Mule Deer Winter Range Planning. Current And Future Forest Condition Pilot Project. Submitted to:

Mule Deer Winter Range Planning Current And Future Forest Condition Pilot Project Submitted to: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Cariboo Region March, 2003 FIRS Project # 1029-16 Professional Resources Group Inland Timber Management Ltd. 103-197 Second Ave. N., Williams Lake, B.C., V2G 1Z5 Phone: (250) 392-7177, Fax: 398-5941 Itimber@inlandtimber.com

Executive Summary The Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones(December 2002), commonly referred to as the Mule Deer Winter Range planning template, provides detailed direction that is intended to ensure the achievement of mule deer habitat requirements defined under the Cariboo- Chilcotin Land Use Plan. The template provides direction which will address habitat supply needs within MDWR s. Additionally, the template outlines a mechanism to provide timber harvest opportunity within MDWR areas but does not provide a concise measure of timber availability that would be suitable for sustainable resource management planning or other landscape level analysis. This project is intended to create and test a process to more accurately measure timber supply potential within MDWR areas. The application of the template direction in conjunction with detailed growth and yield modeling will help to determine potential timber availability within MDWR areas. The use of the Prognosis BC growth and yield model will allow us to generate a preliminary test of timber availability and will lay the ground work for more detailed, stand level analysis to be carried out in subsequent phases of this project. To fully met the needs of the MDWR template it was first necessary to generate appropriate current forest condition information that contained key stand structure information that would facilitate the application of the template management direction. This has been accomplished through the use of 17, predefined, Stand Structure Groups that could be used to define the forest in terms of basal area and stem distribution. This classification process has enabled the direct application of basal area targets established by the template and has enabled the generation of preliminary resultant timber availability estimates for the three pilot MDWR s focussed on during this project. Inland Timber Management Ltd.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 2 1 INTRODUCTION... 4 1.1 BACKGROUND... 5 1.2 AREA DESCRIPTION... 6 2 DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PROCESS... 7 2.1 ACQUISITION OF BASE DATA AND KEY INFORMATION... 7 2.2 STAND STRUCTURE CLASSIFICATION... 8 2.3 FIELD VALIDATION... 11 2.4 APPLICATION OF THE MDWR PLANNING TEMPLATE... 12 2.5 GROWTH AND YIELD MODELING... 15 2.51 General Modeling Principles... 15 2.52 Example Applications... 18 2.53 Prognosis Modeling Summary...22 3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS... 23 4 INSIGHTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS... 38 4.1 CLASSIFICATION PROCESS:... 38 4.2 APPLICATION OF THE MDWR TEMPLATE... 39 4.3 GROWTH AND YIELD MODELING... 40 5 CONCLUSION... 42 APPENDIX 1 LONG TERM HABITAT OBJECTIVES...(UNDER SEPARATE COVER) APPENDIX 2 STAND STRUCTURE DATA...(UNDER SEPARATE COVER) APPENDIX 3 STAND STRUCTURE GROUP AREA SUMMARIES...(UNDER SEPARATE COVER) APPENDIX 4 PROGNOSIS BC RUN A ANALYSIS RESULTS... (UNDER SEPRATE COVER) APPENDIX 5 PROGNOSIS BC RUN B ANALYSIS RESULTS...(UNDER SEPARATE COVER) APPENDIX 6 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO PROGNOSIS MODELING... 49 Inland Timber Management Ltd.

1 Introduction This report provides a summary of the process employed to test a methodology that applies the management direction provided by the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land use Plan (CCLUP) Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo- Chilcotin Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones(December 2002). This management strategy, commonly referred to as the Mule Deer Winter Range (MDWR) planning template, provides direction that is intended to address habitat supply needs within MDWR s. Additionally, the template outlines a mechanism to provide timber harvest opportunity within MDWR areas but does not provide a concise measure of timber availability that would be suitable for sustainable resource management planning or other landscape level analysis. This project is intended to create a process to more accurately measure timber supply potential within MDWR areas. Specifically, the objectives of this project are to: Develop an approach for providing detailed stand structure information within MDWR s that will ensure the achievement of habitat objectives and facilitate timber planning within MDWR areas. Develop and test a methodology to photo interpret and classify forest polygons on MDWR s into stand types for which detailed stand and stock information has been previously developed. Develop and test methodologies to model timber yield on mule deer winter ranges based on the initial stand structure and the long-term stand structure objectives supplied by government. Critique and discuss the limitations of the tested methodologies and provide recommendations to support future development. There are several overriding principles and assumptions that have shaped the direction of this pilot project: The CCLUP requires a specific level of access for timber harvesting within MDWR areas. The MDWR planning template provides habitat supply objectives that focus on the attributes specific to managing mule deer populations. However, these attributes do not directly illustrate timber access levels, although timber access is a component of MDWR planning. This project assumes that the habitat supply measures identified in the template meet the CCLUP objectives for managing MDWR. Therefore, this Inland Timber Management Ltd. 4

project does not re-visit habitat supply objectives but focuses on developing a workable process to illustrate the timber access component of the MDWR planning template. The base data used to generate an indication of current forest condition is continuing to evolve and improve. Therefore, the results generated during this analysis are considered to be a first draft and it is anticipated that further refinement of the timber yield calculations will be required as inventory data improves. This report has been structured into several sections as follows: Introduction/Background Description of Processes and Project Phases Results Recommendations and Discussion 1.1 Background The 1996 Regional Mule Deer Winter Range (MDWR) Strategy provides the groundwork for the development of a wildlife / timber management model for MDWR s within the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP) area. Flowing directly from the Regional MDWR strategy, the Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo- Chilcotin Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones (December 2002), outlines the resource management model for wildlife / timber in the Cariboo Region. This management strategy has evolved during the past several years and is now commonly referred to as the 'template' and contains the primary management direction applied during this pilot project. In summary, the template provides the basic tactical and operational direction needed to ensure that long term MDWR management objectives can be attained. Key management direction supplied by the template includes: Long term basal area objectives within high, moderate and low stand structure habitat classes, topographic buffers, OGMA s and grassland benchmark areas Calculation of Habitat Risk Class (ie: based on current condition) Transition strategy identifying the potential harvest opportunity within each of five harvest types Inland Timber Management Ltd. 5

Site specific management direction including operational requirements, stand tending opportunities and forest health concerns. The template creates a need to manage wildlife habitat and forest harvest opportunity in a new and as of yet untried manner. The timber industry is required to use basal area as a measure for wildlife and forest management over the long and short terms. The integrated harvest type prescriptions within the template require resource management planners to use both current forest condition and growth and yield modeling in order to measure timber opportunity. Mule deer winter range planning has been conducted throughout the region for the past several years, with the completion of detailed plans for all winter ranges anticipated before the end of 2004. MDWR s make up a substantial proportion of several Sub-Regional Management Plans (SRMP) within the CCLUP area. As part of the CCLUP SRMP process, a Short Term Timber Assessment (STTA) is carried out to illustrate wildlife habitat and harvest availability in a spatially explicit manner. Within SRMP s that contain MDWR areas, it is not possible to complete the STTA due to the lack of appropriate current forest condition information, which is required for the MDWR template methodology. The information required to complete effective wildlife and timber planning within MDWR areas includes species composition and detailed stand structure definition based on basal area, which are not currently available for MDWR areas. It is the intent of this project to explore the feasibility of obtaining this information and then test how the information can be used in more detailed yield modeling. 1.2 Area Description The areas assessed during this project included three MDWR s within the Williams Lake SRMP area. Table 1, below, provides a summary of the MDWR s being assessed: Table 1 MDWR Area Summary MDWR Gross Ha Net Ha Fdi >20% (ha) Williams Lake/Chimney 9,000 6,593 6,192 Williams Lake/Hawks 11,142 11,142 9,970 Knife Creek 4,445 4,445 4123 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 6

The three MDWR s were chosen primarily due to the fact that a significant amount of work has already been conducted within these areas and there was an opportunity to value add to this project by drawing on existing information and past experience. In addition, long term objectives have been completed for each of these MDWR s and a draft MDWR management plan for the WL Chimney MDWR is in place. All available existing information including stand structure mapping has been used to support the completion of this pilot project. 2 Description of Planning Process This project includes several phases. The following sections provide a description of each of the phases that were completed and identifies linkages to the MDWR planning requirements identified in the template. It should be noted that this project draws on numerous sources of information that are cited where necessary, but it was not the intent of this process to directly critique or review established information or planning processes. 2.1 Acquisition of Base Data and Key Information The key information and base data used for this project has been drawn from several sources. A summary of key information follows: Table 2 Base Data Description Long Term Management Objectives for Williams Lake/Chimney, Williams Lake/Hawks and Knife Creek Mule Deer Winter Ranges (Appendix 1) MDWR area boundaries, management units and draft management plan information (WL/Chimney Management Plan) MDWR Habitat Risk Class ratings for WL/Chimney, WL Hawks and Knife Creek Stand Structure Classification Base Data and supporting documentation (Appendix 2) Forest Cover Data (2000 update) Source MSRM/MWLP Cariboo Region MDWR committee MSRM/MWLP Cariboo Region MDWR committee MSRM/MWLP Cariboo Region MDWR committee Lignum Ltd. Cariboo Forest Region Inland Timber Management Ltd. 7

Description CCLUP Integration Report Cariboo Forest Region Extension Note #25 (August 2000) Structural Definitions for Management Of Mule Deer Winter Range Habitat in the IDF Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones (December 2002) 1:15,000 scale Air Photography Ortho-Photography Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) VRI Adjusted Databases (January 27,2003) Source CCLUP Cariboo Forest Region MSRM/MWLP Cariboo Regional MDWR committee Lignum Ltd. Ministry of Forests Cariboo region Lignum Ltd Lignum Ltd. All digital data used during this process has been received in an ArcInfo, GIS format and has been consolidated into a comprehensive dataset used in the mapping and analytical process. 2.2 Stand Structure Classification A significant component of this project has focussed on developing and testing a classification protocol that could be applied to efficiently generate basal area and detailed stand structure information. MDWR planning defined within the template requires the use of basal area as the common measure to define habitat supply objectives. However, most inventory information currently available includes only limited basal area data and does not include detailed stand structure (diameter distribution) information that can be directly applied in MDWR planning. To meet the needs of the template, stand structure and stem distribution must be measured in terms of basal area, not just crown closure or numbers of large trees. Once detailed basal area information is in place, it will be possible to assess how to best achieve the long-term MDWR management objectives. The main objective of the stand structure classification process applied during this project is to use existing information to supply the required basal area and stand structure attributes. This information will then enable the initiation of a timber yield assessment that is required to fully illustrate the harvest opportunity component of the template. Inland Timber Management Ltd. 8

The stand structure classification conducted in this project has used the First Approximation Stand Structure Classification Key and associated data prepared by ForesTree Dynamics Ltd for Lignum Ltd. (Lignum). The work conducted for Lignum provides detailed stand structure data for stands in the Interior Douglas Fir (IDF) biogeoclimatic zone. In essence, the Lignum data includes 17 distinct stand structure groups (SSG) all of which have detailed tree lists, stand structure definitions and basal area measures. A description of the 17 stand structure groups, the Lignum Limited First Approximation Stand Structure Key, as well as the summarized stand structure data is provided in Appendix 2. This report is not intended to review in detail or critique the information provided by Lignum, however, additional information on the stand structure groups supplied by Lignum can be found under publications at: <http://www.lignum.com>. The 17 SSG s that Lignum has supplied have been used as the key source of base information for this project. In general, each of the forest cover or vegetation resources inventory (VRI) polygons within the MDWR areas has been photo interpreted and assigned to one of the 17 SSG s. There are several key items that help describe the classification process The forest cover itself was not re-classified. Existing forest cover (or where available, VRI) polygons were used as the basic unit of assessment. Photo interpretation was used to assess each polygon and assign one of the Lignum Stand Structure Groups. Stand basal area estimates were derived from stereo photo-interpretation by an experienced, trained photo-interpreter. The interpreter has recorded estimates of basal area, its distribution by tree size classes, data sources and data reference year. The interpreter s capability has been aided by field reconnaissance. A variety of data sources were made available to the interpreter to aid in calibration and accurate estimation. These data included stand structure mapping, (provided by MSRM), ortho-photography, Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) and Forest Cover (FC) maps and databases, cruise and specialty-plot data, harvest history, interpreter and other s local knowledge. To eliminate the potential for bias, any data sources reserved for the verification phase were withheld from the interpreter. Data estimates were initially recorded by hand to a prepared spreadsheet to minimize the disruption to the stereo-viewing interpretation and to avoid Inland Timber Management Ltd. 9

missed polygons. Upon completion of the photo-interpretation, classification results were entered and linked to existing databases (forest cover or VRI) for use in the analytical process. The following table provides an area summary of the SSG s that were identified within each of the three pilot MDWR areas, detailed summaries are also included in Appendix 3: Table 3 Stand Structure Group Summary Stand Structure Group Total Basal Area (m2/ha) Area (ha) WL/Chimney WL Hawks Knife Creek Long Term Habitat Objective Low Mod High Low Mod High Low Mod High 1 59 29 2 21 0 0 12 0 0 0 2 54 21 119 98 0 45 30 0 0 0 3 59 0 10 19 0 8 48 0 0 0 4 44 183 212 128 93 216 183 36 14 24 5 63 49 151 79 12 53 100 0 18 0 6 50 462 438 479 397 441 597 88 99 431 7 35 524 303 218 191 402 468 76 316 172 8 31 452 542 472 521 780 1121 492 191 140 9 34 73 112 50 239 260 368 52 142 143 10 34 268 184 243 441 519 598 425 429 387 11 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 22 125 125 78 221 311 395 175 168 64 13 20 34 31 21 220 316 249 115 31 9 14 22 16 0 7 0 0 21 0 0 0 15 24 45 17 11 264 171 67 123 41 2 16 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 13 5 12 61 74 46 9 15 3 * 0 22 25 14 18 24 34 6 9 0 Total 2324 2277 1951 2678 3620 4337 1597 1473 1375 * unclassified Inland Timber Management Ltd. 10

2.3 Field Validation In support of the classification process, a total of 166 field plots were established across the three pilot winter ranges in 2003. In addition, 115 plots were established during preliminary field reconnaissance in 2002. These plots helped to test the classification and validate the photo-interpreted result on a broad level. This process was simply a mechanism to establish a broad validation of the stand definitions and has not been developed to meet a test of statistical rigor. If, at such time the general classification methodology proves feasible then additional more comprehensive field validation will be required. The field plots established were standard variable radius cruise plots that included a fixed radius subplot to collect small tree data. Data collected during the field measurements includes: Species Diameter (>12.5cm ) Small tree count (<12.5 cm classes) Avg. Height of small trees Elevation Height Tree Class Slope Aspect All field data has been entered into a comprehensive database and retained as supporting information that can be used and built upon as the MDWR planning process progresses. The sample design and field plot locations are included in Appendix 6. Inland Timber Management Ltd. 11

2.4 Application of the MDWR Planning Template Upon establishment of a current condition of the forest using the classification process described in Section 2.2, it is then possible to use the resultant data to apply the management direction described in the MDWR planning template. In summary, the template identifies two key components: 1. Identification of the Habitat Risk Class The identification of a habitat risk class that provides a broad scale of measure of current suitability of each MDWR to provide required habitat 1 is the initial step in identifying potential harvest availability. The calculation of the habitat risk class is completed as follows: Habitat Risk Value = (Current Crown Closure% [Moderate+High]) (Desired Crown Closure% [Moderate+High])*100 Table 4 Habitat Risk Class Habitat Risk Class Habitat Risk Value (above) Forest Cover Map base Stand Structure Map Base Low 100+ 95+ Moderate 80-99 75-94 High 60-79 55-74 Very High <60 <55 The risk class for the three pilot areas have been derived from Table 2 of the Regional Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy (July 1996). Risk classes for the pilot winter ranges are as follows: MDWR Habitat Risk Class Williams Lake/Chimney Low (current Mod + High = 70%) Williams Lake/Hawks Moderate (current Mod + High = 61%) Knife Creek High (current Mod + High = 48%) In essence, the assessment of the current condition (captured by the risk rating), in conjunction with the long term harvesting objectives defines the type of harvesting that can be conducted. The risk ratings applied for the 1 Pg 32; Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones Inland Timber Management Ltd. 12

pilot areas above have been previously determined by the MDWR committee using existing information. Presumably, however, the risk rating would be re-calculated as improved stand structure information is obtained, however it would likely be necessary to re-calibrate the risk classification tables to better suit the use of direct basal area measures, rather than crown closure estimates. 2. Determination of Harvest Opportunity (Type 1 thru Type 5) Upon determination of the Risk Class, the harvest opportunity within MDWR can be defined as per Table 4.1 of the MDWR template as follows: Table 4.1 - Harvest Opportunity Risk Harvest Opportunity by Long Term Stand Structure Habitat Class Objective Class Types 1-3 Type 4 Thin from below Type 5 Handbook Logging Any Obj Low Obj Mod Obj High Obj Low Obj Mod Obj High Obj Low Moderate High No harvest Very high No harvest No harvest No harvest Possible harvest opportunities on selected habitat management zones - many winter ranges will have opportunity in one or many habitat management zones Possible harvest opportunities on selected habitat management zones many ranges will have no additional opportunity while some will have opportunity in one or a few habitat management zones. In addition to the two key components summarized above, the template also identifies specific management requirements for each harvest opportunity type 2. However, prior to being able to apply the site specific management strategies it is necessary to spatially identify which stands can be treated and where they are located in the context of the long term objectives. Without spatially identifying the current stands and how they relate to the long term objectives, the timber yield calculations cannot be completed in a manner that reflects accurate harvest potential. 2 Table 4.2, Part 1a, Management Plan For Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones Inland Timber Management Ltd. 13

An assessment of the current condition for the 3 pilot winter ranges, (based on the stand structure classification described in 2.2 ) has provided the following results: Table 5 Potential Basal Area Availability Long Term Stand Structure Habitat Class Low (>16m2) Mod (>22 m2) High (>29m2) MDWR Total Ha Area (Ha) exceeding BA Target WL Chimney* Total Ha Area (Ha) exceeding BA Target Total Ha Area (Ha) exceeding BA Target 2335 1293 2278 1235 1950 696 WL Hawks** 2678 693 3619 1165 4337 787 Knife Creek 1597 200 1473 447 1376 431 * note that 31 ha fell within an area with no long term objective classification ** note that 507 ha fell within an area with no long term objective classification Generally, timber access will be allowed where the current condition exceeds the long term habitat objective. Additionally, the specific level of access will vary between stands depending on the particular stand structure. For example, in the low crown closure objective area for the WL/Chimney MDWR, the 1293 ha that exceeds the long-term objective includes seven unique stands, with basal areas ranging from 21 to 58 m2/ha. Each of these stand types would be treated in a unique manner to maximize timber yield as well as meet the long term MDWR objectives. Complete area summaries for each habitat objective are included in Appendix 1. Additional harvesting criteria specified in the template are as follows: The maximum Douglas-fir basal area removal during the transition period is 20% for treatments that target all size classes (ie including >37.5cm stems) and 25% for thinning treatments of stems < 37.5 cm) Maintain a harvest rate of no more than 1/3 of the crown forest area within each habitat management zone every ten years. In summary, the application of the MDWR template direction has required the generation of the following information: Net Forested area within each the MDWR Harvest Opportunity Types identified for each MDWR based on Risk Class Inland Timber Management Ltd. 14

Net area (ha) available for harvest within each Long Term Stand Structure Habitat Class Within the net area available for harvest, each stand has been identified and its associated structure (stem distribution, basal area distribution) is provided. 2.5 Growth and Yield Modeling Following the collection of the base data listed above, it is possible begin to assess the current condition in conjunction with the long term objectives and begin to establish the parameters for the growth and yield modeling. In an attempt to improve on the standard growth and yield assumptions normally applied in the IDF (ie: 1 m3 yield per hectare per year), this project has employed the use of the Prognosis BC growth and yield model. Although the calibration of Prognosis BC has not yet been completed for all IDF variants, it was felt that this pilot project would be an appropriate test environment to begin to understand the function of the model as well as test its applicability for use in MDWR planning. At the very least it is believed that the model will a supply a more representative yield estimate than is currently modeled in the IDF biogeoclimatic zone. Additionally, the operational use of the model provides an opportunity to more fully understand how the model responds in a variety of stand types. A brief introduction to modeling using Prognosis BC is included in Appendix 6. 2.51 General Modeling Principles As with any growth and yield modeling, it is necessary to provide the model with a set of rules and parameters. Due to the variability of the stand types, it is possible to potentially apply a wide range of treatments across a particular MDWR. The process of establishing the modeling parameters has attempted to directly incorporate the MDWR template direction as much as possible, however for the purposes of this preliminary analysis, the rules have been applied in a generalized manner. It is anticipated that once we have a greater understanding of how the model functions, it will be possible to generate more refined modeling parameters. At this time, a site specific approach was beyond the scope of this project, however it is anticipated that more detailed modeling will occur in subsequent, related, projects. Inland Timber Management Ltd. 15

The following table provides a summary of the general principles applied during the Prognosis BC modeling: Table 6 Modeling Principles General Principles Growth and Yield will be modeled for a 30 year period Model applies to Fdi stems only Assume 1 entry within 30 years Fdi >=12.5 cm DBH will be included in the harvest model Cut volume from below where available in each tree size class If current total BA does not exceed target in all age classes, Type 4 harvest can be conducted in DBH classes where the targets are exceeded, up to 25% of the total available BA. Generally, conduct harvest to move toward the BA target distribution without exceeding 25% maximum BA removal Stand must contain minimum of 25m3/ha merchantable (>17.5cm) volume before harvest. Source/Comments 30 years is the transition period identified in the template The template does not require special cutting rules for Pli stands. Type 3 harvest (Pli stands) is available in all stands and can be modeled conventionally. For initial runs, 1 entry reduces modeling complexity. Subsequent analysis will test the effect of multiple entries The template assumes harvest of Fdi stems to 12.5 cm DBH. The template requires the retention of large stems and encourages the removal of small stems to enhance stand structure. Maintaining at least the target BA is a fundamental premise of the template. Additionally, the 25% BA limit is required during the 30 year transition period. Comments as above Operationally, harvest becomes economically infeasible if volumes are below 25m3/ha In addition to the general principles stated above, harvest opportunity Types 4 and 5 also require additional management assumptions that are somewhat more site specific. Additional management direction is as follows: Inland Timber Management Ltd. 16

Table 6a Additional Modeling Parameters Opportunity Harvest Types 4 and 5 Additional Parameters Option 1: harvest proportionally from all available DBH classes (ie: ensure stand integrity remains over the long term.) Option 2: customize harvest by DBH class based on individual stand structures and site specific objectives. For both options 1 and 2 : if stems > 60 cm are available then harvest smaller stems first and retain a minimum BA of 29 m3 in High crown closure, 22 m2 in Moderate crown closure and 16 m2 in Low crown closure Source/Comments Although this may not always generate the optimal stand condition at a site specific level, this assumption will not degrade the stand structure over time and reduces modeling complexity Customizing harvest at the stand level will likely generate the most reliable result, however, for tactical/strategic modeling this approach may become too complex This assumption is driven by the template requirements to maintain large stems to meet the minimum BA requirements where they are present. (Extension Note 25) In addition to the management assumptions stated above, Prognosis BC requires basic stand statistics to be provided to the model. For initial runs, the base statistics that have been input are a broad average of the stands being modeled. Subsequent phases of the project will establish parameters that are more stand specific. The stand statistics entered are as follows: Minimum tree diameter: 0 cm all trees have been included in the analysis All species included, with the exception of deciduous (Prognosis will not accept deciduous species. For the purposes of this analysis deciduous species have been re-coded as Hm as required by the model) All Sx or S are re-coded as Se for modeling purposes Stand age - 100 yrs, BEC zone - IDFdk1, FIZ zone - D through J, Aspect 250 0 Elevation - 950m Slope - 7% Plot area - 1 ha Inventory year - 2000 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 17

# of plots - 1 Utilization of FD - 12.5cm Utilization of PL - 12.5cm Utilization of all other species - 17.5cm 2.52 Example Applications The following examples are provided to illustrate the modeling concepts more clearly. The charts below have been derived from two of the 17 stand structure groups. Stand and stock information (Run A - generated by the Prognosis BC model) for all SSG s as well as detailed charts are for SSG s that exceed 16 m2/ha are included in Appendix 4. In the charts below, the solid blue line illustrates the current basal area stem distribution and the green broken lines illustrate the basal area target distribution for the low, moderate and high habitat class areas. (curves are derived from Cariboo Forest Region Extension Note #25) At the broadest level, the key objective of the growth and yield modeling is to illustrate the harvest of the stand in a manner that does not reduce the basal area below the long-term target levels. Examples are discussed in further detail as follows: Inland Timber Management Ltd. 18

Example 1 Stand Structure Group 1 5.0 Treatment Prescription Targets vs. Existing for 2000 4.5 4.0 3.5 /h 3.0 2a) Ba sa l 2.5 Ar ea (m 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 dbh Class (cm) Existing Target Stand Low Target Stand Moderate Target Stand High In the sample provided above, the current basal area exceeds the targets in low, moderate and high habitat objective areas in the 20 to 30 cm DBH class range as well as the 45 to 65 cm DBH range. The 35 cm to 45 cm DBH classes have limited opportunity for harvest due to the low basal area within these diameter classes (ie: below the target curves). Additionally, there is a large number of stems in the smaller diameter classes (<15cm). Assuming that this stand is in a low risk MDWR, area would be available for Type 5 harvest in the low and moderate habitat objective areas (as per Table 4.1 of the template). The stand is suitable for Type 5 harvest given its large proportion of stems in the larger diameter classes (stems >37.5 ). In this stand type, a harvest prescription would target the removal of large stems to meet the basal area targets in each diameter class and may also emphasize a thin from below in the smaller diameter classes. A possible juvenile spacing treatment to address the high number of stems in the very small diameter classes may also be Inland Timber Management Ltd. 19

warranted. In general, stems would be harvested to a level in each diameter class to maintain consistency with the long-term objective. In summary: For stand structure group 1 - the total basal Fdi area of this stand is 41 m 2 with 8 m 2 falling within the 20-30 cm diameter classes and 19 m 2 falling in the 45-65 cm diameter classes. The template requires that a maximum of 20% of the total Fdi basal area be removed when harvesting stems >37.5 cm DBH. Therefore, in this case a total of 8 m 2 can be harvested (proportionally) from the available diameter classes. Inland Timber Management Ltd. 20

A second example of a very different stand structure group is provided below: Example 2 Stand Structure Group 5 Treatment Prescription Targets vs. Existing for 2000 12.0 10.0 8.0 Basal Area (m 2 /ha) 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 dbh Class (cm) Existing Target Stand Low Target Stand Moderate Target Stand High The basal area curves for this stand type clearly illustrate that it is not suitable for Type 5 harvest due to the lack of large stems. As a result, the harvest prescription would be consistent with a Type 4 harvest that can be conducted in all habitat objective areas as provided for in Table 4.1 of the template. The primary objective of treating this stand would be to focus harvesting within the 15 35 cm range to establish a stand that conforms more consistently with the target basal areas. This harvest would be restricted to 25% of the total Fdi basal area, as per template requirements. In summary: For Stand Structure Group 5, the total Fdi basal area is 54 m 2 /ha, with 39 m2 falling within the 15 35 cm DBH classes. The template requires that Type 4 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 21

harvest be carried out within this type to a maximum of 25% of the total Fdi basal area. As a result, a total of 13.5 m 2 /ha can he harvested from the 15 35cm DBH classes. 2.53 Prognosis Modeling Summary As stated above, the Prognosis BC modeling has been conducted using 17 Stand structure group definitions generated for the IDF. The data provided for each group includes detailed tree lists that were entered into the Prognosis BC model and used as the basis for analysis. The charts and summaries provided in the results section of this report are a product of the Prognosis BC modeling and as a result, the stand structures are no longer identical to the original stand due to the assumptions and calibrations applied by the model. Future phases of this project are intended to more closely assess how Prognosis BC functions and how the stand structures change over time with the application of different modeling assumptions. In summary, the Prognosis BC modeling conducted on each stand structure group can be summarized as follows: Table 7 Prognosis Run Summary Run ID Description Comments A B Model stand growth assuming no harvest for 50 years Model stand growth and yield assuming the application of general principles outlined in Table 6 This initial run was intended to provide an indication of how particular stand types grow without harvesting. This will provide guidance when interpreting the results when treatments are applied. Additionally it provides a preliminary indication of harvest opportunity within each stand type This second run(s) will apply the broad management assumptions outlined in the discussion above. The test provides an indication of the potential yield that can be achieved while meeting the broad management objectives outlined within the template. Inland Timber Management Ltd. 22

3 Summary of Results The following summaries provide the results generated from the review of the MDWR template as well as the preliminary Prognosis BC analysis that were conducted. The tables in this section provide generalized summaries of the results, however detailed results are provided in the Appendices as follows: Appendix 3 - Tabular summaries of the basal area condition within each MDWR as it relates to the long-term habitat objectives. Appendix 4 - Prognosis Run A Basal area summaries and Stand and stock summaries Appendix 5 Prognosis Run B - Basal Area Summaries and stand and stock summaries As one would expect from a pilot project of this nature, this analysis has generated numerous questions and issues that require further consideration. A summary and discussion of these considerations in included in Section 4.0 A summary of results is as follows: Run A - Total Basal Area Available The following tables illustrate the total basal area that is potentially available when compared with the long- term targets for each pilot MDWR. It is important to note that these totals include all stems, not just those that are of merchantable size (>12.5 cm). The subsequent Prognosis Run B more clearly illustrates the influences of stand structure and stem distribution on the available basal area. As noted previously, this run has assumed no harvest throughout the 30 year period. In some stands, the basal area falls somewhat during the 30 years, likely due to the existing high basal areas. Table 8 illustrates the basal area per hectare available based on the stand structure group definitions in conjunction with the long term habitat objectives. Subsequent tables (9-11) roll up the information and apply it to each of the three pilot winter ranges Inland Timber Management Ltd. 23

TABLE 8: Potential Basal Area (m2/ha) Total Basal Area Potentially Available (m2/ha) (over target) Low Mod High SSG 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 43 41 39 37 37 35 33 31 30 28 26 24 2 38 37 37 36 32 31 31 30 25 24 24 23 3 43 40 38 36 37 34 32 30 30 27 25 23 4 28 29 29 29 22 23 23 23 15 0 0 0 5 47 43 40 38 41 37 34 32 34 30 27 25 6 34 34 33 33 28 28 27 27 21 21 20 20 7 19 18 23 24 13 12 17 18 6 5 10 11 8 15 18 20 21 9 12 14 15 2 5 7 8 9 18 21 24 25 12 15 18 19 5 8 11 12 10 18 21 22 23 12 15 16 17 5 8 9 10 11 11 17 20 23 5 11 14 17 0 4 7 10 12 6 11 15 18 0 5 9 12 0 0 2 5 13 4 10 16 21 0 4 10 15 0 0 3 8 14 6 15 22 26 0 9 16 20 0 2 9 13 15 8 16 21 0 2 10 15 0 0 3 8 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 24

TABLE 9: Potential Basal Area Available: Williams Lake Chimney MDWR Total Basal Area Potentially Available (m2) (over target) Low Mod High SSG 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 1247 1189 1131 1073 74 70 66 62 630 588 546 504 2 798 777 777 756 3808 3689 3689 3570 2450 2352 2352 2254 3 0 0 0 0 370 340 320 300 570 513 475 437 4 5124 5307 5307 5307 4664 4876 4876 4876 1920 0 0 0 5 2303 2107 1960 1862 6191 5587 5134 4832 2686 2370 2133 1975 6 15708 15708 15246 15246 12264 12264 11826 11826 10059 10059 9580 9580 7 9956 9432 12052 12576 3939 3636 5151 5454 1308 1090 2180 2398 8 6780 8136 9040 9492 4878 6504 7588 8130 944 2360 3304 3776 9 1314 1533 1752 1825 1344 1680 2016 2128 250 400 550 600 10 4824 5628 5896 6164 2208 2760 2944 3128 1215 1944 2187 2430 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 750 1375 1875 2250 0 625 1125 1500 0 0 156 390 13 136 340 544 714 0 124 310 465 0 0 63 168 14 96 240 352 416 0 0 0 0 0 14 63 91 15 360 720 945 0 34 170 255 0 0 33 88 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 49396 52492 56877 57681 39774 42325 45300 46271 22032 21723 23677 24603 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 25

TABLE 10: Potential Basal Area Available - Williams Lake Hawks MDWR Total Basal Area Available m2 (over target) Low Mod High SSG 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 336 312 288 2 0 0 0 0 1440 1395 1395 1350 750 720 720 690 3 0 0 0 0 296 272 256 240 1440 1296 1200 1104 4 2604 2697 2697 2697 4752 4968 4968 4968 2745 0 0 0 5 564 516 480 456 2173 1961 1802 1696 3400 3000 2700 2500 6 13498 13498 13101 13101 12348 12348 11907 11907 12537 12537 11940 11940 7 3629 3438 4393 4584 5226 4824 6834 7236 2808 2340 4680 5148 8 7815 9378 10420 10941 7020 9360 10920 11700 2242 5605 7847 8968 9 4302 5019 5736 5975 3120 3900 4680 4940 1840 2944 4048 4416 10 7938 9261 9702 10143 6228 7785 8304 8823 2990 4784 5382 5980 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1326 2431 3315 3978 0 1555 2799 3732 0 0 790 1975 13 880 2200 3520 4620 0 1264 3160 4740 0 0 747 1992 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 189 273 15 2112 4224 5544 0 342 1710 2565 0 0 201 536 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 44668 52662 58908 56495 42945 51342 59590 61332 31112 33805 41091 45274 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 26

TABLE 11 Potential Basal Area Available - Knife Creek MDWR Total Basal Area Available m2 (over target) Low Mod High SSG 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1008 1044 1044 1044 308 322 322 322 360 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 738 666 612 576 0 0 0 0 6 2992 2992 2904 2904 2772 2772 2673 2673 9051 9051 8620 8620 7 1444 1368 1748 1824 4108 3792 5372 5688 1032 860 1720 1892 8 7380 8856 9840 10332 1719 2292 2674 2865 280 700 980 1120 9 936 1092 1248 1300 1704 2130 2556 2698 715 1144 1573 1716 10 7650 8925 9350 9775 5148 6435 6864 7293 1935 3096 3483 3870 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1050 1925 2625 3150 0 840 1512 2016 0 0 128 320 13 460 1150 1840 2415 0 124 310 465 0 0 27 72 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 984 1968 2583 0 82 410 615 0 0 6 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 23904 29320 33182 32744 16579 19783 23510 24596 13373 14857 16547 17610 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 27

Mule Deer Winter Range Planning Pilot Project Run B Results. The following tables summarize a Prognosis BC run which applies the following assumptions: The model was required to ensure that the target basal area distribution (as described in Extension Note #25) was maintained within each habitat objective area (ie: if basal area was not available in a particular diameter class, it would not be harvested). One harvest entry has occurred all harvesting is assumed to take place in 2020 Fdi were the targeted stems. In essence, this run illustrates the maximum basal area that could be harvested while still maintaining the target basal area distribution. For this run, MDWR template constraints (ie: 20% volume maximum) have not been incorporated. In addition, the habitat risk assessment has not been incorporated and thus no restrictions to harvest within moderate or high habitat areas have been applied. Note that the tables below have been derived from Prognosis output tables. Some rounding errors may be evident in the following summary tables. The detailed Prognosis summaries for each run are included in Appendix XX. Table 12, below illustrates the harvested basal area for each stand structure group. The summary includes only those SSG s that have a basal area that exceeds the minimum basal area of 16m2. In some stands, even where there appears to be a high total basal area, the stand may be comprised primarily of pine, which is not included in the harvest for this run. SSG 8 is an example of this, where there has been a very low basal area removal, even though the total basal area for the stand exceeds the minimum requirement. This becomes more evident upon comparison with the detailed stand and stock tables included in Appendix 5. The subsequent Tables (13-15) roll up the basal area harvest and apply it over each of the MDWR s to illustrate potential available harvest within each of these areas. Inland Timber Management Ltd. 28

Table 12 Basal Area Harvest Summary SSG Total BA 2020 Basal Area (Fdi) Harvested (m2/ha) Residual Basal Area (m2/ha) Volume (Fdi) Harvested (m3/ha) Low Mod High Low Mod High Low Mod High (target 16m2) (target 22m2) (target 29m2) 1 55 32 28 23 23 27 32 284 247 207 2 53 34 28 23 19 25 30 306 252 208 3 54 32 30 28 22 24 26 244 226 207 4 45 0 0 0 45 45 45 0 0 0 5 56 32 28 24 24 29 32 230 193 166 6 49 24 20 16 25 30 33 166 129 104 7 39 7 7 6 32 33 34 58 51 43 8 36 1 1 1 35 35 35 7 7 7 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 29

Table 13: Williams Lake Chimney MDWR Harvest Year 2020 Run B Harvest to Meet Target Objective (no additional constraints) Total BA Total Available (over target) Basal Area Harvested (m2) Residual Basal Area (m2) Volume Harvested (m3) SSG Low Mod High Low Mod High Low Mod High 1 2860 1743 928 56 483 667 54 672 8236 494 4347 2 12614 6818 714 3332 2744 399 2975 2940 6426 29869 20286 3 1566 795 0 300 532 0 240 494 0 2260 3933 4 23535 10183 0 0 0 8235 9540 5760 0 0 0 5 15624 9227 1568 4228 1896 1176 4379 2528 11270 29143 13035 6 67571 36652 11088 8760 7664 11550 13140 15807 77154 56502 49337 7 40755 19383 3668 2121 1308 16768 9999 7412 30392 15150 9374 8 52776 19932 226 271 236 15820 18970 16520 3164 3794 3304 9 9400 4318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 26410 11027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10168 3156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2752 917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 874 415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2701 1288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 269606 125854 18192 19068 14863 54615 59297 52133 136642 137212 103616 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 30

Table 14: Williams Lake - Hawks MDWR - Harvest Year 2020 - Harvest to Meet Target Objective (no additional constraints) Total BA Total Available (over target) Basal Area Harvested (m2) Residual Basal Area (m2) Volume Harvested (m3) SSG Low Mod High Low Mod High Low Mod High 1 660 312 0 0 276 0 0 384 0 0 2484 2 3975 2115 0 1260 690 0 1125 900 0 11340 6240 3 3024 1456 0 240 1344 0 192 1248 0 1808 9936 4 22140 7665 0 0 0 4185 9720 8235 0 0 0 5 9240 4982 384 1484 2400 288 1537 3200 2760 10229 16600 6 70315 36948 9528 8820 9552 9925 13230 19701 65902 56889 62088 7 41379 15907 1337 2814 2808 6112 13266 15912 11078 20502 20124 8 87192 29187 521 780 121 18235 27300 39235 3647 5460 7847 9 34680 14464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 59204 23388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 28737 6904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 25120 7427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 798 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18574 8645 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 405038 159589 11770 15398 17191 38745 66370 88815 83387 106228 125319 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 31

Table 15: Knife Creek MDWR Harvest Year 2020 - Harvest to Meet Target Objective (no additional constraints) Total BA m2 Total BA Available (over target) Basal Area Harvested (m2) Residual Basal Area Volume Harvested SSG Low Mod High Low Mod High Low Mod High 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3330 1366 0 0 0 1620 630 1080 0 0 0 5 1008 612 0 504 0 0 522 0 0 3474 0 6 30282 14197 2112 1980 6896 2200 2970 14223 14608 12771 44824 7 21996 8840 532 2212 1032 2432 10428 5848 4408 16116 7396 8 29628 13494 246 95.5 70 17220 6685 4900 3444 1337 980 9 13480 5377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 47158 19697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12617 4265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 4960 2177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 6142 3214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 170601 73239 2890 4791.5 7998 23472 21235 26051 22460 33698 53200 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 32

In addition to the runs summarized above, additional test runs (B1) have also been generated to illustrate the application of Type 4 and Type 5 harvest types as well as attempt to adhere to the MDWR template direction by applying the 20 25% volume maximum. A summary of selected Run B1 results are included below. The runs summarized below illustrate the application of Type 4 harvest (including the application of the 25% volume removal limit), assuming a proportional volume removal from all available age classes. Additional, detailed Type 5 harvest results using the proportional volume removal as well as a customized volume removal are also included in Appendix 5. Inland Timber Management Ltd. 33

Table 16: Williams Lake Chimney MDWR Harvest Year 2020 Run B1 Type 4 Harvest Proportional Volume Removal 20% limit. Total BA Total Available (over target) Basal Area Harvested (m2) Residual Basal Area (m2) Volume Harvested (m3) SSG Low Mod High Low Mod High Low Mod High 1 2860 1743 58 4 21 1508 106 1134 464 24 168 2 12614 6818 147 595 392 966 5593 4704 1134 5117 3234 3 1566 795 0 130 247 0 410 779 0 980 1862 4 23535 10183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15624 9227 686 2114 1106 2058 6342 3318 4606 14194 7268 6 67571 36652 5544 5256 5748 17094 16206 17723 32802 30660 33051 7 40755 19383 524 303 218 19912 11514 8502 2096 1212 872 8 52776 19932 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9400 4318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 26410 11027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10168 3156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2752 917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 874 415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2701 1288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 269606 125854 6959 8402 7732 41538 40171 36160 41102 52187 46455 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 34

Table 17: Williams Lake - Hawks MDWR - Harvest Year 2020 Run B1 Type 4 Harvest Proportional Volume Removal 20% limit. Total BA Total Available (over target) Basal Area Harvested (m2) Residual Basal Area (m2) Volume Harvested (m3) SSG Low Mod High Low Mod High Low Mod High 1 660 312 0 0 12 0 0 648 0 0 96 2 3975 2115 0 225 120 0 2115 1440 0 1935 990 3 3024 1456 0 104 624 0 328 1968 0 784 4704 4 22140 7665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9240 4982 168 742 1400 504 2226 4200 1128 4982 9200 6 70315 36948 4764 5292 7164 14689 16317 22089 28187 30870 41193 7 41379 15907 191 402 468 7258 15276 18252 764 1608 1872 8 87192 29187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 34680 14464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 59204 23388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 28737 6904 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 25120 7427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 798 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18574 8645 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 405038 159589 5123 6765 9788 22451 36262 48597 30079 40179 58055 Inland Timber Management Ltd. 35