Spatial Deployment of KBHLPO Biodiversity Objectives for the Invermere TSA Rocky Mountain Forest District

Transcription

1 Spatial Deployment of KBHLPO Biodiversity Objectives for the Invermere TSA Rocky Mountain Forest District Final Report V. 02 May 10, 2007 Prepared for: Minister of Agriculture and Lands Produced by: Al Neal Environmental Consulting Contract # CCBEN07010

2 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND DATA VINTAGE METHOD OF REVIEW RESULTING OGMA/MMA DEPLOYMENT MAPPING NATIONALS PARK CONTRIBUTIONS VALUES CONSIDERED ECOLOGICAL REPRESENTATION OLD SERAL PATCH INVENTORY AND RANKING HCVF CONNECTIVITY RECOMMENDATIONS OPERATING AREAS RECRUITMENT NEEDS /3 RD DRAWDOWN OPEN FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS TO OLD SERAL TARGETS PARTIAL CUTTING LODGEPOLE PINE MOUNTAIN CARIBOU U FIELD CARDS BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT APPENDIX A DATA TABLES APPENDIX B MAPS/DATA PRODUCED AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT APPENDIX C LICENSEE HOW TO APPENDIX D INVERMERE SCRIPT LOGIC APPENDIX E REVIEW OF LU/BECS AS DEPLOYED BY THE SCRIPT APPENDIX F FIELD CARD USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF OLD SERAL PATCHES IN THE INVERMERE TSA... 29

3 3 of 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. CFLB in Invermere TSA by LU and Area Selected as OGMA and MMA... 8 Table 2. Summary of Old and Mature area budget for the Kootenay National Park LUs.9 Table 3. Summary of ecological values captured by Script vs. TSR Table 4. Area (ha) of priority representation sites selected by each of the logic sets Table 5. Area (ha) of excellent ranked POGMAs selected by each of the logic sets Table 6. Area (ha) of good ranked POGMAs selected by each of the logic sets Table 7. Area (ha) of Old and Mature seral selected within HCVFs Table 8. Area (ha) of Connectivity corridors selected by each of the logic sets Table 9. OGMA selection priority for the Invermere TSA Table 10. MMA Selection priority for the Invermere TSA Table 11. Review of LU/BECs as deployed by the script Table 12. Old Seral Patch Evaluation Sheet LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Invermere Timber Supply Area (source TSR 3 AR)... 4

4 4 of 29 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to document the review and refinement of a set of script driven, spatially explicit Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) and Mature Management Areas (MMAs) applied in the Invermere TSA. Having the set of spatially defined areas allows forest licensees, government and the public a visual representation of the old and mature retention requirements as defined in the Kootenay Boundary Higher Level Plan Order (KBHLPO). This should facilitate efficient planning and confidence in Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP), in terms of ensuring meaningful biodiversity targets are being achieved. Figure 1. Invermere Timber Supply Area (source TSR 3 AR) 2 Background In 1999 the Invermere Forest District and the Ministry of Environment, began a Landscape Unit (LU) Planning process, commencing with landscape level and stand level biodiversity in a manner consistent with guidance in the LU Planning Guide 1 (LUPG). Over the next few years as the KBHLPO was introduced and revised, the Invermere work group comprised of MOF, MOE and forest licensees, developed an old growth inventory/ ranking of existing old growth stands in the TSA. The majority of old growth stands in the TSA were evaluated by a series of attributes (Appendix F) and then assigned an overall rank of Poor, Low, Medium, Good or Excellent in terms of old biological attributes. This was to be one of the framework layers used in the landscape planning process, and therefore as they were made available, Licensees started to avoid overlapping the boundaries of the Good and Excellent ranked polygons as much as 1 MOE, MOF Landscape Unit Planning Guide 1999.

5 5 of 29 possible. During the third year of the project (2002), the mandate for LU Planning was moved to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). In 2004, MSRM (now Integrated Land Management Bureau, ILMB) hired consultants (Forsite/Al Neal Environmental Consulting) to complete a project to spatially identify OGMAs and MMAs in the Invermere TSA 2 with the main purpose being to provide a spatial representation of the KBHLPO for use in Timber Supply Review (TSR 3). From the outset of the project, the consultants suggested the product was a good representation of achieving the targets, but that it was not a values optimizing deployment. The polygons were used in TSR 3 and were made available to licensees. Natural disturbances, harvesting due to forest health issues, more suitable areas being identified, and a lack of legal status, all contributed to some of the areas that were delineated as OGMAs/MMAs being impacted since that project. In 2005, Tembec s TFL 14 initiated a spatial deployment of OGMAs/MMAs 3 using a logic set that was consistent with the KBHLPO but also incorporated other land based planning initiatives that had been occurring (i.e. High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF s), ecosystem representation and the old growth inventory/ranking ). In 2005, that script logic was discussed and endorsed by MSRM and then utilized in a deployment in Tembec areas of the Invermere TSA 4 as well. Note that MSRM approval of the logic was in regards to technically what script to run, and not necessarily any land use practices. This current project took 2006 data and the 2005 script developed for Tembec s LU s and generated a new set of OGMA/MMAs for the entire Invermere TSA. The selection priorities are outlined in Appendix D Table 9 and Table 10. The project included a manual review of the script selected OGMA/MMAs in consultation with licensees (Canfor, Tembec and BCTS), which resulted in some refinement to the script generated deployment. Such manual refinements were made to create better patch sizes, or to allow for present or planned forest harvesting. The Tembec operating area within the TSA was re-run as a part of this project due to; finalized HCVF polygons being available, revised KBHLPO (variance 7, Biodiversity Emphasis Options that resulted from new BEC line work), updated fires and depletion information, and availability of updated forest cover information. 3 Data Vintage The data used in the project as outlined by Forsite 5 is as follows: 2 Forsite/Al Neal Refined Script Driven OGMAs and MMAs for the Rocky Mountain Forest District. Prepared for BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Cranbrook BC (Tom Volkers). 3 Al Neal Spatial Deployment of OGMAs and MMAs in TFL14, Al Neal Spatial Deployment of OGMAs and MMAs in Tembec s Canal Flats Operating area of the Invermere TSA Forsite Documentation Package, Invermere TSA OGMA and MMA Update Version 1 May 29, 2006.

6 6 of 29 The Invermere TSA resultant GIS file created for Tembec in March 2006 was used as the base dataset for this project. This included all current information layers and forest cover data current to Jan Recently updated data layers consisted of BEC, BEO, HCVF, Operating areas, Rare and Uncommon Ecosystems, UWR, and Caribou. A consolidated block dataset (logged, approved, and proposed) was compiled from licensee datasets current to and then added to the resultant to facilitate the depletion of logged areas and prevent the selection of approved Exhibit A blocks as OGMA/MMAs. The script logic developed for Tembec in 2005 by Al Neal, Kari Stuart Smith, and Darcy Monchak was used to assign selection priorities (Appendix D Table 9 and Table 10 ). Any differences between the 2005 OGMAs/MMAs produced for Tembec and those produced by this project would come from the updated datasets referenced above, minor corrections to the script as a result of this project and more up to date harvest history. 4 Method of Review Phase 1 of this project was a quality assurance check to ensure that the script was functioning properly. Although a logic can be agreed to by all parties, the programming of the logic into the technical computer script, must maintain the intent of the logic, and the planning file data has to be clean of errors. In addition, three LU s were reviewed in depth in conjunction with the excel data base to ensure accuracy. It was found on three accounts minor corrections to the script had to be made: The script as programmed, had left a definition of one type of old never available for selection. The base map and database was not recognizing a mature theme in one BEC zone. Some provincial park data was not being recognized in the planning file and therefore not being selected by the script. All identified corrections to the script were incorporated into the deliverables for this project and into the maps that were reviewed during phase 2. Phase 2 involved reviewing the script selected polygons in terms of local and field knowledge of values, and management plans and making changes to those script selected polygons where required. Each LU was reviewed, using orthophoto coverage, Google Earth visuals, a Values Overlay map (included with the deliverables for this project), the most recent FSPs, the data tables and the logic tables. The deployment in each of the LU/BECs were considered in terms of three options: 1. Obvious changes that should be made, 2. Best left until the development stage, 3. No options available.

7 7 of 29 When a change to the script selected polygons was required, suitable options were first considered within the same OGMA/MMA selection priority category. In some cases licensee input was required to evaluate the significance of changes required or proposed. Through review by the contractor supplemented by referral to Canfor, Tembec, and BCTS each of the LU/BECs were reviewed and the course of action taken is attached. Appendix E indicates the results of the review for each LU/BEC using the script generated polygons as the basis of review. Comments for each LU/BEC were recorded and marked on the draft maps. Any required changes have been incorporated into the final mapped polygons and the final data tables. 5 Resulting OGMA/MMA deployment The project has resulted in the selection of OGMA and MMA areas for the Invermere TSA based upon the objectives set in the KBHLPO. This deployment leaves two LU/BECs in deficit by minor amounts due to incorporating two very recent FSP updates as a result of the licensee review. Those areas are in the MSdk of LU I14 Brewer Dutch now in deficit of 24 ha and LU I19 Fenwick now in deficit of 14 ha. Both have old areas available that can be used to satisfy their respective biodiversity requirements. Through out this report Crown Forest Land Base (CFLB) will be used as the description of crown land that is capable of supporting a forest, as defined in the TSR 3 process. Timber harvesting landbase (THLB) will refer to the crown land that contributes towards supporting the TSA s annual allowable cut. The non-contributing landbase (NC) is the crown land that is forested that does not support harvestable volume towards the allowable annual cut, however, it can be used to satisfy biodiversity targets. The TSA has been over-deployed for biodiversity targets by 923 ha, nearly all being in the NC landbase. These small over achievements occur due to the script following existing planning file polygons. When the script over selected in THLB the corresponding area was dropped during the manual review. Table 1. CFLB in Invermere TSA by LUs and the Areas Selected as OGMAs and MMA, describes the amounts of crown forest that has been designated as Old and Mature. Overall in the TSA approximately 12.2 % of the crown forest landbase is being designated as OGMA, and another 3.9 % as MMA. In terms of THLB in the TSA, 6.5 % of the THLB has been designated as OGMA while another 2.3% as MMA. This totals 8.8% of the THLB being designated for biodiversity management. Overall in the TSA, approximately 23.5 % of all OGMAs are in the THLB, while 25.5% of all MMAs are within the THLB. 5.1 Mapping Deliverables for the project included; shapefiles of the resulting OGMA and MMA areas, and a set of themed base maps that indicate old and mature types of each of the logic categories. It must be noted that one of the base maps is themed for the Old definitions of categories while the Mature definitions have a separate themed base map.

8 8 of 29 Table 1. CFLB in Invermere TSA by LU and Area Selected as OGMA and MMA. Total CFLB Area (ha) Total CFLB Area (ha) Selected as OGMA by Script Total CFLB Area (ha) Selected as MMA by Script LU # LU Name THLB NC Non- Forest Total THLB NC Total THLB NC Total I01 Findlay 2,417 20,437 30,928 22, ,359 4, ,109 4,190 I02 Buhl / Bradford 6,187 20,343 22,594 26, ,337 5, ,109 5,674 I03 Skookumchuck/Torrent 16,517 8,981 9,997 25, , I04 Premier/Diorite 14,124 8,669 20,449 22, , I05 Lussier/Coyote 17,792 19,986 17,687 37, ,789 1, I06 Blackfoot/Thunder 6,403 5,714 12,300 12, I07 East-Middle White 7,656 15,255 19,803 22, ,656 3, I08 North White 8,386 5,573 12,820 13, ,519 1, I09 Grave 11,596 10,207 10,489 21, ,634 2, I10 Nine Mile/Moscow 15,232 9,746 9,975 24, ,353 2, I11 Kootenay 5,389 5,275 6,086 10, ,503 2, ,620 2,551 I12 Doctor/Fir 12,942 11,848 21,102 24, , I13 East Columbia 4,630 6,071 9,709 10, , I14 Brewer/Dutch 11,016 21,508 34,850 32, ,867 4, I15 Toby 2,955 11,174 31,125 14, ,747 1, I16 Jumbo 1,360 3,150 10,029 4, ,275 1,579 I17 Goldie 1,267 2,018 4,361 3, I18 Invermere 4,407 1,691 19,932 6, I19 Fenwick 8,787 4,595 5,148 13, ,055 1,867 1, ,587 I20 Palliser 5,505 12,998 24,005 18, ,173 2, ,097 1,476 I21 Cochran 9,762 5,160 4,984 14, , I22 Albert 3,337 6,223 11,222 9, ,450 2, ,517 1,903 I23 Cross 5,992 22,824 56,012 28, ,853 6, I24 Pedley 8,629 7,216 5,927 15,845 1,069 1,187 2,256 1, ,505 I25 Shuswap/Windermere 2,794 9,173 13,828 11, ,607 1, I26 Horsethief 4,226 9,629 42,120 13, ,780 1, I27 Forster 638 5,473 10,491 6, I28 Frances 619 2,443 9,195 3, I29 Steamboat 17,080 4,544 11,630 21,623 1, , I30 Kindersley/Macauley 2,418 5,538 12,956 7, I31 Bugaboo 3,282 5,798 20,578 9, ,096 1, I32 Dunbar/Templeton 10,010 3,206 11,976 13,217 1, , I33 Luxor 2,707 3,380 3,197 6, I36 McMurdo/Fraling 3,090 6,876 22,237 9, Total 239, , , ,875 15,566 50,670 66,236 5,454 15,927 21,382

9 9 of 29 6 Nationals Park contributions In the past, three Kootenay National Park (KNP) areas have been added to Invermere TSA LUs for the purposes of OGMA/MMA deployment. The Landscape Unit Planning Guide (1999) provided the following direction for this inclusion of national parks: In the methodology of defining crown forested landbase biodiversity management: (national parks) should be included as long as the management of the forested areas of park are compatible with developing old growth objectives. Current national park policy intends to maintain natural disturbance cycles (e.g. fires or insects). Hence, assumptions regarding current and intended extent and location of old forest seral stages in national parks will need to be reviewed with appropriate park management staff. Consistent with the above, National Park areas were not incorporated into the OGMA/MMA deployment for this project. This approach was taken due to unknowns regarding the magnitude of the current mountain pine beetle infestations in KNP, significant recent fire history, concern from forest licensees, and the need for further consultation with Parks Canada. In addition, the influence of the Landscape Unit Planning Guide has been lessened under the Forest and Range Practices Act. It should be noted that for the adjacent Golden TSA, National Park areas were considered in the OGMA/MMA deployment process. At the time the Golden TSA deployment occurred, the Landscape Unit Planning Guide was an integral consideration requirement. For information purposes, based on the most recent parks database, below is a summary table of the extent that a KNP park LU/BEC is in surplus or deficit. This table lists National Park areas only, and does not show the effect of adding Park areas to the adjacent TSA LUs. However, it can be used as an indicator of how adding the Park areas would affect OGMA/MMA deployment in the TSA. Table 2. Summary of Old and Mature area budget for the Kootenay National Park LUs LU BEC Area (ha) Old Target (ha) Old Existing (ha) Mature Existing (ha) Surplus Old (- deficit) ESSFdk 1 5, ,086 1, , KNP1 IDF dm IDF xk , ,138 3, ESSFdk 1 3, , KNP2 2, ICH mk ,633 1, , ESSFdk 1 2, KNP3 1, ,921 2, ,509-1,239 Total 40,312 6,640 5,368 11,851-1,272

10 10 of 29 Overall, the addition of National Park areas to the adjacent LU s would increase the hectares of OGMA/MMA to be deployed within the TSA by 1272 ha. In KNP 1 a key BEC such as MSdk has a surplus of 475 ha that could contribute to meeting TSA biodiversity targets. However, the MSdk in KNP2 and 3 are both in deficits of 119 and 1239 ha respectively, and would therefore require that additional TSA area be used to address KBHLPO requirements. 7 Values Considered The deployment was done in consideration of a number of inventoried ecological values. The following table summarize in hectares those ecological values captured within the polygons. The goal is to achieve a greater number of hectares of these values than the previous (TSR 3) deployment. This occurred in all instances except for G ranked old seral patches (OSP). A more detailed account of each value follows. Table 3. Summary of ecological values captured by Script vs. TSR 3. Ecosystem Value Area (ha) Selected by Script Area (ha) Selected TSR 3 Version THLB NC Total THLB NC Total Ecosystem Representation Priority Priority 2 4,083 3,869 "E" Ranked Ogma Selection Pritority 1,894 4,090 5, ,356 5,220 "G" Ranked Ogma Selection Pritority 2,429 7,971 10,400 3,573 10,097 13,670 Old within HCVF 17,860 15,047 Mature within HCVF 3,450 1,894 Old in connectivity 23,793 23,358 Mature in connectivity 6,032 4, Ecological Representation One of the databases built into the project TSA resultant GIS file and used for prioritizing OGMA/MMA deployment was The East Kootenay Ecological Representation Project 6. By considering the identified rare and uncommon ecosystems as part of the OGMA/MMA deployment script, those sites would have a greater chance of being selected as OGMA or MMA and therefore remain as unmanaged forest lands, lending towards a more natural state. 6 Wells et Al., 2004 (November revision). Ecosystem Representation in the East Kootenay Conservation Program Study Area.

11 11 of 29 Note that in order for the deployment process (i.e.the script) to select an uncommon or rare site as OGMA or MMA, it must first be of the appropriate old or mature forest age as defined in the KBHLPO. Priority 1 Ecosystem included: Rare: submesic IDFun, mesic IDFun2, subhygric IDFun2, hygric IDFun, subhygric MS, hygric ESSFdm1 Uncommon1 (<2000 ha in EKCP, <50% NTHLB): subhygric ICHmk1, hygric PPdh2, hygric IDF. Priority 2 Ecosystems included: Uncommon2 (>2000ha & <8500 ha in EKCP): Subhygric PPdh2, Subhygric-hygric (fluvial riparian) IDF, Subhygric-hygric ICH, Hygric (fluvial mid-bench riparian) ICH, Subhydric ESSF dm2, Subhygric ESSF wm, Dry upper ESSF (Pa), Subhygric upper ESSF (Se, Bl) Low/Mod Rep in NTHLB: Subxeric-submesic IDF/PP, Circum-mesic IDF/ICH/MS, Circum-mesic ICH dw/dm, Mesic ICH mk1, Mesic MS/ IDF dm2a, Subxeric-submesic ESSF dm1 Table 4. compares the current script verses the previous TSR 3 polygons in terms of ecosystem representation. In general, the new script has identified 869 ha of priority 1 areas selected, versus 730 ha that were selected for the script done for TSR 3 OGMA /MMA deployment process - moving from 8.4 % of all priority 1 sites to 10%. Priority 2 areas have 4083 ha (Script) and 3869 ha (TSR3) produces a negligible percentage of increase. Table 4. Area (ha) of priority representation sites selected by each of the logic sets. Total Area (ha) Script Selected TSR 3 Selected LU # LU Name Priority 1 Priority 2 Total Priority 1 Priority 2 Total Priority 1 Priority 2 Total I01 Findlay 10 3,221 3, I02 Buhl / Bradford 295 4,012 4, I03 Skookumchuck/Torrent 685 5,597 6, I04 Premier/Diorite 117 8,966 9, I05 Lussier/Coyote 13 2,113 2, I06 Blackfoot/Thunder I07 East-Middle White 5 1,051 1, I08 North White I09 Grave , I10 Nine Mile/Moscow 432 1,360 1, I11 Kootenay 229 1,140 1, I12 Doctor/Fir 417 4,800 5, I13 East Columbia 124 5,969 6, I14 Brewer/Dutch 15 3,630 3, I15 Toby 29 1,507 1, I16 Jumbo I17 Goldie I18 Invermere 898 7,256 8, I19 Fenwick I20 Palliser 205 1,617 1, I21 Cochran I22 Albert 543 1,003 1, I23 Cross 132 3,736 3, I24 Pedley I25 Shuswap/Windermere 459 8,424 8,

12 12 of 29 Total Area (ha) Script Selected TSR 3 Selected Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority LU # LU Name 1 2 Total 1 2 Total 1 2 Total I26 Horsethief 206 1,685 1, I27 Forster I28 Frances I29 Steamboat 1,227 4,646 5, I30 Kindersley/Macauley 82 3,447 3, I31 Bugaboo 196 1,969 2, I32 Dunbar/Templeton 735 1,341 2, I33 Luxor I36 McMurdo/Fraling 579 3,910 4, Total 8,674 88,260 96, ,083 4, ,869 4, Old Seral Patch Inventory and Ranking The data layer of old seral patch ranking was incorporated into the project s TSA resultant GIS file and used for prioritizing OGMA/MMA deployment, similar to what was done for TSR3 in There was some difference in which old seral patch areas were selected compared to the TSR3 deployment. This was partly because of the other ecological values being applied, as well as because the script process was programmed to select the highest valued Excellent ( E ) ranked areas first, within each selection category. This resulted in the script selecting 764 ha more of E ranked areas than the TSR 3 version. Although within the E areas this caused 1030 ha more taken from the THLB as compared to the TSR3 version, this difference is balanced by the script selecting less THLB in the G ranked areas (1144 less ha selected). In total this script selected 16,384 ha of old CFLB patches designated Excellent or Good verses the 2004 TSR 3 version selecting 18,890 ha. Table 5. Area (ha) of excellent ranked POGMAs selected by each of the logic sets. Area (ha) of "E" in the LU Area (ha) of "E" Selected by Script Area (ha) of "E" Selected TSR 3 Version LU # LU Name THLB NC Non- Forest Total THLB NC Total THLB NC Total I03 Skookumchuck/Torrent I05 Lussier/Coyote 516 2, , , I06 Blackfoot/Thunder , I09 Grave I10 Nine Mile/Moscow I11 Kootenay I12 Doctor/Fir 188 1, , I13 East Columbia I14 Brewer/Dutch I18 Invermere I19 Fenwick I20 Palliser I21 Cochran 1, , I22 Albert , I23 Cross I24 Pedley I25 Shuswap/Windermere I26 Horsethief I28 Frances I31 Bugaboo , Total 6,269 8,371 2,060 16,700 1,894 4,090 5, ,356 5,220

13 13 of 29 Table 6. Area (ha) of good ranked POGMAs selected by each of the logic sets. Area (ha) of "G" in the LU Area (ha) of "G" Selected by Script Area (ha) of "G" Selected TSR 3 Version LU # LU Name THLB NC Non- Forest Total THLB NC Total THLB NC Total I01 Findlay I02 Buhl / Bradford 521 1, , I03 Skookumchuck/Torrent , I04 Premier/Diorite I05 Lussier/Coyote 1,045 4, , I06 Blackfoot/Thunder , I07 East-Middle White I08 North White , I09 Grave , I10 Nine Mile/Moscow 1,376 1, , I11 Kootenay , I12 Doctor/Fir 782 1, , I13 East Columbia I14 Brewer/Dutch 865 1, , I15 Toby , I16 Jumbo I19 Fenwick , I20 Palliser 1,088 1, , ,040 I21 Cochran , I22 Albert 375 1, , I23 Cross 756 1, , I24 Pedley I25 Shuswap/Windermere 305 1, , I26 Horsethief , I27 Forster , I28 Frances I29 Steamboat I30 Kindersley/Macauley 216 1, , I31 Bugaboo 348 1, , I32 Dunbar/Templeton I36 McMurdo/Fraling , Total 14,909 28,100 8,642 51,651 2,429 7,971 10,400 3,573 10,097 13, HCVF High Conservation Value Forest areas have been established and incorporated into the planning processes of both TEMBEC and Canfor operating areas. BCTS currently does not endorse the polygons and does not use them in their planning process. These HCVF areas have been incorporated into the project TSA resultant GIS file and used for prioritizing OGMA/MMA deployment. This increased the area of old selected in HCVFs from 15,047 ha to 17, 860 ha and increased mature from 1,894 ha to 3,450 ha, as compared to the 2004 TSR3 version. This increase may be in part due to licensees turning some blocks back in from Exhibit A status, due to them being within HCVF areas and thus became available by this script to select. Those same blocks may have been unavailable to the TSR 3 script.

14 14 of 29 Table 7. Area (ha) of Old and Mature seral selected within HCVFs. Total Area (ha) of Old located within HCVF Polygons Total Area (ha) of Mature Polygons located within HCVF Polygons Total Area (ha) located within HCVF Polygons Area of Old selected within HCVF Polygons "Script" Area (ha) of Mature selected withing HCVF "Script" Area of Old Selected within HCVF Polygons TSR 3 Area (ha) of Mature selected within HCVF TSR 3 LU # LU Name I01 Findlay 2, , I02 Buhl / Bradford 11, ,908 2, ,342 7 I03 Skookumchuck/Torrent , I04 Premier/Diorite 3,217 1,834 5, I05 Lussier/Coyote 4, , I06 Blackfoot/Thunder , I07 East-Middle White 1, ,960 1, ,168 - I08 North White 2, , ,044 - I09 Grave 2,959 1,457 4, I10 Nine Mile/Moscow I11 Kootenay 1, , I12 Doctor/Fir 2, , I13 East Columbia 7 1,542 1, I14 Brewer/Dutch 3, , I15 Toby 1, , I16 Jumbo , I17 Goldie I18 Invermere , I19 Fenwick , I20 Palliser I21 Cochran 2,422 1,170 3, I22 Albert 3, ,640 1, , I23 Cross 4,753 1,398 6, I24 Pedley 2, , I25 Shuswap/Windermere 4, ,563 1, I26 Horsethief 4, , I27 Forster I28 Frances I29 Steamboat I30 Kindersley/Macauley I31 Bugaboo 4,115 1,009 5, I32 Dunbar/Templeton 779 1,717 2, I33 Luxor I36 McMurdo/Fraling Total 69,168 19,634 88,803 17,860 3,450 15,047 1, Connectivity A series of connectivity corridors have been recognized in the KBHLPO as a main ecosystem value to be applied when deploying the landscape biodiversity objective. The same connectivity corridor layer was used in both this script and the 2004 TSR3 version, however with the other values applied the resulting achievements are different. The current script has selected 23,793 ha of old within the corridors verses 23,358 ha for TSR3. The Mature component selected 6,032 ha for this script and 4,851 for the TSR 3 script.

15 15 of 29 Table 8. Area (ha) of Connectivity corridors selected by each of the logic sets. Total Area (ha) of Old located within Connectivity Total Area (ha) of Mature Polygons located within Connectivity Total Area (ha) Old + Mature located within Connectivity Area of Old selected within Regional Connectivity "Script" Area (ha) of Mature selected within Regional Connectivity "Script" Area of Old Selected within Regional Connectivity TSR 3 Area (ha) of Mature selected within Regional Connectivity TSR 3 LU # LU Name I01 Findlay I02 Buhl / Bradford 14, ,790 3, , I03 Skookumchuck/Torrent 2,033 2,741 4, I04 Premier/Diorite 4,057 5,110 9, I05 Lussier/Coyote 12, ,491 1, ,325 - I06 Blackfoot/Thunder I07 East-Middle White 6,518 1,567 8,085 3, ,068 - I08 North White 2, ,553 1, I09 Grave 4,828 3,189 8,017 1, ,781 - I10 Nine Mile/Moscow 1,914 1,359 3, I11 Kootenay 3,990 3,168 7,158 2, , I12 Doctor/Fir , I13 East Columbia 1,055 2,834 3, I14 Brewer/Dutch 3,182 2,019 5, I15 Toby I16 Jumbo 1, , , I17 Goldie I18 Invermere 8 1,650 1, I19 Fenwick , I20 Palliser 2,150 2,352 4, I21 Cochran 843 1,788 2, I22 Albert 4,114 2,241 6,355 2, , I23 Cross 1,497 1,358 2, I24 Pedley 1,300 1,540 2,840 1, , I25 Shuswap/Windermere I26 Horsethief 2,304 1,723 4,027 1, I27 Forster I28 Frances I29 Steamboat 13 2,800 2, I30 Kindersley/Macauley , I31 Bugaboo I32 Dunbar/Templeton I33 Luxor I36 McMurdo/Fraling Total 73,052 44, ,622 23,793 6,032 23,358 4,851

16 16 of 29 8 Recommendations Operating areas Licensee operating areas have not been used in the selection process for this deployment of OGMAs and MMAs. It is expected that these polygons will add to the complexities of balancing the licensee operating areas to their portion of the AAC. However it should be noted that in joint landscape units that licensees impact the available volume within the LU each time they harvest. If licensees plan to enter an area designated as a OGMA or MMA through this deployment they should refer to Appendix B for a suggested procedure. 8.2 Recruitment needs Some areas within the Invermere TSA are in deficit of meeting the KBHLPO biodiversity targets. Although this process has identified enough landbase to meet those targets by including areas currently in recruitment, they may not be the most suitably located or develop the best attributes to recruit into OGMA or MMA patches into the future. During forest management activities within the TSA through time, more suitable recruitment areas may be found /3 rd drawdown This deployment meets the current requirements of the day, which includes drawing down the seral targets within low biodiversity emphasis landscape units to 1/3 of the full target. Full targets are anticipated to be achieved by the end of the third rotation. Planning for the full target will have to be incorporated into recruitment plans in future, especially in NDT 4 areas in which the definition of old is 250 year +. This project did not designate a recruitment strategy that describes how to meet the full target. 8.4 Open Forest contributions to Old seral targets Open forest (OF) areas are common within NDT 4 areas of the Invermere TSA. Ecosystem restoration work has been occurring and developing a number of sites that are of increased ecological importance. The KBHLPO has left opportunities for these sites to contribute to the achievement of seral targets. However, using stand attributes and understanding the stage of restoration work that has occurred and is planned was beyond the scope of this project. Consequently, many of the NDT 4 BECs are currently in seral deficit. However significant opportunities likely exist to utilize fire maintained ecosystem work to identify suitable stands of open forest that could contribute towards meeting landscape level biodiversity targets.

17 17 of Partial cutting ILMB indicated a desire to report out on how much of the selected OGMA/MMA area was partially harvested in the past. This is because the current inventory attributes on these stands may appear misleading. However, due to data challenges it was beyond the scope of this project (stand history is no longer readily available in forest cover datasets). Although some of the stands may have experienced some activities in the past, these stands would still have significant overstory present or their rank 1 layer in the forest cover would be considered the regenerating layer. If the rank 1 layer is still old or mature then it is the dominant layer in the stand. From an OGMA point of view, stand volume is not all that important as long as the stand has the necessary attributes. 8.6 Lodgepole pine Within this project, the script selected from lodgepole pine (PL) stands only as a last resort. This is due in part to PL a pioneer species that does not lend towards developing attributes of an old seral forest. Secondly, the mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring in British Columbia will likely continue to require prioritized harvest of PL stands. Under the current KBHLPO, stands of PL are used as a part of the CFLB that is used to calculate old and mature seral targets. Therefore, those species types should be able to help achieve the target, although biologically many of the stands will never achieve the definition of mature or old forest for that BEC. The KBHLPO has provided opportunities to use adjusted ages in PL stands to achieve old and mature seral targets. Those opportunities should be explored during development and where options have become restrictive. 8.7 Mountain Caribou Only a small portion of one LU in the Invermere TSA is managed for mountain caribou (Objective 3) under the KBHLPO. In future, any spatialization of that Objective 3 should be made in consideration of this project s deployment of Objective 2 biodiversity objectives. 8.8 Field Cards It is recommended that Licensees develop a field card and protocol for field crews, to ensure they are identifying unique or rare sites in the field that may be suitable recruitment or replacement OGMA or MMA stands. 8.9 Biodiversity Management Other biodiversity management concepts/strategies may be explored to address stand and landscape level bio-richness. The ecosystem representation study that was incorporated into this project provides an excellent foundation for future biodiversity management to build upon.

18 18 of 29 Appendix A Data Tables Attached excel data base: 1. OGMA/MMA Areas: describes the targets and the ability of the LU/BEC to meet them. 2. OGMA Priorities: Outlines the amount of Old forest available in each of the script categories. It also outlines the amount of that category that was selected. 3. MMA Priorities: Outlines the amount of Mature forest available in each of the script categories. It also outlines the amount of that category that was selected. Appendix B Maps/Data produced as a part of this project LU Value maps (34 LUs) LU Old Growth Selection Priority Maps (34 LUs) LU Mature Selection Priority Maps (34 LUs) Shape files of final OGMAs and MMAs (1 layer each) Appendix C Licensee How to Licensees in developing volume for their Forest Stewardship Plans may find they need to enter OGMA or MMA areas for one reason or another (eg. access, MBP). A suggested procedure: Review attached excel database to determine if a surplus of mature or old exists in the LU/BEC, this can also be used to determine which category the surplus is in. Locate the proposed block on the attached LU Old Growth Selection Priority Map to determine which category it is. This categorization will help define the rationale for moving the OGMA designation to another stand. Descriptions of the script categories are in Appendix D. Using the script, the definition of each category is found in the left column called Description, the sub categories are in the column to right. If another suitable stand can be found within the same category it is fairly easy to rationalize the trade as very similar values exist in the stand. If there are no suitable opportunities, area within the next highest priority category should be considered. Consider using the category maps attached to identify the location of potential stands. Consider using the Value maps attached to identify values that may need to be considered by your potential option. In joint management LUs the potential old seral patch may or may not be within the licensees operating area. If it is not, is it NC? Contact the other licensee to ensure they have not already designated the patch. If it is THLB it could be impacting the other licensee. Updates to OGMA coverages will have to be done through Licensee agreements and/or the Kootenay data centre to ensure each party has the latest coverage.

19 19 of 29 Appendix D Invermere Script Logic Table 9. OGMA selection priority for the Invermere TSA. DESCRIPTION Old WTP >2 ha Priority Selection process internal to the bucket. (Under each selection the oldest stand within the bullet should be taken first.) A1 Old in Parks (as included in, or linked to, the specific LU s and including National Park areas) Areas of Extremely High Value. Excellent Ranked POGMAS NC or THLB, Mature +/or old. Old non-pl NC Connectivity on slopes less than 80% or Grizzly areas (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). Old non-pl THLB Connectivity on slopes less than 80% or Grizzly areas (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). Old non-pl NC Non-Connectivity (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). Old non-pl THLB Connectivity on slopes less than 80% or Grizzly areas (captures rest of D) Old non-pl NC Non-Connectivity (captures rest of E) Old non-pl, THLB Non-Connectivity constrained (e.g. VQO, UWR, CWS, DWS, NDT4 Open Forest) (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). Old non-pl, THLB Non-Connectivity nonconstrained (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). A B C D E F G H I Select by: Oldest first Select by: Excellent ranked NC POGMA s within Endangered Forest then HCVF, then Connectivity Corridor (CC), then any E polygons. Excellent ranked THLB POGMA s within Endangered Forest then HCVF, then Connectivity Corridor (CC), then any E polygons. Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Representation ecosystem priority2 Other areas Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Good Al Neal ranked areas Representation ecosystem priority2. Other Old non-pl areas Moderate Al Neal Ranked areas Representation ecosystem priority2. Other Old non-pl areas Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Representation ecosystem priority2. Other Old non-pl areas Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas

20 20 of 29 Representation ecosystem priority2 Other Old non-pl Old Pl leading in NC (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). J Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Representation ecosystem priority2 Oldest first. Mature Seral non-pl K Good then moderate Al Neal ranked areas, by oldest first Representation ecosystem priority2 By oldest first, other areas Mid-seral non-pl L Select by: Good then moderate Al Neal ranked areas, by oldest first Representation ecosystem priority2 By oldest first, other areas Pl in THLB Oth Select by: Good then moderate Al Neal ranked areas, by oldest first Representation ecosystem priority2 By oldest first, other areas Table 10. MMA Selection priority for the Invermere TSA. DESCRIPTION Priority Selection process internal to the bucket. (Under each selection the oldest stand within the bullet Mature WTPs >2ha Mature in Parks (as included in, or linked to, the specific LU s and including National Park areas) Areas of Extremely High Value. Excellent Ranked POGMAS NC or THLB, Mature +/or old. Mature non-pl NC Connectivity on slopes less than 80% or Grizzly areas (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). Mature non-pl THLB Connectivity on slopes less than 80% or Grizzly areas (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered A1 A B C D should be taken first.) Select by: Oldest first Select by: Excellent ranked NC POGMA s within Endangered Forest then HCVF, then Connectivity Corridor (CC), then any E polygons. Excellent ranked THLB POGMA s within Endangered Forest then HCVF, then Connectivity Corridor (CC), then any E polygons. Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Representation ecosystem priority2. Other areas

21 21 of 29 old). Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Mature non-pl NC Non-Connectivity (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). E Good Al Neal ranked areas Mature or old THLB Connectivity on slopes less than 80% or Grizzly areas F Representation ecosystem priority2. Other Mature or old non-pl areas Mature or old NC Non-Connectivity G Moderate Al Neal ranked areas. Representation categories from Table 3 (and cluster #1), then table 4. Other Old non-pl areas Mature or old THLB Non-Connectivity constrained (e.g. VQO, UWR, CWS, DWS, NDT4 Open Forest) (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). H Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Representation categories from Table 3 (and cluster #1), then table 4. Other Mature or old non-pl areas Mature or old THLB Non-Connectivity non-constrained (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). I Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Representation categories from Table 3 (and cluster #1), then table 4. Other Mature or old non-pl areas Mature or old Pl leading in NC (For G ranked areas, mature seral is considered old). J Good, then moderate Al Neal ranked areas Representation ecosystem priority2. Oldest first. Mid-seral non-pl L Select by: Good then moderate Al Neal ranked areas. Representation ecosystem priority2. By oldest first, other areas Pl in THLB Oth Select by: Good then moderate Al Neal ranked areas, by oldest first Representation ecosystem priority2. By oldest first, other areas

22 22 of 29 Appendix E Review of LU/BECs as deployed by the script. Table 11. Review of LU/BECs as deployed by the script. LU LU Name BEO BEC Label I01 Findlay H ESSFdk 1 I02 Buhl / Bradford H ESSFdk 1 I03 ICH mk 1 Skookumchuck / Torrent L ESSFdk 1 ICH mk 1 IDF dm 2 PP dh 2 I04 Premier/Diorite I PP dh 2 L ESSFdk 1 Review Comments - Old and mature Missing Park Data Missing Park Data Missing Park Data Large target however all is captured in category A and C all NC Large target however all is captured in category A all NC Recruiting down into mid seral stands. Some recruitment options available however there are some rare sites identified here that should be confirmed in the field prior to any development. Options are available in D to set as OGMA however any remaining surplus has been required to achieve mature seral targets. Mature is in deficit and a recruitment situation. Achieved in 'C' all NC Achieved in 'C' all NC Few options met in 'H' All recruitment, options exist during lay-out to determine which should be recruited into the older classes. Met in 'C' all NC All recruitment, options exist during lay-out to determine which should be recruited into the older classes. In recruitment category 'k' some options. Wide spread uncommon ecosystems driving the deployment likely best as is until field layout confirms ecosystem types. Many options exist in Category C all NC so not necessary to move. Many options exist in Category C all NC. Follow-up Actions completed Park data fixed in digital file and re-run. Park data fixed in digital file and re-run. Park data fixed in digital file and re-run. Options exist however all NC areas, reviewed with Licensees Recommend Licensees developed field card or flow of communication to lay-out staff to identify rare sites in the field. Referred to licensees, they agreed to leave until development on ground to confirm further.

23 23 of 29 Review Comments - Old and Follow-up Actions completed LU LU Name BEO BEC Label mature IDF dm 2 Recruiting into 'K' few options exist. IDF xk N/A Need 8 ha more. Options in 'C'. 8 ha area identified and updated. I05 Lussier/Coyote L ESSFdk 1 All in Parks. Looks fine. All in Parks. Looks fine. IDF dm 2 Few Options looks fine. Options in 'B'. Referred to licensees, they suggested to leave as is until development on ground to confirm further. Options in 'B'. Referred to licensees, they I06 Blackfoot/Thunder L ESSFdk 1 suggested to leave as is until development on ground to confirm further. Options in 'B'. Referred to licensees, they suggested to leave as is until development on ground to confirm further. Options in 'B'. Referred to licensees, they suggested to leave as is until development on ground to confirm further. I07 East-Middle White I ESSFdk 1 Quite a few options in "G" category (therefore all NC). Drop 13 ha 13 ha of over selection was removed. Options exist, however all is in NC 18 ha more area selected. area. Need to identify 18 ha more. I08 North White I ESSFdk 1 I09 Grave I ICH mk 1 L ESSFdk 1 I10 Nine Mile/Moscow I ESSFdk 2 A couple of options in THLB exist. Just less than half of Cat. D must be "tied up" Need to add 15 ha area to meet target. Plenty of options exist, fine as selected. No options, in recruitment. Requires CP 150 blocks (dropped) to be replaced in forest cover and then reselection take place. Very few options exist. Looks fine. Need to identify 32 ha additional area. Looks fine, L beo, very little area required Looks fine. Options exist within category G, however all is NC Options within "I" refer to licensees ICH mk 1 L ESSFdk 1 Some options exist all NC. NC In recruitment selecting uncommon IDF dm 2 ecosystems and 'g' ranked OGMAs Achieved in 'B' few options. Area identified by licensee and deployment within category D was applied. 15 additional ha manually selected. Done. 32 additional ha. Selected. Licensees felt deployment was "ok" as is.

24 24 of 29 LU LU Name BEO BEC Label I11 Kootenay H ESSFdk 1 ICH mk 1 IDF dm 2 IDF xk Review Comments - Old and mature Old is suitable with few options, however options exist for Mature. Consult Licensees. Fine Fine In recruitment situation, requires 8 ha more designated. In recruitment. Some options available in Category 'D' for old, and options exist for Mature. Review with licensees. I12 Doctor/Fir L ESSFdk 1 Few options all in Cat B Adjusting to make one large unit in an "Excellent" ranked OGMA In recruitment. Options exist IDF dm 2 review with licensees. IDF xk Small target with few options. Options within 'G' create larger patches. Options exist within category G, however all is NC, review with I13 East Columbia I ESSFdk 1 Licensees. Very small target: 18 ha, fine as is. In recruitment, may need to review definition of old in some cases, ie. IDF dm 2 open forest. In recruitment, may need to review definition of old in some cases, ie. IDF xk open forest. Options available within 'D' review with licensees. Over achieve by 65 ha, however is I14 Brewer/Dutch I ESSFdk 1 all in Park. Over achieve by 12 ha, all in Park. In a deficit - recruitment situation. Some options to designate as recruitment areas. May want to examine in the future the definition of old in this BEC - eg. open forest. IDF dm 2 IDF xk N/A Very minor option exits, likely fine where it is. Options exist, however all is in NC area. Reduce by 10 ha. (missing I15 Toby I ESSFdk 1 park data) Follow-up Actions completed Deployment is very similar to the previous version run for Tembec Canal Flats, and the are following the script deployment therefore leave the Mature as is. Deployment is very similar to the previous version run for Tembec Canal Flats, and they are following the script deployment therefore leave the Mature as is. Reviewed, however no concerns with current deployment. Some options to create larger patches were exercised. No concerns. No concerns with the current deployment. Recommendation section contains comments on the use of Open Forest polygons to achieve old seral objectives. Park data fixed in digital file and re-run. Removed 10 ha.