i

Table of Contents: Summary of Indicators .......................................................................................... 1

2016 Indicator Current Status Summary ............................................................... 3

1.1.a - Ecosystem area by type: ........................................................................... 3

1.1.b - Non-pine sowing requests: ........................................................................ 4

1.1.c - Non-pine component of cutblocks surveyed for free growing:.................... 5

1.1.d - Consistency with seral stage distribution requirements: ............................ 5

1.1.e - Consideration of connectivity, natural disturbance type and pattern, and range of natural variability: .................................................................................... 6

1.1.f - Professional review of connectivity, natural disturbance type and pattern, and range of natural variability management: ....................................................... 7

1.2.a - Species at risk training for development contractors: ................................ 7

1.2.b - Management of rare species occurrences: ................................................ 7

1.2.c - Adherence to Wildlife Habitat Area, Ungulate Winter Range and Wildlife Act requirements: .................................................................................................. 7

1.2.d - Area of natural regeneration versus artificial regeneration: ....................... 8

1.3.a - Amount of regeneration that is genetically modified stock: ........................ 8

1.4.a - Potential for cattle impacts in riparian areas: ............................................. 8

1.4.b - Post-harvest riparian functioning: .............................................................. 8

1.4.c – Maintenance of longer-term Large Woody Debris (LWD) inputs to streams: ................................................................................................................ 9

1.4.d - Aboriginal values and uses acknowledged: ............................................... 9

2.1.a - Regeneration success: ............................................................................ 10

2.1.b - Free growing success: ............................................................................. 10

2.1.c - Invasive plant training: ............................................................................. 10

2.2.a - Area of forest deleted as a result of roads and landings: ......................... 10

2.2.b - Consistency of harvesting with cut control requirements: ........................ 10

3.1.a - Compliance of soil disturbance with site plan limits: ................................ 11

3.1.b - Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Management: ........................................... 11

3.1.b.i - Removal of dispersed CWD: .................................................................. 11

3.1.b.ii - Minimum CWD retention: ...................................................................... 11

3.1.b.iii - Minimum wildlife tree retention: ............................................................ 12

3.1.b.iv - Consistency with Chief Forester’s CWD retention guidelines: .............. 12

3.1.b.v - Revision to operational guidance: ......................................................... 12

3.2.a - Watershed management:......................................................................... 12

ii

3.2.b - Road and/or stream crossing inspections completed as scheduled: ....... 13

3.2.c - New bridge and major culvert inspection completions: ............................ 13

4.1.a - Dead versus green harvest: ..................................................................... 14

5.1.a - Tolko caused wildfires: ............................................................................ 14

5.1.b - Animal Unit Months maintained: .............................................................. 14

5.1.c - Historical features adequately managed: ................................................. 14

5.2.a - Dollar value of property taxes: ................................................................. 14

5.2.b - Tolko Cariboo Region scholarships or bursaries: .................................... 15

5.2.c - Completion of salaried employee personal development plans: .............. 15

5.2.d - Level of direct and indirect employment: ................................................. 15

5.2.e - Level of aboriginal participation in the forest economy: ........................... 16

6.1.a - Maps of First Nations interest areas readily available: ............................. 16

6.1.b - Written comment from Aboriginal communities requested and considered in forest management prescriptions: ................................................................... 16

6.3.a - Timeliness of small scale salvage referrals: ............................................. 16

6.3.b - Harvesting contract opportunities made available to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors: ......................................................................................................... 17

6.3.c - Silviculture contract opportunities made available to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors: ......................................................................................................... 17

6.3.d - Maintenance of milling facilities relative to Annual Allowable Cut (AAC): 17

6.3.e - Stumpage and license rental fees: ........................................................... 17

6.3.f - Protection of range infrastructure: ............................................................. 18

6.3.g - Material contributions to other wood products producers: ....................... 18

6.3.h - SAFE certification of Tolko contractors: ................................................... 18

6.3.i - Tolko SAFE certification: ........................................................................... 19

6.3.j - Tolko support of community organizations: ............................................... 19

6.4.a - Effective terms of reference: .................................................................... 20

6.4.b - Notice of Intent distribution: ..................................................................... 20

6.4.c - Access to annual report and Public Advisory Group (PAG): .................... 20

6.5.a - Information sharing with public: ............................................................... 20

6.5.b - Tolko Cariboo Woodlands Communication Plan: ..................................... 21

6.5.c - General communication with public: ........................................................ 21

6.5.d - Public access to SFMP information: ........................................................ 21

6.5.e - Tolko staff knowledge of SFMP content: ................................................. 21

6.5.f - Number of research projects by Tolko Cariboo Woodlands: ..................... 22

1

Summary of Indicators

SFMP Indicator Indicator

met Indicator not met

1.1.a - Ecosystem area by type X (BJ)

1.1.b - Non-pine sowing requests X (DG)

1.1.c - Non-pine component of cutblocks surveyed for free growing X (BJ)

1.1.d - Consistency with seral stage distribution requirements X (JD/TO)

1.1.e - Consideration of connectivity, natural disturbance type and pattern, and range of natural variability. X (BJ)

1.1.f - Professional review of connectivity, natural disturbance type and pattern, and range of natural variability management. N/A N/A

1.2.a - Species at risk training for development contractors X (SC/TO)

1.2.b - Management of rare species occurrences X (JDrodge)

1.2.c - Adherence to WHA, UWR and Wildlife Act requirements X (JT/TO)

1.2.d - Area of natural regeneration versus artificial regeneration X (DG)

1.3.a - Amount of regeneration that is genetically modified stock X (DG)

1.4.a - Potential for cattle impacts in riparian areas X (OF/AS)

1.4.b - Post-harvest riparian functioning X (BJ)

1.4.c - Maintenance of longer-term LWD inputs into streams X (BJ)

1.4.d - Aboriginal, values and uses acknowledged X (SC/CC)

2.1.a - Regeneration success X (DG/AN)

2.1.b - Free growing success X (DG/AN)

2.1.c - Invasive plant training X (TO)

2.2.a - Area of forest deleted as a result of roads and landings X (TO)

2.2.b - Consistency of harvesting with cut control requirements X (KS)

3.1.a - Compliance of soil disturbance with site plan limits X (BJ)

3.1.b - Coarse Woody Debris Management: ------ -------

3.1.b.i - Removal of dispersed CWD X (Harv.)

3.1.b.ii - Minimum CWD retention X (CC)

3.1.b.iii - Minimum Wildlife Tree Retention X (BJ/TO)

3.1.b.iv - Consistency with Chief Forester’s CWD retention guidelines X (BJ)

3.1.b.v - Revisions to operational guidance X (BJ)

3.2.a - Watershed management X

(JDrodge/JD)

3.2.b - Road and/or stream crossing inspections completed as X

(JT/SV/BJ)

2

scheduled

3.2.c - New bridge and major culvert inspection completions X (JT)

4.1.a - Dead versus green harvest X (MH)

5.1.a - Tolko caused wildfires X (JT)

5.1.b - Animal Unit Months maintained X (BJ)

5.1.c - Historical features adequately managed X (JDrodge)

5.2.a - Dollar value of property taxes X (SB)

5.2.b - Tolko Cariboo Region scholarships or bursaries X (SB)

5.2.c - Completion of salaried employee personal development plans X (Brett)

5.2.d - Level of direct and indirect employment X (BJ)

5.2.e - Level of aboriginal participation in the forest economy X (SB/TO)

6.1.a - Maps of First Nations interest areas readily available X (JDrodge)

6.1.b - Written comment form Aboriginal communities requested and considered in forest management prescriptions X (SC/CC)

6.3.a - Timeliness of small scale salvage referrals X (MP)

6.3.b - Harvesting contract opportunities made available to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors X (JT/JM)

6.3.c - Silviculture contract opportunities made available to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors X (DG)

6.3.d - Maintenance of milling facilities relative to AAC X (MH)

6.3.e - Stumpage and licence rental fees X (SB/JG)

6.3.f - Protection of range infrastructure X (JT)

6.3.g - Material contributions to other wood products producers X (CA/SB)

6.3.h - SAFE certification of Tolko contractors X

6.3.i - Tolko SAFE certification X

6.3.j - Tolko support of community organizations X (CA)

6.4.a - Effective terms of reference X (BJ)

6.4.b - Notice of Intent distribution X (CC/TO)

6.4.c - Access to annual report and PAG X (BJ)

6.5.a - Information sharing with public X (TH)

6.5.b - Tolko Cariboo Woodlands Communication Plan X (BJ)

6.5.c - General communication with public X (BJ)

6.5.d - Public access to SFMP information X (BJ)

6.5.e - Tolko staff knowledge of SFMP content X (BJ)

6.5.f - Number of research projects by Tolko Cariboo Woodlands X (DG)

3

2016 Indicator Current Status Summary:

For the 2016 reporting period for 2015 current status results there were a total of 59 indicators in the plan with the target being met for 56 indicators, not met for 2 indicators and not reported out on for 1 indicator. The indicators not met include the following:

1. Compliance of Soil Disturbance with Site Plan Limits 2. Road and Stream Crossing Inspections Completed as Scheduled

1.1.a - Ecosystem area by type: Element 1.1, Core element 1.1.1 Indicator - Distribution of DFA by biogeoclimatic zone and subzone/variant, reported annually. Target Met: The 2015 distribution of biogeoclimatic zones within the DFA with a net productive forest area of 2,054,626.0ha is: SBPSxc 31.26%, IDFdk3 13.52%, MSxv 14.56%, IDFdk4 10.23%, SBPSmk 4.54%, SBPSdc 5.12%, SBSdw2 3.21%, IDFxm 3.14%, SBSdw1 3.17%, ICHwk2 2.46%, ESSFwk1 1.87%, ESSFxv2 1.40%, SBSmc2 1.08%, ESSFwc3 0.58%, SBPSmc 0.52%, ESSFwcp 0.01%, ESSFwcw 0.03%, ICHmk3 1.37%, MSxk3 0.26%, BGxw2 0.41%, BGxh3 0.07%, SBSwk1 0.10%, SBSmc1 0.46%, IDFxw 0.07%, ESSFxv1 0.38%, SBSmh 0.02%, MSdv 0.01%, ICHwk4 0.01%, ESSFxvp 0.08% and IDFdw 0.06%.

94.9%

3.4% 1.7% 2015 Indicator Current Status Results

Target Met

Target Not Met

Not Reported Out On

4

1.1.b - Non-pine sowing requests: Element 1.1, Core indicator 1.1.2 Indicator - Percentage of non-pine sowed for reforestation in areas east of the Fraser River, reported annually. Target is >20%.

BG xh 3, 0%

BG xw 2, 0% ESSFwc 3, 1%

ESSFwcp, 0%

ESSFwcw, 0%

ESSFwk 1, 2%

ESSFxv 1, 0%

ESSFxv 2, 1%ESSFxvp, 0%

ICH mk 3, 1%

ICH wk 2, 2%

ICH wk 4, 0%

IDF dk 3, 14%

IDF dk 4, 10%

IDF dw, 0%IDF xm, 3%

IDF xw, 0%

MS dv, 0%

MS xk 3, 0%

MS xv, 15%

SBPSdc, 5%SBPSmc, 1%

SBPSmk, 5%

SBPSxc, 31%

SBS dw 1,

3%

SBS dw 2,

3%

SBS mc 1, 0%

SBS mc 2, 1% SBS mh, 0%

SBS wk 1, 0%

BG xh 3 BG xw 2 ESSFwc 3 ESSFwcp ESSFwcw ESSFwk 1 ESSFxv 1 ESSFxv 2 ESSFxvp ICH mk 3

ICH wk 2 ICH wk 4 IDF dk 3 IDF dk 4 IDF dw IDF xm IDF xw MS dv MS xk 3 MS xv

SBPSdc SBPSmc SBPSmk SBPSxc SBS dw 1 SBS dw 2 SBS mc 1 SBS mc 2 SBS mh SBS wk 1

5

Target Met: 38.1% of seedlings sown in 2015 were non-pine which compares to 35.2% sown in 2014.

1.1.c - Non-pine component of cutblocks surveyed for free growing: Element 1.1, Core indicator 1.1.2 Indicator - Percentage of surveyed cutblocks where the inventory (total stems) at time of free growing shows a mixed species composition with greater than or equal to two species being present with one species not contributing greater than 90% of total stems, reported annually. Target and variance:

1. East of Fraser and Quesnel TSA: Target 80% and Variance 10% (70% pass) 2. West of Fraser – artificially regenerated: Target 50% Variance 10% (40% pass) 3. West of Fraser – naturally regenerated: Target 35% Variance 10% (25% pass)

Target Met: For areas declared Free Growing in 2014 and 2015 year to date the following identifies the percentage that met the mixed species composition:

1. East of Fraser and Quesnel TSA: 92.9% Mixed species 2. West of Fraser – artificially regenerated: 66.9% Mixed species 3. West of Fraser – naturally regenerated: 26.1% Mixed species

ZONE MultiLayer (ha) - Mixed

Single Species (ha)

SingleLayer (ha) - mixed

TOTAL (ha)

Percent Mixed

East and Quesnel 615.8 1462 18686.8 20,764.6 92.96%

West - Artificial 56.1 2176.9 4337.5 6,570.5 66.87%

West - Natural 123.5 2115.5 624.4 2,863.4 26.12%

1.1.d - Consistency with seral stage distribution requirements: Element 1.1, Core indicator 1.1.3 Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits in accordance with: seral targets for mature plus old, Old Growth Management Areas objectives, and Wildlife Tree retention objectives of the CCLUP (Land Act order), reported annually. Target 100% of Cutting Permits, 0% allowable variance excluding permanent-OGMA Static overlaps of <0.03 ha in size. Target Met: In 2015, there were 69 cutting permits recorded as approved. The following is an assessment of FSP consistency specific to Seral Stage targets, WTP percentages and OGMA harvest overlaps. Cutting permits utilized seral stage surpluses or within seral deficit landscape units, were classified as salvage allowing for seral stage drawdown. 17 out of the 69 cutting permits approved, were comprised of blocks not meeting the salvage criteria. In these instances, the blocks were assessed against the appropriate seral stage report (July 21, 2013 or November 5, 2014 or July 2, 2015 depending on CP submission date), FSP Biodiversity Checklist and cruise compilation to verify compliance and in all cases the non-salvage blocks were found to be consistent. Generally non-salvage blocks were located in LU-BEC combinations in surplus, and involved partial cut in Douglas-fir types. For the 69 Cutting Permits recorded as approved that prescribed > 50% basal area removal, all 69 (100%) cutting permits met Wildlife Tree retention requirements when assessed by LU-BEC

6

combination met WTP retention levels when assessed at a LU-BEC level. The average retention level for all cutting permits approved in 2015 was 22.02%. Of the 69 cutting permits identified as being approved in 2015, 45 blocks were identified as having one or more OGMA overlaps. The block overlaps included a total of 47 OGMA overlaps including 2 overlaps (overlaps > 0.03ha in size) with Permanent OGMA-Static, 21 overlaps with Permanent OGMA-Static (overlaps <0.03 ha in size which can be disregarded), 1 Permanent OGMA-Rotating overlap and 23 overlaps with Transitional OGMA’s.

Of the overlaps with Permanent OGMA-Static, all except 2 were less than 0.03ha in size (minimum size of 0.000014ha and a maximum size of 0.025477ha) and can be disregarded as the intent to not overlap was met. Of the 2 overlaps > 0.03ha in size, A20010 CP U24 Block Q0504B was a Permanent OGMA-Static overlap with an existing road. The block boundary included the area with the existing road as it joined two separate pieces of the block together. The 0.144195ha overlap with the Permanent OGMA-Static on the existing road was approved as is by the district. The remaining > 0.03ha overlap, was actually a transitional OGMA at the time of submission in December 2013. This 0.035024ha overlap within A20010 CP U08 Block Q0339 meets the FSP mortality threshold to harvest in OGMA’s. This transitional OGMA (at the time of submission) became a permanent OGMA-static as of the license direction received from the district on January 9, 2015. The district approved the permit as is.

Of the 1 overlap with Permanent OGMA-Rotating, this block met the FSP mortality thresholds required to harvest in OGMA’s.

Of the 23 overlaps with Transitional OGMA’s, all were in blocks that met the FSP mortality thresholds required to harvest in OGMA’s.

1.1.e - Consideration of connectivity, natural disturbance type and pattern, and range of natural variability: Element 1.1, Core indicator 1.1.4 Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits designed considering connectivity and natural disturbance type and pattern and range of natural variability, reported annually.

Target Met: For the 69 cutting permits approved in 2015 a file review confirms a connectivity assessment was completed for all of the cutting permits identified as being approved during the reporting period. A detailed review was completed on a sub-set of the 69 cutting permits approved in 2015 to determine consistency with natural disturbance type and range of natural variability. This was conducted through a review of operational maps, 2015 SPOT 6 satellite imagery, tabular and spatial data bases (including 2016 seral stage and patch size distribution results), connectivity assessment form and leave tree requirements as specified in site plans and/or appraisals.

Operational maps combined with spatial databases provide detail regarding locations of planned and existing openings, their general age class distribution, unharvested areas, riparian features, general terrain, and most importantly wildlife tree retention and block distribution and configuration relative to leave areas. Cutting permits that had a detailed review completed were found to be designed taking into consideration the Natural Disturbance Type (NDT) in which they are found. At a general level Wildlife Tree Retention was focused on drainages, classified streams, island remnants and wetland areas (these areas are identified as important for connectivity and refugia values). Dash distances for the cutting permits were generally found to be less than 500m and all openings are noticeably edgy in form with a high degree of block variability in terms of both shape and size. Within NDT2 (i.e. ICH and ESSF) veteran tree retention was either specified or wildlife tree retention included riparian areas where veterans have the greatest probability of being found.

7

At a stand level development is considered to be within the range of natural variability with respect to structures likely to be present through the rotation. All cutting permits provide for leave tree retention, and all areas are unique in the distribution of this retention and typically exceed legislated wildlife tree retention area (WTRA) requirements.

1.1.f - Professional review of connectivity, natural disturbance type and pattern, and range of natural variability management: Element 1.1, Core Indicator 1.1.4 Indicator – Every third year, commencing in 2014 an independent professional will produce a report providing feedback on current practice and considerations for practice improvement to the Tolko Cariboo Woodlands in regards to the management of connectivity in the context of emulating natural disturbance type and pattern and range of natural variability. Indicator Not Reported Out: As part of the 2015 Annual Report for 2014 current status results a third party professional assessment was completed by Davis Environmental Ltd. to assess consistency with requirements for connectivity, natural disturbance type and pattern, and range of natural variability management. As such, the next professional review will be completed as part of the 2018 Annual Report for 2017 current status results.

1.2.a - Species at risk training for development contractors: Element 1.2, Core indicator 1.2.1 Indicator - Percentage of development contractors annually trained on Species at Risk and Tolko’s expectations for management, reported annually. Target is 100% of development contractors with variance of 20% (80% pass) Target Met: 26 out of 26 (100%) of the development contractors that required species at risk training (i.e. Field work contractors) received species at risk training in 2015 (compared to 100% in 2014).

1.2.b - Management of rare species occurrences: Element 1.2, Core indicator 1.2.1 Indicator - Percentage of rare species occurrences managed consistent with rare species related training, reported annually. Target Met: For blocks with harvest commencement in the 2015 calendar year, 5 blocks had one or more occurrences identified within the block. In all blocks the rare species occurrences where comprised of Whitebark Pine. Management of the Whitebark Pine occurrences included being incorporated into WTP’s and smaller more isolated occurrences were managed through the establishment of Machine Free Zones (MFZ’s) and dispersed retention.

1.2.c - Adherence to Wildlife Habitat Area, Ungulate Winter Range and Wildlife Act requirements: Element 1.2, Core indicators 1.2.1 &1.2.2 Indicator - Number of Environmental Incidents occurring contrary to Wildlife Habitat Area, Wildlife Act or Ungulate Winter Range requirements, reported annually.

8

Target Met: Based on a review of the 2015 EIR report and 2015 PIF report, no incidents contrary to Wildlife Habitat Area, Ungulate Winter Range or Wildlife Act requirements were identified in the 2015 calendar year.

1.2.d - Area of natural regeneration versus artificial regeneration: Element 1.2, Core indicator 1.2.3 Indicator - Percentage of harvested area managed for natural regeneration as measured on a three year rolling average, reported annually. Target is >50%. Target Met: For the previous three year rolling average (January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2015), 70.8% of the area harvested is being managed for natural regeneration.

1.3.a - Amount of regeneration that is genetically modified stock: Element 1.3, Core indicator – N/A Indicator – Percentage of stock used for regeneration that is genetically modified, reported annually. Note: Genetically modified stock does not include stock created through selective breeding. Target Met: No genetically modified stock was used for reforestation by Cariboo Woodlands in 2015.

1.4.a - Potential for cattle impacts in riparian areas: Element 1.4, Core indicator 1.4.1 Indicator - Percentage of those cutting permits where riparian reserves are being reduced below standard widths where cattle impacts on riparian reserves have been considered and managed for, reported annually. Target Met: Of the 69 Tolko cutting permits approved in 2015, no cutting permits were identified to have cutblocks where riparian reserve zones (RRZ’s) widths were reduced below the requirements specified in applicable legislation. Target is 100% with no allowable variance.

1.4.b - Post-harvest riparian functioning: Element 1.4, Core indicator 1.4.1 Indicator - Percentage of riparian areas properly functioning, properly functioning but at risk, or properly functioning but at high risk, reported annually. Target: 100% Properly Functioning The highest risk riparian areas were assessed. Areas were selected through review of operational and Development Plan maps for those areas identified in Phoenix as having harvested completed between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015 taking into consideration proximity of harvest to a watercourse, presence of stream crossings, stream class and other contributing factors. Currently reporting only includes classifiable riparian features with no legislative reserve (S5, S4, and S6 streams). Target Met: For 2016 reporting a total of 6 streams were assessed with a harvest completion date in 2015, with all classified as Properly Functioning. Based on the results none of the streams sampled were classified as Not Properly Functioning. Overall 100% of streams assessed were properly functioning.

9

1.4.c – Maintenance of longer-term Large Woody Debris (LWD) inputs to streams: Element 1.4, Core Indicator 1.4.1 Indicator – Percentage of Tolko harvested riparian areas with no legislated reserve maintaining LWD inputs. Target – On an annual basis complete and present report assessing maintenance of LWD inputs into streams with no-legislated reserve. Target Met: For the 2016 reporting period streams with a 2015 harvest completion date were assessed specific to maintenance of longer-term LWD inputs into streams and the results of this assessment will be presented to the Public Advisory Group. Action 1: Present results from the 2016 LWD assessments to the PAG – Forestry Superintendent Planning – December 1, 2016. Action 2: Confirm that there have been no changes to the FREP Protocol for assessing LWD Inputs into Streams or Post-harvest Riparian Functioning and communicate results back to the PAG – Forestry Superintendent Planning – December 31, 2016.

Action 3: Review with operations group to ensure for areas within 5m of LWD dependent S6

streams a minimum of 10 trees < 30cm dbh per 100m of streambank are retained and within 10m of all S4 streams all conifers < 30cm dbh are retained – Zach Drift – December 31, 2016

Action 4: Review with operations group. Were dispersed retention is being prescribed within 5m

of the streambank for S6 and S4 streams that windthrow is being considered to mitigate risk associated with stream channel disturbance. Consider application of stubbing and/or retention of species less prone to windthrow where the windthrow hazard is moderate to high – Zach Drift – December 31, 2016

1.4.d - Aboriginal values and uses acknowledged: Element 1.4, Core indicator 1.4.2 Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits where forest management prescriptions have requested and considered written comments received from aboriginal communities on cutting permits, reported annually. Target is 100% and allowable variance is 0%. Target Met: Off the 69 cutting permits recorded as approved in 2015, aboriginal comments were requested and considered in 100% of the cutting permits approved during the reporting period. Review of supporting documentation for FN information sharing show two categories of comments. The majority of comments received were general in nature and related to landscape level management including maintenance of travel corridors, access management, and connectivity/wildlife management corridors. Stand level comments are generally tied to stand level retention, coarse woody debris retention, regeneration protection during operations, in-block road deactivation, increased riparian reserves, exclusion of non-pine timber types, and visual/thermal management in areas around High Value Moose Wetlands and Modelled Moose Habitat. Of the comments received, 13 were considered to be site/block specific and generally related to known FN traditional uses tied to specific trails and various spiritual areas associated with lakes and other features of significance. In these circumstances various avoidance strategies were employed in conjunction with modifications of harvestable block areas to maintain the integrity of the associated values.

10

2.1.a - Regeneration success: Elements 2.1 & 4.1, Core indicator 2.2.1 Indicator - Percentage of cutblocks regenerated within 7 years, reported annually. Target is 100% with an allowable variance of 5% (95% is a pass).

Target Met: For areas harvested in 2007, 100% of area (15483.0 ha) has been successfully regenerated within 7 years. For areas harvested in 2007, 100% of area (16659.5 ha) has been successfully regenerated within 7 years.

2.1.b - Free growing success: Elements 2.1 & 4.1, Core indicator 2.2.1 Indicator - Percentage of cutblocks achieving free growing within 20 years, reported annually. Target is 100% with an allowable variance of 5%.

Target Met: For areas harvested in 1994 and 1995, 99.7% (866.0ha of a total of 868.6ha) of areas have achieved free growing status within a 20 year period. Cutblocks not achieving free growing status within 20 years included one 2.6ha SU. This 2.6ha SU had a late free growing extension approved in 2010 to year 25 and free growing status was achieved in year 21. There was an additional 585.6ha of area which was impacted by the 2009 and 2010 catastrophic wildfire and section 108 funding was obtained which included an extension to the free growing date (20 years after the fire event); these blocks did not count against the indicator target.

2.1.c - Invasive plant training: Element 2.1, Core Indicator N/A Indicator – Annually conduct invasive plant awareness, reporting, and best management practices for Tolko silviculture and harvesting supervisors, reported annually. Target is 100% with no variance.

Target Met: Invasive Plant Awareness Training was provided as part of three separate training sessions. Based on training records 8 of 8 harvesting staff and 4 of 4 silviculture staff received invasive plant training in 2015. As a total, 12 of 12 (100.0 %) Tolko silviculture and harvesting supervisors received Invasive Plant Awareness Training in 2015.

2.2.a - Area of forest deleted as a result of roads and landings: Element 2.2, Core indicator 2.2.1 Indicator - Percentage of forest area deleted as a result of road and landing development, reported annually. Target is less than 6%. Target Met: In 2015, the percentage of forest converted to roads and landings was 4.18%. The percentage of 4.18% is the unnatural non-productive area (839.9 ha) as a percentage of gross merchantable cutblock area (20,095.9 ha) for those cutblocks where harvesting commenced in 2015. This unnatural non-productive area is mostly new construction but also includes existing roads and landings utilized for harvesting.

2.2.b - Consistency of harvesting with cut control requirements: Element 2.2, Core indicator 2.2.2. Indicator - Cut control management consistency with the Forest Act, reported annually.

11

Target Met: Cut control management by Tolko Cariboo Woodlands for the 2015 calendar year were consistent with the requirements of the Forest Act and associated cut control provisions in legislation.

3.1.a - Compliance of soil disturbance with site plan limits: Element 3.1, Core indicator 3.1.1 Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits with harvest completed during the reporting period in compliance with the soil disturbance limits as stated in the site plans, reported annually. Target is 100% and Allowable Variance is 0. Target Not Met: Based on a review of 2015 EIR’s and C&E Compliance Reports there were two potential compliance incidents (A84966-95W-WLB120B and A20003-13H-M0313) of soil disturbance levels in excess of legislated requirements within the roadside work area and/or the block net area to reforest. In both cases a soil disturbance survey was required to confirm if legislative soil disturbance limits have been exceed. A survey has been completed on block WLB120B and was found to be in compliance with legislative limits. The survey completed for block M0313 confirmed that the soil disturbance levels exceeded to the legislative limit and will require site rehabilitation to mitigate. Action 1: Get third party contractor to complete soil disturbance surveys for blocks M0313 and WLB120B, provide survey report quantifying soil disturbance levels for 2 blocks and communicate to FLNRO – Zach Drift – Completed (August 29, 2016) Action 2: Once soil disturbance surveys completed and current status results confirmed complete corrective action plan to minimize the potential for reoccurrence moving forward – Zach Drift – Completed (August 30, 2016) Action 3: Work with government and contractors as required to complete soil rehabilitation as prescribed for M0313 – Dylan Lens – November 30, 2016 Action 4: Complete an operations staff retraining session to review and discuss temporary access structures and impacts to soil disturbance levels when not prescribed in the Site Plan – Zach Drift – October 31, 2016 Action 5: Prepare and distribute an EMS alert related to management of soil disturbance levels and impacts of previously unidentified Temporary Access Structures on allowable soil disturbance levels – Bryan Jakubec – October 31, 2016

3.1.b - Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Management:

Element 3.1, Core indicator 3.1.2

3.1.b.i - Removal of dispersed CWD: Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits were dispersed coarse woody debris has been removed post-harvest for biomass or other uses, reported annually.

Target Met: No activities involving the removal of post-harvest dispersed coarse woody debris outside the roadside work area was undertaken during the 2015 reporting period.

3.1.b.ii - Minimum CWD retention: Indicator - for each cutting permit area to be harvested prescribe CWD retention and recruitment measures (ex. stubbing requirements) consistent with the Chief Forester’s guidelines for retention of large, >20cm dbh and >10m length, CWD: ESSF 11 pieces/ha; ICH 19 pieces/ha; IDF 4

12

pieces/ha; MS 4 pieces/ha; SBPSdh, dk and dw 5 pieces/ha; other SBPS 2 pieces/ha, SBS 6 pieces/ha. Target of 100% with an allowable variance of 10% (90% pass) Target Met: A total of 69 cutting permits were approved between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015. Of the 69 cutting permits approved, 61 had site plans completed at the time of this assessment (April 28, 2016). Of the 61 site plans completed, 60 (60/61 = 98.4%) of the associated cutting permit site plans were determined to be consistent with the Chief Foresters guidelines for retention of large CWD.

3.1.b.iii - Minimum wildlife tree retention: Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits with > 50% basal area removal retaining at least the minimum Wildlife Tree Retention requirements as specified in the Land Act Order Regulation clarifying the objectives of the Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Plan, reported annually. Target Met: In 2015, a total of 69 cutting Permits are recorded as approved that prescribed > 50% basal area removal. For 69 of 69 (100%) cutting permits, Wildlife Tree retention meets or exceeds requirements when assessed by LU-BEC combination. The average retention level for all cutting permits approved in 2015 was 22.02%.

3.1.b.iv - Consistency with Chief Forester’s CWD retention guidelines: Indicator – On an annual basis report consistency of Tolko operations with Chief Forester guidance that the following amounts of big (> 20cm diameter and >10m length) CWD should be retained: ESSF 11 pieces/ha; ICH 19 pieces/ha: IDF 4 pieces/ha; MS 4 pieces/ha; SBPSdh, dk and dw 5 pieces/ha; other SBPS 2 pieces/ha; SBS 6 pieces/ha Findings on the consistency of CWD retention with the Chief Forester’s CWD retention guidelines will be presented to PAG as part of the annual report review. Target is one report.

Target Met: CF guidance specific to retention of large CWD (greater than 10.0m length and greater than 20cm dbh) was met on 9 of 9 sites. Based on sites sampled targets were achieved Refer to associated report for details and discussion related to this. Action 1: Present report to PAG related to field results assessing consistency with Chief Forester’s CWD retention guidelines as part of the 2016 annual review for 2015 current status results – Forestry Superintendent Planning – October 1, 2016.

3.1.b.v - Revision to operational guidance: Indicator – On an annual basis revise operational guidance as necessary to improve consistency of Tolko operations with Chief Forester Guidance respecting CWD.

Target Met: One of the recommendations made in the 2015 connectivity assessment completed by Davis Environmental Ltd. was to consider retaining piles and windrowed CWD in the suite of tools Tolko uses to maintain connectivity, especially where riparian habitats are limited or dash distances will be long. Action 1: Work with internal Tolko staff and government to develop an action plan that involves developing an operational procedure to facilitate the retention of debris piles post-harvest in prescribed circumstances – Forestry Superintendent – April 28, 2017. Action 2: Present to the PAG the results and findings from Action 1 above – Forestry Superintendent – June 30, 2017.

3.2.a - Watershed management:

13

Element 3.2, Core indicator 3.2.1 Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits developed in accordance with the watershed assessment requirements of the Tolko Forest Stewardship plan, reported annually. Target Met: Of the 69 cutting permits recorded as approved in 2015, 3 cutting permits (A20018 CP 865, A82105 CP 01W and A84966 CP 92W) were identified as having a portion of blocks overlapping with hydrologically sensitive watersheds. A20018 CP 865 is located within the Keithley Creek Watershed located in the Williams Lake TSA. A detailed hydrological assessment was completed on the Keithley Creek Watershed on August 31, 2009. Based on the review of the assessment, it was determined that for the portion of CP 865 which overlaps the Keithley Creek Watershed was developed in accordance with the assessment requirements. A82105 CP 01W is located within the Jackson Hole Watershed located in the Williams Lake TSA. A detailed hydrological assessment was completed on the Jackson Hole Watershed in April 2015. Based on the review of the assessment, it was determined that for the portion of CP 01W which overlaps the Jackson Hole Watershed was developed in accordance with the assessment requirements. A84966 CP 92W is located within the Horsefly River Watershed located in the Williams Lake TSA. A detailed hydrological assessment was completed on the Horsefly River Watershed in June 2015. Based on the review of the assessment, it was determined that for the portion of CP 92W which overlaps the Horsefly River Watershed was developed in accordance with the assessment requirements.

3.2.b - Road and/or stream crossing inspections completed as scheduled: Element 3.2, Core indicator N/A Indicator - Percentage of inspections completed as scheduled within the year within Tolko’s road maintenance tracking system, reported annually. Target is 100% / Allowable Variance is 20% (80% pass) Target Not Met: 66% (31 of 47) of high risk road and stream crossings completed within the previous year have been inspected as scheduled. Action 1: Assign internal and external resources required to ensure completion of 2016 program as scheduled. Bridges assigned to external contractor and road sections assigned to internal staff – Zach Drift - Complete Action 2: Send e-mail notification to operations staff regarding staff expectations moving forward related to completion of road and bridge inspections – Zach Drift – Complete Action 3: Interim review of road and bridge inspections progress for 2016 program – Zach Drift – August 15, 2016 (Schedule subsequent Nov. 15 review if required) Action 4: Review business process for new road completions in terms of high risk assignment. Assess GIS support required to implement. – Zach Drift –September 30, 2016

3.2.c - New bridge and major culvert inspection completions: Element 3.2, Core indicator N/A Indicator - Percentage of new bridge and major culvert (>950mm) installations inspected the season following first freshet, reported annually. Target is 100% / Allowable Variance is 10% (90% pass)

14

Target Met: The Cariboo Woodlands road tracking system recorded 15 new major structures as being installed between the 2014 and 2015 freshets. (Freshet generally occurs between April and June dependent on elevation). 5 major structures (all bridges) were removed between the 2014 and 2015 freshets. 100% (15/15) of the new major structures were inspected after the first freshet.

4.1.a - Dead versus green harvest: Element 4.1, Core indicator 4.1.1 Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits by volume meeting salvage criteria of 50% dead, reported annually. Target is ≥ 70% with variance of 10% (60% pass) Target Met: For harvest completed by Tolko in 2015, 86.6% was salvage compared to 83.7% in 2014. Salvage consists of harvest with stands containing volume that is greater than 50% dead.

5.1.a - Tolko caused wildfires: Element 5.1, Core indicator 5.1.1 Indicator - Number of wildfires (>1ha) occurring within the DFA as a result of Tolko activities, reported annually. Target 0 with a variance of 1 (no negligence present fire) Target Met: In 2015, none of the 3 wildfires reported on Tolko work sites were greater than 1.0 ha in size. In all cases the fires were identified, actioned and put out by the contractor and did not require external resources to extinguish. One of the 3 fires was determined to be caused by a lightning strike. 2 out of the 3 fires were caused by the working buncher. 2 out of the 3 fires were located within a harvested portion of an active cutblock and did not result in damage to standing timber. 1 out of the 3 fires was located on the road right of way leading to the block.

5.1.b - Animal Unit Months maintained: Element 5.1, Core indicator 5.1.1 Indicator - Reduction in Animal Unit Month levels as a result of Tolko activities, reported annually. Target Met: Based on a review of 2015 EIR’s and PIF no incidents related to the reduction in Animal Unit Months were reported as a result of Cariboo Woodlands operations.

5.1.c - Historical features adequately managed: Element 5.1, Core indicator 5.1.1 Indicator - Percentage of identified historical features adequately managed, reported annually. Target Met: For Tolko blocks with harvest complete during the 2015 calendar year, there was no overlaps with point or line features within the Historical Sites spatial layers (point and line).

5.2.a - Dollar value of property taxes: Indicator 5.2, Core indicator 5.2.1 Indicator - Report the dollar value of property taxes paid by Tolko Cariboo Region, reported annually.

15

Target Met: In 2015, the total dollar value of property taxes paid by Tolko in the Cariboo region was $2,125,441.62, which compares to $2,030,514.65 in 2014.

5.2.b - Tolko Cariboo Region scholarships or bursaries: Element 5.2, Core indicator 5.2.2 Indicator - Number of scholarships or bursaries provided by Tolko Cariboo Region, reported annually. Target is 6 / Allowable Variance is 1 less (5 bursaries or scholarships = pass) Target Met: In 2015, a total of 6 bursaries were provided by Tolko within the Cariboo region which matches the 6 in 2014. This included 4 bursaries in Williams Lake and 2 bursaries in Quesnel.

5.2.c - Completion of salaried employee personal development plans: Element 5.2, Core indicator 5.2.2 Indicator - Percentage of Tolko Cariboo Region salaried employees (generally supervisory staff) maintaining a personal development plan and annually reviewing this development plan with their supervisor, reported annually. Target is 100% / Allowable Variance is 20% (80% pass)

Target Met: In 2015, (2014 performance reviews) personal development plans were completed and reviewed for 90% of salaried staff in the Cariboo region as a whole. This is an increase from 2014, where 78% of salaried staff completed personal development plans. Personal development plans were completed and reviewed in our new UltiPro system.

5.2.d - Level of direct and indirect employment: Element 5.2, Core indicator 5.2.3 Indicator - Report annual direct and indirect employment resulting from volume harvested by Cariboo Woodlands from within the Defined Forest Area, reported annually. Target Met: In 2015 a total volume of 2,612,317m3 was delivered to the three scale sites within the Cariboo region (Log Certification Detail Report for Scale 602, 603 and 607). Of this total volume 1,547,552m3 (59.2 %) was from within the Defined Forest Area, 771,093m3 (29.5%) was from outside of the DFA (included Tolko tenure or tenure managed by Tolko) and 293,672m3 (11.2%) was SFI certified (represents BCTS external log purchases). In consideration of the above volumes there was 994 direct jobs within CSA-DFA, 495 within Non-certified and 189 direct jobs within SFI for a total of 1677 direct jobs (employment multiplier of 0.000642). For indirect jobs there were 2290 within CSA-DFA, 1141 within Non-certified and 435 within SFI for a total of 3866 indirect jobs (employment multiplier of 0.00148).

Scale Site CSA-DFA Non-

certified SFI Combined

602 (SC) 477,611.0 164,222.0 115,420.0 757,253.0

603 (LV) 566,787.0 370,876.0 100,650.0 1,038,313.0

607 (Ques) 503,154.0 235,995.0 77,602.0 816,751.0

Total: 1,547,552.0 771,093.0 293,672.0 2,612,317.0

Percent of Total: 59.2% 29.5% 11.2% 100.0%

16

5.2.e - Level of aboriginal participation in the forest economy: Element 5.2, Core indicator 5.2.4 Indicator - Report the combined value of contracts, license management agreements, and other initiatives between Tolko Cariboo Woodlands and First Nations, reported annually.

Target Met: The 2015 combined dollar value of contracts (development, harvesting, hauling and silviculture), partnerships (joint ventures and non-quota purchase) and other initiatives of Tolko Cariboo Woodlands with First Nations was $23,987,757.30 (compares to $7,503,091 in 2011, $12,510,331 in 2012, $16,889,700.48 in 2013 and $18,044,315.66 in 2014).

6.1.a - Maps of First Nations interest areas readily available: Element 6.1, Core indicator 6.1.1 Indicator - Map(s) of aboriginal interest areas and aboriginal title areas maintained by Tolko and made readily available to staff, reported annually. Target Met: A digital layer of asserted aboriginal interest areas is maintained and updated as required. In addition, digital data is in place for the TNG Aboriginal Title Area. Both digital layers are available to staff through ArcView and is also available to all upon request to the GIS group. Layer is updated when new information is made known to Tolko from government, First Nations or other sources.

6.1.b - Written comment from Aboriginal communities requested and considered in forest management prescriptions: Element 6.1, Core indicator 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 Element 6.2 Core indicator 6.2.1 Indicator - Percentage of cutting permits where forest management prescriptions have requested and considered written comments received from aboriginal communities regarding the cutting permit, reported annually. Target is 100% and allowable variance is 0%. Target Met: Off the 69 cutting permits recorded as approved in 2015, aboriginal comments were requested and considered in 100% of the cutting permits approved during the reporting period. Review of supporting documentation for FN information sharing show two categories of comments. The majority of comments received were general in nature and related to landscape level management including maintenance of travel corridors, access management, and connectivity/wildlife management corridors. Stand level comments are generally tied, to stand level retention, coarse wood debris retention, regeneration protection during operations, in-block road deactivation, increased riparian reserves, exclusion of non-pine timber types, and visual/thermal management in areas around High Value Moose Wetlands and Modelled Moose Habitat. Of the comments received, 13 were considered to be site/block specific and generally related to known FN traditional uses tied to specific trails and various spiritual areas associated with lakes and other features of significance. In these circumstances various avoidance strategies were employed in conjunction with modifications of harvestable block areas to maintain the integrity of the associated values.

6.3.a - Timeliness of small scale salvage referrals: Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.1 Indicator - Percentage of small scale salvage referrals responded to within 30 days of receipt, reported annually. Target is 100% with variance of 20% (80% is pass)

17

Target Met: In 2015, 100% of small scale salvage referrals were responded to within 30 days of receipt.

6.3.b - Harvesting contract opportunities made available to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors: Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.1 Indicator - Percentage of harvesting opportunities made available through bid and other means to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors, reported annually. Target is 100% and Allowable Variance is 10% (90% pass). Target Met: In the 2015 calendar year, 100% of harvesting contracts were made available to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors through bid or other means. In 2015, there were a total of 23 harvesting contractors harvesting wood in the region of which 100% of the opportunities were made available to locally based contractors (based in Quesnel, Williams Lake or 100 Mile House).

6.3.c - Silviculture contract opportunities made available to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors: Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.1 Indicator - Percentage of silviculture contracting opportunities made available through bid and other means to Cariboo-Chilcotin contractors, reported annually. Target is 100% and Allowable Variance is 10% (90% pass). Target Met: In 2015, 95.5% (21 out of 22) of silviculture contract opportunities were made available to contractors located in the Cariboo-Chilcotin (based out of Quesnel, Williams Lake or 100 Mile House) which compares to 87.5% in 2014. In 2015, one non Cariboo-Chilcotin contractor completed planting projects.

6.3.d - Maintenance of milling facilities relative to Annual Allowable Cut (AAC): Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.1 Indicator - Equivalent percentage of quota volume harvested by Tolko from within the Cariboo-Chilcotin in a given year processed within Tolko’s Cariboo Chilcotin facilities in a given year, reported annually. Target is 100% Target Met: In 2015, Tolko milling facilities in the Cariboo Region consumed the equivalent of 115.9% of the quota volume harvested from Cariboo Woodland’s various licenses.

6.3.e - Stumpage and license rental fees:

Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.1 Indicator - Report the dollar value of stumpage fees and license rent paid as a result of Tolko Cariboo Woodlands operations, reported annually. Target Met: The total value of stumpage paid by Tolko Cariboo Woodlands in 2015 for Tolko tenures was $18,080,475.42 (compared to $12,266,649.97 in 2013 and $10,358,904.47 in 2014). The total value of license rent paid by Tolko Cariboo Woodlands in 2015 was $619,317.02 (compared to $714,152.93 in 2013 and $644,582.94 in 2014).

18

6.3.f - Protection of range infrastructure: Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.1 Indicator - Number of complaints resulting from Tolko’s failure to address issues related to the protection of range infrastructure, reported annually. Target is 0 complaints and Allowable Variance is 3 (≤ 3 pass). Target Met: A review of external communication records, EIR’s and PIF’s for 2015, identified one complaint resulting from a Tolko failure to address issues related to protection of range infrastructure. A cattle guard was not installed. This incident would qualify as a variance but target still achieved.

6.3.g - Material contributions to other wood products producers: Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.1 Indicator - Amount of logs and sawlog residue made available to other wood products manufacturers, reported annually. Target Met: In 2015, the following material contributions to other wood products producers were made within the region.

Product Use 2015 Volume

Residual chips

Pulp production 40,810 Odt

Whole log chips

Pulp production 75,116 Odt

Sawdust Pellet production; energy production; medium density fibreboard production (Quesnel)

76,660 Odt

Planer shavings

Pellet production; animal bedding; energy production

80,805 Odt

Bark Capital Power and other energy producers

122,709 Odt

Trim Blocks Fingerjoint producers 10,455 mfbm

Log sales 9,504 m3

1 Odt = 1.2m3

6.3.h - SAFE certification of Tolko contractors: Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.2 Indicator - Contractor SAFE certification is a requirement of Tolko contracts, unless exempted by a Woodlands Manager, reported annually. Target Met: SAFE certification remains a condition of Tolko contracts. The contractor SAFE certification is checked as part of the Annual COR process. Contractors provide new certificates, or their certification status is validated using the BCFSC website.

19

6.3.i - Tolko SAFE certification: Element 6.3, Core indicator 6.3.3 Indicator - Tolko is SAFE certified, reported annually. Target Met: Tolko maintained its SAFE certification through 2015. Tolko Industries Ltd. Corporate certificate (certificate number 9070083) expires on September 8, 2017.

6.3.j - Tolko support of community organizations: Element 6.3, Core indicator N/A Indicator - Annually reports the community groups and activities supported by Tolko and overall trends in support.

Target Met: Tolko Cariboo Region provided contributions to the following community Groups and organizations in 2015:

Williams Lake: Dry Grad $300.00 Seniors Activity Centre $150.00 Shriners $1000.00 Boys & Girls Club $250.00 Cariboo Chilcotin Child Development Centre $200.00 Women’s Contact Society $250.00 WL Central Business Improvement Area $200.00 WL Stampede Association $1000.00 Big Lake Community Association $250.00 Chamber of Commerce $696.95 Camp Likely $275.00 Navy League $300.00 Riske Creek Rodeo $105.33 Society of St Vincent De Paul $250.00 Soda Creek Indian Band $555.22 Contact Women’s Society $3,646.27 Salvation Army Angle Tree $246.08 Scholarship x 2 @ $750/each $1500.00 Subtotal Williams Lake $11,174.85 Quesnel: Desjardins Card Services $664.53 Billy Barker Days $500.00 Quesnel Motocross Association $500.00 Skyfest $500.00 Spirit of the North $1,000.00 Quesnel & District Minor Hockey $100.00 Royal Canadian Legion $35.00 School District No 28 $1500.00 Subtotal Quesnel $4799.53 Cariboo Woodlands: Gavin Lake Forest Education $341.30 UBC Alex Fraser Research $500.00 Subtotal Woodlands $841.30 Total Donations $16,815.68

20

The total dollar value of 2015 donations is $16,815.68 which is down slightly from the 2014 total of $17,861.64.

6.4.a - Effective terms of reference: Element 6.4, Core indicator 6.4.1 Indicator - Terms of reference reviewed bi-annually (every two years) to identify actions for improvement, reported annually. Target Met: Terms of reference are current, improved as necessary consistent with the two-year review requirement. In 2015 terms of reference changes originally proposed at the October 9, 2014 were reviewed and endorsed by the PAG as part of the May 11, 2015 PAG Meeting. Changes to the Terms of Reference finalized at the meeting included: aligning updates to Tolko organizational structure, consolidated company-wide certificate, revised audit schedules and improving clarity around the minimum number of meetings per year.

6.4.b - Notice of Intent distribution: Element 6.4 Core indicator 6.4.2 Indicator - Notices of Intent, map and covering letter, inviting comment upon Tolko plans sent to Rights holders (range tenures, guiding tenures, trapping tenures) prior to cutting permit development. Target Met: Of the 69 cutting permits recorded as approved in 2015, all 69 cutting permits had NOI referrals distributed to rights holders (guides, trappers, range holders) with asserted interests overlapping with the proposed development.

6.4.c - Access to annual report and Public Advisory Group (PAG): Element 6.4, Core indicator 6.4.3 Indicator - Annual CSA monitoring report and invitation to participate in PAG sent to those First Nations whose traditional territories overlap the DFA, reported annually. Target Met: The 2015 SFM Annual Report was posted to the Tolko.com webpage on January 8, 2016. A cover letter which included an invitation to participate in PAG and a link to the 2015 Annual Report was mailed out on May 1, 2016 to a total of 26 First Nations who’s asserted traditional territory overlaps with the Tolko DFA. Action 1: Send out the 2016 SFM Annual Report which documents 2015 current status results and an invitation to participate in PAG to those First Nations whose traditional territory overlaps with the DFA once report completed – Forestry Superintendent Planning – December 31, 2016.

6.5.a - Information sharing with public: Element 6.5, Core indicator 6.5.1 Indicator - Hours of presentation to or discussion with public organizations or groups, exclusive of PAG, (including but not limited to city and regional district councils and school classes), reported annually.

Target Met: In 2015, a total of 34 hours were spent by the Cariboo Woodlands employees in formal meetings with the following groups and/or organizations:

Formal meetings with Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House Regional Districts

21

Cariboo-Chilcotin Community Futures

Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition

MLA’s The total hours has increased from 2014 which was 24 hours.

6.5.b - Tolko Cariboo Woodlands Communication Plan: Element 6.5, Core indicator N/A Indicator - Tolko Cariboo Woodlands Communication Plan annually reviewed and revised as necessary, reported annually. Target Met: No changes were made to the Communication Plan in 2015 with the current version having an effective date of July 21, 2014. The external audit primer document provided to Cariboo Regional Woodlands Staff on September 2, 2015 included a component specific to the Communications Plan and associated responsibilities. In addition on September 1, 2015 the communication plan was distributed the Forestry Superintendents with a request to review with reports and provide any feedback specific to possible changes. Action 1: Prior to the end of the year update communications plan and complete review at a Monthly Woodlands Communications meeting – Forestry Superintendent Planning – December 31, 2016.

6.5.c - General communication with public: Element 6.5, Core indicator 6.5.2 Indicator - Percentage of written, including e-mail, comments, complaints, or inquiries received from the general public regarding forest management activities responded to within 30 days, reported annually.

Target Met: In 2015 no non-permit specific external communications were identified in the External Communications module in the EMS website.

6.5.d - Public access to SFMP information: Element 6.5, Core indicator 6.5.2 Indicator - SFMP, annual report, and external audit results posted on the internet, reported annually. Target Met: The 2015 CSA Annual Report was posted to the internet on January 8, 2016.The April 16, 2015 version of the Sustainable Forest Management Plan was posted to the internet on April 16, 2015. The CSA External Audit report has also been posted to the internet. All documents that have been posted can be accessed through the following link: http://tolko.com/responsibility/certification-stewardship/cariboo-woodlands. Action 1: Ensure that the 2016 Annual Report is posted to the internet on Tolko.com – Forestry Superintendent Planning – October 31, 2016.

6.5.e - Tolko staff knowledge of SFMP content: Element 6.5, Core indicator N/A Indicator - SFMP annual report reviewed annually with Tolko Cariboo Woodlands staff, reported annually.

22

Target Met: The 2015 SFM Annual Report current status results were provided to Cariboo Regional Woodlands staff on May 30, 2016 and this included a copy of the annual report as well as a PowerPoint presentation which summarized results, identified targets not met and corrective action plans to address moving forward. In addition in preparation for the 2015 external audit all woodlands staff were provided a PowerPoint presentation which summarized functional area SFMP roles and responsibilities under the SFMP. Action 1: Complete review of the 2016 CSA SFMP Annual Report with woodlands staff once finalized and reviewed with the PAG – Forestry Superintendent – December 31, 2016

6.5.f - Number of research projects by Tolko Cariboo Woodlands: Element 6.5, Core indicator N/A Indicator - To provide annually a list of research projects claimed through the SR&ED program by Tolko Cariboo Woodlands, reported annually. Target Met: In 2015, Tolko has claimed the following projects under SR&ED:

1. Title: Brushing Research & Development Author: Greenley, David

2. Title: Catastrophic Wildfire Reforestation Options Author: Glessing, Grant

3. Title: Aerial and Mechanical Direct Seeding Author: Greenley, David