UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Creating criteria and indicators for use in forest management planning : a case study with four First… Spies, Jillian 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2017_november_spies_jillian.pdf [ 2.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0357128.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0357128-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0357128-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0357128-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0357128-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0357128-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0357128-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0357128-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0357128.ris

Full Text

CREATING CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR USE IN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING: A CASE STUDY WITH FOUR FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by JILLIAN SPIES BSc, The University of Vermont, 2013   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Forestry)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)   October 2017  © Jillian Spies, 2017  ii  Abstract In British Columbia (BC), Canada, there is a rapid shift in forest management systems as a result of historic and recent title cases involving Indigenous communities. Today, modern treaties mean more decision making power for the Indigenous communities that treaties involve. This research is built on that progression and was part of a collaboration with four Indigenous communities in BC to develop sustainable forest management plans for their traditional territories. Community members were interviewed to determine their forestry related goals and values. Alongside economic goals, these included habitat conservation for important game species, water quality, berry production, and the use of sustainable harvesting methods. To represent these findings, criteria, indicators and targets were developed for use with forest estate modeling software, such as Woodstock. A scenario that encompassed the current forest management practices and three alternative scenarios were created to support the goals and values of the community members. The three alternative scenarios that used the criteria, indicators, and targets developed from the goals and values of the community members did differ from the scenario of the status quo forest management practices.  iii  Lay Summary In British Columbia (BC), Canada, there is a rapid shift in forest management systems as a result of historic and recent title cases involving Indigenous communities. Today, modern treaties mean more decision making power for the Indigenous communities that treaties involve. This research was built on this progression, and was part of a collaboration with four Indigenous communities in BC to develop sustainable forest management plans for their traditional territories. Community members were interviewed to determine their forestry related goals and values. Alongside economic goals, these included habitat conservation for important game species, water quality, berry production, and the use of sustainable harvesting methods. This research resulted in three forest management planning scenarios that community members could implement on their traditional territory that better encompass their goals and values than the current forest management practices.  iv  Preface This thesis is an original intellectual product of the author, Jillian Spies. The fieldwork reported in section 3 is covered by UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board Certificate number H15-03296.  v  Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................. iii Preface............................................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiv Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... xv Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xvi 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 What is Aboriginal Title and how does it relate to Indigenous communities' goals and values? ......................................................................................................................................... 1  Recognizing Aboriginal Title in BC ......................................................................... 2  Historical Treaties and Today’s BC Treaty Process ................................................. 3 1.2 Forest Management in BC ............................................................................................... 6 2 State of Knowledge ............................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Tsilhqot’in Nation vs. British Columbia Court Case ..................................................... 10 2.2 Overlapping Territories .................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Contemporary Indigenous Goals and Values for Forest Management in BC ................ 12 3 Determining Community Goals ............................................................................................. 15 3.1 Methods and Materials ................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Community Partners ............................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 The Data Collection Process ................................................................................... 17 3.2 Results ............................................................................................................................ 19 vi   Policy and Land Rights ........................................................................................... 19  Forestry Practices .................................................................................................... 20  Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 21  Recreation ............................................................................................................... 22  Cultural ................................................................................................................... 22  Shrubs and Herbaceous Species .............................................................................. 23  Water ....................................................................................................................... 24  Goals and Values Included in Industrial Forest Management Plans ...................... 24 3.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 25 4 Criteria and Indicators ........................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Methods and Materials ................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Results ............................................................................................................................ 28 4.2.1 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 29 4.2.2 Forestry Practices .................................................................................................... 35 4.2.3 Shrubs and Herbaceous Species .............................................................................. 37 4.2.4 Water ....................................................................................................................... 39 4.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 40 4.3.1 The Development of the Criteria, Indicators and Targets....................................... 40 4.3.2 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 42 4.3.3 Suggestions for Future Work .................................................................................. 42 5 Forest Management Planning ................................................................................................ 45 5.1 Methods and Material..................................................................................................... 45 5.1.1 Data Preparation...................................................................................................... 45 5.1.2 Clipping the Data and Creating Buffers .................................................................. 47 5.1.3 Fixing Data Errors................................................................................................... 47 vii  5.1.4 Combining Feature Classes..................................................................................... 49 5.1.5 Defining AUs & Creating Growth and Yield Curves ............................................. 50 5.1.6 The Netdown process .............................................................................................. 51 5.1.7 The Management Scenarios .................................................................................... 54 5.1.8 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 62 5.2 Results ............................................................................................................................ 63 5.2.1 Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 63 5.2.2 Forestry Practices .................................................................................................... 76 5.2.3 Shrubs and Herbaceous Species .............................................................................. 83 5.2.4 Water ....................................................................................................................... 87 5.2.5 Scenario Comparison .............................................................................................. 88 5.2.6 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 93 5.3 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 99 5.3.1 Comparison of Scenarios ...................................................................................... 100 5.3.2 Limitations of the GIS Model ............................................................................... 101 5.3.3 The Development of Scenarios ............................................................................. 102 5.3.4 Lessons Learned and Future Research Needs ....................................................... 103 6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 106 References ................................................................................................................................... 108 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 125 Appendix A: Letter of Approval ............................................................................................. 125 Appendix B: Oral Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 126 Appendix C: Calculations for Buffers ..................................................................................... 129 Appendix D: AU Definitions .................................................................................................. 130 Appendix E: Python Script for AU Assignments ................................................................... 138 viii  Appendix F: Parameters for Yield Curves .............................................................................. 150 Appendix G: Python Script for C + N Contclass Assignments .............................................. 157 Appendix H: Shadow Price Calculations ................................................................................ 158   ix  List of Tables Table 1: The criterion moose, the correlated indicators and targets, and the rationale for choosing those targets .................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 2: The criterion deer, and correlated indicators and targets ................................................ 30 Table 3: The criterion caribou, and correlated indicators and targets ........................................... 32 Table 4: The criterion trapping, and correlated indicators and targets ......................................... 33 Table 5: The criterion habitat connectivity, and correlated indicators and targets ....................... 34 Table 6: The criterion large carnivores, and correlated indicators and targets ............................. 35 Table 7: The criterion sustainable forest management, and correlated indicators and targets ..... 35 Table 8: The criterion forest resources conservation, and correlated indicators and targets ........ 36 Table 9: The criterion berries, and correlated indicators and targets ............................................ 37 Table 10: The criterion medicinal plants, and correlated indicators and targets .......................... 38 Table 11: The criterion other important plants, and correlated indicators and targets ................. 38 Table 12: The criterion fish, and correlated indicators and targets ............................................... 39 Table 13: The criterion water quality, and correlated indicators and targets ................................ 40 Table 14: Attributes, feature classes, and corresponding links included in the forest management plan GIS model ............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 15: List of fields by feature class that are needed in the resultant GIS attribute table (Man 2016) ............................................................................................................................................. 49 Table 16: Associated attributes, the values removed, and the rationale behind doing so for the Netdown process ........................................................................................................................... 51 Table 17: How the Contclass value was assigned to each polygon in the GIS model ................. 52 Table 18: Slopes at which the TSA deems land un-operable ....................................................... 56 Table 19: Break-down of the non-forested, harvestable forested, and non-harvestable forested land base ............................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 20: Status of targets for the criterion moose in the base case scenario ............................... 63 Table 21: Status of targets for the criterion deer in each scenario ................................................ 69 Table 22: Tracking of statuses for criteria of caribou in each scenario ........................................ 72 Table 23: Status of target for the criterion trapping ...................................................................... 75 Table 24: Status of targets for the criterion habitat connectivity .................................................. 75 x  Table 25: Status of targets for the criterion large carnivores ........................................................ 76 Table 26: Status of targets for the criterion sustainable forest management ................................ 77 Table 27: Status of targets for the criterion forest resources conservation in each scenario ........ 83 Table 28: Status of targets for criterion berries in each scenario .................................................. 83 Table 29: Status of targets for the criterion medicinal plants in each scenario ............................ 86 Table 30: Status of targets for the criterion other important plants in each scenario ................... 87 Table 31: Status of targets for criteria fish and water quality in each scenario ............................ 87 Table 32: Comparison of the statuses of all the indicators between each of the scenarios .......... 88 Table 33: Shadow prices of constraints in the base case scenario ................................................ 93 Table 34: Shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario I ........................................................... 95 Table 35: Shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario II ......................................................... 97 Table 36: Shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario III ........................................................ 98 Table 38: Calculations showing the width of the river, stream, lake and wetland buffers created in the model ..................................................................................................................................... 129 Table 39: Calculations showing the width of road buffers created in the model ....................... 129 Table 40: AU definitions for 100 Mile House TSA, developed from the 2012 100 Mile House TSR..................................................................................................................................................... 130 Table 41: AU definitions for Williams Lake TSA, developed from the 2013 Williams Lake TSR..................................................................................................................................................... 131 Table 42: AU definitions from the Kamloops TSA, developed from the 2007 Kamloops TSR 131 Table 43: AU definitions for Quesnel TSA, based on the 2009 and 2013 Quesnel TSR. .......... 132 Table 44: AU definition of Lillooet TSA, defined from the 2004 Lillooet TSR ........................ 133 Table 45: AU definition of Robson Valley TSA, defined from the 2004 Robson Valley TSR . 134 Table 46: AU definitions for Prince George TSA, developed from the 1995 Prince George TSR..................................................................................................................................................... 136 Table 47: 100 Mile House TSA yield curve parameters ............................................................. 150 Table 48: Robson Valley yield curve parameters ....................................................................... 151 Table 49: Lillooet TSA yield curve parameters .......................................................................... 152 Table 50: Williams Lake TSA growth and yield curve .............................................................. 154 Table 51: Yield curve parameters for Quesnel TSA ................................................................... 155 xi  Table 52: Yield curve parameters for additional AUs in the Kamloops TSA. These three AUs were not taken from the Kamloops TSR. They were added to account for species that were not modeled as a result of following the TSR AU definitions. All other yield curves were taken directly from the 2001 Kamloops TSR and VDYP was not used to create the yield curves............................ 156   xii  List of Figures Figure 1: Treaty 8 and the Douglas Treaties, historic treaties of BC. Data Source: Government of British Columbia, 2017a. ................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Territories of the four communities of the NStQ. Data Source: Provided by NStQ, and Government of British Columbia, 2017b...................................................................................... 16 Figure 3: A map representing how moose habitat was assigned. Green represents riparian zones. White represents areas inside or outside of the harvestable land base. Yellow represents the 400 m snow interception cover within the harvestable land base that was designated as "moose habitat." Data Source: Government of British Columbia, 2017c ................................................................ 59 Figure 4: Land class distribution on the NStQ land base, with Well's Gray Provincial Park outlined. Government of British Columbia. 2017c, d. ................................................................................. 60 Figure 5: Area of early and late seral forest available on the forested land base in the base case scenario ......................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 6: Area of moose habitat harvested by clear or partial cutting per period in Scenario I ... 65 Figure 7: The area of early and late seral habitat available on the forested land base in Scenario I....................................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 8: Area of moose habitat that was harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario II ................................................................................................................................. 67 Figure 9: Area of early and late seral forest available on the forested land base in Scenario II ... 67 Figure 10: Area of moose habitat that was harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III ............................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 11: Area of early and late seral forest available on the forested land base in Scenario III 69 Figure 12: Area of deer habitat harvested by clear or partial-cutting per period in Scenario I .... 70 Figure 13: Area of deer habitat that was harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario II ................................................................................................................................. 71 Figure 14: Area of deer habitat harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III................................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 15: Area of caribou habitat harvested by partial or clear-cutting in per period Scenario II....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 16: Area of caribou habitat partial-cut per period in Scenario III ..................................... 75 xiii  Figure 17: Volume of timber harvested per period in the base case scenario .............................. 77 Figure 18: Available growing stock on the harvestable land base per period in the base case scenario ......................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 19: Volume of timber harvested per period in Scenario I, with a break-down of how much timber came from clear or partial-cutting ..................................................................................... 79 Figure 20: Volume of timber available on the land base per period in Scenario I ....................... 79 Figure 21: Volume of timber harvested per period in Scenario II, including a break-down of the volume harvested by partial or clear-cutting ................................................................................ 80 Figure 22: Available growing stock on the harvestable land base each period in Scenario II ..... 81 Figure 23: Total volume of timber harvested per period, including a break-down of how much of the harvesting is done by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III .................. 82 Figure 24: Available growing stock on the harvestable land base each period in Scenario III .... 82 Figure 25: Area of land harvested be clear cutting methods per period in the base case scenario 84 Figure 26: Area of the land base that is harvested with partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario I .................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 27: Area of land base harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario II .................................................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 28: Area of land harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III 86 Figure 29: Volume of timber harvested per period in each scenario ............................................ 89 Figure 30: Area of forest harvested by clear-cutting methods per period in each scenario .......... 89 Figure 31: Volume of timber harvested by clear-cutting methods per period in each scenario ... 90 Figure 32: Area of land harvested by partial-cutting methods per period in each scenario ......... 91 Figure 33: Volume of timber harvested by partial-cutting per period in each scenario ............... 91 Figure 34: Area of forest available on the land base that is early seral forest in each scenario ... 92 Figure 35: Area of forest available on the land base that is early seral forest in each scenario ... 93   xiv  List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition AAC Annual allowable cut ALR Agricultural Land Reserve AOI Area of Interest AU Analysis Unit BA Balsam (true fir) BC British Columbia BCTC British Columbia Treaty Commission BEC Biogeoclimatic BG Bunchgrass BREB Behavioral Research and Ethics Board ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute ESSF Engelmann spruce-Subalpine fir FRPA Forest and Ranges Practices Act GAR Government Action Regulations ICH Interior cedar-hemlock IDF Interior Douglas-fir IMA Interior mountain-heather alpine IR Indian Reservation LP Linear programming LUP Land Use Plan MH Mountain hemlock MOU Memorandum of understanding MS Montane Spruce NStQ Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw NTFP Non-timber forest products OGMA Old growth management area PP Ponderosa pine SBPS Sub-boreal pine-spruce SBS Sub-boreal spruce TSA Timber Supply Area TSR Timber Supply Review TUS Traditional Use Study UWR Ungulate Winter Range VQO Visual Quality Objective VRI Vegetation Resource Inventory WTP Wildlife Tree Patch     xv  Acknowledgements Thank you to my incredible supervisor, Dr. Verena Griess, who encouraged me to work harder than I ever have before and who has taught me so much over the past two years. To the staff and communities of the Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw, I was so humbled to be welcomed into their territories and to have so many people share their stories and thoughts with me. Thank you immensely to everyone who gave me their time and participated in this project. Thank you to my supervising committee, Dr. Janette Bulkan and Dr. Bruce Larson, who's incredible knowledge in their fields has led me in the right direction all throughout the completion of this thesis. Thank you to the UBC Hampton fund, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, as well as Mossrock Park Foundation for generously supporting this work. Last but not least, thank you to my friends, family and peers who shared their wisdom, expertise, and love. I could not have done this without all of you.  xvi  Dedication To one of my first teachers, my incredible grandmother Barbara French.   1  1 Introduction Indigenous1 communities have resided in what is modern day British Columbia (BC) since time immemorial (Turpel 1993; Turner 2001; O’Faircheallaigh 2007). Carbon dating demonstrates that Indigenous communities have resided in BC for at least 9,000 years (Josenhans et al. 1997). Baskets, hats, and clothing made from roots and bark were being used as long as 9,000 years ago, and there is evidence that fishing and hunting of mammals occurred about 8,000 years ago (Chisholm 2013). This historical occupation of BC is important for two reasons. Firstly, it demonstrates that Indigenous communities' ancestors have resided in BC longer than non-Indigenous people, who began to explore and populate BC in the 1770s (Coates and Carlson 2013). Secondly, when colonial settlers arrived, the forest was healthy and resources were plentiful (Davis and Twidale 2011). This means that in over 9,000 years of Indigenous occupation of western Canada, Indigenous communities did not drastically deplete forest resources or health. The Indigenous peoples of BC, who make up 5% of the population of BC (BC Stats 2006), have a unique worldview. Indigenous communities see themselves as a part of an ecosystem (Parsons and Prest 2003). They value the cycle of life, believe that all life is related (de Paoli 1999), and value animal-human connections (Houde 2007). Their worldviews demonstrate that they believe that humans do not have dominion over the land, but rather that people must alter their actions to ensure the health and sustainability of their land and the other beings in it (Collier and Hobby 2010). 1.1 What is Aboriginal Title and how does it relate to Indigenous communities' goals and values? Today, many Indigenous communities have similar goals and values that their ancestors had for thousands of years before them. Many Indigenous communities still value the food, medicines, and materials that their ancestors have used since time immemorial (Turner 2001). When colonial settlers arrived in BC, many traditional Indigenous practices were stopped; settlers were awarded titles to lands traditionally occupied by Indigenous communities, and following the                                                  1 The term "Indigenous" encompasses all First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people, and is a preferred term in international usage (The University of British Columbia (2016). 2  enactment of the Indian Act in 1876, Indigenous children were taken from their homes and sent to residential schools away from their families. These sorts of actions forced many Indigenous communities to discontinue or lessen their traditional practices (Davis and Twidale 2011).  Recognizing Aboriginal Title in BC Indigenous peoples do not see land as something owned by a government or a person, but as a relationship held since time immemorial (Hanson 2009). Regaining control of land and resources is an important task regarding Indigenous rights (Usher et al. 1992). Despite the acknowledgement of the existence of Aboriginal title in Section 35 of the Constitution, the government of BC has not done a thorough job of consulting and accommodating Indigenous groups before they log, mine, or fish on lands that have been historically occupied by Indigenous groups (Baker and McLelland 2003; Booth and Skelton 2011). Partly due to the east to west colonization of North America, there were few treaty agreements between Indigenous people and colonial settlers in BC. Most settlers believed that much of the land in BC was theirs to settle and ignored the pre-existing rights of the Indigenous population (Pratt 2004). After the arrival of colonial settlers, many Indigenous communities lost the abilities to make decisions about what happened on the land that they and their ancestors had occupied since time immemorial (Davis and Twidale 2011). According to the outcome of the case Delgamuukw vs the Queen in 1997, Aboriginal title is a legal definition that gives Indigenous communities the right to the land itself, not just the right to hunt or fish on their land. Also under this definition, when there is Aboriginal title, the government must consult with the Indigenous group who has Aboriginal title before taking any sort of action on that land (BC Treaty Commission 1999). Although the term "Aboriginal title" was stated for the first time in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Aboriginal title actually comes from the existence of Indigenous communities in Canada, including the pre-existing systems of Indigenous law (McNeil 2016). This is described in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, which states that "[t]he existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed" (1982). Aboriginal title is defined as the “personal and usufructuary right” to land; this means that Aboriginal title is a combination between the definition of land found in Indigenous legal systems (Supreme Court of Canada 1887), and fee simple land, also described by Slattery (2015) as "sui 3  generis." For example, the community who governs the land with Aboriginal title can decide who has access to the Aboriginal title (Slattery 2015). Aboriginal title is a collective right of Indigenous people that is governed by a group of Indigenous people who hold the title. It cannot be sold or transferred outside of the Indigenous community, it must be preserved for future generations, and represents a special historical relationship between the Crown and the Indigenous people (Slattery 2015). Aboriginal title is the right that Indigenous communities have to live on and use their traditional territory in the way that their ancestors did since time immemorial (Hanson 2009). If an Indigenous community holds Aboriginal title, they are entitled to the entire benefit of the land. However, the Crown’s underlying title is limited to the trust the Crown has with Indigenous communities, and the right the Crown has to violate Aboriginal title based on Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 (McNeil 2016).  Many Indigenous communities in BC wish to reclaim rights to their traditional practices on their traditional lands and to become leaders in natural resource management on those lands (Wilson 2002). Since their traditional territories have been settled by colonists, the interests, needs, and cultural values of Indigenous people around the world have been marginalized, including in the realm of forest management (Adam and Kneeshaw 2008; Hibbard et al. 2008). Today, Crown land is not always managed in a way that respects the interests of Indigenous communities and, because of that, Indigenous communities have struggled to regain control of their traditional territories since the 1860s (Tindall and Trosper 2013). Because of this disagreement in management practices and the difference in worldview between Indigenous people and the government of BC, the path to a province where Indigenous communities can exercise their sovereignty over their traditional territory is not clear for either party.  Historical Treaties and Today’s BC Treaty Process Throughout the colonization of Canada by European settlers, especially in Eastern Canada, treaties and land claim agreements were signed by the settlers and the Indigenous communities occupying the areas at that time; during early colonization, most treaties were documents stating a promise for a peaceful and friendly relationship between Indigenous people and colonial settlers (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Lands Directorate). Treaties were signed throughout almost 4  all of Southern Canada, but not in BC (Frideres 2013). When BC joined Canada in 1871, land claims were unresolved and the province denied that Aboriginal title existed (Wilson 2002). It was not until the 1970s that Indigenous communities in Canada could seek claim for Aboriginal title in the courts, so they were left without the opportunity to fight for land claims for many years (BC Treaty Commission 2017c). There were two sets of treaties signed during the early colonization of BC (Figure 1). In the Douglas Treaties, a set of 14 treaties on Vancouver Island, Indigenous communities traded land for money, goods, and the continued right to hunt and fish. Treaty 8, signed in 1899, pertains to a large area of northeast BC and includes large tracts of land surrendered by Indigenous communities in exchange for money and the right to hunt and fish on unoccupied Crown land (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Lands Directorate). Since these treaty agreements were the only ones of their kind during the colonization of BC, today there are hundreds of Indigenous communities whose traditional territory is not recognized by the province through treaty negotiations (Supreme Court of Canada 2014). However, there have been more recent attempts to resolve land claims issues by signing more treaties (Stevenson 2013). Modern day treaties are constitutional agreements between the Crown and Indigenous people of Canada that share the traditional territory of an Indigenous community with the Crown in exchange for payments and promises (Hall 2011). However, Figure 1: Treaty 8 and the Douglas Treaties, historic treaties of BC. Data Source: Government of British Columbia, 2017a. ¯Treaty #8 Douglas Treaties 5  massive protests by Indigenous communities occurred in the early 1990s due to unfair negotiations between Indigenous communities and the BC government (Hanson 2009). Indigenous people were frustrated at the lack of successful negotiations to secure their land claims (Usher et al. 1992). In 1992, the BC Treaty Commission (BCTC) was created to facilitate a fairer process between Indigenous governments, the government of BC, and the federal government of Canada (BC Treaty Commission 2017a). The BC Treaty Process consists of six steps.  Step 1. Statement of Intent. A statement of intent and map showing the geographic area of the Indigenous community’s traditional territory are submitted to the BCTC. Step 2. Preparation for Negotiations. Representatives of the BCTC, federal government, provincial government, and Indigenous community arrange a meeting. Information is exchanged and issues of concern are brought up. Everyone must be willing to negotiate and have enough resources to carry forward with negotiations.  Step 3. Framework Agreement. The subjects that are going to be negotiated are decided. Public consultation on the provincial and Indigenous side are carried out.  Step 4. Agreement in Principle. The details of the framework agreement are laid out and rights, obligations, land interests, government structures, laws, the amending process, dispute resolution, finances, and other similar topics are discussed in detail. Step 5. Negotiation to Finalize Treaty. Technical and legal issues are resolved at this stage. The treaty is signed and ratified. Step 6. Implementation of Treaty. The plans to implement the treaty are carried out as agreed upon (NStQ 2016; BC Treaty Commission 2017b). Since its creation, two-thirds of the 200 Indigenous communities in BC have begun using the BCTC to handle land claims issues (Frideres 2013; BC Stats 2015). As of July 2017, the Tsawwassen First Nation, Maa-nulth First Nations, Yale First Nation, and Tla'amin Nation are the Indigenous communities in BC with signed treaties negotiated with the BCTC, with negotiations being phased in over time (Government of British Columbia 2014; BC Treaty Commission 2017c). Many Indigenous groups are experiencing difficulties with the BC Treaty Process because of the length of time it takes, unhappiness with the compromises, and budgeting problems. For example, the Nuxalk First Nation, does not wish to establish a land claim with the BCTC because 6  they do not want to give up their rights to halt development on their land, a requirement of negotiating a treaty (Nuxalk Smayusta 2012). There are members of Indigenous communities and members of the BCTC who believe that the system currently in place for land claims is not working and will not work unless it is changed (Rossiter and Wood 2005; Stevenson 2013). 1.2 Forest Management in BC Forest management practices in BC affect Indigenous communities, since forested Crown land is on the traditional territory of many communities. If Indigenous communities design their own forest management plans, then management practices can better represent their goals and values. According to Bettinger et al. (2009) the “management of forests requires a plan (however developed), and an assessment of the activities necessary to meet the objectives.” For many land managers, forest management plans exist as a written report that can help different stakeholders meet land management objectives. The concept of detailed sustainable forest management planning is somewhat new in BC. Before 1947, there were almost no harvest regulations on timber in BC; if someone had the right to harvest on Crown land, there was no limit as to how much they could harvest (Williams 1993). Forest industry became concerned with a declining growing stock, the haphazard pattern of timber harvesting, and poor silviculture and forest management, which led to the establishment of the Royal Sloan Commission from 1943-1947 (Mitchell-Banks n.d.). The commission decided that the rate of harvest should be similar to the growth rate of the forest and that eventually the province should reach an even, sustainable growing stock, which was defined as a continued yield of wood that could be used commercially. BC implemented a policy that the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) would be calculated every year to steadily decrease until they reached the maximum sustainable rate of harvest (Williams 1993). The AAC is the most timber, in cubic meters, that can be cut from certain types of forest tenure in BC (Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range 2002). Despite plans to lower the AAC, it doubled in the 10 years following the Sloan Commission (Pedersen 2003). For example, some types of forest tenure in BC allowed the holder to ignore AAC regulations and harvest up to 50% more per year. Members of the public and forest professionals suspected that the AAC was being revised without much thought or calculation 7  (Haley 1966). They realized that the continuous increase with AAC calculations meant that there needed to be more focus on non-timber forest products (NTFP) and integrated forest management practices to have a truly sustainable availability of timber (Williams 1993). By the 1990s, the public did not see the sustainable forest management that had been promised to them in the 1940s, and a relationship of distrust began between the public and forest sector (Williams 1993). Today, the Chief Forester adjusts the AAC every 10 years based on calculations by the Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range (2002). The AAC accounts for 85% of the timber cut in the province with the remainder allotted to other tenure types such as Community Forest Agreements, First Nations Woodland License, and Woodlots (Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range 2002). The Forest and Ranges Practices Act (FRPA) and the Government Action Regulations (GAR) govern forestry practices in BC. It can be said that some decisions, such as the size of no-harvest zones around streams (also known as riparian buffer zones), are more political than scientific (Castelle et al. 1994). Currently, each Timber Supply Area (TSA) within BC does its own Timber Supply Review (TSR) based on the determined AAC. Aside from the amount of timber to harvest, guidelines and laws set by the government of BC dictate certain activities that are and are not permitted to occur on Crown land. For example, the FRPA states there can be regulations pertaining to "soils, visual quality, timber, forage and associated plant communities, water, fish, wildlife, biodiversity, recreation resource, resource features, and cultural heritage resource" (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2002). The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has also developed Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) Orders that outline the habitat required for areas of forest to be managed for ungulates throughout BC, as well as timber harvest, forest health management, fire management, and range management objectives. Other statues, such as the GARs, a subsection of FRPA, defines regulations for many of the previously mentioned attributes, such as UWR, wildlife areas, fisheries objectives, and stream management (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2004). The Riparian Management Area Guidebook (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995), another subsection of FRPA, outlines how streams are classified in BC, how to determine what is a fish stream and what is not, how to classify wetlands and lakes, managing riparian areas, and how to manage ranges within riparian areas. The Wildlife Act (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resources 1996) and the Land Act (The Ministry of Forests, 8  Lands and Natural Resources 1996) are other regulations that affect how forests are managed in BC. There are many government guidelines, rules, and regulations that affect how tenure-holders manage Crown land. The percentage of Indigenous people working in the forestry sector is proportional to their non-Indigenous colleagues (Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands 2010). However, the National Aboriginal Forestry Association has been trying to involve Indigenous institutions and their organization even more in order to improve their economies (National Aboriginal Forestry Association). Frideres (2013) believes that most forests available for Indigenous people to practice forestry on are too small to sustain harvesting for a profit. However, Indigenous people still want to take part in the management of their natural resources (Frideres 2013). Throughout BC, it is important to create forest management scenarios that include both Indigenous and non-Indigenous approaches, not only to improve natural resources and nature resource-based economies, but also to transcend cultural barriers (Sherry et al. 2005b). There could be positive economic implications for rural Indigenous communities managing their own forests using plans that represent their goals and values.  This thesis is guided by the overall research question of whether or not Indigenous communities have specific and distinct goals and values when it comes to forest management. There are strong indications that this assumption is true. By validating it and moving beyond simply displaying possible differences, this research additionally aims to take a first step towards developing a suitable approach for the inclusion of forestry-related Indigenous goals and values in the development of forest management plans. To reach these overall goals, this work was split into 3 sections, answering two research hypotheses: H0,1: There is no difference between the goals for forest management expressed by Indigenous communities and those included in current industrial forest management planning. To answer this question, members of four partnering communities in the Williams Lake area were interviewed. If rejected, a second hypothesis would be answered: H0,2: The use of criteria, indicators, and targets specifically designed to assess the development of goals and values over time will not lead to a different overall forest management approach. 9  To answer this question, a set of criteria and indicators was developed based on findings from section 3: Determining Community Goals. Finally, these newly developed criteria and indicators will be included in a computer-based forest management planning approach, displaying three alternatives to current management (section 5: Forest Management Planning).  10  2 State of Knowledge 2.1 Tsilhqot’in Nation vs. British Columbia Court Case Due to the difficulties of the treaty process in BC and the issues that many Indigenous groups have had claiming Aboriginal title, some Indigenous communities have used the courts to assert sovereignty over their traditional territories. The Tsilhqot’in Nation is an example of one. According to court proceedings, the Tsilhqot’in, a First Nation of 6 semi-nomadic communities, wished to prohibit the implementation of a logging license on their traditional territory and acquire recognized Aboriginal title. To halt the implementation of the license, the Tsilhqot’in brought the dispute to court. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court declared that in order to gain Aboriginal title, the Tsilhqot’in had to show “sufficient, continuous, and exclusive ‘occupation’” of the land they wished to have title over (Supreme Court of Canada 2014). The court determined that those 3 parameters were met and, in 2014, the Tsilhqot’in Nation was granted Aboriginal title to over 2,000 square kilometers of their traditional lands (Stevenson 2013). According to Chief Justice McLaughlin, any future decisions about the land must be made by the Tsilhqot’in with the benefit of future generations in mind, and the Tsilhqot’in are entitled to the exclusive right to use the land however they wish; McLaughlin also stated that the Tsilhqot’in are permitted to benefit from the uses of the land and to “enjoy its economic fruits.” In addition to these allowances, McLaughlin also stated that Crown must now act in good faith to consult with any Aboriginal groups on the Tsilhqot’in’s land the Crown proposes to use (Supreme Court of Canada 2014). Since the Tsilhqot'in gained rights to their territory through the courts, it could be predicted that other Indigenous communities could do the same. The treaty process has not been successful for many Indigenous communities and, as a result, the government does not recognize claims to their traditional territory. If the courts can grant Aboriginal title and land rights to more Indigenous communities in BC, there will be opportunities for a resource management decision-making process led by the Indigenous people instead of the provincial government. If the Tsilhqot’in and other Indigenous communities can assert sovereignty on their traditional territory through the court system, it is likely there will be many more Indigenous communities in charge of forest management planning in BC. 11  2.2 Overlapping Territories In 1990, a task force of representatives from Indigenous communities, the federal government, and the provincial government joined together to make a framework for negotiating with the Crown regarding Aboriginal title (Penikett 2006). Soon after, the BCTC was established to facilitate the process (Turner and Fondahl 2015). In order to prepare for the negotiations with the BCTC, Indigenous communities have to resolve issues with each other regarding overlapping claims on traditional lands (The First Nations of British Columbia et al. 1991). The BCTC also states that Indigenous communities must have “identified and begun to address any overlapping territorial issues with neighboring First Nations” in order to “assess the readiness of the Parties to commence negotiation” (British Columbia Treaty Commission 1992). Even though the Crown requests that overlapping claims be handled between the related parties, the reasoning for the territorial claims does not have to be proven to the BCTC, only presented (British Columbia Treaty Commission 1992). Turner and Fondahl (2015) state that issues can arise from this, since Indigenous communities are not required to prove their territorial claims and are left to deal with overlapping claim issues without assistance from the BCTC. The political organizations of Indigenous communities can be very complex, involving both the traditional politics of Indigenous communities and the Indian Act-defined Band Council system (Turner and Fondahl 2015). For example, in communities adhering to the Indian Act, their officials are elected; this process has been challenged for being different from and at times not meeting the needs and values of many Indigenous communities in BC in that it mostly ignores the traditional political practices of these communities (Joseph 2017). The Nisga’a finalized a modern treaty in 1999, making them the first Indigenous group in BC to do so (Turner and Fondahl 2015). This was negotiated within Canada’s comprehensive land claims process which is different from the BC treaty process; they have legal title to Nisga’a Land which is equal to fee-simple tenure but they also have overlapping claims with other communities such as Gitanyow, Gitxsan, and Tsimshlan (Turner and Fondahl 2015). Some Gitxsan and Gitanyow members say that the Nisga’a treaty is in violation of Indigenous customary law since the Nisga’a were never asked by the BCTC to prove that the land they were claiming was their own traditional territory (Sterritt 1999). This dispute was never fully addressed by the BCTC and 12  was brought to court in the Luuxhon et al v. HTMQ Canada et al. and Nisga’a Nation (BC Supreme Court 1998). As shown here, cases of overlapping territory are difficult to address. The research in this thesis does deal with cases of overlapping territory and may also shed light on ways that communities with claimed overlapping Aboriginal title can cooperate to manage shared resources. 2.3 Contemporary Indigenous Goals and Values for Forest Management in BC The following section is an overview of some of the available literature focussing on the contemporary forestry-related goals and values of Indigenous people in BC. Timber products could be considered, by some, the most prominent resources available in the forests of BC. There is evidence of multiple Indigenous communities in BC owning timber companies and managing timber on their land (Karjala et al. 2003; Karjala and Dewhurst 2003). Many of these groups oppose non-Indigenous groups logging on their traditional territory, especially if clear-cutting is used (Wilson 2002; Karjala and Dewhurst 2003). Tl'azt'en Woodlands was formed in 1998 to work with companies logging and managing forests in their traditional territory in order to provide employment for their community members; community members also privately owned silviculture contracting businesses for the same purpose (Sherry et al. 2005b). Trees such as western redcedar (Thuja plicata), birch (Betula sp.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), pine (Pinus sp.), spruce (Picea sp.), true-fir (Abies sp.), mountain alder (Alnus incana), willow (Salix sp.), Sitka alder (Alnus viridis), and hemlock (Tsuga sp.) are all used in different manners by some Indigenous communities in BC, such as the T’exelc and the Skw’lax (Gottesfeld 1992; Sherry et al. 2005b). Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan use the bark, needles and pitch of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), spruce bark, subalpine fir bark, and devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), for medicines for flus, colds and coughs (Gottesfeld 1992). Some communities such as the Tl’azt’en (Karjala and Dewhurst 2003) are exploring ecotourism, and the Skw’lax maintain a resort lodge, trails, and a cat ski area (Sherry et al. 2005b). Other communities, such as the Lax’skiik, have a campground and building facilities for visitors to the region (Folk et al. 2000). There are examples in the literature of Indigenous community members hunting for different species for different purposes. For example, the Skw’lax use moose (Alces alces), bear (Ursus sp.), deer (Odocoileus spp.), and caribou (Ragifer sp.) for technological as well as spiritual uses (Sherry 13  et al. 2005b). The Tl’azt’en hunt for moose (Karjala & Dewhurst, 2003), bear, deer, caribou, mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), ducks, geese, mice (Mus spp.), grouse, beaver (Castor canadensis), rabbits, coyote (Canis latrans), fishers (Martes pennanti), fox (Vulpes vulpes), lynx (Lynx sp.), marmot (Marmota sp.), mink (Neovison vison), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), otter and squirrels (Sherry et al. 2005a). They believe in protecting their watershed for fish health since they also harvest salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) (Karjala & Dewhurst, 2003). Salmon (Wilson, 2002), whales, and other marine life are important spiritual beings for many Indigenous communities in BC (de Paoli 1999). Other important fish species include char (Salvelinus sp.), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sturgeon (Acipenser sp.), whitefish, and suckerfish (Catostomus sp.) fished by the Tl’azt’en (Sherry et al. 2005a). Kokanee, ling cod (Ophiodon elongatus), trout, suckerfish, and rainbow trout are fished by the T’exelc (Sherry et al. 2005b), and halibut by the Gitga’at (Turner and Clifton 2009). The forest has many cultural and spiritual uses for the Indigenous communities in BC. The Lax’skiik want to maintain old villages (Folk et al. 2000). In the John Prince Research Forest in Northern BC, the Tl’azt’en have many culturally sensitive spiritual and archeological sites that they wish to remain undisturbed, and are also interested in building a new community center and recreation facility (Karjala & Dewhurst, 2003). The Gitxsan and the Skw’lax use the forest for spiritual purposes (Folke et al. 2000; Sherry et al. 2005b; Sherry et al. 2005a). The T’exelc believe in taking only what you need, sharing fishing sites, and sharing the catch (Sherry et al. 2005b). Certain plants also have spiritual and cultural ties to the Indigenous people of BC. The Skw’lax use prickly rose (Rosa acicularis) and kinnikinnick, (or bearberry) (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) for spiritual and ceremonial uses (Sherry et al. 2005b). Indigenous community members in BC take limited amounts of bark from cedar (Thuja sp.) to keep the trees alive, due to their spiritual importance (Turner 2001). The Gitksan use the forest for spiritual purposes (Pinkerton 2000) and the Skw’lax have spiritual pursuits that take place in the forest (Sherry et al. 2005b). Indigenous communities in BC also harvest wild berries as a food source (Gottesfeld 1992), causing berries to become an important NTFP (Mitchell & Hobby, 2010). The Skw’lax, for example, harvest saskatoon berries (Amelanchier alnifolia), soopolallie (or soapberry) (Shepherdia canadensis), trapper’s or Labrador tea (Rhododendron sp.), cow parsnip (Heracleum maximum), black huckleberries (Vaccinium membranaceum), and Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium) (Sherry et al. 2005b) and the T’exelc make Sxusem out of soopolallie and harvest 14  blueberries, saskatoons, raspberries (Rubus spp.), chokecherries (Prunus virginiana), huckleberries, and strawberries (Fragaria spp.) (Sherry et al. 2005b). Mushrooms are also seen as an economically beneficial and widely available NTFP for many Indigenous communities in BC (Mitchell & Hobby, 2010), including pine mushrooms (Tricholoma magnivelare), chanterelles (Cantharellus cibarius), and morels (Morchella spp.) (Turner 2001; Mitchell and Hobby 2010). In Kingcome Inlet, Indigenous communities manage estuaries and tidal zones for traditional root vegetables such as springbank clover (Trifolium wormskioldii), silverweed (Argentina anserina), Nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis), and rice-root (Fritillaria camschatcensis) (Turner 2001). Some Indigenous communities in the interior plant yellow glacier lily (Erythronium grandiflorum), rice-root, spring beauty (Claytonia lanceolata), and balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sp.) (Turner 2001). For Indigenous communities on the northwest coast, devil’s club is one of the most important medicinal plants. It is used as a tonic, cleanser and poultice, as well as a treatment for tuberculosis, flu, bronchitis, colds, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis (Gottesfeld 1992). The Haisla mix amabilis fir (Abies amabilis), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) with devil’s club, and red alder (Alnus rubra) to make medicines for flus, colds, and coughs (Gottesfeld 1992).The Skw’lax use white pine, devil’s club, Indian hellebore (Veratrum viride var. eschscholzianum), step moss (Hylocomium splendens), western yew (Taxus brevifolia), false Solomon's seal (Maianthemum racemosum), and soopolallie for medicinal uses (Sherry et al. 2005). The Tl’azt’en gather other medicinal plants such as Labrador tea, mint (Mentha sp.), balsam, and poplar (Populus sp.) (Sherry et al. 2005a). Both the Gitksan (Folke et al. 2000) and the Tl’azt’en use the forest as an educational tool (Karjala and Dewhurst 2003; Sherry et al. 2005a). The Tl’azt’en feel it is important to teach their youth to live off the land and to have educated foresters and biologists speak on their behalf in land claims issues (Karjala and Dewhurst 2003). Timber, plants, and animals are all important values for Indigenous people of BC, and the forest is an important educational and spiritual place for these communities as well.  15  3 Determining Community Goals Four communities forming the Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw (NStQ) enabled this research to understand the goals and values that Indigenous communities associate with forests. Semi-structured interviews were used to address the first hypothesis (H0,1: There is no difference between the goals for forest management expressed by Indigenous communities and those included in current industrial forest management planning). Community members volunteered to answer questions about their forestry related goals and values. In addition, Traditional Use Studies (TUS) and reports created by the communities supplemented the interviews. 3.1 Methods and Materials 3.1.1 Community Partners Partnering communities forming the NStQ (starting with the northern-most territory and moving clockwise) are Xatśūll (Soda Creek Indian Band2), Tsq’escen' (Canim Lake Band), Stswecem’c Xgat’tem (Canoe/ Dog Creek Bands), and T’exelc (Williams Lake Indian Band). Their traditional territory is over 5 million hectares (Figure 2). For the most part, they are semi-nomadic (Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw 2014). At the time this thesis was written, the four communities had reached stage five of the six-stage treaty process with the BCTC (Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw 2015), the "Negotiation to Finalize a Treaty" stage.                                                  2 The terms "Indian" and "Band" are used in this thesis only in reference to the legal term defined in The Indian Act. The author recognizes that these terms can be disrespectful to many members of Indigenous communities, but the terms are used here to attempt to accurately represent the names of the communities (The University of British Columbia (2016). 16  NStQ has a close relationship with the Alex Fraser Research Forest, a UBC affiliated research forest in the Williams Lake region. T’exelc also has a Community Forest Agreement with the town of Williams Lake, the WL Community Forest LP. Regardless of how the communities wish to go about settling land claims, they will need a forest management plan that can be used by their governments to reach compromises with the provincial government as to how to manage the forest. BC claims the area is Crown land and the NStQ claims it to be their traditional territory with Aboriginal title. Therefore, there is great potential for this research to help the NStQ gain a forest management plan and to add to scientific knowledge about Indigenous forest management planning. The Xatśūll is the northern most community of the NStQ. Their territory ranges from the Coast Mountains to the Rocky Mountains. Their traditional practices followed a hunting and gathering lifestyle. The Xatśūll community, specifically, is becoming impatient with the treaty process and is interested in working towards co-management strategies, gaining Aboriginal title and rights, and is interested in taxation and economic issues (Xatśūll First Nation 2007). The Tsq’escen' main village and administration buildings are situated near Canim Lake in the South Cariboo, 30 kilometers east of 100 Mile House. Their vision is to be “a politically and financially independent, health community, rich in Shuswap tradition and culture" (Tsq'escenemc n.d.). Tsq’escen' have both a Natural Resources Department and Forest Department, and have a Figure 2: Territories of the four communities of the NStQ. Data Source: Provided by NStQ, and Government of British Columbia, 2017b. 17  Land Use Plan (LUP) for their territory. They have two forestry-related enterprises, Teniye Logging LTD and Kenkeknem Forest Tenures Ltd. (Tsq'escenemc n.d.). Stswecem’c Xgat’tem territory is located east of the Fraser River about 85 kilometers southwest of Williams Lake. From 1863 to 1864, a small pox epidemic decimated the communities’ population. In the late 1800s, the two bands, Canoe and Dog Creek, joined together. There are currently 745 registered members in Stswecem’c Xgat’tem (Stswecem'c Xgat'tem). Their traditional territory covers 5,880 ha. The community values forest management as an important piece of their economy, creating the Stswecem’c Xgat’tem Development Limited Partnership in 2008. This partnership deals with forestry ventures and local employment including cutblock layout, wildlife habitat improvement, tourism, and recreation.  T’exelc were known as prosperous people due to the salmon trade, especially those who lived along the Fraser River. Their land use patterns are very similar today compared to what they were in the past (T'exelc 2016). Traditionally, the T’exelc were nomadic (T'exelc 2016). There are currently 786 band members (T'exelc 2016). 3.1.2 The Data Collection Process 1. Community approval: One formal meeting was held with the heads of natural resources departments for each of the four communities and other coordinators of the NStQ. As a group, the terms and agreements for the project were established. The group agreed that community members could be interviewed to determine their forestry-related goals and values. A Letter of Approval (Appendix A) was drafted that each of the communities would sign declaring that the communities agreed to participate in the research project. It was decided it would be best for the heads of natural resource departments to decide who would be the appropriate person/ people to sign the Letter of Approval.  A letter of approval was used instead of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) because of time constraints. It was important to have at least one or the other so that the process would be transparent. As well, it was important for the NStQ and the researcher to understand that there was an agreement to carry out this project. However, MOUs are frequently longer and sometimes require a longer term commitment than the researcher's time to complete this thesis. Therefore, a letter of 18  approval was considered a sufficient agreement, and if other researchers wish to do a longer project with the communities in the future, an MOU can be developed at that time. It was important to interview community members, not just staff members, because it was important that the plan reflect community goals and values, not just those of community leaders. 2. Ethics review: Before the interviewing process could take place, an application was submitted to the UBC Behavioral Research and Ethics Board (BREB). Interviewing methodology, questionnaire (Appendix B), and approval letters were included in the application. 3. Interviews: The questionnaire was designed to determine the forestry-related goals and values of individual community members. The questionnaire was open-ended, allowing the interviewee to answer in any way he or she pleased. The questionnaire was memorized beforehand so that the nature of the interview could resemble an informal conversation about forestry. The questionnaire that was developed was in line with a best practices approach to working with Indigenous communities. Questions were open-ended and designed to be respectful of community members' culture.  The liaison determined the best way to inform community members about the interviewing process. As per BREB’s request, potential interviewees were encouraged to reach out to their community leaders, especially in the natural resources department, if they were interested in taking part in the study. Fourteen total interviews were conducted. A mixture of group and one-on-one interviews were conducted. All interviewees agreed to the terms of the interview before hand by signing a consent form, per BREB guidelines. Interviews from Stswecem’c Xgat’tem took place during the creation of a community values based LUP that was happening at the same time as this research. To avoid redundancy in community discussions, forestry-related goals and values were parsed out of the LUP discussions with community members. 4. TUS examination: A TUS is a "project that is designed to capture and record patterns of traditional use by Aboriginal communities" (Honda-McNeil and Parsons 2003). TUS' were examined from Xatśūll to determine community goals and values. Many of 19  those TUS’ overlapped with information of the T’exelc. A LUP was examined from Tsq’escen' to determine goals and values. This LUP is for the Snine forest within Tsq’escen' traditional territory. 5. Data management: The interviewer took hand-written notes during the interview and during the reading of TUS'. How the interview results were organized and analyzed is described in section 4.1. 3.2 Results A total of 14 interviews were completed, all from Stswecem’c Xgat’tem. TUS were examined from Tsq’escen', Xatśūll, and T'exelc. Interview results are presented in the following sections.  Policy and Land Rights Community members had many concerns regarding policies and rights to their lands that, in many cases, are related to cattle ranching and its consequences, which are abundant in the region. Community members wanted to see fewer fences on the land. Fences were mainly constructed by cattle ranchers. Community members believed that they cause harm to moose, deer and other ungulates. Overall, community members wanted to see a reduction in cattle ranching in the area, as they believed cattle ranching has numerous negative effects on the land base, including water pollution and the destruction of water holes, which are important to some wildlife species. Overall, community members said that reducing cattle grazing would lead to an increase in plant health. Community members also expressed concern for ungulate populations that share the same habitat as cattle. Community members were worried about the effects of mines and wanted to have a say in mining operations that occur on their traditional territories. They said they wished water from all mines was treated using environmentally-friendly technology to ensure that only clean water was released. Community members were concerned about tourists crowding lakeshores and forests on their traditional territory. They expressed hope that less crowding would mean less competition for scarce resources such as berries. They had concerns about illegal hunting and damage from 20  ATVs. They were concerned that overcrowding would lead to the harm of native plant regeneration and pollution through careless use of the land. Community members want to prioritize and protect important landscapes. They want a long-term research strategy to be developed to monitor changes in resources and the effects changing resources have on the NStQ. Community members stated they desire a future under First Nations management. They believe more access to areas could be achieved by taking away fences and by not allowing private property owners to bar entry. Community members stated that land sales and leases have had an adverse impact on the community’s ability to continue a traditional lifestyle. Consultation was an important value that came up in TUS and interviews. Community members stated they want a less liberal use of herbicides along right-of-ways and less contamination. As well, community members expressed interest in the production and sale of agricultural products from reserve land.  Forestry Practices Throughout the interviewing process and TUS examination, it was made clear that forest health and the use of certain forestry practices were very important values to community members. Some community members stated they believe all logging is bad, while others stated that selective harvesting could be a viable alternative to current logging practices. There were concerns within the communities about the cumulative impacts that logging has on forest health, and members wanted to see more precautionary and ecosystem-based management approaches to logging and forest stewardship. Some community members felt that the current AAC is too high. Some members stated they would like to see timber killed by mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) retained for purposes other than salvage logging. Community members also spoke about how important their employment by the forestry industry was. Community members said they valued the safe harvesting of resources. If an area can no longer support an abundance of certain plants or wildlife, members felt that it was prudent to let the area recover for a few years so it could replenish itself. Community members said they believe in the preservation and stewardship of land, that wild and undisturbed habitat is the foundation of biodiversity, in the conservation of natural resources, in protecting ecologically sensitive areas and traditional resources, that forests are more than fibre, and that biodiversity should be maintained. 21  Community members suggested that stripping bark and boughs on trees be done so that the entire tree is not killed for one use. Specific forest products include birch bark, lodgepole pine cambium, cedar roots and boughs, and balsam bark. Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), willow (Salix sp.), oaks (Quercus sp.), cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), cacti and juniper (Juniperus sp.) bushes are important species. Community members want to keep the "rainforest features" of the forests.  Wildlife Interviews of Indigenous community members from the NStQ showed that they value many distinct species of wildlife, all of which live in or around forested areas. The values expressed in this section are in relation to these species, and are directly related to members’ concerns or values. Community members had concerns about windfall trees corralling moose and putting them at higher risk for predation. Community members also expressed there is not enough moose calving habitat, and that more habitat where moose can safely give birth to young is needed. They also stated that moose are negatively affected by the cumulative impacts of the death of trees from the mountain pine beetle. Community members identified that moose should be considered a species at risk and that habitat loss is the main threat to moose. Community members wanted to have enough moose to share. Community members stated that habitat loss is the main threat to caribou, a species that they value. Community members value birds such as cranes, geese, ducks, grouse, owls, sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), swans (Cygnus sp.), and eagles. Community members value mountain goats, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), black bears (Ursus americanus), wolves (Canis lupus), horses (Equus ferus), elk (Cervus canadensis), bobcats (Lynx rufus), lynx, coyotes, cougars (Puma concolor) and wild sheep (Ovis sp.). Community members value squirrels, muskrats, groundhogs (Marmota monax), porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), fishers, wolverines (Gulo gulo). They value the lakes and rivers that these species live near. Community members value snakes, lizards, salamanders, and frogs. One community member said that, in the past, “food used to come to us, we didn’t have to go find food.” Due to concerns about overhunting, community members also wished to control 22  harvest tags for non-community members who come in to hunt on their traditional lands. Community members stated that poaching happens often on their land, but no one reports it. Community members said they want more hunting opportunities for their communities, but they do not want overhunting or over-trapping. They wanted to have enough meat to share, and they prefer wild meat instead of bought meat. They recognized that changes in the landscape affect their hunting abilities, and that less destruction of the land means less cumulative changes will impact their communities. Community members wanted viable animal populations and safe harvesting of resources. They want to be able to see wildlife in places where they used to see them but no longer do, and to see the habitats of all wildlife species enhanced.  Recreation Community members stated they have used cabins and camped along roads and lakes. Community members identified said they have trails along roads and highways, and desired to have important trails maintained. Community members said that they value sweat lodges and their uses. Community members said that they do not want trophy hunters to leave the carcasses of moose and deer. They also said fewer less snowmobiles will mean less stress on moose. Community members value the Leave-No-Trace policy and want people who visit parks in their traditional territories to utilize it. Community members said they do not want timber harvesting within parks.  Cultural Interviewees noted there are not a lot of archeological sites left. Community members value the preservation of those that do remain, such as pictographs, pit-homes or quiggly homes (primitive housing used by NStQ ancestors), burial areas, culturally modified trees, places where important people died, places associated with prayers or rites of passage, battlefields, and places occupied by spirits or little people. It was also stated that cultural heritage is the core of their culture. Community members indicated they want less house construction, road building, and cattle grazing because these activities endanger archeological sites. They also said some cultural landscapes should be prioritized and protected. Community members believed Indigenous and non-Indigenous people should join together to fix forestry problems. They said that youth are important as all the knowledge will go to them 23  when elders die. One community member stated they wished they had learned more as a kid. Inclusion, moderation, fairness, respect for all life, and the recognition of interconnectedness of all life were important values. Community members stated that they want priority access to all resources for cultural, sustenance, communities, and commercial use.  Shrubs and Herbaceous Species Community members want to protect berries that grow in their territory but are concerned dust and pollution from mining operations could destroy berry harvests. Members said they value huckleberries, chokecherries, high, medium, and lowbush blueberry, soapberry, raspberry, blackcaps, thimbleberries, salmonberries, kinnikinnick, cranberry (Viburnum trilobum), Saskatoon, strawberries and black gooseberry (Ribes sp.) but are concerned about the overharvesting of berries. Plant biodiversity was identified as important to community members. Important plants are fireweed, sunflower, tiger lily, wild rhubarb (Rumex hymenosepalus), wild potato (Claytonia tuberosa), trapper's tea, fiddlehead ferns, rosehips, Oregon grape, yellow avalanche lily (Erythronium grandiflorum), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), clubmoss, wild onions (Allium sp.), wild celery, hay, fungi, Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), and balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata). Community members said that two to three years after a burn has occurred, some areas were good for berry picking. Community members expressed a desire not to overharvest berries. They said that pruning was good for berries, and that a population rich in huckleberries, as opposed to blueberries, was normal. They also suggested that burning the edges of clear-cuts, especially in the fall when it is wet and cool enough, is a good way to promote berry growth. Community members stated that there are many unique medicines (e.g. devil’s club and yarrow (Achillea millefolium)). Gathering them is important if overharvesting does not occur. Community members said they value sweet scented bedstraw (Galium triflorum), false Solomon's seal, wild potato, mint and wild rhubarb. Community members stated that two to three years after a burn, some areas are good for wild mushrooms. They mentioned that wetlands, clearings, and alpine areas are all important for plant growth. Community members valued the safe harvest of resources. They said they would like to see less noxious and invasive plants, the same number of plants as "in the past," and plant habitats enhanced. They indicated that if an area could no longer support an abundance of certain plants or 24  wildlife, they would leave it alone for a few years so it could replenish itself. According to interviews and TUS examination, burning berry patches and the edges of clear-cuts, each fall for 4 successive years can promote berry growth.  Water During interviews and TUS overview, problems associated with the number and quality of wells and irrigation systems were identified. Community members pointed toward issues regarding how these resources are shared with rangeland users, and expressed interest in developing better ways to improve matters. Members felt they were not informed on needing to apply for water rights, and that proper consultation was missing in this part of their lives. One community member stated that "water is the new gold, plain and simple." Community members expressed that fish in the Snine forests (a forest in the NStQ traditional territories) should be considered a species at risk, and that fish and fish habitat are an important value, along with healthy watersheds, clean water, and food fisheries. Issues raised by community members included sedimentation, pollution, diverted drainages, unnatural drain patterns, disturbed stream temperature regimes, and habitat loss/degradation due to high or low peak flows. Management of cumulative impacts associated with the harvesting of trees killed by mountain pine beetle was identified as the most important issue in terms of fish. Community members expressed that they want protection for water bodies and riparian areas. Trout, salmon, bass, lingcod, suckers, kokanee, snake fish, char, chinook, coho, pink salmon, steelhead cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, kokanee salmon, mountain whitefish, sturgeon, suckers, squawfish, and peamouth chub (Mylocheilus caurinus) are important species of fish to community members. Community members want better fish health, and believe that all fish streams are sensitive and should be treated accordingly.  Goals and Values Included in Industrial Forest Management Plans Neither the FRPA, GARs, the Land Act, nor the Wildlife Act mention any regulations or practices to occur on Crown land that focus specifically on Indigenous goals or values. Some of the aspects of these legislations, such as UWR, riparian area management, and water protection guidelines, do relate to some important forestry goals and values that were observed in the 25  interviews and the examination of TUSs and LUPs. However, the current regulations did not satisfactorily meet the goals and values of NStQ community members. For example, UWR regulations require that habitat is created for ungulates to live in the winter. Deer and moose are two ungulate species that are very important to the NStQ, so the fact that FRPA requires UWR does mean that some similarities exist between current forest management plans and the goals and values of Indigenous communities. However, the results from the interviewing process and the examination of the TUSs and LUPs demonstrate there is a dissatisfaction with the population of moose and deer. Therefore, to create a forest management plan that expresses the true goals and values of the NStQ community members, it will not be enough just to enact the regulations of UWR as laid out in FRPA. There need to be different strategies to meet those goals and values. Therefore, the first hypothesis - that there is no difference between the goals for forest management expressed by Indigenous communities and those included in current industrial forest management planning - was rejected. 3.3 Discussion The finding that many regulations used by industrial forest managers in BC do not sufficiently meet the forestry-related goals and values that align with Indigenous communities interviewed for this thesis resulted in the rejection of the first hypothesis. It was found that NStQ community members were concerned about many issues including forest policies and practice, wildlife and recreation, water quality and fisheries, and land rights and cultural values. These were very different from values outlined in documents used by industrial forest managers in BC. Similar results were found by Adam and Kneeshaw (2008) in a study comparing Indigenous criteria and indicators to those of forest industry. According to the authors, many Indigenous communities are interested in preserving important species, cultural values, ecosystem diversity, forest resources, hunting and trapping, and viewscapes. Comparable findings were reported by (Karjala et al. 2003). Sherry et al. (2005b) wrote that many Indigenous community members are employed by the BC forestry industry, which is consistent with the results from this research. This is key because it shows that although Indigenous communities have many values related to wildlife, biodiversity, and water quality, they still desire to gain economically from the forest. Karjala et al. (2003) interviewed community members and looked at TUS. Interviews in this thesis were similar in 26  design to Karjala et al.'s methodology and it appear to have been successful. Karjala et al. used open-ended questions that asked about forestry goals and values, and criteria and indicators favored by community members. Karjala et al.’s methodology was also useful in designing the criteria and indicators developed in section 4 of this thesis. Hibbard et al. (2008) state that "top-down" methods of forest management planning often "disempowered and marginalized [I]ndigenous communities, rejected their cultural, religious, and other concerns as irrational, and facilitated the imposition of external values, interests, and plans in [I]ndigenous communities and landscapes." By designing a methodology that spoke directly to and interacted with community members, results of the next two sections aimed to avoid the top-down approach described by Hibbard et al. Used instead was a "bottom-up" approach that gave a voice to community members as to how they would like the forests in their territories to be managed. Although the goals and values of Indigenous communities are in general well known, it was important to determine them with greater specificity for the communities in question. Another important finding of this research was that, although the four individual communities of the NStQ are working together to gain treaty rights as one cohesive organization, it is clear from interviews, visiting communities, and meeting with community members that each community is very different. This is apparent in aspects such as their location in the NStQ territory and how they interact with researchers. This presents a challenge, especially when working with overlapping territories, as outlined in the introduction of this thesis. Section 4 and 5 will discuss how these challenges were overcome when the forest management plan was created. In future studies, the researcher suggests spending as much time as possible in the community to increase the number of interviews conducted and the level of trust that community members have with the researcher. Developing better relationships can enhance this outcome. It was observed that participation in a one-on-one interview may have made community members hesitant to take part in the process. Perhaps this could have been mitigated by asking the same questions in a round table discussion, or offering compensation. Some communities did not want to take part in the interview process because they felt their members had been over-interviewed. In the end, this project was successful using a combination of TUS and interviews. Future research should determine which strategy of data collection to use depending on the desires of the community.  27  4 Criteria and Indicators This section will address (H0,2): The use of criteria, indicators and targets specifically designed to assess the development of goals and values over time will not lead to a different overall forest management approach. One way to include goals and values in a forest management plan is to develop criteria, indicators, and targets. Criteria and indicators are a means by which to measure forest practices and trends, the overall goal being to improve forest management and sustainability (Castañeda et al. 2001). The International Tropical Timber Organization was one of the first to recognize that in order to manage forests sustainably, there must be principles and guidelines on how they are defined and measured; in this way, some of the very first criteria and indicators were created (Innes and Tikina 2017). In terms of sustainable forest management in BC, criteria are values that represent pieces of an ecosystem that should be maintained or enhanced; indicators measure the criteria and are used to evaluate how well the forested ecosystem is being managed (Hickey and Innes 2005). In this research, criteria and indicators are accompanied by targets to help achieve the outcomes of the criteria and indicators. These targets are designed to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-based. Karjala et al. (2003) defined criteria as a thing “about the forest that [is] most important to the community. Indicators are the signs or signals that can be used to measure, predict, or monitor criteria. Indicators allow communities to assess or judge if criteria are being adequately met" (Karjala et al. 2003). 4.1 Methods and Materials Forestry-related goals and values were extracted from the interview results. A forestry goal or value was defined as something one could do in the forest or take from the forest. For it to be considered a goal or value, it had to be something that was a consistent activity, practice or prominent feature that community members did or did not support, not just an activity or practice that did or did not happen infrequently, or an inconspicuous feature. For example, if a community member mentioned they disliked illegal logging, then avoiding illegal logging would be the goal or value. Goals and values were grouped into categories based on themes. Each category is a subheading under section 3.2. 28  Initial criteria and indicators was created for each goal and value using a pre-emptive approach. For example, for the goal of avoiding illegal logging, the criteria would be a decrease or complete eradication of illegal logging, and indicators would be that illegal logging had decreased or stopped. If the amount of illegal logging could be represented and modeled spatially using GIS, then specific targets would be developed. However, in this example, the model could not represent or accurately anticipate where illegal logging will occur. If the goal or value was moose, the initial criteria would be moose and the indicators would be more, healthier moose. If variables that represent moose - such as reserve zones and tree species relevant in moose habitat - are available in the model, specific targets were researched and developed to create moose habitat that would promote the indicators of more, healthier moose. Criteria, indicators, and targets in this research were organized and presented comparable to the 2014 Fort St. John Pilot Project (Tyrrell et al. 2014). 4.2 Results In this section, different silvicultural suggestions are made to help meet goals and values outlined in the interviews. Only values that have criteria and indicators that can be represented in the forest management planning software are included in this section. Any target without a time constraint is assumed to begin immediately in any scenario in which the criteria or indicator is used.  29  4.2.1 Wildlife 4.2.1.1 Criterion A. Moose Table 1: The criterion moose, the correlated indicators and targets, and the rationale for choosing those targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  Moose habitat is increased  Lower stress on moose populations  Healthier moose- moose have full sized organs, no sores, scabs, or balding  More hunting opportunities 10% of the forested land base is moose habitat by 2035. Moose habitat is defined as:  Forest in the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF), Sub-boreal pine-spruce (SBPS), or Interior cedar-hemlock (ICH)  Forest that has both early and late seral components  Forest with snow interception cover  Moose habitat will be located around no-harvest riparian zone in this manner: Stream/lake/wetland  riparian reserve zone snow interception cover  early seral stage forest As well,  Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones is 57 m by 2020  Mixed species regeneration is implemented on the land base.  In each cut, there will be at least one internal wildlife tree patch (WTP). WTP will be equal to 13% of total area harvested. Rationale:  Snow interception cover should be in the IDF, ICH, and SBPS (Wall et al. 2011).  Forest less than 50 years old is considered early seral stage (Bannerman 1998). Early seral stage forest creates areas where moose are able to live that other ungulates are not specialized to forage in (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000b). This decreases competition and creates forage for the moose.  Forest greater than 50 years old can be considered late seral stage (Bannerman 1998). Late seral stage forest creates places for moose to escape in heat in summer and snow interception areas as well (Wall et al. 2011).  A WTP equal to about 13% of the cutblock could be an ideal size. This information comes from a study that deduced that a successful size for WTPs would be equivalent to the green area left behind after a forest fire, which was found to be about 13% in forests in BC (Serrouya and D'Eon 2004).  Key moose habitat is defined as wetlands, valley bottoms, and riparian areas (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000a, 2000b; Wall et al. 2011). Thus, moose habitat must be created around those areas.  55 m is the average of the total buffer width recommended in the Riparian Management Area guidebook for the riparian management area (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995).  More mixed species planting means less pine is planted, which could mean a decrease in mountain pine beetle kill in the future. Pine trees are important foraging and winter shelter areas for moose (Wong 2008).  Acceptable Variance: A variance of -5% of moose habitat will be tolerated due to fires or natural disasters. Some more prescriptive targets include: A target for the snow interception cover could be a stand with 80% of the forest being greater than 40 years old with partial cutting. An adjacency constraint of about 50 years could improve moose habitat, since older adjacency constraints will create contiguous mature forests through which moose can travel. A 50-year adjacency is about half a rotation age in the interior of BC. This is sufficient time for a forest to leave the early seral stage. Allowing forests adjacent to cutblocks to age into a later seral stage decreases the area of 30  forests impacted heavily by logging. Another target could be 50% of stands regenerated as mixed species by 2050. Also, deactivation of roads can reduce poaching (Connor 2013). Having WTPs less than 100 meters from the edge of a clear-cut is ideal for caribou shelter (Hamilton 2011). Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.2.1.2 Criterion B. Deer Table 2: The criterion deer, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  An increase in health of deer  More hunting opportunities  No decrease in deer population 10% of the forested land base is deer habitat by 2035. Deer habitat is defined as:  Forest with edges for deer to forage, but also places for deer to have shelter from snow. This can be done by managing deer habitat with partial cutting systems to protect Douglas-fir, an important species for deer.  Minimum of 10% of habitat is located on grassy south facing slopes with Douglas-fir As well, in the remainder of the forested land base,  In each cut, there will be at least one internal WTP. WTP will be equal to 13% of total area harvested.  Two-pass partial cuts are used (Instead of cutting one large area of forest, the trees are taken out in two separate passes. For the most part, this means to be about 50 years apart when the trees have reached maturity around 100 years old. In section 5 there is a more in- depth description as to how this process was modeled in Woodstock.)  Average width of the no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases to 57 m by 2020 Rationale:  Deer need late seral forest for winter range because deer have trouble navigating through deep snowpack (>30 cm). The thick canopy of late seral stage forests provides this (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000c).  In the winter and early spring, deer go to places with big sagebrush, pasture sage, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, snowbrush, Saskatoon, rose, serviceberry, Douglas-fir foliage, grasses and forbs; in the winter, deer prefer shrublands in dry forest on steep south-facing slope. In late spring and fall, deer feed on grasses, forbs, balsamroot, clover, wild strawberry, fireweed, and leaves of shrubs (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000c). These habitat descriptions are consistent with having deer habitat consist of Douglas-fir and grasslands, as well as preserving riparian areas.  When there is snow on the ground, deer can use up to 498% more energy in a clear-cut versus in the forest (Parker et al. 1984).  Deer prefer older Douglas-fir more than younger Douglas-fir, and prefer Douglas-fir over other species of trees (Armleder et al. 1994). Therefore, Douglas-fir forest is used for deer habitat  WTPs are useful for deer to browse on for litterfall (Day 1980). A WTP equal to about 13% of the cutblock could be an ideal size. This information comes from a study that deduced that a successful size for WTPs would be equivalent to the green area left behind after a forest fire, which was found to be about 13% in forests in BC (Serrouya and D'Eon 2004).  The creation of openings with partial cuts in late seral forests provides a combination of good cover from snow and openings for understory species to grow for deer to forage on (Armleder et al. 1994). Deer will go to places that are open if the snow cover is not deep, (Armleder et al. 1994) so it is satisfactory to introduce some harvesting in deer habitat.  31  Acceptable Variance: A variance of -5% of deer habitat will be tolerated due to fires or natural disasters. Comments: Mule-deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is the most common deer species found in the NStQ traditional territory (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000c). Some more prescriptive suggestions: Forests that are about 50% late seral are a good target for deer habitat. Fifty-percent uneven-aged forest consisting of partial cutting across the entire land base would be more than sufficient. Adjacency constraints could be set to 50 years. Adjacency constraints will create mature forests for deer passage. WTPs should be less than 100 m from the edge of each cut. Less than 100 m from the edge of a clear-cut is ideal for sheltering deer (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2005). Deer habitat could be focused near existing regulated UWR. Partial cut size could be limited and the shape could be irregular. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Strip cutting could be used to manage for deer habitat. One prescription could be cuts 30 m wide in cutblocks a total of 120 m wide, meaning there are four cuts total over 120 years. This would be a good way to protect seedlings from wind and improve visual quality. Each cut is done once every 30 years in order to allow enough time for trees beside the strip to mature (Bannerman 1998; Ministry of Forests 2003). Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members.  32  4.2.1.3 Criterion C. Caribou Table 3: The criterion caribou, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement Increase of caribou habitat Sufficient caribou habitat, including access by wildlife corridors, is created in the land base by 2035. Caribou habitat is defined as:  Tracts of late seral forest of at least 10,000 ha connected with corridors. Corridors are greater than 40 years old and are at least 100 m in width. As well,  There should be at least one internal WTP in every cut. WTP will be equal to 13% of total area harvested  Only partial cutting is used in caribou habitat. No clear-cutting.  Caribou habitat is placed in historical range of caribou Rationale:  If caribou habitat is large, then they will be farther removed from habitat where other prey species live (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 1999), which is good for predator avoidance.  Caribou corridors should be older than 40 years old since caribou tend to avoid forests younger than 40 years old. It is also recommended that caribou are left at least three tree lengths in width to travel between harvested areas (Hamilton 2011). In the interior of BC, 3 tree widths would be equal to about 100 m.  In Manitoba, a caribou protection plan states that tracts of land at least 10,000 ha are sufficient for caribou habitat (Manitoba Conservation Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch 2011). Large late seral areas create protection from caribou predators (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 1999).  It's best to "minimize forestry-related activities in core [caribou] habitat" (Ministry of Environment 2009).  Having WTPs < 100 meters from the edge of a clear-cut is ideal for caribou to find shelter (Hamilton 2011). A WTP equal to about 13% of the cutblock could be an ideal size. This information comes from a study that deduced that a successful size for WTPs would be equivalent to the green area left behind after a forest fire, which was found to be about 13% in forests in BC (Serrouya and D'Eon 2004).  Checkboard patterns on cutblocks are not satisfactory for caribou because they create edges that attract other species to the cutblocks, which in turn attract predators to the edge of the caribou habitat. Mimicking natural disturbances with small partial-cuts is better (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 1999).  Less clear-cutting means there are less moose and therefore less wolves (Seip 1992) and bears (Brodeur et al. 2008) to prey on caribou, since those species occupy clear-cuts.  Caribou are currently the most plentiful in the north eastern portion of this land base (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000a). That means that preserving areas around that area and creating corridors into other parts of the land base makes the most sense.  Acceptable Variance: Although the recommendation for caribou habitat is 10,000 ha of late seral forest, a maximum of 10% of this land can be harvested per year according to the above recommendations. A variance of -5% of caribou habitat will be tolerated due to fires or natural disasters. Comments: Mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) is the most common species of caribou found on NStQ lands (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 1999). More prescriptive suggestions: There should be at least one internal WTP less than 100 m from the edge of every cut. Partial cut size could be limited and the shape could be irregular. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Whenever possible, caribou 33  habitat should be located away from roads and corridors should avoid crossing roads. Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.2.1.4 Criterion D. Trapping Table 4: The criterion trapping, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement More and healthier beaver, rabbits, mink, squirrels, muskrats, groundhogs, marmots, skunks, porcupines, otter, and wolverines Average width of the no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 Rationale: There are many vertebrate species found around riparian areas (Richardson and Danehy 2007), so maintaining streams and stream quality will improve the habitats of frequently trapped animals.  Acceptable Variance: None More prescriptive suggestions: Clear-cut size should be limited to 5 ha. Smaller areas can decrease erosion, helping improve stream quality (Mohr et al. 2013). A maximum size of 5 ha for a clear-cut is within the best management practices on Vancouver Island (Ministry of Forests et al. 2000), so could be used as a proxy in other parts of BC. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members.  34  4.2.1.5 Criterion E. Habitat connectivity Table 5: The criterion habitat connectivity, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement More connectivity for all wildlife species  In each cut, there should be a WTP equal to 13% of total area harvested  Average width of the no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020  Habitat created for specific wildlife are connected with corridors  Partial cutting is used where appropriate Rationale:  A WTP equal to about 13% of the cutblock could be an ideal size. This information comes from a study that deduced that a successful size for WTPs would be equivalent to the green area left behind after a forest fire, which was found to be about 13% in forests in BC (Serrouya and D'Eon 2004). WTPs will help create connectivity in areas that are being harvested (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2005).  An increase in buffer width will create corridors throughout the landscape, seeing that most rivers and streams are already connected. 55 m is the average of the total buffer width recommended in the Riparian Management Area guidebook for the riparian management area (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995).  Decreasing the amount of area covered by clear-cuts can increase connectivity for many different forest dwelling species (Bierregaard et al. 1992; Popescu and Hunter 2011). Increasing the use of patch and strips cuts will make it easier for some species of wildlife, especially prey, to go between places that are harvested by limiting the size of exposed area wildlife must travel through.  Acceptable Variance: Variance is allowable regarding corridor connectivity. A rate of 75% of habitat for a specific species habitat type is permitted. More prescriptive suggestions: Both partial and strip cuts could be included. Partial cut size could be limited and the shape could be irregular. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Strip cuts could be used as an alternative to two-pass partial-cuts. Each cut could be 30 m in width in a cutblock a total of 120 m wide, meaning four runs per cut. This will allow for about four passes through each cutblock. This would enable better wind management and visual quality. Each cut could be done once every 30 years in order to allow enough time for trees beside the strip to mature (Bannerman 1998; Ministry of Forests 2003). Clear-cut size should be limited to 5 ha. A maximum size of 5 ha for a clear-cut is within the best management practices on Vancouver Island (Ministry of Forests et al. 2000). As well, there should be at least one internal WTP <100 m from the edge in every clear-cut over 3 ha. Having WTPs less than 100 meters from the edge of a clear-cut is ideal for sheltering wildlife (Hamilton 2011). 35  4.2.1.6 Criterion F. Large carnivores Table 6: The criterion large carnivores, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement Protection of large carnivores  Achieving targets for all other wildlife species will help provide habitat and prey for large carnivores.  Achieving targets for berries will help bear species. Rationale:  Wolves, cougars, black bears and grizzly bears prey on caribou, deer and moose (Stevenson et al.; Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 1999).  Black and grizzly bears both eat berries (Brodeur et al. 2008).  Acceptable Variance: None. More prescriptive suggestions: Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.2.2 Forestry Practices 4.2.2.1 Criterion A. Sustainable forest management Table 7: The criterion sustainable forest management, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  Less clear-cutting  More logging practices alternative to clear-cuts  Maintenance of viewscapes  Jobs for community members within forestry industry  Limit the amount of clear-cutting  Partial cutting is utilized when appropriate.  Economic gains from forest practices means that timber harvesting does occur on the land base  Growing stock does not decline Rationale:  A decrease in clear-cutting will help maintain viewscapes.  Partial cutting is an alternative to clear-cutting that can still generate income from forestry practices.  A non-declining growing stock means that there will be timber available in the future.  Disadvantages of clear-cutting include lower stand and landscape level complexity which can lead to reduced wildlife populations and biodiversity (Serrouya and D'Eon 2004).  Acceptable Variance: None. More prescriptive suggestions: Clear-cut size could be limited to 5 ha. A maximum size of 5 ha for a clear-cut is within the best management practices on Vancouver Island (Ministry of Forests et al. 2000). Partial cut size could be limited and the shape could be irregular. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Adjacency constraints could be set to 50 years, which is about half a rotation age in the interior of BC. This is sufficient time for a forest to 36  leave the early seral stage. Allowing forests adjacent to cutblocks to age into a later seral stage can decrease the area of forests impacted heavily by logging. Strip cuts could be used as an alternative to two-pass partial-cuts. Each cut could be 30 m in width in a cutblock a total of 120 m wide, meaning four runs per cut. This will allow for about four passes through each cutblock. This would enable better wind management and visual quality. Each cut could be done once every 30 years to allow enough time for trees beside the strip to mature (Bannerman 1998; Ministry of Forests 2003). Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.2.2.2 Criterion B. Forest resources conservation Table 8: The criterion forest resources conservation, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  Important forest resources are preserved for future generation's use, such as:  deciduous forests,  biodiverse forests,  cedar, balsam, spruce  and NTFP  An increase in deciduous leading stands  Planting of mixed species stands where appropriate  Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020  An increase in late seral stage forest from 40 to 60%  Partial-cutting where appropriate. Rationale:  Increasing deciduous leading stands increases deciduous and biodiverse forests.   Increasing the width of riparian reserve zones promotes the number of deciduous trees and tree species specific to riparian zones. Riparian areas are biodiversity hotspots (Richardson and Danehy 2007).  An increase in late seral stage forest and the creation of early seral stage forests through partial cutting will increase biodiversity, because the ecology of early and late seral forests are different (Bannerman 1998).  Planting mixed species stands is a way to increase biodiversity.  Increasing biodiversity will help improve NTFP: berries grow in open areas such as edges (Turner et al. 2003), and other more shade tolerant plants will grow in late seral forests. Increasing the biodiversity of deciduous trees could provide sap, and cedar trees provide bark and boughs.  Disadvantages of clear-cutting include lower stand and landscape level complexity which can lead to reduced wildlife populations and biodiversity (Serrouya and D'Eon 2004).  Acceptable Variance: None. More prescriptive suggestions: An increase in deciduous leading stands from 5.6% of the land base to 10% by 2100 planting more mixed species stands, including deciduous stands, would improve biodiversity. Increasing deciduous trees by 5% more may not drastically decrease the timber supply of conifers. By 2030, 50% of regenerated stands could be mixed species. Partial-cuts could be limited to 3 ha. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. 37  Strip cuts could be used as an alternative to two-pass partial-cuts. Each cut could be 30 m in width in a cutblock a total of 120 m wide, meaning four runs per cut. This will allow for about four passes through each cutblock. This would enable better wind management and visual quality. Each cut could be done once every 30 years to allow enough time for trees beside the strip to mature (Bannerman 1998; Ministry of Forests 2003). Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.2.3 Shrubs and Herbaceous Species 4.2.3.1 Criterion A. Berries Table 9: The criterion berries, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  Enough berry plants for community members to harvest for purpose of livelihoods; enough berries to share  Health of berry plants increase  Alpine areas in the Interior mountain-heather alpine (IMA) BEC (Biogeoclimatic) Zone are no-harvest zones  Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020  Partial-cutting used where appropriate. Rationale:  Blueberries and huckleberries grow on subalpine forest edges (Turner et al. 2003). Preserving alpine areas will increase the populations of berries that grow at high elevations.  Results of TUS and interviews showed that many species of berries are found around wetlands and waterbodies, thus preserving these areas will increase berry populations. Also, riparian areas are biodiversity hotspots (Richardson and Danehy 2007), so it could improve berry growth to protect those areas.  55 m is the average of the total buffer width recommended in the Riparian Management Area guidebook for the riparian management area (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995).  Partial-cuts create edges, and berries grow well on edges (Turner et al. 2003).  Acceptable Variance: None. More prescriptive suggestions: Partial cut size could be limited and the shape could be irregular. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Strip cuts could be used, and could be 30 m in width and a total of 120 m wide, meaning there are four runs of cuts. This will allow for about four passes through each cutblock. This would be good for wind management and visual quality. Each cut could be done once every 30 years to allow enough time for trees beside the strip to mature (Bannerman 1998; Ministry of Forests 2003). Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members.  38  4.2.3.2 Criterion B. Medicinal plants Table 10: The criterion medicinal plants, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  Number of medicinal plants does not decrease  Maintenance or improvement of health of medicinal plants  Limit the area that is clear-cut  Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 Rationale:  Old unmanaged forests can be more diverse than young forests, so clear-cutting could harm the growth of many medicinal species. As well, potential coarse woody debris taken away by large clear-cuts can also decrease the diversity of plants that grow in forests (Maser et al. 1988).  An increase in riparian areas will preserve important medicinal species found in that area because riparian areas are biodiversity hotspots (Richardson and Danehy 2007). In addition, medicinal plants are found around lakes and rivers, according to TUS'. 55 m is the average of the total buffer width recommended in the Riparian Management Area guidebook for the riparian management area (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995).  Acceptable Variance: None. More prescriptive suggestions: There could be no clear-cuts over 5 ha. A maximum size of 5 ha for a clear-cut is within the best management practices on Vancouver Island (Ministry of Forests et al. 2000). Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.2.3.3 Criterion C. Other important plants Table 11: The criterion other important plants, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement Biodiversity of plant life increases  By 2030, 50% of regenerated stands are mixed species  Partial-cutting used where appropriate  Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020  Alpine areas (IMA BEC Zone) are a no-harvest zone Rationale:  Planting mixed species stands will create different habitats that create landscape level biodiverse ecosystems for different plants to grow. Planting mixed species stands is also a direct way to influence biodiversity.  Using partial and clear-cuts create a variety of different harvesting methods. A variability of harvesting methods can lead to higher biodiversity, since a variability in structures in a forest will influence the biodiversity of a forest (Palik et al. 2002).  Riparian areas are biodiversity hotspots (Richardson and Danehy 2007), and increasing the size of riparian buffers will conserve plants that only grow in riparian areas. 55 m is the average of the total buffer width recommended in the Riparian Management Area guidebook for the riparian management area (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995).  Preserving alpine zones will promote habitat for plants that grow in this area such as wild potato and yellow avalanche lilies (Douglas et al. 2002).  39  Acceptable Variance: None. More prescriptive suggestions: There could be no clear-cuts over 5 ha. A maximum size of 5 ha for a clear-cut is within the best management practices on Vancouver Island (Ministry of Forests et al. 2000). Partial cuts are limited to 3 ha in size. Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Strip cuts are 30 m in width and are a total of 120 m wide, meaning there are four cuts total over 120 years. Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.2.4 Water 4.2.4.1 Criterion A. Fish Table 12: The criterion fish, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  Fish health and populations increase  Sediments decrease  Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020.  No clear-cuts on slopes over 50%. Rationale:  Riparian buffer size is increased because stream temperatures increase more following harvesting with streams that have smaller no-harvest riparian buffer areas (Macdonald et al. 2003). A change in stream temperature is bad for fish (Mathes et al. 2010). 55 m is the average of the total buffer width recommended in the Riparian Management Area guidebook for the riparian management area (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995). Increased riparian areas decrease the amount of sediments and pollutants in streams (Castelle et al. 1994).  Clear-cuts create large canopy openings, and large canopy openings can harm habitat quality for species that live in streams (Richardson and Danehy 2007).  Less clear-cuts will help decrease erosion which will also help stream quality by decreasing sedimentation (Mohr et al. 2013). A slope of 50% was chosen because it was an average slope where cable yarding was required according to the TSRs and TSAs  Riparian areas provide erosion control (Richardson and Danehy 2007).  Acceptable Variance: Variance in riparian buffer width will be tolerated where machinery must cross a stream to reach its destination. More prescriptive suggestions: No clear-cuts over 5 ha in size. A maximum size of 5 ha for a clear-cut is within the best management practices on Vancouver Island (Ministry of Forests et al. 2000). Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members.  40  4.2.4.2 Criterion B. Water Quality Table 13: The criterion water quality, and correlated indicators and targets Indicator Statement Target Statement  Better water quality in streams, rivers, and wells  Pollution/ sedimentation decreases  Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020  No clear-cuts on slopes over 50% Rationale:  55 m is the average of the total buffer width recommended in the Riparian Management Area guidebook for the riparian management area (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 1995). Increased riparian areas decrease the amount of sediments and pollutants in streams (Castelle et al. 1994).  Large canopy openings can harm habitat quality for species that live in streams (Richardson and Danehy 2007).  Less clear-cuts will help decrease erosion which will also help stream quality by decreasing sedimentation (Mohr et al. 2013). A slope of 50% was chosen because it was an average slope where cable yarding was required according to the TSRs and TSAs  Deactivating roads will help stop erosion (Ministry of Forests 2002). Riparian areas provide erosion control (Richardson and Danehy 2007).  Forestry practices can lead to an increase in turbidity in streams (Richardson and Danehy 2007), so implementing no-harvest zones will help water quality.  Acceptable Variance: None. More prescriptive suggestions: No clear-cuts over 5 ha in size. Smaller clear-cuts will decrease erosion and sedimentation and improve stream quality (Mohr et al. 2013). A maximum size of 5 ha for a clear-cut is within the best management practices on Vancouver Island (Ministry of Forests et al. 2000). Limiting partial cut size can reduce effects on the forest from cleared areas. Limiting or ceasing the use of herbicide would also help meet goals and values of community members. 4.3 Discussion 4.3.1 The Development of the Criteria, Indicators and Targets Criteria, indicators and targets were developed in this section for use in forest management planning software. Goals and values leading to criteria and indicators that could not be modeled in forest management planning software were not developed. This was done as part of the process to refute or prove the second null hypothesis that the use of criteria, indicators and targets specifically designed to assess the development of goals and values over time would not lead to a different overall forest management approach. This section did not include completion of a forest management plan. However, section 5 will show how these criteria, indicators, and targets can be used for planning purposes. 41  A paper titled The Aboriginal Forest Planning Process by Karjala and Dewhurst (2003) attempted a task similar to that in this section. They interviewed Indigenous community members and took notes on TUS to determine criteria and indicators for use in forest management planning. Results were coded and sorted into criteria or indicators. Their criteria and indicators also had similar categories, including spatial indicators to prove certain practices were being applied in certain places, as well as quantitative showing how much of something should exist. Hickey and Innes (2005) developed criteria and indicators for BC based on existing criteria and indicators from different parts of the world. Similar criteria and indicators were developed for topics such as ecosystem diversity, species diversity, timber harvest, and water quality. Hickey & Innes' (2005) included more criteria and indicators on livelihoods, soil quality, and climate change. Some of these topics were identified in section 3.2. However, they could not be turned into criteria and indicators measurable in forest management planning software in this thesis, which was a goal of this research. Hickey & Innes (2005) as well as the Karjala and Dewhurst (2003) did not include targets with their criteria and indicators. Creation of targets was not a step seen frequently in the literature when discussing the development and use of criteria and indicators. Targets can create a more prescriptive forest management strategy. If a set of criteria and indicators has too many prescriptions associated with that are not met it could cause a forest manager to assume that a set of criteria and indicators was not achieved. However, other documents, such as the Kyoto Protocol include very specific targets to mitigate climate change, such as limiting countries’ annual emissions (United Nations 1998). Since the criteria and indicators developed in this section were all to be used in forest management planning software, it was appropriate to include measurable targets to limit ambiguity. However, a difficult part of turning goals and values into criteria and indicators is to decrease bias when turning qualitative data into quantitative data. Because some indicators and targets were developed outside of the interview process, there could have been misinterpretations between community members and the researcher. Therefore, rationale and research that includes evidence for each target was important. Current forest management legislation in BC does not use criteria and indicators. A study of this type could help governments, (Indigenous, provincial and federal) work together to create forest management plans that better meet Indigenous goals and values. 42  4.3.2 Limitations There were some limitations involved in the creation of the criteria and indicators for this study. For example, the creation of targets was designed to make the criteria and indicators easier to reach by making them specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-sensitive. However, the use of strict targets was, at times, a limitation. As well, there were assumptions as to the correlation between meeting the targets and meeting the goals and values that the targets were meant to reach. Although 10,000 ha for continuous caribou habitat was a target, the GIS shapefile used to express caribou habitat will not show a habitat as contiguous even if there is a very small amount of land between areas of suitable habitat. It should be noted that a very small sliver of forest 149 years old located between two large areas of forest 150 years old may not have a significant impact on the suitability of caribou habitat. This is a limitation of the model. Constant monitoring is the best way to determine whether the caribou population is growing. However, this was not an issue since there was plenty of contiguous habitat throughout the land base. Another limitation of the development of criteria and indicators was the assumed correlation between wildlife habitat and wildlife. For example, just because the criterion for deer habitat included indicators and targets that would create deer habitat does not necessarily mean there will be more or healthier deer. Accidents on roads, poaching, overharvesting, disease, and other factors were not considered in this forest management plan. However, the goal of this project was to include goals and values in a forest management plan, and including the habitat for valued species was the most effective way to accomplish this. 4.3.3 Suggestions for Future Work Most of the suggestions for future work are examples of criteria and indicators that were not possible to model using available software and data. However, using different software and data could change this outcome. For example, habitat loss, competition with domestic sheep, and disease help explain why populations of wild sheep have declined (Foryet and Jessup 1982). If the NStQ desired, members could analyze the cost and feasibility to build fences to keep wild and domestic sheep away from each other. Use of transmission line areas by moose and deer can cause higher rates of predation by wolves because wolves travel rapidly along snowmobile tracks beneath transmission lines (Davis 2012). Reducing transmission line width could decrease moose 43  and deer predation. If the NStQ are concerned about the number of deer killed on highways, they could analyze costs to build fences (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000c). However since fences can be harmful to wildlife connectivity, road crossings is one way to increase habitat connectivity over or under roads and decrease the amount of wildlife killed by motor vehicles. Straight roads can create shooting corridors, making it much easier to poach game. Roads with curves can decrease this problem though they may be less safe for motorists. Competition from cattle grazing in the winter can lead to poorer quality spring range for deer (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000c). Building fences to keep cattle away from deer foraging areas could potentially keep the deer out of them, too. Along the same lines, cattle can harm streams and stream quality. Building fences could keep them out of streams, but also create barriers for other wildlife species. No-machinery areas in proximity to streams and wetlands (McIntosh and Laffan 2005) and fewer dams (Lessard and Hayes 2003) can decrease erosion and improve water quality, as well as fish populations and health. Community members indicated they value archeology. Forest managers should work closely with archeologists to avoid destroying important cultural resources such as pit houses, burial areas, and culturally modified trees. This is an important part of forest management planning with Indigenous communities, but needs to happen on a more operational or tactical level. A criterion for roads was not created because road building could not be modeled using the program Woodstock (Remsoft). However, it should be noted that deactivating roads can mitigate poaching (Connor; 2013). This is something that can be modeled in other forest management planning software, such as the program Patchworks (Spatial Planning Systems). In this plan, cut block size and adjacency constraints were not modeled for. In Woodstock, it was not possible to dictate the size of cuts. These concepts would be valuable to examine and include in in future work. There was also uncertainty on whether the community members would agree with the criteria, indicators, and targets developed as the researcher was unable to receive feedback before the scenarios were created. For future work, it would be recommended to get more feedback from the community throughout the entire process. 44  Limiting herbicide use was not modeled in this forest management plan. Although it would increase many of the important values outlined here, it could increase costs for weed management, decrease the speed at which trees grow, or affect which species of trees re-grow.  45  5 Forest Management Planning Findings from section 3 and 4 are combined in section 5 to develop forest management alternatives aligned with community goals. This allows detailed tracking of how well forest management alternatives meet the criteria and indicators developed and answers the final hypothesis of this research (H0,2): The use of criteria, indicators and targets specifically designed to assess the development of goals and values over time will not lead to a different overall forest management approach. 5.1 Methods and Material First, a GIS model representing the traditional territory of the NStQ was developed and used with the forest management planning software (Woodstock) to track all forests on the land base over time. Then, three alternatives to the current management in the region were developed, representing community goals and values. Finally, the three scenarios were compared regarding the development of criteria and indicators over time. 5.1.1 Data Preparation The geospatial model representing the land base in the case study area was created using ArcGIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)), following an approach by Man (2016). This approach is described in detail in the following sections. Each community provided feature classes representing the areas of interest (AOI) for their traditional territories. Feature classes are spatial files that represent landscape areas and features as lines, points or polygons. The four AOIs were merged together (using the intersect tool to combine them into one feature class and then the dissolve tool to get eliminate borders and create one large polygon) to create the AOI of the NStQ. This NStQ AOI feature class was stored in a file geodatabase, the recommended storage for feature classes. The different feature classes containing attributes to be modeled were then gathered. Table 14 shows the attributes to be expressed in the model, the feature class name, and the link from where they were downloaded.  46  Table 14: Attributes, feature classes, and corresponding links included in the forest management plan GIS model Attribute Feature class name Link Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) WHSE_LEGAL_ADMIN_BOUNDARIES_OATS_ALR_POLYS_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/agricultural-land-reserve-alr-polygons Areas affected by Armillaria PSTNFSTTNV_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/pest-infestation-overview-generalized BEC zones VEG_COMP_LYR_R1_POLY and WHSE_FOREST_VEGETATION_BEC_BIOGEOCLIMATIC_POLY_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/vri-forest-vegetation-composite-polygons-and-layer-2 and https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/biogeoclimatic-ecosystem-classification-bec-map Caribou herd locations for BC WHSE_WILDLIFE_INVENTORY_GCPB_CARIBOU_POPULATION_SP_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/caribou-herd-locations-for-bc Lakes and wetlands WHSE_ENVIRONMENTAL_MONITORING_NRC_WATER_WETLAND_250K_SP_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/water-and-wetland-1-250-000-geobase-land-cover Old-growth Management Areas (OGMA) WHSE_LAND_USE_PLANNING_RMP_OGMA_LEGAL_CURRENT_SVW_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/old-growth-management-areas-legal-current Parks (national and provincial) WHSE_TANTALIS_TA_PARK_ECORES_PA_SVW_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-parks-ecological-reserves-and-protected-areas Roads WHSE_BASEMAPPING_DRA_DGTL_ROAD_ATLAS_MPAR_SP_line https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/digital-road-atlas-dra-master-partially-attributed-roads Streams and rivers WHSE_FISH_WDIC_WATERBODY_STREAM_LINE_SVW_line and WHSE_WATER_MANAGEMENT_WLS_WATER_RESOURCE_MGMT_LINE_line https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/wsa-stream-centreline-network-50-000 and https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/water-resource-management-streams Indian Reserves (IR) WHSE_ADMIN_BOUNDARIES_ADM_INDIAN_RESERVES_BANDS_SP_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/indian-reserves-band-names-administrative-boundaries TSA WHSE_ADMIN_BOUNDARIES_FADM_TSA_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/fadm-timber-supply-area-tsa UWR WHSE_WILDLIFE_MANAGEMENT_WCP_UNGULATE_WINTER_RANGE_SP_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/ungulate-winter-range-approved The vegetation resource inventory (VRI) VEG_COMP_LYR_R1_POLY https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/vri-forest-vegetation-composite-polygons-and-layer-2 Wildlife habitat areas WHSE_WILDLIFE_MANAGEMENT_WCP_WILDLIFE_HABITAT_AREA_POLY_polygon https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/wildlife-habitat-areas-approved  These data represent all the information needed to define the analysis units (AUs) and forested land base. All feature classes were in the same coordinate system as the VRI feature class: NAD_1983_BC_Environemnent_Albers. 47  5.1.2 Clipping the Data and Creating Buffers After downloading these data for all 15 attributes, feature classes were clipped to the NStQ AOI layer. This means the outline of these layers were cut to the exact shape of the NStQ AOI. These layers were then put into a geodatabase. A feature class representing a no-harvest buffer was created for roads, streams, wetlands, and lakes. To do this the average no-harvest riparian buffer width for the bodies of water in each TSA was calculated. Not every TSA had buffer widths for all bodies of water and not every TSA had buffer widths in their TSR. Values that did exist were averaged within each TSA, and then between the TSAs. Calculations are in Appendix C. The road buffers, stream and river buffers, and lake and wetland buffers were dissolved to make one contiguous feature class. Due to the very large data set, the dissolved buffer layers had to be broken up into 7 different sections. This was done by creating a fishnet over the entire dataset (a 3x3 rectangle containing equal sections) and selecting one portion of the buffer to be dissolved in turn. As only 7 out of the 9 fishnet portions covered the AOI, the 7 resulting dissolved buffers were combined to make one buffer layer covering the entire AOI. When the riparian buffer dataset was combined with all the other feature classes to get the final resultant dataset, all polygons not containing a "-1," indicating that it was within the riparian buffer layer, were marked as such using a new column called "Riparian_Buffer." If the polygon contained a riparian buffer, it was given a value of "Riparian." Otherwise it was given a value of "Not riparian". The same was done with the road buffer. A new column was created in the attribute table called "Road_Buffer." If there was a road buffer in that polygon, it was assigned the value "Road Buffer" in that column, otherwise it was given a value of "Not road." 5.1.3 Fixing Data Errors First, the multipart to single-part tool was run to make sure that each individual polygon has its own attributes and does not share attributes with a polygon that does not border it. Then, the geometry was repaired for each of the feature classes using the repair geometry geoprocessing tool. This tool deletes features with null geometry and repairs self-intersections (ESRI 2016). Then topology errors were repaired to get rid of gaps and overlaps in the resultant file. The original data sets downloaded may have gaps and overlaps, and it was important to begin the process with as few errors as possible. It is best to check topology before overlaying the feature classes and after all feature classes are combined as the resultant file. 48  The first step in fixing the topology is to create a new file geodatabase. Then, a feature dataset was created in the file geodatabase. The coordinate system “NAD_1983_BC_Environemnent_Albers” was imported and all other options were left as default. The topology was checked on the ALR first. This was done by right clicking on a file geodatabase and selecting “import feature class” to transfer the ALR feature class to that geodatabase. A new topology was then created in a new feature dataset within that file geodatabase and named after the feature class that was being checked. For example, when checking errors on the ALR feature class, the topology created in the feature dataset was called “ALR_errors.” Then, the cluster tolerance was set for 0.1 meters, the ALR feature class was selected as the feature class that was being checked for errors, and in the rules window, it was specified which errors would be checked in the topology (either gaps or overlaps). In the case of the ALR feature class, gaps were not checked because in this feature class, gaps were inherent. All other options were left as default, the topology was confirmed, and then validated. Once the topology was validated, topology was right clicked on, properties was chosen, and from the errors tab, generate summary was clicked on. The summary reported the number of overlaps and other errors which were detected. To fix errors of overlapping polygons and gap errors, the topology feature with the errors from the catalogue window was dragged into the table of contents window. In the map viewer, topology errors showed up in red over the feature class. Then, editor mode was turned on and the correct feature class was selected as the layer to be edited. Using the topology toolbar, the error inspector window was opened and overlapping errors were repaired. Merge was the option selected to fix the first error. This was done by right clicking and selecting merge. Merge was selected to fix all topology errors. When merge was selected, ArcGIS presented the user with the option of two feature classes from which to merge the overlapping section of polygon. The order in which they were presented was random, so the top (first) option was always selected. There were typically hundreds or thousands of topology errors and this entire process could not be done by hand. Therefore, a macro was created using the MiniMouseMacro (TURNSSOFT) program that would run the mouse strokes and clicks until all the errors were fixed. Gap errors were repaired by selecting all the errors at once and selecting “Create New Feature.” After that, all the new features that were created were selected and the eliminate tool was run to merge the new features with adjacent features that share the longest boundary or had the largest area. The errors from the rule type “Must Be Larger than Cluster Tolerance” could all be 49  fixed at once by selecting all the features and choosing “Delete.” Then, the topology was validated and checked again. After all the errors were fixed, editor was turned off and all edits were saved. The topology was deleted and the feature class was then moved back into the original database where all feature classes were stored. Throughout the process, if more layers were added or there were changes made to the structure of the polygons, the steps of checking for errors repeated. After errors were repaired, unnecessary parts of the attributes were deleted for each feature class. The necessary ones are shown in Table 15. Table 15: List of fields by feature class that are needed in the resultant GIS attribute table (Man 2016) Feature class Fields Needed ALR ALR_Poly_ID BEC Zone Natural_disturbance type Caribou herd locations  Herd status  Herd Name  Risk Status IR English Name Federal Parks English name Provincial Parks Protected Lands name UWR  UWR unit number  UWR number  Timber harvest code VRI All fields Wildlife habitat area  Common species name  Timber harvest code  5.1.4 Combining Feature Classes Starting with less complex feature classes (e.g., Parks layer and IR layer), the identity tool was run. This tool takes two feature classes, combines them spatially and combines the attribute tables to create a new feature class. The output feature class was named “temp_1” and was saved in a new file geodatabase. Then the identity tool was run with temp_1 and the ALR feature class, and the output feature class was named temp_2. This process continued using slightly more complex feature classes each time. When about half of the feature classes had been run, the “temp” feature class and the VRI feature class were run through the identity tool. The last feature classes to be done were road, stream, and wetland buffers. The final feature class, containing the result of the Identity tool and all the feature classes together, was called the “resultant” feature class. The slope attribute was added from a digital elevation model. Due to the sensitivity of this data, a 50  description of how that was done will not be included. The result, however, was one slope value for each already-existing polygon in the resultant feature class. 5.1.5 Defining AUs & Creating Growth and Yield Curves To group forest stands in the resultant feature class for forest estate modeling, each forested polygon in forested land base was assigned an AU. There was no need to define different AUs for managed stands versus natural stands, because the biggest difference is that increased rate of growth of the managed stands within the first 15 years. This is because the seedlings are given a growth advantage through weed management and planting regimes. After the first 15 years of the stand’s growth, there is no distinct difference between the ways managed and naturally occurring stands grow, and since the scenarios are meant to be for 350 years, it was unnecessary to distinguish between them.  AUs were defined in each TSA by the AU definitions in the TSR from the most recent year available. See Appendix D for specific parameters. Williams Lake TSA: AU 105, 106, and 107 were not created because the leading species was not specified. AUs were not assigned based on UWR (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2013). 100 Mile House TSA: AUs were taken directly from page 7 of the TSR (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012). Kamloops TSA: AU definitions from page 29-30 of the TSR were simplified for modeling due to the data available. They were grouped into leading species, second species, BEC Zone and site index (Timberline Natural Resource Group Ltd. 2007). Quesnel TSA: AUs were defined mainly using the definitions on table 4 of page 10 of the 2009 Quesnel TSR as well as the 2015 Quesnel TSR. However, instead of assigning an AU for each site index value, site indices were grouped into poor, medium, and good (2009; Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2015b). Lillooet TSA: AUs were created from page 32 and 33 of the TSR. Existing natural stands were used for definitions. Pulpwood Agreement 16 was ignored because it expired before the start of this research. There were some AUs that were identical except for their name. Therefore, leading species for some of these AUs were defined by their description. Separate 51  AUs were not defined in the management zone “under 17 meters.” Age was not used as a descriptor for AUs (Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2004). Robson Valley TSA: AU definitions were developed from pg. 26 of the 2004 Robson Valley TSR data package. Management areas were not included concerning the location of supply blocks and instead, BEC Zone classification was included (Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. 2004). Prince George TSA: AUs were defined with info from pg. 48 of the 1995 TSR data package. This TSA covers a very small portion of the NStQ AOI, but was still included (BC Ministry of Forests 1995). Values for AUs were assigned using a python script (Appendix E) and the python library acrpy to populate a column in the resultant feature class attribute table named “AU.” Each AU had specific factors that were considered when writing the script and assigning each polygon in the model a specific AU value. Yield curves were created in the program Variable Density Yield Projection (VDYP) for each AU in each TSA. Appendix F presents the specific parameters that went into VDYP to create the yield curves. The yield curves assigned to each AU will model stand growth throughout the scenarios. 5.1.6 The Netdown process The following attributes were selected from the feature classes they originated from in the resultant file to delineate the resultant feature class between three categories: a harvestable forested land base, non-harvestable forested land base, and a non-forested land base. Table 16 outlines the attributes and values removed to split the forested land base apart from the non-forested land base. Table 16: Associated attributes, the values removed, and the rationale behind doing so for the Netdown process Layer Attribute  Value removed Rationale WHSE_ADMIN_BOUNDARIES_ADM_INDIAN_RESERVES_BANDS_SP_polygon English_name Any value This removes all Indian Reservations from the forested land base. WHSE_LEGAL_ADMIN_BOUNDARIES_OATS_ALR_POLYS_polygon FID_ALR Any positive value This removed all ALRs from the forested land base VEG_COMP_LYR_R1_POLY bcls_level_1 N This removed all non-vegetated areas from the forested land base 52  Layer Attribute  Value removed Rationale VEG_COMP_LYR_R1_POLY bcls_level_2 N or W This removed all non-treed or water areas from the forested land base. Lake_wetland Water Water The removes all lakes and wetlands from the forested land base3  After the Netdown process was complete, missing values in the forested land base were filled in.  Where site index was missing, stands were assigned the “good” site index. Missing site indices from Robson Valley and Williams Lake TSAs were assigned a value of 15, and missing site indices from Kamloops, Lillooet, and Quesnel TSA were assigned a value of 17.  Where the leading species was missing, the value was added based on the BEC Zone assigned to that polygon.  Woodlot licenses were not removed from the forested land base. It was not possible to tell which licenses would involve Indigenous communities or not.  Streams and roads were not taken out of the land base. As they are represented as line features in ArcGIS, they have no area associated with them. After these steps were completed, a new column was created to represent the age of each polygon. It was titled "current_year." It was assigned values equal to 2016 (the year the model was made) minus the last year harvested. Polygons with an AU but without a current year were assigned a year based on the “Live_Stand_Volume_125” attribute from the VRI. A year was determined based on the volume of the stand. Then a Contclass value was determined for each polygon. Values were a "C" for the harvestable forested land base, or an "N" for the non-harvestable forested land base. Table 17 shows what attributes were given the Contclass value of "N." It should be noted that it is not common to include protected parks into the forested land base. However, since forested park land could be used to manage for certain wildlife habitat requirements, it was included in this model. See Appendix G for the script used to do perform this function. Table 17: How the Contclass value was assigned to each polygon in the GIS model Layer Attribute Value Rationale VRI (VEG_COMP_LYR_R1_POLY) "Site_Index"  <= 5 These assigns a Contclass value of "N" to areas that are non-productive due to a low site index                                                  3 Most "water" should have been removed from the forested land base with "bcls_level_2." This step rids any that might not have. 53  Layer Attribute Value Rationale WHSE_LAND_USE_PLANNING_RMP_OGMA_LEGAL_CURRENT_SVW_polygon "OGMA" Any value This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to legally assigned OGMAs Created from "WHSE_WATER_MANAGEMENT_WLS_WATER_RESOURCE_MGMT_LINE_line," "WHSE_FISH_WDIC_WATERBODY_STREAM_LINE_SVW_line" and "WHSE_ENVIRONMENTAL_MONITORING_NRC_WATER_WETLAND_250K_SP_polygon," "Riparian_Buffer" Riparian This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all riparian buffers from streams, lakes, and wetlands. Created from "WHSE_BASEMAPPING_DRA_DGTL_ROAD_ATLAS_MPAR_SP_line" "Road_Buffer" Road Buffer This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all road buffers. WHSE_ENVIRONMENTAL_MONITORING_NRC_WATER_WETLAND_250K_SP_polygon "FID_Lake_Wetland" 1 This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all lake and wetlands buffers WHSE_WILDLIFE_MANAGEMENT_WCP_UNGULATE_WINTER_RANGE_SP_polygon "TIMBER_HARVEST_CODE" NO HARVEST ZONE This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all no-harvest zones in UWR WHSE_WILDLIFE_MANAGEMENT_WCP_WILDLIFE_HABITAT_AREA_POLY_polygon "TIMBER_HARVEST_CODE_1" NO HARVEST ZONE This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all no-harvest zones in areas of threatened or endangered wildlife. N/A "Slope" >62[4] This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all areas too steep to harvest WHSE_TANTALIS_TA_PARK_ECORES_PA_SVW_polygon Park_Class Class A or C This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all parks and protected areas. WHSE_TANTALIS_TA_PARK_ECORES_PA_SVW_polygon Protected_Lands_Designation Provincial Park Ecological Reserves This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all provincial parks and ecological reserves. (Provincial parks should have been included in the Park Class A designation, but in case it was not, this step will assure it is removed).                                                  4 This was the average slope value that was determined inoperable, but changed depending on TSA 54  Layer Attribute Value Rationale WHSE_FOREST_VEGETATION_BEC_BIOGEOCLIMATIC_POLY_polygon BEC_Zone_Code IMA This assigns a Contclass value of "N" to all alpine BEC Zones.  After the Netdown process was completed and Contclass values were assigned, each polygon was checked to verify it had been assigned an AU. As a check, a unit test was created for at least one AU in each TSA written to assign an AU. 5.1.7 The Management Scenarios A base case scenario was developed representing the status quo of forest activities in the AOI and three alternative forest management scenarios. Alternative Scenario I was designed to most accurately account for the wildlife and fisheries-related goals and values of the community members as identified in sections 3 and 4. Scenario II was created to achieve more economic opportunities for communities while still incorporating some wildlife and biodiversity goals and values. Scenario III was created to achieve a combination of Scenario I and II, including more economic goals than Scenario I and more wildlife goals than Scenario II. All 4 scenarios were modeled in Woodstock, a forest management planning software capable of using Linear Programming (LP) to identify an optimal solution for a timber harvesting schedule based on an objective function and constraints. In an LP analysis, the user tells the model what the end goal should be and the program determines the optimal means of achieving it. Hillier and Lieberman (1967) describe LP as "allocating limited resources among competing activities in the best possible (i.e. optimal) way." In LP, there is always an objective function which includes the value to be maximized or minimized and there are constraints which are restrictions on the model (Hillier and Lieberman 1967). Woodstock uses the simplex method to solve LP problems. The reason for using the simplex method is that there are infinite solutions to any LP problem, but the number of solutions can be minimized using this algorithm (Dykstra 1984). Woodstock uses shapefiles (like feature classes) as a basis for the spatial aspects of modelling. The resultant GIS file described in section 5.1.1-5.1.4 was to model all scenarios. All scenarios were designed 350 years into the future per the request of community members. Scenarios are described in detail below. 55  5.1.7.1  Base case scenario Firstly, the resultant GIS shapefile that represented the harvestable forested land base was loaded into Woodstock. Constraints to harvesting and regeneration were based on the FRPA guidelines, GARs, the Forest Act, and TSRs. Therefore, no harvesting occurred in the no-harvest riparian zones, no-harvest road buffer zones, or in areas where harvesting was restricted due to wildlife restrictions. There was no harvesting in OGMAs. Harvesting was modeled in UWR according to the management strategies of UWR #U7-001: 40% of the forest in UWR was above 140 years at all times. Each of the units of UWR were described slightly differently. This unit was chosen because it was simple to model. Clear-cuts with retention were the only method of harvesting modeled in this scenario, and all stands were replanted according to suggestions or predictions in each TSA's TSR:  The 100 Mile House TSR stated that "clear cuts with reserves is the predominant system in all non-Douglas-fir leading stands" (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012).  The Kamloops TSR stated that "During the past 5 years, 99% of the harvest has used clear cut or clear cut with reserves" (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2015a).(Timberline Natural Resource Group Ltd. 2007)  The Lillooet TSR stated that "clearcutting was used almost exclusively across the TSA" (Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2004).  The Prince George TSR stated that "clear cut with reserves is the predominant silvicultural system in use in the PGTSA" (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2015).  The Quesnel TSR stated that "the predominant silvicultural system in the TSA is an even-aged system using clear cutting with various levels of retention" (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2015b).  The Robson Valley TSR stated that 89 % of the harvest area is done with clear cuts with deserves and group/ dispersed retention (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012). 56   The Williams Lake TSR (2013) stated that "even-aged silvicultural systems, primarily clearcutting with various levels of retention, are predominant" (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2013). A 7% retention was used according to best practices in BC for WTPs (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resources 2006). Visual quality objectives (VQOs) were not included in any of the scenarios, since it was not realistic to predict retention based on soil nudity (visual quality). For example, if there was a restraint that 0% of the ground could be visible, it was beyond the scope of this thesis to search the entire land base and make an educated guess where each cutblock with VQOs can be seen from, and about how much would have to be harvested to meet the visual quality standards. This could be done on a smaller scale in future work. A no-harvest constraint was set on slopes over 62%, because this was the average non-operable slope amongst TSAs. Table 18 shows how that was calculated.  Table 18: Slopes at which the TSA deems land un-operable TSA Slope (%) 100 Mile House 70 Kamloops N/A Lillooet N/A Prince George 62 Quesnel 70 Robson Valley 70 Williams Lake 40 Average 62.4  Stands were defined by themes in Woodstock. In the base case, each stand had 2 different themes: the AU it belonged to and if it was in or out of UWR. Yield curves were assigned to each stand. Based on site index, BEC zone, and species composition at the stand level, specific parameters for each yield curve can be seen in Appendix F. Stands in all scenarios were assumed to be planted the same year that they were cut. All clear-cuts regenerated as instructed in each TSA:  100 Mile House TSR: All deciduous stands regenerated as deciduous stands. All Douglas-fir stands regenerated as pine stands. All balsam, cedar, and hemlock stands regenerated 57  as pine stands. All pine stands regenerated as pine stands. Low site index spruce stands regenerated as spruce stands. All other spruce stands regenerated as pine stands (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012).  Williams Lake TSR: Douglas-fir stands regenerated as pine stands. All pine stands regenerated as pine stands. Cedar and hemlock stands regenerated as spruce and balsam stands. Spruce and balsam stands regenerated as spruce and balsam stands (Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2013).  Kamloops TSR: There were no guidelines for how AUs would regenerate, so stands were assumed to be naturally regenerated into the AU with the same leading species and site index.  Lillooet TSR: All AUs were regenerated with the same leading species as before (Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2004).  Prince George TSR: There were not harvestable stands within the Prince George TSA.  Robson Valley TSR: There were no guidelines in the Robson Valley TSR for how AUs would regenerate, so stands were assumed to regenerate as the previous AU with the same leading species and site index.  Quesnel TSR: Pine and spruce stands were meant to regenerate as pine and spruce stands. Spruce and balsam stands regenerated as spruce and pine stands. Douglas-fir stands regenerated as pine stands. Deciduous stands regenerated as deciduous stands. It was assumed that all cedar stands would regenerate as themselves, since cedar stand regeneration was not specified (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2015b). The model was optimized to maximize for the volume of timber harvested in each scenario. Constraints were an even growing stock and an even harvest volume within 5% throughout the entire planning horizon. An even growing stock will supply a non-declining amount of timber available in the forest, which is an essential part of sustainable forest management. An even harvest flow is important for stable income and employment (Kao and Brodie 1979). The non-harvestable forested land base was loaded into a separate Woodstock model to calculate the early and late seral area and deciduous tree volumes. 58  5.1.7.2 Scenario I The purpose of Scenario I was to show management for wildlife and fisheries goals and values while still allowing some harvesting to occur. The criteria, indicators, and targets developed and reported in section 4.2 were used to develop Scenario I. A theme was added to this scenario to determine the harvesting method for a stand. Two options for harvesting methods were included: a two-pass-partial-cut or a clear-cut. The optimization algorithm would determine how much partial-cutting versus clear-cutting would be optimal depending on timber optimization and correlation with moose, deer and caribou habitat. At the beginning of the planning horizon, all stands were descried as able to be partial or clear-cut. If a stand was in a zone where no clear-cutting was allowed, then only partial-cutting would be done. If it was in an area that could be either partial or clear-cut, then it would be either partial or clear-cut. If a stand was clear-cut, then it would transition as expected for that scenario. In Scenario I, all stands were modeled to regenerate as themselves to keep the level of species biodiversity consistent, as opposed to the base case scenario which favors the regeneration of spruce and pine. Stands that had been clear-cut could always be partial-cut in the future. If an area was to be partial-cut, then it would also regenerate the same as the previous stand, but it would have to be partial-cut at exactly 100 years the first time it was partial-cut. It would then be "marked" as a stand that had been partial-cut once and would regenerate as a 100-year-old stand, since all the wood remaining in that stand would still be 100 years old. Stands that had been "marked" as being partial-cut once could only be partial-cut again, never clear-cut. If a stand had been partial-cut once, then if it was to be partial-cut again, it had to occur the second time at age 150. It was then "marked" as a stand that had been partial-cut twice and would regenerate as a 50-year-old stand, since the timber that had been harvested in the other part of the stand had been cut exactly 50 years ago. A stand that had been partial-cut twice would be partial-cut again only at age 100, and would regenerate as a 50-year-old stand, since it had been 50 years since the remaining timber in the stand had been partial-cut. This process would continue in this manner until it was either no longer optimal to partial-cut the stand again or the planning period ended. To create moose habitat, a new attribute called "Moose_habitat" was created in the shapefile before it was loaded into Woodstock. Polygons within riparian buffer zones within the IDF, SBPS, and ICH BEC Zone were selected. Around these zones, 400 m of snow interception cover was 59  created. 737,880 ha of the land base (26%) was assigned as snow interception cover for moose habitat. See Figure 3 for an example of how this was implemented. These zones were set to be partial or clear-cut. In Woodstock, a constraint was set on the moose habitat so no more than 25% could be clear-cut each period. Mostly partial-cutting would mean that sufficient snow interception cover was created. As well, all streams and wetlands had a 57 m no-harvest buffer. This created sufficient late seral forested habitat for moose. All other areas (not within the following constraints for other wildlife species) were permitted to be either clear-cut or partial-cut with no constraints set. The option to clear-cut without constraints in areas outside of the snow interception cover would create a mosaic of early and late seral stages, which is a target for moose habitat (see 4.2.1.1). 737,880 ha of the land base (26%) was assigned as snow interception cover for moose habitat. Figure 3: A map representing how moose habitat was assigned. Green represents riparian zones. White represents areas inside or outside of the harvestable land base. Yellow represents the 400 m snow interception cover within the harvestable land base that was designated as "moose habitat." Data Source: Government of British Columbia, 2017c 60  Deer habitat was developed by making a new attribute called “Deer_habitat.” Polygons within a selection of south facing slopes above 30%, were added to the "Deer_habitat" selection. Since moose and deer need similar habitat (a mixture of early and late seral forest), all areas for moose habitat were also determined to be deer habitat. A constraint was set so that no more than 25% of the deer habitat could be clear-cut per period. 740,968 ha of deer habitat was included in this and all other alternative scenarios. For caribou habitat, when the model was examined, it was found there were 54,186 ha of land within the forested land base that has a no-harvest designation in favour of caribou. That land, combined with the 207,731 ha of non-harvestable forest in Well’s Gray Provincial Park was sufficient caribou habitat for the area according to targets set in section 4.2.1.3. See Figure 4 for an illustration of this. However, to maximize caribou habitat in this scenario, more caribou habitat was added by creating an attribute called "Caribou_habitat" in the shapefile in the same way as for moose and deer habitat. All area within the historical habitat of caribou was added to the "Caribou_habitat" attribute. 294,988 ha were assigned to caribou habitat in the model. Mountain caribou do not migrate over large distances (Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000a), so the tracts of contiguous forest already not harvestable on the land base were deemed appropriate for caribou habitat connectivity. To model connectivity for deer, moose, and other fur bearing animals relevant to trapping, the increase in no-harvest buffers around riparian areas was used. This created sufficient corridors, as there are many stream and river connections throughout the land base. WTPs were created in this scenario by using a Figure 4: Land class distribution on the NStQ land base, with Well's Gray Provincial Park outlined. Government of British Columbia. 2017c, d. 61  yield curve to calculate the volume harvested that is decreased by 13% to represent a 13% retention. Slopes over 50% were assigned a Contclass value of "N" for this scenario. Therefore, it was not harvested, and helped meet fish and water quality criteria. No-harvest riparian buffers were 57 m in this scenario. The model was optimized to maximize for the volume of timber harvested. The constraints were an even growing stock and an even harvest volume within 5% throughout the entire planning horizon. The non-harvestable forested land base was loaded into a separate Woodstock model to calculate the early and late seral area and deciduous tree volumes. 5.1.7.3 Scenario II Scenario II represented more economic opportunities, which in this model meant more timber harvesting. Criteria, indicators, and targets developed and reported in section 4.2 were used to develop Scenario II. The amount of land to be partial-cut within deer and moose habitat and the amount of land not to be harvested in caribou habitat were changes made to allow for more harvesting and more clear-cutting. A constraint was set to allow no more than 75% of moose habitat and no more than 75% of deer habitat to be clear-cut. Clear-cutting was allowed in no more than 10% of the caribou area, and forest within the "Caribou_habitat" feature was given a partial-cut constraint of no more than 50%. Slope on which trees could be harvested was increased to 62%, the same slope constraint as in the base case. Regeneration was modeled the same as in the base case scenario, as favoring the regeneration of spruce and pine could be more economically beneficial, since that is the current practice. Connectivity was still addressed in this scenario. WTPs were equal to 7% of the cut, consistent with the base case scenario. The no-harvest buffers around riparian zones were kept at 57m in width. These buffers help meet many criteria, so they were deemed essential in this scenario as well. The model was optimized to maximize volume of timber harvested. Constraints were an even growing stock and an even harvest volume within 5% throughout the entire planning horizon. 5.1.7.4 Scenario III Scenario III was designed to be a combination between Scenario I and II. The criteria, indicators, and targets developed and reported in section 4.2 were used to develop Scenario III. 62  Within moose and deer habitat, no more than 50% of the habitat could be clear-cut per period. Zero-percent of caribou habitat could be clear-cut, and no more than 30% could be partial cut. More emphasis was given to resource conservation, plant biodiversity, and sustainable timber harvest in this scenario. This was done by changing the regeneration regimes. Stands were assumed to regenerate half as themselves, and half as they did in the base case and Scenario II. This represented a mixed species regeneration. Slopes over 57% were assigned a Contclass value of "N." No-harvest riparian buffers were kept at 57 m in width for water quality, connectivity, and fish. WTPs were equal to 10% of the total area of the cutblock, thus between Scenarios I and II. The model was optimized to maximize for the volume of timber harvested. The constraints were an even growing stock and an even harvest volume within 5% throughout the entire planning horizon. 5.1.8 Sensitivity Analysis The final step was a sensitivity analysis. This was done by examining the shadow prices of each constraint computed by Woodstock when each scenario was run. A shadow price is a value that represents how much the optimal solution will change if the value of a constraining attribute is changed by a value of 1 (Hillier and Lieberman 1967). A sensitivity analysis answers the "what if" question in LP problems and helps show by what degree the optimal solution will change if constraints are changed (Dykstra 1984). It is important to see how sensitive each constraint is. Slight change to a particularly sensitive constraint can have a disproportionately large effect on the optimal result. This is especially important in resource management where planning horizons can be hundreds of years. Moreover, it is almost always impossible to backtrack on a forest management plan once its implementation has begun. Another goal of this sensitivity analysis was to see if the value of the constraints should be changed to better represent an "uncertain" world where constraints could change. A sensitivity analysis is especially important since one of the assumptions of LP is that all constants are known, which is rarely true in the case of forest management planning (Hillier and Lieberman 1967). After the sensitivity analysis is done, if certain constraints are so sensitive they could create an infeasible solution, they might need to be changed (Hillier and Lieberman 1967). 63  5.2 Results This section outlines the results obtained by using Woodstock to optimize the 4 forest management scenarios described above. Indicators developed in section 4 were tracked for every scenario. Table 19 shows a break-down of how much area falls into each Netdown and Contclass category. With the addition of 40 m more of no-harvest zones on riparian buffers, 69,231 ha of forest was removed from the harvestable forested land base.  Table 19: Break-down of the non-forested, harvestable forested, and non-harvestable forested land base  Netdown Contclass Base case (ha) Scenarios I-III5 (ha) Non-forested land base Out --- 1,974,747 1,974,747 Harvestable forested land base In C 1,686,437 1,560,673 Non-harvestable forested land base In N 1,127,657 1,252,818 TOTAL forested land base In --- 2,814,094 2,813,491 5.2.1 Wildlife 5.2.1.1 Criterion A. Moose Table 20 presents the status of the targets for the criterion of moose. The status refers to whether the target for each criterion was met. A +/+ indicates that all targets were met. A +/- means that some were met and some were not. A -/- means that no targets were met for that criterion. Table 20: Status of targets for the criterion moose in the base case scenario Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status 10% of the forested land base is moose habitat by 2035 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Moose habitat is in the IDF, SBPS, or ICH +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ Moose habitat has forest that has both early and late seral components +/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Moose habitat has snow interception cover -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Moose habitat will be located around no-harvest riparian zone in this manner: Stream/lake/wetland  riparian reserve zone snow interception cover  early seral stage forest -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones is 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Mixed species regeneration is implemented on the land base. -/- -/- -/- +/+                                                  5 There is a 603 ha difference in the area calculated for the forested land base between the GIS shapefiles created for the base case scenario and all of the alternative scenarios. This is due to error created in the separation of polygons from neighboring ones, including in the creation of larger no-harvest riparian buffers. 603 ha is equivalent to .02% of the total forested land base in the base case scenario, and therefore was not considered to be significant. 64  Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status In each cut, there will be at least one internal WTP equal to 13% of total area harvested +/- +/+ +/- +/-  UWR is the only indicator of moose habitat in the base case scenario. There are 160,913 ha of UWR in the land base, equaling 4.2% of the forested land base. This does not meet the target of 10% of the land base for moose habitat. However, moose habitat, according to the rationale in section 4.2.1, should not simply be land with more than 40% of the trees 80 years or older, which was how UWR was modeled in the base case scenario. There is no partial-cutting in the base case scenario to meet moose or deer habitat requirements. As shown in Figure 5, in the base case scenario, there is more late seral than early seral forest through the entire planning horizon. The late seral forest available on the forested land base evens out after about 25 periods at an average of 1,644,445 ha, or 58% of the forested land base. The early seral forest available on the land base evens out after about 10 periods at an average of 457,586 ha per period, equaling 16% of the forested land base. In Scenario I, a combination of early and late seral habitat was formed to create a snow interception zone by partial-cutting. 26% of the land base in each alternative scenario was dedicated to moose habitat. Figure 5: Area of early and late seral forest available on the forested land base in the base case scenario 65  Figure 6 shows the amount of moose habitat harvested by partial or clear-cut method. In designated moose habitat, except in periods 1, 3-6, and 11, there was more area with partial-cutting than clear-cutting. The area of late seral forest increased over the time while the area of early seral forest decreased (Figure 7). An increase in late seral forest created habitat for moose. The amount of late seral forest available on the forested land base leveled out (from period 15 on) at 1,816,255 ha, or 64.6% of the forested land base. Early seral forest was created constantly due to harvesting. The amount of early seral forest available on the land base leveled out after period 15 at 188,958 ha per period, roughly 6.7% of the forested land base.  Figure 6: Area of moose habitat harvested by clear or partial cutting per period in Scenario I 66  An indicator of moose habitat was to have mixed species regeneration. In Scenario I, there was no mixed species regeneration. However, stands are regenerating as they were previously instead of replacing stands with alternative species, which could benefit moose. Figure 8 shows the amount of moose habitat harvested by partial or clear-cut in Scenario II. On average, 30,410.9 ha of partial-cutting and 30,803.0 ha of clear-cutting occurred per period.  Figure 7: The area of early and late seral habitat available on the forested land base in Scenario I 67  Figure 9 shows the amount of early and late seral forest on the forested land base in Scenario II. The amount of late seral forest levels out at about 20 periods with an average of 1,824,151 ha, or 64.8% of the total land base. The amount of early seral habitat leveled out after 20 periods with an average of 242,870 ha, or 8.6 %, helping meet the late and early seral constraints suggested for good moose habitat. Figure 9: Area of early and late seral forest available on the forested land base in Scenario II Figure 8: Area of moose habitat that was harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario II 68  In Scenario III, an average of 26,646.8 ha per period of forest in moose habitat was clear-cut and 37,570.5 ha per period was partial-cut. XX shows the area of land in designated moose habitat partial and clear-cut each period. 26 of the periods had more partial-cutting than clear-cutting per period. Figure 11 shows the amount of early and late seral forest on the forested land base in Scenario III. The amount of late seral forest levels out at about 20 periods with an average of 1,834,660 ha, or 65.2% of the total land base. The amount of early seral habitat leveled out after 20 periods with an average of 206,892 ha (7.4%), helping meet the late and early seral constraints suggested for good moose habitat. Figure 10: Area of moose habitat that was harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III 69  In the base case scenario, no-harvest riparian buffers were 17 m, whereas in all the alternative scenarios, the same buffers were 57 m. 5.2.1.2 Criterion B. Deer Table 21 presents the status of targets for the criterion deer in each scenario. Table 21: Status of targets for the criterion deer in each scenario Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status 10% of the forested land base is deer habitat by 2035. -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Forest has edges for deer to forage, but also places for deer to have shelter from snow. This can be done by managing deer habitat with partial cutting systems to protect Douglas-fir, an important species for deer. +/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Minimum of 10% of habitat is located on grassy south facing slopes with Douglas-fir -/- -/- -/- -/- In each cut, there will be at least one internal WTP equal to 13% of total area harvested +/- +/+ +/- +/- Two-pass partial cuts are used -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Average width of the no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases to 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+  UWR was the only indicator of deer habitat in the base case scenario. There are 160,913 ha of UWR in the land base, or about 4.2% of the forested land base. This does not meet the target of 10% of the land base for deer habitat. However, deer habitat, according to the rationale in section 4.2.1, should not simply be land with greater than 40% of the trees being 80 years or older, which Figure 11: Area of early and late seral forest available on the forested land base in Scenario III 70  was how UWR was modeled in the base case scenario. There is no partial-cutting in the base case scenario to help meet deer habitat requirements. As shown in Figure 5, there is more late seral than early seral forest through the entire planning horizon. The late seral forest available on the forested land base evens out after about 25 periods at an average of 1,644,445 ha, which is 58% of the forested land base. The early seral forest available on the land base evens out after about 10 periods, at an average of 457,586 ha, which is equal to 16% of the forested land base. A target of deer habitat was the combination of late and early seral habitat in the snow interception zone done in this scenario by partial-cutting. Figure 12 shows the amount of deer habitat harvested by clear or partial-cut each period. Except in periods 1, 3-6, and 11, there was more area with partial-cutting than clear-cutting in deer habitat. In Scenario I, late seral forest area increased over the time, and the area of early seral forest decreased (Figure 7). An increase in late seral forest created habitat for deer. The amount of late seral forest available on the forested land base leveled out (from period 15 on) at 1,816,255 ha, or 64.6% of the forested land base. However, early seral forest was constantly being created due to harvesting. The amount of early seral forest available on the land base leveled out after period 15 at 188,958 ha per period or 6.7% of the forested land base. Figure 12: Area of deer habitat harvested by clear or partial-cutting per period in Scenario I 71  In Scenario II, partial-cutting helped meet early and late seral requirements. Figure 13 shows the amount of deer habitat harvested by clear or partial-cut each period. On average, there was 30,436 ha of partial-cutting per period on deer habitat and 31,542 ha of clear-cutting per period on deer habitat. There was less area with partial-cutting than clear-cutting over the planning horizon. 18 periods have more partial-cutting than clear-cutting. Figure 9 shows the amount of early and late seral forest on the forested land base in Scenario II. The amount of late seral forest leveled out at about 20 periods with an average of 1,824,151 ha per period, or 64.8% of the total land base. The amount of early seral habitat leveled out after 20 periods with an average of 242,870 ha per period, or 8.6%. This does help meet the early and old seral constraints suggested for good moose or deer habitat. Figure 13: Area of deer habitat that was harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario II 72  Figure 14 shows the area of land in designated deer habitat partial and clear-cut each period in Scenario III. An average of 26,998 ha per period of forest in deer habitat was clear-cut and 37,611.7 ha per period on average was partial-cut. 25 periods had more partial-cutting than clear-cutting. Figure 11 shows the amount of early and late seral forest in the forested land base in Scenario III. After period 15, the area of early and late seral forest levels out with an average of 1,834,660 ha of late seral forests per period and early seral forest at 206,892 ha per period. In the base case scenario, no-harvest riparian buffers were 17 m. In all the alternative scenarios, the no-harvest riparian buffers were 57 m. None of the scenarios could meet the habitat requirement that 10% of deer habitat had to be on south facing slopes with Douglas-fir. 5.2.1.3 Criterion C. Caribou Table 22 shows the status of the targets for the criterion of caribou in each scenario. Table 22: Tracking of statuses for criteria of caribou in each scenario Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status Sufficient caribou habitat, including access by wildlife corridors, is created in the land base by 2035 +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ Tracts of late seral forest of at least 10,000 ha connected with corridors. Corridors are greater than 40 years old and are at least 100 m in width. +/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Figure 14: Area of deer habitat harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III 73  Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status In each cut, there will be at least one internal WTP equal to 13% of total area harvested +/- +/+ +/- +/- Only partial cuts are used in caribou habitat. No clear-cutting. -/- +/+ +/- +/+ Caribou habitat is placed in historical range of caribou +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+  In the base case scenario, 170,519 ha of land was designated as a no-harvest zone (per government regulations) for mountain caribou, which was equivalent to 6.1% of the forested land base. The largest contiguous area of land designated for caribou in a no-harvest zone within the forested land base was 54,186 ha. This area was located within the historical range of mountain caribou. These parameters were within the goal of having at least 10,000 contiguous ha of land designated as not harvestable for purposes of caribou habitat. However, not all of these stands were 150 years or older at the beginning of the planning horizon, which was another part of the target for caribou habitat. The largest contiguous area of 150-year-old forest in the forested land base was 100,913 ha, or 3.6%. It was located east of Quesnel Lake in historical mountain caribou habitat, so the goal of having at least 10,000 ha of forest 150 years or older was met, if it stayed untouched throughout the planning horizon. In each alternative scenario, in addition to the 170,519 ha of land designated as caribou habitat per government regulations, 2,949,880 ha of caribou habitat per period was created. This area was located within the historical range of mountain caribou. In Scenario I, there was no harvesting in the designated caribou habitat. This helped meet the late seral constraint for caribou habitat, including the amount and continuity of late seral forest. In Scenario II, 170,519 ha of land was designated as a no-harvest zone (per government regulations) for mountain caribou, which was equivalent to 6% of the forested land base. The largest contiguous area of land designated for caribou in a no-harvest zone within the forested land base was 54,186 ha. This area was located within the historical range of mountain caribou. These parameters were within the goal of having at least 10,000 contiguous ha of land designated as not-harvestable for caribou habitat. Habitat for caribou included 207,731 ha of non-harvestable forest in Well’s Gray Provincial Park. In this scenario, more land was clear than partial-cutting in caribou habitat throughout the planning horizon. Figure 15 shows the area of caribou habitat partial and clear-cut in Scenario II. 74  In Scenario III, 170,519 ha of land was designated as a no-harvest zone (per government regulations) for mountain caribou, which was equivalent to 6% of the forested land base. The largest contiguous area of land designated for caribou in a no-harvest zone within the forested land base was 54,186 ha. This area was located within the historical range of mountain caribou, east of Quesnel Lake. These parameters are within the goal of having at least 10,000 contiguous ha of land designated as not-harvestable for caribou habitat. This habitat for caribou also included the 207,731 ha of non-harvestable forest in Wells Gray Provincial Park. In Scenario III, there was no clear-cutting in caribou habitat, only partial-cutting. Figure 16 shows the area partial-cut in caribou habitat. On average, there was 11,858 ha of land partial-cut per period in caribou habitat.  Figure 15: Area of caribou habitat harvested by partial or clear-cutting in per period Scenario II 75  5.2.1.4 Criterion D. Trapping Table 23 presents the status of the target for the criterion of habitat for species that are trapped. Table 23: Status of target for the criterion trapping Target Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status  Average width of the no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+   In the base case scenario, there was a 17 m no-harvest riparian buffer throughout the entire land base. 57 m no-harvest riparian buffers were used in all other scenarios. 5.2.1.5 Criterion E. Habitat connectivity Table 24 shows how the targets for the criterion of habitat connectivity were met in each scenario. Table 24: Status of targets for the criterion habitat connectivity Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status In each cut, there will be at least one internal WTP equal to 13% of total area harvested +/- +/+ +/- +/- Figure 16: Area of caribou habitat partial-cut per period in Scenario III 76  Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status Average width of the no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Habitat created for specific wildlife are connected with corridors +/- +/+ +/+ +/+  In the base case scenario, a 17 m no-harvest riparian buffer throughout the entire land base might have created some connectivity, especially for small mammals. 57 m no-harvest riparian buffers were used in all other scenarios. WTPs were equal to 7% of the area per cutblock in the base case scenario and Scenario II. Scenario I had WTPs equal to 13% of the area of the cutblock. WTPs were equal to 10% of the cutblock area in Scenario III. Corridors for caribou were sufficient in each alternative scenario. Corridors for moose, deer, and species that are trapped were created by the 57 m no-harvest riparian buffers. 5.2.1.6 Criterion F. Large carnivores Table 25 shows the status of the targets for the criterion of large carnivores were met in each scenario. Table 25: Status of targets for the criterion large carnivores  5.2.2  Forestry Practices 5.2.2.1 Criterion A. Sustainable forest management Table 26 shows the status of the targets for the criterion of sustainable forest management in each scenario. Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status Achieving targets for moose, deer, caribou, and trapping species will help provide habitat and prey for large carnivores. +/- +/+ +/- +/- Achieving targets for berries will help bear species. -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ 77  Table 26: Status of targets for the criterion sustainable forest management Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status Limit the amount of clear-cutting -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Partial cutting is utilized when appropriate. -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Economic gains from forest practices means that timber harvesting does occur on the land base +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ Growing stock does not decline +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+  In the base case scenario, 100% of harvesting method was clear-cutting. Figure 17 presents the volume of timber harvested each period in this scenario. On average, 35,116,683 m3 of timber was harvested per period. Figure 18 shows the available growing stock in the base case scenario. Average growing stock per period on the harvestable forested land base was 390,710,335 m3. There was a non-declining yield constraint on the forest model, so a consistent amount of timber is available in the future. Figure 17: Volume of timber harvested per period in the base case scenario 78  Clear and partial-cutting were used in Scenario I. Figure 19 shows the amount of timber harvested, including a break-down of the clear and partial-cutting volumes. On average, 32,518,617 m3 of timber was harvested each period. On average, each period, 11,870,041 m3 is harvested by partial-cut and 8,778,535 m3 by clear-cut. Figure 18: Available growing stock on the harvestable land base per period in the base case scenario 79  Figure 20 shows the available growing stock in Scenario I. On average, 355,127,806 m3 of timber is available per period. The non-declining yield constraint was still set on the growing stock, so a sustainable amount of timber was, in theory, still available after the planning horizon. Figure 20: Volume of timber available on the land base per period in Scenario I Figure 19: Volume of timber harvested per period in Scenario I, with a break-down of how much timber came from clear or partial-cutting 80  For Scenario II, Figure 21 shows the timber harvest volumes, including the break-down of timber harvested by partial and clear-cutting. On average, 36,282,419 m3 of timber was harvested in each period. On average, 11,519,725 m3 per period was harvested by clear-cutting methods and an average of 13,242,969 m3 per period was harvested by partial-cutting methods. Figure 22 shows the available growing stock in Scenario II. An average of 355,127,806 m3 of growing stock is available on the harvestable land base per period. There was a non-declining yield constraint on the forest model, so a sustainable amount of timber was available into the future, helping meet economic goals for job sustainability. Figure 21: Volume of timber harvested per period in Scenario II, including a break-down of the volume harvested by partial or clear-cutting 81  Regarding Scenario III, Figure 23 shows the amount of timber harvested, including a break-down of the clear and partial-cutting volumes. On average, 33,104,847 m3 of timber was harvested each period using partial and clear-cutting methods. On average, each period, 11,682,965 m3 was harvested by partial-cutting and 9,738,917 m3 by clear-cutting. In the long term, the amount of partial-cutting evens out to be more prominent than clear-cutting methods. Figure 22: Available growing stock on the harvestable land base each period in Scenario II 82  There was a non-declining yield constraint on the forest model, so a sustainable amount of timber is available into the future. Figure 24 shows the available growing stock on the harvestable land base per period. There was an average of 352,891,000 m3 per period available on the harvestable forested land base.  Figure 23: Total volume of timber harvested per period, including a break-down of how much of the harvesting is done by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III Figure 24: Available growing stock on the harvestable land base each period in Scenario III 83  5.2.2.2 Criterion B. Forest resources conservation Table 27 presents the status of targets for the criterion forest resources conservation in each scenario. Table 27: Status of targets for the criterion forest resources conservation in each scenario Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status An increase in deciduous leading stands -/- -/- -/- -/- Planting of mixed species stands where appropriate -/- -/- -/- +/+ Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ An increase in late seral stage forest from 40 to 60% -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Partial-cutting used where appropriate -/- +/+ +/+ +/+  In the base case scenario, resource conservation targets were not met. Deciduous leading stands occupied 100,063 ha of forest, which equaled 3.6% of the land base, throughout the planning horizon. In Scenario I, II, deciduous leading stands occupied 119,283 ha of the land base, or 4.2%, throughout the planning horizon. In Scenario III, deciduous leading stands occupied 120,325 ha (4.3%) of the forested land base throughout the entire planning period. In the base case scenario, no-harvest riparian buffers were 17 m. In all the alternative scenarios, no-harvest riparian buffers were 57 m. No partial-cutting was used to improve biodiversity, but in all the alternative scenarios, partial-cutting was used. Figure 25, Figure 26, Figure 27, and Figure 28 show the area that was partial or clear-cut in each scenario. 5.2.3 Shrubs and Herbaceous Species 5.2.3.1 Criterion A. Berries Table 28 shows the status of the targets for the criterion berry habitat in each scenario. Table 28: Status of targets for criterion berries in each scenario Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status Alpine areas (IMA BEC Zone) are a no-harvest zone +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Partial-cutting used where appropriate -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ 84  In the base case scenario, berry habitat was not increased with the use of partial-cuts, but may still increase with the use of clear-cuts. Figure 25 presents the amount of land clear-cut per period throughout the planning horizon. On average, 104,095 ha of land is clear-cut per period. There is a large spike in the area clear-cut in period 34. For the first thirty periods, on average, 92,009 ha of land is clear-cut per period. Figure 26 shows the amount of land clear-cut and partial-cut per period in Scenario I. On average, 83,574 ha of land per period is partial-cut and 58,764 ha per period was clear-cut on average. Figure 25: Area of land harvested be clear cutting methods per period in the base case scenario 85  Figure 27 shows the amount of land clear and partial-cut per period in Scenario II. On average, 63,232 ha of land per period is partial-cut and 71,789 ha per period was clear-cut on average. Figure 26: Area of the land base that is harvested with partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario I Figure 27: Area of land base harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario II 86  Figure 28 shows the amount of land clear and partial-cut per period in Scenario III. On average, 75,255 ha of land per period is partial-cut and 64,237 ha per period was clear-cut. In all scenarios, alpine areas were not harvested, which helped meet this target. In the base case scenario, no-harvest riparian buffers were 17 m. In all the alternative scenarios, no-harvest riparian buffers were 57 m. 5.2.3.2 Criterion B. Medicinal plants Table 29 shows the status of the targets for the criterion of medicinal plants in each scenario. Table 29: Status of targets for the criterion medicinal plants in each scenario  In the base case scenario, clear-cutting was the only method of harvesting used. In all other scenarios, a combination of partial and clear-cutting was used. In the base case scenario, no-harvest riparian buffers were 17 m. No-harvest riparian buffers in all alternative scenario were 57 m. Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status Limit the area that is clear-cut -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Figure 28: Area of land harvested by partial or clear-cutting methods per period in Scenario III 87  5.2.3.3 Criterion C. Other important plants Table 30 shows the status of targets for the criterion of other important plants in each scenario. Table 30: Status of targets for the criterion other important plants in each scenario Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status By 2030, 50% of regenerated stands are mixed species -/- +/- -/- +/+ Partial-cutting used where appropriate -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020 -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Alpine areas (IMA BEC Zone) are a no-harvest zone +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+  Mixed species regeneration is only used in Scenario III. In Scenario I, stands grow back as they were before cutting. In the base case scenario, clear-cutting was the only method of timber harvest used. In all other scenarios, a combination of partial and clear-cutting was used. In the base case scenario, no-harvest riparian buffers were 17 m. In all alternative scenarios, no-harvest riparian buffers were 57 m. There is no harvesting of the alpine zones in any scenario. 5.2.4 Water 5.2.4.1 Criterion A. Fish and water quality Table 31 shows the status of the targets for fish and water quality in all scenarios Table 31: Status of targets for criteria fish and water quality in each scenario Targets Base case status Scenario I status Scenario II status Scenario III status Average width of no-harvest riparian buffer zones increases from 17 m to 57 m by 2020. -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ No clear-cuts on slopes over 50% +/- +/+ +/- +/-  In the base case, no-harvest riparian buffers were 17 m. In all alternative scenarios, the no-harvest riparian buffers were 57 m. In the base case and Scenario II, harvesting did not occur on slopes greater than 62%. In Scenarios I and III, harvesting was halted on slopes greater than 50% and 57% respectively. 88  5.2.5 Scenario Comparison Table 32 shows a comparison of how well the indicators were met for each criterion in each scenario. Table 32: Comparison of the statuses of all the indicators between each of the scenarios Criteria Indicator Status of Base case Status of Scenario I Status of Scenario II Status of Scenario III Moose Moose habitat increased -/- +/- +/- +/+ Deer Deer habitat remains stable -/- +/+ +/- +/+ Caribou Caribou habitat increase +/- +/+ +/- +/+ Large carnivores Large carnivore populations remain stable or increase +/- +/- +/- +/+ Trapping Trapped species habitat increases -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Habitat connectivity Increased connectivity throughout the land base -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Sustainable forestry practices Healthier forest, less clearcutting, less logging -/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Resource conservation Important plant species are conserved -/- +/- +/- +/- Berries More berries +/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Medicinal plants Medicinal plants are protected +/- +/+ +/+ +/+ Fish Fish populations and health increase -/- +/+ +/- +/- Water quality Water quality improves -/- +/+ +/- +/-  Figure 29 shows timber harvest flows for each scenario. Scenario II has the highest amount of timber in the long term and Scenario I, the lowest. 89  Figure 30 shows the area harvested by clear-cutting per period. Clear-cutting in the base case was greater than any other scenario. Of the alternatives, Scenario II averaged 71,789 ha per period harvested by clear-cutting, the largest area by clear-cut method in an alternative scenario. Scenario III was in the middle, with 64,237 ha per period on average harvested by clear-cutting. Scenario I had the least area clear-cut averaging 58,764 ha per period. Figure 30: Area of forest harvested by clear-cutting methods per period in each scenario Figure 29: Volume of timber harvested per period in each scenario 90  Figure 31 shows average timber volume harvested by clear-cutting in each scenario. The base case was highest at of 35,116,683 m3 per period. Of the alternative scenarios, Scenario II was highest at 13,242,969 m3 per period, followed by Scenario III at 9,738,917 m3. The lowest volume harvested occurred in Scenario I (8,778,535 m3). Figure 32 shows the area partial-cut per period by scenario. No partial-cutting was modeled in the base case. At 81,195 ha, Scenario I was the highest among alternatives. The second highest was Scenario III with 72,103 ha. The lowest was Scenario II with 61,692 ha.  Figure 31: Volume of timber harvested by clear-cutting methods per period in each scenario 91  Figure 33 shows average timber volume harvested by partial-cutting each scenario. The base case had no partial-cutting. Volumes among the alternatives were similar to each other. Scenario I was highest at 11,870,041 m3, followed but Scenario III (11,682,965 m3). Scenario II was lowest at 11,519,725 m3. Figure 33: Volume of timber harvested by partial-cutting per period in each scenario Figure 32: Area of land harvested by partial-cutting methods per period in each scenario 92  Figure 34 shows the area of early seral forest available per period in each scenario. The base case scenario had the most amount of early seral forest at an average of 465,089 ha per period. Scenario II had the second most area of early seral forest throughout the planning horizon, with an average of 288,826 ha per period. Scenario III had an average of 263,486 ha per period, and Scenario I had the least amount of early seral forest with an average of 251,876 ha per period. Figure 35 shows the average area of late seral forest harvested per period by scenario. The base case had the least amount (1,534,192 ha) and Scenario III the most (1,716,909 ha). Scenario I, and II had 1,703,453 ha and 1,703,501 ha, respectively. All scenarios had more late than early seral forest.  Figure 34: Area of forest available on the land base that is early seral forest in each scenario 93  5.2.6 Sensitivity Analysis Shadow prices were used as a proxy for sensitivity regarding each constraint in the model. See Appendix H for further descriptions of constraints and how they were calculated in Woodstock. Shadow prices were reported to show the sensitivity of each constraint. The further shadow prices were from 0, the more the optimized outcome would change if the constraint was changed by a value of 1 (Dykstra 1984). Table 33 shows shadow prices for each constraint in the base case scenario. 5.2.6.1 Base case scenario Table 33: Shadow prices of constraints in the base case scenario Period Harvest flow Even flow within 5% A non-declining growing stock UWR Age constraint Lower limit Upper limit 1 0.0 1.1 0.0 -32.2 0.0 2 -33.6 0.0 0.0 -0.9 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.9 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Figure 35: Area of forest available on the land base that is early seral forest in each scenario 94  Period Harvest flow Even flow within 5% A non-declining growing stock UWR Age constraint Lower limit Upper limit 10 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 1.0 33.6 0.0 0.0  The lower limit of the harvest flow in period 2 had a shadow price of -33.6. The upper limit shadow price was no more than 1 throughout, suggesting that the values meant to keep the harvest flow even were particularly sensitive in period 2. However, an even flow constraint was necessary for the base case, so this could not be changed. The even flow constraint itself had a shadow price of 33.6 in the last period and shadow prices of 0 in all other periods. It is speculated that the high sensitivity in the last period is due to Woodstock not taking into account any future beyond the end of the planning horizon, so it would be advantageous to the optimization of timber flow to harvest as much as possible in the last scenario. However, as previously stated, an even flow constraint was necessary and could not be changed, even if a very high sensitivity was calculated. 95  The non-declining growing stock constrain had a high shadow price of -32.2 in period 1. As with the even flow constraint, this was necessary for sustainable forest management. Shadow prices for UWR constraints had values of 0 throughout the planning horizon. 5.2.6.2 Scenario I Table 34 shows the shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario I. Table 34: Shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario I Period Harvest flow Even flow within 5% Clear-cutting constraints Partial-cutting constraints Non-declining growing stock Lower limit Upper limit Deer Moose Caribou Caribou 1 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1495.1 0.0 -3.6 2 -3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1295.3 1144.7 -2.9 3 -3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1264.4 1068.1 -21.0 4 -24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1049.5 7315.6 -0.7 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 193.4 305.1 -2.0 6 -1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147.8 1542.7 0.0 7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96  Period Harvest flow Even flow within 5% Clear-cutting constraints Partial-cutting constraints Non-declining growing stock Lower limit Upper limit Deer Moose Caribou Caribou 30 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 1.0 32.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 X  There was some sensitivity in the first few periods for a lower limit on timber volume. There was a shadow price of 1 for the upper limit of timber volume throughout the planning horizon. There was no sensitivity for an even flow for the entire planning horizon except in the last period, where there was a higher shadow price of 32.7. The even flow constraint was not changed because an even flow constraint was necessary. It is speculated that the high sensitivity there was because Woodstock does not consider any future beyond the end of the planning horizon, so it would be advantageous to the optimization of timber flow to harvest as much as possible in the last scenario. The constraint not to harvest a certain amount in deer and moose habitat had shadow prices of 0.0 throughout the planning horizon. A constraint requiring no clear or partial-cutting in caribou habitat was very significant for the first 6 periods, but had a shadow price of 0.0 for the rest of the planning horizon. In the future, a different plan should include a few hectares of harvesting in the caribou habitat. However, it could be argued this was done in Scenario II. Therefore, the constraints were not changed. The first 5 periods of a non-declining yield constraint had sensitivity, but there was no sensitivity in the rest of the planning horizon. Having a non-declining yield is a key step to sustainable forest management, so this cannot be changed no matter what the shadow price. 5.2.6.3 Scenario II Table 35 shows the shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario II. 97  Table 35: Shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario II Period Harvest flow Even flow within 5% Clear-cut constraints Partial-cut constraints Non-declining growing stock Lower limit Upper limit Deer Moose Caribou Caribou 1 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -6.3 2 -5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.2 3 -4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -22.7 4 -24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.9 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 1.0 34.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 X  98  There was sensitivity in periods 2-4 for the constraint on the lower limit of harvest flow. The upper limit had a shadow price no greater than 1 throughout the planning horizon except for period 1 where the shadow price equals 3.1. The even flow has a sensitivity of 0 except for the last period where the shadow price was high at 34.6. Deer, moose and caribou harvesting constraints had shadow prices of 0.0 throughout the planning horizon. Periods 1-5 had relatively low shadow prices for a non-declining growing stock. Therefore, there was not enough sensitivity throughout the planning horizon to change the constraints. 5.2.6.4 Scenario III Table 36 shows the shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario III. Table 36: Shadow prices for each constraint in Scenario III Period Harvest flow Even flow within 5% Clear-cut constraint Partial-cutting constraint Non-declining growing stock Lower limit Upper limit Deer Moose Caribou Caribou 1 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1447.0 0.0 -3.8 2 -3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1156.0 0.0 -2.9 3 -3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1204.0 0.0 -21.5 4 -24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1015.6 0.0 -0.8 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 127.6 0.0 -1.5 6 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.4 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99  Period Harvest flow Even flow within 5% Clear-cut constraint Partial-cutting constraint Non-declining growing stock Lower limit Upper limit Deer Moose Caribou Caribou 25 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 1.0 32.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 X  There were low shadow prices in periods 2-4 and 6 for the constraint on the lower limit of harvest volume. The upper limit had a shadow price of 1 for periods 7-35, as well as in sensitivity in periods 1 and 5. The even harvest flow constraint has a sensitivity of 0.0 except for in the last period, which has a high sensitivity value. Deer and moose harvesting constraints had shadow prices of 0.0 throughout the planning horizon. Clear-cutting of caribou habitat had very high shadow prices in periods 1-6. Similar to Scenario I, it could be argued that by relaxing this constraint, this scenario could look more like Scenario II, so the constraint was not changed. Caribou partial-cutting constraints had shadow prices of 0.0 throughout the planning horizon. Periods 1-5 had sensitivity for a non-declining growing stock but relatively low shadow prices, so it was not changed. 5.3 Discussion Regarding all the criteria, indicators and targets, the second hypothesis (The use of criteria, indicators and targets specifically designed to assess the development of goals and values over time will not lead to a different overall forest management approach) was disproven, as there were very different forest management strategies when Indigenous goals and values were incorporated into the forest management plan. 100  5.3.1 Comparison of Scenarios It is not suggested that the base case scenario be implemented as it does not represent Indigenous goals and value and only utilizes clear-cutting methods. Although clear-cutting has advantages, some partial-cutting methods were beneficial to reaching the desire goals and values. As well, the base case scenario did not meet the indicators for deer, trapping, habitat connectivity, resource conservation, fish, or water quality. However, caribou habitat, large carnivore habitat, berries, and medicinal plants did have indicators that were met, but not to the extent of the other scenarios. Because other scenarios better met goals and values, they were deemed more desirable overall. Scenario I was designed to emphasize wildlife and fisheries-related goals and values. As far as timber harvest was concerned, this scenario harvested the least amount of timber. However, all harvests were concentrating in the southern portion of the land base, which could decrease hauling costs. Although these factors were not considered, they could have positive economic effects and should be included in future research. Scenario II was meant to have a higher harvest flow than Scenario I, but also include some wildlife values. Unexpectedly, more harvesting occurred in this scenario than in the base case. According to Puettmann et al. (2009), partial-cutting was originally used to harvest the highest volume of wood possible, and only throughout the years has it become a method by which to reach environmental goals. The level of harvest in Scenario II makes it an excellent option for the community if they wish to harvest timber for revenue and keep their forestry practices in line with some of their wildlife values. Shortcomings of Scenario II would be that harvesting did occur on steeper slopes, which could affect fish and water quality important to the community. As well, in interviews and TUS, community members stated frequently they want less timber harvesting. Some suggested harvesting should stop completely, making this plan unsuitable for them. Scenario III was designed as a compromise but also included mixed-species planting. It has a lower timber flow than Scenario II and the base case, but includes more wildlife values that Scenario II. This would be good for the community if they wanted to keep their wildlife values and still harvest timber. Shortcomings of this plan are that there were compromises at almost every stage. Maximum slope harvest was a compromise between the target slope and the maximum slope modeled in the base case. The size of WTPs was a compromise between the target size and the minimum size modeled in the base case. The amount of partial-cutting in moose and deer habitat 101  was between that of Scenarios I and II. However, the plan still met many indicators, and was the only one that attempted mixed species planting. All of the alternative scenarios had more late seral forest than the base case scenario. Although this was not discussed in detail in the creation of the criteria, indicators, and targets, older forests in BC are correlated with a higher plant diversity, especially in the understory (Qian et al 1997). It should also be noted that each scenario has 57 m no-harvest riparian buffers. One reason for keeping no-harvest buffers the same width throughout all scenarios is that it is very difficult to change widths in Woodstock. Other management planning software has better ways of changing buffer widths, so changing buffer widths between scenarios could be something for future work. As well, the 57 m no-harvest riparian buffer helped meet many targets for indicators and so it was deemed beneficial to keep the buffers the same increased width throughout all three alternative scenarios. Although no-harvest buffers were helpful, they could also have negative effects on the ecosystem. Since they are part of a no-harvest zone throughout the entire planning period, they could become heavy with fuels and burn easily. Since they are all connected, a lot of fire damage could result. This problem is also true in Scenario I, where a large portion of the land is unharvested to meet caribou habitat constraints. Harvesting in Scenarios II and III in caribou habitat might decrease caribou viability but it could also increase fire breaks, lowering fire risks. In all scenarios of this plan, the target that at least 10% of the habitat be on south-facing grassy slopes with Douglas-fir was not met as sufficient areas meeting these criteria did not exist. The possibility of planting Douglas-fir on slopes specifically for deer habitat would be something to consider in future studies. Another topic where expectations were not reached was that there was no increase of deciduous stands in any scenario. This was a target for forest resources conservation and would have added to moose habitat quality. Future work could include locating appropriate areas on the land base for deciduous plantings 5.3.2 Limitations of the GIS Model Development of the GIS model followed the "guide to building a resultant GIS model" (Man 2016), but was not without its limitations. Firstly, if this experiment was repeated, then it would be best not to develop AUs to match the TSA AUs. Woodstock could determine the age of a stand, 102  whether it was in UWR, and other areas used by TSAs to group their AUs. Therefore, grouping AUs by BEC Zone, leading species, and site index through the entire land base would have been more efficient. Not only would this have been easier for the researcher to implement, but may have decreased the size of the model. The value of "current_year" at the beginning of the planning horizon was also predicted to not to be entirely accurate. There were many polygons where data for the most recent harvest were not available. However, since the rotation age is about 100 years, it is predicted that after about 100 years, most "current_year" values became more accurate. This discrepancy would have also affected the volumes harvested. Therefore, more accurate GIS data or on-the-ground surveys should be completed before any parts of this plan are implemented on the land base. This model was very large, resulting at times in issues with ArcGIS. The total area that the NStQ want to create a forest management plan for was 5.03 million hectares. This amount of land was very difficult to model due to the size of the files and the number of parameters used. To include important criteria, indicators, and targets for the community members, the researcher felt it was important to have many different variables in the model, but this increase the size of the model. However, because long-term and large-scale planning is important, the researcher suggests this process should be repeated. Even under opportune conditions, modeling at large scales for specific habitat goals is challenging. More research is needed on ways to improve this process in future work. 5.3.3 The Development of Scenarios Common practice in forest management planning is to present a client with a number of scenarios from which to choose. The three scenarios created in this thesis, along with the comparison with the base case, give the NStQ options for how they could potentially manage their forest for different values. Development of criteria, indicators and targets give clients ways to quantify those values. Karjala et al. (2003) used similar methods of scenario planning by using criteria and indicators. Bettinger et al. (2009) stated that scenarios are an important part of the planning process in answering a client's "what if" questions regarding forest management options. This thesis aimed to include three alternative management scenarios, including a sensitivity analysis using shadow prices, for the purpose of answering "what if" questions. While Sheppard and Meitner (2005) 103  discussed holding a public forum to determine how the criteria and indicators should be implemented into different forest planning scenarios, this thesis followed a different path where scenarios were created solely by the researcher. Future research and management planning with the NStQ could benefit by turning to the community for assistance with scenario design. There were many ways to approach determining the constraints for this model, especially those involving timber harvest strategies (clear or partial-cut) in moose and deer habitat. The desired effect was to encourage partial-cutting in deer and moose habitat, and discourage clear-cutting. Two methods explored in this regard. The first was to specify that the model would not "clear-cut" more than 25% of moose or deer habitat, leaving the model to decide how much partial-cutting could occur. This method worked well for moose and deer because partial-cutting was advantageous to their habitat targets. Another way to achieve partial or clear-cutting restrictions would be to write a constraint that X-% of harvests in a habitat area be partial-cut and X-% harvests be clear-cut. While this method would work, it would also take away some of the optimization qualities of LP by dictating a precise percentage of both types of cutting. Whereas in the former methodology, the amount of restrictions put on the model is limited. Regarding all constraints in the model, when using a program like Woodstock that incorporates LP, it is best not to dictate strict constraints unless they are necessary. Otherwise, the solution derived cannot take full advantage of the optimization function. 5.3.4 Lessons Learned and Future Research Needs A limitation of this study was that timber volume – rather than income or net present value - was used to determine economic stability. Income or net present value were not used because of the long planning horizon, and they were determined to be outside the scope of this thesis to calculate accurate timber costs for that time frame. Therefore, more volume, regardless of species, was a measurement of success. More timber volume does not always mean more value, however, so this was a limitation in itself. Costs for planting, hauling, road building, and employment were not included in this plan but should be before any scenario is implemented. It was assumed site index would not change over the planning horizon. However, erosion due to stream meandering or landslides could decrease site index just as fertilization could have an opposite effect. The model also did not account for tree mortality. Yield curves did show a 104  given stand will eventually loose volume, but whether an individual tree would die was not modeled. As well, fire and pest outbreaks were not modeled but could be in future work. An assumption of LP optimization is that all pieces of a model are correct. Only in rare cases is this true in forest modeling. Yield curves, species inventory, and site indices rarely reach 100% accuracy. However, to create forest management plans, assumptions need to be made. Although never completely accurate, forest management plans are important tools to help predict future outcomes. Regarding timber yield, it is impossible to develop curves that are perfect representations of individual stands. To create yield curves in the study model, a set of parameters had to be entered into the program VDYP. On occasion, uncertainties arose as to what these parameters should have been. For example, if an AU was developed to represent a Douglas-fir leading stand, and that was the only requirement to be included in that AU, the yield curve would not take into account any competition from other species that may have been in that stand. Also, definitions for some AUs included BEC Zones but others did not, so assumptions had to be made. Although the difference in growth between certain BEC Zones may not have been significant, development of more accurate yield curves should be explored in future work.  In addition, if an AU was meant to represent a deciduous stand, and the only criteria was that the stand had to be a deciduous leading species, that could mean that there are stands within the same AU that have different leading species. Since there were 105 AUs, decisions on how to represent which leading species and percentages were put into VDYP had to be made on a case to case basis and are shown in Appendix F. Corridors for caribou were not included in this forest management plan. When wildlife habitat areas were created, maps of the forested and non-forested land base showed it was not practical to connect caribou habitat on NStQ lands with that of surrounding caribou habitat because of the non-forested land in between. This meant that corridors had to be created to achieve connectivity. Limitations were also seen regarding WTPs. When designing WTPs, it was assumed they would be taken out of the harvesting plan forever and would not account towards the growing stock. This is because of the way growing stock and volume harvested were measured. To calculate timber volume harvested with a 13% retention WTP, the total stand volume curve was multiplied by 0.87. However, similar calculations for growing stock curves were not performed. It was not 105  possible to multiply the volume of trees on the land by 1.08 to make up for the loss because it could not be guaranteed that all residual stands at all periods had been impacted by harvesting, and thus could have been underestimated by 13%. It should also be noted that the way periods are calculated in Woodstock could influence ages or harvesting and early and late seral forest. In this forest management plan, periods were equal to 10 years. According to the user's manual (2013), Woodstock takes the age of the stand, divides it by 10, and truncates that number. Then it adds 1, and that is the period. For example, in the alternative scenarios, it was expressed that partial-cutting could occur at 150 years. This was expressed as period 15. According to the way Woodstock calculates periods, any stand 140 to 149 years would fall under this period. Uneven-aged stands were not managed for in the alternative scenarios because they were deemed beyond the scope of this research. This could have been used to model forests for habitat and biodiversity. However, one type of partial-cutting method, (2-pass partial-cuts), was modeled. As long as a homogeneous group of even-aged trees is removed from the land base, shelterwood, strip cutting, and commercial thinning could make predicting future stand growth easier and create an alternative to 2-pass partial cutting. These options should be modelled in future work. Another limitation of the scenario design is that partial-cutting was often favoured over clear-cutting. There are many advantages to partial-cutting, such as facilitating natural regeneration (Puettmann et al. 2009), enhancing biodiversity, mimicking natural disturbances (Serrouya and D'Eon 2004), and improving moose and deer habitat as described in section 4.2.1. However, there is also evidence that partial-cutting methods can increase forest fragmentation (Li et al. 1993) and limit light needed for regeneration. Clear-cuts have advantages too, such as decreasing construction of access roads and fragmentation (Rajala 1998; Puettmann et al. 2009). Decreasing the amount of area covered by clear-cuts can increase connectivity for many different forest dwelling species (Bierregaard et al. 1992; Popescu and Hunter 2011). Clear-cuts can increase erosion (Mohr et al. 2013). These scenarios assumed that plants would naturally regenerate or be planted without much consideration for the size of the openings created. Shade intolerant trees, such as lodgepole pine, may not grow in small partial-cuts without sunlight (Rajala 1998; Puettmann et al. 2009).  106  6 Conclusion Section 3 of this thesis attempted to support or refute the first null hypothesis: H0,1: There is no difference between the goals for forest management expressed by Indigenous communities and those included in current industrial forest management planning The results of section 3 rejected this hypothesis. Current industrial forest management practices did not include Indigenous goals and values. Sections 4 and 5 attempted to support or refuting the second null hypothesis: H0,2: The use of criteria, indicators and targets specifically designed to assess the development of goals and values over time will not lead to a different overall forest management approach. This hypothesis was also rejected. Criteria, indicators, and targets designed and used in a set of forest management planning scenarios do differ from a forest management planning scenario than what is currently happening on the land base. The results of this work prove how important it is that all organizations which manage forests in BC work with Indigenous communities to employ methods similar to those described in this thesis. A method by which to engage community members, determine their goals and values, and write a forest management plan based on those goals and values was developed and described. This process will become important as more Indigenous communities gain control over the resources in their traditional territories. Although there were limitations in developing the GIS model and scenarios, it is important this work be done. It is not realistic that completely accurate forest management plans can be created with the current technology. However, it is important such plans be developed if community goals and values are to be achieved. This document is a starting point toward that end. As well, this research shows these criteria and indicators can be used in a management plan and demonstrates there is potential in the forests of BC to harvest trees and respect and meet Indigenous values. More plans developed similarly could have positive implications for industrial forestry companies and Indigenous communities, not only by creating forest management plans that better reflect Indigenous values, but also by building trust. The more that forest managers work with Indigenous communities now, the better. 107  This research provides a framework regarding how Indigenous communities can manage their own forests to promote intrinsic goals and values. It is possible for community members to carry out the steps of this thesis and create plans on forests licenses under their own jurisdiction. However, because goals and values can differ among communities, criteria and indicators evaluated in this study may not apply to all communities. In summary, a goal of this thesis was to create a forest management plan for the NStQ that addresses their desires and needs. Having such a plan is a major step in enabling them to manage natural resources in their traditional territory. A second was to recognize the NStQ’s contribution to the scientific process. The community was given the opportunity to achieve these goals, and it is the opinion of the researcher that both goals were achieved.  108  References 2009. Quesnel Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review: Data Package. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa26/2009_current/26ts09dp.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). Adam, M. C. and Kneeshaw, D. 2008. Local level criteria and indicator frameworks: A tool used to assess aboriginal forest ecosystem values. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (7): 2024–2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.051. Armleder, H., Waterhouse, M., Keisker, D., Dawson, R. 1994. Winter habitat use by mule deer in the central interior of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72 (10): 1721–1725, http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/saf/0015749x/v50n2/s1.pdf?expires=1501004716&id=91112928&titleid=4023&accname=University+of+British+Columbia+Library&checksum=112B653943E2F95A38DB7D06803ADBC6 (accessed 24 February 2016). Baker, D. C. and McLelland, J. N. 2003. Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia’s environmental assessment process for first nations’ participation in mining development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 (5): 581–603, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00093-3 (accessed 25 July 2017). Bannerman, S. 1998. Seral Stages across Forested Landscapes: Relationships to Biodiversity part 7 of 7. Ministry of Forests Research Program, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/En/En18.pdf (accessed 27 March 2017). BC Ministry of Forests. 1995. Prince George TSA Timber Supply Analysis. BC Ministry of Forests, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa24/tsr1/24ts95ar.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). BC Stats. 2006. British Columbia Statistical Profile of Aboriginal Peoples 2006: With Emphasis on Labour Market and Post Secondary Issues, http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/8a0f2e52-735b-4b20-aa09-d023f0f7797b/Census2006-AboriginalProfiles-AboriginalNon-Aboriginal-BritishColumbia.pdf (accessed 11 October 2015). 109  BC Stats. 2015. Aboriginal Community Data Initiative, http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/AboriginalPeoples/AboriginalReports.aspx (accessed 5 January 2016). BC Supreme Court. 1998. The Nisga’a Final Agreement, 1998, https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb992-e.htm (accessed 25 July 2017). BC Treaty Commission. 1999. A Lay Person’s Guide to Delgamuukw. Vancouver, BC: BC Treaty Commission, http://www.bctreaty.ca/sites/default/files/delgamuukw.pdf (accessed 25 July 2017). BC Treaty Commission. 2017a. About Us, http://www.bctreaty.ca/about-us (accessed 27 February 2017). BC Treaty Commission. 2017b. Six Stages, http://www.bctreaty.ca/six-stages (accessed 27 February 2017). BC Treaty Commission. 2017c. Why are treaties being negotiated? http://www.bctreaty.ca/why-are-treaties-being-negotiated (accessed 7 February 2017). Bettinger, P., Boston, K., Siry, J., Grebner, D. 2009. Forest Management and Planning. USA: Elsevier Science. Bierregaard, R., Lovejoy, T., Kapos, V., Hutchings, R. 1992. The Biological Dynamics of Tropical Rainforest Fragments. BioScience 42 (11): 859–866. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312085. Booth, A. L. and Skelton, N. W. 2011. Industry and government perspectives on First Nations’ participation in the British Columbia environmental assessment process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (3): 216–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.11.002. British Columbia Treaty Commission. 1992. British Columbia Treaty Commission Agreement, http://www.bctreaty.ca/sites/default/files/092192_bc-treaty-commission-agreement.pdf (accessed 17 March 2017). Brodeur, V., Ouellet, J., Courtois, R., Fortin, D. 2008. Habitat selection by black bears in an intensively logged boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86 (11): 1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1139/Z08-118. 110  Castañeda, F., Palmberg-Lerche, C., and Vuorinen, P. 2001. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: A compendium, http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/AC135E/AC135E00.HTM (accessed 25 May 2017). Castelle, A. J., Johnson, A. W., and Conolly, C. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements-A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23 (5): 878–882. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300050004x. Chisholm, B. 2013. 9: Early Occupation and Forest Resource Use in Prehistoric British Columbia. In Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada, ed. D. B. Tindall, R. Trosper, and P. Perreault, 151–160. Vancouver: UBC Press. Coates, K. and Carlson, K. T. 2013. 2: Different Peoples, Shared Lands. In Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada, ed. D. B. Tindall, R. L. Trosper, and P. Perreault, 15–30. Vancouver: UBC Press. Collier, R. and Hobby, T. 2010. It’s all about relationships: First Nations and non-timber resource management in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 11 (1 & 2): 1–8, http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/60/20 (accessed 27 February 2017). Connor, S. 2013. Logging has allowed poachers to pick off the African forest elephant at their will. Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/logging-has-allowed-poachers-to-pick-off-the-african-forest-elephant-at-their-will-9013763.html (accessed 18 May 2017). Davis, J. and Twidale, E. 2011. Indigenous Food Systems on Vancouver Island: Cultivating Food Sovereignty. Vancouver Island: Vancouver Island Community Research Alliance & Office of Community Based Research, http://www.mapping.uvic.ca/vicra/sites/mapping.uvic.ca.vicra/files/Indigenous%20Food%20Systems%20Final.pdf (accessed 11 October 2015). Davis, T. 2012. The Role of Anthropogenic Corridors in the Interactions between Wolves (Canis Lupus), Caribou (Rangifer Tarandus Caribou) and Moose (Alces alces) in Eastern Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba (2012), 111  https://search.proquest.com/docview/1506938073?pq-origsite=gscholar (accessed 19 July 2017). Day, J. 1980. Selection Management of Interior Douglas-fir for Mule Deer Winter Range, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC (1980), http://afrf-forestry.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/03/Ken-Days-MF-Thesis.pdf (accessed 18 May 2017). de Paoli, M. 1999. Beyond Tokenism: Aboriginal Involvement in Archaeological Resource Management in British Columbia. Master’s dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC (1999). https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0089053. Department of Justice, Canada. 1982. Constitution Act, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/CONST_E.pdf (accessed 16 August 2017). Douglas, G., Meidinger, D., and Pojar, J. 2002. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia: General Summary, Maps and Keys. Victoria: B.C. ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and B.C. Ministry of Forests. Dykstra, D. P. 1984. Mathematical Programming for Natural Resource Management. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc. ESRI. 2016. Repair Geometry, http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/data-management-toolbox/repair-geometry.htm (accessed 29 December 2016). Folke, C., Colding, J., and Berkes, F. 2000. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience, 1st. Cambridge, U.K., New York: Cambridge University Press. Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range. 2002. Timber Supply Review Backgrounder. Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/pubs/tsr/timber%20supply%20review%20backgrounder_nov_2013.pdf (accessed 16 December 2015). Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd. 2004. Robson Valley Timber Supply Area: Timber Supply Review 3 Data Package. Forest Ecosystem Solutions Ltd, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa17/tsr3/17ts04dp.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). 112  Foryet, W. J. and Jessup, D. 1982. Fatal Pneumonia of Bighorn Sheep Following Association with Domestic Sheep. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 18 (2): 163–168. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-18.2.163. Frideres, J. 2013. Circle of Influence. In Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada, ed. D. B. Tindall, R. L. Trosper, and P. Perreault, 31–47. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Gottesfeld, L. M. J. 1992. The Importance of Bark Products in the Aboriginal Economies of Northwestern British Columbia, Canada. Economic Botany 46 (2): 148–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/4255420. Government of British Columbia. 2014. First Nations in Treaty Process, 18 September 2015, http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/first-nations-in-treaty-process (accessed 12 November 2015). Haley, D. 1966. An economic appraisal of sustained yield forest management for British Columbia. University of British Columbia, https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0075427 (accessed 16 August 2017). Hall, A. 2011. Aboriginal Treaties, 07/23/2015, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-treaties/ (accessed 11 October 2015). Hamilton, D. 2011. Silviculture options for use in ranges designated for the conservation of mountain caribou in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 12 (2): 39–54, http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/viewFile/68/87 (accessed 25 May 2017). Hanson, E. 2009. Aboriginal Title, http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal-title.html (accessed 12 October 2015.). Hibbard, M., Lane, M, and Rasmussen, K. 2008. The Split Personality of Planning: Indigenous Peoples and Planning for Land and Resource Management. Journal of Planning Literature 23 (2): 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412208322922. Hickey, G. and Innes, J. 2005. Scientific Review and Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest Management Criteria and Indicators Initiatives: FORREX Forest Research Extension 113  Partnership. Kamloops, BC, www.forrex.org/publications/FORREXSeries/FS17.pdf (Accessed 16 May 2017). Hillier, F. and Lieberman, G. 1967. Operations Research. San Francisco: Holden-Day, Inc. Honda-McNeil, J. and Parsons, D. 2003. Best practices handbook for traditional use studies. Edmonton: Government of Alberta Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/bookstore_pdfs/29814.pdf (accessed 18 August 2017). Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12 (2), https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/ (accessed 15 October 2015). Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Lands Directorate. Historical Canada 1899 with Treaties, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/hc1899trty_1100100028806_eng.pdf (accessed 9 December 2015). Innes, J and Tikina, A. (eds.). 2017. Sustainable Forest Management: From Concept to Practice. Oxon: Routledge. Josenhans, H., Fedje, D., Pienitz, R., Southon, J. 1997. Early Humans and Rapidly Changing Holocene Sea Levels in the Queen Charlotte Islands-Hecate Strait, British Columbia, Canada. Science 277 (5322): 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5322.71. Joseph, B. 2017. Indian Act and Elected Chief and Band Council System, https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indian-act-and-elected-chief-and-band-council-system (accessed 16 May 2017). Kao, C. and Brodie, J. D. 1979. Goal programming for reconciling economic, even-flow, and regulation objectives in forest harvesting scheduling. Can. J. For. Res. 9 (4): 525–531, http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/x79-087 (accessed 21 July 2017). Karjala, M., Sherry, E., and Dewhurst, S. 2003. The Aboriginal Forest Planning Process: A Guidebook for Identifying Community-Level Criteria and Indicators. Prince George, BC: Ecosystem Science Management Program, University of Northern British Columbia, http://researchforest.unbc.ca/afpp/AFPPMain.htm (accessed 16 August 2017). 114  Karjala, M. and Dewhurst, S. 2003. Including aboriginal issues in forest planning: a case study in central interior British Columbia, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning 64 (1-2): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00196-2. Lessard, J. and Hayes, D.2003. Effects of elevated water temperature on fish and macroinvertebrate communities below small dams. River Res. Applic. 19 (7): 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.713. Li, H., Franklin, J., Swanson, F., Swanson, F., and Spies, T. 1993. Developing alternative forest cutting patterns: A simulation approach. Landscape Ecol 8 (1): 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129867. Macdonald, J., MacIsaac, E., and Herunter, H. 2003. The effect of variable-retention riparian buffer zones on water temperatures in small headwater streams in sub-boreal forest ecosystems of British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 33 (8): 1371–1382. https://doi.org/10.1139/x03-015. Man, C. 2016. Guide to build a resultant GIS v1. Unpublished manual, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Manitoba Conservation Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch. 2011. Action Plans for Boreal Woodland Caribou Ranges in Manitoba. Manitoba Conservation Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch, http://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/wildlife/pdf/caribou_action_plan_11_29_2011.pdf (accessed 18 May 2017). Maser, C., Tarrant, R., Trappe, J., Franklin, J. 1988. From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station, http://hdl.handle.net/1957/4701 (accessed 10 July 2017). Mathes, M., Hinch, S., Cooke, S., Crossin, G., Patterson, D., Lotto, A. and Farrel, A. 2010. Effect of water temperature, timing, physiological condition, and lake thermal refugia on migrating adult Weaver Creek sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67 (1): 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-158. McIntosh, P. and Laffan, M. 2005. Soil erodibility and erosion hazard: Extending these cornerstone soil conservation concepts to headwater streams in the forestry estate in 115  Tasmania. Forest Ecology and Management 220 (1-3): 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.010. McNeil, K. 2016. Indigenous Law and Aboriginal Title. All Papers (267): 1–24 http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/all_papers/267 (accessed 23 March 2017). Ministry of Environment. 2009. A Review of Management Actions to Recover Mountain Caribou in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/files/Final_ST_Report_23Feb10.pdf (accessed 24 May 2017). Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 1999. Mountain Caribou. Victoria, BC, http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk/brochures/mountain_caribou.pdf (accessed 4 April 2017). Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 2000a. Caribou in British Columbia, http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/caribou/caribou_in_britishcolombia.pdf (accessed 24 May 2017). Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 2000b. Moose in British Columbia, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/moose.pdf (accessed 29 December 2016). Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 2000c. Mule and Black-tailed Deer in British Columbia. British Columbia: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/muledeer.pdf (accessed 4 April 2017). Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 1995. Riparian Management Area Guidebook https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/riparian/Ripar5.htm#link99 (accessed 17 May 2017). Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2004. Government Actions Regulation: GAR. In Forest and Ranges Practices Act, http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/582_2004 (accessed 16 August 2017). 116  Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. Robson Valley Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review: Data Package https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa17/tsr3/17ts12dp.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013. Williams Lake Timber Supply Area, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa29/tsr2013/29ts13dp_final.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2015. Prince George Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review: Data Package, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa24/current2015/24tsdp_2015.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resources. 1996. Wildlife Act, http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96488_01 (accessed 8 June 2017). Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resources. 2006. Wildlife Tree Retention: Management Guidance, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/web/wlt/policies/WT-Guidance-05-2006.pdf (accessed 6 July 2017). Ministry of Forests. 2002. Forest Road Engineering Guidebook: 6. Road Deactivation, second edition. Ministry of Forests, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/road/fre.pdf (accessed 19 May 2017). Ministry of Forests. 2003. Silviculture Systems Handbook for British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00085/silvsystemshdbk-web.pdf (accessed 25 May 2017). Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, and Ministry of Energy and Mines. 2000. Order Establishing Resource Management Zones and Resource Management Zone Objectives within the area covered by the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan, pursuant to sections 3(1) and 3(2), as well as section 9.1 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (the Act), https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/vancouver_island/docs/HLP_order_final.pdf (accessed 24 May 2017). 117  Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2002. Forest and Ranges Practices Act, http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/consol21/consol21/00_02069_01#section149 (accessed 8 June 2017). Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. 100 Mile House Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review: Data Package, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa23/current_2012/23tsdp12.pdf (accessed 25 July 2017). Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2015a. Kamloops Timber Supply Area Timber Supply Review: Data Package, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa11/2014_tsr/11tsdp_updated_Sept_2015.pdf (accessed 25 July 2017). Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2015b. Quesnel Timber Supply Area: Timber Supply Review Data Package, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa26/2015/26ts15dp.pdf (accessed 1 December 2015). Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands. 2010. The State of British Columbia’s Forests, http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-and-reporting/reporting/envreportbc/archived-reports/sof_2010.pdf (accessed 7 March 2017). Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2005. Omineca Regional Wildlife Tree Patch (WTP) Retention Guideline, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omineca/documents/wtp_retention_guideline_march2005.pdf (accessed 18 May 2017). Mitchell, D. and Hobby, T. 2010. From Rotations to Revolutions: Non-timber Forest Products and the New World of Forest Management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 11 (1&2): 27–38, http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/58 (accessed 16 August 2017). Mitchell-Banks, P. The Impact of Five Forest Commissions on the History and Practice of Forestry in British Columbia, Canada. In Agnoletti, M.; Anderson, S. (Ed.) 2000 – Forest history. 118  Mohr, C., Coppus, R., Iroumé, A. Huber, A., Bronstert, A. 2013. Runoff generation and soil erosion processes after clear cutting. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 118 (2): 814–831. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrf.20047. National Aboriginal Forestry Association. About NAFA, http://www.nafaforestry.org/about.html (accessed 24 February 2016). Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw. 2015. 2015 Orange Shirt Day- Every Child Matters, http://nstqtreaty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sept-Oct-2015-Lexeyem.pdf (accessed 12 January 2016). Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw. 2014. NStQ Treaty Group » The People, http://nstqtreaty.ca/about-the-nstq/the-people/ (accessed 12 January 2016). NStQ. 2016. NStQ Modern Treaty. Lexey’em “to tell a story”: 6. Special Treaty Edition. O’Faircheallaigh, C. 2007. Environmental agreements, EIA follow-up and aboriginal participation in environmental management: The Canadian experience. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (4): 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.002. Palik, B., Mitchell, R., and Hiers, J. 2002. Modeling silviculture after natural disturbance to sustain biodiversity in the longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem: balancing complexity and implementation. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 347–356, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0378112701005710/1-s2.0-S0378112701005710-main.pdf?_tid=a3d66bf0-3ffb-11e7-9a45-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1495573747_2c8328e8e9b33219c9985c0aadf272b7 (accessed 23 May 2017). Parker, K., Robbins, C., and Hanley, T. 1984. Energy Expenditures for Locomotion by Mule Deer and Elk. The Journal of Wildlife Management 48 (2): 474–488, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-541X%28198404%2948%3A2%3C474%3AEEFLBM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E (accessed 2 May 2017). Parsons, R. and Prest, G. 2003. Aboriginal forestry in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 79 (4), http://metisportals.ca/MetisRights/wp/wp-admin/images/Aboriginal%20Forestry%20in%20Canada.pdf (accessed 30 September 2015). 119  Pedersen, L. 2003. Allowable Annual Cuts in British Columbia: The Agony and the Ecstasy. Jubilee Lecture, Vancouver, BC, 20 March, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/pubs/jubilee_ubc.pdf (accessed 24 February 2016). Penikett, T. 2006. Reconciliation: First Nations Treaty Making in British Columbia. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre Ltd., https://books.google.ca/books?id=bhujtZuDNFUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed 17 March 2017). Pinkerton, E. 2000. Integrated management of a temperate montane forest ecosystem through holistic forestry: a British Columbia example. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, ed. F. Berkes, C. Folke, and J. Colding, 363–389. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popescu, V. and Hunter, M. 2011. Clear-cutting affects habitat connectivity for a forest amphibian by decreasing permeability to juvenile movements. Ecological Applications 21 (4): 1283–1295. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0658.1. Pratt, A. 2004. Treaties vs. Terra Nullius: “Reconciliation,” Treaty-Making and Indigenous Sovereignty in Australia and Canada. Indigenous Law Journal 3: 43–60, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/17116/1/ILJ-3-Pratt.pdf (accessed 5 January 2016). Puettmann, K., Coates, K., and Messier, C. 2009. A Critique of Silviculture. Washington, DC: Island Press. Qian, H., Klinka, K., Sivak, B. 1997. Diversity of the understory vascular vegetation in 40 year-old and old-growth forest stands on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Journal of Vegetation Science 8 (6): 773-780, https://doi.org/10.2307/3237021. Rajala, R. 1998. Clearcutting the Pacific rain forest: Production, science, and regulation. Vancouver [B.C.]: UBC Press. Rettie, J. and Messier, F. 2000. Hierarchical Habitat Selection by Woodland Caribou: Its Relationship to Limiting Factors. Ecography 23 (4): 466–478, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3683077 (accessed 20 April 2017). 120  Richardson, J. S. and Danehy, R. J. 2007. A Synthesis of the Ecology of Headwater Streams and their Riparian Zones in Temperate Forests. Forest Science 53 (2): 131–147, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/saf/fs/2007/00000053/00000002/art00004 (accessed 16 August 2017). Rossiter, D. and Wood, P. K. 2005. Fantastic topographies: Neo-liberal responses to Aboriginal land claims in British Columbia. Canadian Geographer 49 (4): 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0008-3658.2005.00101.x. Seip, D. R. 1992. Factors limiting woodland caribou populations and their interrelationships with wolves and moose in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70 (8): 1494–1503. https://doi.org/10.1139/z92-206. Serrouya, R. and D’Eon, R. 2004. Variable retention forest harvesting: Research synthesis and implementation guidelines. Canada: Sustainable Forest Management Network, https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/6d56zx24c/SR_200405serrouyarvari_en.pdf (accessed 6 July 2017). Sheppard, S. and Meitner, M. 2005. Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management 207 (1-2): 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032. Sherry, E., Halseth, R., Fondahl, G., Karjala, M., and Leon, B. 2005a. Local-level criteria and indicators: An aboriginal perspective on sustainable forest management. Forestry 78 (5): 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpi048. Sherry, E., Dewhurst, S., and Karjala, M. 2005b. Aboriginal Forest Planning: Lessons from Three Community Pilot Projects. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 25 (1): 51–91, http://www3.brandonu.ca/library/CJNS/25.1/cjnsv25no1_pg51-91.pdf (accessed 20 October 2016). Slattery, B. 2015. The Constitutional Dimensions of Aboriginal Title. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Case Conference 71 (1): 45–66, http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/3 (accessed 23 March 2017). Nuxalk Smayusta. 2012. Nuxalk Smayusta: BC Treaty Process, 8 May 2012, http://www.nuxalk.net/html/treaty.htm (accessed 12 November 2015). 121  Sterritt, N. 1999. The Nisga’a Treaty: Competing Claims Ignored! BC Studies (120): 73–98, http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/download/1479/1523 (accessed 17 March 2017). Stevenson, D., Ritchie, C., Vinnedge, J., Brade, B. and Arthur, B. 2003. Mountain Caribou Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) Report - (U-7-003) - Omineca Region, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omineca/documents/U-7-003.pdf (accessed 15 August 2018). Stevenson, M. 2013. Treaty Daze. In Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada, ed. D. B. Tindall, D., Trosper R., and Perreault P., 48–73. UBC Press. Stswecem’c Xgat’tem. Stswecem’c Xgat’tem: Canoe/Dog Creek Indian Band, http://canoecreekband.ca/ (accessed 6 January 2016). Supreme Court of Canada. 1887. St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. Supreme Court Reports 13, 577–676, 20 June 1887, https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/3769/1/document.do (accessed 23 March 2017). Supreme Court of Canada. 2014. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia. Supreme Court Reports 2, 1–153, 26 June 2014, https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do (accessed 1 February 2016). T’exelc. 2016. Secwepemc Hunting Beliefs – T’exelc, http://williamslakeband.ca/secwepemc-hunting-beliefs/ (accessed 15 January 2016). The First Nations of British Columbia, the Government of British Columbia, and the Government of Canada. 1991. The Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force. British Columbia Claims Task Force, http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations/report_british_columbia_claims_task_force_full.pdf (accessed 17 March 2017). The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. 1996. The Land Act, http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96245_01#section1 (accessed 8 June 2017). 122  The University of British Columbia. 2016. Indigenous Peoples: Language Guidelines, http://assets.brand.ubc.ca/downloads/ubc_indigenous_peoples_language_guide.pdf (accessed 16 August 2017). Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd. 2004. Data Package Timber Supply Review 2004: Lillooet Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa15/tsr3/datapkg.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). Timberline Natural Resource Group Ltd. 2007. Timber Supply Analysis Information Package: Kamloops TSA Timber Supply Review 4. Kelowna, BC, https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa11/current_tsr/Kamloops_TSA_Infopack_TSR4_v2_July07.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). Tindall, D. and Trosper, R. 2013. The Social Context of Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Land Issues. In Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada, ed. D. B. Tindall, R. L. Trosper, and P. Perreault, 3–11. Vancouver: UBC Press. Tsq’escenemc. n.d., http://www.canimlakeband.com/about-us/our-people (accessed 12 January 2016). Turner, C. and Fondahl, G. 2015. “Overlapping claims” to territory confronting treaty-making in British Columbia: Causes and implications. The Canadian Geographer 59 (4): 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12205. Turner, N. 2001. “Doing it right”: Issues and practices of sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products relating to First Peoples in British Columbia”. B.C. Journal of Ecosystems and Management 1 (1): 1–11, http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/215/134 (accessed 10 September 2015). Turner, N. and Clifton, H. 2009. “It’s so different today”: Climate change and indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.005. Turner, N., Davidson-Hunt, I., and O’Flaherty, M. 2003. Living on the Edge: Ecological and Cultural Edges as Sources of Diversity for Social-Ecological Resilience. Human Ecology 31 (3): 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025023906459. 123  Turpel, M. 1993. Patriarchy and Paternalism: The Legacy of the Canadian State for First Nations Women. Canadian Journal of Women & the Law 6 (1): 174–192, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cajwol6&div=17&g_sent=1&collection=journals (accessed 16 August 2017). Tyrrell, A., McCracken, J., Smith, S., Fister, W., Alexander, D., Baker, B., Griffin, D., Verbruggen, K., Donovan, M., Ewanchuck, D., Hogg, A., Hyslop, S., McFadden, L., Hauk, E., Gibbons, J., and Neumeier, W. 2014. Fort St. John Pilot Project: Sustainable Forest Management Plan 2013 CSA and Regulatory Annual Report, https://www.canfor.com/documents/2014/fsjpp_2013-14_annual_report_-2014_10_29_final_vers.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2017). United Nations. 1998. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017). Usher, P., Tough, F., and Galois, R. 1992. Reclaiming the land: aboriginal title, treaty rights and land claims in Canada. Applied Geography 12: 109–132, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0143622892900025 (accessed 17 December 2015). Wall, W., Belisle, M., and Luke, L. 2011. British Columbia’s interior: Moose Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 11 (3): 45–49, http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/46/39 (accessed 20 December 2016). Williams, D. 1993. Timber Supply in British Columbia: The Historical Context. In Determining Timber Supply & Allowable Cuts in BC, 9-14. Vancouver: Association of BC Professional Foresters. Wilson, P. 2002. Native Peoples and the Management of Natural Resources in the Pacific Northwest: A Comparative Assessment. American Review of Canadian Studies 32 (3): 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/02722010209481668. Wong, C. 2008. Environmental Impacts of Mountain Pine Beetle in the Southern Interior. Prince George, BC: BC Ministry of Environment, http://www.sibacs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/environmental-impacts-report-final.pdf (accessed 16 August 2017). 124  Xatśūll First Nation. 2007. Xatśūll Culture & History, http://www.xatsull.com/Community/History/tabid/71/Default.aspx (accessed 8 January 2016).  125  Appendices Appendix A: Letter of Approval  To whom it may concern,  On behalf of the members of Dog/Canoe Creek Indian Band (Stswecem’c Xgat’tem), Canim Lake Band (Tsq’escenemc), Williams Lake Indian Band (T’exelc), and Soda Creek Indian Band (Xatśūll), we, would like to express our willingness to collaborate with Jillian Spies, and her supervisor, Dr. Verena Griess, on her master’s thesis research. Jillian’s research will be focusing on the inclusion of native heritage values into forest management plans, in which we see high values for our community.  As part of her Master’s work, Jillian will draft a forest management plan for the traditional territory of the four aforementioned bands, and we hereby agree to assist her in recruiting members of our community whom she will be interviewing as a part of her research. By signing, we affirm that we have been consulted about the projects purpose, anticipated outcome and research plan, and strongly support this work being conducted.   Best Wishes,   ______________________________                              ______________________________  126  Appendix B: Oral Questionnaire Forest Management Planning with Indigenous people in British Columbia  1. What comments do you have on the forest management plan written by the UBC students who visited in January 2016? 2. By what criteria (standards) do you judge that your land is in good condition?  3. What are the verifiable indicators for each of the criteria that you use?  What evidence do you rely on to prove this?  4. How would you measure these indicators? (Go about this one step at a time, developing one or more indicators for each criterion for which you used.) 5. By what criteria do you judge that your community is strong? [E.g. community-wide respect for Elders / hereditary Chiefs? Participation in community meetings? Transparent decision-making processes for matters of community-wide importance? Accepting the decisions of Band Government?] o When are band meetings held? When did you last go to one? o Are you satisfied with the decision making process? 6. What are the verifiable indicators for each of the community strengths? What evidence do you rely on to prove this? 7. How do you value trees on the land, for either timber or other products? o Where are the trees that you value? What species? o If you do harvest trees, under what authority do you harvest them? (Community Forestry Agreement? FNWL? Woodlot license?)  o How and when do you harvest them? o Who else shares the timber or timber products from your land? If volume-based tenures, from which other communities? o If applicable: What do you know about commercial logging by outsiders on your land?  How do you feel about it? 8. What are your food-related (both plant and animal) values on the land?  o What foods do you harvest? o How and when do you harvest/ hunt for food?   127  o Where do you harvest/ hunt? o Who else shares access to those food resources? From which other communities? 9. What medicines do you collect?  o How and when do you collect them?  o Where do you collect them?  o Who else shares access to those medicinal resources? From which other communities? 10. What technological uses such as for clothing, baskets, firewood, buildings, or tools does the land provide for you? o How and when do you collect them?  o Where do you collect them?  o Who else shares access to these resources? 11. What are the commercial goods that you collect on your land? o How and when do you collect these goods? o Where do you collect these goods? o Who else shares access to these resources? 12. What employment opportunities do see in your land? o How do you feel about these employment opportunities? o What jobs would you like to see more or less of? 13. What tourism opportunities do you see on your land? o Where are the tourist opportunities on your land? o Who else shares these tourism opportunities with you? o What effect do you see these opportunities having on your community and your land? 14. How does the forest meet your spiritual or cultural values? o Where are the areas that you go to meet these needs? o Who else shares these places with you? 15. What sustainable energy opportunities do you see on your land? [E.g. run of the river hydro? Etc.] o Where do these opportunities exist on your land? o How do these opportunities affect your community or surrounding communities? 128  16. How do you value conservation, such as water quality and ecosystem functions? o Where do these conservation values exist on your land? 17. How does the forest promote educational opportunities on the land? o Where do these educational opportunities exist? o Who uses these areas?  129  Appendix C: Calculations for Buffers Table 37: Calculations showing the width of the river, stream, lake and wetland buffers created in the model TSA Stream buffer (m) Lake buffer (m) Wetland buffer (m) Kamloops 17 4 6 Lillooet 17 5 6 Prince George N/A N/A N/A Quesnel 17 N/A 6 Robson Valley 20 10 7 Williams Lake 17 10 6 Averages 17.6 7.25 6.2 Buffer width used in model 17 7 6  Notes: Null values were excluded in the averages calculation, as not all TSA’s had a recommended buffer width in their TSRs. Table 38: Calculations showing the width of road buffers created in the model TSA Road Buffer (m) Paved road buffer (m) Gravel road buffer (m) 4-wheeler/ trails buffer (m) Kamloops 10    Lillooet 13 20 12 6 Prince George 16 28 13 6 Quesnel 20 15 25  Robson Valley 23 30 15  Williams Lake 20 25 25 15 Averages 17 23.6 18 9 Buffer width used in model 17 24 18 9  Notes: All roads received a no-harvest buffer. Within the model, there were seven different road distinctions: Decommissioned, overgrown, paved, loose, rough, boat or unknown. Within the TSR’s, roads were described as roads, paved roads, gravel roads, or 4-wheeler/ trails. Decommissioned or overgrown roads received the buffer width described in the TSR’s as for 4-wheeler/ trails. Paved roads received the buffer width for paved roads. Loose, rough or boat roads received the buffer width for gravel roads, and unknown roads received the buffer width for roads.  130  Appendix D: AU Definitions This section shows how all AUs are defined. If there is an attribute that is not specified in a table, it is because all values from that attribute were included in that AU. Table 39: AU definitions for 100 Mile House TSA, developed from the 2012 100 Mile House TSR AU Leading species Site Index 11 Aspen, Birch <10 12 Aspen, Birch >=10, <15 13 Aspen, Birch >=15, <20 14 Aspen, Birch >= 20 21 Douglas-fir <10 22 Douglas-fir >=10, <15 23 Douglas-fir >=15, <20 24 Douglas-fir >= 20 31 Balsam, Cedar, Hemlock <10 32 Balsam, Cedar, Hemlock >=10, <15 33 Balsam, Cedar, Hemlock >=15, <20 34 Balsam, Cedar, Hemlock >= 20 41 Pine <10 42 Pine >=10, <15 43 Pine >=15, <20 44 Pine >= 20 51 Spruce <10 52 Spruce >=10, <15 53 Spruce >=15, <20 54 Spruce >= 20  131  Table 40: AU definitions for Williams Lake TSA, developed from the 2013 Williams Lake TSR AU Leading Species Leading Species % BEC Zone Site Index 108 Douglas-fir Any NOT IDF, SBPS 7.0-12.0 109 Douglas-fir Any NOT IDF, SBPS >12.0 110 Western red cedar, western hemlock Any All 7.0-12.0 111 Western red cedar, western hemlock Any All 12.1-17.0 112 Western red cedar, western hemlock Any All >17.0 113 True fir, Spruce Any All 7.0-12.0 114 True fir, Spruce Any All 12.1-17.0 115 True fir, Spruce Any All >17.0 116 Lodgepole pine Any All 7.0-12.0 117 Lodgepole pine Any All 12.1-17.0 118 Lodgepole pine Any All >17.0 800 Aspen Any All any 801 Birch Any All any 802 Lodgepole pine Any All <7 803 True fir, Spruce Any All <7 804 Western red cedar, western hemlock Any All <7 805 Douglas-fir Any All <7 119 Douglas-fir >= 40 IDF, SBPS 7.0 - 12.0 120 Douglas-fir >= 40 IDF, SBPS > 12.0  Table 41: AU definitions from the Kamloops TSA, developed from the 2007 Kamloops TSR AU Leading Species Second Species BEC Zone Site Index 1 Douglas-fir --- Ponderosa pine (PP), IDF that’s not IDFdk2, Bunchgrass (BG) Any 2 Douglas-fir --- IDFdk2, Montane spruce (MS) Any 3 Douglas-fir --- Engelmann spruce Subalpine-fir (ESSF), ICH, IMA, MS, SBPS, Sub-boreal spruce (SBS) (all those except in AU 1&2) >15 5 Douglas-fir --- ESSF, ICH, IMA, MS, SBPS, SBS (all those except in AU 1&2) <=15 7 Western red cedar --- All >17 8 Western red cedar --- All <=17 132  AU Leading Species Second Species BEC Zone Site Index 9 Western hemlock --- All >16 10 Western hemlock --- All <=16 210 Alpine fir --- All >13 212 Alpine fir --- All <=13 15 Spruce  Pine All >14 17 Spruce  Pine All <=14 19 Pine  --- All >14 217 Pine  --- All <=14 700 Aspen  --- All Any 701 Larch  --- All Any 702 Birch  --- All Any  Table 42: AU definitions for Quesnel TSA, based on the 2009 and 2013 Quesnel TSR. AU Leading Species Site index BEC Zone 140 Pine 5.0-12.0 ICH/ESSF 141 Pine 12.1-19.0 ICH/ESSF 142 Pine 19.1-26.0 ICH/ESSF 143 Pine >26.1 ICH/ESSF 144 Spruce 5.0-10.0 Any 145 Spruce 10.1-15.0 Any 146 Spruce 15.1-20.0 Any 147 Spruce >20.1 Any 148 Douglas-fir 5.0-11.0 Any 149 Douglas-fir 11.1-17.0 Any 150 Douglas-fir 17.1-23.0 Any 151 Douglas-fir >23.1 Any 152 Western hemlock, true fir 5.0-11.0 Any 153 Western hemlock, true fir 11.1-17.0 Any 154 Western hemlock, true fir 17.1-23.0 Any 155 Western hemlock, true fir >23.1 Any 133  AU Leading Species Site index BEC Zone 156 Deciduous 10.0-15.0 Any 157 Deciduous 15.1-20.0 Any 158 Deciduous 20.1-25.0 Any 159 Deciduous >25.1 Any 160 Cedar 5.0-11.0 Any 161 Cedar 11.1-17.0 Any 162 Cedar 17.1-23.0 Any 163 Cedar >23.1 Any 164 Pine 5.0-12.0 SBS, IDF 165 Pine 12.1-19.0 SBS, IDF 166 Pine 19.1-26.0 SBS, IDF 167 Pine >26.1 SBS, IDF Table 43: AU definition of Lillooet TSA, defined from the 2004 Lillooet TSR AU Slope Leading Species BEC Zone BEC Subzone BEC variant Site index 200 <=40 Douglas-fir IDF dk 2 All 200 <=40 Douglas-fir IDF xh All All 200 <=40 Douglas-fir PP, BG All All All 201 <=40 Douglas-fir IDF dk 1,3,4 >=17 201 <=40 Douglas-fir IDF xw, xm, xk, xc, xv, dh, dw, dm, dc, dv All >=17 201 <=40 Douglas-fir IMA, BWBS, CWH, ESSF, ICH, Mountain hemlock (MH), SBPS, SBS, SWB All All >=17 202 <=40 Douglas-fir IDF dk 1,3,4 <17 202 <=40 Douglas-fir IDF xw, xm, xk, xc, xv, dh, dw, dm, dc, dv All <17 202 <=40 Douglas-fir IMA, BWBS, CWH, ESSF, ICH, MH, SBPS, SBS, SWB All All <17 205 <=40 Spruce, true fir, western cedar and western hemlock All All All >=15 206 <=40 Spruce, true fir, western cedar and western hemlock All All All <15 350 <=40 Lodgepole pine All All All >=16 214 <=40 Lodgepole pine All All All <16 134  AU Slope Leading Species BEC Zone BEC Subzone BEC variant Site index 222 >40 Douglas-fir IDF dk 2 All 222 >40 Douglas-fir PP, BG All All All 222 >40 Douglas-fir IDF xh All All 223 >40 Douglas-fir IDF dk 1,3,4 >=17 223 >40 Douglas-fir IDF xw, xm, xk, xc, xv, dh, dw, dm, dc, dv All >=17 223 >40 Douglas-fir IMA, BWBS, CWH, ESSF, ICH, MH, SBPS, SBS, SWB All All >=17 121 >40 Douglas-fir IDF dk 1,3,4 <17 121 >40 Douglas-fir IDF xw, xm, xk, xc, xv, dh, dw, dm, dc, dv All <17 121 >40 Douglas-fir IMA, BWBS, CWH, ESSF, ICH, MH, SBPS, SBS, SWB All All <17 124 >40 Spruce, true fir, western cedar and western hemlock All All All >=15 125 >40 Spruce, true fir, western cedar and western hemlock All All All <15 128 >40 Lodgepole pine All All All >=16 129 >40 Lodgepole pine All All All <16 500 Any Whitebark pine or PP All All All All 133 Any Deciduous All All All All  Table 44: AU definition of Robson Valley TSA, defined from the 2004 Robson Valley TSR AU Leading species Leading species % Second species BEC Zone Management Zone 61 Spruce >=81 All ESSF Any 61 Spruce Any Yellow cedar, western white pine, Douglas-fir, larch, PP, western hemlock, western red cedar, true fir, lodgepole pine, deciduous ESSF Any 62 Spruce >=81 All ICH, SBS Any 62 Spruce Any Yellow cedar, western white pine, Douglas-fir, larch, PP, western hemlock, western red cedar, true fir, lodgepole pine, deciduous ICH, SBS Any 63 Whitebark pine, western white pine Any All ESSF Any 63 Lodgepole pine >=81 All ESSF Any 63 Lodgepole pine Any All ESSF Any 135  AU Leading species Leading species % Second species BEC Zone Management Zone 64 Whitebark pine, western white pine Any All ICH, SBS Any 64 Lodgepole pine >=81 All ICH, SBS Any 64 Lodgepole pine Any All ICH, SBS Any 65 Douglas-fir >=81 All All Not armillaria areas 65 Douglas-fir Any Western white pine, larch, PP, western hemlock, western red cedar, yellow cedar, true fir, lodgepole pine, deciduous All Not armillaria areas 66 True fir >=81 All ESSF Any 66 True fir Any Douglas-fir, western white pine, lodgepole pine, larch, deciduous, Yellow cedar, western hemlock, western red cedar, spruce ESSF Any 67 True fir >=81 All ICH, SBS Any 67 True fir Any Douglas-fir, western white pine, lodgepole pine, larch, deciduous, Yellow cedar, western hemlock, western red cedar, spruce ICH, SBS Any 68 Western red cedar, yellow cedar >=81 All All Any 68 Western red cedar, yellow cedar Any Yellow cedar, western red cedar, western white pine, lodgepole pine, deciduous, Douglas-fir, larch, western hemlock, true fir, spruce All Any 69 Western hemlock >=81 All All Any 69 Western hemlock Any Western white pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, larch, western red cedar, yellow cedar, true fir, spruce, deciduous All Any 70 Cottonwood, alder, bigleaf maple, subalpine fir, aspen Any All All Any 71 Western red cedar, yellow cedar >=81 All ICH Any 71 Western red cedar, yellow cedar Any Yellow cedar, western red cedar, western white pine, lodgepole pine, deciduous, Douglas-fir, larch, western hemlock, true fir, spruce ICH Any 72 Western hemlock >=81 All ICH Any 72 Western hemlock Any Western white pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, larch, western red cedar, yellow cedar, true fir, spruce, deciduous ICH Any 73 Douglas-fir >=81 All All Armillaria moderate zone 73 Douglas-fir Any Western white pine, western red cedar, yellow cedar, western hemlock, true fir, spruce, lodgepole pine, PP, larch, deciduous All Armillaria moderate zone 74 Douglas-fir >=81 All All Armillaria severe zone 136  AU Leading species Leading species % Second species BEC Zone Management Zone 74 Douglas-fir Any Western white pine, western red cedar, yellow cedar, western hemlock, true fir, spruce, lodgepole pine, PP, larch, deciduous All Armillaria severe zone  Table 45: AU definitions for Prince George TSA, developed from the 1995 Prince George TSR AU Leading species Leading species % Second species Site index 81 Douglas-fir >=81 Any >= 10 81 Douglas-fir Any Western white pine, western red cedar, yellow cedar, western hemlock, true fir, spruce, lodgepole pine, PP, larch, deciduous >= 10 82 Douglas-fir >=81 Any <10 82 Douglas-fir Any Western white pine, western red cedar, yellow cedar, hemlock, true fir, lodgepole pine, larch, deciduous <10 83 Cottonwood Any Deciduous All 83 Western red cedar, yellow cedar >=81 Any All 83 Western red cedar, yellow cedar Any Western red cedar, yellow cedar, western white pine, lodgepole pine, deciduous, Douglas-fir, larch, western hemlock, true fir, spruce All 84 Western hemlock >=81 All All 84 Western hemlock Any Western white pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, larch, western cedar, yellow cedar, true fir, spruce, deciduous All 85 True fir >=81 All >=10 85 True fir Any Douglas-fir, western white pine, lodgepole pine, larch, deciduous, western hemlock, western red cedar, yellow cedar, spruce >=10 86 True fir >=81 All <10 86 True fir Any Douglas-fir, western white pine, lodgepole pine, larch, deciduous, western hemlock, western red cedar, yellow cedar, spruce <10 87 Spruce >=81 All >=20 87 Spruce Any Yellow cedar, western white pine, Douglas-fir, larch, PP, western hemlock, western red cedar, true fir, lodgepole pine, deciduous >=20 88 Spruce >=81 All >=10, <15 88 Spruce Any Yellow cedar, western white pine, Douglas-fir, larch, PP, western hemlock, western red cedar, true fir, lodgepole pine, deciduous >=10, <15 89 Spruce >=81 All <10 89 Spruce Any Yellow cedar, western white pine, Douglas-fir, larch, PP, western hemlock, western red cedar, true fir, lodgepole pine, deciduous <10 90 Lodgepole pine >=81 All >=20 137  AU Leading species Leading species % Second species Site index 90 Lodgepole pine Any Douglas-fir, PP, larch, spruce, true fir, western red hemlock, western white pine, western red cedar, yellow cedar, deciduous >=20 90 Larch Any Not Douglas-fir >=20 91 Lodgepole pine >=81 All >=10, <15 91 Lodgepole pine Any Douglas-fir, PP, larch, spruce, true fir, western red hemlock, western white pine, western red cedar, yellow cedar, deciduous >=10, <15 91 Larch Any Not Douglas-fir >=10, <15 92 Lodgepole pine >=81 All <10 92 Lodgepole pine Any Douglas-fir, PP, larch, spruce, true fir, western hemlock, western white pine, western red cedar, yellow cedar, deciduous <10 92 Larch Any Not Douglas-fir <10  138  Appendix E: Python Script for AU Assignments ## this script #adds AU field and updates the AU field based on AU definitions from the TSAs accordingly #September 2017 #Jillian Spies (Jillian.Spies@forestry.ubc.ca) import arcpy import time Start = time.time() print 'Start script' arcpy.env.workspace = r"G:\ArcMap\June-Redo\Scenario-1\THLB_C_Scen1.gdb" fc = "THLB_C_allstm_wat" try:     arcpy.AddField_management(fc, "AU", "LONG") except:     pass ## short code to enable the use of field names flist = arcpy.ListFields(fc) fdic = {} fl = [] print 'Creating flist' for f in flist:     fdic[f.name] = flist.index(f)     fl.append(f.name)  print "Defining species list" #define species lists Aspen=["AC","ACT","AT","VB","MB"] Bal=["B","BA","BG","BL"] Cedar=["CW", "YC"] Alder=["D","DR"] DougFir=["F", "FD","FDC","FDI"] Hem=["H","HM","HW"] Pine=["PA","PL","PLC", "PW", "PLI", "PY"] Spruce=["S","SS","SW","SX", "SE", "SXW", "SB", "SXL"] #SXL seen once in WL TSA Birch=["EP",'E'] HemBal=Bal+Hem HemBalSpruce = Bal+Hem+Spruce Larch = ["LW","L"] Decid = Alder+Aspen+Birch  print 'Reading from arcMap...' #the update cursor with arcpy.da.UpdateCursor(fc, fl) as cursor: 139      for row in cursor:         row[fdic["AU"]]=None          if row[fdic["TSA_NUMBER_DESCRIPTION"]] == "Lillooet TSA":             if row[fdic["Slope"]]<=40:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "IDF":                         if row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] == "dk":                             if row[fdic["BEC_VARIANT"]] == "2":                                 row[fdic["AU"]]=200                             elif row[fdic["BEC_VARIANT"]] in ["1","3","4"]:                                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=17:                                     row[fdic["AU"]]=201                                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <17:                                     row[fdic["AU"]]=202                         elif row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] == "xh":                             row[fdic["AU"]]=200                         elif row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] in ["xw", "xm", "xk", "xc", "xv", "dh", "dw", "dm", "dc", "dv"]:                             if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=17:                                 row[fdic["AU"]] = 201                             elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <17:                                 row[fdic["AU"]] = 202                     elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["PP","BG"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]= 200                     elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["AT", "BWBS", "CWH", "ESSF", "ICH", "MH", "SBPS", "SBS", "SWB", "MS"]:                         if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=17:                             row[fdic["AU"]]= 201                         elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <17:                             row[fdic["AU"]]= 202                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce+Bal+Hem+Cedar:                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]= 205                     elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]= 206                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in ["PL","PLI","PLC"]:                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=16:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=350                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <16:                         row[fdic["AU"]]= 214                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Aspen+Alder+Birch:                     row[fdic["AU"]]= 133                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in ["PA", "PY"]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]= 500             if row[fdic["Slope"]]>40:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir: 140                      if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "IDF":                         if row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] == "dk":                             if row[fdic["BEC_VARIANT"]] == "2":                                 row[fdic["AU"]]= 222                             elif row[fdic["BEC_VARIANT"]] in ["1","3","4"]:                                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=17:                                     row[fdic["AU"]]= 223                                  elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <17:                                     row[fdic["AU"]]=121                         elif row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] == "xh":                             row[fdic["AU"]]=222                          elif row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] in ["xw", "xm", "xk", "xc", "xv", "dh", "dw", "dm", "dc", "dv"]:                             if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=17:                                 row[fdic["AU"]] = 223                              elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <17:                                 row[fdic["AU"]] =121                     elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["PP","BG"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]= 222                     elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["AT", "BWBS", "CWH", "ESSF", "ICH", "MH", "SBPS", "SBS", "SWB", "MS"]:                         if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=17:                             row[fdic["AU"]]= 223                          elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <17:                             row[fdic["AU"]]=121                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce+Bal+Hem+Cedar:                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=124                     elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=125                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in ["PL","PLI","PLC"]:                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] >=16:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=128                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <16:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=129                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Aspen+Alder+Birch:                     row[fdic["AU"]]= 133                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in ["PA", "PY"]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]= 500         elif row[fdic["TSA_NUMBER_DESCRIPTION"]] == "Quesnel TSA":             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Pine:                 if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in "ESSF" + "ICH":                     if 5<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=12:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=140                     elif 12<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=19:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=141                     elif 19<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=26: 141                          row[fdic["AU"]]=142                     elif 26<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=143                 if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in "SBS" + "IDF":                     if 5<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=12:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=164                     elif 12<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=19:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=165                     elif 19<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=26:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=166                     elif 26<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=167             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce:                 if 5<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=144                 elif 10<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=15:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=145                 elif 15<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=20:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=146                 elif 20<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=147             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir:                 if 5<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=11:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=148                 elif 11<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=149                 elif 17<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=23:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=150                 elif 23<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=151             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in HemBal:                 if 5<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=11:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=152                 elif 11<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=153                 elif 17<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=23:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=154                 elif 23<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=155             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Decid:                 if 5<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=15:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=156                 elif 15<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=20:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=157                 elif 20<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=25: 142                      row[fdic["AU"]]=158                 elif 25<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=159             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Cedar:                 if 5<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=11:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=160                 elif 11<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=161                 elif 17<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=23:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=162                 elif 23<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=163         elif row[fdic["TSA_NUMBER_DESCRIPTION"]] == "Williams Lake TSA":              if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=40:                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<7:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=805                     elif 7<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<12:                         if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] not in ['IDF','SBPS']:                             row[fdic["AU"]]=108                         elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ['IDF','SBPS']:                             row[fdic["AU"]]=119                     elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=12:                         if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] not in ['IDF','SBPS']:                             row[fdic["AU"]]=109                         if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ['IDF','SBPS']:                             row[fdic["AU"]]=120                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]<40:                     if 7<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<12:                         if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] not in ['IDF','SBPS'] :                             row[fdic["AU"]]=108                         elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ['IDF','SBPS'] :                             row[fdic["AU"]]=119                     elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=12:                         if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] not in ['IDF','SBPS']:                             row[fdic["AU"]]=109                         elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ['IDF','SBPS']:                             row[fdic["AU"]]=120             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Cedar + Hem:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=112                 elif 7<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <12:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=110                 elif 12<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <=17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=111 143                  elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <7:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=804             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce + Bal:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=115                 elif 7<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <=12:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=114                 elif 12<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <=17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=114                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <7:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=803              elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Pine:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=118                 elif 7<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <=12:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=116                 elif 12<row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <=17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=117                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <7:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=802             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Aspen:                 row[fdic["AU"]]=800             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Birch:                 row[fdic["AU"]]= 801         elif row[fdic["TSA_NUMBER_DESCRIPTION"]] == "Robson Valley TSA":             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in "ESSF":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=61                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["ICH", "SBS"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=62                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in Pine + Hem + Cedar + DougFir + Bal + Aspen + Alder + Birch + ["L"]+Spruce:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in "ESSF":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=61                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["ICH","SBS"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=62             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in ["PW","PA"]:                 if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ESSF":                     row[fdic["AU"]]=63                 elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["ICH","SBS"]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=64             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in ["PL","PLI"]:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ESSF":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=63 144                      elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["ICH","SBS"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=64                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in DougFir + Pine + Hem + Cedar + Bal + Aspen + Birch + Alder + Spruce + ["L"]:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ESSF":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=63                     elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["ICH","SBS"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=64                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in DougFir + Pine + Hem + Cedar + Bal + Aspen + Birch + Alder + Spruce + ["L"]:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["ICH","SBS"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=64             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir:                 if row[fdic["PSTSPCSCD"]] != "DRA":                      if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=65                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in Pine + Cedar + Hem + Bal + Spruce + ["L"] + Aspen + Alder + Birch:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=65 #This AU is NOT Armillaria areas                 elif row[fdic["PSTSVRTCD"]] in ["S"]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=74 #severe                 elif row[fdic["PSTSVRTCD"]] in ["M"]:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=73 #moderate             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Bal:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ESSF":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=66                     elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["SBS", "ICH"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=67                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in DougFir + Pine + ["L"] + Aspen + Alder + Birch + Hem + Cedar + Spruce:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ESSF":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=66                     elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in ["SBS", "ICH"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=67             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Cedar:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ICH":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=71                     else:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=68                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in Cedar + Pine + Aspen + Birch + Alder + ["L"] + Hem + Spruce + Bal + DougFir:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ICH":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=71                     else:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=68              elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Hem:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ICH": 145                          row[fdic["AU"]]=72                     else:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=69                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in Pine + DougFir + ["L"] + Cedar + Bal + Spruce + Aspen + Alder + Birch:                     if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] == "ICH":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=72                     else:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=69             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in ["Cot"] + Aspen + Alder + Bal + Birch:                 row[fdic["AU"]]=70         elif row[fdic["TSA_NUMBER_DESCRIPTION"]] == "Prince George TSA":             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=81                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in ["L"] + Alder + Aspen+ Cedar + Pine + HemBalSpruce:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=81                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=82                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in ["L","ACB"] + Cedar + Pine + Alder + Aspen + HemBalSpruce:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=82             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Aspen:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in ["ACB"] + Alder + Aspen:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=83             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Cedar:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=83                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in ["ACB","L"] + Aspen + DougFir + Alder + Pine + Cedar +HemBalSpruce:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=83             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Hem:                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=84                 elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in ["L","ACB"]+ Alder + Aspen + Pine + DougFir + Cedar + Bal + Spruce:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=84             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Bal:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=85                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in ["L","ACB"]+Pine+Aspen+Alder+Hem+Cedar+Spruce+Hem+DougFir:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=85                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=86                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in DougFir+Pine+Aspen+Alder+Hem+Cedar+Spruce+["L","ACB"]: 146                          row[fdic["AU"]]=86             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=87                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in Cedar+Pine+Aspen+Alder+["L","ACB"]+Bal+Hem+DougFir:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=87                 if 15>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=88                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in Cedar+Pine+Aspen+Alder+["L","ACB"]+Bal+Hem+DougFir:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=88                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_PCT_1"]]>=81:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=89                     elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in Cedar+Pine+DougFir+Hem+Aspen+Alder+["L","ACB"]+Bal:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=89             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Pine:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in DougFir+Pine+Spruce+Bal+Hem+Cedar+Aspen+Alder+["L", "ACB"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=90                 if 10<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<15:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in DougFir+Pine+Spruce+Bal+Hem+Cedar+Aspen+Alder+["L", "ACB"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=91                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] in DougFir+Pine+Spruce+Bal+Hem+Cedar+Aspen+Alder+["L", "ACB"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=92             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] == "L":                 if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] !="F":                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=90                     if 10<=row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=91                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=92         elif row[fdic["TSA_NUMBER_DESCRIPTION"]] == "100 Mile House TSA":             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Aspen + Birch:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=11                 elif 15>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=12                 elif 20>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=13                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=20:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=14 147              elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=21                 elif 15>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=22                 elif 20>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=23                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=20:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=24             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Bal + Cedar + Hem:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=31                 elif 15>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=32                 elif 20>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=33                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=20:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=34             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Pine:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=41                 elif 15>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=42                 elif 20>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=43                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=20:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=44             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=51                 elif 15>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=10:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=52                 elif 20>row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=15:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=53                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>=20:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=54         elif row[fdic["TSA_NUMBER_DESCRIPTION"]] == "Kamloops TSA":             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in DougFir:                 if row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in "PP"+"BG":                     row[fdic["AU"]]=1                 elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]]== "IDF":                     if row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] in "dc"+"dh"+"dm"+"dv"+"dvw"+"dw"+"mc"+"mh"+"mm"+"mmp"+"mw"+"un"+"vk"+"wc"+"wcp"+"wcw"+"wk"+"xc"+"xcw"+"xh"+"xk"+"xm"+"xv"+"xvp"+"xvw"+"xw":                         row[fdic["AU"]]=1 148                      elif row[fdic["BEC_SUBZONE"]] == "dk":                         if row[fdic["BEC_VARIANT"]] in "1"+"3"+"4":                             row[fdic["AU"]]=1                         elif row[fdic["BEC_VARIANT"]]=="2":                             if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] not in ["H"+"HM"+"HW" + "CW"+"YC"+ "B"+"BA"+"BG"+"BL" + "PL" + "PLI"]:                                 row[fdic["AU"]]=2                 elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] in "ESSF"+"ICH"+"IMA"+"MS"+"SBPS"+"SBS":                     if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=3                     elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=15:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=5                 elif row[fdic["BEC_ZONE_CODE"]] =="MS":                     if row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_2"]] not in ["H"+"HM"+"HW"+ "CW"+"YC"+ "B"+"BA"+"BG"+"BL" + "PL" + "PLI"]:                         row[fdic["AU"]]=2             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Cedar:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=7                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=17:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=8             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Hem:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>16:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=9                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=16:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=10             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Bal:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>13:                     row[fdic["AU"]]= 210                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=13:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=212             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Spruce:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>14:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=15                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=14:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=216             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Pine:                 if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]>14:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=19                 elif row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]]<=14:                     row[fdic["AU"]]=217             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Aspen:                 row[fdic["AU"]] = 700             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Larch:                 row[fdic["AU"]]=701             elif row[fdic["SPECIES_CD_1"]] in Birch:                 row[fdic["AU"]]=702 149          cursor.updateRow(row) print ('It took ', round((time.time()-Start)/60,1), " minutes to run this script.")  150  Appendix F: Parameters for Yield Curves All yield curves created in VDYP calculated the species percentage using basal area, used the default stockable area percentage, a growing horizon of 350 years, and a yearly increment of 10 years. Table 46: 100 Mile House TSA yield curve parameters AU Species 1 & % Species 2 & % Species 3 & % BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 11 Aspen 50 Birch 50 N/A IDF* 9 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka (2002) 17.5 12 Aspen 50 Birch 50 N/A IDF* 12.5 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka (2002) 17.5 13 Aspen 50 Birch 50 N/A IDF* 17.5 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka (2002) 17.5 14 Aspen 50 Birch 50 N/A IDF* 21 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka (2002) 17.5 21 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF* 9 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 22 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF* 12.5 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 23 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF* 17.5 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 24 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF* 21 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 31 Western hemlock 33.4 Cedar 33.3 Grand fir 33.3 IDF* 9 Nigh 1998, Kurucz 1982ac, Nigh (2000) 17.5 32 Western hemlock 33.4 Cedar 33.3 Grand fir 33.3 IDF* 12.5 Nigh 1998, Kurucz 1982ac, Nigh (2000) 17.5 33 Western hemlock 33.4 Cedar 33.3 Grand fir 33.3 IDF* 17.5 Nigh 1998, Kurucz 1982ac, Nigh (2000) 17.5 34 Western hemlock 33.4 Cedar 33.3 Grand fir 33.3 IDF* 21 Nigh 1998, Kurucz 1982ac, Nigh (2000) 17.5 41 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF* 9 Thrower (1994) 12.5 42 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF* 12.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 43 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF* 17.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 44 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF* 21 Thrower (1994) 12.5 51 Spruce 100 N/A N/A IDF* 9 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 52 Spruce 100 N/A N/A IDF* 12.5 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 53 Spruce 100 N/A N/A IDF* 17.5 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 54 Spruce 100 N/A N/A IDF* 21 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5  *BEC Zone was IDF because the TSA did not specify which BEC zone to use and IDF was the most common zone in this TSA.  151  Table 47: Robson Valley yield curve parameters AU Species 1 & % Species 2 & % Species 3 & % Species 4 & % BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 61 Spruce 100 N/A N/A N/A ESSF 15 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 62 Spruce 100 N/A N/A N/A SBS/ ICH average 15 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 63 Lodgepole pine 80 Whitebark pine 10 Western white pine 10 N/A ESSF 15 Thrower (1994) 12.5 64 Lodgepole pine 80 Whitebark pine 10 Western white pine 10 N/A SBS/ ICH average 15 Thrower (1994) 12.5 65 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A N/A IDF* 15 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 66 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A N/A ESSF 15 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 67 True fir 100 N/A N/A N/A SBS/ ICH average 15 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 68 Western redcedar 100 N/A N/A N/A IDF* 15 Nigh (2000) 17.5 69 Hemlock 100 N/A N/A N/A IDF* 15 Nigh (1998) 17.5 70 Poplar 25 Trembling aspen 25 Red alder 25 Birch 25 IDF* 15 Huang, Titus, and Lakusta (1994ac) 17.5 71 Western redcedar 100 N/A N/A N/A ICH 15 Nigh (2000) 17.5 72 Western hemlock 100 N/A N/A N/A ICH 15 Nigh (1998) 17.5 73 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A N/A IDF* 15 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 74 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A N/A IDF* 15 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5  SBS/ICH average is due to the AU falling into two different BEC Zones. *BEC Zone was IDF because the TSA did not specify which BEC zone to use and IDF was the most common zone in this TSA. Site index was not specified in the TSR, so 15 was used as an average.  152  Table 48: Lillooet TSA yield curve parameters AU Species 1 & % Species 2 & % Species 3 & % Species 4 & % BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 200 Douglas-fir 89 PP 9 Lodgepole pine 1 Paper birch 1 IDF, PP, BG average 12.2 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 201 Douglas-fir 81 Lodgepole pine 14 PP 3 Engelmann spruce 2 IDF* 19 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 202 Douglas-fir 82 Lodgepole pine 15 Trembling aspen 2 Engelmann spruce 1 IDF* 13.3 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 203 Douglas-fir 81 Engelmann Spruce 10 Lodgepole pine 7 PP 2 IDF* 18.3 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 204 Douglas-fir 86 Lodgepole pine 11 Engelmann spruce 3 N/A IDF* 12.5 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 205 Engelmann spruce 51 Alpine fir 24 Lodgepole pine 17 Douglas-fir 8 IDF* 17.7 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 206 Subalpine fir 44 Engelmann Spruce 40 Lodgepole pine 14 Douglas-fir 2 SBS* 11.4 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 207 Engelmann spruce 62 Alpine fir 25 Lodgepole pine 9 Douglas-fir 4 SBS* 17 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 209 Engelmann spruce 45 Alpine fir 44 Lodgepole pine 9 Whitebark pine 2 SBS* 10.2 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 350 Lodgepole pine 85 Douglas-fir 8 Engelmann spruce 5 Alpine fir 2 SBPS* 17.9 Thrower (1994) 12.5 214 Lodgepole pine 90 Douglas-fir 6 Engelmann spruce 3 Alpine fir 1 SBPS* 12.7 Thrower (1994) 12.5 215 Lodgepole pine 75 Engelmann spruce 12 Douglas-fir 7 Alpine fir 6 SBPS* 17.8 Thrower (1994) 12.5 216 Lodgepole pine 80 Engelmann spruce 11 Douglas-fir 5 Alpine fir 4 SBPS* 12.1 Thrower (1994) 12.5 222 Douglas-fir 91 PP 7 Lodgepole pine 1 Paper birch 1 IDF, PP, BG average 12.4 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 223 Douglas-fir 80 Lodgepole pine 13 Engelmann spruce 5 PP 2 IDF* 19.2 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 121 Douglas-fir 84 Lodgepole pine 14 Engelmann spruce 2 N/A IDF* 13.4 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 122 Douglas-fir 85 Engelmann spruce 8 Lodgepole pine 5 Alpine fir 2 IDF* 18.6 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 123 Douglas-fir 88 Lodgepole pine 8 Engelmann spruce 3 PP 1 IDF* 12.4 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 124 Alpine fir 43 Engelmann spruce 42 Lodgepole pine 9 Douglas-fir 6 IDF* 17.2 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 153  AU Species 1 & % Species 2 & % Species 3 & % Species 4 & % BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 125 Alpine fir 54 Engelmann spruce 31 Lodgepole pine 11 Whitebark pine 4 IDF* 11.1 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 126 Engelmann spruce 60 Alpine fir 28 Douglas-fir 6 Lodgepole pine 6 IDF* 16.8 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 127 Alpine fir 47 Engelmann spruce 41 Lodgepole pine 8 Douglas-fir 4 IDF* 10.2 Chen and Klinka (2000ac) 17.5 128 Lodgepole pine 83 Douglas-fir 10 Engelmann spruce 5 Alpine fir 2 IDF* 17.9 Thrower (1994) 12.5 129 Lodgepole pine 83 Douglas-fir 11 Engelmann spruce 3 Alpine fir 3 IDF* 12.6 Thrower (1994) 12.5 500 Whitebark Pine 92 PP 8 N/A N/A ESSF** 6** Thrower (1994); Nigh (2002) 17.5 133 Trembling Aspen 80 Douglas-fir 13 Lodgepole pine 4 Engelmann Spruce 3 IDF* 12.8 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka 2002 12.5  **BEC Zone was IDF because the TSA did not specify which BEC zone to use and IDF was the most common zone in this TSA. In some cases, a combination of SBS or SBPS BEC Zones were used based on the leading species. The minimum DBH varied here because it was specified in the TSR. **ESSF BEC Zone was chosen because most of this AU fell within that BEC Zone in the Lillooet TSA.  154  Table 49: Williams Lake TSA growth and yield curve AU Species1&% Species 2&% BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 108 Douglas-fir 100 N/A ICH 9.5 Thrower and Goudie 1992ac 12.5 109 Douglas-fir 100 N/A ICH 13 Thrower and Goudie 1992ac 12.5 110 Western red cedar 50 Western hemlock 50 IDF* 9.5 Thrower and Goudie 1992ac 12.5 111 Western red cedar 50 Western hemlock 50 IDF* 14.5 Thrower and Goudie 1992ac 12.5 112 Western red cedar 50 Western hemlock 50 IDF* 18 Thrower and Goudie 1992ac 12.5 113 Spruce 50 Subalpine fir 50 IDF* 9.5 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 12.5 114 Spruce 50 Subalpine fir 50 IDF* 14.5 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 12.5 115 Spruce 50 Subalpine fir 50 IDF* 18 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 12.5 116 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A IDF* 9.5 Thrower 1994 12.5 117 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A IDF* 14.5 Thrower 1994 12.5 118 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A IDF* 18 Thrower 1994 12.5 119 Douglas-fir 100 N/A IDF/SBPS average 10 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 12.5 120 Douglas-fir 100 N/A IDF/SBPS average 13 Thrower and Goudie 1992ac 12.5 800 Trembling aspen 100 N/A SBS** 18 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka 2002 12.5 801 Common paper birch 100 N/A ICH** 18 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka 2002 12.5 802 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A MS** 6 Thrower (1994) 12.5 803 True fir 50 Spruce 50 ESSF** 6 Chen and Klinka (2000ac), Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 12.5 804 Western red cedar 50 Hemlock 50 ICH** 6 Night (2000) and Night (1998) 12.5 805 Douglas-fir 100 N/A IDF 6 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 12.5  *BEC Zone was IDF because the TSA did not specify which BEC zone to use and IDF was the most common zone in this TSA. In some cases, a combination of SBS or SBPS BEC Zones were used based on the leading species. ** These BEC Zones were chosen because, area wise, most of the species for that AU in the Williams Lake TSA fell within that BEC Zone. 155  Table 50: Yield curve parameters for Quesnel TSA AU Species1&% Species 2&% Species 3&% BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 140 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF/ICH average 8.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 141 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF/ICH average 15.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 142 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF/ICH average 22.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 143 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A IDF/ICH average 27 Thrower (1994) 12.5 144 Spruce 100 N/A N/A SBS 7.5 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 145 Spruce 100 N/A N/A SBS 12.5 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 146 Spruce 100 N/A N/A SBS 17.5 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 147 Spruce 100 N/A N/A SBS 21 Goudie (1984ac) (natural) 17.5 148 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF 8 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 149 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF 14 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 150 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF 20 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 151 Douglas-fir 100 N/A N/A IDF 24 Thrower and Goudie (1992ac) 17.5 152 True fir 50 Western hemlock 50  ICH 8 Chen and Klinka (200ac)/Nigh (1998) 17.5 153 True fir 50 Western hemlock 50  ICH 14 Chen and Klinka (200ac)/Nigh (1998) 17.5 154 True fir 50 Western hemlock 50  ICH 20 Chen and Klinka (200ac)/Nigh (1998) 17.5 155 True fir 50 Western hemlock 50  ICH 24 Chen and Klinka (200ac)/Nigh (1998) 17.5 156 Trembling aspen 33.4 Cottonwood 33.3 Common paper birch 33.3 ICH/SBS/IDF average 12.5 Nigh, Krestov, Klinka 2002/ Huang, Titus, Lakusta (1994ac) 17.5 157 Trembling aspen 33.4 Cottonwood 33.3 Common paper birch 33.3 ICH/SBS/IDF average 17.5 Nigh, Krestov, Klinka 2002/ Huang, Titus, Lakusta (1994ac) 17.5 158 Trembling aspen 33.4 Cottonwood 33.3 Common paper birch 33.3 ICH/SBS/IDF average 22.5 Nigh, Krestov, Klinka 2002/ Huang, Titus, Lakusta (1994ac) 17.5 159 Trembling aspen 33.4 Cottonwood 33.3 Common paper birch 33.3 ICH/SBS/IDF average 26 Nigh, Krestov, Klinka 2002/ Huang, Titus, Lakusta (1994ac) 17.5 160 Western red cedar 100 N/A N/A ICH 8 Nigh (2000) 17.5 161 Western red cedar 100 N/A N/A ICH 14 Nigh (2000) 17.5 162 Western red cedar 100 N/A N/A ICH 20 Nigh (2000) 17.5 156  AU Species1&% Species 2&% Species 3&% BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 163 Western red cedar 100 N/A N/A ICH 24 Nigh (2000) 17.5 164 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A SBS, IDF 8.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 165 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A SBS, IDF 15.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 166 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A SBS, IDF 22.5 Thrower (1994) 12.5 167 Lodgepole pine 100 N/A N/A SBS, IDF 27 Thrower (1994) 12.5  Table 51: Yield curve parameters for additional AUs in the Kamloops TSA. These three AUs were not taken from the Kamloops TSR. They were added to account for species that were not modeled as a result of following the TSR AU definitions. All other yield curves were taken directly from the 2001 Kamloops TSR and VDYP was not used to create the yield curves. AU Species 1 & % Species 2 & % Species 3 & % Species 4 & % Species 5& % BEC Zones Site Index Curve Minimum DBH (cm) 700 Trembling aspen 100     ICH 19.5 Night, Krestov, and Klinka 2002 17.5 701 Western larch 100     ICH 22 Brisco, Klinka, and Nigh 2002 17.5 702 Common paper birch 100    IDF* 17 Nigh, Krestov, and Klinka 2002 17.5  *This BEC Zones was chosen because, area wise, most of the paper birch in the Kamloops TSA falls within the IDF BEC Zone. 157  Appendix G: Python Script for C + N Contclass Assignments # this script #does the X and N for Contclass #November 2016 #Jillian Spies (Jillian.Spies@forestry.ubc.ca)  import arcpy import time Start = time.time() print 'Start script'  arcpy.env.workspace = r"*.gdb" #name of geodatabase goes here fc = "*" #name of feature class goes here  try:     arcpy.AddField_management(fc, "contclass", "STRING") except:     pass  ## short code to enable the use of field names flist = arcpy.ListFields(fc) fdic = {} fl = [] print 'Creating flist' for f in flist:     fdic[f.name] = flist.index(f)     fl.append(f.name)  print 'Reading from ArcMap...' #the update cursor with arcpy.da.UpdateCursor(fc, fl) as cursor:     for row in cursor:         row[fdic["contclass"]]="C"          if row[fdic["SITE_INDEX"]] <= 5:             row[fdic["contclass"]]="N"         if row[fdic["OGMA_TYPE"]] != [None, '']: #this is an update from "PERM"             row[fdic["contclass"]]="N"         if row[fdic["Riparian_Buffer"]] == "Riparian":             row[fdic["contclass"]]="N"         if row[fdic["Road_Buffer"]] == "Road Buffer":             row[fdic["contclass"]]="N"         if row[fdic["FID_Lake_Wetland"]] == 1:             row[fdic["contclass"]]="N"         if row[fdic["TIMBER_HARVEST_CODE"]] == "NO HARVEST ZONE": #this is for UWR             row[fdic["contclass"]]="N"         if row[fdic["TIMBER_HARVEST_CODE_1"]] == "NO HARVEST ZONE": #this is for "wildlife habitat areas", they include mt caribou             row[fdic["contclass"]]="N"            cursor.updateRow(row) print 'It took ', round((time.time()-Start)/60,1), " minutes to run this script."  158  Appendix H: Shadow Price Calculations For all equations, x = period The equation for the constraint to have an even flow within 5% was: 0.95 * UPPER001[x] - LOWER001[x] where the software creates one variable each for the upper (Upper001) and lower bound (Lower001) constraint on the even flow, and their difference should be less than or equal to, in this case, 5%. The values assigned to these variables are reported at the end of other schedule section after an optimal solution is found. The equation for the constraint of having a non-declining growing stock was: OIVOL[x+1] - OIVOL[x] > 0 where OIVOL is the volume of timber available on the land base. The equation for the constraint to have at least 64,000 ha of UWR is above 140 years old is: OIUWRANGE[x] >= 64000 where OIUWRANGE is the area of forest within UWR at or above the age of 140 years 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0357128/manifest

Comment

Related Items