Kamloops TSA - Forest Health Strategy

Thompson Rivers Forest District April 2017

Executive Summary

The Kamloops TSA Forest Health Strategy has for the most part not been changed for this year. There have been minor edits, as well as some additions. It is expected that over the next few years, that there will be more information added with respect to; Stand Establishment Decision Aids, strategies for pests in young stands, stocking standards related to forest health factors and climate change adaptation strategies. The changes of note this year are: • New Root disease guidance Document Update on Bark Beetles in Kamloops TSA: • Areas affected by Western balsam bark beetle have dropped to less than half of 2016 levels resulting in 59,730 hectares infested. The decline is due to lower red attack rates, with stands in the northern portion of the TSA, around Dunn Peak, Trophy Mountain, and Wells gray Park and the upper North Thompson being the most affected. • Spruce beetle – attack levels remain high, with 9,770 hectares identified, the largest new infestation moving into uninfested stands in Wells Gray Park around Kostal Lake, McDougall Lake, and the west arm of Murtle Lake, Angus Horn Creek and the Upper Clearwater River. • Douglas fir beetle – the area affected by Douglas fir beetle more than doubled, to 3,100 hectares in 362 patches and 1,290 smaller spot infestations. The attack is widespread across the southern portion of the TSA with significant red attack in the Wells Gray Park, Barriere River, Adams Lake and Pinantan Lake areas. Douglas fir beetle is anticipated to build in fire damaged trees along the margins of the Elephant Hill, Thuya Lakes and Dunn Lake fires where there is variable burn severity and low intensity ground fires. • Mountain Pine beetle activity was limited to a single spot of 5 trees near Bush Lake. Update on Defoliators: • Two-year Cycle budworm has increased from 24,635 hectares in 2016 to 32,400 hectares in 2017 despite being an off year. The majority of the damage was in the Mad River, Raft River, Stevens Lake, Trophy Mountain, Raft Peak and TFL 18 areas. Moderate defoliation was on over one third of the stands with the rest classified as light. • Douglas Fir Tussock Moth- 15 hectares of defoliation were observed south of Heffley Creek, east of Hwy 5. Ground checks noted many new egg masses which will result in an expanded population in 2018. • Aspen Serpentine leafminer defoliation fell by 80% to 4,510 hectares. • Birch leafminer was mapped on 90 hectares near Adams Lake. Update on Balsam Woolly Adelgid in the Southern Interior: • Balsam woolly adelgid (BWA) was surveyed in 2017 by Don Heppner with the sites selected by Lorraine Maclauchlan and Kevin Buxton. • The results of the survey found BWA in Mine Creek and Juliet Creek widespread and well established, Community Lake Recreation Site with gouting on understory trees and 15 km Badger Lake FSR with BWA and gouting on understory trees. BWA was found on the Darlington FSR with moderate to heavy infested trees from 13 km to 24 km. BWA was found at intervals along the Surrey lake FSR to 13 km.

Review the 2016 Overview of Forest Health Conditions in Southern British Columbia at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/aerial-overview-surveys for more information on pests and diseases in the Kamloops TSA.

Foreword...... 3-4 1.0 Introduction ...... 6 2.0 Guiding Principles ...... 7 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities ...... 8 4.0 Priority Forest Health Factors within the TSA ...... 10 5.0 Non-Recovered Losses (NRLs) (There have been no changes to this section in 2013) .. 11 6.0 Bark Beetles ...... 12 6.1 BARK BEETLE MANAGEMENT UNITS (IBU) ...... 13 6.2 MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE (IBM) ...... 13 6.3 DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE (IBD) AND SPRUCEBEETLE (IBS) ...... 14 6.4 WESTERN BALSAM BARK BEETLE (IBB) ...... 14 6.5 BLOWDOWN ...... 14 7.0 Defoliators...... 15 7.1 WESTERN SPRUCE BUDWORM (IDW) ...... 15 7.2 DOUGLAS-FIR TUSSOCK MOTH (IDT) ...... 15 7.3 TWO-YEAR CYCLE SPRUCE BUDWORM (IDB) ...... 16 7.4 WESTERN HEMLOCK LOOPER (IDL)...... 16 8.0 Deciduous Pests ...... 16 9.0 Root Diseases ...... 17 9.1 ARMILLARIA ROOT DISEASE (DRA) ...... 17 9.2 PHELLINUS (LAMINATED) ROOT DISEASE (DRL) ...... 17 10.0 Pests of Young Stands ...... 18 11.0 Further Links and References ...... 20 11.1 GENERAL FOREST HEALTH INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 20 11.2 BARK BEETLE INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 21 11.3 INTERNET INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 21 11.4 RESEARCH INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 22 APPENDIX 1: 2011 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Mountain Pine Beetle ...... 24 APPENDIX 2: 2011 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Douglas-fir Beetle ...... 28 APPENDIX 3: 2011 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Spruce Beetle ...... 32

1.0 Introduction

This Forest Health Strategy (the Strategy) covers the Kamloops Timber Supply Area (TSA) also known as the Thompson Rivers District. It covers approximately 2.8 million hectares (including Wells Gray Provincial Park and excluding tree farm licences). The TSA Timber Harvesting Landbase (THLB) is dominated by lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, spruce, and sub-alpine fir. Smaller areas are dominated by cedar, hemlock and deciduous species.

The Strategy is guided by, and aligned with, the Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (MFLNRORD) Provincial Forest Health Strategy, the Forest Health Program and the Forest Health Implementation Strategy.1 The intent of the Strategy is to provide Forest Professionals2 with guidance on, and information about forest health agents in the TSA. The objective is to enhance ecosystem health thereby improving forest resiliency and sustainability. This is consistent with the vision statement of the Kamloops Sustainable Forest Management Plan and the Kamloops Land Resource Management Plan.

This document does not contain a conclusive list of all pests. The pests that have been included are considered to have the potential for significant impacts &/or frequently occur within the TSA.

Understanding the implications of climate change for forest health is a focus of the Ministry Forests Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (MFLNRORD). Climate change strategies for forest pests can be found in Forest Health and Climate Change.3

1 Link to the Provincial Forest Health Strategy, the Forest Health Program and the Forest Health Implementation Strategy: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/ 2 http://www.abcfp.ca/ 3 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm Updated July 13, 2018 Page 6 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

2.0 Guiding Principles

1. Follow applicable legislation. Augment or identify, rather than reiterate policy and legislation, e.g. FRPA bulletins provide additional guidance.4 2. Remain consistent with and follow guidance provided by regional forest health experts. The Thompson Okanagan Region (TOR) forest health web site contains links to research, contacts, overview data and other forest health information.5 3. Follow guidance provided by the; • Forest Practices Branch6 (e.g., Provincial Forest Health Strategy, Research, etc.) • British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-20117 • Provincial Forest Health Implementation Strategy • Regional Forest Health Strategy 8 4. It is recommended that Forest Professionals use the latest Stand Establishment Descision Aids (SEDA) available.

5. Enable operational planners to focus on economically viable priorities to get maximum value from the affected trees.

4 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/frpa-admin/frpa-implementation/bulletins.htm 5 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm 6 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/index.htm 7 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/forest-pests/bark-beetles/mountain-pine-beetle 8 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm Updated July 13, 2018 Page 7 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

3.0 Roles and Responsibilities

Forest Professionals collaboratively undertake implementation of the Strategy. Table 1 shows a summary of roles & responsibilities and their respective timelines. 1. Meet as needed to discuss the implementation and effectiveness of this strategy and to identify specific roles for monitoring, reporting and consolidation of information. 2. Licensees and BCTS are encouraged to build upon the strategies and tactics referrenced in this document in order to maximize the available harvesting capacity. 3. MFLNRORD completes aerial overview surveys and provides the resulting information to the licensees. The latest results can found on the regional and provincial forest health web sites.9 4. Detailed aerial surveys and ground surveys are conducted on a priority based system subject to funding, and are the responsibility of MFLNRO and licensees as decided through a collaborative effort. Most recent aerial survey results are available on the FTP site.10 5. Single tree removal/disposal, trap tree placement/removal and larger scale bark beetle treatments are the responsibility of MFLNRO and licensees as decided through a collaborative effort. Guidance on small scale salvage is provided by TSA salvage documents on the FTP site.11 6. The MFLNRORD and licensees will pursue all funding opportunities to conduct priority treatment options to mitigate impacts from bark beetles in areas designated as supression. (E.g., trap-tree programs, ground surveys, and small-site treatments.) 7. Assessment of hazard and risk information is done on a five year rotation by MFLNRO subject to funding, and will be provided to licensees and other agencies as requested.

9 https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm 10 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/DKA/external/!publish/Forest%20Health/ 11 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/DKA/external/!publish/Forest%20Health/ Updated July 13, 2018 Page 8 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

Table 1: Roles and responsibilities for implementation of the Kamloops TSA FH Strategy

Action Completion Dates Responsibility Region District Licensee Preparation of TSA Strategy March X Document Aerial Overview Surveys August X Detailed Aerial Surveys September X X - TFL Single Tree Treatment/Bait and Falling by end of March in Trap Tree Program south and April in north X X portions of the TSA Monitoring, Reporting, and Ongoing X X X Consolidation of information One on one communication Ongoing X X Provide and coordinate As information becomes commitment spreadsheet for available X spruce and Douglas-fir treatments Complete commitment As information becomes spreadsheet for spruce and available X Douglas-fir treatments Aerial Spray Program May-June X

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 9 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc 4.0 Priority Forest Health Factors within the TSA

A list of forest health factors impacting the Kamloops TSA was compiled in the winter of 2003 and was based mostly on forest licensee input. Rankings this year have been adjusted to accommodate recommendations from the Regional Pathologist David Rusch. He recommends replacing pine needle disease with Dothiostroma and Lophedermella in the low columun, adding tomentosus for SBS in the moderate column, delete cattle in the north moderate column, and delete exploding fir canker, spruce bloom rust, and spruce adelgids from the low column. Licensee input in 2015 for Table 2 Priority and ranking of forest health factors recommended deleting cattle in the north from the moderate column as well.. Balsam bark beetle has been moved to high due to increased annual in-stand mortality rates as well as the increased frequency of outbreak cycles (Overall area affected by over 40% as stated in the 2014 Overview of Forest Health Conditions in Southern BC Report, page 32. Table 2 lists the forest health factors in the TSA and their relative priority.

Table 2: Priority and ranking of Forest Health Factors in the Kamloops TSA (numbers in brackets denotes ranking) High Moderate Low Potential High Spruce beetle (1) Warren’s root collar weevil Windthrow Douglas-fir beetle (1) Western hemlock looper Moose Western balsam bark beetle White pine blister rust Western pine beetle (1) Lodgepole pine dwarf Stalactiform blister rust Two-year cycle spruce mistletoe Comandra blister rust budworm (2) Deer Blackstain root disease Armillaria root disease (1) Mountain pine beetle Porcupine Laminated root disease (1) Tomentosus (SBS) Dothiostromia Spruce weevil (3) Lophodermella Western gall rust (north Forest tent caterpillar portion TSA)) Western spruce budworm Douglas-fir tussock moth Cattle (south portion TSA) Deer ** (north portion of TSA) Deciduous pests are noted inSection 8.0 Deciduous Pests and the Overview of Forest Health Conditions in the Southern British Columbia.12 ** Deer put into high priority for the south slopes in the IDF biogeoclimatic zone from Clearwater to north of Vavenby Detection and monitoring strategies, occurrance, and population trends of priority health factors are described in the annual Overview of Forest Health in the Southern British Columbia.

12 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/aerial-overview-surveys Updated July 13, 2018 Page 10 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc 5.0 Non-Recovered Losses (NRLs) (Timber Supply Review has been completed in 2015)

Non-recoverable losses (NRL) are timber volumes destroyed or damaged on the timber harvesting land base (THLB) by natural causes such as fire, wind, insects and disease that are not recovered through salvage operations and remain unutilized. In timber supply analysis these losses are accounted for by estimating an average annual unsalvaged loss and deducting this amount from the harvest projection throughout the planning period of the TSR. Endemic pest losses are considered natural processes within stands and are accounted for within the growth and yield models. Wildfire NRLs were calculated using 23 years of data, from 1981 to 2003. 2003 was considered an anomaly, and the loss for 2003 that is included into the wildfire data is the 10 year average loss used in TSR2 (2002). Wildfire losses since 2003 have not been used to ensure enough time has passed during which salvaging could occur. If not salvaged after 10 years, the merchantable volume remaining will be considered as an NRL. (TSR5 Factor 52) Insect and abiotic forest health factors present in the Kamloops TSA are described below with the associated NRL for the identified forest helath factor.. The NRL unless otherwise stated were derived by Adrian Walton MFLNRO as part of a provincial estimate of NRLs in each TSA.

Table 3: Non-Recovered (recoverable) Losses NRLs 2017 Cause of Loss Annual Non-Recovered Losses (m3/year) Douglas-Fir beetle 69,264 Spruce beetle 6,192 Balsam Bark Beetle/ 7,484 2 year cycle budworm no current information Wildfire 24,529 Tussock Moth 0/Low Spruce Budworm no current information Mountain Pine Beetle 3,416 110,785 1. Table 3 presents the estimated forest volume killed in the Timber Harvesting Land Base by selected Aerial Overview Forest Health Factors, as well as the amount of that killed volume that has not been harvested as of the year 2017. 2. Source Data: a) Circa 2001 forest inventory derived from the circa 2001 Vegetation Inventory (VRI) and the circa 2001 State of the Forest. b) 1999 through 2017 Aerial Overview Surveys of Forest Health. c) Logging history derived from the VRI and Results databases. d) Provincial Mountain Pine Beetle Spread Model (www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/bcmpb) 3. Author: Adrian Walton, Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development 4. Production Date: February 2018 Updated July 13, 2018 Page 11 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc 6.0 Bark Beetles

Beetle infestations are detected and recorded by TOR aerial overview surveys and Thompson Rivers District detailed surveys (subject to funding). Due to the diversity of forest types, all four major tree-killing bark beetle species pose a threat to the forests in the TSA. Beetle species of note include mountain pine beetle (IBM) Dendroctonus ponderosae, Douglas-fir beetle (IBD) Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, spruce beetle (IBS) Dendroctonus rufipennis and western balsam bark beetle (IBB) Dryocoetes confusus. Severity of attack for the four main bark beetles is available in table format by Forest District in the annual Overview of Forest Health Conditions in the Southern British Columbia.13

The objective of beetle management is an effective, coordinated, operational approach that minimizes damage and maximizes economic recovery. Currently, spruce and Douglas-fir beetle salvage are still the highest priority in the TSA due to the potential for rapid spread and high attack ratios. Small scale salvage is being used as a tool in the Kamloops TSA for management of spruce and Douglas-fir beetle, including salvage of windthrown areas. Some licensees have taken on the management of fir beetle through the use of trap trees in their development areas.

Mountain pine beetle salvage of dead stands is still being carried out in localised areas within the TSA.

The western balsam bark beetle is ubiquitous within most of the subalpine fir stands in the TSA. Mortality caused by IBB appears to have been increasing in certain locations over the past few years.

A comprehensive list of possible tactics and treatments for bark beetles can be found in The Bark Beetle Management Guidebook14 and on the provincial and regional websites. Detailed discussion of management for mountain pine beetle may be found in; “Strategies and Tactics for Managing the Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae” (Maclauchlan and Brooks, 2001).

13 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/aerial-overview-surveys 14 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/forest- health/bark-beetles/bark_beetle_management_guidebook.pdf Updated July 13, 2018 Page 12 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

6.1 Bark Beetle Management Units Priority and strategy assignment occurs on two levels for bark beetles. Broad provincial zonations, Emergency Bark Beetle Management Areas (EBBMAs), which identify landscape level beetle management areas with similar bark beetle management strategies.15 Beetle Management Units (BMUs) identify priority geographic landscape level areas in a TSA that guide management and funding of specific bark beetles. BMU designations are reviewed annually and updated as necessary.

The provincial EBBMA zonations will be replaced and returned back to the policy regime that was in place before the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Blanket salvage permits will still be available with approval based on the TSA Forest Health strategy. The guidance on the use of blanket salvage permits and comparative cruising will be available in the updated Interior Appraisal manual and the Cutting Permit and Road Tenures Administration manual.

Appendix 1, 2 and 3 contain BMU designations and maps for IBM (1), IBD (2) and IBS (3).

Table 4: TSA level bark beetle BMU strategy definitions

Strategy Where Strategy Applicable Strategic Objective and Performance Measure Large areas of uninfested or lightly infested timber with Reduce the susceptibility/attractiveness of a stand to Prevention a moderate to high hazard rating. bark beetles.

Area with low level of infestation or incipient Maintain area in a relatively uninfested state. populations where levels are building and where Suppression resources are available for aggressive management Treat > 80% of polygons within 1 year. actions Infestations in areas where resources or access are Maintain an existing outbreak at a relatively static Holding Action unavailable now, but are expected in the future. level over the short term. Treat 50-79% of polygons within 1 year. Areas where management efforts cannot reduce the Delineate affected areas and salvage log stands to beetle population, harvesting capacity and/or access is recover losses and rehabilitate. Other management Salvage unavailable. objectives take precedent. Treat <50% of polygons within 1 year. Inaccessible areas or where management activities are Satisfy other resource objectives or access concerns, Monitor restricted. some timber loss accepted.

6.2 Mountain Pine Beetle (IBM) The mountain pine beetle activity is nearly nonexistent in the TSA, with a single spot of 5 trees near Bush Lake.. Mountain pine beetle has been reduced in priority from “high (1)” to “medium” (Table 2), due to salvage status in the majority of the TSA BMUs.

15 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/fhdata/bbstrategy.htm Updated July 13, 2018 Page 13 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc In Appendix 1, mountain pine beetle BMUs are mapped and summarized by priority to assist planning and salvage activities.

6.3 SpruceBeetle (IBS) and Douglas-fir Beetle (IBD) Spruce beetle infestations remain high in 2017 mostly in the northern portion of the TSA and Douglas-fir beetle infestations remain widespread across the southern protions of the TSA. Aggressive suppression of active IBD infestations, with an expedited program of trap trees has been effective in reducing many of these populations.

The fires of 2017 have the potential to increase fir beetle infestations in fire scarred live and healthy green trees. To assist with identification of risk factors and best management practices to mitigate post wild fire fir beetle impacts, Lorriane Maclauchlan, regional entomologist, has written a document to assist with planning and prioritizing mitiagaion operations. This document can be obtained from the District office or by contacting the regional entomologist directly. In Appendix 2 and 3 - Douglas-fir (2) and spruce (3) beetle, BMUs are mapped and summarized by priority to assist planning and salvage activities.

Other references and resources available for consideration during planning of salvage harvesting include: • MFLNRO beetle web site16 • Small Scale Salvage Guidance documents for Thompson Rivers District can be obtained from the District office. 6.4 Western Balsam Bark Beetle (IBB) The IBB is ubiquitous within most of the subalpine fir stands in the TSA. The TSA is monitoring IBB infestations, but not currently managing for IBB. Infestations are detected and monitored as part of the TOR aerial overview flights and long-term research installations. Lorraine MacLauchlan the Southern Interior Regional Entomologist has recently written the following research article “Quantification of Dryocoetes confusus-casued mortality in subalpine fir forests of Southern British Columbia.

6.5 Blowdown Concentrated and scattered windthrow in Douglas-fir, spruce and subalpine fir stands have the potential to trigger increases in bark beetle infestations. Windthrow should be addressed promptly, to minimize the expansion of beetle populations (E.g., in the vicinity of Mule deer winter range and Old Growth Management Areas.) Windthrown trees should be removed prior to the beetle emergence from affected trees.

16 https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/fhdata/ProvBBStrategy.pdf Updated July 13, 2018 Page 14 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc 7.0 Defoliators

Detection, prediction and treatment of defoliators remain the responsibility of the Thompson Okanagan region. MFLNRO district staff assist in gathering information for high risk areas (E.g., woodlots) to aid regional staff in deciding which stands are priorities to treat. More specific information on the defoliator program can be found on the TOR Forest Health website17, in the Regional Forest Health Strategy and in the Defoliator Management Guidebook (1995)18.

7.1 Western Spruce Budworm (IDW) The western spruce budworm is a native defoliator that periodically experiences long lasting, landscape level population outbreaks thoroughout its range in North America. It primalru feeds on both coastal and interior Douglas-fir, but can also feed on true firs (Abies spp.) Engleman Spruce and Western Larch.

Western spruce budworm remained at very low, non-outbreak levels in the southern interior in 2017 with no defoliation noted in the Kamloops TSA. .

7.2 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth (IDT) Priority areas of infestation are treated as necessary as part of the Thompson Okanagan spray program. Due to the potential to cause; allergic reactions in people and tree mortality, this insect is a priority for treatment.

17 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/foresthealth/index.htm 18 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/defoliat/defoltoc.htm

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 15 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

7.3 Two-Year Cycle Spruce Budworm (IDB) 2017 overview flight data showed an increase in defoliation inspite of being an off year in the two year cycle. Defoliation was detected on 32,400 hectares, with most of the infected stands in the , Mad River, Raft River, Stevens Lakes, Trophy Mountian, Raft Peak and TFL18 areas. An operational spray trial to evaluate the efficacy of B.t.k. for control of two year cycle budworm was carried out in the vicinity of Mount Tom in the Quesnel District. Trial results can be found in the Special Projects section of the 2012 Oveveiw of Forest Health Conditions in Southern BC report.

7.4 Western Hemlock Looper (IDL) Western hemlock looper and associated defoliators are monitoried annually at 16 permnant sampling sites in the Thompson Okanagan Region with moth trapping and three veatings done on all 16 sites. Western hemlock looper catches increased in all sites and it is anticipated that over the next few years , western hemlock looper trap catches and larval numbers will increase with another outbreak following within 3 to 5 years.

8.0 Deciduous Pests

Considering the increasing management and use of deciduous species, as well as climate change implications, deciduous pests have been incorporated in the Strategy. Since 2003, paper birch (Betula papyrifera) has been experiencing mortality referred to as birch decline or dieback. Although this decline has not been quantified or mapped, the magnitude is significant. Because birch is well-distributed in the valleys, the mortality is easily noticed. The public, especially landowners, are concerned about the losses in tree cover. On birch, both Armillaria root disease and bronze birch borer are commonly found. These agents are endemic and not known to cause widespread epidemics. Their association with the upsurge of mortality is unclear. It is likely that one or more broad underlying causes such as climate-induced stress is pre-disposing trees to attacks. At this time, the decline seems to have tapered off. Aspen leaf miner continues to be widespread across wetbelt and transistional wetbelt areas in southern B.C.

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 16 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

9.0 Root Diseases

Stand susceptibility or hazard for root diseases is based on species composition and biogeoclimatic zone. Selective logging, pre-commercial thinning, spacing and/or brushing are practices that increase the risk within stands for root disease. The known extent of root diseases is based upon hazard and risk criteria developed for the Forest Practices Code Root Disease Management Guidebook (1995).19 Armillaria and Phellinus root diseases are present in the TSA. Other lesser known pathogens are present in localised areas, e.g., Tomentosis is present in the northern portion of the TSA.

9.1 Armillaria Root Disease (DRA) Armillaria is a significant forest health concern throughout the southern interior region. It affects conifers starting as early as ages 4 or 5 and peaks around ages 12 to 15. Since the disease is not fully expressed at the time most free growing declarations are made, large openings and understocked-stands can be expected post-free growing.

A new guidebook for root disease “Managing Root Disease in British Columbia” has been published as of April 2018. The update and the revised root disease web pages are now available on this website: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest- resources/forest-health/forest-pests/root-diseases . This guidebook is intended for forest professionals and practioners to use the science based survey and treatment options that are outlined in the guidebook to guide them in preparing the best management practices when operating in root disease areas. This document replaces the Root Disease Stand Establishement Decision Aid (SEDA).

9.2 Phellinus (Laminated) Root Disease (DRL) A new guidebook for root disease called “Managing Root Disease in British Columbia has been published as of April 2018 and should be used for managing Laminated root disease replacing the Stand Establishement Decision Aid (SEDA).

19 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/root/roottoc.htm Updated July 13, 2018 Page 17 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

10.0 Pests of Young Stands

A variety of insects and disease are found within young stands but, while they may have historically acted as natural thinning agents and provided for patch and landscape level diversity, their response to current management regimes and subsequent impacts may not be compatible with timber objectives. Weevils, stem rusts, lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe, foliar diseases and mammals are among some of these pests. Management strategies for these pests are consistent with the Forest Practices Code Guidebooks.20

Overall the level of mortality from IBM in young pine stands has declined.21

MLFNRO has established a protocol for assessing the health of young stands, 5+years post Free Growing Declaration, which provides a retrospective look at silvicultural practices. The Stand Development Monitoring (SDM) protocol is under the Forest and Range Effectiveness Evaluation Program (FREP). Information on the FREP SDM Protocol can be found on the FREP website22.

Damaging agents in young stands of note:

Warren’s Root Collar Weevil Warren’s root collar weevil has been recorded as migrating into immature pine stands, from pine beetle attacked mature stands. Attack in young stands may develop from populations in adjacent unlogged areas, residual uncut trees or infested stumps within the clearcut. Further research is underway.

Dwarf Mistletoes In stands infected by dwarf mistletoe, a risk assessment, appropriate treatments and free growing criteria should be considered before making recommendations for stand management activities.

20 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/ 21 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/aerial-overview-surveys 22 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest- resources/integrated-resource-monitoring/forest-range-evaluation-program

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 18 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc White Pine Blister Rust White pine blister rust is considered high hazard in all ecosystems of British Columbia, even outside the natural range of white pine. White pine blister rust greatly reduces the probability of white pine reaching maturity throughout the range of the species. White pine blister rust caused trace mortality on 790 hectares in the Harbour lakes area.

A white pine blister rust stand establishment decision aid has been developed by Stefan Zeglen, Richard Hunt, and Michelle Cleary, and has been published as an extension note in Volume 10 - Issue 1 of The BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management.23

Dothistroma A Dothistroma stand establishment decision aid has been developed by Larry McCulloch and Alex Woods and has been published as an extension note in Volume 10 - Issue 1 of The BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management (use previous footnote link.) Although Dothistroma may not be an issue across the TSA, there is evidence of it’s presence in stands in the northern portion of the TSA.

Root Diseases (Young Stands) Root diseases cause significant volume losses in young stands. See Section 9.0 Root Diseases.

Animal Damage Animal damage is primarily caused by ungulates in the Kamloops TSA. Animal damage is often underestimated in aerial overview assessments as it is masked by IBM and other damaging agents. Bear feeding was noted on 80 hectares in 2017..

Animal Damage - Livestock

Within the Kamloops TSA, the impact of cattle damage on young plantations is ranked as high priority for Kamloops area. Other contributing factors to cattle damage can be placement of salt licks, location of water sources, herd management, removal of or damage to natural or man made range barriers and some site preparation techniques.

Hard Pine Stem Rusts

Evidence suggests that juvenile spacing activities in young lodgepole pine stands may be increasing the hazard and impact of pine stem rusts. Pine stem rusts in the TSA include western gall rust, commandra and stalactiform blister rusts.

23 http://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/jem.asp Updated July 13, 2018 Page 19 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc 11.0 Further Links and References

11.1 General Forest Health Information Sources Alfaro, R.I., S. Taylor, G. Brown and E. Wegwitz. 1999. Tree mortality caused by the western hemlock looper in landscapes of central British Columbia. For. Ecol. and Mgmt. 124:285-291. Alfaro, R.I. and L.E. Maclauchlan. 1992. A method to calculate the losses caused by western spruce budworm in uneven-aged Douglas-fir forests of British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management 55:295-313. Anon. 2002. Sustainable Forest Management Plan for the Kamloops TSA. 93pp. Anon. 1995. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan. Interagency Management Committee Report. Province of British Columbia. Bleiker, K.P., B. Staffan Lindgren and L.E. Maclauchlan. 2003. Characteristics of subalpine fir susceptible to attack by western balsam bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. J. For. Res. 33: 1538-1543. Borecky, N. and I. Otvos. 2001. Coarse-scale hazard rating of western hemlock looper in British Columbia. In Proceedings: integrated management and dynamics of forest defoliating insects; 1999 August 15-19, Victoria, BC. GTR NE-277. Newton Square, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 6-15. Brookes M. H., J. Colbert, and R. Mitchell. 1985. Managing trees and stands susceptible to western spruce budworm. R.W.Stark Tech. Coord. USDA Forest Service. Cooperative State Research Service. Tech. Bull. No. 1695. Brooks, J.E. 1994. A survey of young spruce plantations in the Salmon Arm Forest District for incidence of the white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi. Min. of For. Internal Report. 39 pp. Cleary, van der Kamp and Morrison. Armillaria Root Disease – Southern Interior Forest Region. Cruikshank, M. 2000. Volume loss of Douglas-fir infected with Armillaria ostoyae. In Proceedings, From science to management and back: a science forum for southern Interior ecosystems of British Columbia. C. Hollstedt, K. Sutherland, and T. Innes (editors). Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, B.C. pp. 127- 129. Duncan, R.W. 1986. Terminal and Root-Collar Weevils of Lodgepole Pine in British Columbia. Forestry Canada, Forest Insect and Disease Survey, Forest Pest Leaflet No. 73 6p. Hood M. H, B. Bentz and K.C. Ryan. 2003. Douglas-fir beetle attack and tree mortality following wildfire. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mtn. Res. Sta. Missoula, MT. In press. Johnstone, W.D. 2002. Growth and development following partial cutting of a complex stand in the Interior Cedar- Hemlock zone of British Columbia: 40 year results. Res. Br. B.C. Min., For., Victoria, B.C. Res. Rep. 22 URL: www.for.gov.bc./DHW/pubs/Docs/Rr/Rr22.htm K.J. Lewis and B.S. Lindgren. 2002. Relationship between spruce beetle and tomentosus root disease: two natural disturbance agents of spruce. Can. J. For. Res. 32:31-37. Maclauchlan, L.E and K. Buxton. 2001. 2001 overview of forest health in the Kamloops Forest Region. BC Min. of For. Internal Rep. 52pp. Maclauchlan, L.E. and J.E. Brooks. 1998, Enhanced Forestry-Pest impacts in spaced and pruned stands in the Kamloops Forest Region B.C. Min. For., Kamloops Forest Region, Forest Health, Kamloops, B.C. Morrison, D. J., K.W. Pellow, D.J. Norris, and A.F.L. Nemec 2000. Visible versus actual incidence of Armillaria root disease in juvenile coniferous stands in the southern interior of British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res 30:405- 414. Morrison, D. J. and K. Mallet. 1996. Silvicultural management of armillaria root disease in western Canadian forests. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 18: 194-199. Nevill R., N. Humphreys and A. Van Sickle. 1996. Five-year overview of forest health surveys in young managed stands in British Columbia 1991-1995. For. Can. And B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. FRDA Rep. 262. Norris, D. J. 1995. Effects of Armillaria root disease on forest ecosystems. Ministry of Forests, Nelson Forest Region. Extension Note RS-022. 3p Parfett, N., I.S. Otvos and A. Van Sickle. 1995. Historical western hemlock looper outbreaks in BC: Input and analysis using a GIS. For. Can., and B.C. Min. For., FRDA Rep 235. 36 pp.

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 20 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Safranyik, L. and T.L. Shore. 1999. Draft A susceptibility and risk rating system for the Spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis. Version 5. Cdn. For. Serv. Pac. For. Cent. 12 pp. Shore, T. L. and L. Safranyik. 2000. A susceptibility and risk rating system for Douglas-fir beetle. Version 9 Cdn. For. Serv. Pac. For. Cent. 5 pp. Shore, T.L. and L. Safranyik. 1992. Susceptibility and risk rating systems for the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. Can. For. Serv., Pac. For. Cent. Inf. Rep BC-X-336. 12 pp.

11.2 Bark Beetle Information Sources BC Ministry of Forests. 2003. Provincial Bark Beetle Management Technical Implementation Guidelines Spring 2003. BC MFR Publication, 22 pp. BC Ministry of Forests. 1995. Bark Beetle Management Guidebook. BC MFR Publication. Clark. R. (2005). EMU redesignation. Ministry of Forests Northern Interior Forest Region MEMORANDUM, File: 280-83027, 18810-04/EBBMA Eng, M. et al, (2004). Provincial Level Projection of the Current Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak. Draft. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/ bcmpb/BCMPB_MainReport_2003.pdf Key Forest Resources. 2006. Kamloops TSA Mountain Pine Beetle Strategy. MacLauchlan, L.E. and J.E. Brooks. 2000. Strategies and Tactics for Managing the Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae. Kamloops Forest Region Forest Health, B.C. Forest Service publication. 57pp. MacLauchlan, L.E. 1998-2003. Kamloops Region Aerial Overview Summaries. Kamloops Forest Region Forest Health, B.C. Forest Service publications. MacLauchlan, L.E. 2002. Kamloops Forest Region Bark Beetle Management Plan. Internal Document. 16pp. MacLauchlan, L.E. 2003. Biological issues surrounding burnt and fire-charred wood. Internal document. 6pp Maclauchlan, L., Rankin, L., Buxton, K. 2005, 2004. Overview of Forest Health in the Southern Interior Forest Region. MFR, Southern Interior Forest Region. www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/Index.html. Piggin, D., Jeans-Williams, N. 2002. Kamloops Forest District, Mountain Pine Beetle Management Plan. Internal Document. 58 pp. Pyper, Stewart. 2002-03. Clearwater Forest District Bark Beetle Management Plan 2002/2003. Internal Document, 22 pp. Shore, T.L.; Safranyik, L. 1992. Susceptibility and risk rating systems for the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria BC. Information Report BC-X-336. 12 pp.

11.3 Internet Information Sources Provincial Forest Health Strategy http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/Strategy/FH%20Strategy.pdf Forest Health Program http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/Strategy/FH%20Program.pdf Forest Health Implementation Strategy http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/Strategy/FH%20Impl.%20Strategy.pdf Southern Interior Forest Region Forest Health Home Page http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm Stand Establishment Descision Aids http://www.forrex.org/tools/sedas/ Annual Reports - Overview of Forest Health in the Southern Interior Forest Region http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/overview.html Updated July 13, 2018 Page 21 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011” http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/ Emergency Bark Beetle web site http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/maps/ebbma/ Kamloops TSA MPB Strategy - March 2006 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/dka/Forest_Health/Doc/KamloopsTSAMPBStrategy2006.pdf Kamloops TSA MPB Strategy - March 2006 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/stewardship/ MFR aerial overview survey results are at regional and provincial web sites. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/Aerial_index.htm http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/overview/overview.htm DKA Forest Health FTP site. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/dka/external/!publish/Forest%20Health/ MFR Bark Beetle Hazard and risk information http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/hazard_rating.htm Timber Supply Review Public Discussion Paper (October 2007) http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa11/tsr3/11ts07pdp.pdf Defoliator Management Guidebook • western spruce budworm management practices • western hemlock looper hazard and risk assessment information • Douglas-fir tussock moth strategies http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/defoliat/defoltoc.htm Forest Practices Code Root Disease Management Guidebook (Anon 1995) • known extent of root diseases is based upon hazard and risk criteria • management strategies and tactics http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/root/roottoc.htm Strategies and tactics to manage dwarf mistletoe http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/dwarf/dwarftoc.htm Strategies and tactics to manage spruce weevil http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/weevil/we-toc.htm Strategies and tactics for pine rusts, and for managing white pine as a commercial species. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/PINESTEM/PINE-TOC.HTM

11.4 Research Information Sources 1. Ministry of Forests and Range: RSI - Southern Interior Forest Region: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/entomology/Research.html HFP - Forest Practices Branch – Forest health http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/reports.htm http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/#research 2. Canadian Forest Service Research and Development: http://www.canadian-forests.com/forest_research.html

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 22 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Provincial MPB model http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/bcmpb/ Lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and Spruce bark beetle hazard mapping http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/hazard_rating.htm

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 23 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc APPENDIX 1: 2017 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Mountain Pine Beetle

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 24 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 1: Mountain pine beetle BMU strategies and statistics24

District BMU BMU Gross area Susceptible Area (Pli>60 years) IBM Area Mapped 2013 Zonation All Stands with Pli Stands where Detailed Overview occurrence Pli>39% Flight Flight Ha Ha % of BMU Ha % of BMU Ha Ha DTR S Barriere Salvage 170,969.4 10,545.0 6 3,213.2 2 Battle Salvage 84,811.3 19,094.0 23 9,517.7 11 East Adams Salvage 34,778.8 603.5 2 294.5 1 Gisborne New Salvage 52,511.2 12,266.0 23 6,796.4 13 Greenstone Salvage 65,855.8 7,658.2 12 3,523.5 5 Hat Salvage 55,533.7 15,377.0 28 9,632.7 17 Hwy 24 Salvage 47,736.3 2,735.0 6 1,678.1 4 Louis Salvage 195,227.1 3,054.8 2 927.4 0 McConnell Salvage 69,663.3 3,959.7 6 2,656.3 4 McLean Salvage 63,078.9 2,909.2 5 1,491.1 2 Scuitto Salvage 95,355.1 3,601.9 4 688.9 1 Skull Salvage 128,718.5 4,215.8 3 2,430.7 2 Tranquille Salvage 123,927.4 4,109.0 3 2,062.1 2 Tunkwa Salvage 125,494.2 32,558.0 26 22,901.0 18 DTR S Total 1,313,661.0 122,687.1 9 67,813.6 5 DTR N Adams Lake Salvage 43,810.6 1,149.0 3 267.2 1 Albreda Monitor 61,971.1 522.5 1 319.8 1 Avola Salvage 63,488.4 2,932.7 5 1,848.1 3 Cayenne Salvage 46,239.5 2,499.9 5 1,223.6 3 Clearwater Salvage 143,396.0 18,395.0 13 10,137.0 7 Dunn Salvage 19,848.0 785.5 4 12.3 0 Mad Salvage 63,978.3 7,219.9 11 2,787.4 4 Mica Monitor 54,225.8 1,574.5 3 364.2 1 Mud Salvage 69,616.5 45.9 0 12.1 0 Raft Salvage 76,942.3 2,126.4 3 172.8 0 Thunder Blue Monitor 67,909.8 768.8 1 401.9 1 Tum Tum Salvage 99,253.6 485.2 0 331.1 0 Upper North ThompsonMonitor 93,379.9 375.3 0 269.1 0 Vavenby Salvage 33,046.1 1,662.5 5 70.9 0 Wells Gray Monitor 518,710.4 6,677.4 1 6,223.8 1 DTR N Total 1,455,816.3 47,220.5 3 24,441.3 2

TSA Total 2,769,477.3 169,907.6 6 92,254.9 3 0 0

24 Gross TSA area -- includes all land tenures and ownership types. All stands > 60 years old with Pli identified in the inventory layer are included as susceptible. Area mapped is from the 2011 overview flight. 24% of the total TSA area (excluding Wells Gray BMU - no data) is covered by age-susceptible stands that have a lodgepole pine component. Updated July 13, 2018 Page 25 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 2: Susceptible Age stands with a Mountain pine beetle component by BMU

Gross Areas Occupied by Age (Ha) All stands with Pli occurrence All stands where Pli >39% District BMU 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-250 >250 Total area 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-250 >250 Total area DTR S Barriere 630.6 5,147.5 2,594.5 2,060.3 111.7 10,545 289.2 2,004.1 561.2 358.7 0.0 3,213 Battle 1,938.8 3,237.6 8,247.4 4,754.4 915.6 19,094 846.7 1,953.5 3,424.8 2,829.3 463.5 9,518 East Adams 74.4 220.1 289.3 19.7 604 38.7 81.0 174.7 0.0 0.0 294 Gisborne New 1,941.3 2,255.5 1,944.3 4,220.1 1,905.1 12,266 1,405.0 1,411.6 915.1 2,151.2 913.5 6,796 Greenstone 1,171.2 2,438.3 1,021.5 2,638.8 388.4 7,658 802.9 1,073.2 421.7 1,130.7 95.0 3,524 Hat 717.5 3,166.2 5,422.9 5,088.6 981.5 15,377 479.2 1,947.7 3,691.3 3,078.4 436.1 9,633 Hwy 24 157.5 427.0 934.6 1,140.9 75.0 2,735 38.6 211.4 721.4 657.3 49.4 1,678 Louis 278.2 1,139.3 802.7 732.4 102.2 3,055 196.9 561.7 102.7 66.1 0.0 927 McConnell 1,951.8 364.9 227.6 1,027.2 388.2 3,960 1,374.0 267.3 145.5 683.1 186.5 2,656 McLean 338.2 1,015.9 523.2 815.7 216.2 2,909 170.8 498.6 307.6 425.0 89.1 1,491 Scuitto 590.5 2,367.5 589.8 49.3 4.7 3,602 145.1 421.8 114.6 7.4 0.0 689 Skull 729.0 1,087.8 936.6 1,228.1 234.4 4,216 427.4 550.7 705.0 690.7 56.9 2,431 Tranquille 1,064.0 1,775.7 694.6 286.8 287.9 4,109 512.4 1,094.5 329.8 85.1 40.3 2,062 Tunkwa 5,529.9 12,534.4 10,172.2 3,221.0 1,100.7 32,558 3,895.3 9,567.6 6,933.3 1,683.9 821.0 22,901 DTR S Total 17,112.9 37,177.7 34,401.2 27,283.3 6,711.6 122,687 10,622.2 21,644.7 18,548.7 13,846.9 3,151.3 67,814 DTR N Adams Lake 4.0 824.6 229.3 76.1 15.0 1,149 0.0 201.2 40.5 25.5 0.0 267 Albreda 245.9 94.3 37.8 50.6 93.9 523 119.4 88.9 8.9 36.2 66.4 320 Avola 151.2 2,078.8 545.4 83.0 74.3 2,933 80.2 1,449.6 264.4 48.8 5.1 1,848 Cayenne 651.2 1,752.6 84.8 3.3 8.0 2,500 223.6 941.8 50.2 0.0 8.0 1,224 Clearwater 1,488.0 4,861.4 3,141.3 3,894.1 4,825.2 184.4 18,394 879.0 2,882.5 1,777.6 2,010.3 2,559.9 28.2 10,138 Dunn 81.8 386.7 232.3 84.7 0.0 786 0.0 11.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 12 Mad 964.9 4,762.0 771.6 377.3 344.2 7,220 367.9 1,875.2 225.6 164.0 154.6 2,787 Mica 324.6 904.8 299.5 20.0 25.6 1,575 160.2 71.5 112.6 20.0 4.5 369 Mud 0.0 0.0 36.1 0.0 9.6 46 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 8 Raft 622.3 1,286.6 170.3 47.2 0.0 2,126 46.5 104.0 14.9 7.3 0.0 173 Thunder Blue 136.5 299.7 219.0 36.0 77.7 769 53.3 131.8 181.7 0.0 35.1 402 Tum Tum 94.6 160.9 229.6 0.0 0.0 485 4.3 109.0 217.8 0.0 0.0 331 Upper North Thompson 0.0 0.0 231.4 297.9 77.4 607 0.0 0.0 0.0 196.4 72.6 269 Vavenby 171.4 734.9 453.9 430.3 94.5 1,885 0.0 68.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 71 Wells Gray 5,085.5 153.6 0.0 168.0 815.4 1.0 6,224 4,645.3 148.5 445.6 168.0 815.4 1.0 6,224 DTR N Total 10,021.9 18,300.9 6,682.3 5,568.5 6,460.8 185.4 47,220 6,579.7 8,084.1 3,350.5 2,676.5 3,721.6 29.2 24,442

TSA Total 27,134.8 55,478.6 41,083.5 32,851.8 13,172.4 185.4 169,907 17,201.9 29,728.8 21,899.2 16,523.4 6,872.9 29.2 92,255

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 26 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 3: BMU Summary of Mountain pine beetle occurance (spots and patches) in the Kamloops TSA

District BMU 2017 Detailed Flight (IBM) 2017 Overview Flight (IBM) Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Total Area Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Total Area Area Area Area Area Spots Trees (ha) Patches (ha) Ha Spots Trees (ha) Patches (ha) Ha DTR S Barriere 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Battle 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 East Adams 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Gisborne New 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Greenstone 1 5 0.25 0 0.00 0.25 Hat 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Hwy 24 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Louis 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 McConnell 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 McLean 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Scuitto 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Skull 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Tranquille 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Tunkwa 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 DTR S 1 5 0.25 0 0.00 0.25

DTR N Adams Lake 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Albreda 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Avola 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Cayenne 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Clearwater 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Dunn 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Mad 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Mica 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Mud 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Raft 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Thunder Blue 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Tum Tum 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Upper North Thompson 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Vavenby 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Wells Gray 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 DTR N 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 27 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc

APPENDIX 2: 2017 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Douglas-fir Beetle

Updated July 13, 2018 Page 28 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 4: Douglas-fir bark beetle BMU strategies and statistics in the TSA25

District BMU BMU Gross Area Susceptible Area (Fir>120years) IBD area mapped zonation All stands with Fd Stands where Detailed Overview occurance Fd>39% flight flight Ha Ha %BMU Ha %BMU Ha Ha DTR S Barriere Supression 170,969.4 31,117.0 18 27,584.0 16 3.8 6.8 Battle Supression 84,811.1 34,819.9 41 32,469.0 38 0.0 27.3 East Adams Supression 34,778.8 6,279.8 18 5,552.0 16 3.3 1.5 Gisborne New Supression 52,511.2 477.2 1 340.2 1 0.0 0.0 Greenstone Supression 65,855.8 16,440.2 25 15,409.0 23 1.0 1.3 Hat Supression 55,533.7 20,132.0 36 17,859.0 32 0.0 4.5 Hwy 24 Supression 47,736.3 8,400.3 18 6,316.7 13 0.0 1.0 Louis Supression 195,227.1 45,964.4 24 42,660.0 22 18.5 12.5 McConnell Supression 69,663.3 17,626.3 25 17,377.0 25 0.0 1.3 McLean Supression 63,078.9 24,240.9 38 22,335.0 35 0.0 6.0 Scuitto Supression 95,355.1 23,134.0 24 22,314.0 23 14.8 12.3 Skull Supression 128,718.5 14,080.1 11 12,699.0 10 0.0 2.8 Tranquille Supression 123,927.4 39,408.9 32 38,453.0 31 6.5 19.0 Tunkwa Supression 125,494.2 28,110.0 22 24,997.0 20 0.0 4.5 DTR S Total 1,313,660.8 310,231.0 24 286,364.9 22 47.9 100.8 DTR N Adams Lake Supression 43,810.6 7,423.4 17 5,777.9 13 0.0 4.3 Albreda Monitor 61,971.1 839.4 1 429.1 1 0.0 0.3 Avola Supression 63,488.4 2,453.7 4 1,210.3 2 0.0 0.0 Cayenne Supression 46,239.5 4,543.5 10 3,775.7 8 0.0 1.3 Clearwater Supression 143,396.0 11,725.4 8 8,898.0 6 0.0 0.5 Dunn Supression 19,848.0 2,646.5 13 2,453.1 12 0.0 0.5 Mad Supression 63,978.3 3,838.8 6 1,997.5 3 0.0 0.3 Mica Supression 54,225.8 5,383.0 10 4,173.5 8 0.0 1.3 Mud Monitor 69,616.5 860.0 1 119.3 0 0.0 0.0 Raft Supression 76,942.3 2,024.3 3 1,358.1 2 0.0 0.0 Thunder Blue Supression 67,909.8 1,175.7 2 256.7 0 0.0 0.0 Tum Tum Supression 99,253.6 337.7 0 148.6 0 0.0 0.0 Upper North ThompsonSupression 93,379.9 1,570.9 2 400.7 0 0.0 0.0 Vavenby Supression 33,046.1 4,395.4 13 4,065.6 12 0.0 1.3 Wells Gray Monitor 518,710.4 6,328.8 1 5,765.1 1 0.0 1.0 DTR N Total 1,455,816.3 55,546.5 4 40,829.1 3 0.0 10.8

TSA Total 2,769,477.1 365,777.5 13 327,194.0 12 47.9 111.6

Forest cover types (>121 yrs) with a Douglas-fir component are found throughout the southern two thirds of the TSA. Eighteen percent of the total TSA area (excluding Wells Gray BMU) is covered by susceptible age stands with a Douglas-fir component. Wells Gray BMU, which encompasses Wells Gray Provincial Park, also has a large area of susceptible forest cover type although data is not available.

25 Gross TSA area -- includes all land tenures and ownership types, attack area mapped is from the 2006 DHW and DKA detailed flights, 2012 DKA detailed flight and 2012 TSA overview flight Updated July 13, 2018 Page 29 of 35 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 5: Susceptible age stands (>121 years) with a Douglas-fir component by BMU26.

Gross Areas Occupied by Age (Ha) All stands withFdi occurrence All stands where Fdi >39% District BMU 121-140 141-250 >250 Total area 121-140 141-250 >250 Total area DTR S Barriere 17,680.7 13,378.3 58.1 31,117 16,257.7 11,300.0 26.7 27,584 Battle 11,003.2 22,949.8 866.9 34,820 9,438.1 22,164.4 866.9 32,469 East Adams 3,296.1 2,954.5 29.1 6,280 2,839.7 2,683.3 29.1 5,552 Gisborne New 188.5 283.6 5.2 477 102.2 232.9 5.2 340 Greenstone 7,766.3 8,522.8 151.1 16,440 7,341.2 7,920.4 147.3 15,409 Hat 6,212.6 13,441.1 478.3 20,132 5,566.0 11,840.5 452.7 17,859 Hwy 24 6,314.3 2,086.0 0.0 8,400 4,778.5 1,538.2 0.0 6,317 Louis 27,661.3 18,224.4 78.8 45,965 25,812.0 16,773.0 74.9 42,660 McConnell 12,767.4 4,844.8 14.1 17,626 12,596.1 4,767.3 14.1 17,378 McLean 5,903.4 17,764.7 572.8 24,241 5,566.9 16,207.6 560.7 22,335 Scuitto 14,762.1 8,325.2 46.6 23,134 14,323.3 7,948.6 42.4 22,314 Skull 7,369.1 6,681.2 29.7 14,080 6,620.2 6,048.7 29.7 12,699 Tranquille 12,799.3 26,089.1 520.4 39,409 12,228.9 25,712.5 511.0 38,452 Tunkwa 7,710.6 19,833.6 565.8 28,110 6,775.0 17,656.5 565.8 24,997 DTR S Total 141,434.9 165,379.1 3,416.9 310,231 130,245.8 152,793.9 3,326.5 286,366 DTR N Adams Lake 3,127.5 4,276.4 19.5 7,423 2,588.5 3,189.4 0.0 5,778 Albreda 330.8 392.3 116.4 840 153.1 182.9 93.1 429 Avola 1,172.5 979.9 301.3 2,454 875.6 288.1 46.6 1,210 Cayenne 1,881.8 2,589.8 71.9 4,544 1,554.6 2,165.2 55.9 3,776 Clearwater 4,974.8 6,109.5 641.1 11,725 3,989.5 4,492.9 415.5 8,898 Dunn 1,937.8 708.7 0.0 2,647 1,764.9 688.2 0.0 2,453 Mad 1,577.3 2,220.9 39.6 3,838 717.0 1,262.9 17.6 1,998 Mica 3,062.9 2,246.8 73.3 5,383 2,521.5 1,645.5 6.6 4,174 Mud 7.3 786.5 66.2 860 7.3 112.0 0.0 119 Raft 946.6 1,066.2 11.4 2,024 675.9 682.2 0.0 1,358 Thunder Blue 100.3 684.0 391.4 1,176 100.3 136.4 20.0 257 Tum Tum 92.2 212.9 32.5 338 67.7 80.8 0.0 149 Upper North Thompson 174.5 953.1 443.2 1,571 16.7 347.6 36.4 401 Vavenby 2,460.5 1,819.4 115.5 4,395 2,281.4 1,668.7 115.5 4,066 Wells Gray 2,113.6 3,230.2 985.0 6,329 1,549.9 3,230.2 985.0 5,765 DTR N Total 23,960.4 28,276.6 3,308.3 55,545 18,863.9 20,173.0 1,792.2 40,829

TSA Total 165,395.3 193,655.7 6,725.2 365,776 149,109.7 172,966.9 5,118.7 327,195

26 Gross TSA area, excludes Wells Gray BMU

Updated May 23, 2018 Page 30 of 36 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 6: BMU summary of Douglas-fir bark beetle occurrence (spots and patches) in the Kamloops TSA27.

District BMU 2016 Detailed Flight (IBD) 2016 Overview Flight (IBD) Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Total Area Spots Trees Area (ha) Patches Area (ha) Spots Trees Area (ha) Patches Area (ha) Ha DTR S Barriere 176 1605 44.50 36 237.66 282.16 Battle 30 365 7.75 13 63.65 71.40 East Adams 21 160 5.25 2 10.45 15.70 Gisborne New 3 30 0.75 0 0.00 0.75 Greenstone 13 70 3.25 0 0.00 3.25 Hat 47 425 11.75 12 68.12 79.87 Hwy 24 38 385 10.00 7 46.75 56.75 Louis 144 1205 36.50 30 214.45 250.95 McConnell 21 155 5.25 2 13.64 18.89 McLean 45 310 11.25 1 4.78 16.03 Scuitto 116 1300 31.25 69 687.17 718.42 Skull 45 345 11.50 14 60.56 72.06 Tranquille 172 1670 43.50 83 889.57 933.07 Tunkwa 93 680 23.50 8 23.58 47.08 DTR S Total 964 8,705 246.00 277 2,320.38 2,566.38 DTR N Adams Lake 33 320 9.00 14 145.2 154.2 Albreda 2 10 0.50 0 0 0.5 Avola 8 70 2.25 0 0 2.25 Cayenne 6 50 1.50 10 72.48 73.98 Clearwater 68 590 17.25 12 67.83 85.08 Dunn 14 135 3.50 1 10.11 13.61 Mad 21 195 5.25 4 22.75 28 Mica 21 145 5.25 8 62.42 67.67 Mud 1 10 0.25 0 0 0.25 Raft 7 70 1.75 1 6.76 8.51 Thunder Blue 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 Tum Tum 7 50 1.75 0 0 1.75 Upper North Thompson 8 40 2.00 0 0 2 Vavenby 12 135 3.00 1 21.81 24.81 Wells Gray 123 975 31.00 39 348.37 379.37 DTR N Total 331 2,795 84.25 90 757.73 841.98

TSA Total 1,295 11,500 330.25 367 3,078.11 3,408.36

27 Gross TSA area

Updated May 23, 2018 Page 31 of 36 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc APPENDIX 3: 2017 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Spruce Beetle

Updated May 23, 2018 Page 32 of 36 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 7: Kamloops TSA spruce bark beetle BMU strategies and statistics28

District BMU BMU Gross Area Susceptible Area (Sx>120years) IBS area mapped zonation All stands with Sx Stands where Detailed Overview occurance Sx>39% flight flight Ha Ha %BMU Ha %BMU Ha Ha DTR S Barriere Supression 170,969.4 44,664.3 26 25,764.5 15 - - Battle Holding Action 84,811.1 5,934.8 7 2,050.4 2 - - East Adams Supression 34,778.8 8,688.8 25 4,850.2 14 - - Gisborne New Supression 52,511.2 19,554.6 37 16,310.1 31 - - Greenstone Supression 65,855.8 7,527.6 11 5,011.6 8 - - Hat Holding Action 55,533.7 13,630.9 25 8,056.0 15 - - Hwy 24 Supression 47,736.3 16,741.3 35 12,570.0 26 - - Louis Supression 195,227.1 22,763.8 12 11,701.5 6 - - McConnell Supression 69,663.3 3,530.6 5 2,175.5 3 - - McLean Holding Action 63,078.9 7,846.9 12 4,640.1 7 - - Scuitto Holding Action 95,355.1 3,914.3 4 1,810.1 2 - - Skull Supression 128,718.5 29,424.0 23 22,787.5 18 - - Tranquille Supression 123,927.4 6,987.4 6 2,849.4 2 - - Tunkwa Supression 125,494.2 9,312.1 7 5,310.9 4 - - DTR S Total 1,313,660.8 200,521.4 17 125,887.8 11 - - DTR N Adams Lake Supression 43,810.6 9,980.5 23 5,615.9 13 - - Albreda Supression 61,971.1 19,433.7 31 9,888.0 16 - - Avola Supression 63,488.4 23,928.0 38 15,791.6 25 - - Cayenne Supression 46,239.5 13,677.0 30 6,208.9 13 - - Clearwater Supression 143,396.0 37,550.0 26 24,323.2 17 - - Dunn Monitor 19,848.0 5,289.1 27 3,469.0 17 - - Mad Supression 63,978.3 19,167.3 30 10,459.7 16 - - Mica Monitor 54,225.8 12,558.6 23 6,670.3 12 - - Mud Supression 69,616.5 17,685.7 25 8,583.0 12 - - Raft Supression 76,942.3 29,444.5 38 21,989.2 29 - - Thunder Blue Supression 67,909.8 26,049.8 38 13,770.6 20 - - Tum Tum Supression 99,253.6 28,474.0 29 15,650.6 16 - - Upper North Thompson Supression 93,379.9 41,323.8 44 18,774.5 20 - - Vavenby Supression 33,046.1 5,391.9 16 3,132.7 9 - - Wells Gray Monitor 518,710.4 94,104.9 18 93,432.9 18 - - DTR N Total 1,455,816.3 384,058.8 29 257,760.1 17 - -

TSA Total 2,769,477.1 584,580.2 23 383,647.9 14 - -

Forest cover types (>121 yrs) with a spruce component are located throughout the TSA. Spruce is the most significant species by volume in the Clearwater portion of the TSA. Twenty-four percent of the total TSA area (excluding Wells Gray BMU) is covered by age- susceptible stands that have a spruce component.

28 Gross TSA area -- includes all land tenures and ownership types, attack area mapped is from the 2006 DHW and 2011 DKA detailed flights, and 2011 TSA overview flight

Updated May 23, 2018 Page 33 of 36 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 8: Susceptible Age stands with a spruce component by BMU29

Gross Areas Occupied by Age (Ha) All stands with Sx occurrence All stands where Sx >39% District BMU 121-141 141-250 >250 Total area 121-140 141-250 >250 Total area DTR S Barriere 12,684.0 30,384.6 1,595.7 44,664 5,441.7 19,357.9 964.9 25,765 Battle 3,183.5 2,745.0 6.2 5,935 1,121.7 922.4 6.2 2,050 East Adams 2,482.3 5,980.5 226.0 8,689 833.2 3,860.8 156.2 4,850 Gisborne New 9,452.9 10,043.5 58.2 19,555 7,364.5 8,887.4 58.2 16,310 Greenstone 3,002.5 4,418.3 106.8 7,528 1,828.6 3,104.0 79.0 5,012 Hat 5,827.1 7,690.4 113.4 13,631 2,840.6 5,102.0 113.4 8,056 Hwy 24 11,158.7 5,493.9 88.7 16,741 7,916.4 4,566.9 86.7 12,570 Louis 12,926.8 9,811.4 25.5 22,764 5,627.3 6,074.1 - 11,701 McConnell 1,453.0 2,077.5 - 3,531 854.0 1,321.5 - 2,176 McLean 3,358.8 4,481.2 6.9 7,847 1,752.6 2,880.6 6.9 4,640 Scuitto 2,496.4 1,413.6 4.2 3,914 943.5 862.3 4.2 1,810 Skull 11,364.8 17,282.0 777.1 29,424 8,295.6 13,789.9 701.9 22,787 Tranquille 3,764.1 3,223.2 - 6,987 1,474.3 1,375.2 - 2,850 Tunkwa 3,968.1 5,344.0 - 9,312 1,702.6 3,608.3 - 5,311 DTR S Total 87,123.0 110,389.1 3,008.7 200,521 47,996.6 75,713.3 2,177.6 125,888 DTR N Adams Lake 2,314.4 7,314.3 351.8 9,981 828.7 4,518.3 268.9 5,616 Albreda 1,609.8 9,227.5 8,596.4 19,434 371.9 3,802.4 5,713.7 9,888 Avola 2,776.1 16,869.7 4,282.1 23,928 1,605.1 11,111.7 3,074.9 15,792 Cayenne 842.4 9,192.6 3,641.9 13,677 332.1 3,213.5 2,663.2 6,209 Clearwater 8,237.9 23,151.4 6,160.7 37,550 4,301.2 14,449.8 5,571.1 24,322 Dunn 1,310.1 3,868.5 110.5 5,289 573.3 2,806.2 89.4 3,469 Mad 3,375.9 14,017.6 1,773.8 19,167 1,449.4 7,403.4 1,606.8 10,460 Mica 2,620.0 9,022.5 916.2 12,559 1,177.3 4,830.1 662.8 6,670 Mud 590.2 12,765.1 4,330.4 17,686 89.9 5,635.6 2,857.5 8,583 Raft 4,351.7 20,874.5 4,218.3 29,445 2,597.3 15,454.1 3,937.7 21,989 Thunder Blue 1,604.1 16,938.3 7,507.4 26,050 454.9 8,430.6 4,885.2 13,771 Tum Tum 3,235.0 21,820.2 3,418.9 28,474 1,280.7 12,090.8 2,279.2 15,651 Upper North Thompson 4,214.5 22,702.3 14,407.0 41,324 1,897.7 8,509.7 8,367.1 18,775 Vavenby 1,456.2 3,166.1 769.5 5,392 625.4 1,946.5 560.8 3,133 Wells Gray 1,169.8 63,526.8 29,408.3 94,105 1,076.0 62,994.0 29,362.9 93,433 DTR N Total 39,708.1 254,457.4 89,893.2 384,059 18,660.9 167,196.7 71,901.2 257,759

TSA Total 126,831.1 364,846.5 92,901.9 584,580 66,657.5 242,910.0 74,078.8 383,646

29 Gross TSA area, excludes Wells Gray BMU

Updated May 23, 2018 Page 34 of 36 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc Table 9: BMU Summary of spruce beetle occurance (spots and patches) in the TSA30

District BMU 2017 Detailed Flight (IBS) 2017 Overview Flight (IBS) Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Total Area Area Spots Trees Patches (ha) Spots Trees Area (ha) Patches Area (ha) Ha DTR S Barriere 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Battle 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 East Adams 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Gisborne New 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Greenstone 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Hat 2 20 0.50 3 192.87 193.37 Hwy 24 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Louis 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 McConnell 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 McLean 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Scuitto 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Skull 0 0 0.00 3 28.94 28.94 Tranquille 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Tunkwa 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 DTR S Total 2 20 0.50 6 221.81 222.31 DTR N Adams Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Albreda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avola 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cayenne 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clearwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dunn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mad 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mica 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mud 0 0 0 0 0 0 Raft 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thunder Blue 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Tum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper North Thompson 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vavenby 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wells Gray 27 310 6.75 145 9549.63 9556.38 DTR N Total 27 310 6.75 145 9,549.63 9,556.38

Updated May 23, 2018 Page 35 of 36 \\granite\work\srm\kam\Workarea\ksc_proj\p12\p12_0013_FLNRO_Rsrc_mgmt_grp_misc\DKA_forest_health\fin\2012 Forest Health Strategy draft March 09 2012.doc