Transcript Wildlife Tree Indicator Testing - Ministry of Forests, Lands and

Stand Level Biodiversity
Extensive Evaluation Checklist
January 27th presentation
Field observations
By Bryce Bancroft RPBio
WILDLIFE TREE Extensive Evaluation
Present or not?
Y
N
Actual location and size consistent with map?
Y
N
Windthrow estimates (% stems)
__________%
% trees removed from WTP
Comment
__________%
Metres to nearest mature forest
___________
Habitat, resource or ecological features that anchor patch_________________________
%Stems by WLT class
1
2
3
4
% by species pre-harvest ________
5
6
7
8
9
% by species post-harvest _____________
Harvest –related damage to residual trees
____________%
Reserve contains dominant trees
Y
N
Ecological value of reserve
L
M
H
Ecological value of retention on block as a whole
L
M
H
The checklist was simplified from the Wildlife
Tree Extensive Evaluation Checklist.
It was modified for use in assessing stand
level biodiversity in areas harvested to
manage MPB. This forms part of a Forest
Practices Board Special Project.
I will be discussing data collection and use
from a field perspective including examples
from assessing Weyerhaeuser’s Timberlands.
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
WTP Present or not?
Y
N
Actual location and size consistent with map?
Y
N
What did we learn?
WTPs are often not mapped for Beetle Reg blocks and are not an objective for
Snip and Skid operations – therefore the yes or no question may be a good one
for summarizing results.
Actual location and size consistent with map?
This is not been found to be an issue, as loggers do generally follow their plans
– it is a relatively easy question to answer however if you are looking for general
rather than exact location.
Another question that is useful for summary wrap ups is the size of the WTP in
ha.
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Summary of sizes
The following graph is a depiction of all retention groups over a four year period within
Weyerhaeuser’s Coastal Timberlands, this in conjunction with the total area in retention
and total number of groups can provide a framework to help interpret additional research.
Group Size 1999 - 2002
45
40
Group Size
35
30
1999
25
2000
20
2001
15
2002
10
5
0
0-0-.19
0.2-0.24
0.25-0.50
0.51-1.0
% of Groups
1.1-2.0
2.1-5.0
>5.0
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Windthrow estimates (% stems)
__________%
What did we learn?
While this is an important question it is a relatively tricky one to answer for a
number of reasons.
1.
Timing of the assessment – year one, two, three? After a winter or not …
Timing will affect what is found and needs to be accounted for if the data
are to be effectively analyzed.
2.
Two measures were identified on the original short form, % of group and %
of stems – both have limitations to estimate and what are they telling us of
the remaining stand - % of group is hard to estimate, and #of stems can be
misleading if they are all small and form a small proportion of the BA.
3.
Using %BA windthrown is another option.
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
% trees removed from WTP
__________%
Comment
What did we learn?
Most of the time this is not an issue – therefore is easy to collect and summarize. By
having a comment section, one can provide reasons if any the trees were removed (e.g.,
danger trees).
Where trees have been removed it is often a
small proportion of the total and requires
some form of tally or plot (s). We have
used prism plots to provide an estimate of
the BA removed – this again takes into
account stem size, rather than just numbers
of stems.
One must remember to extrapolate the plot
for the hole group – thus some judgement
is needed.
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Metres to nearest mature forest
___________
What did we learn?
Most of the WTPs we observed are within the nearest mature forest, so the
answer is 0 meters.
A question is what size of
mature forest patch are
we talking about? Is a 1
ha group the starting
point? 2 ha, 5, 10, 100?
Or are we talking about
distance to the next
retained group?
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Habitat, resource or ecological features that anchor the patch______________
What did we learn?
That this is a useful means to inventory the range of features that are left within the WTPs
and possibly were used to anchor the patch.
Use the checklist - The Extensive Evaluation Checklist provides a list of features that can be
checked off. This is useful. I think it is also useful to list attributes of the patch as well as
the obvious anchor, if they are present.
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
%Stems by WLT class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
What did we learn?
Most of the trees will be WL class one.
To get a handle on the % by class, prism sweeps along with
observations within the group are recommended. This is a subjective
number but can provide a snapshot of what classes are being retained.
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
% by species pre-harvest ________% by species post-harvest _____________
What did we learn?
I am not sure how the preharvest part works at the field level, as it is very difficult to get a
preharvest picture without looking at a full range of stumps.
The second part - % species post harvest is relatively straightforward and could be
assessed against preharvest data, e.g., cruise data, to determine what if any obvious
differences are occurring. A Weyerhaeuser example of post harvest data follows.
Timberlands Average species composition of all groups.
North Island
Hw 43% / Cw 26% / Ba 16% /Fd 14% / Dr 1%
West Island
Fd 54% / Hw 17% / Cw 17% / Ba 7% / Dr 3% / Mb 1% / Pl 1%
QCI
Cw 56% / Hw 30%/ Yc 12% / Ss 2%
South Island
Fd 44% / Cw 24% / Hw 11% / Dr 12% / Arbutus 1% / Mb 2%
(Bg 1% / Pw 1% / Pl 3%)
Stillwater
Fd 47% / Hw 26% / Cw 20% / Ba 1% / Yc 3%
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Harvest –related damage to residual trees ___________%
What did we learn?
Damage will be limited to the
edge of most groups and for
the most part will be minimal.
Except along narrow trails
where it can be significant – if
the matrix is being left. % of
the total remaining stems is
still often low – may wish to
summarize by % of edge
stems.
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Reserve contains dominant trees
What did we learn?
To answer this question one
needs to know what
constitutes a dominant tree,
and in the case of Pl – where
most are codoms – is it also
relevant to add them to the
list?
Is one dominant tree in the
WTP enough to say Yes?
How will this information be
used?
Y
N
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Ecological value of reserve
L
M
H
Ecological value of retention on block as a whole
L
M
H
This is a subjective rating that is aided by the Ecological value rating of reserves and
Wildlife Tree Value ratings – e.g., below
The value of retention on the block as a whole is added to take into account other retention
that has not been designated as a WTP.
A high-value wildlife tree has at least two characteristics listed below:

Internal decay (heart or natural/excavated cavities present)

Crevices present (loose bark or cracks suitable for bats)

Large brooms present

Active or recent wildlife use

Current insect infestation

Tree structure suitable for wildlife use (e.g., large nest, hunting perch, bear den, etc.)

Largest trees on site (height and/or diameter) and/or veterans

Locally important wildlife tree species
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
Ecological value of reserve
L
M
H
Ecological value of retention on block as a whole
L
M
H
What did we learn?
That some type of value rating is needed to provide consistency. For
example the rating by Zone provided in the Extensive Evaluation is useful,
E.g.,
BEC ZONE
HIGH
MEDIUM
IDF
Large Fd, dead
and decaying trees
presence of At
Some Fd
LOW
Little structure
WILDLIFE TREE EXTENSIVE EVALUATION
What did we learn?
Do your homework up front
and no matter how much you
do, you may need to
improvise once in the field.
Thanks
PS – we had the key for the
gate…