1. Cariboo Recommended Changes Here’s Jean!

2. INTERIOR Free Growing Crop Tree Appendix 9 Interpretation 2012 Is the Herb and/or Shrub vegetation taller than the crop tree in more than 1 quadrant? 1# Test Shrub/Herb Not FG Is there Broadleaf Ep, At and/or Act vegetation within 1.0 m. of the crop tree? 2# Test Broadleaf Yes No Is ANY vegetation taller than the crop tree in more than one quadrant? FG No Yes Does the crop tree meet the Conifer/Brush Ratio (considering Ep, At and/or Act only)? No Yes No

3. Appendix 9 Interpretation 2012 - continued Does the crop tree meet the Conifer/Brush Ratio (considering Ep, At and/or Act only)? No Potentially FG 1. Determine all Potentially Free Growing crop trees & calculate Median Height; 2. Count the Ep, At, & Act in 3.99 m. radius plot that are taller than the Median Height of the Potentially Free Growing crop trees. Is the number of Ep, At & Act > the allowable from the table? Not FG No Yes

4. Changing the way we assess FG What are we proposing for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2? Changes to individual FG assessment criteria, including conifer/brush ratio, allowable # occupied quads, definition of countable aspen, # countable aspen AND Changes to the FG survey protocol – each pine assessed on the basis of a 1.8 m neighbourhood; no more “potentially FG” trees 4 To be tested as a Pilot Project in the Cariboo in 2014

5. 5 Considering broadleaves only, does the PL meet the conifer/brush ratio within a 1-m cylinder? (150% in SBS) Is herb/shrub vegetation taller than the crop pine in > 1 quadrant? Are countable aspen in the 3.99 m plot ≤ to maximum allowed?) (2 in the SBS) This is a potentially FG pine NFG FG ← No No ↓ ↓ ↓ This is the current FG decision tree How will it change? How will it change? Does the crop pine meet min height (2 m), and damage and WS criteria? ↓ NFG ← Yes No Yes No ← Yes FG ↓ Is > 1 quad occupied by aspen taller than the crop pine? ← Yes NFG Same  Modify  Yes

6. 6 Are ≥ 2 adjacent quadrants occupied within a 1-m cylinder? (An occupied quad has AT >1.25 times the pine height) Is herb/shrub vegetation taller than the crop pine in > 1 quadrant? FG NFG ← No No ↓ ↓ New survey protocol for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2 Does the crop pine meet min height (2 m), and damage and WS criteria? ↓ NFG ← Yes No Yes ← Yes NFG ↓ Is the #of countable aspen stems within 1.8 m ≤ the maximum allowed? (A countable AT is >1.25 times the pine height and the allowable # is 1 per plot in the SBS) ← No NFG Same Revised New

7. Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Plot size, min height, WS, health 7 CurrentProposed Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change Minimum ht, WS, health No change Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80% Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) Allowable # occupied quads 12 adjacent Definition of “potential” FG trees Overtopping AT in 1 quad  Definition of countable aspen AT is > median height of all potential PL Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around individual PL Allowable # countable aspen 4001000

8. Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Conifer/brush ratio 8 CurrentProposed Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change Minimum ht, WS, health No change Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80% Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) Allowable # occupied quads 12 adjacent Definition of “potential” FG trees Overtopping AT in 1 quad  Definition of countable aspen AT is > median height of all potential PL Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around individual PL Allowable # countable aspen 4001000

9. Conifer/brush ratio of 150% versus 80% Conifer/brush ratio =150% 2 m 2.5 m 1.3 m 2 m Conifer/brush ratio =80%

10. Why decrease the conifer/brush height ratio from 150% to 80%? Our research shows that if pine is at least 80% as tall as surrounding aspen, the density of the aspen doesn’t matter to pine diameter growth. This sounds scary, but it isn’t really because of aspen’s natural growth characteristics. We sampled sites across a range of ecosystems and where pine was able to attain 80% the height of aspen by FG age: The aspen was NOT very vigorous or very dense Pine was almost always growing AT LEAST AS FAST as aspen The 80% conifer/brush ratio is supported by work by Phil Comeau (U of Alberta). His work showed that light availability increases steeply in the top third of the aspen canopy.

11. Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Definition of an occupied quadrant 11 CurrentProposed Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change Minimum ht, WS, health No change Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80% Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) Allowable # occupied quads 12 adjacent Definition of “potential” FG trees ≤1 occupied quad  Definition of countable aspen AT is > median height of all potential PL Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around individual PL Allowable # countable aspen 4001000

12. Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Occupied quads and “potential” trees 12 CurrentProposed Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change Minimum ht, WS, health No change Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80% Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) Allowable # occupied quads 12 adjacent Definition of “potential” FG trees ≤1 occupied quad  Definition of countable aspen AT is > median height of all potential PL Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around individual PL Allowable # countable aspen 4001000

13. Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Definition of countable aspen 13 CurrentProposed Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change Minimum ht, WS, health No change Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80% Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) Allowable # occupied quads 12 adjacent Definition of “potential” FG trees ≤1 occupied quad in 1-m  Definition of countable aspen AT is > median height of all potential PL AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around individual PL Allowable # countable aspen 4001000

14. A countable aspen has conifer/brush ratio <80% 2 m 2.5 m

15. Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Assessing countable aspen? How many? 15 CurrentProposed Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change Minimum ht, WS, health No change Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80% Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) Allowable occupied quads 12 adjacent Definition of “potential” FG trees Overtopping AT in 1 quad  Definition of countable aspen Aspen that is > median height of all potential pine AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht) How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m (50 m 2 ) plot In 1.8 m (10 m 2 ) plots around individual pine Allowable # countable aspen 2 aspen per 3.99 m plot (400 sph) 1 aspen per 1.8 m plot (1000 sph)

16. What do six 1.8 m neighborhoods look like? A 1.8 m radius circle covers ~10 m 2 6 well-spaced 1.8 m neighborhoods ~ cover the 50 m 2 plot 3.99 m 1.8 m PL

17. 17 Are ≥ 2 adjacent quadrants occupied within a 1-m cylinder? (An occupied quad has AT >1.25 times the pine height) Is herb/shrub vegetation taller than the crop pine in > 1 quadrant? FG NFG ← No No ↓ ↓ New survey protocol for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2 Does the crop pine meet min height (2 m), and damage and WS criteria? ↓ NFG ← Yes No Yes ← Yes NFG ↓ Is the #of countable aspen stems within 1.8 m ≤ the maximum allowed? (A countable AT is >1.25 times the pine height and the allowable # is 1 per plot in the SBS) ← No NFG Same Revised New

18. What difference will the proposed changes make? The single biggest change we are making is to the conifer/brush ratio (80% instead of 150%). The new survey protocol is easier, but we get similar outcomes if we apply changes to individual FG criteria within the current survey protocol Changes will reduce the need to brush sites where the majority of pine are growing through the aspen. It won’t make any difference for sites where aspen is abundant and much taller than pine – these sites will still need to be brushed to meet FG guidelines. Pine FG will likely be assessed when stands are a little older. We anticipate that managers will choose to hang on to some sites for a couple of extra years if they are confident that pine are gaining in height relative to aspen.

19. Implementing the Cariboo Pilot Project Our industry partners Tolko, West Fraser, and BCTS will be testing proposed changes in 2014 within their operating areas in the Williams Lake TSA BEC units include IDFdk3, SBPSdc, SBPSmk, SBSdw1, SBSdw2 Data collected during the Pilot Project will include comparison of the old and new methods After the 2014 field season, we will consider how to proceed: We will work with Dave Weaver to consider how to move on to further changes at the provincial level Data have been collected for pine-aspen mixtures in the IDFdk1/dk2 in the Kamloops region. We will make comparisons with the IDFdk3 to see whether similar changes would be appropriate We need to consider changes for more shade-tolerant conifers such as spruce and Douglas-fir We will consult with other researchers as to whether similar strategies would be appropriate for other broadleaf conifer combinations and other geographic areas