Kamloops TSA - Forest Health Strategy

Executive Summary The Kamloops TSA Forest Health Strategy has been updated for 2018/19 with the most current information available. There have been several 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; Douglas-fir beetle planning and management, stocking standards related to forest health factors and climate change adaptation strategies.

The changes of note this year are:

• New Root Disease Management Guidance Document

• Effects of the 2017 Drought on Young Pine Stands in the Southern Interior – can be found in the 2018 Overview of Forest Health Conditions in Southern British Columbia (footnote 1).

• Updated information on Douglas fir beetle management is located here - https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/forest-pests/bark-beetles/douglas-fir-beetle. A detailed flight in the southern portion of the district was completed in 2018 – see data on page 33.

Update on Bark Beetles in Kamloops TSA:

• Western balsam bark beetle - affected area has increased resulting in 68,962 hectares infested up from 59,730 hectares infested in 2017. The areas with the most intense attacks are in the northern portion of the TSA, Raft Mountain, Trophy Mountain, Battle Mountain and Dunn Peak.

• Spruce beetle – affected area decreased to 6,918 hectares identified during the 2018 aerial overview survey, down from 9,770 hectares in 2017. The large infestation west of Kostal Lake has collapsed due to depletion of available host material. Despite this decline, infestation continued to be widespread and very active in the central area of Wells Gray Park, between Murtle Lake, Hobson Lake, and Azure Lake. Populations have been expanding eastwards and northwards towards Murtle Lake, McDougall Lake, and Angus Horn Creek. A few smaller infestations persist around Cairn Peak, Chipuin Mountain, Wentworth Lake, and Sun Peaks.

• Douglas fir beetle – Red attack is still widespread across most areas of the TSA. Areas, both spot and patch infestations have however decreased to 2,227 hectares (268 patch attacks and 1,001 spot attacks) from 3,100 hectares in 2017 (362 patches and 1,290 smaller spot infestations) indicating a decrease in attack rates. The most active populations were in the Deadman River, Roche Lake, Campbell Lake, Red Lake, Sabiston Creek, Barriere River, Vavenby, and the lower Wells Gray Park areas. Large areas along the margins of the 2017 Elephant Hill fire experienced variable burn severity and low-intensity ground fires, which may lead to the buildup of beetle populations over the next few years. • Mountain Pine beetle - activity was limited to a single spot of 10 trees near Two Springs Creek.

Update on Defoliators: • Two-year Cycle budworm - remains high, with 31,475 hectares recorded. A very slight decrease from 32,400 hectares in 2017. 2018 was an “on” year with high feeding activity. Over 80% of stands affected suffered moderate or greater levels of damage. The majority of affected stands were in the Mad River, Raft River, Trophy Mountain, Raft Peak, Foghorn Mountain, Avola and TFL 18 areas.

• Western Spruce Budworm – for the first time since 2015 defoliation was recorded. 2,318 hectares of damage were mapped in the Tranquille River, Criss Creek, Deadman River, and Robbins Range areas. Most of the damage was found to be light except heavier damage to understory trees was visible during ground checks of the stands along the Tranquille River.

• Douglas Fir Tussock Moth - The infestation that was observed at Heffley Creek in 2017 has now expanded to 65 hectares of moderate and severe defoliation occurring in small patches. The affected area is close to Highway 5, Tod Mountain Road and the Heffley Creek refuse transfer station. Ground checks continue to note many new egg masses which are expected to result in an expanded population in 2019.

• Aspen Serpentine leafminer - defoliation increased to 20,662 hectares most being light to moderate damage.

• Birch leafminer damage on 2,468 hectares in the upper North Thompson around Albreda, Vavenby and Birch Island, near north Barriere Lake, and Fadear Creek. Many of the stands re- foliated, which likely reduced the level of damage visible by the time the surveys were conducted.

• Satin moth damage was limited to a single 31-hectare patch near Criss Creek.

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 at 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 2018 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. Table of Contents

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 ...... 9 5.0 Non-Recovered Losses (NRLs) (There have been no changes to this section in 2013) ...... 10 6.0 Bark Beetles – Blowdown - Drought ...... 11 6.1 BARK BEETLE MANAGEMENT UNITS (IBU) ...... 13

6.2 DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE (IBD) AND SPRUCE BEETLE (IBS) ...... 13

6.3 MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE (IBM) ...... 14

6.4 WESTERN BALSAM BARK BEETLE (IBB) ...... 14

6.5 BLOWDOWN ...... 15

6.6 DROUGHT ...... 15 7.0 Defoliators...... 15 7.1 WESTERN SPRUCE BUDWORM (IDW) ...... 16

7.2 DOUGLAS-FIR TUSSOCK MOTH (IDT) ...... 16

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) ...... 18

9.2 PHELLINUS (LAMINATED) ROOT DISEASE (DRL) ...... 18 10.0 Pests of Young Stands ...... 18 11.0 Further Links and References ...... 21 11.1 GENERAL FOREST HEALTH INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 21

11.2 BARK BEETLE INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 22

11.3 INTERNET INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 23

11.4 RESEARCH INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 24 APPENDIX 1: 2011 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Mountain Pine Beetle ...... 25 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 APPENDIX 4: 2018 Summary Table for Western Balsam Bark Beetle…………………………………………………….37

1.0 Introduction This Forest Health 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 Program.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 and/or frequently occur within the TSA.

Understanding the implications of climate change for forest health is a focus of the 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: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health

2 http://www.abcfp.ca/

3 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 6 of 37

\\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.) • Provincial Forest Health Implementation Strategy • Regional Forest Health Strategy 7 • Chief Forester Guidance

4. It is recommended that Forest Professionals use the new root disease guidance document when dealing with root disease within the Kamloops TSA. 5. Enable operational planners to focus on economically viable priorities to get maximum value from the affected trees.

4 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/laws-policies-standards- guidance/legislation-regulation/forest-range-practices-act/resource-values

5 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm

6 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/index.htm

7 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 7 of 37

\\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 be found on the regional and provincial forest health web sites.8

4. Detailed aerial and ground surveys are conducted on a priority based system subject to funding, and are the responsibility of MFLNRORD and licensees as decided through a collaborative effort. Most recent aerial survey results are available at the following site.9

5. Single tree removal/disposal, trap tree placement/removal and larger scale bark beetle treatments are the responsibility of MFLNRORD and licensees as decided through a collaborative effort. Guidance on small scale salvage can be obtained by contacting the district.

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.) Funding sources are Land Based Investment (LBI), Forest Enhancement Society (FES) and Forest Carbon Initiative (FCI).

7. Assessment of hazard and risk information is done on a five year rotation by MFLNRORD subject to funding, and will be provided to licensees and other agencies as requested.

8. Regional specialists will attend the TSA meetings twice a year early spring and late fall.

8 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health

9 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health/aerial- overview-surveys/summary-reports

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 8 of 37

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 Targeted pest specific detailed May - September X X surveys TSR focused surveys/research May - September X X Drought As information becomes X X X available Aerial Spray Program May-June X

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. Western 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. Attack levels increased from 59,730 hectares in 2017, to 68,962 hectares in 2018 as stated in the 2018 Overview of Forest Health Conditions in Southern BC Report, page, 25.

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 9 of 37

Table 2: Priority and ranking of Forest Health Factors in the Kamloops TSA (numbers in brackets denotes ranking)

High Moderate Low Potential High

Douglas-fir beetle (1) Western hemlock looper Windthrow Western balsam bark beetle Warren’s root collar Moose (1) weevil Western pine beetle Spruce beetle (1) White pine blister rust Stalactiform blister rust Western spruce budworm Lodgepole pine dwarf Comandra blister rust Two-year cycle spruce mistletoe Blackstain root disease budworm (2) Deer Porcupine Armillaria root disease (1) Mountain pine beetle Dothiostromia Laminated root disease (1) Tomentosus (SBS) Lophodermella Spruce weevil (3) Drought ** Forest tent caterpillar Western gall rust (north Hare (south) portion TSA)) Douglas-fir tussock moth Cattle (south portion TSA) Deer * (north portion of TSA) Deciduous pests are noted in Section 8.0 Deciduous Pests and the Overview of Forest Health Conditions in the Southern British Columbia.10

* 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. **Drought has exacerbated pre-exisitng damaging agents within stands and will aggravate future damage from secondary bark beetles. Lorraine MacLauchlan Regional Entomologist 2019

5.0 Non-Recovered Losses (NRLs) (Timber Supply Review was 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.

10 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/aerial-overview-surveys

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 10 of 37

\\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 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 health 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 2018 Cause of Loss Annual Non-Recovered Losses (m3/year)

Douglas-Fir beetle 31,864 Spruce beetle 2,228 Balsam Bark Beetle/ 9,445 2 year cycle budworm no current information Wildfire 20,020 Tussock Moth 0/Low Spruce Budworm no current information Mountain Pine Beetle 0 Drought 11,195 74,752 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 2018.

2. Source Data: a) Crica 2001 forest inventory derived from the circa 2001 Vegetation Inventory (VRI) and the circa 2001 State of the Forest. b) 1999 through 2018 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 2019

6.0 Bark Beetles – Blowdown - Drought Beetle infestations are detected and recorded by TOR aerial overview surveys and Thompson Rivers District detailed surveys (subject to funding). Detailed Douglas-fir beetle flights were conducted in the southern portion of the TSA in 2018 – see table 6 page 32. Due to the diversity of forest types, all four

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 11 of 37

\\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 major tree-killing bark beetle species pose a threat to the forests in the TSA. Beetle species of note include Douglas-fir beetle (IBD) Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, spruce beetle (IBS) Dendroctonus rufipennis, western balsam bark beetle (IBB) Dryocoetes confususa and to a lesser degree mountain pine beetle (IBM) Dendroctonus ponderosae (following the outbreak). 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.11

The objective of beetle management is an effective, coordinated, operational approach that minimizes damage and maximizes economic recovery. Currently, Douglas-fir beetle salvage is still the highest priority in the TSA due to the potential for rapid spread and high attack ratios. Large areas along the margins of the 2017 Elephant Hill fir experienced variable burn severity and low-intensity ground fires, which may lead to the buildup of beetle populations over the next few years. The fires of 2017 have the potential to increase Douglas-fir beetle infestations in fire scarred live and healthy green trees. Small scale salvage is being used as a tool in the Kamloops TSA for management of Douglas-fir beetle, including salvage of windthrown areas. Some licensees have taken on the management of Douglas-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 localized 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 has been increasing in certain locations over the past few years. Many of these areas experienced concurrent two-year cycle budworm defoliation, which may have masked some of the more scattered attacks.

A comprehensive list of possible tactics and treatments for bark beetles can be found in The Bark Beetle Management Guidebook12 and best practices on the provincial and regional websites.

6.1 Bark Beetle Management Units

Beetle Management Units (BMUs) identify priority geographic landscape level areas in a TSA that guide

11 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/aerial-overview-surveys

12 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/forest- health/bark-beetles/bark_beetle_management_guidebook.pdf

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 12 of 37

\\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 management and funding of specific bark beetles. 13 BMU designations are reviewed annually and updated as necessary.

The provincial EBBMA zonations have 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 Reduce the susceptibility/attractiveness of a stand Prevention with a moderate to high hazard rating. to 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 unavailable now, but are expected in the future. level over the short term. Holding Action 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 recover losses and rehabilitate. Other management Salvage is unavailable. objectives take precedent.

Treat <50% of polygons within 1 year.

Inaccessible areas or where management activities Satisfy other resource objectives or access concerns, Monitor are restricted. some timber loss accepted.

6.2 Spruce Beetle (IBS) and Douglas-fir Beetle (IBD) Spruce beetle infestations remain high in 2018 mostly in the northern portion of the TSA. Douglas-fir beetle infestations remain widespread across the southern portions, with an emergent population

13 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/forest-pests/bark-beetles

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 13 of 37

\\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 increasing in the north, both as spot and patch attacks. Aggressive suppression of active IBD infestations, with an expedited program of trap trees has been effective in reducing many of these populations.

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 “Efficacy of Three Treatments in Post- Wildfire Management of Douglas-fir Beetle” starts on page 58 of the 2018 Overview of Forest Health Conditions in Southern British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research- monitoring-and-reporting/monitoring/aerial-overview-survey-documents/2018_south_overview_report_web.pdf

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: • MFLNRORD beetle web site14

• Small Scale Salvage Guidance documents for Thompson Rivers District can be obtained from the District office. 6.3 Mountain Pine Beetle (IBM) The mountain pine beetle activity is nearly non-existent in the TSA, with only a single spot of 10 trees near Two Springs Creek. 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.

In Appendix 1, mountain pine beetle BMUs are mapped and summarized by priority to assist planning and salvage activities.

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

14 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/forest-pests/bark-beetles

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 14 of 37

\\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 Interior Regional Entomologist has recently writen the following research article “Quantification of Dryocoetes confusus-casued mortality in subalpine fir forests of Southern British Columbia”. Appendix 4 has a summary of the overview flight of 2018.

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.

6.6 Drought

Drought damage was widespread in several areas, with 3,270 hectares recorded. Much of this damage was of low intensity and/or in stands of a very young age, so the actual affected areas are likely higher than reported in this document. Lodgepole pine was most susceptible, with 1,489 hectares of tree mortality in plantations and mature stands, respectively. Damage was also seen in mature Douglas-fir, with 613 hectares of tree mortality and 161 hectares of foliar damage/dieback. Lorraine Maclauchlan PH.D., R.P.F. the Thompson Okanagan Regional Entomologist with MFLNRORD has written a paper on drought “Effects of the 2017 Drought on Young Pine Stands in the Southern Interior” starting on page 46 of the 2018 Overview of Forest Health Conditions in Southern British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and-reporting/monitoring/aerial-overview- survey-documents/2018_south_overview_report_web.pdf

7.0 Defoliators

Detection, prediction and treatment of defoliators remain the responsibility of the Thompson Okanagan region. MFLNRORD 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 website15, in the Regional Forest Health Strategy and at the MFLNRORD Forest Health website16.

15 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/foresthealth/index.htm

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 15 of 37

\\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 7.1 Western Spruce Budworm (IDW) Defoliation was recorded over 2,318 hectares for the first time since 2015. Affected areas mapped were Tranquille River, Criss Creek, Deadman River and the Roddins Range area. Most of the damage was classified as light. Ground surveys reveled heavier damage to the understory trees in the Tranquill River area.

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. The infestation at Heffley Creek expanded to 65 hectares of moderate and severe defoliation in seveal small patches close to Highway 5, Tod Mountain Road, an dthe Heffley Creek refuse transfer station. Ground checks revealed many new egg masses, so this infestation is expected to expand in 2019.

7.3 Two-Year Cycle Spruce Budworm (IDB) Defoliation levels remained high with 31,475 hectares recorded. 2018 was an “on” feeding year, over 80% of affected stands suffered moderate or greater levels of damage. Most of the affected stands were in the Mad River, Raft River, Trophy Mountain, Raft Peak, Foghorn Mountain, Avola and T.F.L. 18 areas.

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 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 2 to 4 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

17 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 16 of 37

\\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 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.

The 2018 forest health overview notes birch leafminer damage was recoreded on 2,468 hectares in the upper North Thompson around Albreda, Vavenby and Birch Island, near North Barriere Lake, and Fader Creek.

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 serpentine leaf miner continues to be widespread across wetbelt and transistional wetbelt areas in southern B.C.

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.

Operational management procedures and the known extent of root diseases can be found in the new guidebook “Managing Root Disease in British Columbia” 2018 publication.17

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).

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.

17 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/forest-health/forest- health-docs/root-disease-docs/rootdiseaseguidebookjune2018_4.pdf

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 17 of 37

\\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 9.1 Armillaria Root Disease (DRA) Armillaria is a significant forest health concern throughout the southern interior region. 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.

9.2 Phellinus (Laminated) Root Disease (DRL) As stated above for Armillaria, the 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.

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.

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 website18.

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.

18 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/integrated- resource-monitoring/forest-range-evaluation-program

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 18 of 37

\\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 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.

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.

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.19

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 other damaging agents.

Animal Damage - Livestock Within the Kamloops TSA, the impact of cattle damage on young plantations is ranked as high priority for the 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.

19 https://jem-online.org/index.php/jem/issue/view/32

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 19 of 37

\\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 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.

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 20 of 37

\\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.

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 21 of 37

\\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 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.

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.

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 22 of 37

\\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 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

https://icw.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/LBIS_web/FHealth/Q014630ForestHealthStrategyFINAL.pdf

Forest Health Program

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health

Forest Health Implementation Strategy

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health/forest-pests

Southern Interior Forest Region Forest Health Home Page https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/index.htm

Annual Reports - Overview of Forest Health in the Southern Interior Forest Region http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/overview.html

British Columbia’s Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011”

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/forest-health/mountain- pine-beetle/mountain_pine_beetle_action_plan_2006.pdf

MFR aerial overview survey results are at regional and provincial web sites.

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/Aerial_Surveys.htm

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health/aerial- overview-surveys

DKA Forest Health FTP site for fir beetle. https://icw.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/DKA/external/outgoing/DTR_FIr_Beetle_Maps/

MFR Bark Beetle Hazard and risk information

New – Managing Root Disease in British Columbia

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/forest-health/forest-health- docs/root-disease-docs/rootdiseaseguidebookjune2018_4.pdf

Strategies and tactics to manage dwarf mistletoe

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 23 of 37

\\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 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health/forest- pests/dwarf-mistletoes

Strategies and tactics to manage spruce weevil https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health/forest- pests/weevils/11611-39160

Strategies and tactics for pine rusts, and for managing white pine as a commercial species. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health/invasive- forest-pests

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

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest-health

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/forest- health/forest-pests/bark-beetles

2. Canadian Forest Service Research and Development:

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/forests-forestry/13497

Lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and Spruce bark beetle hazard mapping

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/ForestHealth/hazard_rating.htm

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 24 of 37

\\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: 2018 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Mountain Pine Beetle

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 25 of 37

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

20 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 Nov 28, 2019 Page 26 of 37

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 Nov 28, 2019 Page 27 of 37

2018 Detailed Flight (IBM) 2018 Overview Flight (IBM) Spot Area Total Spot Area Total Patch Area Patch Area District BMU Attacked Area Attacked Area Area Area Area Area Spots Trees Patches Ha Spots Trees Patches Ha (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) DTR 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Barriere Battle 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Adams 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gisborne New 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greenstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hat 1 10 0.3 0 0 0.3 Hwy 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louis 0 0 0 0 0 0 McConnell 0 0 0 0 0 0 McLean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scuitto 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skull 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tranquille 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tunkwa 0 0 0 0 0 0 DTR 1 10 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 S Total DTR 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Adams Lake Albreda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avola 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 DTR 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Total TSA Total 1 10 0.3 0 0.0 0.3

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 28 of 37

\\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: 2018 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Douglas-fir Beetle

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 29 of 37

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.

21 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 Nov 28, 2019 Page 30 of 37

\\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 BMU22.

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

22 Gross TSA area, excludes Wells Gray BMU

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 31 of 37

2018 Detailed Flight (IBD) 2018 Overview Flight (IBD) Total Total Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Spot Area Attacked Patch Area District BMU Area Area Area Area Area Area Spots Trees Patches Ha Spots Trees Patches Ha (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) DTR S Barriere 1049 4903 263 2 885 1148 135 955 34 35 200.8 234.8 Battle 174 795 44 0 0 44 30 270 7.5 11 105.9 113.4 East Adams 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 80 2.8 0 0 2.8 Gisborne New 4 15 1 0 0 1 3 20 0.8 0 0 0.8 Greenstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 95 4 0 0 4 Hat 272 1170 68 1 30 98 17 100 4.3 6 51.3 55.5 Hwy 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 95 3.8 3 8.7 12.4 Louis 1089 3945 272 1 298 570 103 850 25.8 16 86.5 112.3 McConnell 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 100 4 8 114.1 118.1 McLean 00 0 0 0 0 0 41 240 10.3 0 0 10.3 Scuitto 646 2910 163 6 3868 4031 100 805 25.3 64 547.1 572.3 Skull 1 1 0.3 0 0 0.3 46 285 11.5 5 48.1 59.6 Tranquille 777 3331 196 7 2207 2320 133 1125 33.3 58 426.3 459.6 Tunkwa 489 1585 125 0 0 125 89 585 22.3 9 68.9 91.1 DTR S Total 4501 18655 1132.3 17 7288 8337.3 755 5605 189.3 215 1657.6 1846.8 DTR N Adams Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 300 7.8 7 32.6 40.3 Albreda 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0.3 0 0 0.3 Avola 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 65 2.0 1 7.2 9.2 Cayenne 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 55 2.5 4 27.6 30.1 Clearwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 230 6.8 4 21.0 27.8 Dunn 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 60 2.5 2 7.8 10.3 Mad 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 205 5.3 3 16.7 21.9 Mica 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 160 5.0 1 5.4 10.4 Mud 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0.3 0 0 0.3 Raft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thunder Blue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tum Tum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0.3 0 0 0.3 Upper North

Thompson 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 30 0.8 0 0 0.8 Vavenby 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 420 10.8 6 19.5 30.3 Wells Gray 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 650 18.0 25 180.5 198.5 DTR N Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 246 2190 62.0 53 318.3 380.3 TSA Total 4501 18655 1132.3 17 7288 8420.3 1001 7795 251.3 268 1975.8 2227.1

23 Gross TSA area

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 32 of 37

\\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: 2018 BMU Map and Summary Tables for Spruce Beetle

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 33 of 37

\\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 statistics24

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.

24 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 Nov 28, 2019 Page 34 of 37

\\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 BMU25 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

25 Gross TSA area, excludes Wells Gray BMU

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 35 of 37

2018 Detailed Flight (IBS) 2018 Overview Flight (IBS) Spot Area Total Spot Area Total Patch Area Patch Area District BMU Attacked Area Attacked Area Area Area Area Area Spots Trees Patches Ha Spots Trees Patches Ha (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) DTR S Barriere 0 0 0 0 0 0 Battle 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Adams 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gisborne New 0 0 0 1 52.30 52.3 Greenstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hat 1 10 0.3 5 75.2 75.5 Hwy 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louis 0 0 0 1 222.8 222.8 McConnell 0 0 0 0 0 0 McLean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scuitto 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skull 0 0 0 6 135.9 135.9 Tranquille 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tunkwa 0 0 0 0 0 0 DTR S Total 1 10 0.3 13 486.2 486.5 DTR N Adams Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Albreda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avola 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 1 10 0.3 1 10.4 10.7 Vavenby 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wells Gray 6 100 1.5 96 6420.1 6421.6 DTR N Total 7 110 1.8 97 6430.5 6432.3 TSA Total 8 120 2.1 110 6916.7 6

27 Gross TSA area, excludes Wells Gray BMU

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 36 of 37

\\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 4: 2018 Summary Table for Western Balsam Bark Beetle

Table 10: BMU Summary of Western Balsam Bark Beetle occurrence (spots and patches) in the Kamloops TSA

2018 Detailed Flight (IBB) 2018 Overview Flight (IBB) Spot Area Patch Total Total District BMU Spot Area Attacked Patch Area Attacked Area Area area Area Area Area Area Spots Trees Patches Ha Spots Trees Patches Ha (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) DTR S Barriere 0 0 0 69 6478.1 6478.1 Battle 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Adams 0 0 0 16 1780.7 1780.7 Gisborne 0 0 0 11 431.6 431.6 New Greenstone 0 0 0 9 1531.5 1531.5 Hat 0 0 0 1 25.3 25.3 Hwy 24 0 0 0 2 62.6 62.6 Louis 0 0 0 48 2769.1 2769.1 McConnell 0 0 0 7 302.9 302.9 McLean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scuitto 0 0 0 1 6.9 6.9 Skull 1 10 0.3 44 968 968.2 Tranquille 0 0 0 5 284.1 284.1 Tunkwa 0 0 0 0 0 0 DTR S Total 1 10 0.3 213 14640.7 14640.9 DTR N Adams Lake 0 0 0 25 1687.8 1687.8 Albreda 0 0 0 37 1655.3 1655.3 Avola 0 0 0 50 3310.1 3310.1 Cayenne 0 0 0 23 1853.1 1853.1 Clearwater 0 0 0 76 8050.9 8050.9 Dunn 0 0 0 25 2262.6 2262.6 Mad 0 0 0 42 4453.4 4453.4 Mica 0 0 0 32 2698.8 2698.8 Mud 0 0 0 30 1191.5 1191.5 Raft 0 0 0 79 6661.2 6661.2 Thunder Blue 0 0 0 33 2288.9 2288.9 Tum Tum 0 0 0 25 1287.4 1287.4 Upper North Thompson 0 0 0 39 1805.6 1805.6 Vavenby 0 0 0 14 625 625 Wells Gray 0 0 0 135 14489.8 14489.8 DTR N Total 0 0 0 665 54321.4 54321.4 TSA Total 1 10 0.3 878 68962.1 68962.4

Updated Nov 28, 2019 Page 37 of 37

\\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