Christoph Steeger, R.P.Bio. and Rachel Holt, Ph.D

ENHANCING BIODIVERSITY THROUGH

PARTIAL CUTTING

APPENDICES

Prepared by

Christoph Steeger, R.P.Bio. and Rachel Holt, Ph.D. PANDION ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH LTD. 705 Stanley Street, Nelson, BC V1L 1N6

Jim Smith, R.P.F. PATHFINDER FORESTRY Box 399, Creston, BC V0B 1G0

In conjunction with

MINISTRY OF FORESTS – FOREST PRACTICES BRANCH March 1999

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project (Invermere Forest District)……………...…….…4

Appendix 2: West Arm Demonstration Forest (Kootenay Lake Forest District)……...………..……………8

Appendix 3: Caribou Special Management Zone - Stagleap Landscape Unit (Arrow Forest District)…….14

Appendix 4: Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Operation Area (Arrow and Kootenay Lake Forest Districts)…...... 20

Appendix 5: NDT4 High Biodiversity Empahsis Area (Boundary Forest District)……………………...…24

List of Figures

Figure 1: Locations of partial cutting analysis units in the Nelson Forest Region.……………..………...…3

Introduction

The following five appendices contain the compiled information on partial cutting opportunities in five focal analysis units. The information was primarily provided by district or company personnel and subsequently organized into a standard format. General background information on issues regarding areas set aside for biodiversity and partial cutting are given in the main report.

A primary assumption underlying the analysis is that partial cutting is necessary to meet biodiversity objectives in some forested areas. Two additional assumptions made are (i) partial cutting (as an alternative to clearcutting) will benefit biodiversity and (ii) given the fixed AAC impact budget for biodiversity management, partial cutting in many areas (as an alternative to no cutting in a few areas and clearcutting in most other areas) will benefit biodiversity objectives.

Each of the five appendices provide a description of the analysis unit (Tables 1.1-5.1), a description of the areas constrained due to biodiversity objectives (Tables 1.2-5.2), the rationale for partial cutting suitability of these areas (Tables 1.3-5.3), case study descriptions and silviculture prescription recommendations, including economic feasibility calculations where possible (Tables 1.4-5.4). Descriptions and recommendations for partial cutting case studies are in part based on field reconnaissance and information gaps are identified, where they exist.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 2 1

Figure 1. Locations of partial cutting analysis units in the Nelson Forest Region.1 = Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project (Invermere Forest District); 2 = West Arm Demonstration Forest (Kootenay Lake Forest District); 3 = Caribou Special Management Zone - Stagleap Landscape Unit (Arrow Forest District); 4 = Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Operation Area (Arrow and Kootenay Lake Forest Districts); 5 = NDT4 High Biodiversity Empahsis Area (Boundary Forest District).

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 3 Appendix 1

Opportunities for partial cutting in areas set aside for biodiversity in the Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project Area (Invermere Forest District)

This appendix provides the detailed results of our evaluation of partial cutting opportunities in constrained forests in the Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project (EFMPP) area. The EFMPP is a co-operative effort between industry, the Ministries of Forests and Environment, Forest Renewal BC, labour and the academic community. Its’ goal is to develop enhanced forest management strategies with innovative harvesting systems through focused forest inventory and research activities. Pilot project initiatives pertinent for this project include research on (I) the impacts of partial cutting on the structure and function of old–growth stands (Steeger and Quesnel 1998, Quesnel et al. 1999), (ii) the effects of wildfire on stand structural attributes (Stuart–Smith and Hendry 1998) and on the composition of bird communities (Stuart– Smith 1998), (iii) dry ecosystem restoration (White 1997) and (iv) Northern Goshawk surveys and habitat analysis (Machmer et al. 1999).

Table 1.1 Description of the Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Area Location Invermere Forest District; White and Lussier River drainage

Area (gross) 258,204 ha

Operable productive forest 103,447 ha

Timber harvesting land base (THLB) 80,552 ha

Biogeoclimatic zones (% of THLB) MS (44%), ESSF (31%), IDF (15%), ICH (5%), PP (4%)

Natural disturbance types NDT3 and NDT4

Landscape units (LU) and their biodiversity LU I4 Premier/Diorite (PP- I; other BEC zones - L) emphasis options (H, I, L) LU I5 Lussier/Coyote (MS, ESSF - I; other BEC zones - L ) LU I6 Blackfoot/Thunder (L) LU I7 East/Middle White (I) LU I8 North White (I) LU I9 Graves (IDF, ESSF – I; MS - L) LU I10 Nine Mile/Moscow (IDF, AT – L; other BEC zones - I)

Current management plans guiding . EFMPP Strategic Plan development . Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan . FPC Biodiversity Guidebook

Major resource management issues . dry ecosystem (NDT4) restoration . biodiversity and natural disturbance events . harvest practices (e.g., partial cutting and commercial thinning)

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 4 Table 1.2. Description of areas with specific biodiversity objectives in the Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Area No. Type1 Total BEC Stand composition and structural targets area (ha) variants 1.1 RMA 2,213 PPdh2 . RRZ: retain existing stand composition and structure; IDFdm2 . RMZ: on a Forest Development Plan level, max. basal area retention is 50% for S1-3, 25% for S4 and S5, and 5% for ICHmk1 S6 streams (Province of British Columbia 1995b) MSdk ESSFdk, mw

1.2 UWR data not PPdh . green-up requirements: 3 m height at age 15, with max. 25% net area < 15 years of age; available IDFdm2 . forest cover requirements: 30% of UWR area to be maintained at stand age 100 years or older (Invermere Forest MSdk District 1998). ESSFdk 1.3 FEN 15,9892 PPdh2, dm2 . FEN is modeled in the EMFPP Strategy 98 (Invermere Forest District 1998) on a 20 pass - 15 year green-up schedule, IDFdm2 but not to exceed old-growth requirements as per Biodiversity Emphasis. Stand composition is intended to meet ICHmk1 requirements for habitat connectivity, especially for ungulates. MSdk . sStand structural attributes such as veteran trees, snags, large-sized trees and CWD are to be retained wherever possible. . green-up requirements: 3 m height at age 15, with max. 10% net area < 15 years of age ESSFdk, mw

1.4 WHA 4803 IDFdm2 . within 240 ha "post-fledging family areas (PFAs)" around active nest sites, reserve three 12-ha patches as nesting areas, MSdk retain 20% of area as old-growth, 40% as mature, and of the remaining 40%, no more than 20% young forest (Province of British Columbia 1999).

1.5 AMZ data not MSdk, . for slopes with > 2 tracks/km or < 500m between tracks, retain 100% of stand within a 50 m AMZ on one side of available ESSFdk, avalanche tracks and 70% of volume on the other side and around the base; ESSFmw . for slopes with < 2 tracks/km or > 500m between tracks, retain 70% of volume in 100 m wide AMZs (Kootenay Inter- Agency Management Committee 1997).

1.6 NDT4 15,773 IDFdm2 PPdh2 . open forest in PPdh2/1, 3 and IDFdm2/3, 1: the target is 250 sph, of which 50 are to be in largest 1/3 of existing PPdm2 diameter range plus 200 well-spaced trees. Crown closure is to be maintained < 40%. . managed forest in IDFdm2/1, 4, 5, 6, 7: the target is 1,000 sph with max. 80% crown closure (Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee 1997). 1 RMA = Riparian Management Area, UWR = Ungulate Winter Range, FEN = Forest Ecosystem Network, WHA = Wildlife Habitat Area for identified species "Northern Goshawk", AMZ = Avalanche Track Management Zone, NDT4 = Natural Disturbance Type 4. 2 Area in THLB; 37% of total FEN area (43133). 3 Based on 2 confirmed active goshawk nests but not on official IWMS designation.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 5 Table 1.3. Rationale for partial cutting suitability in areas with special biodiversity objectives. No. Type Suitable for partial cutting Rationale

1.1 RMA RRZ: no . removal of trees from riparian reserves inevitably reduces biodiversity, changes mircoclimatic conditions, and contributes to the destabilization of natural stream channels and banks. . RMZ: partial cutting as an alternative to clearcutting reduces the otherwise high risk of windthrow within the RRZ of S1, S2 and S3 streams and provides unique habitat for species that inhabit riparian ecosystems; RMZ: yes – minor . partial cutting can reduce the risk of epidemic disease or insect outbreaks thereby protecting the integrity of the RMA (e.g., in RMZs consisting primarily of Pl with high mountain pine beetle risk).

1.2 UWR yes . ungulates favour winter range composed of a mosaic of patches including closed canopy patches for snow interception, dense patches for thermal cover and more open patches for foraging; . partial cutting can provide opportunities for important forage species to grow or increase future canopy cover via old-growth recruitment.

1.3 FEN yes . partial cutting opportunities within the FEN exist where old-growth restoration or recruitment is desirable or where forest health cuts are required to prevent major insect outbreaks.

1.4 WHA no – but potentially yes . based on ongoing research on goshawks in the EFMPP (Machmer et al. 1999), the landscapes surrounding known nest sites do not appear to be suitable for partial cutting in 240 ha WHAs due to high fragmentation and small old-seral patches with only moderate crown closure. However, WHAs consisting of relatively large, unfragmented old-seral patches may be suitable for partial cutting. . reasons for partial cutting in goshawk WHAs include (i) increasing canopy closure within the WHA via species conversion or accelerating the growth of trees with large or interlocking crowns, (ii) beetle proofing or (iii) enhancing habitat within the 1% AAC impact limit.

1.5 AMZ yes . partial cutting in AMZ may be appropriate for forest health considerations and to provide more suitable habitat within the AAC impact limit.

1.6 NDT4 yes . to reduce forest encroachment in grassland and open range and to reduce ingrowth in open forest ecosystem components; . to prepare forest stands for re-introduction of periodic burns.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 6 Table 1.4. General recommendations for the development of partial cutting case studies in Northern Goshawk Wildlife Habitat Areas. No specific site could be identified to date.

Case Study and Prescription Recommendations

Background and Although no specific case study area could be identified for this project and rationale WHAs have not been officially designated, partial cutting trials in goshawk territories are being considered for the EFMPP area (Machmer et al. 1999). The following guidelines are intended to facilitate possible case study trials.

Site description . slopes < 40% with SW, S, SE or no aspect; . slope position: valley bottom, low and mid . near permanent water source . primarily conifer-dominated stands

Forest health . retention of large-sized trees with mistletoe if present; consider other forest health agents (e.g., bark beetles) important for goshawk prey (e.g., woodpeckers) in management activities.

Windthrow risk critical to prevent or minimize windthrow risk; site-specific strategies should be described in silviculture prescriptions

Other constraints avoid destumping, pushover, and pop-up logging regardless of Armillaria root disease levels

Management objectives provide timber harvesting opportunities to the extent that suitable goshawk habitat is perpetually maintained

Stand structure . presently suitable patches within WHA: maintain canopy closure and objectives large-sized structures below the canopy (e.g., CWD, stumps, stubs, broken top trees, snags). . presently unsuitable patches within WHA: promote growth of trees with large crowns, create some stubs, snags, and CWD. . target values for essential stand structural attributes for “good” goshawk nesting areas (see Machmer et al. 1999 and Utzig and Gaines 1998):  live trees > 50 cm DBH: >20 sph  live trees > 40 cm DBH: >50 sph  crown closure: > 55%  canopy complexity: > 2 layers  patch size: > 40 ha

Silviculture prescription will be site-specific guidelines

Other considerations to . season of harvest: fall and winter minimize risk to . minimize size of roads and landings goshawks . maximize wildlife tree retention (incorporate new WCB regulations and hazard tree assessment procedure) . deactivate roads after stand entry where possible

Timber availability will be site-specific

Economics will be site-specific

Opportunities for partial cutting in areas set aside for biodiversity in the West Arm Demonstration Forest (Kootenay Lake Forest District)

This appendix provides the detailed results of our evaluation of partial cutting opportunities in constrained forests of the West Arm Demonstration Forest (WADF). WADF was initiated by the BC Ministry of Forests in 1992 in response to public concern about the impact of forest management practices on nontimber resources. WADF is overseen by a committee comprised of district and regional MoF and MoE staff and members of the public, coordinated by Jim Smith (consulting forester). The primary objective of WADF is to manage the landbase by applying and testing ecosystem management principles in an operational setting (WADF Strategic Plan 1998). The underlying assumption is that maintenance of biodiversity at the stand and landscape level is the primary goal, and that traditional timber extraction is secondary. A Total Resource Design (TRD) was written for WADF prior to enactment of the Forest Practices Code. The TRD is based on mimicking local natural disturbance patterns in order to maintain biodiversity across the landscape while meeting other social objectives (e.g., water quality, visual quality objectives). The TRD is not subject to ‘impact caps’ as is the Forest Practices Code, and so the proportion of the landscape impacted by biodiversity and societal constraints is relatively high (Table 2.2).

WADF is therefore managed as “Code Plus”, with current Forest Practices Code guidelines adopted as a minimum. WADF is subsumed by the West Arm Landscape Unit which has intermediate biodiversity emphasis, and although WADF has its own TRD it must also contribute to landscape level biodiversity targets.

Table 2.1. Description of the West Arm Demonstration Forest. Location Kootenay Lake Forest District; West Kokanee, Kokanee, Redfish, Laird and Queens drainages

Area (gross) 13, 497ha

Operable productive forest 4,445ha (33%)

Biogeoclimatic zones (% of total) ICHdw(17%), ICHmw2(22%), ESSFwc4(46%), At(15%)

Natural disturbance types NDT1; NDT2; NDT3/ NTD41

Landscape units and biodiversity emphasis LU #10 West Arm (I) options (H,I,L)

Current management plans guiding . WADF Total Resource Design Strategic Plan development . Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan, . FPC Biodiversity Guidebook

Major resource management issues . protection of water quality, quantity and timing of flow . visual resource management . dry ecosystem (ICHdw) restoration . riparian management for habitat connectivity . experimental partial cutting trials . old-growth recruitment . grizzly bear and caribou management 1Although ICHdw is classified as an NDT3 ecosystem, the drier site series have been identified as fire-maintained NDT4 systems (Quesnel and Pinnell 1998). This classification is being used to manage these forests in WADF.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 8 Table 2.2. Description of areas with specific biodiversity objectives in the West Arm Demonstration Forest. No. Type1 Area (ha) BEC Stand composition and structural targets 2.1 RMA within 1,4432 ICHdw • retain 85% of the original stand basal area in a well distributed pattern to maintain high forest FEN ICHmw2 cover throughout the FEN (WADF Strategic Plan 1998); ESSFwc1/ wc4 • no specific stand composition and structural targets identified. However, retain/ maintain: Cw, Hw, large ESSFwcp stems, crown closure for connectivity, species composition, deciduous species, snags, forest floor.

2.2 RRZ within 1,4432 ICHdw/ mw2 • retain existing stand composition and structure. FEN ESSFwc1/ wc4

2.3 RMZ outside 1,4432 • retain 50% of existing stand composition and structure (WADF Strategic Plan 1998). FEN

2.4 UWR 1,462 ICHdw • ICHdw: 35-55% (mule deer), or 40% (white-tailed deer), forest cover as >101 years, with average crown ICHmw2 closure of 60% in units >20 ha (KBLUP) ESSFwc1/ wc4 • ICHdw: 50% (moose) forest cover as >121-140 years, with average crown closure of 70% in units >20 ha (KBLUP)

2.5 OGMA3 data not ICHdw • recruitment OGMA to meet landscape unit targets for ICHdw. A range of stand structural targets are available ICHmw2 available (see discussion in Section 3 of main report). Also potential to use adaptive management ESSFwc4 approach. Specific attributes for the ICHdw are in preparation (Holt and Braumandl 1999). ESSFwc4 ESSFwcp 1FEN = Forest Ecosystem Network, RRZ = Riparian Reserve Zone, RMZ = Riparian Management Zone, RMA = Riparian Management Area, UWR = Ungulate Winter Range, OGMA = Old-growth Management Area. 2 Total area for the FEN (not broken down by areas within and outside the FEN). 3 Note that within WADF, targets for old-growth are met in the ICHdw, but not in the ICHmw2 or ESSFwc4. This is contrary to the larger landscape unit, where targets are met in the ESSFwc4, but are in deficit in the ICHmw2 and the ICHdw. Not all area is constrained, however recruitment old-growth is required for the ICHdw.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 9 Table 2.3. Rationale for partial cutting suitability in areas with special biodiversity objectives. No. Type Suitable for partial cutting Rationale by forest type1 2.1 RMA Yes – minor. • the FEN consists of wide RMAs, and aims to maintain connectivity throughout the watersheds. within Partial cutting cannot enhance biodiversity here unless forest health issues severely limit connectivity. FEN Fd, Pl, Pw, Lw with forest health • single tree or group selection to address forest health problems only while retaining connectivity issues that decrease connectivity value of FEN. value 2.2 RRZ No • removal of trees from riparian reserves inevitably impacts biodiversity, changes mirco-climatic within conditions and contributes to the destabilization of natural stream channels and banks. FEN

2.3 RMZ Yes –minor • in general, retention of fully-functioning RMZ’s is planned (WADF Strategic Plan; very few outside opportunities to enhance biodiversity using partial cutting. However, up to 50% of the RMA can be FEN where Fd, Pw, Pl, Lw have logged while retaining large, windfirm dominant and co-dominant trees. extreme forest health problems

2.4 UWR Yes • WADF receives high snowfall, partial cutting is therefore only suitable in areas with either (i) current high canopy closure which can be maintained after partial harvesting, or (ii) where forest restoration of drier ICHdw / ICHmw2 and Fd – dry, fire-maintained ecosystems is required. leading in multi-layered stands

2.5 OGMA Yes • deficit of AC 8 and AC 9 forest exists in the ICHdw and stands of AC 6 which contain some older dry site ICHdw restoration attributes have potential for recruitment. Partial cutting can thin out the stand (removal of understorey and ICHdw recruitment ingrown Fd), promote growth of remaining trees to attain old forest attributes in a shorter timeframe. Retain snags and CWD within stand and monitor to assess the outcome.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 10 Table 2.4. Partial cutting prescription recommendations for ICHdw old-growth recruitment and restoration case study. Case Study and Prescription Recommendations

Background and The area was burned in 1906 and subsequently logged for large fire-killed snags in the 30’s and 40’s. Little rationale surrounding development on crown lands. Extensive development on adjacent private lands. First entry into this small watershed to harvest second-growth stand. A deficit of ICHdw old-growth exists and a recruitment strategy is required to meet old-seral targets.

Site Choice: Initially, this stand appears unsuitable for old-growth recruitment because (i) it is relatively young, and does not have high site index and (ii) it has forest health problems which limit management options. However, there are also benefits because (i) there is little chance of unintended loss of biodiversity values (compared with relatively high value mature stands in the ICHdw, (ii) forest health issues can be addressed and (iii) other constraints (e.g., VQO, ECA, watershed) require application of “light” forestry on this site.

Site Description . total area: 13.1 ha average age: 90 years standard Unit (SU) 1: ICHdw01a(01b); SU 2: ICHdw01b slope: 10-40% . aspect: SE-SW overstorey: - SU1: Fd, Lw Cw (Py), Net vol 469 m3/ha, basal area 53 m2/ha, sph 801, snags/ha 117 - SU2: Hw, Fd, Lw, Cw Net vol 426 m3/ha, basal area 57 m2/ha, sph 1401, snags/ha 141

Forest health . Armillaria and mistletoe are active. Approx. 75% of smaller larch stems are dead in SU2 and somewhat less in SU1. Armillaria suspected in Fd due to thin foliage and rounded crowns. Understorey Cw largely unhealthy, especially in one drier/ rocky section of SU1. . long term forest health dependent on preferred species (Py, Lw and Fd) and lower stocking densities.

Windthrow risk . moderate- high, due to position on face front and storm winds along the adjacent lake.

Other constraints . Class 2 domestic watershed

Management . prep cut the stand for windfirmness, remove dead Lw (big and small stems) and low quality understorey; objectives . thin mature trees to approximately 35 m2/ha basal area.

Stand structural . stand would naturally be a two-layered, open-growing forest with a main canopy layer of large Fd, Lw and Py

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 11 objectives (approx. 12-18 m2 basal area in the overstorey) with more dense canopy and mixed species in moister areas (creek draws). Specific stand structure targets are in preparation for this BEC zone (Holt and Braumandl 1999). Alternatively, specific stand structure objectives could be attained using an adaptive management approach, to determine appropriate values. However, in this ecosystem, fire suppression has impacted all the ICHdw forest similarly. In addition, forest health issues here are constraining.

SP guidelines . two entries are required into this stand; the initial prescription must ensure retention of healthy Fd, Py and Lw following first cut and prevent blowdown.

Other consideations to . CWD retention minimize risk to stand . wildlife tree retention . veteran tree retention . retain all live large trees (i) initially and (ii) to levels as per historic stand structure (Pinnell and Quesnel 1998)

Timber availability . initial entry to remove approx. 30% of the basal area concentrating on dead potential, poor quality trees and thinning crowded stems. . volume to remove is approx. 1,700 m3.

Economics . The economic estimate is based on current costs and revenues experienced by the Vernon Forest District Special Project and on standard stumpage calculation procedures for major licensees. Note: There are no reforestation costs associated with this calculation Pre-harvest cost: $5-6.00/m3 Harvesting cost: $20-23/m3 Hauling cost: $10.00/m3 Stumpage: $11.72 Total Cost: $48-50.00 Estimated revenue: $65.00/m3 Profit: $15-17.00

Opportunities for partial cutting in the Caribou Special Management Zone, Stagleap Landscape Unit Arrow Lake Forest District

This appendix provides the detailed results of our evaluation of partial cutting opportunities in constrained forests of the Caribou Special Management Zone of the Stagleap Landscape unit. The area is located in the south of Arrow Forest District, adjacent to the international border with the United States. The Special Management Zone was designated to supply core habitat for the blue-listed Selkirk herd of mountain caribou (M. Besko pers. comm.) that has special management status in the U.S. as well. Large tracts of their high elevation habitats are contained within private lands which are not subject to timber harvesting constraints.

Table 3.1. Description of the Caribou Special Management Zone in Stagleap Landscape Unit. Location . Arrow Forest District; . Stagleap Creek, Lost Creek and Waldie Creek

Area of Landscape Unit 57,126 ha

Total area of caribou SMZ 30,421 ha

Operable forest (within caribou SMZ) 8,622 ha (28%)

Biogeoclimatic zones (% of total area) ICHdw – 1,245 ha (5%) ICHmw2 – 9,061 ha (30%) ESSFwc1 – 5,659 ha (18%) ESSFwc4 –13,974 ha (46%) ESSFwcp – 482 ha (1%)

Natural disturbance types NDT1, NDT2, and NDT3

Landscape units and biodiversity emphasis Stagleap LU (I) options (H,I,L)

Current management plans guiding . Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan development . FPC Biodiversity Guidebook . FPC Identified Wildlife Management Strategy

Major resource management issues . internationally significant caribou herd . early winter caribou habitat in deficit and highly limiting population . much historic harvesting in valley bottoms limiting habitat, and opportunities for partial cutting trials.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 13 Table 3.2 Stand composition and structural targets for the Caribou Special Management Zone1. Early winter: . low elevation mature to old-growth cedar/ hemlock and spruce/ fir stands, with 70% canopy closure, . high lichen densities . high litterfall . understorey of boxwood . moderate slopes . Late winter: . high elevation mature spruce/ fir . open canopies (20-50%) . high snag densities . high lichen densities . gentle to moderate slopes . Fall: . low elevation, mature/ old-growth stands . high snag densities . dense understories . moderate slopes . retain large-sized structures in RMAs and connectivity where caribou movement is a possibility

1:Data from Servheen and Lyon 1986, and Stevenson et al. 1994. All authors note the current rapid increase in knowledge pertaining to caribou habitat requirements, and recommend adaptive management approaches to habitat management.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 14 Table 3.3. Rationale for partial cutting, case study prescription development and other considerations for caribou habitat recruitment. Background and . Timber harvest activities over the past several decades have significantly reduced the amount of mature closed rationale canopy stands in elevations from 1,300-1,600 m in the southern Selkirks, resulting in a deficit of early winter caribou habitat. Partial cutting may be used to promote stand structural attributes which favour snow interception in early winter and the development of old-seral attributes. . Larch and the deciduous species (At, Act, Ep) provide approx. half (44%) of the overstorey tree component. These species are presently utilizing a significant amount of site resources while providing little snow interception during the critical early winter season. Removal of 10 m2 and retention of 4 m2 basal area of these species will encourage growth on remaining species which do provide snow interception. . Thin the cedar and hemlock understorey to provide additional site resources to residual overstorey trees and to promote growth of residual understorey. The dense understorey is currently stressing the whole stand, resulting in decreased tree vigor and predisposing the stand to forest health problems (e.g., root rot). . Mid seral stands (AC 4 and 5) within caribou early winter habitat consist of a mix of species in dense stands. These stands commonly have Douglas fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, white pine, aspen, birch and cottonwood in the overstorey with hemlock and cedar in the understorey. Competition for light, moisture and nutrients is high, resulting in tree mortality and loss of stand vigour. These stands offer limited value as early winter habitat since they are too dense to have well developed herb and shrub layers and many of the tree species do not intercept snow. . There has been no logging along the Stagleap Creek corridor. However, the drainages to the north have seen extensive clearcut harvesting throughout the caribou range. . Highway 3 presents a hazard to caribou and mortality due to collisions with vehicles as been a significant factor in the viability of this herd. . Site Choice: Age class 4-5 stands in Stagleap Creek offer the best opportunity to promote early winter caribou habitat within the range of the southern Selkirk caribou herd. The area is relatively accessible from Highway 3 and has existing access partially developed on the north side of the creek. The stands are at the age and density where competition for light, moisture and nutrients is causing significant growth loss and stand mortality. Harvesting most of the larch and deciduous volume (and spacing the dense understorey) should enhance the growth of the residual trees and promote faster growth of early winter habitat attributes.

Site Description . total area: approx. 100 – 120 ha

Overstorey . Age: average 70 years (range: 65-75 years), . Increment last 10 years: average 1.1 cm (range: 0.5-1.5 cm). Last 20 years’ growth has slowed. . Species composition: Fd 32%, Lw 26%, Cw 15 %, Sx 6%, Bg 5%, Hw 4 %, Pl 1%, Pw 1%, Decid 8% . Basal area: 40.4 m2 . Estimated volume: 230 m3/ha

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 15 . Average DBH: Fd – 30 cm, Lw – 26 cm, Cw – 25 cm, Hw – 20 cm . Average height: Fd 20 m, Lw 20 m, Cw 15 m, Hw 12 m

Understorey: . Age: 60-70 years (suppressed) . Species composition: Hw 65%, Cw 35% . Density: average 4,000 sph, range 2,000 –15,000 sph. Snow press has affected approx. 20% of the stems.

Forest health . Armillaria root disease is found throughout the area; it is most active and causing Fd mortality on the south side of Stagleap Creek where dense hemlock and cedar understorey exists.

Windthrow risk . Low to moderate; stands are located on a lower slope position and there is little evidence of windthrow damage.

Other constraints . fisheries in Stagleap Creek . visuals along the Highway 3 corridor

Stand structural . Short term objectives - A mid-seral stand consisting of a mixture of Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock and minor objectives components of grand fir, larch, spruce and deciduous hardwoods. It will initially be two storied because most of the cedar and hemlock are presently in intermediate or suppressed crown classes. The density of the overstorey stand will be approx. 30 m2/ha of basal area. The understorey (< 17.5 cm DBH) cedar and hemlock trees will be reduced to < 1,000 sph.

. Long term objectives - This stand will be characterized by large hemlock, cedar, spruce, subalpine fir and Douglas-fir with approx. 50-60 m2/ha of basal area. The stand will be multi-storied with cedar and hemlock forming intermediate and regeneration layers in a clumped distribution. Crown closure will range from 60-80%.

Management . promote early winter habitat stand structures for caribou Objectives . promote the growth of mid shade tolerant and shade tolerant species (e.g., Douglas-fir, cedar, hemlock, spruce and subalpine fir) . reduce the stocking of the understorey of cedar and hemlock

SP Guidelines . harvest approx. 10 m2/ha of basal area of larch and deciduous species as well as damaged or diseased trees . thin the understorey cedar and hemlock (< 17.5 cm DBH) to approx. 1,000 sph . non-merchantable deciduous trees could be killed by girdling . retain approx. 30 m2/ha of basal area including about 4 m2/ha of larch and deciduous species . retain all veteran trees

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 16 Other considerations to . CWD retention minimize risks to stand wildlife tree retention . veteran tree retention . retain all live large trees (i) initially and (ii) to levels as per historic stand structure (Pinnell and Quesnel 1998)

Timber availability . net volume: remove approx. 60 m3/ha . net basal area: remove approx. 10 m2/ha

Economics . The economic estimate is based on current costs and revenues experienced by the Vernon Forest District Special Project and on standard stumpage calculation procedures for major licensees. Note: There are no reforestation costs associated with this calculation, but the cost of spacing the cedar hemlock understorey is included in the harvesting costs. This could be a separate cost borne by another funding mechanism which would reduce the cost of harvesting by $5.00/m3:

Pre-harvest costs: $5.00/m3 Harvesting costs: $30.00/m3 Road construction: $13.00/m3 Hauling costs: $10.00/m3 Stumpage: $00.25/m3 Total cost: $57.00/m3 Revenue: $60.00/m3 Profit: $3.00/m3

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 17 Additional case study details: . A number of areas were considered for a trial or preliminary partial cutting prescription, in consultation with the local Small Business Foresters (Arrow Forest District) and MoE staff and caribou experts. We provide a potential case study prescription in Table 4 but a discussion of the difficulties involved in arriving at this prescription is needed in this case.

. Partial cutting trials are allowed in the ESSF (KBLUP-IS 1997). However, areas within the core caribou habitat either have already been logged or are within current high-use areas (determined by radio telemetry studies over a number of years). Local caribou experts recommend that current use areas should not be considered as suitable for partial cutting. The herd is sufficiently vulnerable that the potential for having a negative impact on available habitat is too high.

. Habitat recruitment should be considered as an alternative. Recruitment has been a low priority for research (S.K. Stevenson pers. comm.) but has been considered in some areas (see literature review in main report) and may be the only biologically feasible opportunity for timber extraction in many of these areas. The current MOU (MoF and MoE) states that of the 40% of land set-aside for caribou retention, 10% is available for partial cutting trials. However, it is unclear for the ICHmw2 whether partial cutting is allowed within core caribou areas, or whether only the remaining 60% outside core caribou habitat is available. We chose a number of candidate stands and assessed their future habitat potential using a Caribou Habitat Suitability Model being developed for this area. It appears that these stands have the potential to be useful caribou habitat in the future (T. Gaines pers. comm.). The stand chosen for the partial cutting case study appears most suitable.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 18 Appendix 4

Opportunities for partial cutting in areas set aside for biodiversity in the Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Operating Area (Arrow and Kootenay Lake Forest District)

This appendix provides the detailed results of our evaluation of partial cutting opportunities in constrained forests within the operating area of Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. of Thrums, West Kootenay Region. Kalesnikoff has been operating in the area since 1939 and has been applying partial cutting methods for many years, particularly to address ungulate winter range and forest health objectives. Many forest stands within the operating area are constrained due to a variety of nontimber objectives, including biodiversity components.

Table 4.1 Description of Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. Operating Area Location . Arrow and Kootenay Lake Forest Districts . major Drainages: Deer, Rialto, Robson Ridge, Goose-Wolverton, Glade, Blewett, Grohman, Falls, Duhamel, Schroeder, Apex, and Hall.

Area (gross) 50,000 ha

Operable area 16,667 ha

Biogeoclimatic zones IDF, ICH, ESSF

Natural disturbance types NDT1, NDT2, NDT3, NDT4, NDT5

Landscape units and their biodiversity emphasis LU A8/A12 Robson Ridge (I) options (H, I, L) LU A9 Glade (L) LU A10 Gander (L) LU A10 Rialto (L) LU A11 Deer Creek (I) LU K10 Falls Creek (I), LU K10 Grohman & Duhamel (I), LU K11 Apex Creek (L), LU K11 Blewett (L), LU K12 Schroeder Creek (I)

Current management plans guiding . Kooteny-Boundary Land Use Plan development . Grohman Total Resource Plan . Deer Creek Total Resource Plan

Major resource management issues . community watershed protection . wildlife and biodiversity . timber extraction for value-added sector . visual landscape quality

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 19 Table 4.2 Description of areas with specific biodiversity objectives. No. Type1 Area (ha) BEC Stand composition and structural targets 4.1 OGMA 4,335 ICHdw • recruitment OGMA to meet landscape unit targets for ICHmw2 ICHdw. A range of stand structural targets are ESSFwc4 available (see discussion in section 3 of main report). Also potential to use adaptive management approach..

4.2 RMA 5,629 ICHdw . RRZ: retain existing stand composition and ICHmw2 structure ESSFwc4 . RMZ: on a Forest Development Plan level, maximum basal area retention is 50% for S1-3, 25% for S4 and S5 and 5% for S6 streams (Province of British Columbia 1995b)

4.3 UWR 9,070 IDFun . values for minimum amount of mature forest ICHdw cover retention over the managed forest landbase ICHmw2 are given in the KBLUP Implenetation Strategy (chapter 3, page 20). 4.4 WHA ? ? . within the 240 ha "Post-fledging Family Areas (PFAs)" around active nest sites, reserve 3 12-ha patches as nesting areas, retain 40% of area as old- growth, 40% as mature, and no more than 20% as young seral forest (Province of British Columbia 1999).

4.5 AMZ ? ICHmw2 . for slopes with > 2 tracks/km or < 500m between ESSFwc4 tracks, retain 100% of stand within a 50 m AMZ on one side of avalanche tracks and 70% of volume on the other side and around the base; . for slopes with < 2 tracks/km or > 500m between tracks, retain 70% of volume in 100 m wide AMZs (KBLUP- IS 1997).

4.6 NDT4 ? IDFun . target stocking standards (stems/ha) for open range, open forest and managed forest are 20, 250, and 1000, and maximum crown closure is 10%, 40%, and 80%, respectively (KBLUP - IS 1997). 1 OGMA = Old-growth Management Area, RMA = Riparian Management Area, UWR = Ungulate Winter Range, WHA = Wildlife Habitat Area for identified species "Northern Goshawk, grizzly bear", AMZ = Avalanche Track Management Zone, NDT4 = Natural Disturbance Type 4. 2Does not include OGMAs from Kootenay Lake Forest District.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 20 Table 4.3 Rationale for partial cutting suitability in with specific biodiversity objectives. No. Type Suitable for Rationale partial cutting 4.1 OGMA yes, but not in . some OGMAs are designed to include mature or younger AC 8 and 9 patches which eventually grow into old-seral patches; old- patches growth recruitment cuts could occur in mature patches to accelerate growth of old-growth structures.

4.2 RMA yes . no cutting should occur in riparian reserve zone (RRZ); . in general, partial cutting (as an alternative to clearcutting) reduces the risk of windthrow within the RRZ and provides habitat for species that inhabit riparian ecosystems; . partial cutting can reduce the risk of epidemic pest outbreaks thereby protecting the integrity of the RMA; . along Deer Creek, areas of relatively undisturbed riparian habitat exist; single tree selection of cedar in areas where other riparian values (e.g., large-sized snags) are not compromised may be feasible; . removal of white pine-infected by blister rust would not be expected to impact biodiversity as the white pine itself requires management attention (esp. reduction of blister rust infection).

4.3 UWR yes . this comprises a very large area where partial cutting may be desirable or necessary; also large amounts of Py exist on UWR which can be converted into high-value wood products 4.4 WHA yes - . frequent reports of active goshawk nests in Arrow Forest potentially District require that WHAs be established; no official designations to date . partial cutting may be suitable depending on stand composition and structure in WHAs 4.5 AMZ yes - . partial cutting in AMZ may be appropriate for forest health potentially considerations and to provide more suitable habitat within the AAC impact limit.

4.6 NDT4 yes . to reduce forest encroachment on the grassland and open range and forest ingrowth within the open forest ecosystem components; . to prepare forest stands for re-introduction of periodic burns.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 21 Table 4.4. General recommendations for development of a partial cutting case study in the Riparian Management Zone of Deer Creek.

Case Study and Prescription Recommendations

Background and . Deer Creek is classified as an S2 stream, requiring a 30 m riparian reserve rationale and a 20 m riparian management zone. Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. intends to harvest in the RMZ, focusing on high-value wood products such as cedar poles, white pine, and clear edge grain larch. The ecological importance of the riparian area and terrain stability and community watershed concerns favour a high retention partial cutting system in this area.

Site description . total area: approx. 20 ha . slopes 50-60% with S and N aspect . average stands age: approx. 120 years . overstorey: Cw Hw (Fd Pw Sx At Act Ep) . understorey: CwHw

Forest health . white pine blister rust

Windthrow risk . low

Other constraints . community watershed . class 4 and 5 terrain

Management objectives . provide timber harvesting opportunities for high-value wood products . forest health improvement to reduce white pine blister rust

Stand structure . maintain current species mix objectives . maintain wildlife tree and large organic debris values . promote growth of cedar to produce cedar poles . maintain a stand of approx. 350-400 m3/ha

Silviculture prescription . single tree selection guidelines . mark-to-cut . use small cable systems with intermediate support capability to reduce road and trail building impacts . slack pulling carriage would be an advantage but is not necessary . cut narrow yarding corridors of 4-7 m width

Other considerations to . wildlife tree assessment and establishment of wildlife tree patches minimize risk to RMA . high retention of veteran snags . use of small yarder

Timber availability . approx. 50-60m3/ha

Economic factors . costs/revenue: to be determined . anticipated productivity: 30-50m3/d . development approach: stratification of RMZ via airphoto interpretation followed by field reconnaissance and GPS locating of selected trees . logistics: road system exixts on either side of creek

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 22 Appendix 5 Opportunities for partial cutting in areas set aside for biodiversity in the IDF High Biodiversity Emphasis Option Area Boundary Forest District

This appendix provides the detailed results of our evaluation of partial cutting opportunities in the IDF High Biodiversity Emphasis Option area of Landscape Units B1, B2 and B3 of Boundary Forest District. The IDF biogeoclimatic zone is classified as Natural Disturbance Type (NDT) 4. Historically, these ecosystems were fire-maintained and consisted of a mosaic of closed canopy forests, open canopy forests, open range land and grasslands. Due to long-term fire suppression activities, these ecosystem components have changed to some extent and require restoration efforts if biodiversity objectives are to be met, hence this analysis considers NDT4 ecosystem restoration.

Table 5.1. Description of IDF High Biodiversity Emphasis Area of Landscape Units B1, B2, and B3. Location . Boundary Forest District LUs B1, B2 and B3; . Kettle River valley around Grand Forks, Midway and Rock Creek; Grandby River drainage

Total Area (gross) 52,597 ha

Total Forested Area 31,077 ha

Total Operable Area 23,691 ha

Total Contributing Area 25,943 ha

Total Area constrained due to old-seral targets 11,214 ha

Biogeoclimatic unit IDFdm1

Natural disturbance type NDT4

Landscape units and their biodiversity emphasis B1 Rock (H) options (H, I, L) B2 Gilpin (H) B3 Lynch (H)

Current management plans guiding . Kooteny-Boundary Land Use Plan development . FPC Biodiversity Guidebook

Major resource management issues . NDT4 ecosystem restoration . biodiversity/old-growth . ungulate winter range

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 23 Table 5.2. Description of areas with specific biodiversity objectives. No. Type1 Total area BEC Stand composition and structural targets (ha) variant 5.1 NDT4 25,943 IDFdm1 . Stand composition targets for the extent and spatial distribution of NDT4 ecosystem components are currently being developed (Steeger et al.1999). . Target stocking standards (stems/ha) for open range, open forest and managed forest are 20, 250, and 1000, and maximum crown closure is 10%, 40%, and 80%, respectively (KBLUP).

5.2 OS rec 5,9173 IDFdm1 . Stand attributes for use as targets to maintain or recruit old-seral forests in specific site groupings are given in Steeger and Hawe (1998, Table 7). See also Table 4 (Section 3.1.8) in main report.

5.3 UWR 9,933 IDFdm1 . Minimum amount of mature forest cover retention in the IDFdm1 managed forest ecosystem is as follows (KBLUP). . For elk/mule deer: 25% (slopes < 50%) or 15% (south aspects > 50% slope) forest cover comprised of 101+ year old trees, with an average crown closure of 50% in units > 10 ha. . For white-tailed deer: 30% forest cover comprised of 101+ year old trees, with an average crown closure of 50% in units > 20 ha. 15% forest cover for late winter range on slopes >50%. . For moose: 40% forest cover comprised of 82- 100+ year old trees, with an average crown closure of 50% in units > 20 ha. 1 Areas are not mutually exclusive, i.e. within the NDT4, old seral recruitment and ungulate winter range management are required. 2NDT4 = Natural Disturbance Type 4; OS rec = Old Seral recruitment; UWR = Ungulate Winter Range. 3 This value only represents the deficit old plus mature area; the old plus mature target is 15,850 ha for all 3 landscape units combined.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 24 Table 5.3 Rationale for partial cutting suitability in high biodiversity emphasis NDT4 ecosystems No. Type Suitable Rationale for partial cutting

5.1 NDT4 Yes . to reduce forest encroachment on the grassland and open range and forest ingrowth within the open forest ecosystem components; . to prepare forest stands for re-introduction of periodic burns.

5.2 OS rec Yes . acceleration of growth of old-seral features (e.g., large-sized trees) to provide some old-growth structural attributes in areas where old-growth is in deficit.

5.3 UWR Yes . return the stand to historical stand composition and structure which was more suitable for mule deer (current habitat being more suitable for white-tailed deer).

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 25 Table 5.4 Case study description for NDT4 ecosystem restoration and old-growth recruitment. Case Study Description and Prescription Recommendations

Background and . The site was investigated by MoELP, MoF, licensee staff and consulting biologists with respect to ungulate rationale winter range, biodiversity values and forest health considerations. The stand has experienced extensive forest ingrowth and some recent forest health problems (i.e., spruce budworm infestation and larch mistletoe in the scattered larch veterans) which can be improved through partial cutting. High-grade logging has occurred approximately 40-60 years ago and the remaining stumps and standing live and dead trees suggest an open stand structure with large, widely spaced trees and some clumps of trees. Very few snags are currently present in the stand. The blue-listed Williamson’s Sapsucker breeds in the stand, in a broken-topped live veteran larch.

Site Description . Nine Mile Creek in Landscape Unit B1 (Boundary Forest District); Cutting Permit CP 269-4 . Okanagan Highlands Ecosection . Kettle Dry Mild Interior Douglas-fir variant (IDFdm1) mesic (01) site series . Elevation: 1060m . Aspect: S . Slope: 15% . Overstorey: FdPy(Lw) . Understorey: FdLw

Forest health . reduce incidence of spruce budworm and larch mistletoe . Armillaria levels are low and do not require treatment

Windthrow risk . low

Post-harvest stand . a multi-aged stand consisting of approximately 80-100 sph structural objectives . dominant/co-dominant crown classes (>47.5 cm DBH): all Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and mistletoe-free western larch . intermediate crown class (17.5-47.5 cm DBH): all healthy, thrifty western larch and all ponderosa pine. . understorey (0-15cm DBH): 500 sph of thrifty Douglas-fir and western larch.

Management . NDT4 ecosystem restoration: reduce stocking Objectives . old-seral recruitment: increase MAI on retained trees . identified/listed species: maintain habitat . ungulate winter range: convert habitat from white-tailed deer to mule deer suitability

SP Guidelines To restore more characteristic NDT4 ecosystem function, this stand requires reduced stocking. The focus of this entry

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 26 should be to: . reduce the incidence of larch mistletoe . reduce habitat suitability for spruce budworm populations . maintain large and old stand structure wherever possible . increase larch and ponderosa pine component . reduce Douglas-fir understorey stocking to a level which will encourage individual tree growth. Specifically, slash approx. 2,100 sph, pile and burn 1,000 sph while leaving 1,100 sph as fuel for a spring broadcast burn. . return low intensity fire to the ecosystem

Other considerations to . Because the area has been designated as high biodiversity emphasis, no firewood, free range and cattle grazing minimize risk to NDT4 permits should be issued for the block. ecosystems . Wildlife tree signs should be posted on trees potentially accessible to firewood cutters; . Prescribed ecosystem restoration burning should be conducted on this block and integrated with future burning in other parts of the surrounding landscape

Timber availability Harvesting should target: . Dominant/co-dominant crown class (> 47.5cm DBH): only larch infested with mistletoe. Note however that mistletoe and the resulting brooms have important ecological functions and some dead and live trees with large brooms should be retained either in wildlife tree patches or as single tree reserves. Raptor, raven, squirrel and other nest trees should be given preference for retention. . Intermediate crown class (17.5-47.5 cm DBH): all Douglas-fir . Volume available is approx. 75 m3/ha

Economics . The economic feasibility of this initial treatment is marginal since the stand has most of its basal area concentrated in the intermediate and understorey diameter classes (78.8%). The intermediate diameter classes consist of primarily thrifty, healthy trees which should form the future stand. The understorey diameter class requires thinning to promote individual tree vigour. . This treatment is a direct cost unless there can be a market found for small diameter fir (posts, rails, small dimension lumber). Discussions with licensee foresters indicated that this stand will be harvested with a feller/buncher and grapple skidder. The understorey treatment requires slashing, approximately 2,100 sph, piling approximately half of those stems and spring broadcast burning while retaining and protecting 500 well-formed thrifty Douglas-fir.

. Pre-harvest cost $6.00/m3 . Harvesting cost $15.00/m3 . Hauling cost $10.00/m3 . Stumpage $5.00/m3

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 27 . Understorey treatment $20.00/m3 . Total costs $51.25/m3 . Revenue $60.00/m3 . Net profit $4.00/m3 .

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. / page 28