Integrated Silviculture Strategy for the Mackenzie TSA · 2018. 10. 29. · Integrated Silviculture...

Integrated Silviculture Strategy for the Mackenzie TSA

Scenario Development

Version 1.1

March 31, 2018

Project 419-35

Prepared for: BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Resource Practices Branch PO Box 9513 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9C2

Prepared by: Forsite Consultants Ltd. 330 – 42nd Street SW PO Box 2079 Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4R1 250.832.3366

Integrated Silviculture Strategy for the Mackenzie TSA March 31, 2018

Scenario Development – Version 1.1 i

Overview This Integrated Silviculture Strategy (ISS) project aims to facilitate a respectful and collaborative landscape-level planning process that supports the delivery of defined stewardship outcomes - which in turn improves business certainty for licensees operating within Mackenzie TSA.

The Scenario Development document is the second of seven documents developed through the ISS process. In this phase, the Project Team engaged with a wide array of individuals living and operating within the project area to seek input, information and ideas for developing assumptions and criteria to apply in four scenario analyses: ISS base case, reserve, harvest, and silviculture. This document describes the approach used to select tactics to analyze within each scenario. It also provides details and specific analysis instructions produced through the formation and deliberation of separate teams for each scenario.


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 ii

Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables......................................................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................. iii Document Revision History ................................................................................................................................................. iv

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Integrated Silviculture Strategy Objectives .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Context ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Planning Terms ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Scenario Development Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 3

2 Approach ...............................................................................................................................4 2.1 Situation Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Engagement ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Identifying Tactics ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Describe, Group, and Prioritize Tactics ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.5 Ranking Candidate Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Scenario Teams ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

3 References ........................................................................................................................... 10

Matrix of Tactics .....................................................................................................1

Ranking Candidate Scenarios...................................................................................1

Base Case Scenario Notes ........................................................................................2

Reserve Scenario Notes ...........................................................................................1

Harvest Scenario Notes ...........................................................................................1 Summary of Harvest Scenario Assumptions......................................................................................................................... 2

Silviculture Scenario Notes ......................................................................................1 Summary of Silviculture Scenario Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 2

Combined Scenario Notes .......................................................................................1

List of Figures Figure 1 ISS Scenario Types ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of Tables Table 1 ISS Planning terms ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2 Summary of Engagement ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 3 Candidate Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4 Objectives, values, issues, and opportunities considered with candidate scenarios .................................................. 8


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 iii

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge and thank the following individuals who contributed in the completion of this phase of the ISS process:

Aaron Day, BCTS (Prince George) Kelly Favron, Conifex (Mackenzie) Adele Chingee, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Ken Zielke, Zielke Consulting (West Vancouver) Adrian Walton, FLNRO (Victoria) Rob Kennett, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Aiden Wiechula, Conifex (Mackenzie) Kevin Hoekstra, FLNRO (Prince George) Andrew Wheatly, FLNRO (Fort St. James) Leanne Elliott, FLNRO (Prince George) Angel Ransom, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Les Dillabaugh, Sinclar (Prince George) Barry Snowdon, FLNRO (Victoria) Leslie McKinley, FLNRO (Prince George) Bev John, Tl’azt’en (Fort St. James) Loni Arman, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Brent Sinclair, Canfor (Mackenzie) Lori Borth, FLNRO (Fort St. James) Brian Smart, Forsite (Sechelt/Salmon Arm) Louise Bett, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Bruce Middleton, BCTS (Fort St. James) Luke Gleeson, Tsay Key (Mackenzie) Bryce Bancroft, Symmetree (Victoria) Marty Baker, Cabin Owner (Mackenzie) Cam Brown, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Michael Klaczek, FLNRO (Prince George) Carly Blashyn, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Micheline Snively, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Changru Li, Apollo (Fort St. James) Mike McLachlan, FLNRO (Prince George) Cheryl Hodder, Conifex (Fort St. James) Miles Hogan, FLNRO (Prince George) Cosmin Man, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Miodrag Tkalec, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Cyril Thacker, Conifex (Mackenzie) Normand Bilodeau, FLNRO (Prince George) Dan Turner, FLNRO (Kamloops) Trevor Joyce, Sinclair (Prince George) Darcie Fodor, Forsite (Prince George) Patrick Bryant, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Darin Hancock, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Paul Rehsler, FLNRO (Victoria) Dave Johnson, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Phil Zacharatos, Muskwa Kechika (Kamloops) David Radies, Takla (Prince George) Renel Mitchell, Tl’azt’en (Fort St. James) David Schwarz, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Robin Young, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Doug Ambedian, Canfor(Mackenzie) Rosemarie Sam, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Erica Xie, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Sandra Sulyma, FLNRO (Prince George) Evan Prince, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Sarah Curtis, Canfor (Mackenzie) Fraser MacDonald, CircleM (Mackenzie) Scott McNay, Wildlife Infometrics (Mackenzie) Heather Wiebe, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Shannon Carson, FLNRO (Prince George) Ian Niblett, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Shawna Case, Kwadacha (Kwadacha) Jackie Brown, FLNRO (Prince George) Shelly Marshall, FLNRO (Prince George) Jeanne Robert, FLNRO (Prince George) Stephen Smyrl, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Jeremy Beal, Forsite (Edmonton) Tanya Kruisselbrink, Conifex (Fort St. James) Jeremy Greenfield, BCTS (Prince George) Terry Lazaruk, Canfor (Vanderhoof) Jessica Koroll, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Traci Van Spengen, FLNRO (Prince George) Jewel Yurkewich, FLNRO (Prince George) Tyler Muhly, FLNRO (Victoria) John DeGagne, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Vanessa Joseph, Yekooche (Fort St. James) John Poucette, FLNRO (Prince George) Viktor Brumovski, Wildlife Infometrics (Mackenzie) John Rex, FLNRO (Prince George) Wineta, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Julia Vanderham, FLNRO (Fort St. James) Kat Gunion, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Katherine Lessard, CSTC Liaison (Fort St. James)


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 iv

Document Revision History

Version Date Notes/Revisions

1.0 Sep 20, 2017 First version distributed to project team for review and comment.

1.1 Mar 31, 2018 Minor corrections and clarifications throughout. Added notes and tables for Harvest, Silviculture, and Combined Scenarios in appropriate appendices.


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 Page 1 of 10

1 Introduction

The British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) has initiated an Integrated Silviculture Strategy (ISS) for the Mackenzie TSA. The ISS is an evolving planning process that aims to provide context for management decisions necessary to achieve forest- or landscape-level objectives. It integrates other planning processes, such as:

wildfire management planning,

forest health,

wildlife habitat designations planning,

biodiversity habitat planning,

cumulative effects, and

silviculture strategies.

Aligning these plans and strategies within a common process will focus landbase investments, improve planning outcomes, and enhance communications with First Nations and stakeholders – resulting in increased efficiency and effectiveness to stewardship planning relative to status quo.

1.1 Integrated Silviculture Strategy Objectives

In support of government objectives to mitigate forest health impacts on mid-term timber supply, this ISS project aims to:

Facilitate a respectful and collaborative landscape-level planning process that supports the delivery of defined stewardship outcomes - which in turn improves business certainty for licensees operating within the Mackenzie TSA.

This improved certainty will be achieved through the creation of:

1. A common understanding among participants of the goals, values, issues, and challenges facing the Mackenzie TSA.

2. A well designed Landscape Reserve Strategy that minimizes impacts to the timber harvesting land base (THLB) while addressing as many stewardship issues as possible. This includes incorporating, where feasible, First Nation’s interests and will ultimately help indicate areas on the landbase that are currently suitable for harvesting by licensees.

3. A coordinated Harvest Strategy that identifies approaches to harvest scheduling aimed at addressing common interests (MPB and spruce beetle salvage, equitable access to green timber, landscape level fuel breaks, etc.).

4. A Silviculture Strategy that provides clear direction on how to achieve improved timber and habitat outcomes in the future through investments in silviculture.

5. A plan for monitoring and evaluating progress and effectiveness towards meeting key goals and objectives that support future management decisions in the Mackenzie TSA.

These objectives are meant to align with Provincial Timber Management Goals and Objectives (FLNRO 2014), the Chief Forester’s Provincial Stewardship Optimization/Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB) Stabilization Project (FLNRO 2015) and FLNRO staff.

1.2 Context

This Scenario Development document is the second of seven documents developed through the ISS process:



1. Situation Analysis – describes in general terms the situation for the unit – this could be in the form of a PowerPoint presentation with associated notes or a compendium document.

2. Scenario Development – describes the development of a combined scenario to be explored through forest-level modelling and analysis. This is first developed and explored as separate scenarios:

a) Base Case Scenario – provides a baseline for comparison against other scenarios. It is a more flexible that takes into account non legal ‘status quo' resource management compared to TSR that can only consider legally-established objectives.

b) Reserve Scenario – review and analyze existing and proposed management zonation and develop strategy options that provide for the sustainable management of non-timber values.

c) Harvest Scenario – review and analyze current and planned timber harvesting plans, infrastructure, and capabilities in the context of the distribution of spruce beetle- and MPB-killed timber salvage opportunities and the landscape reserve scenario. This must consider the current salvage period and the transition into the mid-term timber supply.

d) Silviculture Scenario –provides treatment options, associated targets, timeframes and benefits to minimize the impact of the MPB infestation over the mid-term timber supply.

3. Data Package - describes the information that is material to the analysis including the model used, data inputs and assumptions.

4. Analysis Report –provides modeling outputs and rationale for choosing a combined scenario.

5. Operational plan – direction for the implementation of the combined scenario.

6. Final Report – summary of all project work completed.

7. Monitoring Plan – direction on monitoring the implementation of the ISS; establishing a list appropriate performance indicators, developing monitoring responsibilities and timeframe and a reporting format and schedule.

This particular document builds upon the Situation Analysis and incorporates input from participants - through various meetings and workshops that begins to list and describe the various modelling scenarios that will be explored in the upcoming phases of the project. This document also provides a record of the tactics that were not pursued in this iteration of the ISS project so that they may be considered when developing future management strategies.

1.3 Planning Terms

Since planning terms are often misused, misunderstood, and misinterpreted, we have provided a brief description the planning terms that will be used throughout this document (Table 1).



Table 1 ISS Planning terms

Term Answers the question… Used to…

Objective Where to go? Describe what we want to achieve; values, issues, and opportunities to consider

Strategy How do we get there? Describe how we plan to achieve the objective(s); in this case by developing a combined scenario and tactical plan(s)

Scenario What if? Examine possible future outcomes by considering alternative tactics and modelling assumptions

Tactic How to address what? Describe specific actions or treatments that alone, or in combination with other tactics, to address a strategic objective

Indicator What to track? Measure or describe the state or condition of a tactic

Target On track? Describe the desired state or condition of an indicator

1.4 Scenario Development Objectives

The objectives for this scenario development phase are to:

1. Actively seek input, information, and ideas from First Nations, forest licensees, stakeholders, and FLNRO staff through collaborative engagement;

2. Identify elements to analyze within four scenarios: ISS Base Case, Reserve, Harvest, and Silviculture scenarios;

3. Provide clear direction to the forest analyst for configuring the model; and

4. Identify knowledge gaps that would be beneficial to future analyses.

A fundamental component of this process is developing specific questions for what we are trying to answer through this analysis exercise. This helps to maintain focus on the original intent when considering potential assumptions.

Ultimately, elements from the analysis of these four scenarios (Figure 1) will be combined and applied to develop a combined scenario – or integrated strategy – used to develop tactical plans to guide operational and monitoring activities over this first iteration of the ISS process.

Figure 1 ISS Scenario Types



2 Approach

There is no single-way or correct approach for developing scenarios to model. It is not a linear or step-by-step process with a clear beginning and end. This phase of the ISS process involves identifying values, issues, and opportunities, then exploring which combination of tactics might best meet the objective(s). It can be organized into several exercises but planners typically work through these iteratively; starting from different perspectives each time. Finally, we are never really done. As this is a process it is important to remember that not all tactics can be modeled in the first iteration, chose first those that can reasonably be analyzed and address the remaining ones in future iterations.

Project Teams for both the Stuart and Mackenzie ISS processes decided to collaborate directly throughout this phase of the project as the study areas are adjacent to one another, some First Nations share traditional territories with both study areas, the same consultant was engaged for both projects, and most values, issues, and opportunities are identical or similar over both study areas. This turned out to be very efficient and cost-effective. The approach used to develop scenarios for this project is described in the subsections below.

2.1 Situation Analysis

The Situation Analysis (Forsite 2016) briefly describes the current situation of timber supply, timber quality, fish and wildlife habitat, biodiversity, climate change adaptation, other development, and other key values and issues. It also summarizes current plans and strategies completed and underway.

The aim of the Situation Analysis document is to set the scene for all stakeholders to think about the range of management issues facing the landbase - including their interest areas and values - and to encourage them to submit information and become engaged in the process. The background information and data gathered for this exercise also helps to identify some of the key values, issues, and opportunities that provide context to potential modelling scenarios being considered.

2.2 Engagement

Equipped with background information of the current situation, the project team felt it was critical to reach out to First Nations, licensees, and other stakeholders, to: introduce the ISS process, gather input on key values and concerns, and solicit ideas and information on potential solutions or tactics to explore. The project team developed an engagement plan that included: mailings, email correspondence and information exchange, phone calls, meetings with information sessions, and workshops.

With no previous examples to demonstrate the evolving ISS process, the project team decided to first develop draft versions of the situation analysis and candidate scenarios to facilitate meaningful and targeted discussions on the ISS process. It was also noted that First Nations, licensees, and stakeholders are typically busy throughout spring/summer, as well as, other initiatives were already quite demanding on the available capacity (e.g., TSR for Prince George TSA, Mackenzie Stewardship Initiative, and Omineca Environmental Stewardship Initiative). While was this approach seemed effective for most groups, one First Nation member and one licensee expressed that they would have preferred to have been informed or involved from the start.

Table 2 summarizes the various forms of engagement the project team initiated to solicit ideas in developing and prioritizing scenarios to model and to develop modelling assumptions.



Table 2 Summary of Engagement

When How Purpose Who

Nov 6/15 F2F Meeting Introduce ISS BC Guide Outfitters

Nov 26/15 F2F Meeting Introduce ISS outcomes and involvement BC Timber Sales

Mar 8/16 Half-day Workshop Present/discuss: ISS; scenario development; values, issues, and opportunities; and tactics; opportunity to provide input.

FLNRO Researchers and First Nations Advisors

Mar 9/16 Full-day Workshop Stuart/Mackenzie Licensees and FLNRO

Apr 29/16 Call Discussed modelling for ISS. Tl'azt'en and FLNRO

Jul 20/16 Call/Web Meeting Present/discuss: ISS; scenario development; candidate scenarios, and ranking request.

Licensees and FLNRO

Jul 27/16 F2F Meeting Yekooche

Jul 27/16 F2F Meeting Tl'azt'en

Jul 28/16 F2F Meeting Nak'azdli First Nation

Aug 4/16 Call/Web Meeting Takla Lake First Nation

Jul-Sep/16 Survey to Rank Candidate Scenarios

Identify relative priority of candidate scenarios and tactics; opportunity to provide further input.

First nations, licensees, guide outfitters, and FLNRO staff

Fall 2016 Call/Web Meetings Discuss establishment of scenario teams to begin development of modelling scenarios.

See Appendix 2

Nov 1/16 Call/Web Meeting Discuss and revise draft scenario notes that summarize modelling details required.

Reserve Scenario Team Members (see Appendix 4)


Base Case Scenario Team Members (see Appendix 3)





Dec 1/16 Call/Web Meeting Discuss and revise draft scenario notes that summarize modelling details required.








Jun 5/17 F2F - All-Day Workshop

Discuss and revise draft scenario notes that summarize modelling details required.

Harvest and Silviculture Scenario Team Members (see Appendix 5 and Appendix 6)

Feb 15/18 F2F - Workshop Discuss and revise preliminary tactics identified for the Combined Scenario that summarize modelling details required.

Project Team (see Appendix 7)

Note: F2F is Face-to-face

As this iteration of the ISS process continues to evolve, the project team will continue to engage First Nations, licensees, and stakeholders.

2.3 Identifying Tactics

Identifying and considering tactics or actions to address values, issues, and opportunities is a significant piece in developing appropriate scenarios. This helps to develop specific questions that the project team is trying to answer through the modelling exercise. A matrix of tactics was developed by using three techniques that consider: a) existing sources of information, b) general objectives, and c) existing and desired activities.



An obvious technique for identifying tactics is to review the material already presented through other processes. Ideas were readily available and assembled from the situation analysis (section 2.1), latest rationale for AAC determination, District Manager guidance, and other existing sources of information.

For this iteration of the ISS, the Project Team discussed and settled on four general objectives. Much of the engagement described in section 2.2 aimed to produce ideas for tactics by asking individuals this question related to the four objectives, “How can we…”

1. MITIGATE fall-down in the mid-term 2. MAINTAIN non-timber values 3. MINIMIZE economic losses due to natural disturbance (MPB, SBB, Fire) 4. MAXIMIZE long-term productivity

For additional context, individuals were shown the table below where colours correspond to the list of objectives above to illustrate the associated scenario type and period along the timber harvest flow that each objective is expected to impact:

Harvest Flow Period (Term) Short Mid Long

Sce

nar

io

Reserve 2 Harvest 3 4

Silviculture 1

The third technique for identifying tactics was to ask individuals to consider current activities occurring across the landscape, as well as, desired activities that could affect identified values.

At this time, a total of 242 original tactics were forwarded to the Project Team for consideration (Appendix 1). Collected from various venues and sources, these tactics ideas span a wide range of values and issues – of which many are quite similar. The tactics were captured and managed in an Excel spreadsheet that made it easier to organize, group, and summarize.

2.4 Describe, Group, and Prioritize Tactics

Given the array of tactics assembled, the ISS Project Team determined that the budget for this iteration would support analysis of approximately 5 scenarios. The challenge, then, was to prioritize and integrate as many of the original ideas received as possible. The process for doing this involved several steps.

First, the Project Team and forest analyst assessed and expanded the description of each tactic into:

several classifications (i.e., objective, value/issue/opportunity, tactic type);

analysis potential (i.e., whether and how the tactic might be included in a forest-level analysis); and

general priority class (ranging from low to very high).

These expanded definitions helped in grouping and summarizing similar tactics and results.

Each Project Team member was then asked to select approximately 20 tactic types that they felt were most critical to this iteration of the ISS process. This step identified 28 tactic types for closer consideration.

After further discussion and amalgamation as a group, the Project Team narrowed the list of tactic types down to 12 candidate modelling scenarios (see Table 3) aimed to address the four objectives and numerous values, issues and opportunities that exist within the project area (see Table 4).



Table 3 Candidate Scenarios

Scenario Name Description

Riparian Reserves This retention scenario examines ways to address concerns regarding riparian health and loss of long term habitat by:

spatially assigning riparian reserve areas for medium- and large-sized streams; and

increasing average riparian area retained for small-sized streams.

Retention This retention scenario explores ways to maintain the harvest area while providing for the full range of values on the landbase. This could be done by maximizing relative scores assigned across the landbase for:

old forests;

rare sites/ecosystems;

identified cultural interests;

trapping opportunities; and

habitat and identified connectivity for identified wildlife species.

This scenario will also increase stand-level retention within forests attacked by mountain pine beetle.

Pine Salvage This harvest scenario investigates approaches to minimize economic losses from mountain pine beetle damage while mitigating the mid-term fall-down. It will implement specific harvest targets and partitions (TSR) to retain an acceptable distribution of green wood for the mid-term.

Spruce Beetle Management

This harvest scenario examines ways to address stand mortality from spruce beetles by quantifying damage to timber and applying shelf-life assumptions that account for timber degradation.

Minimum Harvest Criteria

This harvest scenario examines physically and economically realistic options to extend and/or modify the operable limits for harvesting (i.e., timber quality/quantity, steep terrain, log delivery methods/distances, available processing facilities).

Access Management This harvest scenario assesses ways to maintain and promote a range of values and maximize long-term productivity by:

Periodically deferring timber harvest within identified wilderness areas to maintain hunting and recreation opportunities;

Minimizing identified road systems to maintain grizzly bear habitat; and

Managing road construction and maintenance over time to reduce landbase impacts.

Watershed ECA This harvest scenario explores modifications in road construction and timber harvesting to reduce the impact on non-timber values within key watersheds highly sensitive to: a) peak flows, b) delivery of fine sediments, and c) loss of riparian function.

Harvest Priority This harvest scenario examines ways to identify and promote the most logical and cost-effective timber harvest opportunities by incorporating key operational considerations.

Wildfire Management

This wildfire scenario explores ways to incorporate stand- and landscape-level wildfire management strategies to address the potential impact or risk from fire. This could be done by maximizing relative scores assigned to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire and by applying fire stocking standards.

Rehabilitate Stands This silviculture scenario explores ways to improve timber quantity and quality over the mid- and long-term by implementing rehabilitation treatments on unsalvaged, beetle-attacked stands.

Enhanced Silviculture This silviculture scenario improves our understanding of options to realize future gains based on an assessment of risk from climate change and forest health factors. It will examine effects of implementing enhanced silviculture treatments on identified stands (e.g., modified stocking and species with the lens of climate change); aimed to improve timber quantity and quality over the long-term.

Fertilization This silviculture scenario examines ways to mitigate harvest reductions over the mid-term by applying successive fertilization treatments to identified stands (i.e., Sx/Pl, age, site productivity, distance).



Table 4 Objectives, values, issues, and opportunities considered with candidate scenarios

Objective Candidate Scenario

Value/Issue/Opportunity

Bio

div

ers

ity

Clim

ate

Ch

ange

Cu

ltu

ral H

eri

tage

Hu

nt

/ Tr

ap

Re

cre

atio

n

Acc

ess

Fore

st H

eal

th

Har

vest

Silv

icu

ltu

re

Wat

er

& F

ish

Wild

life

- H

abit

at

Mitigate fall-down in the mid-term

Fertilization X X

Minimum Harvest Criteria X X

Rehab Harvest X X X

Spruce Beetle Management X X X

Maintain non-timber values

Access Management X X X

Retention X X X X

Riparian Reserves X X X X X

Watershed ECA X X X

Minimize economic loss due to natural disturbance

Harvest Priority X X

Minimum Harvest Criteria X X

Pine Salvage X X X X

Wildfire Management X X X X

Maximize long-term productivity

Access Management X X

Enhanced Silviculture X X

Other… Minimum Harvest Criteria X

2.5 Ranking Candidate Scenarios

Given the current schedule and budget for this project, only 4 to 8 scenarios could realistically be analyzed in this iteration of the ISS process. This required a means to prioritize scenarios to explore. A description of candidate scenarios (Appendix 2) was distributed to workshop participants, First Nations, licensees, FLNRO staff, and other stakeholders who had previously engaged in the process. Individuals were asked to carefully consider each candidate scenario and rank them in order of priority – from their perspective – on addressing a considered risk in the TSA (e.g., loss of habitat, reduction in AAC). They were also asked to comment if they felt any scenarios were missing to address an issue(s) from this short-list of candidates.

At the same time, the Project Team extended invitations to discuss the candidate scenarios and the ISS process face-to-face or over the phone. Some First Nations, licensees, and FLNRO staff participated in face-to-face meetings and web meetings (see section 2.2).

A total of 18 individuals responded to the ranking survey. The Project Team provided a summary of the overall responses to the respective scenario teams for consideration in prioritizing aspects of the modelling approach (see section 2.6).

2.6 Scenario Teams

Four scenario teams were assembled to flesh out the details and information required to develop modelling scenarios: 1) ISS Base Case, 2) Reserve, 3) Harvest, and 4) Silviculture. Team members were made up of FLNRO staff, licensees, and First Nations, as either active or passive participants. Active team members attended calls and meetings, provided direction and input on scenario elements, and assisted in developing material and securing data/information for the scenarios. Passive team members



attended calls and meetings whenever available but mainly reviewed and commented on material developed.

Each team prepared notes on implementing their scenarios and sensitivities (see Base Case Scenario Notes in Appendix 3, Reserve Scenario Notes in Appendix 4, and Harvest Scenario Notes in Appendix 5, and Silviculture Scenario Notes in Appendix 6). These ideas were carefully considered by the forest analyst and where appropriate, used to prepare the data package and configure the models. These notes were also updated by the forest analyst to reflect new approaches or assumptions.

Scenario teams met on specific dates that were selected through an online survey system (Doodle Poll) to ensure as many people could attend as possible. These meetings are recorded as engagement examples in Table 2.

A dedicated folder (File Transfer Protocol – FTP) was set up to manage information and data exchanged among scenario team members. This provided members with complete and current information as assumptions were being developed.

At this time, the project budget did not allow for the completion of the Silviculture Scenario, Combined scenario, or Tactical Plan.



3 References

Forsite 2016. Forsite Consultants Ltd. Integrated Silviculture Strategy for the Mackenzie Natural Resources District - Situation Analysis. Version 1.3. January 8, 2016. 73p.

FLNRO 2015. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Chief Forester Information Bulletin - Stewardship and Stabilizing the Timber Harvesting Land Base. March 2015. 6p. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/rco/external/!publish/FMLT%20Publish/North%20Island%20Central%20Coast/April%2015%202015%20FMLT%20Meeting/Chief%20Forester%20Information%20Bulletin%20FINAL.docx

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/rco/external/!publish/FMLT%20Publish/North%20Island%20Central%20Coast/April%2015%202015%20FMLT%20Meeting/Chief%20Forester%20Information%20Bulletin%20FINAL.docx

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/rco/external/!publish/FMLT%20Publish/North%20Island%20Central%20Coast/April%2015%202015%20FMLT%20Meeting/Chief%20Forester%20Information%20Bulletin%20FINAL.docx


Appendix 1 – Scenario Development – Version 1.1 Page 1 of 8

Matrix of Tactics

The following table lists all the tactics gathered to date for both the Stuart and Mackenzie Natural Resource Districts. These ideas were used to develop a matrix of tactics for developing modelling scenarios.

ID Description Tactic/Action

1 Encourage the utilization of marginal stands within the harvestable landbase.

Encourage the harvest of Balsam Leading and Deciduous Stands through a partition.

2 Stand mortality from insects and disease is a natural, significant and ongoing process within these forests. How can we utilize biomass to its full potential?

Explore opportunities with establishment of portable or remote chipping facilities and barging capabilities to reduce cycle times and lower utilization criteria.

3 Remove stands with yields that never meet the minimum harvest criteria; do not replace them due to natural non-logging disturbance.

Sensitivity that revises TSR assumption and reduces the THLB due to low productivity stands; become candidates for reserves.

4 New area-based tenures proposed to accommodate First Nation interests will reduce the TSA landbase.

Exclude proposed FNWL from the harvestable land base.

5 Deciduous - Maximize utilization of all trees; diversify species use (e.g., aspen, birch)

Explore the harvest contribution from commercial deciduous species.

6 Deciduous - Maintain mid-term (more value?) Identify other economic timber values such as deciduous licence.

7 MFR should consider planting deciduous stands. Deciduous trees can be used in bio-refineries

8 Protect spruce stands from impacts from spruce beetle Prioritize harvest/trap tree establishment in Spruce beetle areas (difficult to model but needs to be considered); model dead Sx.

9 Protect spruce stands from impacts from spruce beetle

10 Spruce Beetle - Maintain mid term Focus harvest on live/green attack; target harvest for sanitation.

11 Spruce Beetle - Shelf-life on spruce Shorter than Pl (~2 years).

12 Spruce Beetle - Recent forest health surveys have captured a significant increase in spruce beetle activity.

Identify cumulative spruce mortality and develop shelf-life assumptions.

13 Balsam decline (balsam bark beetle, spruce budworm and heart rot) has led to extensive stand mortality and significant loss of merchantable volume.

Identify cumulative balsam mortality and develop shelf-life assumptions.

14 Rate stands based on infestation and likelihood of control (e.g., infrastructure exists to access/hauling costs, etc.); (i.e., focus on stands that high probability of reducing overall susceptibility within cost recovery of valuable wood/probability of spread if attacked (rate based on proximity to other susceptible stands)).

15 Reduce volume loss to insect and pathogens (Jeanne Robert

Rate stands based on susceptibility to major forest health agents (e.g., bark beetles, pathogens, dry rusts).

16 Non-Recoverable Losses

17 Concerns of blowdown in pine stands particularly in riparian areas and WTPs

18 Spruce Beetle - Control of annual blowdown to keep IBS infestation to a minimum

Salvage licence

19 Recent pine rust surveys suggest that mean in certain ecosystems of these units, rust levels are the highest in BC.

Develop an approach to explore effects that these pine rust levels have on future timber supply.

20 Is diversification of species being practices in managed stands?

21 Caribou Identify disturbance levels in Low Elevation Winter Range in the context of recovery plan thresholds (65% undisturbed).

22 Licensee provides connectivity in a year; then in subsequent year’s harvest in that area

Connectivity - wildlife.

23 Wildlife Connectivity Terrestrial Ecosystems - Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed wildlife corridors connecting high value terrestrial ecosystems to promote healthy populations of wildlife, especially those species that Tl’azt’en depend on for survival

Exclude harvesting within the proposed areas.

24 Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed three riparian corridors that provide high value summer and fall forage habitat in close proximity to areas of potential denning habitat.

Consider draft general wildlife measures.




25 Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed expansion of the draft WHA for Tl’o ba Grizzly Bear.

Consider draft general wildlife measures.

26 Diverse habitat opportunity for different species (moose, ungulates, grizzly, First Nations rights/title/interests)

Multiple aged stands to allow different habitat types.

27 Protection of Douglas fir stands for deer habitat

28 Habitat needs to be maintained in order to have stable wildlife populations including fur bearers. This will make a more sustainable trapping industry.

Maintain a component of each LU as undisturbed habitat for trapping opportunities.

29 Wildlife is important and First Nations’ want assurance that their sustenance needs are going to be met.

30 Habitat for moose and elk is important as they are an important food source.

31 Poorly placed WTPs are an issue because these are blown down. Ungulates need intact WTPs and riparian areas. WTPs should be placed in live (non-pine) stands.

32 Caribou habitat is a significant concern

33 Reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire through landscape-level fire management strategies.

Set modelling objectives to prioritize stand types according to forest management priorities (e.g., harvest, retention, silviculture) for wildfire management and schedule treatments to reduce fire risk.

34 Prioritize/rank areas for actioning fires to protect timber and non-timber values.

35 Remove all fuel hazards; reduce fuels.

36 Reforest fires FLNR operations (FFT).

37 Fire losses Implement fire management standards throughout THLB to increase efficiency of fire management (fuel breaks).

38 Include wildfire management plan information for consideration with tactical plans.

39 Landscape-level planning (harvest/retention) and monitoring is not being conducted within designated low-elevation UWRs.

Develop a tactical plan for harvesting within designated UWRs.

40 Wilderness value (also related to non-roads) Minimize open roads; grizzly habitat; security areas.

41 Defer harvest of stands that will be viable in mid-term.

42 Target stands that will soon be non-economic (shelf life expires).

43 Implement a partition to retain an acceptable distribution of green-wood for the mid-term.

Limit harvest of non-pine leading coniferous stands to 950,000 m³/yr (21%); with no more than 300,000 m³/yr from southwest portion (7%).

44 Extend shelf-life (sensitivity); shorter or larger.

45 Reduce short-term harvest.

46 Change modelling parameters to show an even flow.

47 Increase utilization Maximize MPB salvage.

48 Develop North - Encourage utilization of the entire land base, particularly development in the north, to relieve current harvest pressure in the south (i.e., CF direction (Mackenzie) to shift salvage northwards after 10 years; before green-wood is harvested in the south). Are operating areas recognized or appropriate?

Constrain harvest so that during the salvage period 2/3 must come from Pl stands and limit the harvest of non-pine in the south to 300k m³/yr (i.e., Partition).

49 Optimize the salvage of dead pine while it retains commercial value.

Schedule harvest to target stands that will no longer be merchantable following their shelf life. Minimize the amount of dead pine remaining at the end of the salvage period.

50 Identify stands that are pushed over the minimum harvest criteria when biomass (value) is added to sawlog.

51 Reduce loss due to shelf-life Rank for salvage (SI, Value, location) and habitat; max benefit.

52 Salvage Priority

53 Maximize short-term harvest.




54 "Physical and economic conditions introduce significant complexity in considering appropriate harvest levels (steep terrain, log delivery methods/distances, timber quality and species, available processing facilities). Extending operability limits can mitigate a fall-down but this should be realistic/performance-based. If licensees can demonstrate significant performance in lower volume stands, it may be possible to mitigate the projected mid-term decline

55 · Mackenzie: Minimum 151 m³/ha conifer on ≤46% slope; 250m³/ha on slopes >46%; dead pine salvage only on slopes ≤36%; plus minimum average volume limit of 200 m³/ha.

56 · Stuart: Pl-leading 140 m³/ha; non-Pl-lead 182 m³/ha; max slope 62%"

"Explore alternative assumptions for minimum harvest criteria (volume, slope, haul distance)

57 • DMK TSR sensitivity decreased Avg vol/ha requirement.

58 • Remove criteria for average stand volume limit of 200m³/ha."

59 Enhance harvest chance Reduce harvest age assumptions; borrow from future.

60 Capture dead pine Reduce minimum volume/hectare based on distance to mill.

61 Improving the infrastructure (road building) would allow acceptable cycle times, therefore increasing the THLB.

"Explore alternative assumptions for cycle time.

62 · Type 4 - Expanding the Economically Operable Land Base added 2.5% throughout the mid-term."

63 Access management (spatial and temporal).

64 Species mortality; connector road issues; all roads max 0.6 km/km2; long roads bad.

65 Maintain the best harvest opportunities for current and future timber supply and log quality.

The model should select the best stands to harvest but licensees could help refine key operational considerations (e.g., access or distance limitations).

66 Efficiency of resource use Maximize use of infrastructure (e.g., minimize construction of new roads over time).

67 Existing haul distances/cycle times used to identify harvestable stands do not reflect current or future road development and are not suitable for tactical level planning.

Develop better methodology to assign haul cycle distances/times.

68 Improve access (land and water) and infrastructure Funding; transportation system in Mackenzie needs improvement.

69 Size of THLB and economics of stands Better understand implications of haul distances.

70 Wildlife (i.e., some species at risk and road density thresholds); reduce density habitat productive landbase loss

Address access management and minimize creation of more roads (how much THLB is lost to roads and what are opportunities to address road rehabilitation, etc.).

71 Release non-required constraints Evaluate to determine if any constraints are not useful (Post WTPs); no new WTPs.

72 Stabilize and maximize THLB Overlap reserves where possible.

73 Stratify sites and focus additional resources on bust sites Site index driven decisions; identify best sites for investment.

74 "Ensure that designated and proposed habitat designations:

75 ~ meet wildlife requirements and are connected in a way that maintains effective migration

76 ~ are collocated to minimize the impact on other forest resource values, and

77 ~ accommodate First Nation wildlife interests." Set modelling objectives to prioritize stand types according to current and future habitat capability.

78 Caribou populations Rate caribou habitat and maximize high value in reserves.

79 Focus on land use from a population perspective not a habitat viewpoint

Allocate more to those that need more and less to those that need less.

80 Wildlife Application of efficient reserves on landscape.

81 Wildlife Assess efficiency of existing (colocation).

82 Colocation.

83 Max options to address all values with reserves Start with clean slate for colocation (OGMA).




84 Where possible, incorporate priorities identified within First Nations Land Use Plans (e.g., Tl’azt’en).

Explore alternative assumptions for reserving areas within First Nations priority areas.

85 First nation’s strength of claim areas; are we likely to get this information?

Prioritize strength of claim areas for retention.

86 Cultural interests must be protected and maintained

87 Specific mention of protecting burial grounds, watersheds and salmon bearing sensitive streams

88 Medicines and sustenance plants are gathered even in dead pine stands. Pine and non-pine stands need to be protected.

89 Landbase productivity Evaluate overall production of the landbase for all values while maintaining a viable forest industry; Establish a baseline.

90 Fires - other values Are spatial OGMAs co-located areas moved when values change?

91 With limited funding, there is a need to prioritize silviculture investments.

Set modelling objectives to prioritize stand types according to expected returns (e.g., SI, haul distance, and terrain/harvest constraints).

92 To balance the uplift AAC, the Chief Forester guidance is to increase stand-level retention within moderately or severely attacked forests based on opening size.

Increase WTR requirement within priority areas (or across the board?) or alternatively some patch size requirement.

93 Regionally important wildlife (i.e., marten, northern goshawk)

Identify areas for increased retention (i.e., CWD, WTPs, and connectivity); ID wildlife species; increase in-block retention.

94 Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed candidate reserves to help achieve landscape objectives for old growth retention and spatial biodiversity (i.e., spatial OGMA).

Exclude harvesting within the candidate area.

95 Consider non-timber values when planning possible rehabilitation of MPB sites

Use natural disturbance areas (MPB) to contribute to landscape biodiversity; natural young stands have value.

96 How can we accelerate/increase areas with old growth attributes for constrained units?

Thin/space mid-seral to mature stands where old growth attributes are in deficit.

97 Manage rare sites/ecosystems (CDC) Use existing info PEM data to map sites.

98 Species dependent on old forest habitat Maintain ‘natural’ (NDU science) amount of old forest in landscape units; ensure representative areas are captured (e.g., species, site, crown closure).

99 Important to maintain landscape level biodiversity

100 Old growth reserves are important and recruitment stands for future old growth need to be protected.

101 Species dependent on interior old forest habitat Maintain large contiguous patches of old forest over time in landscape units.

102 Second growth species diversity Mixed plantation increase; density.

103 Reduce monocultures Increase amount of mixed stands on the landscape.

104 Landscape connectivity

105 Identify areas of core security habitat; >10km2 (undisturbed).

106 How do we maintain wilderness quality? For example, a guide outfitter (CircleM) has identified key areas (important and essential) with specific management objectives.

May be best addressed through access management; no permanent roads within priority areas. Within priority areas set an objective to schedule concentrated harvest over a short period then delay.

107 Harvest timing (spatial and temporal).

108 Grizzly Bear Identify road densities by LU.

109 Rehabilitate temporary road sections to prevent access into these wilderness areas.

110 Maintain the function of key watersheds that are highly sensitive to: a) peak flows, b) delivery of fine sediments, and c) loss of riparian function. All have sensitive fish species present (Tl’azt’en Nation n=10).

Explore alternative assumptions for reserving areas identified as FSWs.

111 Subsistence Food Fisheries Watersheds - Tl’azt’en Nation’s top management priority is to maintain, conserve, and protect ecosystems supporting subsistence harvest of wild foods (n=~25).

Implement a forest cover requirement within SFFWs with a max ECA.

112 Watershed sensitivity Model looking at ECA; CWS and identified Watersheds (guides).

113 Implement a forest cover requirement within FSWs with a max ECA.

114 Water quantity/peak flow (public safety/infrastructure) Watershed assessment/planning; better operational planning.

115 Appropriate macro and micro watershed harvest limits/amounts; ECAs (disturbance limits).




116 Watershed impacts.

117 Keyoh Watershed Management Units - Tl’azt’en Nation has identified KWMUs to reflect keyoh areas and the full extent of the surrounding watershed.

Develop a modelling approach that reflect management emphasis for connectivity according to the % assigned for each unit.

118 Water tables are rising due to timber harvesting and dead pine.

119 Are watershed impacts incorporated into the AAC decision?

120 How does harvesting of spruce stands affect watersheds?

121 Changes in hydrology in the central plateau.

122 Consider wider small stream reserves within SFFWs; increase aspatial reduction.

123 Fish and aquatic species and water temperature Appropriate riparian management/protections.

124 Riparian - temperature sensitive species - buffers.

125 Water quality (sediment; temperature) Reserves/buffers to minimize temperature and run-off.

126 Plants Increase RMZ.

127 Temperature sensitive streams - Protect the water quality of streams with sensitive fish species present.

Increase retention along smaller order streams feeding identified fish streams.

128 Average aspatial assignments for riparian areas are not conducive for identifying opportunities to co-locate potential areas as wildlife habitat designations.

Develop methodology to spatially assign riparian reserve areas for large and medium sized streams and revise the average aspatial assumption for small streams.

129 Riparian values need to be respected and maintained.

130 Riparian areas are ideal trapping areas.

131 To protect riparian areas (where pine grows to the water), deciduous stands should be established.

132 More consideration should be given to feathering edges and making wind firm boundaries.

133 Throughout the mid-term, salvage material that can still be utilized - including scattered green wood. • Already identified stands expected to fall below merch after salvage period; harvest these first and rehab • Develop haul distance thresholds for viable rehabilitation activities within the northern portion of each unit."

Rehabilitate stands after that do not have sufficient secondary structure.

134 What can we do with mature dead pine stands that have degraded below their merchantability limit?

Rehabilitate unsalvaged stands without sufficient secondary structure to increase mid-term, mitigate fire hazard and regenerate quicker.

135 Advanced regeneration found in pine-leading stands could contribute to long-term (and possibly mid-term) timber supply.

Develop an approach to identify stands with acceptable secondary structure to identify stands for modelling plus candidate stands for rehab.

136 Fire risk Burn areas to reduce risk and get cheap reforestation.

137 Integrate with WMB fire management plan (i.e., some stands better off burned).

138 The intent is to add volume to these stands to reduce the depth of the front end of the trough. Issues with First Nations? • Bigger gains with multiple treatments • f(avail stands)."

"Repeated fertilization of late rotation, near mature stands (40-80years)

139 Maximize volume in midterm Fertilization of mid-term stands.

140 Grow more Enhanced silviculture; increase utilization (stump height); class A seed; fertilize; rehabilitation.

141 Direct high-value seed to high value sites.

142 Take advantage of B-class seed inventories on lower-value sites.

143 Utilizing improved planting stock whenever possible can significant improve future harvest opportunities (disease resistance; increase volume; merchantable sooner).

Develop methodology to spatially assign seed planning units used to apply genetic gains and explore various implementation scenarios.


Identify the forest-level benefits associated with existing assumptions for genetic gains (i.e., with/without GW).





Explore the impact of employing GW projected 25yrs from now or expanding seed use guidelines.

146 Increase planting density on sites with higher risk of disease.

147 Produce a greater proportion of machine stress rated (MSR) lumber or reduce the impacts of some forest health agents.

Manage for higher densities on a portion of the landbase.

148 Improve value of second growth stands Plant higher densities.

149 Reforestation needs to occur.

150 A plan for forest rehabilitation is needed because of the significant pressure on the green timber in the midterm.

151 Partial Cut in Constrained Areas - How can we salvage stands impacted within constrained units? Particularly non-spatial, forest cover requirements like ECA, Seral Stage, WTR, or visuals; less likely with spatial designations like UWR, WHA, or OGMA.

Explore opportunity of partial cutting within constrained areas while maintaining habitat function.

152 Partial Cut in Constrained Areas - Timber Access Partial cutting within visuals.

153 Improve habitat quality, hydrologic recovery, and recovery of pine-dominated riparian areas for shade to reduce in-stream temperatures.

Plant trees and shrubs on non-THLB sites with no reforestation obligations (habitat focus).

154 Create diversity in future log products by encouraging larger piece sizes. Sacrifice short- mid-term volume for long-term quality? (i.e., extend rotations) • DQU T4 sensitivity extended MHA (added 90% CMAI criterion) • DMK TSR sensitivity increasing Avg vol/ha requirement."

"Manage for long rotations (increase MHA criteria on selected sites.

155 Thin (PCT/CT) identified stands to increase average piece size while sacrificing volume.

156 Manage for product (i.e., grade) Prioritize stands based on economics for product. Sawlog vs. chips; biofuel; structure plant.

157 Plant (stocking standards) to optimize for end products; tactic for bioenergy stands.

158 There is significant uncertainty associated with site productivity due to lack of local sample data.

Explore alternative assumptions for natural and managed site indices.

159 Include climate change considerations.

160 Reduce risk of fire (consider how to) stop climate change

161 How can we adapt to projected changes in climate; in particular temperature (mean, min, max) and precipitation.

Range expansion; plant Lw and Fdi.

162 Healthy Ecosystem Promote Resilience (diversity; age classes; climate based seed transfer)

163 Climate change Assisted migration.

164 How is climate change factored into the data and AAC decision?

165 Reduce cumulative impacts of multiple developments Avoid multiple cutblocks in area where already pipelines, mines, etc.

166 Impacts (of large cutblocks in one area) on wildlife, water, overall forest health

Large cutblocks in one area.

167 What are the cumulative impacts of the decisions being made that impact the ground?

168 Diversify the economy.

169 Support as many First Nation and non-First Nation communities as possible in north rather than all development in one area and moving on (socio-economic timber)

Timber harvesting across different areas in region; economic activity for First Nations and small communities.

170 Incidental harvest of healthy trees by increasing block size

Target harvest to smallest unit of infested forest possible (sanitation)

171 First nation: spruce removed by truckload pine harvested in PG and spruce harvested in FSJ; impacts to mid-term supply in Stuart (cumulative effects)

First nation concerns; damage stands 30% non-pine by licence

172 Guide outfitter concerns Model same input




173 Relax LU/BEC (spatial) requirements; same(?) target at TSA

174 Don’t harvest anymore

175 Redundancy - dead with distance; target

176 Define area required for each initiative so that it can be evaluated

Allocate accordingly; ha of specific value

177 Quantify values Real expectation; trade-offs

178 People’s expectations and needs

179 Aquatic life (commercial/cultural species) - JR Rate of Development (reduce risk); thresholds

180 Identify sensitive/important areas

181 Integrated-inclusive planning (communities and First Nations)

182 Harvest Cost Reduce cost of development (scale-based cruise; FFT-Silviculture costs; Allocate

183 Fish Passage (reduce obstructions)

184 Road and crossing design/maintenance

185 Cultural heritage Include communities; in-field review

186 Soil conservation Monitoring

187 Use field data to update data

188 First nations interests, concerns, issues for FLs, Fish and wildlife, water, biodiversity (First nations probably have their own category) as in more non-timber values (Jackie)

Have First Nations at workshops like this at the concept stage; early engagement is key for

189 Negative impacts to water, plant collection for sustenance and medicinal purposes; further impacts to warm temperatures/slow moving creeks, rivers and near to eutrophic lakes (classification)

Plants, wildlife - detrimental impact of herbicides and fertilization

190 Put out all fires

191 Identify disturbance (timely manner) Inventory process

192 Regeneration Prioritize stands (e.g., site index) for silviculture ROI (e.g., FFT)

193 Is sanitation really effective? How much economic loss in this practice?

194 Broadcast burn (habitat improvement; fuel management)

195 Quality site information Updated photos and PEM/LiDAR

196 VRI

197 What do we have now Enhanced inventory

198 Manage scope Upfront expectation management

199 Rural embracement Education; talk to communities with results

200 Political support

201 Improve inventory Tenure allocation consistent with available inventory (FNWL; CFA)

202 More balance is needed with harvesting pine and other species

203 No capacity to participate in the PG TSA TSR

204 What capacity is available from MFR

205 First nations need to be involved in land use planning and plans developed to be used.

206 True participation and reflection of values initiates a land use planning process.

207 First nations want a more accessible and renewable licenses that address economies of scale.

208 Uneven playing field between First Nations’ licenses and BCTS wood.

209 Uncertainty about the shelf life of dead pine. How is shelf life managed?

210 TUS and land use planning are required for their territory prior to licensees cutting in non-pine areas. MFR must involve other agencies for this work (ILMB and MOE)




211 Co-decision making in TSR

212 Revenue sharing needs to happen

213 Aboriginal title must be addressed

214 Concerns about apportionment following the AAC decision and how much will be apportioned to First Nations’ licenses.

215 Caribou habitat Identify disturbance levels in Low Elevation Winter Range in the context of recovery plan thresholds (65% undisturbed).

216 Caribou habitat Reduce industrial footprint in identified high and low elevation caribou habitat.

217 Caribou habitat Maintain connectivity within caribou range, and between caribou seasonal ranges

218 Caribou habitat Avoid destroying and harvesting in areas of known caribou forage habitat

219 Caribou habitat Avoid increasing forage for alternative wolf/bear prey species such as moose in areas of caribou range.

220 Caribou/Grizzly habitat Use existing corridors/roadways, minimizing the number of new linear features and disturbances on the landscape

221 Caribou/Grizzly habitat Reduce site lines on inactive forest roadways and linear features. Encourage visual screening through rehabilitation of linear features.

222 Caribou habitat Reduce use of eskers and other sites supporting terrestrial lichen for sources of gravel.

223 Caribou habitat Coordinate industrial activity to occur concurrently, and to occur during 'least risk' timing windows for species like caribou.

224 Caribou/Grizzly habitat Promptly restore linear features and work to reduce the densities of linear features on the landscape.

225 Maintain a diversity of habitat for different species (ungulates, grizzly, fur bearers)

Moose and Elk require adequate deciduous forage, and others require open canopy lichen dominated sites. We need to maintain these sites across the landscape.

226 Manage for other regionally important species and groups such as owls, migratory birds, beaver

Should promote the protection of riparian areas and the maintenance of shallow water wetlands. The harvesting and promotion of coniferous tree growth in riparian areas does not promote the maintenance of shallow water wetlands by beaver. This can have negative cascading effects on staging migratory birds, sediment capture, and stream flow.

227 Maintain Interior Forest Habitat Edge effects extend far into the forest interior, greatly reducing the amount of high quality interior forest habitat that many species rely on.

228 Increase size of riparian buffers. This will improve the habitat quality of these areas post-harvest for species of owl, fur bears and ungulates. This will also work to reduce run-off, and decrease in-stream temperatures

229 Culvert maintenance and replacement. Must work to reduce obstructions to fish passage.

230 Consider non-timber values as targets during the rehabilitation of MPB sites

Consider opportunities to restore sites to Caribou UWR's, forage for other ungulates.

231 Reduce overland water flow Work to reduce peak flows, the delivery of fine sediments by enhancing riparian areas.

232 Restore riparian areas. Work to restore riparian areas so that they are providing shade and reducing runoff.

233 Monitoring of soil fertility. Working to reduce the movement of fine sediments into waterbodies, and to maintain the productivity of the land base and harvested stands. Reduce harvesting in areas that could be prone to erosion.

234 Wildlife Increase wildlife reserves on the landscape.

235 Recognize biodiversity value of standing dead pine forests.

Dead pine can benefit biodiversity and provide habitat heterogeneity on landscape. Insect eating birds for instance will benefit from the standing dead trees.

236 Reduce density of planted stands. Current planting plans call for high density planting across managed blocks. This results in homogeneous closed canopy stands with no natural analogue on the landscape Planting a diverse mix of tree species and reduce densities would better mimic natural stands.



Ranking Candidate Scenarios

Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations

Mackenzie Integrated Silviculture Strategy - Ranking Candidate Scenarios

Summary 1. An accelerated cut planned in the Mackenzie TSA due to the mortality caused by mountain pine

beetle. Without management actions the increased harvest impact future harvest options, habitat and other values.

2. Twelve candidate modelling scenarios are proposed to explore ways to address various values, issues and opportunities for the Mackenzie area.

3. We are seeking your input to identify the scenarios that best capture your concerns for this unit.

Background An Integrated Silviculture Strategy1 (ISS) project is underway within the Mackenzie TSA. This project aims to assess and analyse both timber and non-timber values to provide context for management decisions needed to achieve forest level objectives. The ISS is a new forward-looking process meant to better understand the range of values and opportunities on the landscape to provide information to decision makers that promotes forest ecosystem health and sustainability for future generations. Input and collaboration with First Nations and various stakeholders operating throughout the project area is a key element of success for this initiative.

This ISS project will identify and spatialize environmental, economic and social values to proactively plan and guide stewardship objectives. It will gather results from projects such as: timber supply reviews, protected areas, natural resource monitoring activities, cumulative effects, forest health strategies, and fire management plans.

We invite you to help us select the modelling scenarios to explore within this iteration of the ISS project.

Overview of Candidate Scenarios The Project Team recently identified modelling scenarios (Table 1) aimed to address the four main objectives and numerous values, issues and opportunities that exist within the project area. This short-list of scenarios was grouped and prioritized from 206 individual tactics/actions collected through various sources (e.g., Timber Supply Review documents, First Nations input, and FLNRO/Licensee workshops).

Given our current schedule and budget, we can realistically analyze only 4 to 8 scenarios in this iteration of the ISS process. Unselected scenarios will be discussed within the ISS reports but deferred for a future analysis when additional funding is available.

1 https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFP/silstrat/index.htm

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFP/silstrat/index.htm


Your Input FLNRO is committed to provide you with an opportunity to participate in this process and are seeking your respected opinion on which scenarios to address first.

Please carefully consider each candidate scenario listed in Table 1 and rank them in order of priority from your perspective on addressing a considered risk in the TSA, such as, loss of habitat, reduction in AAC, etc. (ranking is 1 = highest to 12 = lowest). In addition, please let us know if you feel a scenario(s) to address an issue is missing from this short-list of candidates.

If the brief descriptions for these candidate scenarios do not contain enough detail, we encourage you to contact a person from the project team listed below to discuss them further or to arrange a separate phone/conference call or meeting. Otherwise, please submit your rankings by July 31, 2016 to:

Patrick Bryant, Strategic Planning Forester

Forsite Consultants Ltd.

#330 - 42nd Street SW, Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4R1

250-832-3366 (x216), [email protected]

Mackenzie ISS - Project Team Darin Hancock Resource Manager, Mackenzie Natural Resource District,

FLNRO, Mackenzie 250-997-2204, [email protected]

Miodrag Tkalec Stewardship Officer, Mackenzie Natural Resource District, FLNRO, Mackenzie

250-997-2244, [email protected]

Leslie McKinley Senior Ecosystem Officer, Omineca Region, FLNRO, Prince George


James Jacklin Section Head - Landbase Stewardship, Omineca Region, FLNRO, Prince George


Mike McLachlan Project Manager, Omineca Region, FLNRO, Prince George 778-693-3002, [email protected]

Paul Rehsler Silviculture Reporting & Strategic Planning Officer, Resource Practices Branch, FLNRO, Victoria

250-387- 8627, [email protected]

Next Steps We will move forward with all responses received by July 31, 2016. Based on this input, the Project Team will select the scenarios to model in this iteration of the ISS process. We will then proceed with developing detailed assumptions for each scenario and, where appropriate, address climate change as an overarching theme.

We will contact you again to: 1) present the final list of scenarios selected, and 2) provide a summary of the analyses results.

mailto:[email protected]


Table 1 Candidate Scenarios

Scenario Name

Description (note: each scenario will examine changes in forest features, timber harvest and spatial patterns over time)

Rank (1 to 12)

Riparian Reserves

This retention scenario examines ways to address concerns regarding riparian health and loss of long term habitat by:

spatially assigning riparian reserve areas for medium- and large-sized streams; and

increasing average riparian area retained for small-sized streams.

Retention This retention scenario explores ways to maintain the harvest area while providing for the full range of values on the landbase. This could be done by maximizing relative scores assigned across the landbase for:

old forests;


identified cultural interests;

hunting and trapping opportunities; and

habitat and identified connectivity for selected and identified wildlife species.

This scenario will also increase stand-level retention within forests attacked by mountain pine beetle.

Pine Salvage This harvest scenario investigates approaches to minimize economic losses from mountain pine beetle damage while mitigating the mid-term fall-down. It will implement specific harvest targets and partitions (TSR) to retain an acceptable distribution of green wood for the mid-term.

Spruce Beetle Management



This harvest scenario examines physically and economically realistic options to extend and/or retract the operable limits for harvesting (i.e., timber quality/quantity, steep terrain, log delivery methods/distances, available processing facilities).

Access Management

This harvest scenario assesses ways to maintain and promote a range of values and maximize long-term productivity by:




Watershed ECA This harvest scenario explores modifications in road construction and timber harvesting to reduce the impact on non-timber values within key watersheds highly sensitive to: a) peak flows, b) delivery of fine sediments, and c) loss of riparian function.

Harvest Priority This harvest scenario examines ways to identify and promote the most logical and cost-effective timber harvest opportunities by incorporating key operational considerations.


Scenario Name

Description (note: each scenario will examine changes in forest features, timber harvest and spatial patterns over time)

Rank (1 to 12)

Wildfire Management

This wildfire scenario explores ways to incorporate stand- and landscape-level wildfire management strategies to address the potential impact or risk from fire. This could be done by maximizing relative scores assigned to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire and by applying fire stocking standards.

Rehabilitate Stands

This silviculture scenario explores ways to improve timber quantity and quality over the mid- and long-term by implementing rehabilitation treatments on unsalvaged, beetle-attacked stands.

Enhanced Silviculture

This silviculture scenario improves our understanding of options to realize future gains based on an assessment of risk from climate change and forest health factors. It will examine effects of implementing enhanced silviculture treatments on identified stands (e.g., modified stocking and species with the lens of climate change); aimed to improve timber quantity and quality over the long-term.

Fertilization This silviculture scenario examines ways to mitigate harvest reductions over the mid-term by applying successive fertilization treatments to identified stands (i.e., Sx/Pl, age, site productivity, distance).

Your comments



Base Case Scenario Notes

Stuart & Mackenzie ISS Scenario Notes: ISS Base Case – Draft 0.2 May 17, 2017

1

Scenario Notes: ISS Base Case – Draft 0.2 Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Options .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Approach .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Riparian Reserves .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Criteria and Thresholds ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Habitat Areas ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2.1 Criteria and Thresholds ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 New Tenures ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.1 Criteria and Thresholds ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3.2 Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Watershed ECA ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.4.1 Criteria and Thresholds ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4.2 Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Caribou Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.5.1 Criteria and Thresholds ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.2 Sensitivity Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.6 Pine Beetle Management ............................................................................................................................................ 11 2.6.1 Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.6.2 Sensitivity Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 15

2.7 Spruce Beetle Management ........................................................................................................................................ 15 2.7.1 Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................................................................................... 17 2.7.2 Sensitivity Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 17

2.8 Access.......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.8.1 Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................................................................................... 18 2.8.2 Sensitivity Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix 1 Approach to Developing Scenarios ................................................................................................... 20 Appendix 2 ISS Base Case Scenario Team Members ............................................................................................ 21 Appendix 3 Modelling Criteria for Wildlife Habitat Designations ........................................................................ 22 Appendix 4 Identified Watersheds and Thresholds ............................................................................................. 25


2

1 Introduction

These notes provide detailed instructions to the forest analyst charged with building a forest estate model for the ISS Base Case Scenario. While this document is not an identified project deliverable intended for distribution, these sections will be included as an appendix to the scenario development document and modelling details will be added to the data package.

The ISS Base Case scenario is a baseline for comparison against other scenarios: Reserve, Harvest, Silviculture, and Preferred. It answers the question, “Which modelling assumptions best reflect the landscape-level management actions expected over the next 20 years?” This is a softer or more flexible test than TSR that can only consider “is it legal”.

The ISS Base Case Scenario is the product of a two-step process that first develops a model to mimic assumptions applied in the latest TSR. This is used to compare results between these models to confirm that the model is configured consistently. Some TSR assumptions may then be adjusted to correct errors, include new or updated information. These adjustments aim to better reflect the current situation while improving model configuration for future scenarios. Once results from this revised model are checked and accepted by the project team, the revised model becomes the ISS Base Case; the baseline scenario for comparison with all future scenarios.

The list of adjustments include:

a) Riparian reserves b) Caribou management c) Pine beetle management d) Spruce beetle management e) Access timing f) Wildfire management

1.1 OPTIONS

In developing the Base Case scenario, the team (Appendix 2) considered two options:

1) Develop a model that mimics assumptions applied in the latest TSR. This is used to compare results from these models to confirm that the model is configured consistently.

2) Explore appropriate ways to adjust TSR assumptions in an ISS Base case for comparing against future scenarios.

The team decided to pursue both options; a TSR Base Case done independently and an ISS Base Case that incorporates adjustments to TSR assumptions.

2 Approach

Various approaches to incorporate revised TSR assumptions into the Base Case Scenario model were considered. Recommended approaches are described below to: 1) aid in prioritizing which assumptions to pursue within remaining timelines and budget, and 2) provide detailed instructions to the forest analyst.


3

Table 1 describes the modelling approach for each element “at-a-glance” and provides a complexity index for prioritizing scenario elements and Sensitivity Analyses. Details for each model run are described in the subsections below.

Table 1 Summary of Model Runs

Scenario Elements Description Modelling Run/Approach (including Sensitivity Analyses)

Complexity Index

Riparian Reserves Spatial delineation of riparian reserves added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description.

Base Case – Implement 1

Wildlife Habitat Spatial delineation of approved, proposed, and draft habitat areas added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description.

Base Case - Implement 1

New Tenures Spatial delineation of revised CF, FNWLs, and AOI added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description.


Watershed ECA Monitor and/or implement a forest cover requirement within identified watersheds.

Base Case - Apply Proposed Thresholds

2

Sens - Apply Tl’azt’en Thresholds 2

Caribou Habitat Post-processing exercise to assess anthropogenic disturbance; block-to-road links included for linear disturbances.

Post - Federal Recovery Strategy 3

Post - BC Regulated Areas 3

Post - Caribou Population 1

Pine Beetle Implement a number of assumptions for adjusting yields and harvest partitions.


Adjust wildlife tree retention based on opening size by implementing patch groups adjusted relative to the current distribution.

Base Case – turn on WTR strategy with salvage zones

3

Sens - turn off WTR strategy with salvage zones.

1

Spruce Beetle Implement a number of assumptions for adjusting yields.

Base Case - Implement IBS kill 3

Access Spatial delineation of identified areas valued for wilderness and Grizzly Bear habitat added to the resultant; apply timing constraints.

Base Case - Set up timing constraints but keep turn them off

1

Sens - Turn on timing constraints 1

Note: complexity index assigned as: 1 = straightforward to 4 = complex; also relates to analysis costs.

2.1 RIPARIAN RESERVES

This candidate tactic was ranked very high overall. It aims to examine ways to address concerns regarding riparian health and loss of long term habitat.

Spatially identify areas likely to be retained as riparian reserves across the landbase. This will be particularly useful for the retention scenario.

Scott McNay1 worked on a model calibrated with field data to classify streams within sample watersheds but the spatial data is not readily available and it was not completed over the entire TSA.

Recommended approach: Tweak an existing methodology to spatially assign riparian reserve areas for large and medium sized streams and revise the average aspatial assumption for small streams. Pre-processing exercise as a spatial input to the resultant (i.e., Landbase Definition). Except for road crossings and right-of-ways, timber harvesting is not permitted within these riparian areas.

1 McNay, R. S. 2007. Impact of Riparian Management on Timber Supply in the Mackenzie TSA, British Columbia. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report No. 223. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, British Columbia, Canada. 42pp.


4

2.1.1 Criteria and Thresholds

The following simplified approach was applied to create riparian buffers for streams, lakes, wetlands:

Type Criteria Stream Size Buffer Width (one-side)

RIPCD

Stream a) Where FWA stream centerline overlaps a FWA “two line” river; buffer on “two line” river. b) Or Stream Order >=6

Large 70 SL

a) For remaining FWA linework where the FWA feature code of GA24850000 or GA24850140 (“definite”, “indefinite”); b) Or Stream Order 3,4,5

Medium 50 SM

Lake Area >=5 hectares Large 50 LL

Area >=1 to <5 hectares Medium 30 LM

Area <1 hectare Small 30 LS

Wetland Area >=5 hectares Large 50 WL

Area >=1 to <5 hectares Medium 30 WM

Area <1 hectare Small 30 WS

FWA = Freshwater Atlas from DataBC (WHSE_BASEMAPPING.FWA_STREAM_NETWORKS_SP)

This simplified approach does not consider small streams as they are typically unmapped at a landscape-level. For these riparian reserves, an aspatial netdown was applied within the Salvage Zone and WTR strategy (see Salvage Zone description in section 2.6.1).

Note 1 - WTP estimate for the TSR Benchmark scenario

a. Area of spatially-explicit riparian reserves (code 6700) that are not netted down for any other reason = 112,124 ha

b. THLB area = 1,434,130 ha, Existing Managed (EM)=191,803ha or 13.4% c. PCT riparian = 112,124/1,434,130=7.8%; for EM, PCT riparian =7.8%*13.4% / 100 = 1.05% d. WTP = 4.7%-1.1%=3.6% THIS VALUE WAS USED IN TSR Benchmark

Possibly supplement this simplified approach with slope, elevation, and/or, stream gradient information (if available) to drop buffers were fish are unlikely to occur (e.g., high elevation).

2.1.2 Sensitivity Analyses

No sensitivity analyses were identified for the riparian reserve element.

2.2 HABITAT AREAS

This candidate tactic implements general wildlife measures associated with approved, proposed, and draft habitat areas.

At this time, general wildlife measures are not established for draft habitat areas, so Regional Biologists could only speculate on the modelling criteria. While there may be changes, Appendix 2 lists the draft habitat areas and modelling criteria implemented in the ISS Base Case Scenario.


The ISS Base Case applies the modelling criteria described in Appendix 2. These criteria are applied the same as in TSR plus new criteria for proposed and draft habitat areas. Modelling criteria were only developed for GWMs that provide direction that restrict or limit timber harvesting as some GWMs can only be applied at a much finer scale.


No sensitivity analyses were identified for the habitat areas element.


5

2.3 NEW TENURES

This candidate tactic implements new and emerging area-based tenures that were not applied in the most recent TSR. Similar to the approach in TSR, these areas are excluded from both the CFLB and THLB.


The ISS Base Case makes the following changes compared to TSR:

1) Revised boundary for the Fort St. James Community Forest (added section along the western boundary and subtracted a section along the southeast boundary.

2) Added First Nation Woodland Licenses:

a) Nak’azdli FNWL (two areas)

b) Tanizul FNWL

c) Yekooche FNWL

d) Quantum Treaty (Yekooche AOI)


No sensitivity analyses were identified for the new tenures element.

2.4 WATERSHED ECA

This candidate tactic was ranked very high overall; ideally configure this process in the ISS Base Case so that it can be applied with any scenario.

Harvest timber while maintaining non-timber values within highly sensitive watersheds (e.g., community watershed, FSWs, DM identified (e.g., Tachie Creek), and bull-trout watershed sensitivity).

Remove areas from the THLB that are Drafted as FSW – No Harvest Zones

Explore modifications in scheduling the timber harvest to reduce the impact on non-timber values within key watersheds highly sensitive to: a) peak flows, b) delivery of fine sediments, and c) loss of riparian function.

Recommended approach: Monitor and/or implement a forest cover requirement within identified watersheds (Appendix 2) to maintain a maximum disturbance threshold (ECA/HEDA) over time.


Appendix 2 provides the list of identified watersheds and the maximum disturbance (ECA/HEDA) thresholds for this tactic

ECAs are determined based on the general guidance provided for proposed FSWs in the Omineca Region (November 2, 2016 - Sandra Sulyma). These are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 below.


6

Table 2 ECA estimates by stand height and land use

Criteria ECA%

Private Land 75 Anthropogenic Disturbance1 100 Stand height <3m 100 Stand height ≥3m and <5m 75 Stand height ≥5m and <7m 50 Stand height ≥7m and <9m 25 Stand height ≥9m and <12m 10 Stand height ≥12m 0 Natural Non-Forest 0 Wildfires2 100

1 – Anthropogenic disturbance examples: roads (Digital Road Atlas), gravel pits, mines, railway, pipelines, utility corridors. 2 – ECA for stands disturbed by wildfire is based on modelled regeneration assumptions.

Table 3 ECA estimates for MPB-affected stands

Years Since Attack1

ECA% by Dead Percentage Class 2

≥30 and <50% ≥50 and <70% ≥70%

0 to 5 5 5 10 6 to 10 10 15 30 11 to 15 15 20 40 16 to 20 20 30 45 21 to 25 20 30 45 26 to 30 15 20 40 31 to 35 10 15 30 36 to 40 5 10 25 41 to 45 0 5 20 46 to 50 0 0 15 51 to 55 0 0 10 56 to 60 0 0 5 >60 0 0 0

1 – Years since attack derived from VRI (N_LOG_DIST, N_LOG_DATE) 2 – Dead Percentage Class derived from VRI (DEAD_PCT)

Methodology:

Script to determine in each watershed the amount of:

o Private land (row[fdic["OWN"]] in (40,50,53,54,72,77,79,99))

o Anthropogenic disturbance (AD) row[fdic["NETDOWN"]] == "3900_Roads_Utility"

Determine the impact of Private+AD on each watershed using the % in Table 2

Determine new ECA target for each watershed

New Max ECA (%) = (starting ECA area – (AD area +Private land area))/CFLB area

New Max ECAforested (%) = Max ECAtotal * Total Area/Forested Area


7

Note: this approach results in higher new ECA targets (compared to starting ECA targets) because the natural non-forest area does not contribute to ECA. In other words, natural non-forest areas allows for more disturbance on CFLB.

ALTERNATE approach (NOT USED IN ISS base case)

New Max ECA (%) = (starting ECA area – (AD area +Private land area))/(CFLB + natural non forest area)

This approach results in lower new ECA targets compared to the starting ECA targets. It does not allow the land owners (Crown vs. private) to use natural non-forest area to increase the disturbance amount within the watersheds.

ECA curves – two components – regular height ECA (table 3) curves and ECA MPB curves (table 4). Regular height ECA curves are only applied to existing/future managed stands. The ECA MPB curves are applied only to mature (age 2016>=65) MPB impacted stands (all stands regardless the leading species).

Methodology to implement in Patchworks:

1. Regular ECA curves

a. For each existing/future managed AU, an ECA curve is developed based on height during the generation of yield curves in TIPSY

b. Account Feature.Area.ECA.HGT.CFLB is created for each AU and corresponding ECA curve assigned

2. ECA MPB curves

a. Add a field in the resultant called MPB_ECA and populate it with “Age of MPB Attack on the yield curve” and “stand percentage dead”. For example, “100_50” indicates that MPB attack year is 100, and 50% stand percentage dead. The field is populated only for records that have the non-logging disturbance = “IBM” and non-logging disturbance year >=2003.

b. Based on MPB_ECA filed, create an account: Feature.Area.ECA.MPB.CFLB and for each select statement (e.g., MPB_ECA=’100_50’) assign the corresponding curve id and shift to MPB attack year (e.g., shiftCurve(curveId('50'), 100)). This function shifts the original ECA MPB curve in Table 4 according to the attack age. In the case of Mackenzie, there are over 500 unique select statements, each select statement assigning one of the 3 curves in table 4, but shifted to the MPB attack year.

3. Summary account: Feature.ECA.CFLB = Feature.Area.ECA.HGT.CFLB + Feature.Area.ECA.MPB.CFLB

4. Groups

a. Develop groups for each FSW/Watershed, and:

i. assign the summary account above

1. Feature.Area.ECA.FSW.[FSW/Watershed name] developed from Feature.ECA.CFLB assigned to the corresponding FSW/Watershed group

ii. Assign the total CFLB area feature

1. Feature.Area.CFLB.FSW.[FSW/Watershed name] developed from Feature.Area.CFLB assigned to the corresponding FSW/Watershed group


8

5. Ratio accounts where ECA targets are applied

a. Develop one ratio account for each FSW/Watershed between the two group accounts above

Ratio.ECA.FSW.[ FSW/Watershed name] = Feature.Area.ECA.FSW.[FSW/Watershed name] / Feature.Area.CFLB.FSW.[FSW/Watershed name]


Options considered for undertaking sensitivity analyses to the Watershed ECA element include:

1) Monitor/report disturbance levels for the identified watersheds but do implement the maximum threshold;

2) Configure the model to apply the maximum proposed ECA/HEDA threshold for each identified watershed.

3) Configure the model to apply the maximum ECA thresholds proposed in the Tl’azt’en Land Use Plan.

2.5 CARIBOU HABITAT

This tactic was highlighted through the ranking process as an additional element to consider. Three assessments will be completed:

1) Examine potential impacts on timber harvest from implementing the federal recovery strategy,

2) Examine potential impacts on timber harvest from implementing provincially regulated areas (existing UWRs/WHAs), and

3) Examine potential impacts on Caribou population from the predicted disturbance.

Accumulate ISS results across both Stuart and Mackenzie to generate total cumulative impacts for the Chase and Wolverine herd areas which is really the management unit that is of most importance.

Incorporate methods (e.g., post-processing exercise at key periods; ideally link blocks to roads) to assess changes in caribou population and the timber impacts of implementing assumptions for caribou recovery. These will be used to:

Assess the potential effects of timber harvest (e.g., AAC base case and/or other modeled scenarios used to assess other objectives) on caribou population demography over time; and

Assess the potential impacts of specific constraints taken from the federal recovery strategy for caribou (i.e., a special scenario) on timber supply over time.

Note 2 - Can we include habitat capability/suitability? Adopting existing herd range areas?

Identify disturbance levels in High/Low Elevation Winter Ranges and WHAs (provincial regulatory) in the context of recovery plan thresholds (65% undisturbed).


Three post-processing assessments will be made after seven periods along the planning horizon: P0 (initial), P1 (5 yrs), P2 (10 yrs), P4 (20 yrs), P10 (50 yrs), P20 (100 yrs), P40 (200 yrs). Results are combined for both Stuart and Mackenzie ISS runs.


9

No patch size thresholds

Disturbance for polygon features

Blocks as output from the model plus permanent AD (e.g., camps, mines)

Disturbance for linear features; EITHER:

Spatially link blocks to roads and calculate linear AD directly from length of roads built (assume buffer width from running surface width so maybe ), or

Incorporate road-to-block disturbance relationships (Tyler Muhly) into the modelling assumption but assess identified periods through post-processing exercise.

Assessment 1 (Impacts on timber harvest from Federal Recovery Strategy):

Buffer all linear features (permanent roads, seismic, hydro lines, pipelines, etc.) and polygonal features <40 years old (cut-blocks, well pads, temporary roads, etc.) by 500m,

merge into an “anthropogenic disturbance” layer (AD), and

calculate % of the recovery planning area (Split Low/High Elevation/Matrix) in AD for Chase, Wolverine, and Takla herds only.

Assess disturbance levels:

Maximum 35% within Low Elevation (winter) Range;

Maximum 0% within High Elevation (summer) Range;

Assess both ways: Maximum 0% and 35% within Matrix (buffer outside) Range as surrogate for < 3wolves/1000 km².

Assessment 2 (Impacts on timber harvest from Provincially Regulated Areas):

Buffer all linear features (permanent roads, seismic, hydro lines, pipelines, etc.) and polygonal features <40 years old (cut-blocks, well pads, temporary roads, etc.) by 500m,

merge into an “anthropogenic disturbance” layer (AD), and

calculate % of the provincial herd area (Split Low/High Elevation/Matrix) in AD for Chase, Wolverine, and Takla herds only.

Note 3 - Provincial Strategy – need to consider how to assess disturbance; definition for disturbance? Has Chris Ritchie addressed this at a provincial level?

Note 4 - Harvesting will occur within (both) high elevation ranges (Joanne Vinnedge needed to minimize impact to THLB)

Assessment 3 (Impacts on Caribou Population):

Calculate population growth rate based on natural and anthropogenic disturbance levels

Calculate the amount of not-buffered “natural disturbance” (ND) and calculate % of herd area in ND.

Calculate population growth rate as lambda = 1.192 - 0.00315*%AD - 0.00292*%ND (Sorensen et al. 2008).

From there, calculate annual or period-specific population size as: N(i) = lambda(i) * N(i-1), where (i) is the time step and N(0) would be 350 for the Wolverine herd and 500 for the Chase herd.

Alternate option to constrain Patchworks model


10

Applicable perhaps if the post processing indicates too large disturbance levels. This method develops targets that can be applied in Patchworks, either to reduce the area <40yrs within the Caribou habitats, or to control smaller opening sizes that result in large 500m buffer areas (by a factor of 121 for 1ha square-like blocks).

Determine the max disturbance level from THLB that is allowed in each caribou habitat area:

Buffer linear features by 500m and subtract the buffers from the max disturbance allowed of 35%. This is the new max disturbance allowed that can only be violated from future linear features (outside of THLB) and harvesting.

Assume all THLB area within caribou habitat is <40yrs and determine how much it contributes to the disturbance level, in addition to the linear features (i.e., subtract the linear features 500m buffers that overlaps with THLB 500m buffers). This value is the effective max possible THLB impact.

Determine if a constraint is needed – compare the new max disturbance allowed to the effective max possible THLB. If yes, the new max disturbance allowed is the constraint to be applied to the THLB area <40yrs plus its 500m buffers

Determine how much area can be generated by the THLB <40yrs

Average block size of 20 ha (because the blocking in Patchworks aims to 20ha)

The disturbance impact of a 500m buffer around a square-like 20ha cutblock has a factor of 10.45 (i.e., area disturbed, which is the polygon size plus the 500m buffer, is 10.45 larger than the cutblock: 20ha * 10.45 = 209 ha)

Example: o THLB area <40yrs, 50 years into the future, is 10,000ha. o The THLB 500m buffer is 104,500ha (10.45*10,000) o Max allowed disturbance from THLB (plus 500m buffers) is 50,000 ha o A constraint is applied to Product.Area.Caribou.Young40. [Carib Hab Name] so the

harvested area is <50,000/10.45=4,785ha. Or a ratio account between the Product.Area.Caribou.Young40.[Carib Hab

Name] times the 10.45 factor and Feature.Area.IRM.Caribou.Young40_THLB.[Carib Hab Name]

Control patch sizes within Caribou habitat

Develop patch accounts (THLB areas <40yrs) for each Caribou habitat area

Attempt to reduce the patches <20ha to a minimum

Higher patch sizes have a lower factor for the 500m buffers

Shortcomings

Future roads outside of logged THLB cannot be properly accounted for

Not able to determine (in Patchworks) the true overlap area between the 500m buffers coming from the THLB<40yrs and existing/future roads

Some iterations will have to be run (apply some targets, model, post-processing; refine targets, model, post processing; etc.)

May be an expensive (and time consuming) process

Advantages

If the post-processing indicates that the max 35% disturbance target has been violated, constraints can be set in Patchworks to reduce disturbance levels


11

However, the true disturbance impact will be know only after the post-processing of the new results (i.e., results from the model that constraints THLB<40yrs)


Other than the three post-processing assessments, No sensitivity analyses were identified for the caribou habitat element.

2.6 PINE BEETLE MANAGEMENT

This candidate tactic was ranked fairly high; likely aim to incorporate into the ISS Base Case.

Investigate approaches to minimize economic losses from MPB damage while mitigating the mid-term fall-down. It will implement specific harvest targets and partitions (TSR) to retain an acceptable distribution of green wood for the mid-term.

The model should respond by scheduling harvest on stands that will no longer be merchantable following their shelf life. Minimize the amount of dead pine remaining at the end of the salvage period.

Implement partitions as directed by the Chief Forester.

Conservation uplift (2005 Chief Forester guidelines); increase WTR requirements relative to opening size within priority areas; assign forest cover requirement related to salvage zones (rt OAFs to yields); seek to retain dispersed, unsalvaged areas.

Set up product reports so that the harvest scenario might consider new opportunities to utilize the dead pine volumes over a longer period (e.g., new fibre plant at Fort St. James with 375,000 m³/yr, 20-year fibre license).

Include more emphasis on harvesting dead spruce over the Mackenzie TSA. This will result in a delay in salvaging dead pine while the pine partition in the southwest is brought back into line.

Note 5 - alternatively explore patch size requirements: Increase distance threshold in patches as patch (opening) size increases


Note 6 - See TSR implementation instructions (Stuart and Mackenzie); NOT at all clear

To develop a more refined spatial depiction of MPB impacts, the ISS Base Case incorporates elements that differ from TSR; as described below.

Yield Adjustments

Key elements to consider for adjusting yields are represented in Figure 1 and described below.


12

Figure 1 Example of how natural yields are impacted by MPB

Note 7 - Some concern with how these yield assumptions are applied

1) Shelf-life - same curve for both Stuart and Mackenzie; loss curve for ongoing PG TSR.

Note 8 - Suggestion that we may want to explore different shelf-life curves for different products (sawlog/biomass); certainly for different species (Pl/Sx)

a) Y=17.5*EXP(0.079*X) where Y is the loss percentage and X is the post-MPB attack year (values 1 to 22). Starting in year 23 post MPB attack, the dead PL component is removed from the stand. -CM, March 14, 2017

b) File: S\419\37\03_MappingAnalysisData\02_Data\03_ForestHealth\01_MPB\LossEquation.xlsx

2) Secondary structure; acknowledge that this is important but data is not readily available (work to assign; not likely accurate); drop at this time; but may investigate with PEM for Stuart.

3) Live overstory trees – same natural yield curve as the original stand; yield reduced according to attack severity.

4) Understory regeneration – same natural yield curve with 10 year advanced regeneration (i.e., model age minus 10 years).

a) Regen yield (from age 10 on the yields curve) kicks in the MPB attack year -CM, March 14, 2017

5) Young Pine Mortality: Attack year and dead % is different for younger stands. Apply the same assumptions as applied in TSR:

a) PGTSR revised % attack for only 5 LUs.

b) Young stands for DMK (Stuart has different approach for young MPB stands)

i) Age_2016 <28, no MPB impacts

ii) Age_2016 28-32, attack year 2011, PL-leading stands only, reduce entire yield by 1.4%


13

(1) Existing managed (post-1987) with Age_2016 28-29, PL-leading stands only, reduce entire yield by 1.4%. Reduction not applied if area-weighted stand pct dead values were 0 (i.e., VRI data indicates that no MPB disturbance occurred)

(2) Attack age on yield curve is the midpoint of the age class(30) –(2016-2011)=25

iii) Age_2016 33-42, attack year 2011, PL component killed by 55% in all stands regardless the leading species. Reduction not applied if area-weighted stand pct dead values were 0 (i.e., VRI data indicates that no MPB disturbance occurred)


iv) Age_2016 43-64, attack year 2011, PL component killed by 70% in all stands regardless the leading species. Reduction not applied if area-weighted stand pct dead values were 0 (i.e., VRI data indicates that no MPB disturbance occurred)


6) Mature stands (>=65 yrs) split in nine 35 x 5-year age classes (65-69, 70-74….230-234,>234). In Stuart the cut-off age is higher based on age class distribution. For the last age class (i.e., >234, an area weighted attack age was determined)

a) Eight attack years based on VRI: 2003-2008, 2010, and 2011. NO 2009 in VRI

i) Attack years used to determine attack age on yield curve. Example:

(1) Age class 65-69 (midpoint is 67). Attack age = 67-(2016-Attack Year).

(2) For last age class, an area-weighted average is determined for the age class midpoint

b) Nine 10-PCT classes for STAND_PERCENTAGE_DEAD (10-19%, 20-29…80-89, >=90%). The nine classes were determined based on area distribution by stand percentage dead. Area weighted averages of pct dead are calculated for each AU.

c) Yields for each MPB AU:

i) The stand pct dead (area-weighted average for each AU) is applied to entire yield (not just PL component). The volume is killed at attacked age on the yield curve.

ii) the shelflife curve is applied for the next 22 years after the attack age. It takes 22 years for the killed volume to become zero. After the 22 years, any killed volume left is removed from the yield

iii) Add the regen layer starting with age 10 matching Attack age on the original yield curve

7) The regen yield is not identical to the original yield impacted by MPB. Given the many stratification factors used to determine each AU (especially the age class), VDYP sample size cannot cover the entire age range in a typical yield curve (e.g., years 0-350). For example, the backward projection of old stands (e.g. older than 200 years) is not accurate. It was observed that in many cases there were no yield values for a good portion of the start of the yield curve (i.e., age 0 to 50). Similarly, the VDYP projection forward of the young stands is believed to be less accurate. For these reasons, the regen yields were developed for each AU without the stratification of the MPB factors. Only the leading species, site index, and BEC were used to stratify the regen yields for the MPB impacted stands.

Harvest Partitions


14

The following harvest partitions are applied to priority areas for each TSA:

1) Mackenzie partitions constrain the harvest flow (as applied in TSR) so that:

a) during the salvage period (15 years since attack) 2/3 of the harvest must come from Pl stands,

b) harvest of non-pine leading coniferous stands does not exceed 950,000 m³/yr (21%) with no more than 300,000 m³/yr (7%) from southwest portion of the TSA (i.e., west of Williston Reservoir and south of Omineca Park and Omineca Arm).

2) Stuart partition (need to develop our own approach):

Note 9 - Need to check with Kelly &/or John to see if we should incorporate a partition for Stuart.

a) ??? m³/yr for non-pine & deciduous (TSR partitions explored affect harvest flow within TSBs A,B,C; escalating within TSB B); how should we mimic…

b) FAIB’s catastrophic flow policy (Appendix 1 of TSR PDP)

c) New Alternate Flow (Kelly’s IBS outbreak presentation): Maintain a salvage focus for 5 years (50% pine - leading/50% non-pine leading) at 10.1 M – explicitly focus and prioritize non-pine harvest at current IBS outbreak (FHF polygons); Drop to 8.5M in yr6 with no further salvage focus (maintain deciduous partition); Drop to midterm harvest level in year 11; Maintain Houston influence on harvest flow

Note 10 - Is the addendum to this presentation available yet?

d) Develop our own? (e.g., geographic, timber/stand profile)

Salvage Zones

The 2005 Chief Forester guidance for adjusting retention levels relative to opening size (i.e., conservation uplift) is modelled using salvage zones defined by implementing the following steps:

1) Assign salvage zones based on patches developed by adding: i) areas harvested since 1986 (last 30 years), ii) mature stands that become non-merchantable by the end of MPB salvage period (MPB disturbance since 2003), and iii) stands disturbed by fires in the last 30 years (all fire records from the VRI since 1986 plus the fire history records since 1998 where fire size >50ha). To prevent patch splitting by narrow linear features like roads, patches that are within 20 m of one another are grouped together.

2) For each salvage zone (Table 4), determine the WTR that is net of the spatial riparian area (effective riparian reserve) already removed from the THLB, accordingly:

3) Compute the base In block ISS retention

𝑇𝑆𝑅 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 −𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑠 (ℎ𝑎)

𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑅𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑠 + 𝑇𝐻𝐿𝐵 (ℎ𝑎)= 𝐼𝑆𝑆 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (%)

a) TSR Retention (riparian and wildlife tree) is 12.1% for Stuart and 4.7% for Mackenzie.

b) ISS base InBlock Retention

i) DMK: 4.7%-7.8% = -3.1%. Assumed 0%.

ii) Stuart = 12.1%-7.6% = 4.5%

c) Modelled Retention starts with the mid-point target retention for each salvage zone.


15

d) Spatial delineation of Effective Riparian Reserves was created for large- and medium-sized streams. Further THLB netdowns for small streams are included within the aspatial WTR netdown.

4) Determine WTR within non-salvage zones (Table 4) based on assumptions applied in TSR for both riparian and wildlife tree reduced by the effective riparian reserves.

Table 4 WTR requirements relative to opening size

Salvage Zone

Opening Size

Target Retention 1 (% of opening size)

Modelled Retention 2 (% of opening size)

IBM impact Mackenzie (Modeled – Inblock)

IBM impact Stuart (Modeled – Inblock)

Small <50 ha 10% 10% 10% 5.5%

Medium 50-250 ha 10-15% 12.5% 12.5% 8%

Large 250-1000 ha

15-25% 20% 20% 15.5%

Very Large ≥1000 ha >25% 30% 30% 25.5%

Non-Salvage Zone

n/a N/A ISS In-Block% 0% 0%

1 Taken from 2005 Chief Forester Guidance 2 Criteria implemented in TSR and adjusted as aspatial figure (target retention less spatial riparian)

5) In all cases, the resulting WTR is an aspatial netdown modelled as an area reduction to allow these areas to contribute towards forest cover constraints.


Options considered for undertaking sensitivity analyses to the Pine Beetle Management element include:

1) Additionally, run the model without implementing the WTR strategy within Salvage Zones described above; utilizing the “Non-Salvage Zone” criteria throughout the landbase.

2.7 SPRUCE BEETLE MANAGEMENT

This candidate tactic was ranked very high overall; may lack generally-accepted assumptions/approaches.

Examine potential impacts on timber harvest from the current spruce beetle epidemic


Recent forest health surveys have captured a significant increase in spruce beetle activity.

Prioritize harvest/trap tree establishment in Spruce beetle areas (difficult to model but needs to be considered); model dead Sx.

Focus harvest on live/green attack; target harvest for sanitation. Is sanitation really effective? How much economic loss in this practice?

Rate stands based on infestation and likelihood of control (e.g., infrastructure exists to access/hauling costs, etc.); (i.e., focus on stands that high probability of reducing overall


16

susceptibility within cost recovery of valuable wood/probability of spread if attacked (rate based on proximity to other susceptible stands)).

Methodology to implement in ISS Base case Scenario (CM, May 10, 2017)

Used forest health surveys from 2014 to 2016 and consolidate a usable feature class. All isolated polygons under 5ha were deleted. Slivers under 5ha were eliminated.

S:\419\35\03_MappingAnalysisData\02_Data\02_ForestHealth\ForestHealth.gdb\Spruce_Beetle_consolidated

Consolidated survey layer used to determine the polygons in the resultant where IBS_SEVERITY was M, S, or VS. Severity values indicate percent of trees killed by spruce Beetle in polygon.

o Patchworks majority tool determined the link between polygons in the resultant (by RES_KEY) and severity class (M, S, or VS).

o The Patchworks majority tool output CSV file was used to update the IBS_SEVERITY field into the resultant

Added new analysis unit series: 3,000,000 for severity M, 4,000,000 for severity S, and 5,000,000 for severity VS

o For non-MPB AUs, Existing natural and pre-2000 managed stands were split by 5-year age classes (10-325 years).

Existing natural: added 10,000-16,200 then the severity (3, 4, or 5 mil)

Existing managed: added 20,000 for non-MPB and 21,000 for MPB, then severity (3, 4, or 5 mil)

o For MPB AUs, no other criterion was added to classify IBS AUs (other than the severity). MPB AUs already include the age as definition criterion

Processed yields for IBS

o Attack year was assumed 2015 and IBS kill age was determined as the mid-class age, minus 1

Example: age class 10-15, attack year is 12-1=11

o Shelf life was assumed 5 years

o For each IBS AU, an area-weighted SX percent was determined

o On each yield, at IBS kill age, the SX component was killed (SX percentage * IBS Severity).

M-20%

S-40%

VS-60%

o After 5 years, the SX killed component was removed from the yield

o Regen assumed to be from the original curves (Same as MPB assumptions) in the proportion corresponding to SX percentage removal. Regen delay of 10 years was assumed


17

o Note there were yields that included reductions for both, MPB and IBS factors; There were both VDYP and TIPSY yields processed

Determine ECA impact from IBS (similar approach to MPB)

o Populate a field into resultant with IBS Kill Age and Percentage dead (calculated as IBS_SEVERITY * SX percentage)

o Added a general feature in Patchworks and for each IBS record in the resultant, the ECA curves used in MPB were assumed (same dead percentage categories).

o The IBS_ECA general feature was added to the total ECA feature in Patchworks which also includes MPB_ECA and ECAs from heights (existing and future managed stands).

For existing natural stands, ECA includes penalties form MPB and IBS

For existing stands, ECA includes penalties from height, MPB , and IBS

For future managed stands, ECA includes penalties just from heights


Note 11 - No examples of previous modelling approaches

1) Shelf life – highly variable for an individual spruce tree from 3-7 years (5 year average); spruce stands are typically diverse (uneven ages, multiple layers, multiple species) so generally, shelf-life will have a greater impact on yields (7-9 years); we will apply an exponential loss curve to 7 years since 2015

What are licensees being asked to do and doing? Harvesting approach/priority (based on shelf life)

Identify attacked stands (current and future); % volume/area harvested of the dead spruce identified as attacked

a) stands with 2016 cumulative impact of >= 30% (severe); 8,336 ha (7,664 ha including surveys)

b) Reduce spruce volume by cumulative impact (30% to 100%); possibly group analysis units into severity classes

c) Apply 2016 cumulative impact to all stands

d) No assumptions to forecast future cumulative impact

e) Rate of spread based on susceptibility rating (based on %Spruce); Robert Hodgekinson; 7 year cycle so parameters around 3 more years (worst case)


No sensitivity analyses were identified for the spruce beetle management element.

2.8 ACCESS

This candidate tactic was moderately ranked.

Note 12 - Aim? What is “roadlessness”?

Assess ways to maintain and promote a range of values and maximize long-term productivity by:


18




Link blocks to roads and configure model to minimize costs

Cycle time: Develop better methodology and explore alternative assumptions. Type 4 - Expanding the Economically Operable Land Base added 2.5% throughout the mid-term.


Apply access timing constraints on priority areas (e.g., key grizzly habitat; wilderness areas); assume road is closed over this time.

f) Which areas? When? How long?

Link blocks to roads and configure model to minimize length/cost; requires clean, road network that includes planned mainline roads accessing the entire THLB (aligns with Caribou above).

g) Incorporate roadsheds to minimize roadsheds being used by period

Tyler Muhley’s road length-to-block area relationships (by LU or watershed)?

Landbase/Harvest Scenario? - Haul cycle zones (revised based on alternative); minimum harvest criteria could be associated.

Maximize use of infrastructure or minimize creation of new roads (how much THLB is lost to roads and what are opportunities to address road rehabilitation, etc.).

Methodology:

develop Access Time Constraints (ATC) Zones – Pat GIS exercise to identify watershed like-areas that overlap with other values/issues (e.g., grizzly bear habitat, caribou, spruce beetle)

for each of these ATC zone (which Pat labeled), develop a product area account (or ratio between product area within ATC zone and feature THLB area of the ATC zone)

run Patchworks (no constraints on the product area account) and determine when Patchworks first starts to harvest in each ATC zone, and when the harvested area is >=30% of the total THLB area

when the above condition is met, that is the first period where a minimum target for harvested area (30% of THLB area) is applied for each ATC zone. The next 30 years, the product area target (or ratio) is set to zero, then again to the minimum of 30% of THLB…and so on

alternate approach to determine the minimum area every 40 years is to consider each ATC zone as a forest estate where the AAC is area-based

o For each future AU, determine age at CMAI, THLB area, and available area to be disturbed every 40 years (=THLB*40/age at CMAI)

o The area to be disturbed every 35 years is then set as minimum target, first for the period where Patchworks harvests a cumulated area of at least 30% in the base case and then locked out for 30 years. This works out to an average rotation of 117 years.


19

Table 5 Access Timing Constraint Criteria for Stuart

Location THLB (ha)

Maximum One-Period Disturbance Every 35 years

% Area (ha)

Ferriston 1,141 30% 342 Klakring 1,121 30% 336 Genlyd 2,475 30% 743 Omineca2 1,264 30% 379 Omineca1 3,434 30% 1,030 Ankwill_N 1,257 30% 377 Frypan 395 30% 119 Lovell 571 30% 171 Ankwill_S 1,029 30% 309 Kotsine3 2,505 30% 752 Kotsine2 2,650 30% 795 Kotsine1 1,788 30% 536 Dust 1,291 30% 387

Total 20,921

6,276

Table 6 Access Timing Constraint Criteria for Mackenzie

Location THLB (ha)

Maximum One-Period Disturbance Every 35 years

% Area (ha)

Gagnon 547 30% 164 Gauvreau 2,850 30% 855 Hornway 6,985 30% 2,095 Ivor 990 30% 297 Jackfish_N 970 30% 291 Jackfish_S 1,206 30% 362 Mischinsinlika 2,806 30% 842 Mugaha 719 30% 216 Osilinka 498 30% 149 Ospika 658 30% 197 Pesika_E 708 30% 213 Pesika_W 512 30% 154 Tony 2,789 30% 837 Tutu 1,071 30% 321 Wasi 26 30% 8

Total 23,334


h) On/off


20

Appendix 1 Approach to Developing Scenarios

ISS Scenario types:

Tentative approach for each scenario team:

Session Description

Forsite prepares initial presentation package with input from project leads

1 Scenario Development (e.g., modelling options; info required - specific to each scenario)

Confirm the questions we’re trying to answer (i.e., objectives)

Consider tactics raised (back to the matrix and candidate scenarios)

Present a “scenario piñata” (i.e., example to describe the modelling approach)

Discuss potential assumptions and highlight where more work is needed

Scenario Team details (e.g., next meeting/venue, action items)

Forsite prepares draft document that describes the scenario and Sensitivity Analyses

2+ Review draft scenario/Sensitivity Analyses document

Forsite models each scenario and documents preliminary results

3+ Present and discuss preliminary results

Refine scenario/Sensitivity Analyses…


21

Appendix 2 ISS Base Case Scenario Team Members

The ISS project teams acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their role in developing the approach and assumptions for this scenario.

Type Organization Name Phone Email Active Forsite Patrick Bryant 250-832-3366; 216 [email protected]

Active FLNRO Andy Wheatley 250-996-5246 [email protected]

Active FLNRO Darin Hancock 250-997-2204 [email protected]

Active FLNRO Leslie McKinley 250-614-7440 [email protected]

Active FLNRO Kevin Hoekstra 250-614-7527 [email protected]

Active Canfor Doug Ambedian 250-997-2573 [email protected]

Active BCTS Aaron Day 250 614-7416 [email protected]

Active BCTS (Alt) Lee Evans 250 614-7488 [email protected]

Active Conifex Aiden Wiechula 250-997-2784 [email protected]

Active Muskwa-Kechika Phil Zacharatos 250-578-0455 [email protected]

Passive Forsite Kat Gunion 250-832-3366 ;201 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Kelly Izzard 250-387-8388 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Albert Nussbaum 250-953-3631 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Paul Rehsler 250-387-8627 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Mike McLachlan 778-693-3002 [email protected]

Passive Canfor Kari Stuart-Smith [email protected]

Passive Conifex Cheryl Hodder 250-996-5412 [email protected]

Passive Symmetree Bryce Bancroft 250-652-6509 [email protected]

Passive Tsay Keh Luke Gleeson 250-562-8882 PG 250-993-2100 TKD

[email protected]

Passive WII Scott McNay 250-997-5700 [email protected]





22

Appendix 3 Modelling Criteria for Wildlife Habitat Designations

Mackenzie Constraints Units Modelling Criteria* (total hectares) Field Name

Draft Amended UWR: Kennedy Siding - Low Elevation (Northern Caribou)

u-7-001 All (??? ha): No harvest Harvest half of the UWR every 50 years.

UWR_7001

Approved UWR: Peace Arm (Brewster) Mountain Goat

u-7-004 All (1,374 ha): No harvest UWR_7004

Approved UWR: Peace Arm (Elk)

u-7-005 All (4,447 ha): Maintain a minimum of 40% of the CFLB within UWR older than 100 years.

UWR_7005

Approved UWR: Peace Arm Stone Sheep

u-7-006 All (4,978 ha): No harvest UWR_7006

Approved UWR: Northern caribou (low elevation)

u-7-007 All (54,633 ha): Harvest half of the UWR every 70 years.

UWR_7007

Approved UWR: Ingenika (Elk)

u-7-008 All (6,964 ha): Maintain a minimum of 40% of the CFLB within UWR older than 100 years.

UWR_7008

Draft Amended UWR: Pine Pass Northern Caribou

u-7-009 (PP-003) Corridor (??? ha): a) Maintain 20% CFLB greater than 100 years old. b) no more than 20% being less than 3m in height (area-weighted average of 20 years)

UWR_7009

u-7-009 (PP-001, PP-002, PP-004)

High (??? ha): No harvest UWR_7009

Approved UWR: Akie-Pesika (Mountain Goat)

u-7-017 (AP1, AP2) GWM 1 (15,398 ha): a) Maintain 20% of the forested stands greater than or equal to 100 years old b) Maintain 25% of the forested stands greater than or equal to 80 years old c) A maximum of 20% of the forested stands can be less than 20 years old

UWR_7017

u-7-017 (AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6)

GWM 2 (10,714 ha): No harvest UWR_7017

Approved UWR: Caribou (Northern Pop) (High Elevation)

u-7-025 Core (746,086 ha): No harvest or roads UWR_N_CAR_DRAFT

u-7-025 Specified Area (497,174 ha): Brush management; timber harvest and roads permitted.

UWR_N_CAR_DRAFT

Approved UWR: Stone’s Sheep

u-7-028 (1-11) Core (87,186 ha): No harvest or roads UWR_S_SHEEP_DRAFT

u-7-028 (12) Specified Area (3,095,561 ha): Range use restrictions; timber harvest and roads permitted. Specified area (SA1,SA2,SA3, SA4)

UWR_S_SHEEP_DRAFT

Approved UWR: Mountain Goat

u-7-029 Core (49,418 ha): No harvest or roads UWR_M_GOAT_DRAFT

u-7-030 Core (262,217 ha): No harvest or roads UWR_M_GOAT_DRAFT

Draft Amended UWR: Northern Caribou and Stone's Sheep

u-9-002 All (??? ha): No harvest or roads UWR_9002

Draft Amended UWR: Northern Caribou and Stone's Sheep

u-9-004 All (??? ha): No harvest or roads UWR_9004

Approved WHA: Brewster Salt Lick (Mountain Goat)

9-001 Core/Buffer: (40 ha): No harvest WHA_APP_M_GT_BUFF

Approved WHA: Graham Laurier (Northern Caribou)

9-035 Calving/Rutting (4,415 ha): No harvest WHA_APP_CARR

Approved WHA: W. Nabesche (Northern Caribou)



23

Constraints Units Modelling Criteria* (total hectares) Field Name

Approved WHA: Emerslund Cr. E. (Northern Caribou)


Approved WHA: Upper Schooler Cr N. N. (Northern Caribou)


Approved WHA: Upper Schooler Cr S. S. (Northern Caribou)


Approved WHA: Schooler Cr W. (Northern Caribou)

9-040 Calving/Rutting (1.,029 ha): No harvest WHA_APP_CARR

Approved WHA: Meadow Creek N. (Northern Caribou)

9-102 Calving/Rutting ( (512 ha): No harvest WHA_APP_CARR

Approved WHA: Meadow Creek S. (Northern Caribou)

9-103 Calving/Rutting ( (781 ha): No harvest WHA_APP_CARR

Proposed WHA: Northern Caribou

9-146 All (3,892 ha): No harvest or roads. No THLB; not included

Draft WHA: Peace Northern Caribou Plan

9-999 (not yet assigned) All (??? ha): No harvest or roads.

Draft WHA: Fisher 7-012, 7-013, 7-014, 7-015, 7-016

Core (542 ha): No harvest or roads. Management Area (5,034 ha): No harvest or roads.

WHA_FISHER_v2

Draft WHA: Bull Trout 5 Units All (878 ha): No harvest or roads. WHA_BULL_TROUT

Draft WHA: Chase, and Wolverine Caribou Herds

Calving All (??? ha): No harvest or roads. Handled as a Group in the model


Post Rut All (??? ha): No harvest. Handled as a Group in the model

Draft WHA: Finlay, Chase, and Wolverine Caribou Herds

Migration Corridors All (??? ha): ≤ 35% of forest < 40 years with wildfire and <70 years for cutblocks

Handled as a Group in the model

*Notes: Green highlighted criteria were not applied in TSR or were changed since TSR. Modelling criteria were only developed for GWMs that provide direction that restrict or limit timber harvesting as some GWMs can only be applied at a much finer scale.


24

Stuart Constraints Units Modelling Criteria* (total hectares) Field Names

Approved UWR: Mule Deer u-7-002 (1-5, 11, 12, 14)

Condition 1 (2,212 ha): ≥ 40% ≥ 140 years

APPROVED_UWR_TAG

u-7-002 (9, 10, 15-18)

Condition 2 (1,269 ha): ≥ 50% ≥ 140 years

APPROVED_UWR_TAG

u-7-002 (All Units) Condition 3 (3,657 ha): Regen ≥ 50% Fd APPROVED_UWR_TAG

u-7-002 (19) Condition 5 (176 ha): No harvest APPROVED_UWR_TAG

Approved UWR: Mountain Caribou

u-7-003 (T-005, T-009, T-010, T-012)

Caribou Corridor (4,909 ha): ≥ 20% of forest ≥ 100 years ≤ 20% < 3m (simplified to 15 years)

APPROVED_UWR_TAG

u-7-003 (T-003, T-006, T-014, T-016)

Caribou High (38,950 ha): No harvest APPROVED_UWR_TAG

u-7-003 (T-001, T-002, T-004, T-007, T-008, T-011, T-013, T-015, T-017, T-018, T-019)

Caribou Medium (21,338 ha): ≥30% of forest ≥ 160 years ≤ 30% of forest < 80 years

APPROVED_UWR_TAG

Approved UWR: Northern Caribou

u-7-015 (9a-002, 9a-003, 9a-004, 9a-005, 9a-006, 9a-007, 9b-002, 9c-002, 9c-003, 10-002, 10-003, 10-004)

Terrestrial Lichen Habitat (10,121 ha): ≤ 50% < 70 years old

APPROVED_UWR_TAG

u-7-015 (9a-001, 9b-001, 9c-001, 10-001)

Non-Terrestrial Lichen Habitat (42,387 ha): ≤ 50% < 70 years old

APPROVED_UWR_TAG


u-7-019 All (309,111 ha): No harvest or roads. APPROVED_UWR_TAG

Approved UWR: Caribou (Northern Pop) (High Elevation)

u-7-026 Core (39,753 ha): No harvest or roads UWR_N_CAR_DRAFT

u-7-026 (SA) Specified Area (99,952 ha): Brush management; timber harvest and roads permitted.

UWR_N_CAR_DRAFT

Draft WHA: White Pelican 7-001 Core Core (500 ha): No harvest or roads. MGMT_TYPE

7-001 Management Zone

Management Area (1,319 ha): Access management; timber harvest and roads permitted.

MGMT_TYPE

Draft WHA: Grizzly Bear 7-002 Tl’oba WHA Core (2,065 ha): No harvest or roads WHA_NME

7-002 Access (Riparian Buffer)

Specified Area (4,371 ha): Access management; timber harvest and roads permitted.

WHA_NME (not modeled)

7-002 Denning (M-Zone)

Denning Habitat (668 ha): Access management; timber harvest and roads permitted.

WHA_NME (not modelled)


Calving All (??? ha): No harvest or roads. Handled as a Group in the model


Post Rut All (??? ha): No harvest. Handled as a Group in the model

Draft WHA: Finlay, Chase, and Wolverine Caribou Herds

Migration Corridors

All (??? ha): ≤ 35% of forest < 40 years with wildfire and <70 years for cutblocks

Handled as a Group in the model

*Notes: Green highlighted criteria were not applied in TSR or were changed since TSR. Modelling criteria were only developed for GWMs that provide direction that restrict or limit timber harvesting as some GWMs can only be applied at a much finer scale.


25

Appendix 4 Identified Watersheds and Thresholds

Mackenzie

Source Watershed, Basin or Sub-basin ECA Area (ha)

Draft FSW – f-7-024 Davis River Watershed Report only 48,272

Draft FSW – f-7-025 Chowika Creek Watershed Report only 47,794

Draft FSW – f-7-026 Swannell River Watershed 20 (default) 105,342

Draft FSW – f-7-027 McConnell-Attichika Creek Watershed 20 (default) 62,262

Draft FSW – f-7-028 Fredrickson Creek Watershed 20 (default) 46,410

Draft FSW – f-7-029 Portions of Kwadacha River Watershed 20 (default) 243,946

Draft FSW – f-7-030 Portions of Fox River Watershed 20 (default) 185,251

Draft FSW – f-7-031 Scott Creek Watershed 20 (default) 21,047

Draft FSW – f-7-032 Point Creek Watershed 20 (default) 9,959

Draft FSW – f-7-033 Misinchinka River Watershed 30 60,312

Declier Creek Sub Basin 30 3,082

Stack Creek Sub Basin 30 1,850

Misinchinka Tributary 2 Sub Basin 30 2,616

Misinchinka Tributary 3 Sub Basin 30 3,690

Upper Misinchinka Sub Basin 30 8,705

Old Friend Creek Basin 30 2,483

Honeymoon Creek Basin 30 1,670

Misinchinka Tributary 1 Basin 30 3,857

Trappers Creek Basin 30 1,741

Upper Misinchinka Basin 30 27,047

Misinchinka River Tributary 1 Basin above H60 @ 1,120 m 20 3,345

Misinchinka River Tributary 2 Sub-basin above H60 @ 1,120 m 20 2,328

Draft FSW – f-7-035 Klawli River Watershed Report only 108,441

Lower East Klawli sub-basin above H60 @ 1250m 25 3,910

Additional tributary to Klawli Lake above H60 @ 1250m 25 1,652

Draft FSW – f-7-038 Colbourne Creek Watershed 30 29,604

Fast Creek above H60 @ 1050m 20 3,467

Braathen Creek sub-basin above H60 @ 1050m 20 2,566

Watershed Reserve Morfee Creek Watershed Report only 7,193

Mackenzie LRMP Germansen River Report only 22,918

Mackenzie LRMP Manson River upstream of its confluence with Wolverine Creek (includes Slate Creek)

Report only 20,331

Mackenzie LRMP Blackwater Creek and tributaries Report only 17,199

Mackenzie LRMP Eklund Creek Report only 6,963

Mackenzie LRMP Strandberg Creeks Report only 18,308


26

Stuart

Source Watershed, Basin or Sub-basin ECA Tl’azd’en ECA

Area (ha)

Proposed FSW - f-7-006 Gluskie Creek 25 5 4,881

Proposed FSW - f-7-007 Forfar Creek 25 3 3,752

Proposed FSW - f-7-008 O’Ne-ell/Kynoch Creek 25 7 7,096

Proposed FSW - f-7-010 Bivouac Creek 30 7 4,181

Proposed FSW - f-7-011 Van Decar Creek 19 3 2,708

Proposed FSW - f-7-012 Sidney Creek 17 5 4,402

Proposed FSW - f-7-013 Paula Creek 17 6 4,578

Proposed FSW - f-7-014 Sandpoint Creek 21 10 6,523

Proposed FSW - f-7-015 Narrows Creek 20 6 6,534

Proposed FSW - f-7-016 Frypan Creek 19 11,803

Proposed FSW - f-7-017 Lovell Creek 19 9,202

Proposed FSW - f-7-018 Ankwill Creek 20 11,566

Draft FSW – f-7-034 Upper Omineca Watershed 20 (default) 95,047

Draft FSW – f-7-035 Klawli River Watershed Report only 108,441

Lower Klawli sub-basin above H60 @ 1250m 25 1,401

Draft FSW – f-7-036 Rottacker Creek Watershed Report only 13,386

South Rottacker Basin above H60 @ 1180m 25 2,920

Draft FSW – f-7-037 Ahdatay Creek Watershed Report only 11,635

Fort St. James LRMP Upper Jake Creek Report only 18,463

Fort St. James LRMP Sowchea Creek Report only 8,287



Reserve Scenario Notes

Stuart & Mackenzie ISS Scenario Notes: Reserve – Draft 0.2 June 9, 2017

1

Scenario Notes: Reserve – Draft 0.2 Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Options .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Approach ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Stand Features .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Anchors and Constraints ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Selection of Candidate Reserves ................................................................................................................................... 4

3 Criteria and Thresholds .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Stand Features .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Anchors and Constraints ............................................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Assessment Units and Thresholds ................................................................................................................................. 7

4 Analysis Steps ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Pre-Processing ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Processing ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 4.3 Post-Processing ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 4.4 Implementation .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

5 Sensitivities ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Adjustments ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 5.2 Disturbance Type Categories ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix 1 Approach to Developing Scenarios ........................................................................................................ 15 Appendix 2 Reserve Scenario Team Members .......................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 3 Criteria for Scoring Anchors and Constraints ......................................................................................... 18

1 Introduction

This document describes the details for developing a reserve scenario. Ultimately, the following sections contain specific instructions to the forest analyst.

The reserve scenario answers the question, “Where and how should we reserve forested stands to address landscape-level biodiversity and non-timber values while, wherever possible, minimizing impacts to the working forest?” It emphasizes various requirements to maintain non-timber values, as well as, practical issues to identify areas that are less or more attractive for timber harvesting.

The total area delineated as candidate reserves will be guided by thresholds described in various stand- and landscape-level objectives. Results from this reserve scenario will provide context and set of candidate reserve polygons for further analysis and review at tactical- and eventually, operational-levels.

1.1 DESCRIPTION

Spatial OGMAs are only designated for some landscape units throughout the southern section of the Mackenzie TSA. Otherwise, landscape biodiversity objectives are addressed through the non-spatial old growth orders.

The Reserve Scenario examines additions or changes to assumptions associated with non-timber values that were built into the ISS Base Case Scenario. The underlying purpose of this scenario is to explore


2

tactics aimed to maintain the harvest area while providing a wide range of values on the landbase (i.e., co-location). This could be done by maximizing relative scores assigned across the landbase for:

old forests;


identified cultural interests; and

habitat and identified connectivity for identified wildlife species.

In accordance with the Chief Forester’s guidance (FLRNO 2005), this scenario will also increase stand-level retention within forests attacked by mountain pine beetle.

The candidate reserves selected will meet multiple criteria and thresholds and can provide a preliminary spatial result to work from. However, it must be emphasized that these polygons must first be confirmed and reconfigured by planners, and, where possible, field checked before they can be considered spatial OGMAs.

1.2 OPTIONS

Two options were considered for approaching this scenario:

1. Spatial exercise - static assessment at time 0 (current); then incorporate spatial results into the preferred scenario; “pre-process” GIS assessment possibly including internal buffers for interior forest; not enough time to undertake detailed assessments for each LU; rather, need to develop a systematic approach that scores stands based on: a) existing anchors/constraints, and b) stand attributes.

2. Temporal exercise - incorporate scoring into the forest estate modelling exercise; possibly allow reserves to move across the landbase through time.

For this first iteration of the ISS, the team elected to approach this scenario as a spatial exercise (i.e., no forest estate modelling) as a preliminary step towards possible future work, for example: a) spatially refine the polygons into temporary non-legal reserves (teams to review candidate reserves on a LU-by-LU basis); and apply scoring methodology into a forest estate model (temporal exercise) that will select reserves appropriately over the landscape and into the future (i.e., shifting locations but maintaining requirements).

2 Approach

Based on a survey distributed to FLNRO staff, First Nations, licensees, and stakeholders, this was ranked the highest of all candidate scenarios. Key elements in the approach for this exercise include:

1. Landscape-level exercise aimed to stabilize and maximize THLB by overlapping reserves where possible (colocation).

2. Applies to the entire Forest Management Land Base (FMLB).

3. Assess existing constraints (e.g., legal habitat designations).

4. Set objectives to prioritize stand types according to current and future habitat capability.

5. Identify areas for increased retention (i.e., CWD, WTRs, and connectivity); ID wildlife species; increase in-block retention; ensure both scale are considered here (landscape- and stand-level)


3

6. Manage rare sites/ecosystems (CDC); Use existing PEM/SEI data to map sites.

7. Evaluate overall production of the landbase for all values while maintaining a viable forest industry; establish a baseline.

8. Identify whether or not the stand is a stand-initiating vs. gap dynamic; broad categorization

9. Without further work to assess selected stands, this will NOT produce an operational-level scenario; should provide a solid start to build from.

Figure 1 Cumulative scoring of reserve criteria

2.1 STAND FEATURES

Objective – Rank stands on suitability as candidate reserves. Scoring is done independently based on a forested stand’s ability to meet landscape biodiversity values, which is evaluated using the indicators described below.

Indicators are chosen that represent a structural or functional ability to contribute to old growth attributes and any critical elements identified for retention.

Table 1 Rationale for Stand Features Scoring

Indicator Rationale

Seral Stage Overarching intent is to designate reserves in old seral stand types because they typically do not occur when forests are managed using economic rotation ages. Retaining old stands on the land base ensures habitat / biodiversity niches continue to exist. Seral stage is assigned to VRI polygons using age and BEC zone.

Species Composition Non-pine leading or deciduous leading stands are higher contributors to biodiversity and old growth habitats. A higher diversity of species mix lends to a higher potential for


4

biodiversity, however species mix will be to a certain extent captured in the rare ecosystem classification.

Deadwood Abundance Desirable stands consist of old, large, living and dead trees with coarse woody debris. Snags are an important contributor to biodiversity.

Vertical Complexity Higher levels of vertical structure / complexity are linked with old growth stands.

Tree Height Connection between height, age and site productivity – taller trees for a given age can provide valuable habitat and recruitment for future snags.

Rare Ecosystems Rare, old forested ecosystems are priority for contribution to old seral stage targets, old growth management areas, connectivity, and wildlife tree patches.

Old / Mature Interior Forest The quality of old growth habitat is affected by edge conditions versus old interior forest. Areas large enough to provide interior condition are preferred.

2.2 ANCHORS AND CONSTRAINTS

Objective – Score existing resource management areas based on their overall suitability as a candidate reserve. Anchors and Constraints are the two categories used to assess relative resource values for an area.

Anchors are areas where timber harvesting is extremely limited or not permitted.

Constraints are areas where timber harvesting is restricted.

Scoring is done independently based on an Anchor’s or Constraint’s potential impact on timber availability.

A stand’s total score is the sum of the Anchor scores (number of overlapping anchors), Constraint scores, and Stand Features. Stands are then sorted by their total scores – those with the highest values are the most desirable candidate reserves.

2.3 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE RESERVES

Candidate reserves are selected through a forest modelling exercise that assesses the combined score for each stand relative to established one or more landscape-level thresholds. In this case, candidate reserves must address multiple thresholds.

To maintain an appropriate spatial pattern for reserves, stands with higher scores are also grouped to accommodate patch size distribution criteria. This prevents the ‘shot-gun’ pattern that otherwise results if only the highest scoring stands are selected.

3 Criteria and Thresholds

The following sections describe the modelling criteria and thresholds applied for the reserve scenario.

3.1 STAND FEATURES

Key stand indicators are identified then scored (from -2 to 10) to reflect their expected contribution to the preferred old seral forest condition. Negative values are used to penalize undesirable characteristics.

The total stand feature score for a stand is the sum of the applicable category scores – for example, a stand in the old seral stage (9 points), that’s non-pine leading (0 points), 26 m tall (3 points), with


5

25% deadwood (2 points) and a vertical complexity of 4 (2 points) has a total score of 16 points. Stand scoring may also consider/incorporate other criteria associated with forest resilience (e.g., site productivity; aspect; slope; fire risk).

The stand feature scoring matrix (Table 2) was developed and applied independently from scoring anchors and scoring constraints.

Table 2 Stand Feature Scoring Matrix

Indicator Category Score

Forest Management (categorizing fires) Primary/Natural 5

Managed/Harvested 0

Seral Stage (age classes) Young 1

Mid 2

Mature 5

Old 9

Very Old (Old + 50 years) 10

Species Composition Deciduous-leading 3

Mixed with cottonwood 6

Mixed conifer (multiple/<50% leading species)

5

Other conifer 1

Douglas-fir leading 7

Pine-leading (≥ 70%) -1

Tree Height ≥ 20 < 25 m 2

≥ 25 < 30 m 3

≥ 30 m 4

Deadwood Abundance (% dead stems) 5 to 30% 2

> 70% -2

Vertical Complexity 4 – Non-Uniform 2

5 – Very Non-Uniform 3

Interior Forest (reduce fragmentation) 3 (tweaker)

Note 1 - Take care not to double-count indicators Note 2 - Identify what the rare ecosystems; check against mixed stands with Mixed with cottonwood Note 3 - Deciduous – check with preliminary scoring exercise; focus for the future as D harvesting becomes a higher profile Note 4 - Check for overlap between Forest management and vertical complexity

3.2 ANCHORS AND CONSTRAINTS

Anchors

All Anchors are considered equal for the purposes of scoring the land base because they are areas that cannot be logged. Anchors are given a score of 10, and stands are scored based on the number of overlapping anchors in that area – the more anchors occurring within a stand, the higher the total score (1 anchor = 10, 2 anchors = 20, 3 anchors = 30, etc.).

The scoring matrix developed for anchors (Table 3) is independent of the matrices developed for scoring stand features and constraints. This matrix lists the anchors applied in this analysis, where no harvesting is permitted over a spatially explicit area (e.g., ‘core’ habitat area). Detailed criteria for scoring anchors is provided in Appendix 2.

In some cases, data were considered as anchors but not available to include in this analysis at this time. These are also listed in Table 3 as they may be considered and available in a future iteration.


6

Table 3 Anchors Scored

No. Anchors Included Stuart Mackenzie Score

1 Parks and Protected Areas All All 10

2 Ecological Reserves (see Parks and Protected Areas) All 10

3 Ecological Reserve (Mugaha Marsh) All 10

4 Spatial OGMAs All 10

5 Riparian Management Areas All All 10

6 Inoperable – Terrain Slope Class 5 All 10

7 Cultural Heritage Resources (Arch Sites) All 10

8 Wildlife Tree Retention All All 10

9 UWR Mule Deer u-7-002 (19) 10

10 UWR Mountain Goat u-7-019, u-7-025 u-7-004, u-7-017 (AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6), u-7-029, u-7-030

10

11 UWR Northern Caribou u-7-003 (T-003, T-006, T-014, T-016), u-7-026

u-7-001, u-7-009 (PP-001, PP-002, PP-004), u-7-025 (core), u-9-002, u-

9-004

10

12 UWR Stone’s Sheep u-7-006, u-7-028 (1-11) 10

13 WHA Mountain Goat 9-001 10

14 WHA Northern Caribou 9-035 to 9-040, 9-102, 9-103

10

15 Proposed WHA Northern Caribou 9-146 10

16 Draft WHA Northern Caribou 9-999 10

17 Draft WHA Northern Caribou (Chase-Wolverine)

Post-Rut Post-Rut 10

18 Draft WHA Northern Caribou (Chase-Wolverine)

Calving Calving 10

19 Draft Amended WHA (Peace Northern Caribou)

High Elevation Summer Range High Elevation Winter Range

10

20 Draft WHA White Pelican 7-001 Core 10

21 Draft WHA Grizzly Bear 7-002 Tl’oba WHA 10

22 Draft WHA Bull Trout All 5 Units 10

23 Draft WHA Fisher 7-012, 7-013, 7-014, 7-015, 7-016

10

24 Proposed FSW f-7-006 to 015 (no harvest) 10

25 Draft FSW All 10

Anchors NOT Included at this time

Identified First Nations Interests

Recreation Sites and Trails (buffers)

Research Sites

Conservation Lands (Sec 16/17 Reserves)

Karst

Mineral Licks (Wildlife Habitat Feature)

Rare ecosystems

Water Intakes (50m buffer)

Note: specific polygons associated with no harvest should be checked against those applied in the ISS Base Case Scenario

Constraints

Constraints are areas that restrict harvesting on a portion of stands (i.e., conditional harvest).

A constraint is scored (from 1 to 10) based on its impact to timber availability – the higher the score, the greater the impact to timber supply relative to other constraints. A stand’s total score is the sum of all applicable constraint scores occurring over that stand (can have multiple overlapping constraints).


7

The scoring matrix developed for constraints (Table 4) is independent of the matrices developed for scoring stands and for scoring anchors. Detailed criteria for scoring constraints based on timber impact is provided in Appendix 2.

Table 4 Constraint Scoring Matrix

No. Constraints Stuart Mackenzie Score

1 Non-Harvestable Land Base Yes Yes 10

2 UWR: Caribou Low Elevation u-7-015 (All) u-7-001, u-7-007 4

3 UWR: Caribou High Elevation u-7-003 (Where Harvest Permitted)

u-7-026 (SA)

u-7-009 (PP-003), u-7-025 (SA), u-9-004

3

4 UWR: Elk u-7-005, u-7-008 4

5 UWR: Mule Deer u-7-002 (1-5, 9-12, 14-18) 3

6 UWR: Mountain Goat u-7-017 (AP1, AP2) 3

7 Approved WHA: White Pelican 7-001 Management Zone 3

8 Proposed WHA: Grizzly Bear 7-002 Access (Riparian Buffer) 7-002 Denning (M-Zone)

6

9 Draft WHA: Caribou - Migration Corridors

26 units (7-244 to 7-316)

60 units (7-244 to 7-322)

4

10 Community Watersheds Where Harvest Permitted Where Harvest Permitted 5

11 Draft Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds Where Harvest Permitted Where Harvest Permitted 2

12 VQO: Preservation Preservation Preservation 10

13 VQO: Retention Retention Retention 8

14 VQO: Partial Retention Partial Retention Partial Retention 4

15 MPB Salvage Zones Small, Medium, Large, Very Large Small, Medium, Large, Very Large

6

16 High value Fisher habitat SBS and Boreal SBS and Boreal 3

17 Crown Reserve Notations Fish & Wildlife Only Fish & Wildlife Only 7

Constraints NOT included at this time

18 Mack RMZ: Agriculture/Settlement

19 Mack RMZ: Enhanced

20 Mack RMZ: General

21 Mack RMZ: Special

22 FSJ RMZ: Multi-Value

23 FSJ RMZ: Protected

24 FSJ RMZ: Resource Development

25 FSJ RMZ: Settlement/Agriculture

26 FSJ RMZ: Special Management

3.3 ASSESSMENT UNITS AND THRESHOLDS

Assessment units and thresholds are used to establish when enough candidate reserves are selected.

Thresholds define the indicators and targets (objectives) to be maintained or enhanced through the scenario analysis. In modelling terms, these are typically forest cover requirements configured as target levels that the model seeks to achieve as:

minimum or maximum levels,

units in percent or area,

over a given unit (i.e., Assessment Unit), and

across specified periods (not applicable for this reserve scenario).


8

Assessment units define the spatial extent where specific thresholds apply. This scenario adopted the same units defined in existing legal definitions, Natural Disturbance Units (i.e., Merged BEC, or mBEC).

Other units that may be considered in another analyses include:

Landscape Unit

Natural Disturbance Type

Watersheds

Table 5 and Table 7 Mackenzie Landscape Level Biodiversity Objectives (Amended 2010)

BEC Group BEC Units

Old Def (yrs)

BEO/ RMZ

Min % of

FMLB retaine

d as Old

Forest

Min % of the Old Forest retained as Old Interior

Forest Landscape Unit or Group 1 ESSFmcp,

ESSFmvp, SWBmksx, ESSFwcp3

≥140 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2 ESSFmc, ESSFmv, SWBmk

≥140 high 13 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, South Germansen-Upper Manson, Fox, LowAkie, LowPesika, Nina Creek, North Ingenika, Swannell, Obo River, Pelly, Selwyn, Thutade, Tutizza, Upper Ospika

Int 9 25 Aiken, Clearwater, Discovery, Duckling, Gillis, Klawli, Ingenika, Lower Ospika, Nabesche, Parsnip, Pesika, Schooler, Twenty Mile, Philip Lake

Low 9 10 Akie, Akie River, Blackwater, Buffalohead, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Gaffney, Manson River, Germansen Mountain, Mesilinka, Misinchinka , Osilinka, Philip

3 ESSFwc3, ESSFwk2

≥140 high 28 50 Kennedy, Selwyn

13 50 Upper Ospika

Int 19 50 Clearwater, Lower Ospika, Morfee, Nabesche, Parsnip

Low 19 25 Collins-Davis, Misinchinka

9 25 Blackwater

4 SBSmk, SBSwk1

≥120 high 16 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, Nation, Selwyn, South Germansen-Upper Manson, Upper Ospika

13 25 Kennedy

Int 11 25 Gillis, Klawli, Lower Ospika, Morfee, Nabesche, Parsnip, Philip Lake, Tudyah B, Tudyah A

Low 11 10 Blackwater, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Gaffney, Manson River, Misinchinka, Osilinka, Philip

5 SBSvk, SBSwk2

≥140 High 16 25 Nation

13 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, South Germansen-Upper Manson, Kennedy, Selwyn


Low 11 10 Buffalohead

9 10 Collins-Davis, Gaffney, Manson River, Philip

6 BWBSmw1, BWBSwk2

≥140 conifer

high 16 25 Selwyn

Int 11 25 Nabesche, Schooler

7 BWBSdk1 ≥140 conifer

high 16 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, South Germansen, Upper Manson, Fox, LowAkie, LowPesika, Nina Creek, North Ingenika, Swannell, Obo River, Pelly, Thutade

13 25 Tutizza


9

BEC Group BEC Units

Old Def (yrs)

BEO/ RMZ

Min % of

FMLB retaine

d as Old

Forest


Forest Landscape Unit or Group Int 11 25 Aiken, Discovery, Duckling, Gillis, Klawli, Ingenika,

Pesika, Twenty Mile

Low 11 10 Akie, Akie River, Blackwater, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Mesilinka, Osilinka

9 10 Germansen Mountain

6&7 BWBSmw1, BWBSwk2, BWBSdk1

≥100 decid

Special 19 25 Bluff Creek, Braid, Connaghan Creek , Eklund, Frog, Fox, Jackfish, LowAkie, Lower Pesika, Nina Creek, North Ingenika, Obo River, Pelly, Upper Manson, Tutizza, Upper Akie River, Upper Gataga, Upper Pelly

General 13 25 Aiken, Gillis, Ingenika, Klawli, Nabesche, Pesika, Schooler , South Germansen, Swannell, Thutade, Twenty Mile, Discovery

Enhanced 13 10 Akie, Akie River, Blackwater, Buffalohead, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Duckling, Germansen Mountain, Mesilinka, Osilinka, Selwyn

Note: LUs included in Special Resource Management Zones – Wildlands (approved Apr 08, 2009) with no targets – McCusker,

North Firesteel, South Firesteel, Wicked River. All have BEO=”High” but various BEC groups (2-5)

specify landscape-level biodiversity thresholds for both the Stuart and Mackenzie analyses.

Table 5 Stuart Landscape Biodiversity Objectives

Unit Label Natural Disturbance Unit Merged BEC units (mBEC)

Min % of FMLB

retained as Old Forest

Min % of FMLB retained as

Old, Non-Pine Forest

Min % of the Old Forest

retained as Old Interior Forest

E1 Moist Interior Mountain ESSFmv1, ESSFmvp1, ESSFmv3 41 33 40

E2 Moist Interior Plateau SBSdk 17 13 10

E3 Moist Interior Plateau SBSmc2 17 10 10

E4 Moist Interior Plateau SBSmk1, SBSwk3 12 4 25

E5 Moist Interior Plateau SBSdw3 12 6 25

E6 Northern Boreal Mountain ESSFwvp, ESSFmcp, ESSFmc, ESSFwv 37 40

E7 Northern Boreal Mountain SWBmks, SWBmk 37 40

E8 Northern Boreal Mountain SBSmc2 26 25

E9 Omineca Mountain ESSFwvp, ESSFwv, ESSFmcp 58 40

E10 Omineca Mountain SWBmks, SWBmk, ESSFmc 41 40

E11 Omineca Mountain ESSFmvp3, ESSFmv3 41 40

E12 Omineca Valley SBSdk, SBSdw3 16 25

E13 Omineca Valley ICHmc1 23 40

E14 Omineca Valley BWBSdk1 16 25

E15 Omineca Valley SBSmc2 16 25

E16 Omineca Valley SBSmk1 16 25

E17 Omineca Valley SBSwk3 16 25

The young forest patch size distribution thresholds described in Table 6 were not applied in this scenario as these are better addressed when harvest options are implemented in the Base Case or other scenarios.


10

Table 6 Stuart Young Forest Patch Size Distribution Objective

Unit Label

Natural Disturbance Sub-unit

Percent of Young Forest For each patch size category

<50 ha 51 – 100 ha 101 -1000 ha >1000 ha

E1 Moist Interior - Mountain 20 10 30 40

E2-E5 Moist Interior - Plateau 5 5 20 70

E6-E8 Northern Boreal Mountains 5 5 30 60

E9-E11 Omineca - Mountain 20 10 30 40

E12-E17 Omineca - Valley 5 5 30 60

Source: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Ministerial Order, October 20, 2004.


11

Table 7 Mackenzie Landscape Level Biodiversity Objectives (Amended 2010)

BEC Group BEC Units

Old Def (yrs)

BEO/ RMZ

Min % of

FMLB retaine

d as Old

Forest


Forest Landscape Unit or Group 1 ESSFmcp,

ESSFmvp, SWBmksx, ESSFwcp3

≥140 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2 ESSFmc, ESSFmv, SWBmk

≥140 high 13 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, South Germansen-Upper Manson, Fox, LowAkie, LowPesika, Nina Creek, North Ingenika, Swannell, Obo River, Pelly, Selwyn, Thutade, Tutizza, Upper Ospika

Int 9 25 Aiken, Clearwater, Discovery, Duckling, Gillis, Klawli, Ingenika, Lower Ospika, Nabesche, Parsnip, Pesika, Schooler, Twenty Mile, Philip Lake

Low 9 10 Akie, Akie River, Blackwater, Buffalohead, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Gaffney, Manson River, Germansen Mountain, Mesilinka, Misinchinka , Osilinka, Philip

3 ESSFwc3, ESSFwk2

≥140 high 28 50 Kennedy, Selwyn

13 50 Upper Ospika


Low 19 25 Collins-Davis, Misinchinka

9 25 Blackwater

4 SBSmk, SBSwk1

≥120 high 16 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, Nation, Selwyn, South Germansen-Upper Manson, Upper Ospika

13 25 Kennedy

Int 11 25 Gillis, Klawli, Lower Ospika, Morfee, Nabesche, Parsnip, Philip Lake, Tudyah B, Tudyah A

Low 11 10 Blackwater, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Gaffney, Manson River, Misinchinka, Osilinka, Philip

5 SBSvk, SBSwk2

≥140 High 16 25 Nation

13 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, South Germansen-Upper Manson, Kennedy, Selwyn


Low 11 10 Buffalohead

9 10 Collins-Davis, Gaffney, Manson River, Philip

6 BWBSmw1, BWBSwk2

≥140 conifer

high 16 25 Selwyn

Int 11 25 Nabesche, Schooler

7 BWBSdk1 ≥140 conifer

high 16 25 Connaghan Creek, Eklund, Jackfish, South Germansen, Upper Manson, Fox, LowAkie, LowPesika, Nina Creek, North Ingenika, Swannell, Obo River, Pelly, Thutade

13 25 Tutizza

Int 11 25 Aiken, Discovery, Duckling, Gillis, Klawli, Ingenika, Pesika, Twenty Mile

Low 11 10 Akie, Akie River, Blackwater, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Mesilinka, Osilinka

9 10 Germansen Mountain

6&7 BWBSmw1, BWBSwk2, BWBSdk1

≥100 decid

Special 19 25 Bluff Creek, Braid, Connaghan Creek , Eklund, Frog, Fox, Jackfish, LowAkie, Lower Pesika, Nina Creek, North Ingenika, Obo River, Pelly, Upper Manson, Tutizza, Upper Akie River, Upper Gataga, Upper Pelly


12

BEC Group BEC Units

Old Def (yrs)

BEO/ RMZ

Min % of

FMLB retaine

d as Old

Forest


Forest Landscape Unit or Group General 13 25 Aiken, Gillis, Ingenika, Klawli, Nabesche, Pesika,

Schooler , South Germansen, Swannell, Thutade, Twenty Mile, Discovery

Enhanced 13 10 Akie, Akie River, Blackwater, Buffalohead, Chunamon, Collins-Davis, Duckling, Germansen Mountain, Mesilinka, Osilinka, Selwyn

Note: LUs included in Special Resource Management Zones – Wildlands (approved Apr 08, 2009) with no targets – McCusker, North Firesteel, South Firesteel, Wicked River. All have BEO=”High” but various BEC groups (2-5)

4 Analysis Steps

This analysis was originally designed as a GIS exercise but given the complexities involved with assessing reserves relative to multiple thresholds and the desire to group reserves into larger areas where appropriate we had to change this exercise to a spatial model (i.e., Patchworks). The subsections below briefly describe the analysis steps taken; including work to prepare the model prior to processing, modelling itself, and following each run.

4.1 PRE-PROCESSING

A copy of the ‘resultant’ spatial overlays of from the ISS Base Case resultant provided an initial dataset to work with.

Additional spatial data - not required for the ISS Base Case - were added to the resultant:

Fisher habitat capability, and

Fish and wildlife reserve notations.

Assessment criteria were then calculated as separate fields in the database:

flag non-pine leading stands,

assign seral stage; specifically to determine old seral forest, and

create interior old patches defined as the area of 'old forest' or 'natural forest area' buffered from younger age classes or disturbances (i.e., 200 m from adjacent stands >80 years/age class 5). Interior forest initially included natural non-forest (e.g., lakes, wetlands, rock) to eliminate unnecessary 'edges'. These were features were then erased from the interior layer. The 200m buffer area of old forest stands were maintained as edge buffer areas.

Scores for stand features, anchors, and constraints were assigned to separate fields, then combined into additional fields. These were assigned as a script that accesses Excel spreadsheets recorded with the indicators and scores transferred from the tables in section 3.


13

4.2 PROCESSING

The basic approach to modelling this reserve scenario was to maximize the cumulative score while trending towards a target patch size distribution. The Patchworks model was built with the following components:

Product accounts for the thresholds defined in section 3.3 were created as old forest accounts 1-5 (below) for: a) total, b) non-pine, and c) interior polygons/targets.

1. OLD NHLB 2. OLD 3. Old + Mat 4. Old + Mat + Mid 5. Old + Mat + Mid + young

A minimum area target was set on each of these product accounts with decreasing weights and a maximum area target was set on each of these product accounts with increasing weights.

Anchors within the NHLB were ‘hard-coded’ to always be selected as candidate reserves.

A general 'reserved' account was created so that polygons spanning two mBEC units would be considered part of the same patch.

Patch size criteria were applied accordingly:

Area (ha) Min % Max % Attractor

1-10 0 10-100 10 100-500 500-1000 40 1000-1500 30 1500+ Yes

A basic ‘maximize score’ target was applied across the entire the landbase so that scores would accumulate as the model selected candidate reserves. Meanwhile, a (soft) target was assigned so that the model was rewarded for selecting NHLB.

4.3 POST-PROCESSING

Unfortunately, Patchworks does not track interior forest dynamically as candidate reserves are selected. As described above, we initially identified interior and edges, then influenced the model to maintain the interior forest thresholds. However, if polygons within edges that define the interior forest are not selected, then the interior forest is no longer ‘interior’. So, an additional assessment of the candidate reserves must be undertaken to confirm that the old forest interior thresholds are, in fact, maintained and identify where they are not.

4.4 IMPLEMENTATION

The approach anticipated for implementing candidate reserves in the Preferred Scenario is to ‘lock’ these areas from harvesting for some period over the short term (e.g., 20 years). In this case, edge polygons identified to maintain forest interior thresholds will also be included with the candidate reserves.


14

5 Sensitivities

5.1 ADJUSTMENTS

The Reserve Scenario modelling process was developed to accommodate adjustments with:

scoring stand features, anchors, and constraints,

threshold levels (e.g., patch size criteria)

forest interior assignment.

Implementing these adjustments as sensitivities can generally be done fairly readily but changes to spatial designations (e.g., turning draft wildlife habitat designations off) require more work to rebuild and/or redefine the resultant.

5.2 DISTURBANCE TYPE CATEGORIES

The Reserve Scenario Team identified a sensitivity that will be explored if there is sufficient funds following the initial exercise. This sensitivity would select candidate reserves based on a different set of assessment units and thresholds than those described in section 3.3. Thresholds would be assigned for a new set of Disturbance Type Categories:

1. most likely gap dynamic disturbance; 2. somewhat likely gap dynamic disturbance; 3. somewhat likely stand-initiating disturbance and; 4. very likely stand-initiating disturbance.

The thresholds, stand definitions, scale of this assessment, and general approach will still need to be clarified. It was also suggested that this could initially be examined over a pilot area like the Takla First Nations’ traditional territory.


15

Appendix 1 Approach to Developing Scenarios

ISS Scenario types:

Tentative approach for each scenario team:

Session Description

Forsite prepares initial presentation package with input from project leads

1 Scenario Development (e.g., modelling options; info required - specific to each scenario)

Confirm the questions we’re trying to answer (i.e., objectives)

Consider tactics raised (back to the matrix and candidate scenarios)

Present a “scenario piñata” (i.e., example to describe the modelling approach)

Discuss potential assumptions and highlight where more work is needed

Scenario Team details (e.g., next meeting/venue, action items)

Forsite prepares draft document that describes the scenario and sensitivities

2+ Review draft scenario/sensitivities document

Forsite models each scenario and documents preliminary results

3+ Present and discuss preliminary results

Refine scenario/sensitivities…


16

Modelling Parameters:

RESERVE SCENARIOS HARVEST SCENARIOS SILVICULTURE SCENARIOS

Objectives Description

Source

Description

Source

Description

Source

Approach (adjustment)

Features

Landbase

Weights

Retention

Succession

Treatment

Blocks

Products

Weights

Yields/treatment options

Analysis Units

Landbase

Weights

Criteria (attributes)

GIS exercise to prioritize/rank/score candidate reserves

Model to maximize above score over time

Patch criteria (size, area, shape, frequency, attractor)

Productive forest

Prioritize/rank/score THLB for harvest

Route accounts (destination, exclusive, costs (e.g., construct, haul, maintenance)

Eligible stands

Treatment windows

Treatment costs

Treatment response/benefit

Anticipated issues

Thresholds (targets/ accounts)

Maintain ___ ha of ____ stands

Maintain __%, of ___stands, below/above ___ (ht, age, vol)

Maximize the priority/score of THLB area for reserve

Min/max patch size distribution by ___ (LU?)

Maximize the priority/score of THLB area for harvest

Routes

Treat ___ ha/yr

Spend up to $___ /yr to maximize harvest flow over ___ period


17

Appendix 2 Reserve Scenario Team Members

The ISS project teams acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their role in developing the approach and assumptions for this scenario.

Type Organization Name Phone Email

Active Forsite Patrick Bryant 250-832-3366 x216 [email protected]

Active FLNRO Kevin Hoekstra 250-614-7527 [email protected]

Active FLNRO Leslie McKinley 250-614-7440 [email protected]

Active FLNRO John DeGagne 250-567-6316 [email protected]

Active FLNRO Miodrag Tkalec 250-997-2244 [email protected]

Active Canfor Sarah Curtis 250-997-2584 [email protected]

Active Conifex Aiden Wiechula 250-997-2784 [email protected]

Active BCTS Aaron Day 250 614-7416 [email protected]

Active Forsite Darcie Fodor 250-596-8019 X1054 [email protected]

Alternate BCTS Lee Evans 250 614-7488 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Paul Rehsler 250-387-8627 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Albert Nussbaum 250-953-3631 [email protected]

Passive Symmetree Bryce Bancroft 250-652-6509 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Mike McLachlan 778-693-3002 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Tracy Van Spengen 250-561-3465 [email protected]

Passive FLNRO Andy Wheatley 250-996-5246 [email protected]

Passive Tsay Keh Luke Gleeson (250) 562-8882 PG (250) 993-2100 TKD

[email protected]

Passive Tl’azt’en Bev John/Renel Mitchell 250-648-3212 [email protected]

Passive Kwadacha Shawna Case 250-471-2302 [email protected]

Passive Takla David Radies 250-564-9321 x27 [email protected]

Passive BCTS Jeremy Greenfield 250-614-7477 [email protected]

Passive Conifex Cheryl Hodder 250-996-5412 [email protected]








18

Appendix 3 Criteria for Scoring Anchors and Constraints

Designation1 Units Criteria (Based on Timber Impact) Modelling

Draft Amended UWR: Kennedy Siding - Low Elevation (Northern Caribou)

U-7-001 Revised shape and GWM. No Harvest.


U-7-001

Harvest max. 50% of entire area at a time on 100-yr rotation so 45-55% is 0-50 years old and 45-55% is 50-100 years old. Harvest patches 250 to 1,400 ha. Maintain visual screen between roads and adjacent cutblocks (so caribou within that cutblock are not visible from road). No silv activity to increase site productivity for trees (i.e. no fertilization). Avoid harvesting between Oct 1 – Feb 28, and ensure adequate snow cover when winter harvesting. Do not increase current road density, and future roads built to lowest class practicable.

Harvest max. 50% of area at one time (100-yr rotation) so that 45-55% is 0-50 years and 45-55% is 50-100 years. Harvest patches 250 to 1,400 ha.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/uwr_u7_001.pdf

Approved UWR: Mule Deer

U-7-002 (1-5, 11, 12, 14)

Minimum 40% winter range area in age class 8 or greater at all times with crown closure > 56% (Douglas-fir, Spruce); Minimum 50% species composition of Douglas-fir leading; Timber harvesting openings irregular shape and smaller than 1 ha in size and less than 250 m wide

≥ 40% ≥ 140 years Regen ≥ 50% Fd

U-7-002 (6-8, 13)

Minimum 50% species composition of Douglas-fir leading; Timber harvesting openings irregular shape and smaller than 1 ha in size and less than 250 m wide

Regen ≥ 50% Fd

U-7-002 (9, 10, 15-18)

Minimum 50% of stand in age class 8 or greater at all times with crown closure > 66% (Douglas-fir, Spruce); Minimum 50% species composition of Douglas-fir leading; Timber harvesting openings irregular shape and smaller than 1 ha in size and less than 250 m wide

≥ 50% ≥ 140 years Regen ≥ 50% Fd

U-7-002 (T-001, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19)

Medium habitat – harvest < 30% volume removal on cutblock every 80 years, opening sizes do not exceed 1 ha with mean opening size < 0.5 ha

≥ 30% ≥ 160 years old ≤ 30% < 80 years


Approved UWR: Southern Caribou

U-7-003 (T-005, 009, 010, 012)

Travel corridors – harvesting results in minimum 20% of forest within each unit as 100+ years of age in corridor with no more than 20% of productive forest area of unit < 3 m green-up condition

≥ 20% of forest ≥ 100 years ≤ 20% < 3 m

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/u-7-003_order_09Dec09.pdf


U-7-004 No harvest within winter ranges. No harvest


Approved UWR: Elk

U-7-005

Maintain min. 40% of stands in winter range in age class 6 + (> 100 years) with crown closure > 40%.Plan major/secondary roads to avoid winter ranges, and de-activate any future built roads/trails (in UWR).

≥ 40% of forest > 100 years and CC > 40%


1 Orange highlighted records identify adjusted criteria from legally-established designations; that are highlighted grey.



http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/u-7-003_order_09Dec09.pdf




19



U-7-006

No harvest within winter ranges. Plan major/secondary roads to avoid winter ranges, and de-activate any future built roads/trails (in UWR).

No harvest



U-7-007

Within terrestrial lichen habitat (TLH) no new mainline road construction. Each TLH aggregate (TLHA) (Table 1 of Order) managed with 2-pass harvest system over 140-year rotation. Each pass results in large openings on one side of TLHA, forested leave area within TLHA equivalent to size of harvested area ± 10%. No increase in site productivity through use of fertilizer. Re-established forested stand consistent with pre-harvest species composition.

2-pass harvest system over 140-yr rotation. Leave areas equiv. size of harvested area ± 10%.


Approved UWR: Elk

U-7-008

Maintain min. 40% of forest stands in winter range in age class 6+ (> 100 years) with crown closure > 40%. Plan major/secondary roads to avoid winter ranges, and de-activate any future built roads/trails (in UWR).

Min 40% of forest > 100 years and CC > 40%


Draft Amended UWR: Pine Pass Northern Caribou

U-7-009 (PP-003) Slightly changed to accommodate U-7-001.

Min 20% > 100 years Max 20% of area < 3 m (green-up)

U-7-009 (PP-001, PP-002, PP-004)

Revised shape and GWM. No harvest


U-7-009 (PP-003) Maintain min. 20% forested stands with 100+ years in contiguous, windfirm corridor with max. 20% of unit < 3 m green-up condition.

Min 20% > 100 years Max 20% of area < 3 m (green-up)

U-7-009 (PP-001, PP-002, PP-004)

Retain all forest cover, with exception if purpose is to enhance quality of winter range. No roads constructed within winter ranges.

No harvest



U-7-015 (9a-001, 2, 7 9b-001, 2 9c-001, 2, 3 10-001, 2, 4)

Manage defined non-terrestrial Lichen habitat and terrestrial Lichen habitat through a two-pass, 140 year rotation – within each pass harvest 50% +/- 20% of total area

Max 50% < 70 years old


Approved UWR: Moose, Elk and Mountain Goat

U-7-017 (AP1, AP2)

Maintain forest cover so that min. 20% of each UWR unit has coniferous-leading stands ≥ 100 years and crown closure ≥ 40%. Maintain forest cover so that min. 25% of each UWR unit has stands (regardless of leading species) ≥ 80 years and crown closure ≥ 40%. Maintain min. 20 % forested stands in each UWR unit are < 20 years. Max disturbance to forest cover (i.e. WTRA) should not exceed 200 m from any point in opening.

Conifer-leading: Min 20% ≥ 100 years and CC ≥ 40% Other-spp-leading: Min 25% ≥ 80 years and CC ≥ 40% All stands: Min 20% < 20 years







20


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/u-7-017_order.pdf

Approved UWR: Moose, Elk and Mountain Goat

U-7-017 (AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6)

No harvesting within mountain goat UWR. No harvest



U-7-019 No harvesting within mountain goat winter range. No harvest

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/u-7-019_Order.pdf

Approved UWR: Caribou and Mountain Goat

U-7-025

No removal of forest cover within northern caribou high elevation habitat (defined in Table 1 of Order). Forest activities in northern caribou high elevation specified area units (SA1 to SA35) and within areas of early seral moose WR potential must limit, up to free growing date, production of preferred moose browse to not more than 8% cover (unless to provide permanent access structure/ road defined in FPPR).

No harvest



U-7-026

No removal of forest cover within northern caribou high elevation habitat (defined in Table 1 of Order). Forest activities in northern caribou high elevation specified area units (SA1 to SA6) and within areas of early seral moose WR potential must limit, up to free growing date, production of preferred moose browse to not more than 8% cover (unless to provide permanent access structure/ road defined in FPPR).

No harvest



U-7-028

No removal of forest cover within Stone Sheep’s winter ranges. All heli-logging within 2,000 m line-of-sight to core UWR must take place July 15 – Oct 31. Within 500 m of core UWR harvesting must take place July 15 – Oct 31 (unless sheep not present). All roads constructed within 500m must be decommissioned within 3 years following harvest.

No harvest



U-7-029

No removal of forest cover within mountain goat winter range. All heli-logging within 2,000 m line-of-sight to UWR must take place July 15 – Oct 31. Within 500 m of core UWR harvesting must take place July 15 – Oct 31 (unless goat not present). All roads constructed within 500m must be decommissioned within 3 years following harvest.

No harvest



U-7-030

No removal of forest cover within mountain goat winter range. All heli-logging within 2,000 m line-of-sight to UWR must take place July 15 – Oct 31. Within 500 m of core UWR harvesting must take place July 15 – Oct 31 (unless goat not present). All roads constructed within 500m must be decommissioned within 3 years following harvest.

No harvest









21



Approved UWR: N. Caribou, Mountain Goat, and Bighorn Sheep

U-9-002 Primary forest activities will result in the retention of all forest cover within the ungulate winter ranges.

No harvest


Approved UWR: N. Caribou and Stone’s Sheep

U-9-004 (GR-011, GR-021, GR-022)

Activities will not result in removal of forest cover, construction or roads/trails, use of domestic sheep or goats, use of pesticides, or development of recreation sites or trails.

No harvest

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/U-9-004_ord.pdf

Approved WHA: Mountain Goat

9-001 Do not harvest or salvage within WHA. No harvest

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wha/ORAM-9-001_ord.pdf

Approved WHA: Northern Caribou

9-035 to 9-040 9-102, 9-103

Activities will not result in removal of forest cover, construction or roads/trails, use of domestic sheep or goats, use of pesticides, or development of recreation sites or trails.

No harvest

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wha/RATA_9-035_040,102,103_ord.pdf

Riparian Management Areas

Stream classifications are not available/complete for the area so criteria were developed and applied to classify and buffer streams, lakes and wetlands.

No harvest

Recreation No harvest

Parks and Protected Areas

No harvest

Inoperable – Terrain Slope Class 5

No harvest

Research Sites (i.e. PSP) No harvest

Water Intakes No harvest

Wildlife Tree Patches & Reserves

No harvest

Cultural Heritage Resources & First Nations Interests

Arch. sites, heritage features, traditional use sites, etc.

Protected and/or conserved areas under the Heritage Conservation Act or through consultation with First Nations.

No harvest

Spatial OGMAs (Mackenzie TSA) Ministerial Order

Maps 1-7 Retain all timber within identified OGMAs. No harvest

Mackenzie LRMP – Resource Management Zones

Protected

Areas to be protected for their natural, cultural heritage, and/or rec values – logging, mining, hydroelectric dams, and oil % gas development are prohibited

No harvest

Special - Wildland

Emphasis on remote and natural back-country characteristics, priority for ecological conservation while providing opportunities for commercial and industrial activities – timber harvesting is not allowed and is excluded from the THLB – road access is temporary and must be deactivated

No harvest

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/princegeorge/mackenzie/plan/files/lrmp/Mackenzie_LRMP_Feb2001.pdf

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/pdf/lrmp/Fort%20St%20James_LRMP.pdf

Non-Legal Draft UWR – Mule Deer

TBD TBD



http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/uwr/U-9-004_ord.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wha/ORAM-9-001_ord.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/wha/RATA_9-035_040,102,103_ord.pdf




22


Proposed WHA: Northern Caribou

TBD TBD

Proposed WHA: Grizzly Bear

TBD TBD

Draft WHA: Fisher

TBD TBD

Draft WHA: White Pelican

Core No Harvest

Specified Area Score for reserve

Draft WHA: Northern Caribou

Post Rut No Harvest

Calving No Harvest

Migration Max 35% of forest < 40 years

Community Watersheds Max 30% of stands (by CWS) < 2 m

Draft Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds

TBD TBD (ECAs)

Bull Trout 5 of 6 within FSWs No Harvest

Visual Quality Objectives: Prince George District GAR Order

Preservation (P) No visible activities – perspective view below VEG Max 0%

Retention (R) Activities not visually evident – perspective view below Visually Effective Green-up (VEG)

Max 0.8%

Partial Retention (PR)

Activities visible but minimal – perspective view below VEG

Max 4.3%

Visual Quality Objectives: Mackenzie District Non-Legal but recommended

Retention (R) Activities not visually evident – perspective view below VEG by Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC)

Low - Max 0.1% Med - Max 0.7% High - Max 1.5%

Partial Retention (PR)

Activities visible but minimal – perspective view below VEG by VAC

Low - Max 1.6% Med - Max 4.3% High - Max 7.0%

Mackenzie LRMP – Resource Management Zones

Agriculture / Settlement

Enhanced

Emphasis on timber growth and utilization – fewer restrictions on industrial development, permanent and more intensive access network is allowable – may have small areas with restrictions for wildlife and habitat

General Applies across the plan area – emphasis on the extractive and non-extractive uses – restrictions based on type of subzone

Special

Emphasis on non-extractive uses with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat, heritage and culture, scenic areas and rec – commercial and industrial activities allowed while managing identified special values – some areas are restricted – may have permanent access with remaining roads temporary


Stuart / FSJ LRMP – Resource Management Zones

Multi-Value Integration of a wide range of resource values – access relatively unrestricted, exception of specific areas recommended for special mgmt. consideration

PPA (Protected Areas)

Minimum intervention

Resource Development

Intensive resource development – managed with consideration for other resource values and within guidelines of specific zone objectives and strategies –



23


emphasis on mineral extraction, harvesting, while minimizing impacts on other resource values through IRM strategies – access relatively unrestricted

Settlement / Agriculture (S&E)

Farming, proposed settlements

Special Management

Managed for wide array of resources but in general indicate need for sensitive resource mgmt. – resource development may proceed as long as impacts to other resource are minimized and values are maintained





Harvest Scenario Notes

The ISS project teams acknowledge and thanks the following individuals for their role in developing the approach and assumptions for this harvest scenario. This involved preparation for and participation in a workshop held in Prince George on June 5, 2017 that considered both harvest and silviculture scenarios for both the Stuart (Prince George TSA – TSBs A, B, C) and Mackenzie ISS projects.

Attended Workshop (June 5, 2017) Invited but Unable to Attend Workshop

Organization Name Organization Name

BCTS (Prince George) Aaron Day BCTS (Prince George) Jeremy Greenfield

Canfor (Mackenzie) Doug Ambedian BCTS (Vanderhoof) Bruce Middleton

Canfor (Vanderhoof) Terry Lazaruk Canfor (Prince George) Sara Cotter

Conifex (Fort St. James) Tanya Kruisselbrink Canfor (Mackenzie) Sarah Curtis

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Les Dillabaugh Canfor (Mackenzie) Erik Olson

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Trevor Joyce Canfor (Mackenzie) Brent Sinclair

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Lori Borth Carrier (Prince George) Keith Taite

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) John DeGagne Conifex (Mackenzie) Kelly Favron

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Darin Hancock Conifex (Fort St. James) Cheryl Hodder

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Dave Johnson Conifex (Mackenzie) Aiden Wiechula

FLNRO (Prince George) Leslie McKinley Dunkley (Prince George) Doug Perdue

FLNRO (Prince George) Mike McLachlan Dunkley (Prince George) Tim Pritchard

FLNRO (Prince George) John Pousette Frost Lake (Prince George) Shane Perry

FLNRO (Victoria) Paul Rehsler KDL (Fort St. James) Ross Hamilton

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Miodrag Tkalec KDL (Mackenzie) Mike Pek

FLNRO (Fort St. James) Andrew Wheatley West Fraser (Fraser Lake) Jaret Van der Giessen

Symmetree (Victoria) Bryce Bancroft FLNRO (Prince George) Kevin Hoekstra

Forsite (Salmon Arm) Patrick Bryant FLNRO (Fort St. James) Kelly Izzard

Zielke (West Vancouver) Ken Zielke FLNRO (Prince George) Jewel Yurkewich



Summary of Harvest Scenario Assumptions

HARVEST SCENARIO: Which stands should be prioritized for harvest/salvage in the short term (and what are the mid/long term consequences of not following this strategy)?

Tactic Element ISS Base Case Scenario ISS Harvest Scenario

Description Criteria Description Criteria

Minimum Harvest Criteria: How low are we prepared to go over a short period of time when options are limited?


Volume per Hectare

Slope <=35% Min 151 m3/ ha; including dead

Slope 35 to 46% Min 151 m3/ ha; excluding dead

Slope >46% Min 250 m3/ ha; excluding dead

Average each period Min 200 m3/ ha

Harvest Priority: Which stands should be prioritized for harvest in the short term?

Harvest Priority

Partition

Pine-Leading Stands Min 2/3 (67%) for first 15 yrs since attack

Non-Pine-Leading Stands Max 905,000 m3/yr for the first 15 yrs since attack

a run with none - see where opps are.

Non-Pine-Leading Stands Max 300,000 m3/yr from SW portion of the TSA

Deciduous-Leading Stands Max 100,000 m3/yr over planning horizon

Balsam-Leading Stands Even flow at 300,000 m3/yr over planning horizon

Haul Distance Haul Cycle Times Max 5 hrs (one-way) to processing facility or log dump

Leave alone for now - need to get info from others first. May explore dump and barge limitations?

Access Timing 15 Example locations (~23,000 ha THLB)

Max 30% THLB every 35 yrs (first period varies by location)

Not going to change anything now

Product Profile

Not included See product profile sheet - report out - licensees help complete

Report only?

Wildfire Management: Which treatments (harvest patterns and silviculture) can help to mitigate the increasing risk of large wildfires from unsalvaged stands and climate change?

Wildfire

Fuel Breaks Not yet available Use to Encourage logging

WUI Not included silvi - reduce fuel build up (SS or harvesting activities, use debris) - bring Ed Korpela and others back in

Fire Threat Rating

Not included Use to Encourage logging



Silviculture Scenario Notes

The ISS project teams acknowledge and thanks the following individuals for their role in developing the approach and assumptions for this silviculture scenario. This involved preparation for and participation in a workshop held in Prince George on June 5, 2017 that considered both harvest and silviculture scenarios for both the Stuart (Prince George TSA – TSBs A, B, C) and Mackenzie ISS projects.

Attended Workshop (June 5, 2017) Invited but Unable to Attend Workshop

Organization Name Organization Name

BCTS (Prince George) Aaron Day BCTS (Prince George) Jeremy Greenfield

Canfor (Mackenzie) Doug Ambedian BCTS (Vanderhoof) Bruce Middleton

Canfor (Vanderhoof) Terry Lazaruk Canfor (Prince George) Sara Cotter

Conifex (Fort St. James) Tanya Kruisselbrink Canfor (Mackenzie) Sarah Curtis

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Les Dillabaugh Canfor (Mackenzie) Erik Olson

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Trevor Joyce Canfor (Mackenzie) Brent Sinclair

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Lori Borth Carrier (Prince George) Keith Taite

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) John DeGagne Conifex (Mackenzie) Kelly Favron

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Darin Hancock Conifex (Fort St. James) Cheryl Hodder

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Dave Johnson Conifex (Mackenzie) Aiden Wiechula

FLNRO (Prince George) Leslie McKinley Dunkley (Prince George) Doug Perdue

FLNRO (Prince George) Mike McLachlan Dunkley (Prince George) Tim Pritchard

FLNRO (Prince George) John Pousette Frost Lake (Prince George) Shane Perry

FLNRO (Victoria) Paul Rehsler KDL (Fort St. James) Ross Hamilton

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Miodrag Tkalec KDL (Mackenzie) Mike Pek

FLNRO (Fort St. James) Andrew Wheatley West Fraser (Fraser Lake) Jaret Van der Giessen

Symmetree (Victoria) Bryce Bancroft FLNRO (Prince George) Kevin Hoekstra

Forsite (Salmon Arm) Patrick Bryant FLNRO (Fort St. James) Kelly Izzard

Zielke (West Vancouver) Ken Zielke FLNRO (Prince George) Jewel Yurkewich



Summary of Silviculture Scenario Assumptions

The silviculture scenario will be configured to maximize harvest flow while being constrained to an annual budget of $3 million for the first 20 years. Silviculture Scenario question: Are there alternatives to current basic silviculture practices that would benefit future outcomes (both timber and non-timber)?

Tactic Element Stuart ISS Silviculture Scenario Sensitivity


Rehabilitating MPB Impacted Stands: How can rehabilitation of unsalvaged, beetle-attacked stands improve timber quantity and quality over the mid- and long-terms?

Rehabilitating MPB Impacted Stands

Eligible Stands Unlogged MPB-impacted stands

Conifer Leading Slope <=35% >=40% stand percentage dead <=150m3/ha live volume Stand Age >=40 yrs at time of attack BEC: SBS, ESSF VRI SI for Existing Natural Stands: >=11 PHR SI for Existing Managed Stands: >=11

add treatment columns to the resultant and populate with RHB_UN (uneconomic) or RHB_ME (marginally Economic). Develop a dictionary (list) with Aus where live volume following MPB salvage <=150m3/ha. Use it to determine treatment eligibility and correct assignment of treatment labels based on vol (<50m3, 50-150m3). Use AU_FU to filter for conifers, BEC and Site >=11. Live vol excludes both MPB and IBS. Existing managed stands that are impacted by MPB, or impacted by MPB+IBS are not rehab. Some stands with MPB attack ages 40-64 have little vol loss (1-5m3/ha), might not be a good idea to rehab; model will determine that.

Timing Windows

Stands unlikely to be salvaged/harvested

According to minimum harvest criteria; first 40 years only

need an account to control rehab treat only for first 40yrs of the planning horizon. Also where enhanced and REHAB eligibility overlaps, give the option of REHAB to be rehab + Enhanced, Add costs for enhanced to the costs for rehab

Treatment Costs

Marginally Economic (>= 50m3/ha) - Harvest/Knockdown/Site Prep/Plant

$1500/ha treat this as a regular clearcut, with area/yield products

Uneconomic (<50m3/ha) - Knockdown/Site Prep/Plant

$2000/ha treat this as a clearcut with no yield products, just area products

Add distance cost beyond 2 hrs (one way)

$50/ha each 2 hrs (one way) for 0 to 2hrs, no cost, then add $50 for every 2 hrs (e.g., >2 and <=4 add 50, >4 and <=6 add 100, no THLB past 6 hrs)

Treatment Responses

Transition stands onto future managed stands as if harvested

(e.g., improved OAFs, lower regen delay, select seed)

Anticipated Issues

Access limitations (new road construction prohibitive)

n/a





Fertilization: How can successive stand fertilization treatments mitigate harvest reductions over the mid-term while maintaining a positive return on investment?

Fertilization (note: not included in combined treatments)

Eligible Stands

Young natural stands Age 26 to 60 No MPB stands

Existing managed stands Age 16 to 25 no MPB stands, no decid stands (AT or EP) even if TIPSY inputs are made of PL, SX, BL

Current/future managed stands Age 0 to 15

only existing managed stands, no decid

Species (model selects priority) (Sx & Pli) >=80%

Sx+PL>=80

BEC Zones SBS, ESSF

Site Index (note thresholds correspond to existing AUs; not from FFT guidelines)

mSI >14

Slope <=35% (may need to add criterion)

Timing Windows

See Fert Response sheet; application every 10 years; progressively closest from harvest date (i.e., delay harvest eligibility 10yrs after last application)

Treatment Costs

All stands Each treatment: $450/ha

Treatment Responses

See Fert Response sheet

Anticipated Issues

First Nations' concerns





Enhanced Basic Silviculture: How can a combination of basic silviculture treatments improve timber quantity and quality over the long-term?

Enhanced Basic Silviculture

Eligible Stands Future managed stands (see Eligible Enhanced sheet)

Timing Windows

As stands that are harvested/regenerated in the model

Treatment Costs

Incremental planting of trees sown with select seed $385/ha

Switch from natural to planted $1000/ha

Treatment Responses

Planting method Natural to 100% planted (where possible)

Planting density Increase to 1700 with genetic gains

Regeneration delay Decrease from 2 to 1 yrs

OAF1 From 85% to 89%

Anticipated Issues

Currently lacks funding source; possibly operational cost allowance



Combined Scenario Notes

The remaining schedule and budget did not allow further external engagement. Instead, members of the ISS project teams met in Prince George on February 15, 2018 identify the approach and assumptions for the combined scenario. This considered both Stuart (Prince George TSA – TSBs A, B, C) and Mackenzie ISS projects and involved the following individuals: Andrew Wheatley, Bryce Bancroft, Darin Hancock, Dave Johnson, Heather Wiebe, John DeGagne, Kevin Hoekstra, Leslie McKinley, Lori Borth, Mike McLaughlin, Miodrag Tkalec, Patrick Bryant, Paul Rehsler.

The following table outlines the tactics from existing scenarios that will be included in the combined scenario for the Mackenzie ISS.

Combined Adjustments Scenario Modelling Run Approach Tactics for Mackenzie

Yes No change Base Case Riparian Reserves

Base Case – Implement

Spatial delineation of riparian reserves added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description. (DP 2.1.13; AR 1.1)

Yes No change Base Case Wildlife Habitat Base Case - Implement

Spatial delineation of approved, proposed, and draft habitat areas added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description. (DP 2.1.8 and 2.2.5; AR 1.1 and 3.2)

Yes Remove Kwadacha FNWL from Mackenzie; Fox & Obo (DH)

Base Case New Tenures Base Case - Implement

Same as TSR (DP 2.1.1; AR 1.1)

No No change Base Case Watershed ECA Base Case - Report only

Monitor and/or implement a forest cover requirement within identified watersheds. (DP 2.2.4; AR 3.2)

No Drop Base Case Caribou Habitat Base Case (Post Process) - Federal Recovery Strategy & BC Regulated Areas

Post-processing exercise to assess anthropogenic disturbance; block-to-road links included for linear disturbances. (DP 2.7; AR 3.3)

No Drop Base Case Caribou Habitat Sensitivity (Post Process) - Federal Recovery Strategy & BC Regulated Areas

Post-processing exercise to assess anthropogenic disturbance; block-to-road links included for linear disturbances. (DP 2.7; AR 3.3)

Yes No salvage within 2km/900m elev band from reservoir; available for rehab

Base Case Pine Beetle Base Case - Implement

Implement a number of assumptions for adjusting yields and harvest partitions. (DP 2.4.3; AR 3.1)

Yes No change Base Case Pine Beetle Base Case – turn on WTR strategy with salvage zones

Adjust wildlife tree retention based on opening size by implementing patch groups adjusted relative to the current distribution. (DP 2.2.2; AR 7.2)

Yes Expand impact with 2017 AOS

Base Case Spruce Beetle Base Case - Implement IBS kill

Implement a number of assumptions for adjusting yields. (DP 2.4.4; AR 7.2)




No Drop Base Case Access Base Case - Set up timing constraints but keep turn them off

Spatial delineation of identified areas valued for wilderness and Grizzly Bear habitat added to the resultant; apply timing constraints. (DP 2.8; AR 3.4)

No Drop Base Case Access Sensitivity - Turn on timing constraints

Yes Lock candidate reserves for 40 years; likely future sensitivity by dropping NHLB from constraint score; possibly add this and/or ESI to Combined sensitivity

Reserve Candidate Reserves

Scenario - Temporal Model

Select candidate reserves that meet multiple criteria and thresholds and can provide a preliminary spatial result to work from. (DP 3; AR 4)

No Drop Harvest Minimum Harvest Criteria

Scenario - Minimum Harvest Criteria

Same as TSR (DP 4; AR 5.1)

Yes Apply higher weights; shorter period; accept some impact

Harvest Wildfire Management

Scenario - Wildfire Management

Harvest is prioritized for those stands that are rated as extreme by the 2015 Provincial Strategic Threat Analysis (PSTA) – wildfire threat component dataset. (DP 4; AR 5)

Yes No change Harvest Harvest Priority Scenario - Harvest Priority

Includes: 5 partitions (pine-leading; non-pine-leading; go-north; deciduous; balsam) Max 5 hour haul time (one-way) to log dump or processing facility Access timing constraint over 15 example locations Harvest opening sizes were controlled in each 5-year period to spatially group harvested blocks into more realistic opening sizes. (DP 4; AR 5)

No Drop Harvest Harvest Priority Scenario Sensitivity - Harvest Priority

Exclude 5 partitions (pine-leading; non-pine-leading; go-north; deciduous; balsam). (DP 4; AR 5.3)

No Drop Silviculture Combined Treatments

Scenario - Combine Rehab, Fert, and Enhanced Basic (Include volume from rehab)

Maximize harvest flow with annual budget of $3 million on a combination rehab, fert (excluding Stuart), and enhanced basic treatments. Includes all volume recovered through rehabilitation. (DP 5; AR 6)

Yes Higher/Lower Budget? Target on volume excluding rehab; report age class and harvest by state; plus harvest of rehab

Silviculture Combined Treatments

Scenario - Combine Rehab, Fert, and Enhanced Basic (Exclude volume from rehab)

Maximize harvest flow with annual budget of $3 million on a combination rehab, fert (excluding Stuart), and enhanced basic treatments. Excludes all volume recovered through rehabilitation. (DP 5; AR 6)




stands

Yes Accept hit up to 5%; add new class (0-1 ha with 0% and 1-5 ha up to 5%) to create better block shapes/locations

Harvest Harvest Priority Implement Opening and Patch Size Criteria

Control harvest opening sizes in each 5-year period without a harvest flow penalty (DP 4; AR 5.2). Implement Patch Size Targets over the TSA.

Integrated Silviculture Strategy for the Mackenzie TSA · 2018. 10. 29. · Integrated Silviculture...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Silviculture Strategy for the Mackenzie TSA · 2018. 10. 29. · Integrated Silviculture...