darcy peel - british columbia · mule deer - habitat - british columbia - cariboo region. 2. forest...

6 0

L A N D M A N A G E M E N T H A N D B O O K

2 0 0 7

Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Science Program

Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones

Cariboo-ChilcotinLand Use Plan

Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Science Program

Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones

Rick Dawson, Harold Armleder, Becky Bings, and Darcy Peel

CitationDawson, R.J., H.M. Armleder, B.A. Bings, and D.E. Peel. 2007. Management strategy for mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin – part a: Management Plan for shallow and moderate snowpack zones. B.C. Min. For. Range, Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handb. 60. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh60.htm>

Prepared by

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the Government of British Columbia of any product or service to the exclusion of any others that may also be suitable. Contents of this report are presented as information only. Funding assistance does not imply endorsement of any statements or information con-tained herein by the Government of British Columbia. Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), addresses, and contact information contained in this document are current at the time of printing unless otherwise noted.

Rick DawsonB.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Integrated Land Mangement BureauWilliams Lake, B.C.

Becky BingsB.C. Ministry of EnvironmentWilliams Lake, B.C.

Harold ArmlederB.C. Ministry of Forests and RangeWilliams Lake, B.C.

Darcy PeelB.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Integrated Land Mangement BureauWilliams Lake, B.C.

Prepared forB.C. Ministry of Forests and RangeResearch BranchVictoria, B.C.

© 2007 Province of British Columbia

Copies of this report can be obtained from:Government Publications ServicesPO Box 9452 Stn Prov GovtVictoria, B.C. v8w 9v7 -800-663-605 (toll free)http://www.publications.gov.bc.ca/

For more information on Forest Science Program publications, visit our web site at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/scripts/hfd/pubs/hfdcatalog/index.asp

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication DataMain entry under title:Management strategy for mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Part a, Management plan

for shallow and moderate snowpack zones

(Land management handbook, issn 0229-622 ; 60)

“Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan.”--Cover.“Prepared by the cclup Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy Committee.”--Acknowledgements.“Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range, Research Branch.”--P.Includes bibliographical references: p.isbn 978-0-7726-5696-4

. Mule deer - Habitat - British Columbia - Cariboo Region. 2. Forest management -- British Columbia - Cariboo Region. 3. Mule deer - Effect of forest management on - British Columbia - Cariboo Region. I. Dawson, R. J. (Rick James), 954- . II. British Columbia. Forest Science Program. III. British Columbia. Ministry of Forests and Range. Research Branch. IV. cclup Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy Committee (B.C.). V. Title: Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. VI. Series.

ql737.u55m36 2007 333.95’96530977 c2007-960040-9

iii

PREFACE

The four components of the Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin are:

Part a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones

Part b: Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones

Part 2: Long-term Objectives Maps for Individual Winter Ranges

Part 3: Transition-period Harvest Opportunity Plan for Individual Winter Ranges

This document is Part a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones. It is meant to replace the 2002 locally published document of the same name and contains all of the same infor-mation, along with several additions and updated

language, to make it more compatible with new British Columbia forestry legislation. This report, along with Part 2, Long-term Objectives Maps for Individual Winter Ranges, and Part 3, Transition-pe-riod Harvest Opportunity Plan for Individual Win-ter Ranges, is the complete package of government direction for forest management within mule deer habitat in the shallow and moderate snowpack zones in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. It was prepared for the Cariboo Managers’ Committee of the Provincial Government of British Columbia.

The legal directions for management of mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcoton are provided by formal General Wildlife Measures. This document is designed to be compatible with the legal direction, but provides more thorough explanations, background information, diagrams, and checklists to facilitate better understanding and implementa-tion of the General Wildlife Measures. In some cases the General Wildlife Measures include more detailed definitions, which are required to properly interpret the legal direction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document represents one part of a three-part package for planning timber harvesting on indi-vidual mule deer winter ranges in the shallow and moderate snowpack zones within the Cariboo- Chilcotin, British Columbia.

This Management Plan specifies long-term stand-level objectives for winter range management, including:

• harvesting to a basal area objective;• managing at a minimum 30-year cutting cycle;• harvesting within an opening size objective,• designing skid trails to occupy a minimum per-

centage of cutblock area;• promoting a clumpy stem distribution;• promoting Douglas-fir at all phases of manage-

ment; and• harvesting in relation to micro-topography.

Harvesting opportunities in the transition period (996–2026) are increased in comparison to the pre-vious direction provided in the Mule Deer Strategy (996).

Harvesting Opportunity Types are described in detail, including:

. harvesting trees currently attacked by Douglas-fir bark beetle;

2. harvesting non–Douglas-fir trees in stands with <40% Douglas-fir;

3. harvesting non–Douglas-fir trees in stands with 40% or greater Douglas-fir;

4. commercial thinning-from-below;5. single-tree selection system designed for mule

deer winter habitat;6. harvesting on wetter sites; and7. harvesting on cool-aspect portions of specific

winter ranges.

iv

Objectives for woodlots are described separately in order to recognize their unique tenure.

A checklist is provided to assist those who are preparing site plans and silviculture prescriptions on winter range and those who will implement and monitor winter range management activities. This section highlights the need to carefully plan, imple-ment, and monitor all management activities on mule deer winter range.

Appendices provide additional background infor-mation, including the following:

• definition of snowpack zones;• definitions of specialized terms used in the report; • a discussion of the relationship of the objectives

in this plan to the management of biodiversity and selected wildlife species;

• a background discussion of the silvicultural practices designed for winter range management in these snowpack zones;

• a background discussion of integrated approach-es to some insect and disease issues on mule deer winter range; and

• a brief history of mule deer winter range manage-ment and research in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

This plan has been developed following years of research and consultation. The objectives and strate-gies presented are compatible with all applicable Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP) and forest management direction. This includes the CCLUP Integration Report (998), the CCLUP Grassland Strat-egy (200), and the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (999). The winter range boundaries were legally designated in 2004 under Government Action Regulations, and General Wildlife Measures for mule deer winter ranges, based on this report, are also completed and legally approved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Management Strategy is the culmination of many years of research and planning starting in the late 970s. Numerous biologists, foresters, and re-source managers from the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and Range have played a part in the development of this important strategy for sound management of mule deer winter habitat in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

This Management Plan was prepared by the CCLUP Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy Commit-tee. The members of this committee include Harold Armleder, Becky Bings, Rick Dawson, and Darcy Peel. The research efforts of Harold Armleder, Rick Dawson, Michaela Waterhouse, Rob Thomson, and numerous field staff provided the basis for many of the strategy recommendations.

The Mule Deer Working Group from the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association provided use-ful critique and input on the management strategy. Ken Day from the University of British Columbia Research Forest provided detailed input on an earlier draft of this plan and throughout the development of the strategy. John Youds and Chris Swan from the Ministry of Environment and Nola Daintith from the Ministry of Forests and Range provided helpful review comments. Marty Beets, formerly from the Ministry of Environment, provided early impetus to develop innovative solutions to mule deer winter range issues.

The Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy Commit-tee gratefully acknowledges the input of the many people who have provided help and input to the de-velopment of the Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy.

v

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Winter Range Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. Long-term Spatial Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Access Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2. Strategies for meeting access objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.3 Grassland Benchmark Area Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.4 Old Growth Management Area Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02.5 Stand-level Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

2.5. Summary of key stand-level objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Objectives for individual harvest entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5.3 Timing and sequence of management actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Transition Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203. Harvest Opportunities Available on Woodlots during the Transition Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4 Planning Forest Harvests to Meet Winter Range Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204. Basic Steps for Planning a Cutblock in Winter Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.2 Checklist for Forest Harvest Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

appendices Description of habitat classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2 Snowpack zones in the Cariboo-Chilcotin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3 Site capability for mule deer stand structure classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4 Discussion of Grassland Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5 Relationship of mule deer Management Plans to biodiversity and identified wildlife species

in shallow and moderate snowpack zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6 Extension Note 25A: Structural definitions for management of mule deer winter range

habitat in the Interior Douglas-fir Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7 Glossary of terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8 A brief history of mule deer winter range management and research in the Cariboo-Chilcotin . . . . . . . 37 9 Use of group selection on moderate snowpack winter ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 0 Applicable silvicultural systems and treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Forest health management on winter range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2 Use of IDFxm targets for IDFdk sites in 2 winter ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

vi

tables Harvest Opportunity Types for mule deer winter ranges in the shallow and moderate snowpack

zones within the Cariboo-Chilcotin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Timing and sequence of management actions for various stand types and conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Numerical descriptors used at different scales for the description of mule deer winter range

habitat classes in the Cariboo-Chilcotin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A2. Definition of snowpack zones for mule deer winter range management in the Cariboo-Chilcotin . . . 24 A3. Site capability for mule deer stand-structure habitat classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 figures Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 By carefully implementing the direction in this Land Management Handbook,

mule deer winter range can be maintained while harvesting timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 Example of long-term objectives map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Location of skid trails in relation to ridge or topographic break . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 Topographic features especially important on mule deer winter ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 Grassland Benchmark Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 Long-term guidance is found in Extension Note 25A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Small harvest clumps in Harvest Opportunity Type 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Minimize area covered by roads, landings, and skid trails when logging on winter ranges . . . . . . . . . . 9 A0. Four types of forest habitat structure that provide different mixes of habitat attributes

for mule deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A0.2 Douglas-fir foliage made available in the form of litterfall from intermediate and larger trees is the

primary winter forage for mule deer in the Cariboo-Chilcotin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A0.3 Shrubs are an important winter forage especially when available in small openings within a

stand that also provides snow interception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A0.4 The branches and tops from partial cutting in the fall or winter can provide a short-term

source of Douglas-fir foliage for mule deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A0.5 Selected principles for harvesting in mule deer winter range stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 A0.6 Example of a stand with >40% lodgepole pine on a frost-prone site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 A0.7 Thinning-from-below in Douglas-fir−dominated stands with a dense pole layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 A0.8 An example clumpy juvenile spacing approach that will help develop the multi-layered

stand structure ideal for mule deer winter range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1 INTRODUCTION

The Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin (see Figure ) pro-vides habitat management direction at stand and landscape scales across four snowpack zones for all of the deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin within the Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Plan. The strategy is designed to meet the direction of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (cclup) Integra-tion Report (998), which integrates both timber and mule deer habitat targets. The shaded portion of Figure shows the main elements of the strategy that are covered by the document you are now reading.

This Management Plan is one of three parts that provide government direction required for manag-ing mule deer winter range habitat in shallow and moderate snowpack zones in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, British Columbia. The three parts are:

a. Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones (this document)

This plan describes the stand-level management objectives for mule deer winter ranges within the shallow and moderate snowpack zones in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Winter ranges in the transi-tion and deep snowpack zones have a separate Management Plan (Part b) for stand-level guid-ance.

2. Long-term Objectives Maps for Individual Winter Ranges

These maps show the spatial location of all winter range habitat objectives on each individual winter range.

3. Transition-period Harvest Opportunity Plan for Individual Winter Ranges

This plan documents harvest opportunities avail-able on each specific winter range until 2026 and is included as an appendix in the General Wildlife Measures.

The moderate and shallow snowpack zones in-clude more than three quarters of all the identified mule deer winter range area within the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Many of these winter ranges occur in association with valleys of the Fraser and Chilcotin rivers. A table that defines the snow zones based on biogeoclimatic units is included as Appendix 2.

The Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin is designed to guide forest harvest planning to maintain or, where re-quired, to restore winter range habitat suitability. In accordance with the cclup Integration Report (998) direction, this strat-egy provides increased timber harvesting access to the winter range in the short and long term. Maintaining habitat values with this increased level of access will require concerted effort and a high level of accountability from foresters develop-ing forest stewardship plans and site prescriptions on winter ranges. It is critical that the forester planning each cutblock on winter range develops plans that meet the objectives in this Management Plan. It is also important for the forester to clearly document stand structure prescriptions that show how each block will be managed over time. Those responsible for implementing the site plans will need to care-fully supervise the harvesting operations to ensure that they are properly implemented on the ground. Government agencies will need to carefully moni-tor the implementation of this Management Plan to ensure that habitat values are not eroded, or put at risk (Figure 2).

This Management Plan is one of three parts that provide government direction required to manage mule deer winter range habitat in the shallow and moderate snowpack zones in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

2

Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin

Part 1: Management Plans for Specific Snowpack Zones

Part 1a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones • Management Objectives and Strategies • Long-term spatial objectives • Access objectives • Grassland Benchmark Area objectives • Old Growth Management Area objectives • Stand-level Objectives • Overall objectives • Objectives for individual harvest entries • Timing and sequence of harvest entries • Planning and Forest Harvesting • Planning steps • Planning checklist

Part 1b: Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones • Provides stand-level objectives and strategies for winter ranges in the transitionand deep

snowpack zones • Available from Ministry of Forests and Range publications web site

<http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh59.htm> Part 2: Long-term Objectives Maps for Individual Winter Ranges • Show spatial delineation of long-term objectives for Stand Structure Habitat Classes over

whole winter ranges and show major topographic buffers • Available on Ministry of Environment Web site (Cariboo Region) <ftp://ftpwml.env.gov.bc.ca/pub/outgoing/mdwr/all_mdwr_hab_classes/>

Part 3: Transition-period Harvest Opportunity Plan for Individual Winter Ranges • Provides direction on available harvest opportunities from now until 2026 for shallow

and moderate snowpack zone winter ranges. Note that there are no transition period harvesting restrictions on winter range habitat classified as Transition and Deep Snow- pack Zone.

• Available as a table within the Ministry of Environment General Wildlife Measures for shallow and moderate snowpack mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

figure Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

3

The Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin is the culmination of the sustained research and planning efforts of many people over the past 25 years. Appendix 8 of this document summarizes the major milestones of that work. The Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan Integra-tion Report mandated the creation of the Cariboo Regional Mule Deer Winter Range Committee to develop mule deer winter range plans and objectives. The committee is made up of resource management experts from the Ministry of Forests and Range, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and the Ministry of Environment. Two of the committee members were principal researchers in an extensive research program to investigate mule deer winter ecology and management options.

Those familiar with the Mule Deer Handbook (Armleder et al. 986), the Mule Deer Strategy (996) prepared for the cclup, and the cclup Integration Report (998) will find that this Management Plan incorporates and refines the direction given by these documents. The plan is meant to be used by forest managers proposing and planning development on winter ranges, as well as those who regulate and

monitor development. Different parts of the plan may be more relevant to different types of users. The following summary is meant to help guide users to the parts of the plan that will be most useful to them.

In this report, Section 2 “Winter Range Manage-ment Objectives,” describes three types of win-ter range management objectives. The first type, “Long-term Spatial Objectives,” provides manage-ment direction at the broadest scale through spatial delineation of stand structure habitat class objectives (high, moderate, and low) over entire winter ranges. These long-term spatial objectives are presented on individual maps for each winter range and can be obtained in electronic form from the Ministry of Environment web site <ftp://ftpwml.env.gov.bc.ca/pub/outgoing/mdwr/all_mdwr_hab_classes/>. The second type, “Access Objectives,” provides direction on how to plan and manage access on winter ranges to reduce potential negative impacts on mule deer. The third type, “Stand-level Objectives,” provides management direction at the stand and cutblock level. The stand-level objectives include “Overall stand-level objectives” as well as “Objectives for indi-vidual harvest entries.”

figure 2 By carefully implementing the direction in this Land Management Handbook, mule deer winter range can be maintained while harvesting timber (photo by E.J. Armleder).

4

Section 4, “Planning Forest Harvests to Meet Winter Range Objectives,” provides a simplified list of steps for those planning harvesting on winter ranges and a more detailed checklist of critical direc-tion for planning of winter range harvest blocks. As well as aiding forest industry planners, the checklist will provide general guidance for monitoring man-agement activities carried out within winter ranges.

The Appendices provide more detailed informa-tion for some users who may want to gain a better

understanding of the direction provided in the main body of this plan. Appendix 6 includes the numeri-cal standards for management of stand structure required to meet stand-level objectives on winter range. Appendix 7 provides a glossary that defines some of the more specialized terms used in this document. The references includes a list of literature for those seeking a more in-depth understanding of the background and local information behind the plan.

2 WINTER RANGE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The overall winter range strategy contains five types of objectives:

• Long-term Spatial Objectives• Access Objectives • Grassland Benchmark Area Objectives• Old Growth Management Area Objectives • Stand-level Objectives

2. Long-term Spatial Objectives A long-term objectives map has been developed for each winter range. These maps provide manage-ment direction at the broadest scale through spatial delineation of stand structure habitat class objectives (high, moderate, and low) over entire winter ranges. The maps also show the location of topographic buf-fers, woodlots, private land, and habitat management zones. Completed long-term objectives maps can be found on the Ministry of Environment web site (Cariboo Region).

An example of one of these maps is shown as Fig-ure 3. The proportions of winter range managed for low, moderate, and high mule deer stand structure habitat class objectives depends on which snowpack zone or zones the winter range is located on, as de-scribed in the Mule Deer Handbook. On some winter ranges, the Mule Deer Winter Range Committee has modified these proportions to better address local conditions. However, the amount of winter range

target (i.e., high and moderate stand structure habi-tat provided by the cclup) was not exceeded over a Timber Supply Area.

Distribution of these stand structure habitat class objectives will vary within different parts of each winter range to address the function that each win-ter range part provides for deer, the timber tenures in the zone, and the ecological capability to produce specific habitat types. For example, a low-elevation area with a predominantly warm aspect may receive very high deer use in deep snow conditions. Therefore, the objective for this type of area will usually specify mostly high stand structure class, provided site conditions are capable of producing this stand structure class. Alternatively, another area with a higher capability to produce shrub forage may be used mostly in the early winter when snow is shallower. This type of area may have an objective to maintain more moderate and low stand structure habitat class.

An individual winter range may include portions in both the transition snowpack zone and in the moderate snowpack zone. Stand-level direction from Part b: Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones should be followed for the transi-tion snowpack portion of these winter ranges. Also, the cool aspect portions of moderate snowpack win-ter ranges identified in Appendix 9 should also be managed using the direction from Part b: Manage-ment Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones.

Throughout this section, objectives are enclosed in shaded boxes.

The long-term objectives map for each winter range provides direction on where to manage for each of three stand structure habitat classes.

5

figu

re 3

Ex

ampl

e of

long

-ter

m o

bjec

tives

map

.

Man

agem

ent

Stra

teg

y fo

r M

ule

Dee

r W

inte

r Ra

nges

in t

he C

arib

oo-C

hilc

otin

: Par

t Tw

oLo

ng

-Ter

m O

bje

ctiv

es M

ap –

Kn

ife

Cre

ek_d

wl-

50Sp

atia

l Dis

trib

utio

n o

f St

and

Str

uctu

re H

abit

at C

lass

esD

ecem

ber

21,

200

5

zone

3

zone

3

IDFd

k3

zone

4zo

ne 2

zone

1

IDFx

m

zone

2

zone

5

SBPS

mk

Spec

ial M

anag

emen

t D

irec

tion

:

Gro

up s

elec

tion

as

des

crib

ed in

Par

t 1b

: Man

age-

men

t Pl

an fo

r Tr

ansi

tion

an

d D

eep

Snow

pac

k

Zon

es)

is t

o b

e us

ed o

n al

l slo

pe

and

asp

ects

in

tran

siti

on a

nd

dee

p sn

owp

ack

zon

es. A

lso

on t

his

win

ter

ran

ge,

gro

up s

elec

tion

is t

o b

e us

ed in

th

e m

oder

ate

snow

pac

k zo

ne

on n

orth

-fac

ing

asp

ects

(b

etw

een

315

deg

rees

an

d 60

deg

rees

) th

at a

re

gre

ater

tha

n 20

% s

lop

e.

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Sig

ned

thi

s __

____

day

of _

____

____

____

__

C

hris

Tru

mp

y, D

eput

y M

inis

ter,

Min

istr

y of

Env

iron

men

t

Rid

ge

Hab

itat

Man

agem

ent

Zon

es

Woo

dlo

ts

Priv

ate

Lan

d

Low

Hab

itat

Typ

e Li

mit

atio

n

Mod

erat

e H

abit

at T

ype

Lim

itat

ion

Top

ogra

phi

c Bu

ffer

Lon

g Te

rm O

pen

Ran

ge

(Gra

ssla

nd

Ben

chm

ark

from

Gra

ssla

nd

Stra

teg

y)

Gra

ssla

nd

s C

urre

ntly

Tre

e-

Encr

oach

ed (

air

ph

oto

inte

rpre

tati

on)

Mul

e D

eer

Win

ter

Ran

ge

Boun

dar

y

Biog

eocl

imat

ic S

ub-Z

ones

Hig

h H

abit

at S

tan

d St

ruct

ure

Mod

erat

e H

abit

at S

tan

d St

ruct

ure

Low

Hab

itat

Sta

nd

Stru

ctur

e

Non

-Pro

duc

tive

(U

rban

, Wet

lan

d,

Swam

p, R

ock,

Cla

y Ba

nk, C

lear

-in

g, N

on-P

rod

ucti

ve B

rush

, Roc

k)

LEG

END

0 1

2 km

6

Each winter range is divided into Habitat Man-agement Zones. These zones are used to provide direction on type and distribution of harvest in both the transition period and in the long term. They may be used on some winter ranges to identify areas where specific management recommendations should be applied. Existing woodlots are always put into their own Habitat Management Zone.

2.2 Access Objectives

Good access management on winter range can reduce deer mortality and minimize energy losses. Vehicle traffic has the potential effect of displacing deer from adjacent habitat and increasing levels of harassment. Plowed roads make travel easier for predators in deeper snow conditions. More roads

increase legal and illegal hunting success. Roads are especially problematic adjacent to topographic breaks and ridges. These areas are key habitats that provide very important travel, bedding, and feed-ing habitats for deer. Motorized off-road recreation (e.g., snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles) can also lead to harassment and displacement of deer on winter ranges.

Deer are in an energy deficit situation in winter, therefore any extra energy expenditures caused by poor access management have cumulative negative effects on their health and condition.

Buffers for major topographic features are drawn on long-term objectives maps while minor topo-graphic features must be defined on the ground by those implementing forest management treatments or building roads (Figures 4 and 5).

Access objectives:

1. Do not construct roads or landings within:a. topographic buffers identified along major topographic features on long-term objectives

maps, or b. 100 m of minor ridges* or minor topographic breaks* identified in the field. Note: Perpendicular road crossings that are absolutely required to access otherwise iso-

lated timber are an exception to access objectives 1a and 1b. 2. Minimize road and landing areas for all harvest blocks.3. Do not build roads within Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) unless no other viable

option is available.4. Plan and manage roads within winter ranges to minimize motorized access during winter

and disturbance of deer.

* Topographic breaks and ridges are defined as features requiring special management where the slope is greater than 15% when measured from the apex of the feature to a point 15 m perpendicular to the fea-ture or to the nearest gully bottom if this is less than 15 m away. Ridges have a slope >15% on both sides while topographic breaks have a slope of >15% on only one side.

7

Not OK OK

Ridge ortopographybreak

Ridge ortopographybreak

Skidtrail Skid

trail

Cutblock boundary Cutblock boundary30m 30m

figure 4 Location of skid trails in relation to ridge or topographic break. It is acceptable to locate skid trails perpendicular to a ridge or topographic break feature to access timber, but they should not be located parallel to the feature within 30 m of the ridge or break.

2.2. Strategies for meeting access objectivesStrategies for managing access on winter ranges include:

• carefully planning operations to meet the stated access objectives;

• minimizing the number of roads that are plowed in the winter;

• minimizing the number of roads open to vehicle traffic at any time (ideally, deactivate roads to

prevent 4-wheel-drive access if not needed for harvesting or silvicultural activities for 2 years or more);

• completely deactivating old roads in topographic buffers as much as possible; and

• planning unlogged and unspaced buffers along roads to reduce sight distances and harassment (the width of these buffers can be flexible—the objective is to provide a visual screen).

8

figure 5 Topographic features especially important on mule deer winter ranges. A) Major ridges and topographic breaks like this would usually require a road-free buffer of

100–300 m as indicated on long-term objectives maps. B) Minor topographic features like this one may not be indicated on long-term objectives

maps, but are still very important habitats for deer and need to be identified for special consideration during forestry and road-building operations.

A

B

9

2.3 Grassland Benchmark Area Objectives

The Grassland Strategy prepared under the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan has established a Grass-land Benchmark Area (Figure 6) to address forest encroachment and forest in-growth (Appendix 4). In the Grassland Benchmark Area, the principal management objectives will include maintenance of grasslands, and any timber harvesting will not include reforestation obligations. Tree cover objec-tives for this area are designed to emulate the effects of frequent wildfires.

For example, re-moval of recent forest encroachment is a high priority objective but large, old veteran trees

should be retained as wildlife habitat. In addi-tion, a sufficient number of smaller trees should be retained, in groups or singly, to ensure long-term presence of large wildlife trees.

The Benchmark Area has been endorsed by the Interagency Management Committee (IAMC) and is defined as the area that was classified as “open range” on the earliest available forest inventory maps (completed primarily from 963 to 975). There is no requirement for maintenance of mule deer winter range habitat attributes in these Grassland Bench-mark Areas. The management direction provided in the Grassland Strategy should help to develop and maintain good spring range habitat for mule deer. The mule deer winter range long-term objectives maps will identify any Grassland Benchmark Areas within the winter range plan area.

Mule deer winter range plans have been developed to be compatible with the Grassland Strategy.

figure 6 Grassland Benchmark Area.

Grassland Benchmark Area

0

2.4 Old Growth Management Area Objectives

The CCLUP Integration Report directed that 25% of the high and moderate mule deer stand structure habitat class area should also be managed to main-tain old-growth characteristics. This direction,

which seeks to reduce timber supply impacts by overlapping areas with several important non-timber objectives, has resulted in a large number

of Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) being located on mule deer winter ranges. The primary objective for these areas is to maintain or enhance old-growth attributes and natural ecological pro-cesses while also providing deer winter habitat.

The requirements for OGMAs are more constrain-ing than those for the high stand structure mule deer habitat class. The CCLUP Sustainable Resource Management Plans recommend that industrial activity is excluded from OGMAs, with the following exceptions:

. insect control essential to curtail severe damage to the no-harvest area or to other forest values at the landscape level;

2. salvage of dead timber (non-infectious) resulting from severe natural disturbance that has de-stroyed the ecological, wildlife, or cultural values in the area;

3. control of wildfire;4. seed cone collection, provided trees are not felled;5. road construction where there is no other practi-

cable location available;6. in Riparian Reserve Zones, creating a corridor for

full suspension yarding or guyline tiebacks, where there is no other practicable location available;

7. thinning to enhance old forest attributes within OGMAs inside mule deer winter range within the shallow and moderate snowpack zones in accor-dance with the direction in Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chil-cotin: Part a: Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones;

8. ecological restoration activities approved by the Integrated Land Management Bureau or Ministry of Environment statutory authorities, consistent with the governing legislation; and

9. exploration and development of minerals1 and

coal, and exploration and development of placer areas.

Legal direction on OGMA management will be docu-mented in the Land Act regulations.

2.5 Stand-level Objectives

This section includes three parts. The first, Section 2.5., provides a summary of key stand-level objec-tives describing desired future stand characteristics within the context of stand management, using a clumpy single tree selection silviculture system spe-cially designed for managing mule deer winter range habitat.

These key objectives provide a long-term vision of how winter range habitat in shallow and moder-ate snowpack zone mule deer winter range stands should be managed in the Cariboo-Chilcotin using clumpy single tree selection. In some stand types, single tree selection may begin at the first harvest pass, while in others different harvest treatments (described in Section 2.5.2) may be appropriate on the first pass. Knowing the future desired condition provides critical overall guidance and direction for all current management activities.

Single tree selection is not recommended as the long-term treatment for the forest stands on two specific site types within shallow and moderate snowpack winter ranges. These two site types are: () subhygric sites unsuitable for Douglas-fir man-agement and (2) cool aspect IDFdk3 sites on specific transitional winter ranges as described in Appendix 9. These cool aspect stands should be managed us-ing the guidance for the transition snowpack zone, even where they are classified as moderate snowpack zone.

Section 2.5.2 provides measurable objectives and strategies for individual treatments (called “Har-vest Opportunity Types”) that form the steps in the management sequence described in Section 2.5.3. The objectives for each stand type and stand structure habitat class are designed to integrate deer habitat requirements with workable silviculture and har-vesting practices for these forest types.

Section 2.5.3 provides guidance on the sequence of management steps required to deal with various stand conditions and to move various stand struc-tures towards the desired long-term condition while maintaining adequate habitat quality. These steps

The primary objective for OGMAs on winter range is to provide old-growth attri-butes and deer habitat.

Mineral as defined in the Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC, 996, Chapter 292, Part ().

and their sequences will be different for different initial stand structures. The objectives for each treat-ment, as well as the timing between treatments, are both vital to moving efficiently toward the desired long-term condition and for maintaining reason-able habitat quality along the way. These treatment and timing objectives provide measurable elements to be applied and monitored under a results-based management system.

2.5. Summary of key stand-level objectivesSpecific areas on each winter range are zoned for management using each of three stand structure habitat class objectives (Figure 3). Key long-term objectives to be met in all three stand structure habitat classes are provided in the box below. A more detailed explanation of some of the long-term guidance summarized here can be found in the Mule Deer Handbook and in the Ministry of Forests, Cariboo Forest Region, Extension Note 25A entitled Structural Definitions for Management of Mule Deer Winter Range Habitat in the Interior Douglas-fir Zone (included as Appendix 6; Figure 7). figure 7 Long-term guidance is found in Extension

Note 25A (included as Appendix 6).

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Maintaining good quality winter

habitat for mule deer is a

priority management goal for

areas identified as mule deer

winter range in the Cariboo-

Chilcotin Land Use Plan

(CCLUP). A large proportion

of these winter ranges occur in

the Interior Douglas-fir

Biogeoclimatic Zone (IDF)

where multi-storied Douglas-fir

forests provide optimal forest

structure to meet the food and

shelter requirements of deer.

The “Handbook for Timber and

Mule Deer Management Co-

ordination on Winter Ranges in

the Cariboo Forest Region”

(Mule Deer Handbook)

describes the amounts of high,

moderate and low crown closure

habitat required on winter

ranges in various snowpack

zones. The Mule Deer

Handbook also describes a low-

volume partial cutting

prescription that maintains stand

structure attributes for mule

deer habitat. This extension

note introduces refined

definitions for mule deer habitat

classes in the IDFdk3 and

IDFxm, using basal area to

describe target stand conditions.

This new way of defining

habitat characteristics at the

stand level is intended to

provide clear, results oriented

guidance for silviculturists

developing uneven-aged stand

prescriptions on IDF mule deer

winter ranges.

��

��

��

��

Successful co-ordination of

timber and mule deer

management objectives requires

planning efforts at three scales:

regional, landscape and stand.

The different requirements for

each planning level result in the

need for different sets of

descriptive attributes.

Increasingly precise

descriptions of habitat attributes

are both required and possible

as the scale of interest changes

STRUCTURAL DEFINITIONS FORMANAGEMENT OF MULE DEER WINTERRANGE HABITAT IN THE INTERIORDOUGLAS-FIR ZONE

Key Stand-level Objectives (Shallow & Moderate Snowpack MDWRS)

• Basal Area – Meet basal area requirements described in Table 2 in Extension Note 25A (Appendix 6). These describe the post-harvest total basal area (m2 of Douglas-fir stems >12.5 cm dbh) and the post-harvest basal area of large trees (m2 of Douglas-fir stems >37.5 cm dbh) for the single-tree selection silviculture system. There are different basal area objectives for each stand structure habitat class. Post-harvest basal area requirements apply to the net harvested area (i.e., excluding roads, landings, and Wildlife Tree Patches [WTPs]). Maximum Douglas-fir basal area removal during the transition period (until 2026) is 20% for treat-ments that target all size classes and 25% for thinning treatments that only target stems <37.5 cm dbh.

• Cutting Cycle – Use a cutting cycle of 30 years or more. The basal area values given in Extension Note 25A are designed for cutting cycles of 30 years or longer. The target basal area would need to be increased if shorter cutting cycles are used, as described for under strategies for Harvest Opportunity Type 5 in Table 1.

• Canopy Openings – Recommended silviculture systems combine “thinning-from-below” with creation of small canopy openings. These openings should range in diameter from 0.3 to 1 times the height of mature trees in the stand (measured to the stems of the trees surrounding the opening), with an average opening diameter of 0.5 times the mature tree height. For example, in a stand with mature trees 30 m tall, the aver-age diameter of canopy openings created by harvesting would be 15 m.

• Clumpiness – Maintain and promote a clumpy distribution of residual Douglas-fir trees. Clumps would ide-ally contain four to 10 or more mature trees with interlocking crowns.

Continued on next page

2

Key Stand-level Objectives (Shallow & Moderate Snowpack MDWRS) (Continued)

• Species Composition – Maximize the proportion of Douglas-fir by all possible means. The long-term objec-tive is to achieve at least 80% Douglas-fir composition in as short a time as possible on sites capable of growing Douglas-fir. This would be achieved over time by increasing the Douglas-fir composition by at least 20% at each harvest entry. Harvest in a way that optimizes the maintenance and regeneration of Douglas-fir. In mixed-species stands, the objective is to convert species composition to a predominantly Douglas-fir stand as quickly as possible. Therefore, choose a harvesting approach that will not create frost problems for Douglas-fir regeneration. Do not plant pine or spruce unless these are the only silviculturally viable options.

• Tree Size Distribution – Maintain and promote multi-layered, uneven-aged stands dominated by mature Douglas-fir with deep, wide crowns, and a high component of large, old trees. The recommended B, D, and q values in Table 3 of Extension Note 25A (Appendix 6) will provide guidance on recommended diam-eter distributions. For those familiar with designing uneven-aged management prescriptions, the values in Table 3 quantitatively describe a type of desired stand structure. The relatively low values for “q” describe a stand where much of the volume is contained in larger trees.

• Wildlife Trees – Maintain abundant snags and declining trees, especially in stands managed for moderate and high stand structure habitat class objectives. Extra care is required in these stands because safety regu-lations combined with the short cutting cycle could easily result in a stand with few wildlife trees.

• Special Topographic Features – Maintain higher than average tree cover on ridges, topographic breaks, and knolls. This will effectively mean that these micro-sites will be managed to maintain a higher basal area than that prescribed for the surrounding stand as a whole.

• Damage to Non-target Trees – Damage (defined in Appendix 7) or unavoidable harvest of non-target stems resulting from skid trail development and harvesting activities must be carefully controlled. When harvesting non–Douglas-fir from mixed-species stands (Harvest Types 2 and 3), harvest or damage of Douglas-fir stems must not exceed 15% for stems 22.5–37.5 cm dbh and 5% for stems >37.5 cm dbh (in-cluding skid trail development) of the pre-harvest basal area of Douglas-fir stems in each of these diameter class groupings. When thinning-from-below (Harvest Type 4) no Douglas-fir stems >37.5 cm dbh should be targeted for harvest. Damage or unavoidable harvest of Douglas-fir >37.5 cm dbh must not exceed 10% of the pre-harvest basal area of Douglas-fir stems >37.5 cm dbh.

• Access Development – Carefully minimize the area required for roads, landings, and skid trails. Skid trails (defined in Appendix 7) must cover no more than 10% of the net harvested area (excluding roads, land-ings, and WTPs) when managing for moderate and high stand structure habitat classes. Generally, keep roads and skid trails away from ridges or topographic breaks. However, any roads and skid trails required near ridges or topographic breaks should be oriented at right angles to the topographic feature. Minimize upgrades to existing roads in OGMAs; utilize in current condition where possible.

2.5.2 Objectives for individual harvest entries The general long-term objective is to bring winter range stands in the shallow and moderate snowpack zones into a clumpy single-tree selection manage-ment regime. Based on specific stand structure, composition, or bark beetle attack situations, some stands may need other management treatments before moving into the clumpy single-tree selection regime. This is the case for stands requiring Harvest Types , 2, and 3. Thinning (Harvest Type 4) may be a useful initial treatment on some very dense stands.

Harvest Type 6 is for wetter sites that do not require harvest treatments designed for mule deer habitat management. The following box gives a general de-scription of each Harvest Type and Table provides objectives and strategies for each. Table 2 shows the sequence of management steps required to deal with various stand conditions. Note that the legal General Wildlife Measures for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin combines Harvest Types 2 and 3 from the following box.

3

Harvest Opportunity Types

• Harvest Type 1 involves removing individual trees currently infested with Douglas-fir bark beetles. Harvest Type 1 is available in the transition period regardless of winter range condition. The objective is to minimize the spread of bark beetles with minimal harvesting of, or damage to, the stand including non-infested wild-life trees. Skid trails should be narrow and located to minimize harvest or damage of Douglas-fir trees >22.5 cm dbh. This harvest type allows the use of trap trees to manage Douglas-fir beetle.

• Harvest Type 2 involves harvesting non–Douglas-fir stems in stands with <40% Douglas-fir basal area in merchantable stand components. The objective is to harvest most of the non–Douglas-fir stems and en-courage Douglas-fir regeneration on ecologically suitable sites. Harvest Type 2 is available in the transition period regardless of winter range condition.

• Harvest Type 3 involves harvesting non–Douglas-fir stems in stands with ≥40% Douglas-fir basal area

in merchantable size classes. The objective is to retain and promote Douglas-fir in a multi-layer structure, while harvesting most non–Douglas-fir stems. Harvest Type 3 is available in the transition period regardless of winter range condition.

• Harvest Type 4 involves harvesting stems between 12.5 and 37.5 cm dbh in Douglas-fir–leading stands with a dense pole layer. The objectives are to thin the stand by removing some small, lower-vigour stems, and to retain and promote Douglas-fir in a multi-layer structure. Harvest Types 3 and 4 provide short-term timber access as well as long-term enhancement of stand structure for mule deer habitat, but result in some short-term reduction in habitat suitability. Where applicable, these two Harvest Types can be applied together as one treatment, which can increase their economic viability. Harvest Type 4 is available in the transition period regardless of winter range condition.

• Harvest Type 5 involves partial harvesting of Douglas-fir in a series of harvest passes designed to move the stand towards the stand structure curves described in Appendix 6. The objective is to maintain and pro-mote stand structure characteristics desired for mule deer habitat including: multi-storeyed stand structure; a full diameter class distribution with a significant component of larger trees; a clumpy stem distribution; and greater basal area retention on ridges, topographic breaks, and warm aspect micro-habitat features. This Harvest Type may include harvest of stems >37.5 cm dbh if a comparison of current stand condition with the large tree requirements indicate an excess of these larger stems. Harvest Type 5 will incorporate some “thinning-from-below” of the pole layer as well as harvest of small patches of diameter 0.3–1 tree lengths. Availability of Harvest Type 5 during the transition period depends on the condition of the winter range as a whole and the long-term objective for each stand.

• Harvest Type 6 Harvest without mule deer winter range constraints in stands that are subhygric or wetter and have <40% Douglas-fir. This Harvest Type is available in the transition period regardless of winter range condition.

• Harvest Type 7 Small group selection system on cool aspect portions of winter ranges listed in Appendix 9. Objectives would be as described in Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chil-cotin Part 1b: Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones. Harvest Type 7 is available in the transition period regardless of winter range condition.

4

TABLE Harvest Opportunity Types for mule deer winter ranges in the Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones within the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The term “logging damage” in this table refers to crown or bark damage. Damage is defined as: (1) loss of one-quarter or more of the crown or (2) loss of either 1000 cm2 of bark or loss of bark from one-third of the circumference of the tree.

• Remove currently infested stems with minimal damage to, or harvest of, green stems.

• The basal area of non-target stems >27.5 cm dbh removed must be less than 10% of the basal area of infested stems removed.

• Maintain some large (≥40 cm dbh) grey attack or non-infested red attack trees well distributed throughout the treated block.

• Within Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs), do not salvage any dead trees. Carry out sanitation harvest in accordance with the most current Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP) Biodiversity Up-dates or as directed by MOFR.

• Use trap trees where appropriate to sup-press Douglas-fir beetle populations. Trap tree sites must be located and implement-ed to minimize non-target harvest and residual damage.

• Carefully map and reconnoiter beetle attack, and promptly remove infected stems to minimize beetle damage.

• No dead trees should be removed from wtps. • For salvage harvesting, minimize harvest and

damage to live trees > 27.5 cm dbh and minimize damage to regeneration.

• During salvage operations, maintain some large (≥ 40 cm dbh) dead trees well distributed throughout the treated block.

1. Douglas-fir bark beetle sanitation

2. Harvest of non–Douglas-fir stems in stands with <40% Douglas-fir in merchantable stand layers

• Harvest non–Douglas-fir stand compo-nents with minimal damage to Douglas-fir stems.

• Harvest or damage to Douglas-fir must not exceed 15% for stems 22.5–37.5 cm dbh and 5% for stems >37.5 cm dbh (including skid trail development) of the pre-harvest basal area of Douglas-fir stems in each of these diameter class groupings.

• Douglas-fir stem density for dbh classes <22.5 cm must not be reduced below their long-term density goals.

• On sites ecologically capable of growing Douglas-fir, increase the Douglas-fir composition by at least 20% after each harvest entry up to the long-term target of 80%.

• Locate landings in non–Douglas-fir areas when-ever possible.

• To achieve non-target harvest and damage objec-tives will require careful pre-harvest planning and layout of skid trails and may require leaving some scattered lodgepole pine.

• The level and distribution of harvest should be carefully designed to minimize the possibility of windthrow in the residual stand and to not create frost problems for regenerating Douglas-fir.

• Protect and promote established Douglas-fir regeneration.

• Consider leaving lodgepole pine located singly or in small patches if harvesting would require cutting Douglas-fir for access to the pine.

• Do not plant non–Douglas-fir species unless Douglas-fir is not ecologically viable on the site.

• Great care must be taken to maintain existing snags and manage for snag recruitment. Use of wildlife tree patches (wtps) is the most effective way of managing for snags and is valuable for managing other values including coarse woody debris (cwd) and undisturbed forest floor.

Harvest Opportunity Type Objectives Strategies and comments

5

3. Harvest of non–Douglas-fir stand components in stands with ≥40% Douglas-fir in merchantable stand layers

• Harvest non–Douglas-fir stand compo-nents with minimal damage to Douglas-fir stems.

• Harvest or damage to Douglas-fir must not exceed 15% for stems 22.5–37.5 cm dbh and 5% for stems >37.5 cm dbh (including skid trail development) of the pre-harvest basal area of Douglas-fir stems in each of these diameter class groupings.

• Douglas-fir stem density for dbh classes <22.5 cm must not be reduced below their long-term density goals.

• Minimize area covered by skid trails. If Douglas-fir composition is ≥60% then the area covered by skid trails must not exceed 10% of the net harvested area (excluding roads, landings and wtps) in stands man-aged for high or moderate stand structure objectives (see Appendix 7 for definition of skid trails).

• Encourage the development of a multi- storeyed stand.


• Locate landings in non–Douglas-fir areas when-ever possible.

• To achieve non-target harvest and damage objec-tives will require careful pre-harvest planning and layout of skid trails and may require leaving some scattered non–Douglas-fir.

• Protect and promote established Douglas-fir regeneration.

• Do not plant non–Douglas-fir species unless Douglas-fir is not ecologically viable on the site.

• Great care must be taken to maintain existing snags and manage for snag recruitment. Use of wildlife tree patches (wtps) is the most effective way of managing for snags and is valuable for managing other values including coarse woody debris (cwd) and undisturbed forest floor.

• Harvest Types 3 and 4 can be implemented as a combined treatment where applicable.

• If the basal area of mature pine in the stand is low (≤20%) and infested with mpb, seriously consider alternative treatment options. Options may include: fall and burn, use of single-tree or small group sanitation, or not harvesting.

• If a stand is ≥80% Douglas-fir, it should ideally only be harvested in combination with Harvest Types 4 or 5. The high level of harvest and dam-age of non-target trees associated with removal of small non–Douglas-fir volumes will make it difficult to meet non-target harvest and damage objectives.


6

4. Thinning-from-below in stands with a dense pole layer

• Thin-from-below in stems 12.5–37.5 cm dbh. The less vigorous trees in the inter-mediate and suppressed canopy layers are the first priority for removal using this method.

• Do not target any Douglas-fir stems >37.5 cm dbh for harvest. Minimize unavoidable harvest or damage of these stems. In no case should the harvest or damage of these trees exceed 10% of the pre-harvest basal area of Douglas-fir trees >37.5 cm dbh.

• Retain a minimum of 75% of the pre-har-vest conifer basal area (stems >12.5 cm dbh). Note that the residual basal area is the average for the net harvested area (ex-cluding roads, landings, and wildlife tree patches [wtps]).

• Minimize area covered by skid trails, which must not exceed 10% of the net harvested area (excluding roads, landings, and wtps).

• In mixed-species stands, target species other than Douglas-fir for removal first.

• Minimize unavoidable harvest or damage of Douglas-fir stems >37.5 cm dbh by ensuring that skid trails avoid areas containing these larger trees.

• Locate landings in non–Douglas-fir areas and in areas with little or no Douglas-fir >37.5 cm dbh whenever possible.

• Great care must be taken to maintain existing snags and manage for snag recruitment. Use of wtps is the most effective way of managing for snags and for managing other values, including coarse woody debris (cwd) and undisturbed forest floor.


5. Clumpy single-tree selection man-agement using target curves to maintain stand attributes for mule deer winter range.

• Harvest using clumpy single-tree selec-tion methods described in the Mule Deer Handbook and Appendix 6 to maintain or enhance mule deer habitat.

• Retain a minimum of 80% of the pre-har-vest merchantable Douglas-fir basal area for harvesting done before 2026. If a 20% harvest would result in a basal area below the long-term target, then retain the long-term target basal area. The 80% residual basal area figure is the average for the net harvested area (excluding roads, landings and wtps).

• Harvest to a target stand structure de-signed to move towards the designated long-term habitat objective (Table 2 of Appendix 6). Do not harvest the stand below these targets for total basal area or basal area of Douglas-fir >37.5 cm dbh. In all IDFdk BEC variants, use basal area targets for the IDFdk3 except as noted in Appendix 12.

• Note that Harvest Opportunity Types 3 and 4 can be applied as part of this harvest regime.

• A minimum 30-year cutting cycle is recom-mended. For values in Table 2 of Appendix 6 to apply, the cutting cycle must be at least 30 years. If shorter cutting cycles are used, the residual basal area targets must be increased to compensate for the shorter time period between harvests and thus the reduced average basal area of the stand over the complete cutting cycle. The increase in residual basal area for each 10-year decrease in the cutting cycle should be equal to the estimated 10-year basal area growth for the stand being harvested. For example, if using a 20 year cutting cycle on a high stand structure habitat class objective area in the IDFdk, the post-harvest basal area should be increased by the estimated 10-year basal area growth for the stand (29 m2 + estimated 10-year growth = mini-mum post-harvest basal area).

• The minimum 80% basal area retention applies to the transition period (1996–2026) only.

7

5. Continued


• Except for harvest of single isolated trees, harvested patches should range in diameter from 0.3 to 1 times the height of mature trees in the stand, with an average opening diameter of 0.5 times the mature tree height (Figure 8).

• Minimize area covered by skid trails, which must not exceed 10% of the net harvested area (excluding roads, landings, and wtps) in stands managed for high or moderate stand structure objectives (see Appendix 7 for definition of skid trails; see Figure 9).


• Silviculture prescription for each harvest entry should specify: 1. the appropriate long-term residual stand curve

for the stand structure habitat class objective and the curve to be used for current harvest entry (see Appendix 6)

2. how residual stems and snags will be protected 3. how logging to the curve will be implemented

in the field. Mark-to-leave will likely provide the best results.

• Locate landings in non–Douglas-fir areas wher-ever possible.

• If planting, always plant Douglas-fir if it is eco-logically viable for the site.

• Concurrent juvenile spacing is encouraged if a dense sapling layer is present.

• Fall and skid carefully to minimize crown and bark damage to residual trees. This may require a two-stage harvest system. The first stage removes less than the target basal area and the second stage removes stems with damaged bark or crowns to make up the target removal.

• Because of the short cutting cycle (30 years), great care must be taken to maintain existing snags and manage for snag recruitment. Use of wildlife tree patches (wtps) is the most effective way of managing for snags and is useful for managing other values including cwd and undisturbed for-est floor.

6. Stands that are subhygric or wetter and have <40% Douglas-fir

• No special harvest constraints

7. Small group selection system on cool aspect portions of winter ranges listed in Appendix 9

• Objectives are described in Management Strategy for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Part 1b: Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones.

8

2.5.3 Timing and sequence of management actionsTable 2 shows the sequence of management steps that is required to deal with various stand conditions and to move various stand structures towards the desired

long-term condition while maintaining adequate habitat quality. The seven harvest types are fully described in Section 2.5.2.

TABLE 2 Timing and sequence of management actions for various stand types and conditions

Progression towards long-term stand structure objectives

Applicable stand 3rd and type or situation 1st pass 2nd pass subsequent passes

Apply Douglas-fir beetle sanitation (Harvest Type 1). Then apply harvest treatments appropriate to the stand type in column 1 of this table A. Stands with significant current Douglas-fir beetle

B. Harvest of non–Doug-las-fir stems in mixed-spe-cies stands

C. Harvest of Douglas-fir in all situations other than A, B, D, E, and F

Harvest of non–Douglas-fir stems with minimal damage to Douglas-fir(Harvest Types 2 and 3 )

Apply “thinning-from-below” in stands with a dense intermediate canopy layer(Harvest Type 4) or

Apply first pass of single- tree selection when economic harvest can bemade while ensuring that basal area and treesize targets are notexceeded in the residual stand (Harvest Type 5)

After 30 years or a greater interval, apply 2nd pass of single-tree selection(Harvest Type 5)

After 30 years or a greater interval apply subsequent single-tree selection passes(Harvest Type 5)

Apply first pass of single- tree selection when eco-nomic harvest can be made while ensuring that basal area and tree size targets are not exceeded in the residual stand (Harvest Type 5)

D. Subhygric or wetter Do not need to manage for mule deer winter range stand structure values (Harvest Type 6)sites with <40% Douglas-fir E. Group selection harvest Manage using recommendations for the transition snowpack zone from Part 1b: on cool aspects of Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones (Harvest Type 7)transitional winter ranges listed in Appendix 9

F. Old Growth No harvest recommended except: 1) limited bark beetle sanitation or trap-tree treatments forManagement Areas very serious bark beetle infestations (Harvest type 1) or 2) thinning-from-below (Harvest Type 4).

9

Figure 8 Small harvest clumps in Harvest Opportunity Type 5. Trees should be harvested in small clumps ranging in diameter from 0.3 to 1 times the height of mature trees in the stand, with an average opening diameter of 0.5 times the mature tree height.

Figure 9 Minimize area covered by roads, landings, and skid trails when logging on winter ranges. Skid trails must cover no more than 10% of the net area to be reforested (i.e., excluding landings, roads, and wildlife tree patches) when logging winter range stands with a long-term stand structure habitat class objective of moderate or high.

20

3 TRANSITION STRATEGY

The CCLUP Integration Report (998, page 35) short-term direction states, “the primary objective is to achieve the crown closure objectives on MDWR as quickly as possible.” The CCLUP Integration Report also assumes that the level of access proposed under the Short-Term Timber Availability Strategy (STTA) will be met by allowing harvest access on: () winter ranges currently meeting mule deer winter range objectives, and (2) other winter ranges in stands that have the least impact on achieving mule deer winter range objectives in a timely manner.

Following the intent of this direction, the General Wildlife Measures document for shallow and moder-ate snowpack winter ranges identifies restrictions to the use of Harvest Opportunity Type 5 in specific winter ranges and Habitat Management Zones. All other Harvest Opportunity Types are immediately available.

3. Harvest Opportunities Available on Woodlots

during the Transition Period

The transition plan harvest restrictions do not apply to woodlot tenures. Instead, harvesting opportu-nities from 996 tο 2026 should be guided by the list of priorities provided in the adjacent box. They attempt to focus the short-term cut on stand types and stand components with lower mule deer winter range habitat values. This priority list should be used as guidance, but should not reduce the cut below the current allowable annual cut for each woodlot.

This section contains two items to help those who are planning forest harvest operations on mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin shallow and moderate snowpack zones. These sections may also be useful for those responsible for monitoring and approving these operations. This checklist assumes that forest professionals will produce a meaningful pre-harvest plan for each harvest block as part of their approach to ensuring the careful implementa-tion of this mule deer direction.

Woodlot Harvest Priorities

1. The first priority should be harvest of cur-rently attacked bark beetle trees to control spread of infestations. Requirements for this treatment are described under Harvest Type 1 in Table 1.

2. Non–Douglas-fir stand types on winter ranges should be the second priority for harvesting in the short term. Post-harvest silvicultural treatments should be designed to recruit stand attributes important for mule deer. Requirements for this treatment are described in Table 1 under Harvest Types 2, 3, and 6.

3. The third priority should be commercial thinning opportunities, which enhance the development of stand attributes important for mule deer (typically in stand types with high stocking in the 10–35 cm dbh classes). Requirements for this treatment are described under Harvest Type 4 in Table 1.

4. The fourth priority should be for low-volume selection harvest that removes Douglas-fir stems throughout the diameter distribution. The harvest prescription should maintain a residual stand with at least 80% (in the transi-tion period) of the pre-harvest volume and follow the harvesting guidance from the Mule Deer Handbook and the requirement under Harvest Type 5 described in Table 1.

4. Basic Steps for Planning a Cutblock on Winter Range

. Obtain a copy of the applicable long-term objec-tives map and note the following information from it for the cutblock area that you are planning to harvest:

a. the long-term stand structure habitat class objective

4 PLANNING FOREST HARVESTS TO MEET WINTER RANGE OBJECTIVES

2

b. the location of any topographic buffers in or near the cutblock

c. the biogeoclimatic unit and snowpack zone (also see Appendix )

2. Determine the current stand structure and com-position of the cutblock area you are planning for management. Identify any major or minor ridges or topographic breaks. Stratify the cutblock as required to provide relatively uniform treatment units.

3. Determine the appropriate Harvest Opportunity Type for each treatment unit.

4. Develop a site plan to meet the access objectives, overall stand objectives, and objectives for the ap-propriate Harvest Opportunity Type.

4.2 Checklist for Forest Harvest Planning (Shallow and Moderate Snowpack)

Has the following information been identified for each proposed block?

Winter range name Habitat management zone Long-term stand structure habitat class objective Proposed Harvest Opportunity Type Has each block proposed for Type 5 harvest been

checked for availability based on the direction contained in General Wildlife Measures short- term (i.e., until 2026) harvest restrictions? Note that availability is based on block location with respect to the Habitat Management Zone and long-term objective strata on long-term objec-tives maps.

Site Plan (SP) and/or Pre-Harvest Plan

Does the SP identify a long-term habitat objective consistent with the long-term objectives map for the appropriate mule deer winter range?

Does the SP identify any parts of the block that are identified as a topographic buffer on the long-term objectives map?

For areas in an identified topographic buffer, does the SP specify that roads or skid trails will meet the specified access objectives?

Have minor ridges and topographic breaks been identified in the field and pre-harvest planning been done to ensure that access objectives related

to these features will be met during harvest op-erations?

Does the SP specify that the amount and size of in-block roads and landings will be minimized?

Does the SP explain how Douglas-fir will be pro-moted to meet species composition targets?• In the harvesting prescription?• In regeneration planning?• During stand tending?

If harvesting in Opportunity Type 3 with ≥60% Douglas-fir, Opportunity Type 4, or Opportu-nity Type 5, does the SP specify a maximum skid trail coverage of 0% of net area for stands with a moderate or high stand structure objective? • Does the SP explain how this skid trail pro-

portion will be achieved? If harvesting current Douglas-fir beetle attack

(Type Harvest), does the SP:• Specify that the target harvest is restricted to

trees with active beetle infestations or for trap trees?

• Explain how non-target Douglas-fir will be protected to meet the specified limits to non-target harvest?

If harvesting a mixed-species stand (Type 2 or 3), does the SP:• Specify that harvest or damage of Douglas-fir

must not exceed 5% for stems 22.5−37.5 cm dbh and 5% for stems >37.5 cm dbh (includ-ing skid trail development) of the pre-harvest basal area of Douglas-fir stems in each of these two diameter class groupings?

• Explain how harvest or damage to residual Douglas-fir will be kept to these targets?

If thinning of a dense pole stand (Type 4 harvest-ing) is planned, does the SP:• Specify that Douglas-fir >37.5 cm dbh will

be protected from harvest or damage? (A maximum of 0% of trees >37.5 cm dbh may be removed if necessary to implement the prescription. This will require careful plan-ning of skid trails.)

• Specify a residual basal area of ≥75% of pre-harvest basal area Douglas-fir?

• Specify a prescription stipulating thinning-from-below (priority harvest of suppressed and intermediate stems) including trees down to 2.5 cm dbh?

• Use long-term stand structure goals compat-

22

ible with Extension Note 25A to guide the number of trees to maintain in each diameter class?

• Specify a maximum skid trail coverage of 0% of net area for stands with a moderate or high stand structure objective?

For single-tree selection (Type 5 harvesting), does the SP:• Specify a minimum cutting cycle of 30 years?• Describe a long-term stand structure curve

compatible with the direction in Extension Note 25A?

• Explain how the current harvest will help move the stand towards the long-term target stand structure curve?

• Specify a maximum Douglas-fir basal area removal of 20%, if planned before 2026?

• Specify residual Douglas-fir basal area at or above the targets from Extension Note 25A for both total basal area and basal area >37.5 cm dbh?

• Specify that harvest priority be given to non–Douglas-fir species and to single trees isolated from a group?

• Specify harvest patch sizes ranging in diam-eter from 0.3– times the mature tree height with an average opening diameter of 0.5 times the mature tree height?

• Specify that higher than average basal area will be maintained on ridges and topographic breaks?

• Specify a maximum skid trail coverage of 0% of net area for stands with a moderate or high stand structure objective?

Are management practices for transition snow-pack zone winter ranges (Type 7) specified for cool aspect blocks described in Appendix 9?

Is an adequate plan in place to ensure that only the intended stems will be harvested and that contractors understand the direction on skid trail area and placement? • Has marking been considered as a way to

ensure that the prescription is implemented as intended in the field?

• Is additional training and close supervision of the logging crew planned to ensure that the prescription is implemented as intended?

For juvenile spacing, does the prescription explain how a clumpy stem distribution will be achieved?• Will clumpy spacing be recommended at the

initial spacing? or • Will the clumpy stem distribution be met at

the first commercial entry?

23

Three mule deer winter range habitat classes were used as the basis for forest planning and manage-ment at regional, landscape, and stand scales in the Cariboo Region. Those familiar with the Mule Deer Handbook will know these as the high, moderate, and low crown-closure habitats. These three habitat classes have different forest structural characteris-tics, which allow them to play distinct roles in the winter ecology of mule deer.

Different sets of descriptors are now being used to define these habitat classes at each of three differ-ent scales, as shown in Table A.. Landscape-scale descriptors are used in the development of winter range plans at the landscape level. Stand-scale de-

Table A. Numerical descriptors used at different scales for the description of mule deer winter range habitat classes in the Cariboo-Chilcotin

Scale - Use Numerical descriptors

Regional - regional land use planning and mule deer strategy • crown closure • age class • % Douglas-fir

Landscape - winter range mapping and management planning • crown closure • large tree density • % Douglas-fir

Stand - field prescriptions • total basal area • basal area >37.5 cm dbh • % Douglas-fir basal area • BDq or other curve

APPPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT CLASSES

scriptors are used to develop and monitor uneven-aged silviculture prescriptions at the stand level. The regional scale descriptors are intended to be used with the forest inventory database for broad regional analyses. Landscape-scale descriptors are designed for use in winter range planning, using data from specialized winter range stand structure mapping projects. Where specialized stand structure mapping has not been done, the regional scale descriptors will be used for planning at the landscape level. The stand-level descriptors are designed to use field data such as cruise results to provide easily repeatable and objective measures for silviculturists to design and monitor uneven-aged management prescriptions.

24

A map of mule deer winter ranges and snowpack zones in the winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin can be accessed at the Ministry of Environment web-site <ftp://ftpwml.env.gov.bc.ca/pub/outgoing/mdwr/all_mdwr_hab_classes/>.

Table A2. defines all snowpack zones in the Cari-boo-Chilcotin based on biogeoclimatic units. Note that the SBSmh is split into two snowpack zones.

TABLE A2. Definition of snowpack zones for mule deer winter range management in the Cariboo-Chilcotin

Snowpack zone Biogeoclimatic unita Applicable Management Plan

Shallow BG-all, IDFxm, IDFxw

Moderate IDFdk3 and 4, IDFdw, SBPSxc, This plan

MSxk, SBSmhb

Transition SBSdw1 and 2, SBPSmk, SBPSdc, MSxv, SBSmhb Management Plan for Transition and

Deep IDFmw2, ICH-all, SBSwk, Deep Snowpack Zones (2006) SBSmc, SBSmw

a Biogeoclimatic zones: BG=Bunchgrass, IDF=Interior Douglas-Fir, SBPS=Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce, MS=Montane Spruce, SBS=Sub-Boreal Spruce, ICH=Interior Cedar–Hemlock.

b Note that the SBSmh is shown in two snowpack zones. The portion of the SBSmh south of Quesnel is in the moderate snowpack zone while the portions of the SBSmh north and east of Quesnel are in the transition snowpack zone.

APPENDIX 2 SNOWPACK ZONES IN THE CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN

The shade tolerance and longevity of interior Doug-las-fir provide potential to manage most winter range stands for a wide variety of stand structures. However, this flexibility is limited in some areas by site conditions. Not all site types found on mule deer winter ranges have the capability to reach high or moderate mule deer stand structure classes.

For example, warm, steep slopes in the IDFxm have severe moisture limitations that do not allow the development of high stand-structure habitat class stands. These site limitations form a funda-mental and unchangeable constraint on the stand structure objectives available to managers for some site types.

Table A3. estimates limitations to achieving the three mule deer stand structure habitat class objec-

tives based on slope, aspect, and biogeoclimatic zone. The site types used here are defined by slope and aspect class and biogeoclimatic zone. These estimates assume mid-slope, medium-texture soil conditions. They provide a reasonable basis for overall winter range assessment and objective setting at the land-scape scale, but may be subject to re-evaluation at the prescriptive stage, especially for sites with different meso-slope position and soil texture.

A map of site limitations for each winter range was developed using the criteria below. This site limitations map was used to develop long-term stand structure objectives to ensure that areas were not zoned for a higher stand-structure habitat class than they are capable of supporting.

APPENDIX 3 SITE CAPABILITY FOR MULE DEER STAND STRUCTURE CLASSES

25

Table A3. Site capability for mule deer stand-structure habitat classes

Estimated stand-structure habitat class potential Slopea Aspectb IDF BG

flat none high moderate moderate cool high moderate steep cool high moderate very steep cool moderate low moderate moderate high moderate steep moderate moderate low very steep moderate low low moderate warm high low steep warm moderate low very steep warm low low

a Slope: flat = 0−0%, moderate = 0.−30%, steep = 30.−60%, very steep ≥60%.b Aspect: cool = 35.−60°, moderate = 270.−35° and 60.−35°, warm = 35.−270°.

Many of the mule deer winter ranges in the Cari-boo-Chilcotin include forests that are adjacent to grasslands. In the past, frequent low-intensity fires maintained an open canopy in many of these forests and permitted abundant grasses and other vascular plants to occur beneath the trees. During the past century, however, the exclusion of fires from these forests has resulted in dramatic increases in the den-sity of small trees. As a result, the previously open canopy has become closed and mosses have largely replaced the abundant grasses and other vascular plants that once occurred in these forests. Growth of the recently established small trees is very slow due to their high densities.

In the absence of fire, forests in the Mule Deer Winter Range Management Plan area have also been encroaching onto the grasslands. The total area of grasslands in many areas of the Cariboo-Chilcotin has decreased during the last 35 years by more than 30% as a result of forest encroachment2. Previous forest encroachment also resulted in large grassland area reductions. At the current rate of encroachment, forests could replace most extensive areas of open grasslands in the IDF Zone within the next century. Forest encroachment, combined with the increased densities of small trees in forests adjacent to the

grasslands, has reduced livestock and wildlife forage, habitat for threatened species and unique plant com-munities, and the rich biodiversity associated with these grassland and dry forest ecosystems.

A Grassland Strategy is being prepared under the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP) to address forest encroachment and in-growth. The first major component of this strategy is the establishment of a Grassland Benchmark Area. This is an area where principal management objectives will include main-tenance of grasslands and any timber harvesting will not include reforestation obligations. Tree cover objectives for this area are designed to emulate the effects of frequent wildfires. For example, removal of recent forest encroachment is a high-priority objec-tive but large, old veteran trees should be retained as wildlife habitat. In addition, a sufficient number of smaller trees should be retained, in groups or singly, to ensure long-term presence of large wildlife trees. The Benchmark Area has been endorsed by the Interagency Management Committee (IAMC) and is defined as “the area that was classified as ‘open range’ on earliest available forest inventory maps (completed primarily from 963 to 975).”

The second major component of the grassland strategy to be developed by the Grasslands Strategy

APPENDIX 4 DISCUSSION OF GRASSLAND STRATEGY

2 Grasslands Strategy Working Group. 200. Forest encroachment onto grasslands and establishment of a grassland benchmark area. Unpublished report submitted to Cariboo-Mid Coast Interagency Management Committee, Williams Lake, B.C.

26

Working Group and will focus on stand structure objectives for forests adjacent to the Grassland Benchmark Area. In general, these objectives will focus on restoration and maintenance of relatively open forests that contain an increased diversity and vigour of herbaceous and shrub vegetation. The principal strategy will be to shift stand basal area towards medium and large trees with a relatively high growth rate, and decrease the density of smaller stems to the minimum level required to replace harvested stems. Detailed recommendations have not yet been developed but it is expected that timber volume yields will be consistent with the net yields expected from mule deer winter range as described in subregional plans and CCLUP Integration Plan direction. The Grassland Strategy will encourage retention of large trees in order to maintain greater site occupancy and thus minimize potential for

dense stands of slowly growing small trees. Simi-lar to the Mule Deer Strategy, Grassland Strategy objectives will promote wildlife tree retention and patchy stands containing groups of trees and small openings. Specific stand structure objectives will be developed by the Grasslands Strategy Working Group in consultation with the Mule Deer Winter Range Committee.

Mule Deer Winter Range Plans have attempted to co-ordinate management of mule deer winter range habitat and grassland conservation strategies by minimizing the amount of high stand-structure class adjacent to grasslands identified by the Grasslands Strategy Working Group. This Plan incorporates the identified Grassland Benchmark Area within the winter range and has not set any stand structure objectives for the Benchmark Area.

Mule deer and their winter habitat are components of larger ecosystems. These ecosystems support di-verse biological communities including some species that have been identified for special management under applicable forest practices legislation or policy. These ecosystems also include species that have been designated as red listed (extirpated, endangered, or threatened) or blue listed (vulnerable). These species will be collectively referred to below as “special man-agement species.”

The MDWR habitat objectives recommended here could potentially have positive or negative effects on the habitat required by other species. Significant effort and CCLUP conservation credits are being ex-pended in planning and managing the forest habitat on mule deer winter ranges. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the needs of these other important species and to co-ordinate their management as much as possible with the mule deer recommenda-tions.

This section will: () discuss how mule deer winter range plan direction contributes to general biodiversity management, (2) review the “special management” species that overlap with mule deer winter ranges in the shallow and moderate snowpack zones, (3) discuss how mule deer winter range plan

direction addresses some of the known habitat re-quirements of these special management species, and (4) discuss potential habitat management problems that could occur without careful management.

The management direction found in mule deer winter range plans contributes to forest biodiversity management in the following ways:

• Maintaining and creating structural diversity over the landscape by managing for three differ-ent stand-structure habitat class objectives; and

• Encouraging stand-level management objectives that maintain and enhance attributes of naturally disturbed IDF forests including:• clumpy tree distribution; • multi-storeyed stands with high vertical and

horizontal structural diversity;• larger proportion of large trees;• reduction in the density of pole and sapling

layers that have increased in density with the reduction in wildfire; and

• careful management of wildlife trees.

The Forest Practices Code “Species and Plant Community Accounts for Identified Wildlife” (Volume , 997) is a good source of information on

APPENDIX 5 RELATIONSHIP OF MULE DEER MANAGEMENT PLANS TO BIODIVERSITY AND IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE SPECIES IN SHALLOW AND MODERATE SNOWPACK ZONES

27

many of the species listed here. The following special management species use the forest/grassland ecotone overlapping mule deer winter ranges along the Fra-ser and Chilcotin rivers:

• Flammulated Owl use the forested slopes and topographic break areas overlooking the Fraser and Chilcotin rivers and select larger, older trees to forage on and sing from. These owls require large dead trees for nesting.

• Lewis’ Woodpecker require large snags within open-canopy forests associated with the grass-land edge.

• Rubber Boa live under the loose bark of snags and coarse woody debris or between the soil-tree interface of fallen trees.

• Bighorn Sheep use conifer stands of various ages, either in clumps within the grasslands or border-ing the grasslands. This habitat is used for escape and thermal cover, and as a canopy to reduce the effects of deep or ice-encrusted snowfalls. They also use conifer clumps for summer shade.

• Prairie Falcon nest in cliffs situated in the forest/grassland ecotone and are sensitive to distur-bance in the surrounding area.

• Several bat species are present for which lim-ited information exists on habitat requirements. However, we do know that large trees and snags are important to some of them. These bat species include:• Silver-haired Bat, which roosts high up in

large trees; • Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (blue listed); • Fringed Myotis roosts in trees (blue listed); • Western Small-footed Myotis (blue listed);

and • Spotted Bat (blue listed).

Waterhouse (996)3 noted that “northerly populations of these species are highly valuable to maintaining provincial biodiversity, especially considering the pressure from urban development, and agriculture in the Okanagan Valley where these species also reside.” The northern populations of all of these species overlap with mule deer habitat in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Additional identified wildlife species that typical-

ly use habitat outside of the forest/grassland ecotone, but could be affected by forest management include:• Sandhill Crane nest in shallow wetlands. The

Forest Practices Code Identified Wildlife species account for Sandhill Crane states that “forested buffer zones around nesting marshes are likely critical for relatively small (<0 ha) wetlands.”

• Northern Goshawk nest and feed in stands of large trees with dense canopies and relatively open understoreys with a supply of coarse woody debris.

• Platform nesters such as eagles, ospreys, and her-ons whose nests are specifically mentioned and protected under the British Columbia Wildlife Act. These birds nest in large trees, often with dead tops.

The following direction contained in mule deer winter range plans will help to maintain the habitat for these special management species:

• Designate “topographic buffer zones” centred on major ridges and topographic breaks. These buf-fer zones:• will be managed for high or moderate habitat

class, which will maintain a greater propor-tion of large trees; and

• restrict roads and skid trials, resulting in reduced habitat alteration and human access.

• Maintain and promote multi-storeyed stands with a significantly higher proportion of larger, older trees than standard selection systems.

• Promote careful wildlife tree management to both maintain and recruit good wildlife trees.

• Locate a larger proportion of Old Growth Man-agement Areas (ogmas) on mule deer winter ranges than on the surrounding landscape. This overlap should allow for a greater focus on con-servative management for the benefit of identified species. One negative consequence of concentrat-ing ogmas on winter ranges is the potential for poor ogma representation of forest types that are rare on winter ranges, such as riparian forests.

• Integrate input from the CCLUP Grassland Strat-egy Committee with respect to zoning of long-term forest structure objectives in forest areas adjacent to grassland. One important thrust of

3 Waterhouse, M.J. 996. Working Plan for “Assessing impacts of management activities and red and blue listed species in forest/grassland ecotone in the Cariboo Forest Region.” B.C Min. For., Unpubl. Rep., FRBC Project CC96023, Williams Lake, B.C.

28

the Grassland Strategy is to restore the diversity of forest ecosystems adjacent to grasslands by reducing the density of pole- and sapling-sized trees and increasing the number and size of for-est openings. This will promote more diverse and productive growth of the understorey plant com-munity and benefit numerous forest/grassland ecotone species.

Management cautions

Mule deer Management Plans and prescriptions will generally help to maintain habitat attributes required for special management species and biodi-versity. However, prescriptions need to be carefully designed, monitored, and managed. We offer the following cautions: • Reductions in wildlife trees The mule deer win-

ter range plan direction allows for relatively short cutting cycles (minimum 30 years in the shallow and moderate snowpack zones). Frequent re-peated entries can result in low snag survival and recruitment if these elements are not carefully managed and conserved at each entry. Worker safety requirements can result in many existing snags being felled at each harvest entry. Also, tree quality criteria applied to each harvest entry will remove many of the trees that would otherwise have died and been recruited to become snags. Unless a prescribed density of live, “unhealthy” wildlife trees (Class 2 wildlife trees) is main-tained, the recruitment of snags can be greatly diminished, resulting in lower habitat value for biodiversity and special management species.

• New knowledge As new knowledge is gained about the wildlife species discussed here and any additional species of concern, refinements may need to be made in application of future prescrip-tions.

• OGMA management Any future changes in the

management regime for Old Growth Manage-ment Areas within mule deer winter ranges will need to be carefully considered and carefully implemented to ensure that special management species, mule deer habitat, and biodiversity issues are addressed.

• Lack of density control in smaller diameter classes Lack of density control in pole and sap-ling diameter classes may reduce vigour of larger tree classes, increasing susceptibility to insects and disease. High-density pole and sapling lay-ers can also lower diversity and productivity of understorey vegetation communities. Lack of density control in these diameter classes could therefore directly hamper good integrated management for both timber and habitat val-ues. If management regimes for density control are applied, it is important not to treat all areas. Unmanaged thickets should be maintained to provide the ecological benefits of habitat diver-sity.

• Salvage programs Salvage programs, unless very carefully managed, could result in large reduc-tions in wildlife tree retention and recruitment, seriously degrading wildlife habitat. Do not maintain or locate skid trails in high-value habi-tats such as parallel to ridges and breaks within topographic buffers.

• White-tail deer Recently, white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have been observed in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in increasing numbers. This Management Plan deals with the win-ter needs of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) through the management of the structural characteristics of native forest, and neither attempts to encourage or discourage the occupation of this region by white-tail deer. The effects of white-tail deer immigration on mule deer populations and maintenance of mule deer winter habitat on white-tail deer are largely un-known.

29

APPENDIX 6 EXTENSION NOTE #25A

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Maintaining good quality winter

habitat for mule deer is a

priority management goal for

areas identified as mule deer

winter range in the Cariboo-

Chilcotin Land Use Plan

(CCLUP). A large proportion

of these winter ranges occur in

the Interior Douglas-fir

Biogeoclimatic Zone (IDF)

where multi-storied Douglas-fir

forests provide optimal forest

structure to meet the food and

shelter requirements of deer.

The “Handbook for Timber and

Mule Deer Management Co-


the Cariboo Forest Region”

(Mule Deer Handbook)

describes the amounts of high,

moderate and low crown closure

habitat required on winter

ranges in various snowpack

zones. The Mule Deer

Handbook also describes a low-

volume partial cutting

prescription that maintains stand

structure attributes for mule

deer habitat. This extension

note introduces refined

definitions for mule deer habitat

classes in the IDFdk3 and

IDFxm, using basal area to

describe target stand conditions.

This new way of defining

habitat characteristics at the

stand level is intended to

provide clear, results oriented

guidance for silviculturists

developing uneven-aged stand

prescriptions on IDF mule deer

winter ranges.

��

��

��

��

Successful co-ordination of

timber and mule deer

management objectives requires

planning efforts at three scales:

regional, landscape and stand.

The different requirements for

each planning level result in the

need for different sets of

descriptive attributes.

Increasingly precise

descriptions of habitat attributes

are both required and possible

as the scale of interest changes

STRUCTURAL DEFINITIONS FORMANAGEMENT OF MULE DEER WINTERRANGE HABITAT IN THE INTERIORDOUGLAS-FIR ZONE

30

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

3

guidance and provides new

quantitative basal area targets

for high, moderate and low

habitat classes within two

biogeoclimatic units of the

Interior Douglas-fir Zone in the

Cariboo Region. The targets

include both a total stand basal

area and a basal area of trees

greater than 37.5 cm at breast

height. These targets are stated

in terms of residual basal area,

which is the basal area at the

lowest point in the uneven-aged

management cycle, i.e.

immediately after harvest.

Basal area is a good stand level

descriptor of winter range

habitat types because it

correlates well with snow

interception, is useful for

describing diameter distribution

targets including large trees, and

is easy to measure using

standard techniques. It is also

well suited for development of

uneven-aged harvesting

prescriptions by silviculturists.

These basal area targets were

developed based on extensive

data collection and experience

in IDF stands. They are

designed to be achievable and to

maintain structural

characteristics required by deer

in winter.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��. Winter range plans

will provide guidance for this

determination, taking site

capability into account. In cases

where winter ranges do not

currently meet long-term habitat

objectives, management plans

may recommend other

limitations to harvesting

prescriptions as a transition

strategy.

��

��

��

��

��

��

TABLE 2. Residual basal area targets for mule deer winter range stands in IDFxm and IDFdk3 Biogeoclimatic

units in the Cariboo Forest Region These are minimum basal area targets for the Douglas-fir stand

component at the beginning of the cutting cycle. For table values to apply, the cutting cycle must be

at least 30 years. The residual basal area targets are the average for the net harvested area which

does not include roads, landings or Wildlife Tree Patches. Two recommendations are given for

moderate habitat in IDFxm: (A) for warm aspect stands with slopes �30%, (B) for all other stands.

Habitat

Class

Biogeoclimatic

Unit

Minimum Residual Basal Area

Immediately Post Harvest

Other Criteria Applicable to All

IDF Zone Mule Deer Winter

Range Prescriptions

Total Basal

Area �12.5 cm.

(m2/ha)

Basal Area in

stems �37.5

cm. (m2/ha)

�� IDFxm and

IDFdk3

�16 �6 � Create canopy gaps 0.3-1 tree

height, averaging 0.5

� Minimize residual damage

�� IDFxm (A) �22 �8 � Harvest non–Douglas-fir

species first

IDFxm (B) �22 �11 � Maintain clumpy stem

distribution

IDFdk3 �22 �11 � Distribute harvest in relation

to micro-topography

�� IDFxm �27 �15 � Maintain or promote multi-

storied stands

IDFdk3 �29 �16

��

��

��

��.��

32

FIGURE 1. Example residual stand structure goals for a mesic IDFdk3 stand on a mule deer winter range. The

graphs show stem density (A) and basal area (B) by diameter class. The bars indicate the current

stand structure while the lines running through the bars represent the residual stand structure target.

The target stand on these graphs is the moderate habitat type. Minimum basal area to be left = 22

m2/ha, maximum diameter = 65 cm., stand structure goal q=1.25, large tree basal area reserve = 0

m2/ha.

These curves are called

“residual” curves because they

are intended to describe the

minimum density or basal area

remaining immediately after

harvest. Therefore, the average

basal area over the cutting cycle

will be higher than the stated

minimums. The basal area will

fluctuate between a low

immediately after harvest to a

high at the end of the cutting

cycle. Superimposing a target

residual basal area curve over a

bar graph of the current stand

produces a management tool for

evaluating current stand

conditions and assessing

possible harvesting

opportunities. Figure 1 provides

an example. The bars in these

graphs represent the current

density and basal area in a

mature Douglas-fir stand in the

IDFdk3. This example stand

has been designated for

management as moderate crown

closure habitat. The curved line

through the bars represents a

stand which meets the minimum

basal area requirements for

moderate crown closure habitat

and provides a balanced

diameter distribution required

for habitat and silvicultural

considerations.

After the residual basal area

curve for a given stand has been

defined, the silviculturist can

develop a long-term approach to

move the stand towards the

target basal area distribution.

Once this distribution is

attained, the stand can then be

harvested down to the minimum

basal area curve at each harvest

entry. This allows the stand to

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

33

continuously maintain the basal

area at or above minimum

targets. The example stand

currently has a total basal area

of 34 m2 and a basal area of

stems >37.5 cm of 17 m2, so at

this time, it exceeds the

minimum targets for both

moderate and high habitat

classes. The stand diagrams

reveal several possible harvest

regimes. One possibility would

be to simply harvest in the size

classes above the line at the

intensity needed to remove the

excess stems while maintaining

the required total basal area and

basal area in stems greater than

37.5 cm.

Another possibility would be to

bring the stand toward the target

condition over two cutting

cycles. The first pass would be

a “thinning from below” of the

pole-sized trees from 12-35 cm

in diameter. This cut would

remove the large excess of pole-

sized trees and reduce

competition amongst residual

trees resulting in increased

volume and crown growth on

the residual trees. Some

incidental harvest of larger trees

may result from skid road

development. The second pass,

20-40 years later, would harvest

trees above the curve in all size

classes in the standard clumpy

pattern. This second pass would

bring the stand to its target stand

structure and promote

regeneration under the newly

created canopy gaps.

Various combinations of current

stand structure and stand

structure objectives will require

different management regimes.

However, once the long-term

stand structure goals for a given

stand are set, the silviculturist

can develop a rational and

measurable management path to

meet both habitat and

silviculture goals over time.

��

The Correlated Guidelines for

Management of Uneven-aged

Drybelt Douglas-fir Stands in

British Columbia - Appendix 1,

(1992) gives a complete and

easy to follow explanation of a

common method for

development of uneven-aged

stand structural curves.

Residual stand structure is

described using three variables:

“B” is the residual stocking

goal, “D” is maximum diameter

and “q” is the diameter

distribution goal. Once the

habitat type objective has been

determined for a stand, the BDq

approach can be used to develop

long-term stand structure goals.

The residual basal area

requirements for each crown

closure habitat class, from Table

2, can be used to set the residual

stocking goal (B). We

recommend choosing a

relatively low q value to provide

a relatively flat curve with��

TABLE 3. Recommended values for development of residual stand curves for managing mule deer habitat in

IDFxm and IDFdk3 biogeoclimatic units in the Cariboo Forest Region. Two recommendations are

given for moderate habitat in IDFxm: (A) for warm aspect stands with slope �30%, (B) for all other

stands. Combinations of various levels of B, D, q and the large tree reserve can produce a wide range

of residual stand curves to meet the mule deer habitat requirements described in Table 2.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

(m2/ha, �12.5 cm)

�

(cm)

�

(using 5 cm

dbh classes)

Large Tree

Reserve

(m2/ha, �D)

�� IDFxm and �16 �50 1.25 - 1.4 0 - 1.6

IDFdk3

�� IDFxm (A) �22 �55 1.25 - 1.4 0 - 2.0

IDFxm (B) �22 �60 1.25 - 1.35 0 - 2.2

IDFdk3 �22 �60 1.25 - 1.35 0 - 2.2

�� IDFxm �27 �65 1.2 - 1.35 0 - 2.7

IDFdk3 �29 �70 1.2 - 1.35 0 - 2.9

34

a higher proportion of larger

trees. The maximum diameter

(D) should be chosen to ensure

that the recommended large tree

minimums from Table 2 are

met. ��

��

��

��

It is also possible to include a

large tree “reserve” outside of

the residual stand structure

defined by the BDq curve.

This “reserve” would maintain

a small component of trees

larger than “D”, scattered

throughout the stand, in

addition to those defined by the

basic residual stand structure

curve. These larger trees do not

count towards meeting the total

basal area targets in table 2, but

could be used to contribute to

targets for Douglas-fir stems

greater than 37.5 cm. This

could allow the use of a lower

value for the maximum

diameter, “D”, while still

meeting the large tree basal area

requirement. For example, the

residual stand definition for the

moderate habitat class could be

met as shown in Figure 1 with a

maximum diameter “D” of 65

cm with no large tree basal area

reserve. Alternatively, the

moderate definition could be

met using a “D” value of 55 cm

and a large tree reserve of 1.5

m2 of basal area. Allowing a

certain density of larger trees to

FIGURE 2. Three different timber harvesting regimes on mule deer winter range. Graphs (A) and (B) show the basal

area trajectory for two different stands, one managed to remain continuously in high habitat (A) and the

other to remain continuously in moderate habitat (B). The stand in (C) alternates between high and

moderate using a longer cutting cycle. Under current management plans, regime “C” should be used only

in areas with a long-term habitat objective of moderate.

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � � �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � � �

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � � �

��

��

��

35

“escape” beyond the chosen

value of D may be important in

managing stands for other

biodiversity values.

��

��

The dynamics of long-term

habitat and timber management

on IDF winter ranges are related

to length of cutting cycle and

volume or basal removal per

entry. Higher volume removals

require a longer cutting cycle

and vice versa. Figure 2 shows

two different ways of managing

for high and moderate habitat.

Graph A and B show two stands

that are continuously maintained

in either a high or moderate

habitat respectively. Graph C

shows a stand which alternates

between moderate and high

habitat using longer cutting

cycles and higher volume

removals. Current management

planning allows for the use of

the approach described in graph

C only in areas zoned with

a long-term objective of

moderate habitat class. This

ensures that the areas zoned for

high habitat are consistantly

maintained as high through

time.

��

Using the stand structure

recommendations provided in

Tables 2 and 3, silviculturists

should be better equipped to

develop and monitor uneven-

aged forest management

regimes which integrate timber

and mule deer habitat

requirements. This extension

note has been updated from the

original January, 1999 version

to reflect comments and

experience to date. Further

comments and suggestions from

foresters and habitat managers

working with these

recommendations are welcome.

��

Armleder, H.M., R.J. Dawson

and R.N. Thomson. 1986.

Handbook for Timber and Mule

Deer Management Co-


the Cariboo Forest Region.

Land Management

Handbook #13, Ministry of

Forests, Victoria.

Silviculture Interpretations

Working Group. 1992.

Correlated Guidelines for

Management of Uneven-aged

Dry-belt Douglas-fir stands in

British Columbia, First

Approximation. British

Columbia Ministry of Forests,

Silviculture Branch, Victoria ,

B.C.

��

Rick Dawson R.P.F., R.P.Bio.

Research Ecologist,

Forest and Wildlife Ecology

�� 398-4404

Email:[email protected]

Harold Armleder R.P.F.,

R.P.Bio.

Research Wildlife Habitat

Ecologist

(250) 398-4407

Email:[email protected]

36

APPENDIX 7 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Basal area A measure of forest stands calculated by summing the cross-sectional area of the trees in a stand at breast height (.3 m), usually expressed as square metres per hectare (m2/ha).

BDq An approach to designing selection harvest-ing to maintain or create multi-storeyed, uneven-aged forest stands. The “B” refers to residual basal area to be left after harvest. The “D” is the diameter of the largest diameter class of tree to remain after harvesting. The diminution quotient (“q”) is a factor that determines the relative number of trees in each diameter class. Together these three values can be used to define the desired structure of a forest stand after a selection harvest treatment.

Cutting cycle The time interval between harvest entries into a forest stand.

Grassland Benchmark Area An area mapped by the CCLUP Grassland Strategy Committee for special management to maintain or restore grassland-domi-nated habitat.

Group selection silviculture system A selection sil-viculture system in which small groups of trees (up to ha in area, but smaller in recommended mule deer habitat prescriptions) are periodically harvest-ed, resulting in an uneven-aged forest stand made up of a mosaic of small even-aged patches. Stand structure is regulated in group selection harvesting by cutting a specified proportion of the total area of the cutblock at each harvest entry and by specifying the group size and cutting cycle.

Habitat management zone A zone designated on a long-term spatial objectives map for each winter range. These zones are used in the Mule Deer Winter Range Strategy to define the location of harvest op-portunities during the transition period (until 2026) and occasionally to define areas that have special management requirements or opportunities.

Habitat risk class A classification applied to each winter range resulting from a broad-level habitat risk assessment comparing current winter range condi-tions to desired conditions.

Harvest Opportunity Types A description of indi-vidual harvest entries available on mule deer winter ranges. They are designed to manage a variety of stand conditions to maintain mule deer habitat val-ues while removing timber and meeting silviculture objectives. These harvest types are designed to meet the integrated timber and mule deer habitat direc-tion given in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan Integration Report.

Logging damage For the purposes of this Mule Deer Strategy, logging damage is defined as follows: • Crown damage − Loss of one-quarter or more of

the crown. • Bark damage − Loss of either 000 cm2 of bark or

loss of bark from one-third of the circumference of the tree.

OGMA Old Growth Management Area: an area des-ignated for its contribution to biodiversity through maintaining old-growth forest and natural succes-sional processes.

Single-tree selection silviculture system A selection silviculture system in which single trees or small clumps of trees are periodically harvested, resulting in an multi-storeyed uneven-aged forest stand with trees in all diameter classes. In the mule deer habitat prescriptions, single-tree selection will often include an element of thinning-from-below. Stand structure is regulated in single-tree selection harvesting by retaining a specified basal area per hectare in each diameter class.

Skid trail For the purpose of the skid-trail objec-tives in this plan, skid trails refer to main trails where typically full drags are taken. For example, if a line skidder backs off the main trail to pull in single trees, these tracks off the main trail are not included in the 0% limit. Similarly, if a feller-buncher carries trees to a main trail then the area travelled off the main trail (while carrying cut trees) is not included in the 0% maximum.

Spacing (juvenile) The spacing of pre-commercial-sized stems within a forest to enhance the growth of the residual stems and/or to provide other benefits.

37

Stand-structure habitat class objective A stand-lev-el classification used to define three different stand structure management objectives for mule deer habitat. For shallow and moderate snowpack zones, differences between the classes are based on differ-ences in total basal area and basal area of trees >37.5 cm dbh. All habitat classes have common objectives to maintain or create multi-storeyed, uneven-aged stands dominated by Douglas-fir. The long-term ob-jectives map for each winter range shows the desired distribution of the three habitat classes on the winter range.

Thinning-from-below A form of stand thinning that concentrates harvest on suppressed and intermediate canopy layers. This type of thinning is designed to reduce self-thinning mortality and to concentrate fu-ture growth on the larger and more vigorous stems.

Topographic buffer A buffer area surrounding a major ridge or topographic break. These areas are important travel and bedding areas for mule deer and are identified on long-term objectives maps for each mule deer winter range.

APPENDIX 8 A BRIEF HISTORY OF MULE DEER WINTER RANGE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH IN THE CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN

Late 970s Ministry of Environment biologists realize that mule deer winter range (mdwr) values are being lost through timber harvesting that does not consider mule deer requirements.

980 Research conducted by the B.C. Forest Service starts within the region to address what mule deer need in the winter and how forest management can meet those needs.

983 Pilot block of experimental logging using low-volume selection system on mdwr is conducted on the Knife Creek winter range in the Williams Lake District.

984 First replicated experimental low-volume selection system on mdwr is conducted on the Knife Creek winter range.

985 Replicated research on low-volume selection system is conducted on the Big Lake South mdwr in the 00 Mile Forest District.

986 Land Management Handbook 3, the Mule Deer Handbook, is released.

986 Juvenile spacing trials are initiated on mdwr in the 00 Mile Forest District.

987 Mule Deer pamphlet, A Guide for Loggers, is released

987 University of British Columbia/Alex Fraser Research Forest is created, including two winter ranges. Ongoing operational testing of mule deer habitat management is initiated.

Late 980s mdwr boundaries are revised by the Ministry of Environment, substantially and early 990s reducing the area (reduced by ~ 42 000 ha) in managed winter

range (3 mdwrs are completely removed).

38

Late 980s Revised mdwr boundaries are used for Timber Supply Review (tsr ).

988–998 Numerous articles are published in journals, government publications, and conference proceedings to document research results on mdwr.

990 “Clumpy spacing” is developed and a trial established on the Knife Creek mdwr. 994–995 Cariboo Chilcotin Land-Use Plan (cclup) and supporting documents are released identifying mdwr as an important management objective and specifying the mdwrs to be managed.

996 mdwr Strategy as mandated by the cclup is released by mdwr Committee, documenting status of the approximate 00 mdwrs in the region.

998 cclup Integration Report is released, providing short- and long-term direction on mule deer management.

998 Stand structure mapping of mdwrs begins.

999 First mdwr Management Plan is released as a draft template.

2000 “Grassland Benchmark” from the Grassland Strategy is incorporated into spatial long-term objectives for mdwr.

2000 Extensive review of draft mdwr plan template by Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers’ Association is completed.

2000 Revisions are made to mdwr plan template, including but not limited to: • non-productive land mapped and out of long-term objectives; and

• ogmas to overlap “high” habitat and “topographic buffers” as much as possible.

2000 Extension Note 25A, Structural Definitions of Mule Deer Winter Range Habitat in the IDF Zone, is released.

2000 Interim guidelines are provided for mdwrs prior to plan completion, including specific direction by snowpack zones: ) shallow and moderate snowpack zones 2) transition snowpack zone 3) deep and very deep snowpack zones 200 The Cariboo Mid Coast Inter-Agency Management Committee (iamc) endorses the Williams Lake–Chimney Mule Deer Winter Range Management Plan as the template for completion of the remaining winter range plans.

200 Web site is created to easily access status of mdwr planning.

39

200 Greatly simplified planning approach is developed and presented to iamc and Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers’ Association (clma), including four components: ) Management Plan for Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones; 2) Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones; 3) Long-term Objectives Map for Individual Winter Ranges; and 4) Transition-period Harvest Opportunity Plan for Individual Winter Ranges. 200–2004 Boundary adjustments are completed for mdwr in the 00 Mile, Williams Lake, and Quesnel Timber Supply Areas (tsas). This substantially reduced the area to be managed as mdwr, including: • four mdwrs removed completely; • 80 44 ha net reduction in area of mdwr; and • 898 ha net reduction in Douglas-fir area of mdwr.

2002 Management Plan for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Shallow and Moderate Snowpack Zones is completed, incorporating the following changes, including: • increasing maximum area in skid trails to 0%; • increasing non-target harvest of Douglas-fir to 5% and 5% for small and large trees, respectively; and • increasing the availability of harvest opportunities.

2002 Stand structure mapping is completed for 34 winter ranges. 2004 Boundaries for mule deer winter range are legalized under Government Action Regulation for purposes of planning using the Forest and Range Practices Act. 2005 Management Plan for Mule Deer Winter Ranges in the Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones is completed.

2005 Long-term objectives maps are completed and posted on the web site for Quesnel, Williams Lake and 00 Mile, and Chilcotin forest districts.

2005 All mdwr planning work is completed for the approximate 00 mdwrs in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, year before the CCLUP 2006 deadline.

2006 General Wildlife Measures officially established by Ministry of Environment for mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

40

Blocks within the winter ranges listed in this ap-pendix that meet all of the following criteria are to be managed using the stand-level guidance for the transition snowpack zone:

a. blocks greater than 0 ha that are in the moderate snowpack zone, and

b. blocks in which 70% or more of the area meets the following slope and aspect conditions:• on north-facing slopes (between 35 degrees

and 60 degrees), and • slope greater than 20%.

These cool aspect stands in the moderate snow-pack zone are suited to the same management direc-tion as for transition snowpack winter ranges. This is because their proximity to the transition snow-pack zone boundary and their cool aspect result in ecological similarities to transition snowpack zone stands. Therefore, instead of applying single-tree se-lection to these sites, they should be harvested using the stand-level guidance in Section 2.3 from Part b: Management Plan for Transition and Deep Snowpack Zones. This means that they will usually be managed using a group selection silviculture system.

APPENDIX 9 USE OF GROUP SELECTION ON MODERATE SNOWPACK WINTER RANGES

Quesnel Timber Supply AreaAlix – HoneyburnAustralian – AlixNarcosli

Williams Lake Timber Supply Area McLeese Lake Hawks CreekWilliams Lake − Hawks Creek Borland Valley Jones Creek Knife Creek Enterprise

00 Mile Timber Supply Area Mile − Forest GroveBuffalo CreekFawn LakeHorse LakeLac La Hache − NorthLac La Hache − SouthWatch Lake − North

Habitat management on mule deer winter range

Most of the active habitat management on mule deer winter ranges takes the form of forestry treat-ments such as harvesting, spacing, and sometimes prescribed understorey burning. Good winter ranges contain a variety of different forest structures to provide for different habitat needs (Figure A0.). Armleder et al. (986), Armleder and Dawson (992), Waterhouse et al. (994), Day (998), and Parker et al. (984) provide good background references that describe the winter ecology of mule deer and relevant approaches to integrated forest management

on winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin (Figures A0.2, A0.3, and A0.4).

Figure A0. is taken from the Mule Deer Hand-book. In addition to spring range, the Handbook describes three types of forested habitat: high, mod-erate, and low “crown closure habitat.” These same three habitat types are used in the current Mule Deer Strategy, but have been renamed high, moderate, and low “stand-structure habitat classes,” because their stand-level definitions do not use crown closure. See Appendix for a more detailed explanation of how these stand-structure habitat classes are defined at three different planning scales.

APPENDIX 10 APPLICABLE SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS AND TREATMENTS

4

Single-tree selection silviculture system

In the shallow and moderate snowpack winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the long-term ob-jective is to manage most stands using a single-tree selection silviculture system. Selected principles for harvesting in mule deer winter range stands are de-picted in Figure A0.5. More detailed quantitative de-scriptions of desired post-harvest stand structure for various habitat types are documented in the Minis-try of Forests, Cariboo Forest Region Extension Note 25A (Dawson and Armleder 2000), Structural Defini-tions for Management of Mule Deer Winter Range Habitat in the Interior Douglas-fir Zone.

Figure A0.5 was adapted from the pamphlet Logging on Mule Deer Winter Range—A Guide for Loggers produced by the Ministry of Forests.

Figure A0. Four types of forest habitat structure that provide different mixes of habitat attributes for mule deer.

Frost-prone sites

The level and distribution of harvest should be carefully designed to not create frost problems for regenerating Douglas-fir. This is the most challeng-ing in stands with <40% Douglas-fir where the non–Douglas-fir species are planned for harvest (Harvest Opportunity Type 2). Figure A0.6 illustrates an approach for these stands that addresses this by leav-ing some of the targeted stems unharvested until the regenerating Douglas-fir is above the height where frost is no longer a concern.

Thinning-from-below

Thinning-from-below is a form of stand thinning that concentrates harvest on suppressed and inter-

1 Low Crown Closure Habitat

• abundant ground forage

• little shelter value

3 High Crown Closure Habitat

• scarce ground forage

• excellent shelter value

4 Spring Range• first available

forage to green-up in spring

2 Moderate Crown Closure Habitat

• moderate ground forage

• good shelter value

42

Figure A0.3 Shrubs are an important winter forage especially when available in small openings within a stand that also provides snow interception.

Figure A0.4 The branches and tops from partial cutting in the fall or winter can provide a short-term source of Douglas-fir foliage for mule deer (photo by S.D. Walker).

Figure A0.2 Douglas-fir foliage made available in the form of litterfall from intermediate and larger trees is the primary winter forage for mule deer in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

43

mediate canopy layers that are below the main co-dominant canopy layer. This type of thinning is designed to reduce self-thinning mortality and to concentrate future growth on the larger and more vigorous stems.

Figure A0.7 depicts a stand before and after thin-ning-from-below. In the thinning approach designed for shallow and moderate snowpack winter range stands, a maximum of 25% of the basal area can be removed, and species other than Douglas-fir are the first priority for removal.

These objectives ensure that the ability of the stand to intercept snow will not be reduced signifi-cantly. Also, no Douglas-fir trees >37.5 cm dbh are to be targeted for harvest.

In group selection systems, especially on cool as-

pect slopes, most light comes into openings through the canopy of adjacent trees because the sun angle is relatively low. Thinning-from-below on the south and southwest sides of group selection openings can increase the light available for seedling regeneration in the adjacent areas.

Thinning-from-below means that less vigorous trees in the intermediate and suppressed canopy lay-ers should be the first priority for removal. For Type 4 harvest, only stems up to 37.5 cm dbh are candi-dates for removal and a minimum of 75% of the pre-thinning basal area is retained. Figure A0.7 shows thinning of commercial stems only. The stand could also benefit from spacing of some non-commercial stems (pale green). The figure is adapted from Thinning Systems for Western Oregon Douglas-fir

Figure A0.5 Selected principles for harvesting in mule deer winter range stands.See Appendix 7 for definition of skid trails. Skid trails should be kept narrow as possible. Since cutting cycles are short (at least 30 years), skid trails should be laid out carefully to access the whole cutblock since the same main trails should usually be re-used at each entry.

Small groups of trees cut

Skid trail kept back from minor ridge

Skid trails kept narrow and widely spaced

Ridge left with little logging in first pass

Low volume removed

Pine and spruce logged in first pass

Landing kept small

44

FIGURE A0.6 Example of a stand with >40% lodgepole pine (Harvest Opportunity Type 2) on a frost-prone site. (A) Planning for the regeneration of Douglas-fir is done prior to harvesting. (B) Some residual tree cover is left, including all of the Douglas-fir, while harvesting most of the pine. (C) The cutblock is regenerated with Douglas-fir. (D) Once the Douglas-fir regeneration is above 1 m and no longer at risk of frost, the residual pine can be carefully removed.

D

A

B

C

45

Stands: What’s Best for You (Oregon State University Extension Service 993).

Stand-tending opportunities

Douglas-fir stands on IDF winter range are often overstocked with sub-merchantable stems. Fire suppression over the last 40 or more years has left many stands with dense thickets of small Douglas-fir

Figure A0.7 Thinning-from-below in Douglas-fir−dominated stands with a dense pole layer (Harvest Opportunity Type 4). The stand could also benefit from spacing of some non-commercial stems (pale green).

Before thinning-from-below

After thinning-from-below

saplings. This overstocking is detrimental to mule deer habitat value and timber production. Juvenile spacing will encourage the development of the stand structures needed for good mule deer winter range habitat.

The Ministry of For-ests Extension Note 32, Clumpy Spacing—Juvenile

Specialized juvenile spacing can improve winter range habitat and timber production.

46

Spacing Douglas-fir into Clumps to Imitate Natural Stand Structure (Armleder 999) describes an ap-proach that is often appropriate to promote the stand structure needed by mule deer in winter. Initial studies have shown that this approach incurs no re-

Figure A0.8 An example clumpy juvenile spacing approach that will help develop the multi-layered stand structure ideal for mule deer winter range.

duction in tree growth compared to normal spacing.Careful juvenile spacing is encouraged in Old

Growth Management Areas. It is a valuable tool to develop and maintain the target stand structure throughout the winter range.

1 3

4

56

8

3

>3m

>3m

<1m

5m 5m

7

2

1. The objective of clumpy spacing is to space to produceclumps of trees of approximately equal height.

2. Optimum spacing between trees within each clump is2.1 m, with allowable spacing of 0.5–2.5 m. This usually yields three to nine trees per clump, or an aver-age of seven trees in a 6-m diameter clump (althoughthe clump may be as large as 6 x 10 m). The aim is toleave the best trees in each clump.

3. Clumps will be 5 m apart, as measured between theouter stems of adjacent clumps.

4. Clump height will be determined by the dominantlayer’s height in that portion of the stand.

5. Trees more than 3 m higher than the average height of the clump will be left without regard for their spacing, provided there is no apparent

mechanical damage indicating crown competition. Ifcrown competition exists, the smaller tree must be cut.

6. Deciduous trees in each clump must be felled if theircrowns are judged to be in contact with the conifers,but must be left uncut between clumps.

7. Conifers over a maximum specified diameter will be leftuncut and will not affect the inter-clump distance or thenumber of crop trees in that clump.

8. Clumps with a height differential of more than 3 m willbe left, regardless of the required inter-clump spacing.

The clumpy spacing Schedule C for a juvenile spacing contract includes the following objectives and requirements:

47

A number of forest health issues can affect winter range condition. Prevalent forest health issues found on winter ranges in this region include Douglas-fir beetle, mountain pine beetle, Armillaria root dis-ease, and western spruce budworm.

Douglas-fir beetle

Endemic levels of bark beetle are both inevitable and desirable within a forest ecosystem. The objec-tive of pest management on winter range should be to suppress expansion of beetle populations without limiting the achievement of other objectives (i.e., maintenance of mule deer stand structure objectives, wildlife tree recruitment, old seral representation). The loss of beetle-killed trees, as well as the trees harvested or damaged to access these trees, can have a significant impact on stand structural characteristics required by win-tering mule deer and on the management regimes required to maintain or restore mule deer winter habitat. Removing a significant number of green Douglas-fir trees to access beetle-attacked trees or to salvage dead trees is not recommended on mule deer winter range. Piling and burning or other innova-tive techniques should be considered when planning beetle control operations on winter ranges. No green Douglas-fir trees should be harvested to salvage beetle-killed trees from which beetles have already flown.

Douglas-fir bark beetles are attracted to large-di-ameter logging slash, including cull pieces resulting from stem rot. When Douglas-fir beetle popula-tions are high, Douglas-fir cull logs, even in short pieces, should be hauled to landings and burned. An alternative treatment to maintain valuable woody

APPENDIX 11 FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT ON WINTER RANGE

Removing a significant number of green Doug-las-fir trees to access or salvage beetle-attacked trees is not recommend-ed on mule deer winter range.

debris on site would be to leave these pieces on site and treat them with anti-aggregation pheromones just before the first bark beetle flight in late March to early April to disperse the beetles.

Extra care should be exercised when planning and conducting sanitation or salvage operations on mule deer winter range. This is particularly true on the winter range areas designated to be managed for old seral attributes. Within Old Growth Manage-ment Areas (ogmas), there should be no salvage of dead trees from which the beetles have already flown. Use of trap trees outside of the ogma may be a useful management technique. Any bark beetle sanitation treatment that would require felling and removal of salvage trees within the ogma must be critically reviewed to ensure consistency with the de-sired long-term condition of the ogma. The cclup Regional Biodiversity Strategy Update Note 7b: An Integrated Strategy for Management of Biodiversity and Bark Beetles in Douglas-fir and Spruce Stands (2006) provides guidance on Douglas-fir bark beetle management within ogmas.

Mountain pine beetle

While most of the forested area within shallow and moderate snowpack winter range is dominated by Douglas-fir, individual stems and even small stands of pine are common on many winter ranges. Many of these areas have been, and will continue to be, affected by mountain pine beetle (mpb). Removing the pine in order to deal with mpb does not directly have an impact on the suitability of the winter range. However, removing Douglas-fir to build skid trails and landings, and to access pine, will have an im-mediate impact on winter range suitability.

To minimize the negative impact on mule deer winter range, the guidance in the following box should be followed.

48

Western spruce budworm

Over the past few years, western spruce budworm has moved north to attack Douglas-fir forests in some mule deer winter range areas of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. This insect is more of a potential problem in the shallow and moderate snowpack zones than in the transition and deep snowpack zones. The follow-ing quotes are from a Master’s thesis that addressed selection management on mule deer winter range on the UBC Research Forest’s Knife Creek block in the moderate snowpack zone. For references to relevant literature, please refer to Day (998). “A relationship between tree vigour, stand den-

sity and damage to Douglas-fir has been dem-onstrated for western spruce budworm. As the vigour of the tree declines, its ability to recover foliage biomass suffers. Budworm defoliation is also intensified by multi-layered stand structures. Spruce budworm damage is sensitive to stand structure since the dispersing larvae must land on host material to continue maturation feeding. Well developed vertical structure provides more hosts in subordinate positions for dispersing larvae.”

Day was seeking ways to achieve mule deer/stand structure objectives recommended by the Mule Deer Handbook, and reconciles the recommended prac-tices with the literature on western spruce budworm as follows:

“This plan (for Knife Creek Mule Deer Winter Range) advocates single-tree selection manage-ment for Douglas-fir, which is contra-indicated by the previous discussion. However, due to the silvics of Douglas-fir at Knife Creek, stand struc-ture will be horizontally diverse, since gaps of up to one tree length will be created for regenera-tion. Small trees will not be arranged directly below larger trees. Repeated entries will thin all layers of the stand, and thus maintain tree vigour. Managing the stands in that fashion should help reduce damage by budworm in the event of an outbreak.”

The biological insecticide Btk (Bacillus thuringi-ensis var. kurstaki) has been used to manage western spruce budworm in the region. Mule deer winter ranges, especially those along the Fraser and Chil-cotin rivers, incorporate provisions for red- and blue-listed species, including various bat species and Flammulated Owls. These species depend on Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) for food and could therefore be adversely affected by Btk. If Btk is sprayed on these mule deer winter ranges, we recommend that: () only those areas of the winter range that are significantly infested with budworm be sprayed, (2) a maximum of one-half of the winter range be sprayed in any one year, (3) the Grassland Benchmark Area not be sprayed, and (4) the forest within km of the forest/grassland interface should be a low priority for spraying.

When Mountain Pine Beetle Attack Occurs on Mule Deer Winter Range

• If the basal area of mature pine in the stand is low (20% or less), it should be a low priority for harvest.

• If the attack is not current (i.e., the beetles have flown), salvage of beetle-killed pine should be a low priority, especially in stands with a small amount of pine (20% or less).

If beetle-infested pine is harvested without using group selection, it must be done within a cutblock designed to meet the objectives for Harvest Opportunity Types 2 and 3. These objec-tives include the following:

• Harvest or damage to Douglas-fir must not exceed 15% for stems 22.5–37.5 cm dbh and 5% for stems >37.5 cm dbh (including skid trail development) of the pre-harvest basal area of Douglas-fir stems in each of these two diameter class groupings.

• Minimize the area covered by skid trails. • Regenerate to Douglas-fir wherever ecologically possible.

49

Armillaria root disease

Armillaria root disease is present on some mule deer winter range stands. Active research and develop-ment of new integrated approaches to dealing with this disease are being developed in the Cariboo-Chilcotin (Chapman et al. 2004). The integrated approach currently being developed recommends a suite of measures that will work together to reduce the damage from Armillaria.

Armillaria control measures that are compatible with the management approach recommended for mule deer winter ranges include the following:4

. Maintaining mature trees in infection centres that have survived Armillaria as seed sources for regeneration.

2. Using natural regeneration to take advantage of the evolved resistance of local trees to the local strains of Armillaria and to avoid the increased susceptibility of container stock to Armillaria root disease.

3. Minimizing soil disturbance that can provide a substrate for increased colonization by new Armillaria genets.

4. Maintaining coarse woody debris of all size classes from fine to coarse within harvest open-ings to provide nutrient sources for desirable

fungi that compete with Armillaria. Debris should be spread evenly or left in small clumps.

5. Using Hypholoma faciculare inoculation to en-hance populations of desirable fungal species that strongly compete with Armillaria root disease. Consider spot application as infection centres become apparent.

6. Carefully identifying infection centres and con-sidering leaving them unlogged as wildlife tree patches (wtps). Also, consider ringing Armillaria-infected wtps with logged areas to create root gaps so that Armillaria spread into the stand by root contact is reduced. Treat logged rings using a combination of as many as possible of other mitigating treatments outlined here to reduce the risk of Armillaria flashing in the logged rings.

7. Using alternative species to break up root-to-root contact of Douglas-fir, where inclusion of some species other than Douglas-fir is acceptable. For example, plant cutover rings, described in Point 6, with deciduous species.

8. Grooving stump tops to collect moisture to speed up decomposition of stumps. Apply nitrogen fer-tilizer to stump tops to speed up decomposition of stumps.

9. Looking at potassium nutrient status and, where applicable, considering potassium fertilization.

4 B. Chapman, B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range, Williams Lake, B.C., pers. comm.

APPENDIX 12 USE OF IDFxm TARGETS FOR IDFdk SITES IN 12 WINTER RANGES

Field sampling to determine the applicability of IDFdk targets for basal area and “BDq” indicated that the IDFdk ecosystems in some winter ranges with lower relative forest productivity would be more appropriately managed using the targets for IDFxm. For the following winter ranges, ecosystems clas-sified as IDFdk3 or IDFdk4 should use the IDFxm

targets in Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix 6 to design single-tree selection silviculture systems for Chi-lanko Creek, Choelquoit, Puntzi, South Taseko, West Chilcotin, West Chilko, Bonapate River, Canoe-China Gulch, China Gulch-Big Bar, Edge Hills, Loon Creek, and Porcupine Creek.

50

REFERENCES

Armleder, H.M. 999. Clumpy spacing: juvenile spacing Douglas-fir into clumps to imitate natural stand structure. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Exten. Note 32. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/En/En32.htm>

Armleder, H.M. and R.J. Dawson. 992. Logging on mule deer winter range: An integrated man-agement approach. For. Chron. 68:32–37.

Armleder, H.M., R.J. Dawson, and R.N. Thomson. 986. Handbook for timber and mule deer management co-ordination on winter ranges in the Cariboo Forest Region. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handb. 3. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh3.htm>

Armleder, H.M., M.J. Waterhouse, R.J. Dawson, and K.E. Iverson. 998. Mule deer response to low-volume partial cutting on winter range in central interior of British Columbia. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Res. Rep. 6. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Rr/Rr6.htm>

Armleder, H.M., M.J. Waterhouse, D.K. Keisker and R.J. Dawson. 994. Winter habitat use by mule deer in the Central Interior of British Colum-bia. Can. J. Zool. 72:72–725.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 995. Silvicul-ture systems guidebook. Forest Practices Code. B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C.

Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP). 998. Integration Report. Cariboo Mid-Coast Inter-agency Management Committee, Special Rept. Williams Lake, B.C. <http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/lrmp/northern/cclup/ integration_rpt/toc.htm>

Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP). 200. Cariboo-Chilcotin grasslands strategy: Forest encroachment onto grassland and establish-ment of a grassland benchmark area. Cariboo Mid-Coast Interagency Management Commit-tee, Special Rept., Williams Lake, B.C. <http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/lrmp/northern/cclup/grasslands_strat/>

Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (cclup). 2006. An integrated strategy for management of bio-diversity and bark beetles in Douglas-fir and spruce stands. Regional Biodiversity Conser-vation Strategy Update Note 7b – December 2006. <http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/ilmb/lup/lrmp/northern/cclup/biodiv/>

Chapman, B., G. Xiao, and S. Myers. 2004. Early re-sults from field trials using Hypholoma facicu-lare to reduce Armillaria ostoyae disease. Can. J. Bot. 82:962–969.

Dawson, R.J., H.M. Armleder, B.A. Bings, and D.E. Peel. 2006. Management strategy for mule deer winter ranges in the Cariboo-Chilcotin – part b: management plan for transition and deep snowpack zones. B.C. Min. For. Range, Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handb. 59. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh59.htm>.

Dawson, R.J., H.M. Armleder, and M.J. Waterhouse. 990. Preferences of mule deer for Douglas-fir foliage from different sized trees. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:378–382.

Day, J.K. 998. Selection management of interior Douglas-fir for mule deer winter range. MF thesis. Faculty of Forestry, Univ. B.C., Vancou-ver, B.C.

Mitchell, S.J. 995. The windthrow triangle: A rela-tive windthrow hazard assessment procedure for forest managers. For. Chron. 7:446–450.

5

Parker, K.L., C.T. Robbins, and T.A. Hanley. 984. Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:474–488.

Steen, O.A.S., R. Stathers, and R. Coupé. 990. Iden-tification and management of summer frost prone sites in the Cariboo Forest Region. For. Can. and B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. frda Rep. 57. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Frr/Frr57.htm>

Waterhouse, M.J., H.M. Armleder, and R.J. Dawson. 99. Forage litterfall in Douglas-fir forests in the central interior of British Columbia. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Res. Note. 08. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Rn08.htm>

———. 994. Winter food habits of mule deer in the central interior of British Columbia. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Res. Note 3. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Rn3.htm>

Waterhouse, M.J., R.J.Dawson, and H.M. Armleder. 99. Chemical composition of Douglas-fir foli-age on mule deer winter range. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Res. Rep. 9003-CA. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Rr/R9003-ca.pdf>

darcy peel - british columbia · mule deer - habitat - british columbia - cariboo region. 2. forest...

Documents