Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

The effectiveness of free-growing lodgepole pine plantations in British Columbia Ken, Jennifer Apr 30, 2014

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52966-Ken_Jennifer_FRST_497_Graduating Essay_2014.pdf [ 1.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52966-1.0075576.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0075576-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0075576-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0075576-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0075576-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0075576-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0075576-source.json
Full Text
52966-1.0075576-fulltext.txt
Citation
52966-1.0075576.ris

Full Text

	  The	  Effectiveness	  of	  Free-­‐growing	  lodgepole	  pine	  Plantations	  in	  British	  Columbia	  FRST	  497:	  Graduating	  Essay	  Jennifer	  Ken	  	   	  	   2	  Abstract	  	   Free-­‐growing,	  by	  its	  definition	  covers	  a	  limited	  time	  frame	  of	  a	  stands	  life.	  As	  the	  concept	  provides	  a	  significant	  milestone	  within	  stand	  management,	  debates	  arise	  regarding	  whether	  this	  target	  is	  an	  adequate	  method	  to	  evaluate	  silvicultural	  success	  (Martin,	  2012).	  Forestry	  experts	  and	  the	  Government	  have	  conducted	  surveys	  around	  this	  debate.	  Currently,	  there	  is	  a	  widespread	  mortality	  of	  planted	  trees	  in	  plantations	  deemed	  to	  be	  free	  growing	  throughout	  British	  Columbia.	  Due	  to	  the	  current	  mortality	  trends	  of	  BC’s	  free	  growing	  stands,	  it	  is	  crucial	  to	  re-­‐examine	  the	  validity	  of	  this	  concept.	  Statistics	  have	  shown	  that	  the	  overwhelmingly	  favored	  species	  is	  lodgepole	  pine	  (Pinus	  contorta)	  as	  this	  specie	  favors	  open	  and	  light	  abundant	  environments	  such	  as	  recently	  logged	  areas.	  When	  plantations	  are	  largely	  homogenous	  in	  species,	  they	  are	  very	  vulnerable	  to	  species	  specific	  attacks	  and	  diseases.	  However,	  there	  is	  a	  knowledge	  gap	  from	  the	  assessment	  conducted	  at	  free-­‐growing	  declaration	  to	  final	  harvest.	  Stand	  development	  monitoring	  needs	  to	  be	  mandated	  to	  ensure	  BC’s	  future	  timber	  supply.	  By	  examining	  the	  current	  free-­‐growing	  status	  requirements	  and	  free-­‐growing	  stands	  in	  the	  province	  it	  is	  hopeful	  that	  we	  can	  avoid	  another	  epidemic	  such	  as	  the	  mountain	  pine	  beetle	  for	  reforested	  lodgepole	  pine	  stands.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Keywords:	  British	  Columbia	  (BC),	  Free-­‐growing,	  Lodgepole	  pine	  (Pinus	  contorta),	  Monoculture,	  Reforestation,	  Regeneration,	  Silviculture,	  Timber	  Supply	  Review	  (TSR),	  Stand	  Development	  Monitoring	  (SDM),	  Young	  Stand	  Monitoring	  (YSM)	  	   	  	   3	  Table	  of	  Contents	  Executive	  Summary	  ..............................................................................................	  Error!	  Bookmark	  not	  defined.	  List	  of	  Tables:	  ............................................................................................................................................................	  3	  List	  of	  Figures:	  ...........................................................................................................................................................	  3	  Introduction	  ...............................................................................................................................................................	  4	  Background	  ........................................................................................................................	  Error!	  Bookmark	  not	  defined.	  Problem	  Statement	  ..............................................................................................................................................................	  5	  History	  and	  Definitions	  of	  the	  Free-­‐Growing	  Concept	  ................................................................................	  6	  Current	  health	  status	  of	  free-­‐growing	  plantations	  in	  BC	  ............................................................................	  8	  Recommendations	  and	  Implementations	  .....................................................................................................	  12	  Monitoring	  Juvenile	  Stands	  .............................................................................................................................................	  12	  Stand	  Development	  Monitoring	  (SDM)	  .......................................................................................................................................	  12	  Young	  Stand	  Monitoring	  (YSM)	  ......................................................................................................................................................	  13	  Revision	  of	  Current	  Stocking	  Standards	  (Minimum	  and	  Target	  Densities)	  ...................................................	  14	  Promote	  Species	  Diversity	  ..............................................................................................................................................	  14	  Conclusion	  ................................................................................................................................................................	  14	  Appendix	  A:	  Key	  Tests	  for	  Forest	  Stewardship	  Plan	  stocking	  standard	  proposals	  .........................	  17	  Appendix	  B:	  Stand	  Development	  Monitoring	  (SDM)	  protocols	  ..............................................................	  18	  	  	  List	  of	  Tables:	  Table	  1:	  Average	  stocking,	  damage,	  and	  free-­‐growing	  status	  of	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  by	  biogeoclimatic	  zone.	  (from	  Simard	  et	  al.,	  2010)	  ......................................................................................................	  9	  Table	  2:	  List	  of	  individual	  damage	  agents	  from	  60	  randomly	  selected	  managed	  stands	  in	  southern	  BC.	  (From	  Woods	  et	  al.,	  2013)	  ..............................................................................................................................................	  11	  List	  of	  Figures:	  Figure	  1:	  A	  graph	  demonstrating	  the	  increase	  in	  reforestation	  from	  the	  1970's.	  (Source:	  Ministry	  of	  Forest	  and	  Range,	  2006)	  ....................................................................................................................................................	  7	  Figure	  2:	  Flowchart	  demonstrating	  how	  the	  data	  collected	  is	  put	  to	  use	  (from	  Zeglen	  &	  Weaver,	  2012)	  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................	  18	  	   	  	   4	  Introduction	  Background	  	   Free-­‐growing	  is	  a	  concept	  established	  for	  harvesting	  on	  Crown	  land	  in	  British	  Columbia	  (BC).	  Post	  harvesting,	  logging	  companies	  are	  required	  to	  re-­‐establish	  a	  stand	  of	  healthy	  commercially	  valuable	  trees.	  During	  the	  time	  growth	  prior	  to	  free	  growing	  declaration,	  the	  crop	  tree	  growth	  must	  not	  be	  impeded	  by	  non-­‐crop	  species	  (Powelson,	  2012).	  The	  purpose	  of	  the	  free-­‐growing	  policy	  is	  to	  ensure	  that	  licensees	  meet	  their	  obligations	  to	  create	  stands	  prior	  to	  returning	  reforestation	  liabilities	  of	  the	  land	  back	  to	  the	  Crown	  (Bergerud,	  2009).	  Foresters	  must	  consider	  provincial	  timber	  and	  non-­‐timber	  objectives	  when	  developing	  the	  new	  stands.	  Timber	  objectives	  may	  be	  expressed	  through	  schedule	  of	  harvest	  schemes	  that	  specify	  timber	  management	  actions,	  harvesting	  parameters,	  and	  silvicultural	  parameters.	  Specific	  timber	  objectives	  may	  be	  determined	  through	  timber	  supply	  analyses	  accompanied	  with	  associated	  annual	  allowable	  cut	  (AAC)	  rationales.	  Non-­‐timber	  objectives	  include	  a	  variety	  of	  non-­‐timber	  values	  such	  as	  species	  occurrence,	  natural	  disturbance	  types,	  wildlife	  habitats,	  riparian	  ecosystems,	  viewscapes,	  and	  heritage	  artifacts	  (Forest	  Practices	  Branch,	  1999).	  The	  emphasis	  for	  non-­‐timber	  objectives	  is	  to	  preserve	  valuable	  areas	  from	  timber	  harvesting	  and	  to	  reduce	  harvesting	  impacts,	  through	  careful	  planning	  of	  harvesting	  areas,	  harvest	  rotations	  and	  suggest	  alternative	  harvesting	  methods.	  License	  holders	  and	  the	  Crown	  consider	  the	  free-­‐growing	  declaration	  to	  be	  an	  administrative	  milestone	  of	  effective	  reforestation	  post	  harvesting.	  Achievement	  of	  free	  growing	  declaration	  assumes	  that	  the	  young	  managed	  stands	  are	  on	  a	  trajectory	  that	  meets	  provincial	  timber	  and	  non-­‐timber	  objectives.	  	  	   Lodgepole	  pine	  (Pinus	  contorta)	  has	  been	  the	  species	  of	  choice	  in	  BC,	  representing	  up	  to	  55%	  of	  all	  trees	  planted	  annually	  in	  the	  province	  (Mather	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  The	  BC	  interior’s	  sub-­‐continental	  climate	  is	  optimal	  for	  lodgepole	  pine	  growth.	  Lodgepole	  pine	  can	  form	  pure	  early	  successional	  stands	  in	  dry	  cold	  forests	  of	  the	  montane	  and	  sub-­‐boreal	  forest	  regions.	  Foresters	  choose	  lodgepole	  pine	  to	  be	  the	  preferred	  species	  for	  reforestation	  largely	  due	  to	  its	  rapid	  juvenile	  growth	  rates,	  wide	  ecological	  amplitude	  and	  high	  tolerance	  for	  drought,	  frost,	  and	  low	  soil	  nutrient	  availability	  	   5	  (McWilliams,	  2010).	  The	  overall	  ease	  and	  cost	  effectiveness	  to	  propagate	  lodgepole	  pine	  in	  nurseries	  also	  makes	  it	  an	  attractive	  specie.	  	  	  Problem	  Statement	  	   Free-­‐growing,	  by	  its	  definition	  covers	  a	  limited	  time	  frame	  of	  a	  stands	  life.	  As	  the	  concept	  provides	  a	  significant	  milestone	  within	  stand	  management,	  debates	  arise	  regarding	  whether	  this	  target	  is	  an	  adequate	  method	  to	  evaluate	  silvicultural	  success	  (Martin,	  2012).	  Monoculturalism	  refers	  to	  the	  cultivation	  of	  single	  species	  over	  a	  wide	  spread	  area.	  Plantations	  throughout	  BC,	  planted	  with	  only	  lodgepole	  pine	  have	  resulted	  in	  an	  increased	  prevalence	  of	  damage	  from	  insects,	  disease,	  and	  other	  climate	  related	  stresses.	  The	  mountain	  pine	  beetle	  (Dentroctonus	  ponderosae)	  epidemic	  has	  been	  an	  example	  of	  this	  issue.	  Lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  throughout	  BC	  have	  lost	  up	  to	  thousands	  of	  hectares	  due	  to	  the	  mountain	  pine	  beetle	  epidemic,	  dohistroma	  needle	  blight	  (Mycosphaerella	  pini)	  and	  hard	  pine	  stem	  rusts	  (Mather	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  Despite	  the	  drastic	  lost	  of	  timber	  inventory	  in	  these	  pine	  plantations,	  BC’s	  free-­‐growing	  guidelines	  continue	  to	  make	  it	  attractive	  to	  plant	  lodgepole	  pine,	  assuming	  it	  will	  remain	  on	  a	  predictable	  yield	  trajectory	  with	  low	  modeled	  loss	  rates	  for	  the	  dominant	  crop	  species	  (Mather	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  	  BC’s	  timber	  productivity	  expectations	  are	  derived	  from	  growth	  models.	  The	  accuracy	  to	  predict	  reforestation	  yield	  of	  free-­‐growing	  stands	  largely	  affects	  the	  province’s	  timber	  supply	  expectations.	  Current	  growth	  models	  being	  used	  to	  project	  yields	  have	  been	  based	  on	  data	  from	  small,	  structured,	  research	  and	  inventory	  plots	  that	  are	  not	  subjected	  to	  disturbances	  (Coates	  &	  Woods,	  2013).	  In	  BC,	  the	  last	  mandatory	  assessment	  made	  for	  even-­‐aged	  plantations	  occurs	  between	  10-­‐15	  years	  post	  harvesting	  (Woods	  et	  al.,	  2008).	  To	  achieve	  free	  growing	  declaration,	  the	  reforested	  sites	  must	  contain	  a	  minimum	  number	  of	  well-­‐spaced	  trees	  of	  minimum	  height	  that	  are	  ecologically	  suitable	  for	  the	  specific	  site.	  Crop	  tree	  species	  also	  cannot	  be	  impeded	  by	  non-­‐crop	  species.	  Based	  on	  Eichhorn’s	  rule,	  an	  assumption	  is	  made	  that	  once	  the	  dominant	  tree	  height	  is	  known,	  future	  dominant	  height	  will	  remain	  predictable.	  This	  assumption	  allows	  stand	  yield	  to	  be	  easily	  determined	  and	  projected	  into	  the	  	   6	  future	  (Coates	  &	  Woods,	  2013).	  Eichhorn’s	  rule	  is	  based	  on	  the	  belief	  that	  forest	  disturbances	  rarely	  attack	  larger	  crop	  trees	  during	  early-­‐to	  mid	  rotations.	  Surveys	  and	  research	  have	  indicated	  the	  opposite	  (Coates	  &	  Woods,	  2013).	  While	  current	  forest	  management	  approaches	  in	  BC	  rely	  heavily	  on	  growth	  &	  yield	  models,	  there	  is	  no	  mandated	  systematic	  stand	  development	  monitoring	  for	  stand	  conditions.	  Due	  to	  these	  assumptions,	  timber	  yield	  projections	  at	  free-­‐growing	  declaration	  and	  actual	  timber	  yield	  encounter	  a	  resultant	  gap	  (Coates	  &	  Woods,	  2013).	  	  	   As	  the	  mountain	  pine	  beetle	  epidemic	  has	  brought	  this	  issue	  up	  close	  to	  the	  government	  and	  the	  forestry	  industry,	  many	  important	  questions	  remain.	  How	  do	  we	  correctly	  assess	  how	  recently	  reforested	  stands	  are	  doing?	  How	  do	  we	  accurately	  project	  the	  yield	  free-­‐growing	  stands	  will	  produce?	  Is	  the	  free	  growing	  concept	  an	  adequate	  method	  to	  determine	  silvicultural	  success?	  Throughout	  the	  remainder	  of	  the	  paper,	  the	  various	  definitions	  of	  free-­‐growing	  will	  be	  presented.	  Results	  of	  studies	  by	  forestry	  experts	  and	  the	  Ministry	  of	  Forest	  (MOF)	  will	  be	  examined	  and	  recommendations	  for	  the	  future	  will	  be	  discussed.	  	  History	  and	  Definitions	  of	  the	  Free-­‐Growing	  Concept	  	   A	  variety	  of	  definitions	  of	  the	  term	  ‘free-­‐growing’	  may	  be	  found.	  The	  Government	  of	  BC	  has	  provided	  “Establishment	  to	  free-­‐growing	  guidebooks”	  for	  varying	  regions	  of	  BC.	  Each	  guidebook	  includes	  the	  requirements	  to	  establish	  free-­‐growing	  declarations,	  with	  minor	  differences	  based	  on	  Biogeoclimatic	  (BEC)	  zones	  and	  regional	  differences.	  Historically	  the	  definition	  of	  free	  growing	  has	  changed.	  The	  harvest	  date	  and	  assessment	  date	  of	  the	  stand	  is	  linked	  to	  the	  definition	  applied.	  During	  the	  period	  between	  1970-­‐1987,	  forest	  management	  in	  BC	  began	  the	  initial	  recognition	  for	  the	  value	  of	  replanting	  as	  seen	  in	  figure	  1.	  In	  that	  same	  period,	  a	  dramatic	  increase	  of	  artificially	  reforested	  stands	  also	  known	  as	  plantations	  occurred.	  In	  this	  era	  the	  recognition	  for	  proper	  site	  preparation,	  nurseries,	  and	  seedling	  handling	  practices	  evolved	  becoming	  the	  current	  free-­‐growing	  concept.	  Stands	  harvested	  prior	  to	  October	  of	  1987	  follow	  the	  designation	  of	  	  ‘free-­‐growing’	  based	  upon	  past	  management	  practices	  and	  decisions.	  The	  physical	  condition	  of	  the	  stand	  may	  not	  be	  a	  reflection	  of	  achievement	  of	  the	  specified	  parameter	  for	  the	  	   7	  current	  free	  growing	  stocking	  standards.	  The	  Industry	  Outstanding	  program	  (IO)	  assisted	  in	  the	  efforts	  of	  reforestation	  with	  annual	  funding	  from	  the	  government.	  Free-­‐growing	  surveys	  were	  conducted	  in	  the	  early	  90’s	  to	  assess	  the	  stocking	  standards	  on	  the	  prescription,	  however	  the	  quality	  and	  thoroughness	  of	  the	  surveys	  were	  not	  mandated	  and	  varied	  considerably	  across	  the	  province.	  The	  necessity	  for	  free-­‐growing	  surveys	  to	  meet	  legal	  obligations	  did	  not	  start	  until	  1995	  and	  was	  not	  achieved	  on	  a	  provincial	  level	  until	  2002.	  	   	  Figure	  1:	  A	  graph	  demonstrating	  the	  increase	  in	  reforestation	  from	  the	  1970's.	  (Source:	  Ministry	  of	  Forest	  and	  Range,	  2006)	  	   	  Significant	  changes	  in	  stocking	  standards	  occurred	  throughout	  BC	  during	  the	  formation	  of	  the	  free-­‐growing	  concept.	  In	  1981-­‐1987,	  each	  region	  had	  individual	  stocking	  standards	  for	  each	  BEC	  zone	  and	  site	  series.	  There	  were	  significantly	  higher	  target	  stocking	  density	  standards,	  and	  very	  restrictive	  acceptable	  species	  for	  the	  area.	  Between	  1988-­‐1990,	  the	  Ministry	  of	  Forest	  and	  Range	  (MOFR)	  with	  the	  assistance	  of	  key	  industry	  representatives	  collectively	  developed	  and	  released	  and	  standardized	  relative	  stocking	  parameters.	  Between	  1990-­‐1993	  MOFR	  again	  with	  the	  assistance	  of	  key	  industry	  representatives	  modified	  and	  released	  new	  species	  standards.	  With	  the	  addition	  of	  minimum	  preferred	  and	  multiple	  species	  to	  ensure	  controlled	  monoculture	  conditions,	  and	  to	  also	  require	  a	  minimum	  preferred	  species	  for	  each	  standard	  unit.	  In	  1994	  stocking	  standards	  included	  a	  minimum	  height	  to	  account	  for	  forest	  health	  factors	  and	  competition	  from	  non-­‐crop	  species	  in	  early	  stand	  development.	  During	  2005,	  the	  stocking	  standards,	  which	  were	  originally	  part	  of	  the	  Forest	  Practices	  Code	  (FPC),	  were	  converted	  to	  Establishment	  to	  Free-­‐Growing	  (EFGG)	  guidebooks.	  With	  the	  enactment	  of	  the	  Forest	  ad	  Range	  Practices	  Act	  (FRPA)	  in	  2003,	  license-­‐holders	  were	  allowed	  to	  	   8	  specify	  stocking	  standards	  in	  a	  Forest	  Stewardship	  Plan	  (FSP)	  in	  accordance	  to	  FRPA	  tests.	  Appendix	  A	  outlines	  the	  FRPA	  tests.	  	  Current	  health	  status	  of	  free-­‐growing	  plantations	  in	  BC	  	   The	  Reporting	  Silviculture	  Updates	  and	  land	  status	  Tracking	  System	  (RESULTS)	  application	  is	  a	  database	  that	  tracks	  silviculture	  information	  through	  submissions	  of	  stand	  openings,	  disturbances,	  silvicultural	  treatments	  and	  obligational	  declarations	  as	  required	  by	  the	  Forest	  and	  Range	  Practices	  legislation	  (Province	  of	  British	  Columbia,	  2014).	  Information	  on	  the	  plantations	  deemed	  to	  be	  free-­‐growing	  in	  BC	  can	  be	  located	  in	  this	  database.	  	   Simard	  (2012)	  conducted	  a	  study	  in	  the	  plantations	  at	  Granite	  Mountain,	  just	  above	  Nelson,	  BC.	  The	  plantations	  at	  the	  point	  of	  examination	  have	  had	  their	  liabilities	  reverted	  from	  the	  company	  back	  to	  the	  Crown	  due	  to	  their	  free-­‐growing	  status.	  Simard	  found	  that	  the	  definition	  of	  “unimpeded	  by	  brush”	  in	  the	  current	  free-­‐growing	  definition	  has	  led	  to	  an	  unexpected	  side	  effect	  of	  unnecessary	  brushing	  to	  meet	  this	  declaration	  and	  a	  trend	  of	  overplanting	  fast	  growing	  lodgepole	  pine.	  From	  the	  stands	  surveyed,	  a	  majority	  of	  the	  25-­‐year	  old	  free-­‐growing	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  were	  no	  longer	  meeting	  the	  minimum	  standards	  of	  the	  initial	  free-­‐growing	  requirements.	  The	  stands	  had	  extensive	  lethal	  damage	  by	  wildlife,	  western	  gall	  rust	  (Endocronartium	  harknessii)	  and	  snow	  press.	  Silvicultural	  brushing	  treatments	  have	  resulted	  in	  the	  absence	  of	  deciduous	  trees	  that	  were	  common	  in	  the	  natural	  stands,	  and	  have	  led	  to	  an	  overall	  decrease	  of	  species	  diversity,	  density	  and	  overall	  resilience	  to	  natural	  disturbance	  regimes.	  	  	   Simard	  et	  al.	  (2010)	  conducted	  another	  set	  of	  surveys	  in	  the	  Columbia	  Basin.	  The	  survey	  area	  encompassed	  the	  whole	  southern	  interior	  BC	  and	  their	  research	  demonstrated	  similar	  outcomes	  to	  the	  previous	  research	  at	  Granite	  Mountain.	  This	  study	  included	  66	  randomly	  selected	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  from	  RESULTS	  that	  span	  6	  BEC	  zone	  (ESSF,	  ICH,	  IDG,	  MS,	  SBPS,	  SBS).	  The	  survey	  showed	  that	  27%	  of	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  were	  no	  longer	  free-­‐growing	  5	  years	  post	  after	  the	  free-­‐growing	  declaration.	  The	  Interior-­‐coastal-­‐hemlock	  (ICH)	  BEC	  zone	  is	  known	  to	  be	  the	  most	  productive	  forested	  zone	  within	  southern	  interior,	  therefore	  the	  surveys	  were	  conducted	  under	  the	  assumption	  	   9	  that	  it	  is	  a	  good	  area	  to	  benchmark	  predictions	  of	  future	  stand	  conditions.	  If	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  are	  not	  successful	  in	  the	  ICH	  BEC	  zone,	  it	  may	  be	  difficult	  for	  pine	  plantations	  within	  other	  BEC	  zones	  to	  be	  successful	  under	  the	  same	  regeneration	  regimes.	  Of	  the	  surveyed	  free-­‐growing	  plantations,	  70%	  had	  failed	  in	  the	  ICH	  BEC	  zone	  (Simard	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  While	  the	  total	  density	  of	  the	  surveyed	  stands	  exceeded	  1200	  total	  trees/ha	  in	  94%	  of	  the	  stands,	  the	  survey	  showed	  that	  a	  large	  portion	  of	  the	  stocking	  was	  due	  to	  clumps	  of	  slow-­‐growing	  naturally	  regenerated	  trees,	  and	  not	  the	  planted	  crop	  species.	  Unfortunately,	  the	  surveyed	  natural	  regeneration	  failed	  to	  meet	  the	  minimum	  height	  requirements	  outlined	  in	  the	  free-­‐growing	  guidelines.	  The	  survey	  done	  in	  the	  free-­‐growing	  plantations	  in	  the	  Engelmann	  Spruce-­‐subalpine	  fir	  (ESSF)	  BEC	  zone	  found	  barely	  any	  live	  lodgepole	  pine	  indicating	  that	  lodgepole	  was	  not	  the	  right	  specie	  for	  this	  zone.	  	  Table	  1:	  Average	  stocking,	  damage,	  and	  free-­‐growing	  status	  of	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  by	  biogeoclimatic	  zone.	  (from	  Simard	  et	  al.,	  2010)	  BEC	  Zone	   Total	  Conifers	  (stems/ha)	   Lodgepole	  pine	  (stems/ha)	   Free-­‐growing	  (stems/ha)	   Damaged	  lodgpole	  pine	  (%)	   Proportion	  of	  sites	  meeting	  minimum	  stocking	  standards	  Proportion	  of	  sites	  with	  >100	  stems/ha	  above	  minimum	  standards	  ESSF	   2807	   1500	   54.8	   862	   90	   70	  ICH	   3359	   1611	   66.2	   702	   29	   29	  IDF	   2462	   2120	   36.1	   812	   100	   60	  MS	   3107	   2350	   42.2	   912	   86	   62	  SBPS	   4043	   2759	   68.6	   851	   80	   20	  SBS	   4320	   3769	   58.8	   850	   75	   75	  	  The	  Forest	  Practices	  Board	  (2003)	  regard	  stands	  within	  100	  stems/ha	  of	  the	  minimum	  stocking	  density	  to	  be	  at	  high	  risk	  of	  not	  achieving	  full	  potential	  of	  stand	  productivity.	  Overall,	  in	  the	  surveys	  in	  the	  southern	  interior,	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  had	  substantial	  performance	  declines	  below	  the	  targets	  of	  the	  free-­‐growing	  guidelines.	  	  Approximately	  15%	  of	  the	  sites	  were	  understocked	  (<550	  free-­‐growing	  stems/ha),	  48%	  of	  the	  surveyed	  stands	  fell	  within	  100	  stems/ha	  of	  the	  minimum	  stocking	  standard,	  and	  85%	  of	  the	  stands	  were	  at	  least	  200	  stems/ha	  below	  target	  density	  (Simard	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  BC	  uses	  stocking	  standards	  as	  a	  key	  tool	  to	  ensure	  harvested	  areas	  are	  adequately	  restocked	  relative	  to	  landscape-­‐level	  management	  unit	  objectives	  (McWilliams,	  2009).	  To	  be	  	   10	  approved	  by	  the	  Forest	  Planning	  and	  Practices	  Regulation	  (FPPR),	  proposed	  stocking	  standards	  must	  meet	  the	  tests	  indicated	  in	  appendix	  A.	  Trends	  indicate	  that	  most	  stands	  that	  were	  of	  free-­‐growing	  status	  from	  the	  RESULTS	  database	  were	  problematic	  (Simard	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  These	  trends	  imply	  that	  the	  actual	  yield	  of	  the	  free	  growing	  interior	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations	  will	  not	  meet	  timber	  supply	  projections	  for	  the	  province.	  The	  MFR	  (2006)	  conducted	  a	  review	  for	  the	  consistency	  between	  the	  Forest	  Stewardship	  Plan	  (FSP)	  stocking	  standards	  and	  provincial	  Timber	  Supply	  Reviews	  (TSR).	  	  Consistency	  occurs	  when	  the	  proposed	  set	  of	  FSP	  stocking	  standards	  does	  not	  put	  the	  timber	  flows	  projected	  from	  TSR	  at	  risk	  by	  their	  application	  over	  time	  (McWilliams,	  2009).	  Implementation	  of	  TSRs	  should	  reflect	  updated	  results	  of	  past	  management	  and	  assumptions	  of	  planned	  management.	  Within	  a	  managed	  stand,	  yield	  projections	  are	  indirectly	  and	  directly	  influenced	  by	  the	  stocking	  standards,	  and	  any	  changes	  to	  stocking	  standards	  should	  consider	  the	  implications	  to	  TSRs	  (McWilliams,	  2009).	  	  In	  McWilliams’	  (2009)	  project	  to	  evaluate	  stocking	  standards,	  results	  indicate	  that	  the	  generic	  nature	  of	  the	  existing	  stocking	  standards	  are	  reasonably	  applied	  to	  most	  logged	  areas	  and	  demonstrate	  an	  overall	  positive	  role	  to	  reforestation	  results.	  However,	  there	  is	  concern	  for	  future	  conditions	  of	  pine-­‐leading	  stands	  due	  to	  the	  high	  impacts	  of	  hard	  pine	  stem	  rusts	  and/or	  the	  poor	  quality	  of	  pine	  stands	  on	  medium	  to	  good	  sites	  grown	  to	  the	  densities	  targeted	  in	  the	  stocking	  standards	  (McWilliams,	  2009).	  To	  improve	  the	  linkage	  between	  stocking	  standards	  and	  short-­‐	  to	  mid-­‐term	  timber	  supply,	  estimates	  of	  the	  performance	  of	  stands	  regenerated	  based	  on	  the	  stocking	  standards	  are	  critical	  to	  evaluate	  whether	  managed	  stands	  meet	  forest-­‐level	  objectives	  and	  TSR	  assumptions.	  	  	   Several	  studies	  that	  survey	  free-­‐growing	  stands	  all	  found	  essentially	  the	  same	  factors	  causing	  the	  failure	  of	  free-­‐growing	  lodgepole	  pine	  plantations.	  The	  most	  common	  was	  stem	  disease,	  and	  in	  particular	  western	  gall	  rust,	  which	  occurs	  on	  100%	  of	  the	  sites	  from	  surveys	  by	  Simard	  et	  al.,	  (2010).	  Other	  prevalent	  damaging	  agents	  include	  mountain	  pine	  beetle	  infestation,	  lodgepole	  terminal	  weevil	  (Pissodes	  terminalis)	  and	  furbearing	  animals.	  Widespread	  lethal	  damage	  from	  hard	  pine	  stem	  rusts	  also	  contributes	  significant	  volume	  losses	  in	  young	  naturally	  regenerated	  and	  planted	  lodgepole	  stands	  in	  the	  interior	  of	  BC.	  	  	   11	  Table	  2:	  List	  of	  individual	  damage	  agents	  from	  60	  randomly	  selected	  managed	  stands	  in	  southern	  BC.	  (From	  Woods	  et	  al.,	  2013)	  	   	   The	  overplanting	  of	  single	  specie	  plantations	  has	  increased	  the	  impact	  of	  epidemics	  such	  as	  the	  recent	  mountain	  pine	  beetle	  epidemic.	  Studies	  by	  Simard	  et	  al.,	  (2010)	  indicate	  that	  single	  specie	  stands	  reduce	  forest	  structure	  and	  functional	  diversity	  up	  to	  15	  years	  of	  decline	  in	  stand	  health.	  Changes	  in	  leading	  inventory	  specie	  during	  post-­‐free-­‐growing	  stand	  development	  have	  decreased	  the	  accuracy	  of	  timber	  inventories	  and	  timber	  supply	  forecasts.	  A	  special	  investigation	  in	  2007	  by	  the	  Forest	  Practices	  Board	  on	  amending	  prescriptions	  for	  achieving	  free-­‐growing	  forests	  indicates	  reasoning	  behind	  amendments	  made	  for	  free	  growing	  plantations.	  More	  than	  28%	  of	  the	  sample	  populations	  were	  amended	  due	  to	  growing	  conditions	  varying	  from	  those	  described	  in	  the	  silviculture	  prescription	  resulting	  in	  failure,	  and	  21%	  had	  found	  other	  species	  to	  be	  more	  ecologically	  appropriate	  for	  the	  site	  (Forest	  Practices	  Board,	  2007).	  In	  the	  same	  investigation,	  the	  Board	  concludes	  that	  there	  is	  no	  reason	  for	  concern	  with	  regard	  to	  the	  free-­‐growing	  amendments.	  In	  order	  for	  the	  free-­‐growing	  concept	  to	  adequately	  reflect	  the	  regeneration	  of	  a	  complex	  forest	  ecosystem,	  amendments	  are	  necessary	  to	  account	  for	  new	  information	  to	  represent	  sound	  stewardship	  of	  the	  forest	  resource	  (Forest	  Practices	  Board,	  2007).	  	   12	  	   Climate	  change	  is	  another	  factor	  that	  has	  led	  to	  changes	  in	  forest	  composition,	  productivity,	  carbon	  sequestration,	  and	  many	  other	  ecosystem	  functions	  that	  may	  have	  yet	  to	  be	  uncovered	  (Mather	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  Increasing	  temperatures,	  shifts	  in	  precipitation	  patterns,	  increased	  frequencies	  of	  extreme	  weather	  conditions	  have	  put	  knowledge	  gaps	  between	  the	  relationship	  of	  lodgepole	  pine	  and	  biotic	  disturbances	  (Simard	  et	  al.,	  2010).	  	  It	  will	  be	  particularly	  important	  to	  consider	  evolving	  host-­‐pest	  dynamics	  alongside	  climate	  change	  for	  future	  planting	  stock	  and	  silvicultural	  practices	  (Schaberg	  et	  al.,	  2008).	  	  Recommendations	  and	  Implementations	   	  Monitoring	  Juvenile	  Stands	  To	  accurately	  determine	  the	  future	  volumes	  of	  a	  stand,	  it	  is	  essential	  to	  find	  a	  way	  to	  properly	  assess	  the	  current	  condition	  of	  a	  managed	  stand.	  The	  purpose	  of	  the	  monitoring	  is	  for	  early	  detection	  of	  forest	  health	  concerns,	  accurate	  update	  of	  forest	  inventories,	  increase	  the	  accuracy	  of	  predictions	  for	  future	  stand	  harvest	  yields,	  support	  adaptive	  management	  for	  forests,	  and	  to	  provide	  information	  to	  assist	  in	  future	  forest	  management	  decision	  making	  and	  policy	  changes.	  	  Stand	  Development	  Monitoring	  (SDM)	  	   One	  of	  the	  biggest	  issues	  with	  the	  free-­‐growing	  concept	  is	  the	  lack	  of	  stand	  development	  monitoring	  once	  the	  stand	  is	  declared	  free-­‐growing.	  In	  2005,	  a	  pilot	  project	  took	  place	  in	  the	  Lakes	  timber	  supply	  area	  to	  implement	  stand	  development	  monitoring	  (SDM).	  SDM	  is	  a	  protocol	  developed	  by	  the	  Forest	  &	  Range	  Evaluation	  Program	  (FREP).	  The	  objective	  of	  this	  project	  is	  to	  assess	  the	  health	  and	  productivity	  of	  young	  stands	  between	  15	  to	  40	  years	  old,	  8	  years	  post-­‐treatment,	  and	  10	  years	  post-­‐free-­‐growing	  declaration.	  SDM	  provides	  analysis	  of	  data	  in	  five	  crucial	  areas	  demonstrated	  in	  Appendix	  B.	  From	  these	  assessments,	  the	  effectiveness	  of	  current	  government	  policies	  and	  forest	  management	  practices	  are	  reviewed,	  and	  changes	  were	  recommended.	  Each	  timber	  supply	  area	  within	  BC	  has	  been	  sampled	  since	  2005	  (Zeglen	  &	  Weaver,	  2012).	  Through	  the	  resource	  agencies’	  due	  diligence,	  the	  stakeholders	  may	  confirm	  and	  validate	  the	  values	  within	  their	  investments	  of	  growing	  	   13	  new	  forests.	  Applying	  the	  knowledge	  from	  SDM	  to	  update	  resource	  inventories,	  refine	  future	  harvest	  yield	  projections,	  reassess	  investments,	  and	  adapt	  for	  climate	  will	  assist	  both	  the	  government	  and	  licensee	  in	  effective	  future	  planning.	  One	  of	  the	  strengths	  of	  SDM	  is	  that	  it	  offers	  forest	  health	  agent	  extent	  and	  severity	  identification.	  It	  is	  hopeful	  that	  SDM	  will	  be	  mandatory	  for	  all	  free-­‐growing	  stands	  and	  will	  be	  the	  final	  survey	  before	  harvest	  instead	  of	  the	  free-­‐growing	  survey	  (Zeglen	  &	  Weaver,	  2012).	  While	  SDM	  is	  a	  solution	  to	  ensure	  the	  health	  and	  quality	  of	  free-­‐growing	  stands,	  the	  process	  is	  financially	  burdening	  and	  the	  liabilities	  have	  been	  fully	  reverted	  to	  the	  Government.	  	  Young	  Stand	  Monitoring	  (YSM)	  	   Following	  the	  SDM	  project,	  the	  MOF,	  Ministry	  of	  Lands	  and	  Natural	  Resource	  Operations	  (MFLNRO)	  and	  Forest	  Analysis	  and	  Inventory	  Branch	  (FAIB)	  has	  developed	  and	  pilot	  tested	  a	  new	  program	  for	  young	  stand	  monitoring	  (YSM).	  The	  first	  two	  YSM	  pilot	  projects	  were	  conducted	  in	  2012/2013	  in	  the	  Kootenay	  Lake	  and	  Morice	  TSAs.	  Currently	  the	  YSM	  program	  is	  being	  implemented	  in	  especially	  high-­‐risk	  forest	  management	  units	  (TSA	  and	  TFL)	  (Omule,	  2013).	  The	  objective	  of	  YSM	  is	  to	  address	  current	  information	  gaps	  for	  the	  growth	  and	  yield	  of	  young	  stands.	  This	  data	  is	  critical	  for	  supporting	  current	  TSRs	  and	  TSR	  exercise	  (Omule,	  2013).	  YSM	  targets	  stand	  populations	  composed	  of	  15-­‐50	  year	  old	  young	  stands	  that	  are	  likely	  to	  contribute	  to	  future	  timber	  supply	  within	  a	  management	  unit	  (Omule,	  2013).	  The	  data	  collected	  from	  YSM	  plots	  describe	  current	  stand	  structure	  of	  young	  stands.	  Descriptive	  statistics	  of	  the	  data	  can	  be	  calculated	  for	  selected	  attributes	  such	  as	  basal	  area/ha,	  gross	  volume/ha,	  net	  merchantable	  volume/ha	  and	  dead	  volume/ha.	  In	  addition,	  data	  on	  damage	  agents	  and	  severity	  of	  damage	  can	  be	  obtained	  from	  YSM	  to	  assess	  forest	  health.	  Monitoring	  statistics	  can	  assist	  timber	  supply	  analysts	  and	  growth	  &	  yield	  modelers	  to	  improve	  timber	  supply	  forecasts.	  More	  importantly	  YSM	  data	  can	  be	  used	  to	  check	  the	  accuracy	  of	  timber	  supply	  analysis	  assumptions	  and	  provide	  feedback	  on	  the	  impacts	  of	  past	  policies	  (Omule,	  2013).	  This	  is	  achieved	  by	  examining	  long	  term	  trends	  in	  the	  difference	  between	  observed	  and	  predicted	  growth	  &	  yield	  of	  timber	  attributes	  and	  pest	  and	  disease	  incidences.	  Progressively,	  YSM	  will	  investigate	  the	  	   14	  potential	  to	  integrate	  data	  from	  SDM	  into	  YSM	  growth	  monitoring	  and	  develop	  a	  process	  to	  incorporate	  YSM	  data	  into	  policy-­‐making	  decisions.	  	  Revision	  of	  Current	  Stocking	  Standards	  (Minimum	  and	  Target	  Densities)	  	   Stocking	  standards	  are	  closely	  related	  to	  regeneration	  practices,	  which	  influence	  the	  productivity	  of	  regenerated	  stands.	  	  Currently,	  the	  majority	  of	  TSRs	  use	  the	  actual	  performance	  of	  regenerated	  stands	  for	  future	  yield	  projections,	  and	  past	  performances	  are	  used	  to	  model	  for	  the	  development	  of	  future	  stands	  (McWilliams,	  2009).	  The	  direct	  relationship	  between	  stocking	  standards	  and	  future	  stand	  yield	  assumptions	  suggests	  that	  future	  stocking	  standards	  of	  regenerated	  stands	  should	  be	  based	  on	  assumed	  projections	  of	  future	  regenerated	  stands	  (McWilliams,	  2009).	  This	  can	  be	  accomplished	  through	  the	  minimization	  of	  free-­‐growing	  stand	  development	  uncertainties	  by	  use	  of	  SDM	  and	  YSM.	  Minimum	  and	  target	  densities	  should	  be	  set	  higher	  to	  buffer	  the	  stand	  against	  potential	  losses	  due	  to	  forest	  health	  agents.	  However,	  the	  magnitude	  of	  the	  density	  increase	  should	  be	  carefully	  considered	  through	  cost	  effectiveness,	  effective	  research	  and	  the	  propensity	  of	  the	  specific	  stands	  (McWilliams	  2009).	  	  Promote	  Species	  Diversity	  	   The	  promotion	  of	  species	  diversity	  within	  the	  establishment	  of	  free-­‐growing	  guidelines	  plays	  an	  important	  role	  in	  risk	  reduction,	  biodiversity,	  and	  climate	  change	  adaptation	  (Snetsinger,	  2011).	  By	  reducing	  the	  heavy	  reliance	  on	  pine	  for	  plantations	  in	  BC,	  potential	  losses	  from	  pine	  damaging	  agents	  such	  as	  the	  mountain	  pine	  beetle	  can	  be	  mitigated.	  Currently	  the	  Ministry	  of	  Forests,	  Mines,	  and	  Lands	  (MFML)	  are	  developing	  clearer	  direction	  on	  expectations	  and	  best	  practices	  within	  species	  trial	  research	  (Snetsinger,	  2011).	  	  Conclusion	  	   The	  increasing	  inventory	  of	  plantations	  in	  BC	  that	  do	  not	  receive	  adequate	  monitoring	  leads	  demands	  new	  guidelines	  that	  have	  not	  yet	  been	  implemented	  for	  the	  failing	  pine	  plantations.	  Implementation	  of	  recommendations	  by	  foresters,	  and	  forest	  ecology	  experts	  should	  start	  with	  the	  	   15	  Government.	  The	  consequences	  of	  these	  overlooked	  issues	  of	  free	  growing	  have	  already	  altered	  BC’s	  current	  timber	  inventory	  status	  (Woods	  et	  al.,	  	  2011).	  Without	  change	  to	  the	  current	  free	  growing	  legislature,	  stakeholders	  may	  lack	  the	  incentive	  to	  increase	  costs	  to	  current	  operations	  to	  ensure	  the	  performance	  of	  plantations	  before	  free-­‐growing	  declaration.	  While	  implementations	  such	  as	  the	  SDM	  and	  YSM	  have	  been	  slowly	  taking	  place	  to	  minimize	  the	  knowledge	  gaps	  that	  exist	  in	  BC’s	  management	  framework	  from	  free-­‐growing	  to	  final	  harvest,	  it	  is	  still	  not	  a	  mandated	  requirement.	  However,	  stand	  monitoring	  should	  become	  mandated	  as	  data	  from	  SDM	  and	  YSM	  can	  assist	  in	  the	  understanding	  of	  varying	  plantations	  at	  varying	  regions.	  Adaptive	  management	  should	  be	  put	  in	  place	  for	  managed	  stands.	  Simplifying	  BC’s	  ecologically	  diverse	  land	  base	  with	  a	  cookie	  cutter	  approach	  has	  demonstrated	  its	  significant	  downsides.	  Free-­‐growing	  guidelines	  should	  develop	  clearer	  expectations	  and	  directions	  to	  address	  varying	  landscape	  levels	  to	  accept	  more	  variability	  in	  density,	  spacing,	  and	  forest	  health	  damaging	  agents.	  	  The	  transformed	  standard	  should	  promote	  forest	  resilience	  through	  genetically	  and	  structurally	  diverse	  managed	  stands	  to	  develop	  an	  enhanced	  free-­‐growing	  adequate	  for	  determining	  silvicultural	  success.	  	   	  	   16	  Works	  Cited	  Bergerud,	  W.	  (2009,	  December).	  Looking	  ahead:	  Will	  Free-­‐growing	  stands	  produce	  the	  volumes	  we	  expect?	  BC,	  Canada:	  Ministry	  of	  Forests	  and	  Range.	  Coates,	  K.	  D.,	  &	  Woods,	  A.	  (2013,	  August	  14).	  Are	  biotic	  disturbance	  agents	  challenging	  basic	  tenets	  of	  growth	  and	  yield	  and	  sustainable	  forest	  management?	  Forestry,	  An	  International	  Journal	  of	  Foreest	  Research	  ,	  1-­‐12.	  Forest	  Practices	  Branch.	  (1999).	  Guidelines	  for	  developing	  stand	  density	  management.	  Retrieved	  March	  24,	  2014,	  from	  BC	  Ministry	  of	  Forests:	  http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00083/sdm-­‐45.htm	  Martin,	  B.	  (2012,	  October).	  Free	  Growing	  to	  Rotation.	  BC	  Forest	  Professionals	  ,	  9.	  McWilliams,	  J.	  (2010).	  Are	  We	  Growing	  Lodgepole	  Pine	  Properly	  in	  British	  Columbia?	  Silviculture	  Magazine	  ,	  6-­‐9.	  McWilliams,	  J.	  (2009).	  Forest	  Stewardship	  Plan	  Stocking	  Standards	  Evaluation.	  Victoria.	  McWilliams,	  J.,	  &	  McWilliams,	  E.	  (2009).	  A	  Review	  and	  Analysis	  of	  the	  effect	  of	  BC's	  Current	  Stocking	  Standards	  on	  Forest	  Stewardship.	  Vancouver:	  Association	  of	  BC	  Forest	  Professionals.	  Ministry	  of	  Forests	  and	  Range.	  (2006).	  The	  State	  of	  British	  Columbia's	  Forests.	  Victoria,	  BC,	  Canada:	  Library	  and	  Archives	  Canada	  Cataloguing	  in	  Publication	  Data.	  Omule,	  A.	  Y.	  (2013,	  November).	  A	  Framework	  for	  Implementing	  Young	  Stand	  Monitoring	  in	  British	  Columbia.	  BC,	  Canada.	  Powelson,	  A.	  (2012).	  How	  the	  use	  of	  the	  term	  "free	  growing"	  in	  British	  Columbia	  is	  linked	  to	  harvest	  date	  and	  assessment	  date.	  Governement	  of	  British	  Columbia,	  Resource	  Practices	  Branch.	  Governement	  of	  British	  Columbia.	  Province	  of	  British	  Columbia.	  (2014).	  RESULTS.	  Retrieved	  March	  15,	  2014,	  from	  Government	  of	  British	  Columbia	  -­‐	  FLNRO	  Resource	  Practices:	  http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/his/results/	  Schaberg,	  P.	  G.,	  DeHayes,	  D.	  H.,	  Hawley,	  G.	  J.,	  &	  Niijensohn,	  S.	  E.	  (2008).	  Anthropogenic	  alterations	  of	  genetic	  diversity	  within	  tree	  populations:	  Implications	  for	  forest	  ecosystem	  resilience.	  Forest	  Ecology	  and	  Mangement	  ,	  256	  (5),	  855-­‐862.	  Snetsinger,	  J.	  (2011).	  Monitoring	  to	  Imporve	  Management	  Practice	  of	  Juvenile	  Lodgepole	  Pine	  in	  British	  Columbia.	  Silviculture	  Magazine	  ,	  6-­‐9.	  Woods,	  A.,	  &	  Bergerud,	  W.	  (2008).	  Are	  Free-­‐Growing	  stands	  meeting	  timber	  productivity	  expectations	  in	  the	  lakes	  timber	  supply	  area.	  Government	  of	  British	  Columbia,	  Sustainability	  of	  Forest	  and	  Range	  Resources	  Through	  Science	  and	  Stewardship.	  Forest	  &	  Range	  Evaluation	  Program.	  Woods,	  A.,	  Bergerud	  ,	  W.,	  Zeglen,	  S.,	  &	  Barber,	  F.	  (2011).	  Monitoiring	  Post-­‐Free-­‐Growing	  stand	  conditions	  in	  Five	  Timber	  Supply	  Areas	  Throughout	  British	  Columbia:	  What	  are	  we	  seeing	  so	  far?	  Forest	  &	  Range	  Evalutaion	  Program	  ,	  18,	  1-­‐7.	  Zeglen,	  S.,	  &	  Weaver,	  D.	  (2012).	  How	  are	  our	  Stands	  Performing	  Post	  Free	  Growing?	  Early	  Coastal	  Experience.	  Stand	  Development	  Monitoring	  .	  BC,	  Canada:	  Coastal	  Silviculture	  Committee.	  	  	  	  	  	   17	  Appendix	  A:	  Key	  Tests	  for	  Forest	  Stewardship	  Plan	  stocking	  standard	  proposals	  	  Test	  1	  –	  Initial	  High-­‐Level	  Test	  A	  high-­‐level	  review	  of	  all	  the	  proposed	  stocking	  standards	  to	  ensure	  there	  are	  no	  obvious	  omissions	  or	  issues	  that	  will	  not	  allow	  for	  approvals.	  This	  test	  is	  not	  intended	  to	  replace	  the	  tests	  that	  follow	  	  Test	  2	  –	  Ecological	  Suitability	  Test	  The	  Reference	  Guide	  to	  FDP	  Stocking	  Standards	  is	  considered	  the	  starting	  point	  for	  this	  test.	  Licensees	  can	  also	  use	  appropriately	  applied	  and	  credible	  new	  and	  emerging	  information	  	  Test	  3	  –	  Forest	  Health	  Test	  The	  key	  criteria	  for	  this	  test	  should	  be	  species	  acceptability	  based	  on	  known	  forest	  health	  factors	  	  Test	  4	  –	  Economically	  valuable	  supply	  of	  commercial	  timber	  Focuses	  on	  value	  (not	  volume)	  based	  on	  the	  proposed	  species	  and	  the	  associated	  potential	  risk	  with	  respect	  to	  future	  options	  for	  products	  and	  values.	  While	  this	  test	  acknowledges	  the	  difficulties	  associated	  with	  assessing	  these	  future	  values,	  the	  assumption	  is	  that	  maintaining	  or	  enhancing	  a	  mix	  of	  species	  is	  considered	  a	  reasonable	  strategy	  	  Test	  5	  –	  Consistency	  with	  Timber	  Supply	  Review	  To	  facilitate	  good	  forest	  management,	  stocking	  standards	  should	  be	  linked	  to	  local	  assumptions	  for	  the	  sustainability	  of	  timber	  flows	  over	  time.	  Accordingly,	  standards	  that	  are	  consistent	  with	  the	  latest	  timber	  supply	  review	  (TSR)	  should	  be	  considered	  acceptable	  	  	  (McWilliams,	  2009)	   	  	   18	  Appendix	  B:	  Stand	  Development	  Monitoring	  (SDM)	  protocols	  Data	  Collection	  consist	  of:	  	  1. Overview	  statistics	  (context)	  a. Polygons	  sampled,	  polygon	  attributes,	  coverages,	  etc.	  2. Forest	  Health	  a. Pest	  incidence	  by	  host	  and	  by	  BEC	  unit,	  etc.	  3. Stand	  Density	  a. Changes	  in	  stocking	  (TT,	  WS,	  and	  FG)	  etc.	  4. Species	  Composition	  a. Changes	  in	  leading	  species,	  BA	  representation	  5. Site	  Index	  	  (Zeglen	  &	  Weaver,	  2012)	   	  	  Figure	  2:	  Flowchart	  demonstrating	  how	  the	  data	  collected	  is	  put	  to	  use	  (from	  Zeglen	  &	  Weaver,	  2012)	  	  

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.52966.1-0075576/manifest

Comment

Related Items