvesting practices under the IU andthe SU system shows distinct differences in some of the key landscape indices. Thestudy shows that under both the SU and the IU systems, the extent of very old-growthstands (>240 years) as a percent of the landscape during the 240 year planning horizonincreases from 28% at the start of the period to 70% at the end. In both cases, nearly 50%to 63% of the original old-growth (>120 years) found at the start of the planning periodremains unharvested at the planning horizon. Even within the timber zone, nearly 35% oforiginal old-growth stands remain unharvested. This is due to the evenflow volumerestrictions on harvesting. It would be wiser to manage the SU system on an area basis158rather than by volume. This would reduce many uncertainties surrounding evenflowmanagement, especially short term timber supply shortages.The results show that the degree of fragmentation of the interior habitatsconstituted by very old-growth stands (>240 years) and the percent of edge habitats instands greater than 120 years are very much higher in the IU system than in the SUsystem. The degree of fragmentation and the percent of edge habitats increases with theintensity of management and are relatively high for the IU system. Presently, a majorconcern of conservation biologists is the accelerating disappearance of interior naturalhabitats, particularly those associated with natural old-growth areas. The relatively highdegree of fragmentation of interior habitats and the high percent of edge habitats in the IUsystem is an indication of the loss of valuable interior habitat. Thus, by practicing thecurrent form of integrated management we may be further endangering critical wildlifehabitats.The regeneration of pioneer, light-demanding species may be seriously affectedby microclimatic conditions created by old-growth stands surrounding the regenerationareas. For the IU system at various intensities of management, the affected area rangesfrom 42% to 45% of the regeneration area. While for the SU system it is as low as 10%to 14%. Implications to stand growth and yield are unknown and were not considered inthis study.Maintaining visual quality has high opportunity costs in terms of timber rentforegone yet has no direct bearing on ecosystem function. The decision to maintain thisquality at specific levels should take into account the social costs involved. In the SU159system, it is possible to avoid visually sensitive areas when there is a possibility oflocating timber zones elsewhere. Thus, it may be possible to generate high timber rentswhile adequately protecting visual quality. This may not be possible with the IU systemas there is a requirement that every hectare in the system be managed for multiple use.Enhancement of non-timber values within the timber zone reduces the evenflowvolume of timber. As for rent, except for visual quality with partial retention, equivalentor more rent could be generated at medium and high management intensity levels evenwith the enhancement of selected non-timber values.My research findings have several short term implications. The adoption of theSU system would release many highly productive areas with high value timber hithertolocked up in adjacency and cover constraints for short term harvests. The delivered woodcosts and road costs from these released areas will also be very much lower than that ofcurrent areas due to shorter hauling distances, easy accessibility, and the advantage ofusing existing roads. Intensive silviculture such as spacing and precommercial thinning,though postponing the age of culmination of the MAT, may make it economically feasibleto harvest the available high value timber at an earlier age (shorter rotation). Though thesame thing is feasible with the TU system, such strategies are accompanied by variousenvironmental problems. Adoption of such intensive management in the SU systemwould be likely to mitigate the faildown effect as these harvests can be timed to theperiods of falldown. There will be substantial savings from avoiding intensive silviculturesuch as planting and spacing in areas other than designated zones. More research isrequired to fully evaluate this aspect.160This research helps to estimate the trade-offs involved in producing non-timbervalues in alternative land use systems. Policies which attempt to practice intensivetimber management within an IU system are likely to irreversibly modify all forestsoutside protected areas and parks throughout the province. The SU system, on the otherhand, offers protection to forested areas outside the protected area system and providesfor more future choices. Areas that require special protection within and outside thetimber zones, such as riparian areas and environmentally sensitive areas, should also bezoned and special resource emphasis rules should be drawn up to protect them. Timberproduction, in specialized zones for other uses and in multiple use zones, could bepracticed to a level that is found to be complementary. Having such a mosaic of singleuse zones and multiple use zones in a management unit may appear as a SU system at thescale of a management unit, but at a regional scale they are really a form of integratedmanagement with a higher degree of efficiency.Burton (1995) suggests a land use management system that incorporate elementsof both the SU system and the JU system. He suggests an allocation ratio of 1: 2: 1 forprotected areas, integrated use and timber zones. This type of allocation appears to be agood solution to the highly polarized land use conflicts of the present and provideschoices for the future generations.Timber zones need not be selected as a single contiguous unit. Several timberzones could constitute a single sustained yield unit. Based on land prductivity andeconomic feasibility, several areas can be defined as timber zones. It would be ideal iftimber zones were selected in every biogeoclimatic sub zone, thus utilizing the161comparative advantage afforded by natural productivity of these sites. Speciescomposition of modified forests would vary with each timber zone based on itsbiogeoclimatic subzone. This will also give a mixture of timber products for a sustainedyield unit. Identification of timber zones should be based on ecology as well aseconomics. First, there should be selection of productive sites in different biogeoclimaticsubzones for different species that will constitute the modified forest. As far as possible,timber zones should only be on good and medium sites. Care must be taken to ensure thatroad density and fragmentation of the forest is not further increased. This should befollowed by identification of economically feasible sizes of timber zones. Rouck andNelson (1994) have shown that the size of the Reveistoke Timber Supply area (TSA)could be partitioned into four sustained yield units without significant adverse impacts onvolume flow. This type of area-based research should be extended to identifS’economically feasible timber zones that will constitute a sustained yield unit.All timber production zones need not be barren with respect to wildlife and visualquality. Depending on their location and importance to wildlife habitats and visualquality, these resource emphases could be enhanced to varying degrees. This will be animportant consideration if the timber zone is selected close to a park or a critical wildlifehabitat. The trade-offs involved in each case have been established in this study. Forinstance, it will be possible to accommodate or enhance certain categories of wildlife intimber zones without having the adjacency constraint. A blanket requirement to have the162adjacency constraint in all timber producing areas, as is currently practiced, has a veryhigh opportunity cost and there is little justification to do so. Further research will haveto be directed towards this topic.An important economic benefit of establishing timber zones may be a reduction inmanagement and transaction costs. Integrated management requires major investments inknowledge and presents complex management problems which increase administrationcosts substantially. Furthermore, in the case of crown lands which are managed by theprivate sector, monitoring costs can be very high under integrated management. Zoningfor timber production can substantially reduce the expenditures, thus allowing more funds(essentially from savings) to be diverted to the management of non-timber producingzones.In British Columbia, all forest tenures provide holders with exclusive right toharvest timber but no opportunities to benefit from the production of other forest products(Haley and Luckert 1990). Externalities arising from multiple use of forest land are dealtby means of command and control type of regulations (Haley and Luckert 1995). Thisgives the tenure holder incentives to manage the forest for other values to the requiredminimum standards at least cost, thus jeopardizing the optimal allocation of resources.The adoption of the SU system with equitable distribution of timber zones among tenureholders may reduce the problems caused by regulations attenuating the tenure rights.Timber zones will be useful in creating perpetual fully transferable and secure tenures.Complementary tenure arrangements (Haley and Luckert 1995) based on the mix of163values the land in question is expected to produce can be developed for the other zones inthe SU system. This is likely to help in the optimum allocation of resources in a marketbased economy.The results of this study also have implications for the Forest Renewal Plan. It isinefficient to invest forest renewal funds on areas destined for integrated managementbecause of the high opportunity cost involved in accommodating non-timber resources.These funds could be better utilized in single use timber zones. The same is true forrestocking the not satisfactorily restocked lands (NSR) in the province. Only NSR landsthat come within the timber zone should be restocked. Restocking of other NSR landsshould be based on priorities for wildlife and visual quality enhancement. In these casesthe type of species selected for reforestation and the method of reforestation may be quitedifferent from those used for timber production. That is, reforestation should be basedmore on the principles of restoration ecology than on those of silvicultbre.This study is a step towards achieving the dual provincial goals of sustainingecosystems and the natural resource based economy. It establishes a decision supportframework needed to analyze some aspects of this complex problem. This framework istransportable to other areas. While certain resource issues (e.g., water quality) may bemore significant elsewhere, the decision support framework developed here can bereadily adapted to meet specific issues.Most importantly, this study demonstrates the strong potential of single usemanagement through land use zoning as a strategy to balance economic and164environmental values from our forests. It offers an innovative method to achievesustainability of timber and non-timber resources.165BIBLIOGRAPHYAlverson, W.S., W. Kuhlmann and D.M. Wailer. 1994. Wild Forests. ConservationBiology and Public Policy. Island Press. Washington, D.C.Bowes, M.D and J.V. Krutilla. 1985. Multiple use management of public forest lands. In:A.V. Kneese and J.L Sweeney (Editors), Handbook of Natural Resource and EnergyEconomics, 11:531-543. Elsvier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.Bowes, M.D. and J.V. Krutilla. 1989. Multiple-Use Management: The Economics ofPublic Forestlands. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C. 357 p.Bradshaw, F.J. 1992. Quantifying edge effect and patch size for multiple-use silviculture -a discussion paper. Forest Ecology and Management 48: 249- 264.Braumandl, T.F. and M.P. Curran. 1992. A Field Guide for Site IdentfIcation andInterpretationfor the Nelson Forest Region. B.C. Ministry of Forests. Victoria.Brundtland, G.M. 1987. Our Common Future. The World Commission on Environmentand Development. Oxford University Press. 4.00 p.Burton, P.J. 1995. The mendelian compromise: A vision for equitable land useallocation. Land Use Policy 12(1):63-68.Caborn, J.M. 1957. Shelterbelt and Microclimate. Forestry Commission Bulletin 29.Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland. 135 p.Cale, W.G., G.M. Henebry, and J.A. Yeakley. 1989. Inferring process from pattern innatural communities. BioScience 39: 600-605.Calish, S., R.D. Fight, and D.E. Teeguarden. 1978. How do non-timber values affectDouglas-Fir rotations? Journal ofForestry 76: 217-221.Chen, J., J.F.Franklin and T.A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation edge response to edgeenvironments in old-growth Douglas fir forests. Ecological Applications 2: 387-396.Clements, S.E., Dallain, P.L. and M.S. Janmick. 1990. An operational, spatiallyconstrained harvest scheduling model. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 20: 143 8-1447.Cline, W.R. 1992. The Economics of Global Warming. Institute for internationaleconomics. Washington, D.C. 399 p.166Cropper, M.L. and P.R. Portney. 1991. Discounting and the evaluation of life savingprograms. Journal ofRisk and Uncertainty 3: 369- 379.Dahlin, B. and 0. Salinas. 1993. Harvest scheduling under adjacency constraints- a casestudy from the Swedish sub-alpine region. Scandinavian Journal ofForest Research 8:281-290.Dana, S.T. 1943. Multiple use, biology and economics (Editorial). Journal ofForestry41:625-626.Dasmann, R.F. 1964. Wildflfe Biology. J.Wiley & Sons. New York. 231 p.Daust, D.K. 1994. Biodiversity and Land Management: From Concept to Practice.MSc Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 99 p.Daust, D., C. Galindo-Leal and F. Bunnell. 1993. Predicting Impacts ofForest Operationson Biological Diversity. Unpublished report. Centre for Applied Conservation Biology,Faculty of Forestry, UBC. 29 p.Davis, L. S. and K. N. Johnson. 1987. Forest Management. McGraw- Hill BookCompany, New York. 790 p.Faustman, M. 1849. On the determination of the value which forest land and immaturestands possess for forestry. In: M. Gane ed., Martin Faustman and the Evolution ofDiscounted Cash Flow. Institute paper No. 42, Commonwealth Forestry Institute(University of Oxford). 1968.Feldstein, M. S. 1964. The social time preference rate in cost-benefit analysis. EconomicJournal 74: 360-379.Forestry Canada. 1993. Selected Forestry Statistics Canada. 1992. Policy andEconomics Directorate. Information E-X-46. Ottawa, Ontario.Forman, R.T.T and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons. NewYork. 6l9p.Giipin, M.E., and J.M. Diamond. 1980. Subdivision of nature reserves and themaintenance of species diversity. Nature 285: 567-568.Government of B.C. 1993. A Protected Areas Strategy for British Columbia. Theprotected areas component of B.C.’s land use strategy. Victoria, B.C. .38 p.Gregory, G.R. 1955. An Economic Approach to multiple uses. Forest Science 1:5-18.167Gregory, G.R. 1972. Forest Resource Economics. New York: Ronald Press Company.548 p.Gregory, G.R. 1987. Resource Economics for Foresters. John Wiley & Sons, New York.477p.Guttierrez,R.J., Carey, A.B. eds. 1985. Ecology and Management of the Spotted Owl inthe Pacific NorthWest. General Technical Report. PNW_185. USDA Forest Service.Pacific NW Forest Range Exp. Station. Portland, Oregon.Hagenstein, P.R. and B. Dawdle. 1962. A theoretical method for examining forest land usealternatives. Journal ofForestry 60: 87-91.Haley, D and M.K Luckert. 1995. Tenures as Economic Instruments for AchievingObjectives of Public Forest Policy in British Columbia. Prepared for an executiveworkshop on economic instruments for the protection of forest reources. Faculty ofLaw, University of Victoria. June 22. 36 p.Hampson, S.F. 1972. Highland forestry: an evaluation. Journal ofAgricultural Economics23: 49-57.Hansen, A.J., S.L. Garman, P. Lee, and E. Horvath. 1993. Do edge effects influence treegrowth rates in Douglas-fir plantations? Northwest Science 67 (2): 112-116.Hartman, R. 1976. The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. EconomicInquiry 14:52-58.Hartman, R.W. 1990. One thousand points of light seeking a number: A case study ofCBO’s search for a discount rate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement 18: S3-S7.Heaps, T. and B. Pratt. 1989. The Social Discount rate for Silvicultural Investments.FRDA Report 071. Forestry Canada, Victoria.Higgs, A.J., and M.B. Usher. 1980. Should nature reserves be large or small? Nature 285:568.Jacobs, M. 1993. The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and thePolitics ofthe Future. UBC Press, Vancouver. 312 p.Johnson, K.N. and S. Crim. 1981. Integrating Long Term and Short Term Scheduling inForest Planning. Unpublished paper. 20 p168Johnson, K.N. and T.W. Stewart. 1987. FORPLAN Version 2: MathematicalProgrammer’s Guide. Land Management Planning Systems Section Report, USDA.Forest Service, Washington, D.C.Kimmins, J.P. 1994. Sustainable development in Canadian forestry in the face of changingparadigms. Pages 3 -18. In: Proceedings of conference on “Timber Supply in Canada:Challenges and Choices”. Natural Resources Canada. Ottawa.Kula, E. 1992. Economics ofNatural Resources and the Environment. Chapman & Hall,London. 284.p.Laing & McCulloch. 1993. Background Report for the Development of JuvenileSpacing Guidelines in British Columbia. Report prepared for the B.C. Ministry ofForests, Silviculture Branch, Victoria, B.C.Leuschner, W. A. 1990. Forest Regulation, Harvest Scheduling, and Planning Techniques.John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. 281 p.Liu, G. 1994. Evolution Programs, Simulated Annealing and Hill Climbing Applied toHarvest Scheduling Problems. Unpublished M.F. Thesis, University of BritishColumbia. 59 p.Lockwood, C. and T. Moore. 1993. Harvest Scheduling with Spatial Constraints: ASimulated Annealing Approach. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 23: 468-478.Lovejoy, T.E., R.O. Bierregaard, Jr., A.B. Rylands, J.R. Malcolm, C.E. Quintela, L.H.Harper, K.S. Brown, Jr., A.H. Powell, G.V.N. Powell, H.O.R. Schubart, and M.B. Hays.1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments, pp 257 - 285. In:M.E. Soule, editor. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity.Sinauer, Sunderland, Masschussetts, USA.Lowenstein, G. 1987. Anticipation and valuation of delayed consumption. The EconomicJournal 97: 666 -84.Luckert, M.K. 1988. The Effect of Some British Columbia Forest Tenures on theDistribution of Economic Rents, the Allocation of Resources, qnd Investments inSilviculture. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. University of British Columbia. 238 p.Luckert, M.K. and D. Haley. 1993. Candian forest tenures and the silvicultural investmentbehaviour of rational firms. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 23: 1060- 1064.Macdonald, L.A.W., L.L. Loope, M.B. Usher, and O.Hamann. 1989. Wildlifeconservation and the invasion of nature reserves by introduced species: a globalperspective. Pages 215- 255. In: J.A.Drake, H.A. Mooney, F.di Castri, et al. editors.Biological invasions. A globalperspective. John Wiley & Sons. New York.169Marglin, S. 1963. The opportunity cost of public investment. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 77: 274-289.Meidinger, D. and J.Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. B.C. Ministry ofForests. Victoria, B.C. 330 p.Ministry of Forests. 1988. Unpublished report quoted in paper by Thompson, W.A.,P.H. Pearse, G.C. Van Kooten and I. Vertinsky. 1992. Rehabilitating the backlog ofunstocked forest lands in British Columbia: A preliminary simulation analysis ofalternative strategies, pp 99-130. In: P.N. Nemetz, editor. Emerging Issues in ForestPolicy. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.Ministry of Forests. 1993a. Revelstoke TSA timber supply analysis. IntegratedResources Branch, Ministry of Forests, B.C. 59 p.Ministry of Forests. 1993b. VDYP interactive application. User Guide. Version 4.5.Inventory Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 31 p.Ministry of Forests. 1994. Forest, Range & Recreation Resource Analysis. Ministry ofForests, Victoria. 308 p.Mishan, E.J. 1976. Cost-Benefit analysis. New and Expanded Edition. PraegerPublishers. New York, U.S.A. 454 p.Mitchell, K.J. 1975. Dynamics and Simulated Yield of Douglas-fir. Forest ScienceMonograph 17.Mitchell, K.J., R.M. Kellogg, and K.R. Poisson. 1989. Siiviculturai treatments and endproduct value. In: R.M. Kellogg. editor. Second Growth Douglasfir: Its Managementand Conversion for Value. A Report of the Douglas fir Task Force, Forintek CanadaCorp., B.C.Munasinghe, M. 1993. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. WorldBank Environmental Paper Number 3, The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 112 p.Murray, A.T. and R.L. Church. 1993. Heuristic solution approaches to operational forestplanning problems. OR Spectrum. 20 p.Nelson, J.D. 1994. Economics of Partial Cutting Relative to Clear Cutting.Unpublished paper. Forest Operations, University of British Columbia. 5 p.Nelson, J.D. and Brodie, J.D. 1990. Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixedinteger program for solving area based forest plans. Canadian Journal of ForestResearch 20: 93 4-942170Nelson, J.D. and S.T. Finn. 1991. The influence of cut-block size and adjacency rules onharvest levels and road networks. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 21(5): 595-600.Nelson, J.D., and A.F. Howard. 1991. A three-stage heuristic procedure for allocatingspatially and temporally feasible cutting rights on public lands. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 21:762-768.Nelson, J., and Liu,G. 1994. Simulated annealing and forest planning problems. In:Proceedings of International Seminar on Forest Operations under Mountainousconditions. Pages 28-36. July 24-27. Harbin, P.R. of China.Nelson, J.D., Brodie, J.D and J. Sessions. 1991. Integrating short term logging plans withlong term harvest schedules. Forest Science 37: 101-102Nelson, J.D., M. Hafer and T. Shannon. 1993. ATLAS: A Tactical Landscape AnalysisSystem V 1.3. User Manual. Forest Operations Group, DepartmentfForest ResourcesManagement, University of British Columbia, BC. 35 p.Nelson, J.D., K. Rouck, and T. Shannon. 1994. Area Based Timber Supply Analysis oftheRevelstoke Timber Supply Area. Report to the Ministry of Forests, Revelstoke ForestDistrict. Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia,Vancouver.Newman, D.H. 1988. The Optimal Rotation: A Discussion and Annotated Bibliography.USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SE-48. Ashville, NC. 4.’7p.Noss, R.F. 1991. Effects of edge and internal patchiness on avian habitat use in an old-growth Florida hammock. NaturalAreas Journal 11(1): 34-47.O’Hara, A.J., Faaland, B.H., and Bare,B.B. 1989. Spatially constrained timber harvestscheduling. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 19: 715-724.O’Keef, T. 1990. Holistic (New) Forestry: Significant difference or just another gimmick?Journal ofForestry April:23- 24.Owen, S. 1994. West Kootenay- Boundary Land Use Plan. Commission on Resourcesand Environment. Victoria, B.C. 162 p, Append.Paine, R.T., and S.A. Levin. 1981. Intertidal landscapes: disturbance and the dynamicsof pattern. Ecological Monographs 51: 145-178.Panetta, D., and A.J.M. Hopkins. 1991. Weeds in corridors :invasion and management.Pages 341-35 1. In: D.A. Saunders, and R.J. Hobbs. editors. Nature Conservation: TheRole ofCorridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons. chipping Norton, Australia.171Pearse, P.H. 1969. Towards a theory of multiple use: a ease of recreation versusagriculture. Natural Resources Journal 12: 56-75.Pearse, P.H. 1988. Property rights and the development of natural resource policies inCanada. Canadian Journal ofPublic Policy. March: 307 - 320.Pearse, P.H. 1990. An Introduction to Forestry Economics. Vancouver: UBC Press.226 p.Pearson, G.A. 1944. Multiple use in forestry. Journal ofForestiy 42: 243-249.Peel, S. 1991. The Future ofOur Forests. Forest Resources Commission, Victoria, B.C.97p.Pezzey, J. 1992. Sustainable Development Concepts: An Economic Analysis. World BankEnvironment Paper No.2. World Bank. Washington, D.C. 71 p.Poisson, K.N. (Stand Modeling analyst, Ministry of Forests, Victoria) 1994. Personalcommunication.Price, C. 1993. Time, Discounting and Value. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford, U.K. 393 p.Price, L. and J. Blake. 1993. GIS based multiresource analysis in Reveistoke TimberSupply Area. Pages 227-239. In: GIS 93 Symposium. Vancouver, B.C.Rouck, K.B. and J.D. Nelson. 1994. Timber Supply and Economic Impacts associated withsustained yield unit size. Forestry Chronicle (in press)Sahajananthan. 5. 1994. Single and Multiple Use of Forest Lands in British Columbia:The Case ofthe Reveistoke Forest District. Preliminary Report submitted to the Ministryof Forests, Revelstoke Forest District. B.C. 25 p.Saunders, D.A., G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge, and A.J.M. Hopkins. 1987. The role ofremnants of native vegetation in nature conservation: future directions. Pages 387- 392.In: D.A. Saunders, D.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge, and A.J.M. Hopkins. Editors. NatureConservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. Surrey Beatty and Sons.Chipping Norton, Australia.Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences ofecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.Sedjo, R. A. and M. D. Bowes. 1990. Managing the Forest for Timber and EcologicalOutputs on the Olympic Peninsula. Discussion paper ENR92-02. Energy and NaturalResources Division, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.172Sharpe, D.M., Guntenspergen,G.R., Dunn,C.P., Lettner, L.A., Steams, F. 1987.Vegetation dynamics in a southern Wisconsin agricultural landscape. In: Turner, M.G.Editor. 1987. Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. New York: Springer-Verlag.Simberloff, D. 1986. Design of nature reserves. Pages 315- 37. In: M.B.Usher. Editor.Wildlfe Conservation Evaluation. Chapman and Hall. London, England.Simberloff, D. and L.G. Abele. 1984. Conservation and obfuscations: subdivision ofreserves. Oikos 42: 399-401.Smith, D.M. 1986. The Practice of Silviculture. Eighth Edition. John Wiley & SonsNew York. S2’7p.Stone, M. 1993. An Economic Evaluation of Commercial Thinning Douglas-fir in theCoastal Region of British Columbia. FRDA II Working Paper WP-6-002. MOF,British Columbia. 146 p.Swallow, S.K., P.J.Parks and D.N. Wear. 1990. Policy relevant non convexities in theproduction of multiple use benefits. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement 19: 264-80.Swallow, S.K., and D.N. Wear. 1993. Spatial interactions in multiple use forestry andsubstitution and wealth for the single stand. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics andManagement 25: 103-120.Tanke, W.C. 1985. PASS- a tool for analyzing alternative harvest schedules. pp. 304-3 14.In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters symposium on “System analysis inforest resources”. University of Georgia, Athens.Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Edges. Pages 48-49. In: J.W. Thomas.Editor. Wildlfe Habitats in Managed Forest: The Blue Mountains of Oregon andWashington. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook Number 553.Thompson, E.F., B. Hallerman, T.J. Lyon, and R.L. Miller. 1973. Integrating timber andwildlife management planning. Forest Chronicle 49: 247- 250.Thompson, W.A., P.H. Pearse, G.C. van Kooten and I. Vertinsky. 1992. Rehabilitatingthe backlog of unstocked forest lands in British Columbia: A preliminary simulationanalysis of alternative strategies. Pages 99-130. In: P.N. Nemetz. Editor. EmergingIssues in Forest Policy. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on processes. AnnualReviews ofEcology and Systematics 20: 17 1-197.173Vincent, J.R. and C.S. Binkley. 1993. Efficient multiple use forestry may require land-usespecialization. Land Economics 69(4): 370-76.Wallin, D.O., Swanson, F.J., and Marks, B. 1994. Landscape pattern response tochanges in pattern generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. EcologicalApplications 4(3): 569-580.Walter, G.R. 1977. Economics of multiple use. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 5:345-56.Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratorysongbirds. Ecology 35: 1-22.Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McClellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in thetemperate zone. Pages 233- 256. In: M.E. Soule. Editor. Conservation Biology: TheScience of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massechusetts,USA.Williams.D. 1993. Timber supply in British Columbia: The historical context.Proceedings of a seminar on “Determining Timber Supply and Allowable Cuts in BC”.Association of B.C. Professional Foresters. Vancouver, B.C. 102 p.Worthington, N.P. and G.R. Staebler. 1961. Commercial thinning of Douglas fir in thePacific NorthWest. USDA Forest Service Technical Bulletin No. 1230.Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology13: 133-143.Zhang, D. 1994. Implications of Tenures for Forest Land Value and Management inBritish Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. University of British Columbia,Vancouver. 131 p.(Appendix) 174APPENDIXList oftables used in AppendixTable 1 Description ofcodes used in the tables andfigures in appendices 176Table 2 Conversion ofoldgrowth and second growth to modIedforest 178Table 3 Silvicultural regimes examinedfor Douglas-fir spruce and redcedar 179Table 4 Prices used in stand level economic analysis 182Table 5 Realprice increase factors used in stand andforest level economic analysis 182Table 6 Prices used inforest level economic analysis 182(Appendix) 175List offigures used in AppendixFigure 1 Map ofBritish Columbia showing the location of the study area; Reveistoke 1 183Figure 2 Composition and distribution ofspecies groups in Revelstoke 1 184Figure 3 Douglasfir (51=19): actual and affordable costsfor commercial thinningwith and withoutfertilization 185Figure 4 Douglasfir (SI=19):feasibility as indicated by discounted net revenue forprecommercial thinning with and withoutfertilization andpruning 185Figure 5 Douglasfir (SI =19): actual and affordable costs for commercial thinningwith and withoutfertilization andpruning 186Figure 6 Douglasfir (SI =19):feasibility ofcommercial thinning as indicated by discountednet revenue with and withoutfertilization andpruning with realprice increases 186Figure 7 Douglasfir (SI =12): actual and affordable costs for pre-commercial thinningwith and without pruning 187Figure 8 Douglasfir (SI =12): feasibility, as indicated by discounted net revenue, ofprecommercial thinning with and withoutfertilization andpruning 187Figure 9 Red cedar (SI =13): actual and affordable costsforpre-commercial thinningwith and without pruning 188Figure 10 Red cedar (SI =13) feasibility, as indicated by discounted net revenue, ofprecommercial thinning with and withoutpruning 188Figure 11 Spruce (SI =18): actual and affordable costsfor pre-commercial thinning andcommercial thinning with and withoutpruning 189Figure 12 Spruce (SI =18):feasibility, as indicated by discounted net revenue,ofprecommercial thinning and commercial thinning with and withoutpruning 189Figure 13 Spruce (SI =10): actual and affordablefor pre-commercial thinningwith and without pruning 190Figure 14 Spruce (SI 10): feasibility, as indicated by discounted net revenue, of precommercial thinning with and withoutpruning 190Figure 15 Revelstoke 1 showing the distribution ofresource emphasis areas under theIU system 191Figure 16 Revelstoke 1 showing the distribution oftimber zone, non-timber zone and reservesunder the SUsystem 192(Appendix) 176Table 1 Description of additional codes used in the Tables and Figures in AppendixCode i DescriptionC western redcedarc13 western redcedar (SI=13)c21 1 western redcedar (SI=21)CT commercial thinningCT(112) commercial thinning with removal of1/2 volume ofstandCT(1/3) commercial thinning with removal of1/3 volume ofstandCw western redcedarDfir Douglas-firF Douglas-firFl first application offertilizerfl2 Douglas-fir (SI=12)119 Douglas-fir (SI=19)F2 second application offertilizerg good and medium sitesg&m good and medium sitesH hemlocknotreat no silvicultural treatmentp poor sitesP1 pruning withfirst lfi’ (3m height)P2 pruning with second flfl (5m height)PC12 precommercially thinned to 120 sphPC5 precommercially thinned to 500 sphPC8 precommercially thinned to 800 sphPCT precommercial thinning(Appendix) 177Table 2 (Continued). See titleCode DescriptionPH pure hemlockRevi Revelstoke 1 or Akokolex drainageS spruceslO Engelmann spruce (SI=1 0)s18 Engelmann spruce (Sfr=18)SI @50 site index at breast height age of5O yearssph stems per hectarespp species typeSw spruce(Appendix) 178Table 2 Conversion of old-growth and second-growth to modified forest.Stand Id. Existing forest type Converted Forest Stand Type Site Index1 fir/larch/pine (g&m) Douglas-fir_g&m (119) 192 fir/larch/pine (p) Douglas-fir_ p (fl2) 123 cedar (g&m) cedar_g&m (c21) 214 cedarQ,) cedar_p (c13) 135 Pure hemlock Engelmann spruce_g&m (s18) 186 hemlock (g&m) Engelmann spruce_g&m (S 18) 187 hemlock (p) Douglas-fir_p (112) 128 spruce (g&m) Engelmann spruce_g&m (s18) 189 spruce (p) Engelmann spruce_p (slO) 1010 fir/larch/pine (g&m)-r Douglas-fir_g&m (119) 1911 fir/larch/pine (p)- r Douglas-fir_p (112) 1212 cedar (g & m)-r western redcedar_g&m (c21) 2113 cedar (p)-r western redcedar_p (C13) 1314 Pure hemlock-r Engelmann spruce_g&m (s18) 1815 hemlock (g&m)-r Engelmann spruce_g&m (S 18) 1816 hemlock (p)-r Douglas-fir_p (112) 1217 spruce (g&m)-r Engelmann spruce_g&m (S18) 1818 spruce (p)-r Engelmann spruce_p (slO) 10(Appendix) 179Table 3. Silvicultural regimes examined for Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruceand redcedar.Species SI sph PCT@4m P6m P2@lOm F1,F2 CTDfir 19 1600 none none none none noneDfir 19 1600 none none none none 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none none none none 1/2Dfir 19 1600 none 800 none none 1/3Dflr 19 1600 none 800 none none 1/2Dfir 19 1600 none 800 800 none 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none 800 800 none 1/2Dfir 19 1600 1200 none none none noneDfir 19 1600 1200 800 none none noneDfir 19 1600 1200 800 800 none noneDfir 19 1600 1200 500 none none noneDfir 19 1600 1200 500 500 none noneDfir 19 1600 800 none none none noneDfir 19 1600 800 800 none none noneDfir 19 1600 800 800 800 none noneDfir 19 1600 500 none none none noneDfir 19 1600 500 500 none none noneDfir 19 1600 500 500 500 none noneDfir 19 1600 none none none 4m noneDfir 19 1600 none none none 4m 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none none none 4m 1/2Dfir 19 1600 none 800 none 4m 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none 800 none 4m 1/2Dfir 19 1600 none 800 800 4m 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none 800 800 4m 1/2Dfir 19 1600 1200 none none 4m noneDfir 19 1600 1200 800 none 4m noneDfir 19 1600 1200 800 800 4m noneDfir 19 1600 1200 500 none 4m noneDflr 19 1600 1200 500 500 4m noneDfir 19 1600 800 none none 4m noneDfir 19 1600 800 800 none 4m noneDfir 19 1600 800 800 800 4m noneDfir 19 1600 500 none none 4m noneDfir 19 1600 500 500 none 4m noneDfir 19 1600 500 500 500 4m noneDfir 19 1600 none none none 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 none none none 4m, 6m 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none none none 4m, 6m 1/2Dfir 19 1600 none 800 none 4m, 6m 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none 800 none 4m, 6m 1/2(Appendix) 180Table 3 (continued). See titleSpecies SI sph PCT@4m P@6m P2@lOm F1,F2 CTDfir 19 1600 none 800 800 4m, 6m 1/3Dfir 19 1600 none 800 800 4m, 6m 1/2Dfir 19 1600 1200 none none 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 1200 800 none 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 1200 800 800 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 1200 500 none 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 1200 500 500 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 800 none none 4m, 6rn noneDfir 19 1600 800 800 none 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 800 800 800 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 500 none none 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 500 500 none 4m, 6m noneDfir 19 1600 500 500 500 4m, 6m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 none none none noneDfir 12 1600 1200 800 none none noneDfir 12 1600 1200 800 800 none noneDfir 12 1600 1200 500 none none noneDfir 12 1600 1200 500 500 none noneDfir 12 1600 800 none none none noneDfir 12 1600 800 800 none none noneDfir 12 1600 800 800 800 none noneDfir 12 1600 500 none none none noneDfir 12 1600 500 500 none none noneDfir 12 1600 500 500 500 none noneDfir 12 1600 1200 none none 4m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 800 none 4m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 800 800 4m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 500 none 4m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 500 500 4m noneDfir 12 1600 800 none none 4m noneDfir 12 1600 800 800 none 4m noneDfir 12 1600 800 800 800 4m noneDfir 12 1600 500 none none 4m noneDfir 12 1600 500 500 none 4m noneDfir 12 1600 500 500 500 4m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 none none 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 800 none 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 800 800 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 1200 500 none 4m,6m. noneDfir 12 1600 1200 500 500 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 800 none none 4m,6m none(Appendix) 181Table 3 (continued). See titleSpecies SI sph PCT@4m P@6m P21Om F1,F2 CTDfir 12 1600 800 800 none 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 800 800 800 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 500 none none 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 500 500 none 4m,6m noneDfir 12 1600 500 500 500 4m,6m nonespruce 18 1600 none none none none nonespruce 18 1600 none none none none 1/3spruce 18 1600 none none none none 1/2spruce 18 1600 none yes none none 1/3spruce 18 1600 none yes none none 1/2spruce 18 1600 none yes yes none 1/3spruce 18 1600 none yes yes none 1/2spruce 18 1600 1200 none none none nonespruce 18 1600 1200 yes none none nonespruce 18 1600 1200 yes yes none nonespruce 18 1600 800 none none none nonespruce 18 1600 800 yes none none nonespruce 18 1600 800 yes yes none nonespruce 10 1600 1200 none none none nonespruce 10 1600 1200 yes none none nonespruce 10 1600 1200 yes yes none nonespruce 10 1600 800 none none none nonespruce 10 1600 800 yes none none nonespruce 10 1600 800 yes yes none nonecedar 21 1600 none none none none nonecedar 21 1600 none none none none 1/3cedar 21 1600 none none none none 1/2cedar 21 1600 none yes none none 1/3cedar 21 1600 none yes none none 1/2cedar 21 1600 none yes yes none 1/3cedar 21 1600 none yes yes none 1/2cedar 21 1600 1200 none none none nonecedar 21 1600 1200 yes none none nonecedar 21 1600 1200 yes yes none nonecedar 21 1600 800 none none none nonecedar 21 1600 800 yes none none nonecedar 21 1600 800 yes yes none none(Appendix) 182Table 3 (continued). See titleSpecies SI sph PCT@4m P@6m P2@lOm F1,F2 CTcedar 13 1600 1200 none none none nonecedar 13 1600 1200 yes none none nonecedar 13 1600 1200 yes yes none nonecedar 13 1600 800 none none none nonecedar 13 1600 800 yes none none nonecedar 13 1600 800 yes yes none noneTable 4 Prices used in stand level economic analysisForest stand type <10cm 10-19cm 20-29cm 30-39cm 40-49cm($/m3) ($/m3) ($1m3) ($/m3) ($1m3)Douglasfir 30 80 110 120 130Redcedar 30 80 85 90 95Spruce 30 70 100 105 120Table 5 Real Price Increase factors used in stand and forest level economic analysisForest stand <10cm 10-19cm 20-29cm 30-39cm 40-49cm Blend of alltype (%/p.a) (%/p.a) (%Ip.a) (%/p.a) (%/p.a) classes(Oldgrowth)All stand types 0.00 0.00 0.0022 0.0076 0.01 0.0014Table 6 Prices used in forest level economic analysisForest stand <10cm 10-19cm 20-29cm 30-39cm 40-49cm Blend of alltype ($1m3) ($1m3) ($1m3) ($1m3) ($/m3) classes(Oldgrowth)Allstandtypes 30 77 98 105 115 75(Appendix) 183Figure 2 Map of British Columbia showing the location of the study area,Revelstoke 1.Ian:poximoI!Jr 125kmReveistoke TSARevelstoke 1(Appendix) 18425002000F(g) F(p) C(g) C(p) PH H(g) H(p) S(g) S(p) F_r(g) F_r(p) C_r(g) C_r(p) PHr H_r(g) H_r(p) S_r(g) S_r(p)and groupsFigure 3 Composition and distribution of stand groups in Revelstoke 1. (Refer toTable 1 (Appendix page 175) for descrztion ofcodes).(Appendix) 185Figure 4 Douglas fir (S119): Actual and affordable costs (with real price increase) forcommercial thinning with and without fertilization. (Refer to Table 1 (Appendix 1)for description ofcodes).3000250010005000PC2Aff$AjPC8 PC_F1 PC8_F1 PC_F2Treatment TypePC8_F2 PCT2P2 PCT8_F2P2DNRTreatment TypeFigure 4. Douglas fir (Site Index 19): Feasibility as indicated by Discounted Net Revenue(with Real Price Increase) for Precommercial thinning with and withoutFertilization and Pruning. (Refer to Table 1 (Appendix 1)for description codes).(Appendix) 186Figure 5. Douglas fir (S119): Actual and Affordable costs (with Real Price Increase)for Commercial thinning with and without Fertilization and Pruning. (Refer toTable 1 (Appendix 1) for description ofcodes).Figure 6 Douglas fir (S119): Feasibility of Commercial thinning as indicated byDiscounted Net Revenue for Commercial thinning with and without Fertilizationand Pruning with Real Price Increase. (Refer to Table 1 (Appendix 1)for descriptionofcodes).10000 ..1/11__‘ 3000 .__________0 . .2000 — — —4 zV1000 r . .0 :.•.. ... .CT(3)-T CT(2)-T CT(3)_F1 CT(2)_F1 CT(13)_F2 CT(2)F2 CT(3)_F2P2 CT(?2)_F2P2Treatment Type70006000w 50004000.30002000.. 10000LiCT(V3)-T CT(1/2)-T CT(V3)F1 CT(V2LFI CT(113)F2 CT(112LF2 CT(1’3LF2P2 CT(112)_F2P2Treatment Type(Appendix) 187Figure 7 Douglas fir (Site Index 12): Actual and Affordable costs (with Real PriceIncrease) for Pre-Commercial thinning with and without Pruning. (Refer to Table 1(Appendix 1) for description ofcodes).Figure 8 Douglas fir (Site Index 12): Feasibility, as indicated by Discounted Net Revenue(with Real Price Increase), of Pre-Commercial thinning with and withoutFertilization and Pruning. (Refer to Table 1 (Appendix 1)for description ofcodes).20001800 -1600 -,1400 -1200 -U,1000-800600f400Act$PCI2_F2P2Treatment Type0DNRjTreatment Type(Appendix) 188Figure 9 Red cedar (SI=13): Actual and Affordable costs (with Real Price Increase) forpre-commercial thinning with and without pruning. (Refer to Table 1 (Appendix 1)for description ofcodes).Figure 10. Red cedar (SI=13) Feasibility, as indicated by discounted net revenue (with realprice increase), of precommercial thinning with and without pruning. (Refer to’Table 1 (Appendix 1) for description ofcodes).16001400.1200(U8008 600.4002000-20w-400.AfAct$Treatment Type0-100 --300 -ID12_P(U-200 -0CI-500-g-600-0CU0-400 --700 -DNRTreatment Typeaa0aCaaI-(Appendix) 189Figure 11 spruce (S118): Actual and Affordable costs (with Real Price Increase) for Precommercial thinning and Commercial thinning with and without Pruning. (Refer toTable 1 (Appendix 1) for description codes).Figure 12 spruce (S118): Feasibility, as indicated by Discounted Net Revenue (with RealPrice Increase), of Precommercial thinning and Commercial thinning with andwithout Pruning. (Refer to Table 1 (Appendix 1)for description ofcodes).n’v145004000350030002500200015001000500//PC2..Aff$Act$PCS CT(1’3) CT(1’2)Treatment TypePC8_P2 PC_P2 CT(3)_P2 CT(2)_P230002500a2000aCaazVaC0UaCT(13) CT(112)Treatment Type(Appendix) 190Figure 13 spruce (SI=1O): Actual and Affordable costs (with real price increase for precommercial thinning with and without pruning. (Refer to Table 1 (Appendix 1)fordescription ofcodes).Figure 14 spruce (SI=1O): Feasibility, as indicated by Discounted Net Revenue (with RealPrice Increase), of Pre-commercial thinning with and without pruning. (Refer toTable 1 (Appendix 1) for description ofcodes).000=0E0I-._-•_ Afi$Act$PCI2 PC8 PC12_P2Treatment TypePC8_P2Treatment Type(Appendix) 191rIb PWC3VPR_WC3Figure 15 Reveistoke 1 showing the distribution of resource emphasis areas underthe IU system. (Refer to Tables 3 (page 50) and 5 (page 52) in textfor description oncodes)9VPR_WC 1(Appendix) 1921V 4Timber zoneNon-timber zoneReservesFigure 16 Reveistoke 1 showing the distribution of timber zone, non-timber zoneand reserves under the SU system.(Appendix) 193GLOSSARY OF TERMSAdjacency: an integrated management guideline that specifies that adjoining areassurrounding an harvest cutbiock should not be harvested until the regeneration inthe harvest cutbiock reaches specified height or age.Age class: any interval into which the age range of forests or stands is divided forclassification and use. The intervals are usually based on age-in-tens.Allowable Annual Cut (AAC): the annual allowable rate of timber harvest from aspecified area of landBiodiversity: the diversity seen in living organisms in all its life forms at all levels oforganization. It may range from diversity in genetic alleles to diversity inecosystems.Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC): a hierarchical classification systemwith three levels of integration (regional, local and chronological) and combiningclimatic, vegetation and site factors.Biogeoclimatic zone: a large geographic area with a broadly homogeneousmicroclimate. Each zone is named after one or more of the dominant climaxspecies of the ecosystem in the zone and a geographic or climax modifier.Clearwood: high value wood that is laid down after pruning or when the bole is clear ofliving or dead branches (i.e., wood without knots)Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): diameter of the tree at the breast height point whichis 1.3 m above ground level.Ecosystem: a functional unit consisting of all living organisms in a given area and all thenon-living physical and chemical factors of their environment, linked throughnutrient cycling and energy flow.Edge: it is a band on the periphery of a patch of forest that differs abiotically andbiotically from the interior and the exterior.Faildown: the amount by which current harvest levels must decline to meet long runsustainable harvest levels.Forest Ecosystem Network (FEN): habitat islands and the system of linkages betweenthem.Forest cover requirements (in British Columbia management context): Specifydesired distribution of areas by age or size class groupings in a management unit.They reflect desired conditions for wildlife, watershed protection, visual qualityand other integrated resource management objectives.Forest Practices Code (FPC): legislation, standards and field guides that govern forestpractices in British Columbia.Forest Renewal Plan (FRP): a major long-term plan, supported by legislation, to renewBritish Columbia’s forests by improving reforestation, silviculture, cleaning upenvironmental damage and enhancing community stability and employmentwithin the forest sector.Freegrowing: An established seedling of an acceptable commercial. species that is freefrom growth inhibiting brush, weed and excessive tree competition.(Appendix) 194Green-up period: the time needed for a stand of trees to reach a desired condition (e.g.height) to ensure maintenance of water quality, wildlife habitat, soil stability oraesthetics.Growing stock: the estimated volume of all standing timber, of all ages, at a particulartime.Habitat: natural home of plant or animal.Height class: an interval into which the range of tree or stand heights is divided forclassification and use. Also, the trees or stands falling into such intervals.Mean Annual Increment (MAI): stand volume divided by stand age. The stand age atwhich the MAI assumes its maximum value is called culmination age. Harvestingall stands at this age results in a maximum average sustained harvest over the longterm.Not satisfactorily restocked (NSR) land: productive forest land that has been denudedand has not been regenerated to the specified or desired free growing standards ofthe site.Pareto optimality: maximization of welfare of the society. It is the point at which anindividual cannot be made better off without making another worse off.Patch: an area of forest that is homogeneous with respect to some attribute, for example,a seral stage. It is a fundamental structural element of the landscape.Polygon: a specific area with definite boundaries that have been authorized for harvestby the Ministry of Forests. Also referred to as harvest unit or cutblock.Protected Areas Strategy (PAS): a process to coordinate all of British Columbia’sprotected areas programs and objectives.Protected areas: areas such as federal parks, provincial parks, wilderness areas,ecological reserves and recreation areas that have protected designationsaccording to federal and provincial statutes.Regeneration: the renewal of a tree crop, whether by natural or artificial means.Riparian zones: land adjacent to the normal high water line in a stream, river or lakeextending to the portion of land that is influenced by the presence of the pondedor channeled water.Seral: stages in a sequence of biotic communities (the sere) that successively occupy andreplace each other in a particular environment over time.Site Index (SI): a measure of the relative productivity of a site, based on height of thedominant trees at an arbitrary age.Snag: a standing dead tree from which leaves and most of the branches have fallen.Sustained yield: a method of forest management that calls for an approximate balancebetween net growth and amount harvested.Tenure: an interest or right held in Crown land or resource granted by statute (e.g.,Forest Act).Timber Supply Area (TSA): an integrated management unit established in accordancewith Section 6 of the Forest Act.Visual Quality Objective (VQO): defines a level of acceptable landscape alterationresulting from timber harvesting and other activities. A number of visual qualityclasses have been defined on the basis of the maximum amount of alterationpermitted.(Appendix) 195Visual Quality Objective - Modification (VQM): alterations may dominate thelandscape in this VQO class.Visual Quality Objective - Partial Retention (VPR): alterations are visible but notconspicuous.Wilderness Area: an area of land that basically retains its natural character and onwhich human impact is transitory and, in the long run, substantially unnoticeable.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075321/manifest

Comment

Related Items