Tree retention as a biodiversity conservation tool

Transcription

1 Tree retention as a biodiversity conservation tool Practice and research BC, Canada Bill Beese, MF, RPF VIU Forestry Dept.

2 Outline BC and dyukon History and policy context Terminology and application Overview of practices Monitoring and research 2

3 Western Canada 3

4 British Columbia Only 8% private productive forest 95 million hectares 58% forests About half productive, cut = 69 million m 3 / yr Protected area: - 14% of all forest area - 23% of forest >250yrs - 59% over 140 yrs old Half of forest >140yrs will not be harvested 4

5 Yukon Territory 55 million hectares 58% forests About 29% productive, only 19k m 3 /yr cut (commercial 2008) Protected area: 10% Retention insignificant 5

6 BC Coast old forests Wet coastal temperate rainforests: - infrequent fire - wind disturbance - gap dynamics - 32% of BC s forests 6

7 BC Interior & Yukon younger forests Diverse forests: - frequent fire - insect outbreaks - dry grasslands to boreal - 68% of BC s forest area 7

8 History and Policy 1995 VR - Clayoquot Sound Science Panel 1995 BC Forest Practices Code 1998 MacMillan Bloedel 1999 Retention system Weyerhaeuser BCCG 2002 Forest & Range Practices Act 2006 EBM in Great Bear Rainforest 8

9 Certification Status - BC Ha m millions CSA % SFI % FSC % Total May 2011 Global overview of tree retention 9 9

10 Variable Retention - Terminology VR = approach to harvesting & silviculture i lt Long-term retention of trees Variable type, amount, spatial pattern Shelterwood, Selection with reserves Retention = silvicultural system in BC - Forest influence >50%, trees distributed Clearcut with reserves: doesn t require long-term retention and distribution, tion but it usually does in practice 10

11 Overview of retention practices 11

12 Variable Retention BC Coast ( ) 40% Retention System 32% Clearcut with reserves 26% Clearcut 2% Other partial cutting 12

13 Variable Retention BC Total ( ) 5% Retention System 63% Clearcut with reserves 26% Clearcut 4% Other partial cutting 13

14 Examples of VR approaches Group retention - 13% Mixed retention - 19% Group selection Mixed retention - 16% Two-pass retention - 53% Standing stem harvesting 14

15 Landscape- and stand-level reserves Sensitive terrain OGMA Stand retention Riparian reserves 15

16 Retention practices Focus on safety, legacies Forest influence >50% Identify long-term retention 10-20% minimum

17 Streams and wetlands A focus for retention Design influence 17

18 Monitoring and Research BC Forest Science Program Network of Silvic. Experiments FRPA Evaluation Program WFP Forest Strategy EBM 18

19 Monitoring and Research Adaptive Management Program Effectiveness Monitoring Biodiversity Ecosystem Representation Structure Species Ecosystem Grouping Monitoring Attributes: VRAM, Operational blocks, Benchmark sites Species at Risk Red & Blue Listed Habitat supply modeling Species Accounting System Landscape Features 19

20 VRAM Experimental Sites Group Retention Dispersed Retention Group G Size 15% retention Riparian Retention 15% retention Each area replicated 3 times Group Removal Short-cycle (5 7yr) Long-cycle (20 30yr) 100 ha each 20

21 Dispersed comparison Clearcut 10% Logged 2001/02 5% 30% Uncut 21

22 Group size comparison 22

23 Monitoring: birds Group retention beneficial Positive correlation to % retention Group size important for some Less than 15-20% retention, benefits decline significantly Some sensitive species decline below 35 40% retention 30% removal: little impact Studies by M. Preston, SFU; A. Chan-McLeod, UBC; and D. Huggard & F. Bunnell, UBC Brown Creeper Pacific-slope Flycatcher 23

24 Less mobile species Carabid Beetles Fungi, Canopy Epiphytes Gastropods 24

25 Rare lichen surveys Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis i i 25

26 Feedback to Operations How to put AM findings into practice? 26

27 Public acceptance For a given retention level, people prefer dispersed over group retention Retention <15% is generally perceived only slightly better than clearcutting 27

28 Key learning and advice Group retention ti can be done safely across a wide range of sites Windthrow, cost limitations Forest worker training i Benefits for many species AM needs a strong commitment, partnerships Don t try to monitor everything! 28

29 Questions? With thanks to: Glen Dunsworth, Jeff Sandford, Nick Smith, John Deal, Sue McDonald Fred Bunnell, Laurie Kremsater Dave Huggard, Isobel Pearsall Bryce Bancroft, Ken Zielke Elke Wind, Ann Chan-McLeod Mike Preston, Wayne Campbell Lennart Sopuck, Kristiina Ovaska Tony Trofymow, Renata Outerbridge Terry Rollerson, Colin Peters Steve Guenther, Dan Moore and many others! 29