| This is an excerpt from a draft report prepared by Manning, Cooper and Associates of Victoria, British Columbia (June 2002) for the Biodiversity Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria British Columbia. It has been included here at the request of Colene Wood, Biodiversity Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Executive Summary Ten key, broad-level habitat objectives were identified that can be managed (i.e., maintained or recruited) using silviculture treatments (i.e., including appropriate harvesting and retention strategies, post-harvest regeneration and stand tending regimes, and additional habitat restoration practices). These habitat objectives, as follows, were chosen because of their applicability to many forested regions of British Columbia, their frequent inclusion in higher-level management plans and associated operational guidelines and prescriptions, and the general benefit to stand-level biodiversity and ecosystem function they produce. As well, these objectives are specific, achievable and measurable: - Maintenance and/or recruitment of coarse woody debris (CWD)
- Retention and/or recruitment of wildlife tree patches (WTPs)
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of habitat structure and function in riparian management areas (RMAs)
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of landscape level biodiversity functions/objectives (including seral stage distribution and landscape connectivity / wildlife travel corridors)
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of habitat elements for the general range of primary cavity excavating birds
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of habitat elements for Northern Goshawk reproduction and foraging
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of coastal black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk winter range
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of mule deer winter range
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of mountain caribou winter range
- Maintenance and/or recruitment of habitat elements for grizzly bear forage and security cover.
This report is intended to be a companion document to the various provincial and regional forest management guidelines that have already been developed for managing selected species and habitats. It provides a useful summary of current knowledge and recommended best management practices for managing the key habitat objectives described above, and is compatible with existing silviculture standards guidelines (e.g., Establishment to Free Growing Guidebooks). Information on habitat restoration practices is also provided. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Colene Wood (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch) for initiating and supporting this project. Valuable initial review comments were provided by Rick Dawson (Ministry of Forests, Cariboo Forest Region), Leisbet Beaudry (P. Beaudry and Associates, Prince George), and Christoph Steeger (Pandion Ecological Research, Nelson). This report was prepared by Todd Manning, Bill Golding, Jay Baker, Reinhard Muller, John Cooper, Paul Chytyk and Susan Stevenson, for Manning, Cooper and Associates (Victoria, British Columbia). Mountain Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) | 1. Key Habitat Objectives | | Maintain and or recruit habitat elements for mountain caribou for forage and security in winter range (not applicable to northern caribou). Landscape Level: Landscape level management objectives such as connectivity, patch size distribution and seral stage targets, as well as access management, should be described in higher level plans and sustainable forest management plans. It is important to link higher level plan objectives such as these for a landscape unit or other planning area, with specific practices implemented at the stand level (see Best Management Practices below). A further discussion of landscape level considerations is found in the Landscape Considerations section of this report. |
| 2. Forest Types/ BEC Zones | | ESSF dk, mm, vc, vv, wc, wk, wm, ICH mk2, mm, mw, vk, wk | | 3. Best Management Practices and Specific Habitat Objectives for Access Development and Harvesting | | Maintain and or restore forested connectivity corridors to facilitate predator avoidance and movement of caribou between seasonal ranges. Protect caribou from access-related impacts by developing a road/access management plan. Where forest harvesting is planned in mountain caribou winter range, maintain most of the stand in a late seral condition by using partial cutting techniques with low (< 30%) volume removal and long cutting cycles. For example: 30% volume removal at intervals of 80 years, or 25% removal at intervals of 60 years. Note: Harvest cycles of this duration are intended to ensure that the regeneration from the first entry will be of sufficient size to provide travel habitat and have an inner defoliated zone, which is important for lichen forage development Maintain pre-harvest tree species composition. In the ICH and on the ICH/ESSF ecotone, minimize disturbance of soil and vegetation during harvesting and silvicultural activities in order to: Maintain low evergreen shrubs and herbs with persistent green leaves (e.g., falsebox (Pachystima myrsinites), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), foamflower (Tiarella spp.), and wintergreen (Pyrola spp.)) Avoid enhancing shrubs preferred by moose, deer, and elk (e.g., willow (Salix spp.), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and Douglas maple (Acer glabrum). Avoid excessive physical obstructions (such as wind-rowed slash or many downed trees). | | 4. Best Management Practices and Specific Habitat Objectives Post Harvest | Restoration:
Young or mid-seral stands that are dense or homogeneous may be spaced or thinned to encourage development of a multi-layered structure with heterogeneous spacing. Regeneration:
Minimize visual obstructions and maintain freedom of movement for caribou by keeping regeneration density low. Maintain a clumped stand structure where it occurs naturally, and by cluster planting where possible (see Additional Planting Information, section 6). Brushing:
In the ICH and on the ICH/ESSF ecotone, vegetation management should be planned to discourage woody browse species. Spacing/Thinning/Pruning (or associated practices):
In the ICH and on the ICH/ESSF ecotone, manage for a multi-layered stand structure and heterogeneous spacing some areas should have more open spacing to encourage production of forage lichens, and other areas should have higher canopy closure and dense, wide, long crowns to provide snow interception. Overall, manage for approximately 300 live and 25-30 dead stems/ha (> 19 cm dbh) at age 140 years. To achieve this stand structure: Conserve some advance regeneration during harvesting. Plant widely spaced trees, and allow natural regeneration of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Space trees to encourage variable stem densities and support advance regeneration. Dense thickets of regeneration that interfere with sight distances may be reduced. Note: Pruning does not significantly affect caribou forage in the ICH, where there is little forage lichen within reach. Pruning can actually be used to improve sight distances in these stands. In the ESSF, manage for a multi-layered stand with clumped trees separated by gaps. Overall, manage for approximately 300 live and 25-30 dead stems per ha (> 19 cm dbh) at age 140 years. To achieve this stand structure: In the prescription, reduce acceptable inter-tree spacing to 1 m. Conserve some advance regeneration during harvesting. Cluster-plant on naturally raised microsites or on clumped mounds. For example, plant an average of 4 seedlings per clump and space clumps approximately 5-7 m apart. avoid pruning in areas where arboreal lichens on low branches are important forage for ungulates. Note: It is important to avoid pruning in the ESSF, where caribou eat lichens directly off the lower branches of trees. Protection (fire, insects, disease, damage):
Mountain caribou are adapted to forests that regenerate through gap-dynamics processes. Caribou winter ranges should be protected from extensive stand-destroying fires. | | 5. Recommended Silvicultural Regimes | | BEC Zones ESSFdk mm, vc, vv, wc, wk, wm ICHmk2, mm, mw, vk, wk | Uneven-aged management with high retention of residuals should be practiced wherever possible. The following silvicultural regimes apply to even-aged stands where recruitment of future caribou habitat is a management objective. Examples would be pre-existing even-aged stands, or harvest blocks within movement corridors that are being managed to provide snow-interception habitat in the future. The use of moderate, rather than low, densities early in stand history discourages browse species and encourages dieback of lower branches, which improves sight distances. Later management should focus on the enhancement and or recruitment of heterogeneous stem density and inter-tree spacing throughout the stand rotation. The associated standards reflect this goal. Modified standards are provided only for submesic to subhygric sites in an effort to create conditions across a landscape that will contain various free growing densities (e.g., a bell curve density distribution).Silvicultural Systems that may be applicable for this objective include: Clearcut, Patch Cut, Shelterwood, Retention, Seed Tree, and Selection systems. Harvesting practices should ensure that post harvest debris loading does not create excessive physical obstruction to animal movements. Site preparation treatments should not create excessive physical obstructions (such as windrows) and must preserve retained advance regeneration. On subhygric sites establish new plantations through cluster planting or retention of natural advance regeneration in a cluster pattern. On submesic sites establish plantations in a uniform pattern to encourage earlier crown closure. Do not employ broadcast-brushing techniques such as herbicides. In addition, during brushing and or spacing treatments ensure that variable density distribution of target crop trees is achieved. Implement juvenile spacing programs as required (max density 5000 stems per ha) to ensure the desired variation in stand densities and inter tree spacing is achieved. Post spacing standards can range significantly and it is preferable to obtain a non uniform spacing throughout an area post treatment, this will help to ensure heterogeneous canopy conditions will be present later into stand development (20-60 years).
| | 6. Monitoring Standards Establishment to Free Growing Seral Stage | | Table 1.1 Stocking Standard Guidelines | | Applicable Ecosystem (BEC) | Stocking Standard Modifiers | | Zones | Subzones | Moisture Nutrient Regime | Species Selection | Stocking Standard Modifier1 | Regen Delay | Assessment Time Frame | Min. Tree Ht. | % Tree Over Brush | Min Inter Tree Distance | Max Density | Survey Method | Comments | | ESSF | dk, mm, un, vc, vv, wc, wk, wm | 5/A-E | Footnote 2 | 0.8 | Same | Same | Same | Same | 1.0 | Footnote 3 | Footnote 4 | | | ESSF | dk, mm, un, vc, vv, wc, wk, wm | 3/A-E | Footnote 2 | 1.2 | Same | Same | Same | Same | 2.0 | Footnote 3 | Footnote 4 | | | ICH | mk2, mm, mw, vk, wk | 5/A-E | Footnote 2 | 0.8 | Same | Same | Same | Same | 2.0 | Footnote 3 | Footnote 4 | | | ICH | mk2, mm, mw, vk, wk | 3/A-E | Footnote 2 | 1.2 | Same | Same | Same | Same | 2.0 | Footnote 3 | Footnote 4 | | - The term Stocking Standard Modifier refers to the factor applied to existing stocking standards contained within Establishment to Free Growing Guidebooks. For example: the stocking standards (well-spaced/ha) for ESSFwk 05 site as found in the Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook, Cariboo Forest Region equals = TSSpa 1200, MSSpa 700, MSSp 600. The equivalent stocking standards (well-spaced/ha) for areas with maintenance and or recruitment of forage supply, stand structure and habitat elements for the mountain caribou winter range objective would be TSSpa 960, MSSpa 560, MSSp 480. TSS - target stocking standard, MSS minimum stocking standard, pa preferred and acceptable, and p - preferred.
- Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) should be managed as a minor (< 20%) stand component for areas with caribou management objectives.
- Maximum Density is 5000 stems per ha for these ecosystems. Post spacing densities should range significantly (1000-3000 stems per ha) on a given area in an effort to provide varied post free growing inter tree spacing and total density per ha.
- The survey methodologies used to assess the success of meeting these standards should be consistent with existing methodologies. However, do not stratify areas into contiguous units smaller than one ha, or use dispersed stratum methodologies. In general, more plots may be required to prove obligations are met due directly to the desired variable post free growing density distribution targeted. The maximum number of plots required will be 1.5 per ha. The statistical requirements for these areas will be consistent with existing methodologies.
| | 6. Monitoring Standards Establishment to Free Growing Seral Stage | | Table 1.2 Cluster Distribution | | | | Stocking (tress/ha) | Clusters per ha | Triangular Inter-cluster spacing (m) | | Trees per cluster | Trees per cluster | | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | 200 | 25 | 29 | 33 | 40 | 50 | 67 | 100 | 200 | 21.5 | 20.1 | 18.6 | 17.0 | 15.2 | 13.2 | 10.7 | 7.6 | | 250 | 31 | 36 | 42 | 50 | 63 | 83 | 125 | 250 | 19.2 | 18.0 | 16.6 | 15.2 | 13.6 | 11.8 | 9.6 | 6.8 | | 300 | 38 | 43 | 50 | 60 | 75 | 100 | 150 | 300 | 17.5 | 16.4 | 15.2 | 13.9 | 12.4 | 10.7 | 8.8 | 6.2 | | 350 | 44 | 50 | 58 | 70 | 88 | 117 | 175 | 350 | 16.2 | 15.2 | 14.1 | 12.8 | 11.5 | 9.9 | 8.1 | 5.7 | | 400 | 50 | 57 | 67 | 80 | 100 | 133 | 200 | 400 | 15.2 | 14.2 | 13.2 | 12.0 | 10.7 | 9.3 | 7.6 | 5.4 | | 450 | 56 | 64 | 75 | 90 | 113 | 150 | 225 | 450 | 14.3 | 13.4 | 12.4 | 11.3 | 10.1 | 8.8 | 7.2 | 5.1 | | 500 | 63 | 71 | 83 | 100 | 125 | 167 | 250 | 500 | 13.6 | 12.7 | 11.8 | 10.7 | 9.6 | 8.3 | 6.8 | 4.8 | | 550 | 69 | 79 | 92 | 110 | 138 | 183 | 275 | 550 | 13.0 | 12.1 | 11.2 | 10.2 | 9.2 | 7.9 | 6.5 | 4.6 | | 600 | 75 | 86 | 100 | 120 | 150 | 200 | 300 | 600 | 12.4 | 11.6 | 10.7 | 9.8 | 8.8 | 7.6 | 6.2 | 4.4 | | 650 | 81 | 93 | 108 | 130 | 163 | 217 | 325 | 650 | 11.9 | 11.2 | 10.3 | 9.4 | 8.4 | 7.3 | 6.0 | 4.2 | | 700 | 88 | 100 | 117 | 140 | 175 | 233 | 350 | 700 | 11.5 | 10.7 | 9.9 | 9.1 | 8.1 | 7.0 | 5.7 | 4.1 | | 750 | 94 | 107 | 125 | 150 | 188 | 250 | 375 | 750 | 11.1 | 10.4 | 9.6 | 8.8 | 7.8 | 6.8 | 5.5 | 3.9 | | 800 | 100 | 114 | 133 | 160 | 200 | 267 | 400 | 800 | 10.7 | 10.1 | 9.3 | 8.5 | 7.6 | 6.6 | 5.4 | 3.8 | | 850 | 106 | 121 | 142 | 170 | 212 | 283 | 425 | 850 | 10.4 | 9.8 | 9.0 | 8.2 | 7.4 | 6.4 | 5.2 | 3.7 | | 900 | 112 | 129 | 150 | 180 | 225 | 300 | 450 | 900 | 10.2 | 9.5 | 8.8 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 5.1 | 3.6 | | 950 | 119 | 136 | 158 | 190 | 238 | 317 | 475 | 950 | 9.9 | 9.2 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 3.5 | | 1000 | 125 | 143 | 167 | 200 | 250 | 333 | 500 | 1000 | 9.6 | 9.0 | 8.3 | 7.6 | 6.8 | 5.9 | 4.8 | 3.4 | | 6.0 Monitoring Standards, continued
Notes: When cluster planting is prescribed, silviculture prescriptions should specify target trees per cluster and target clusters per ha, in addition to the target stocking standard. Two methods have been developed to determine the prescribed number of clusters per ha. Final Crop Tree Method The final crop tree formula is the preferred method of determining the number of clusters. Managers must first determine the number of crop trees desired at rotation. Working backward from the density at final rotation, free growing targets and planting targets should be established based on appropriate mortality factors for the site. The following should be considered when deriving a mortality factor: species selection (e.g., shade-tolerant species show less mortality), availability of suitable microsites (e.g., moisture and nutrient requirements, likelihood of flood events), vegetative competition, and anticipated mortality due to stock handling. Dividing the planting target stocking by trees per cluster will result in the required number of clusters per ha. Number of clusters per ha = planting target/ trees per cluster Target Stocking Method Managers wishing to use the target stocking method should first consult the stocking standards table to determine the free growing target stocking recommended for the site series. Next, they should establish a mortality factor based on the site series and conditions, as in the final crop tree method, to derive the planting target. Dividing the planting target stocking by trees per cluster will result in the required number of clusters per ha. The cluster distribution table above can be consulted to help verify the calculated figure. Number of clusters per ha = planting target/ trees per cluster (Triangular inter-cluster spacing = The square root of 11547/# of clusters per/ha) When cluster planting is implemented, spacing between clusters should be adjusted to reflect site conditions and microsite location. Uniform distribution of clusters over the block is appropriate where site conditions are relatively uniform. However, clusters should be located on appropriate planting sites, taking advantage of natural site features such as elevated hummocks or stumps. Inter-cluster spacing is measured from the centre of one cluster to the centre of the adjacent ones on a square grid. However, where sites are undulating, clusters should be located on appropriate planting sites to take advantage of natural features such as elevated hummocks or stumps. Inter-cluster distances should be varied in order to optimize microsite selection. Inter-cluster spacing is recommended to be a minimum of 80% and a maximum of 120% of that required to achieve the desired planting target. This range should result in achieving the overall desired stocking density, within acceptable statistical limits, when a stocking survey is applied across the area. "Dispersed or non-uniform cluster" uses a mix of cluster densities across the block, and is appropriate for some blocks where microsites suitable for clusters (e.g., elevated hummocks) are not evenly distributed. For dispersed cluster planting, the minimum inter-tree distance within a cluster is 1 m on suitable microsites. The number of suitable clusters per ha should be estimated from a reliable survey that covers the entire area. The minimum/maximum inter-cluster distances may vary substantially, as long as the overall target density is met. | | 6. Monitoring Standards Additional | | Establishment (Age 0-4 Year) Phase: N/A. Refer to the Best Management Practices section for management strategies through this portion of stand development. Juvenile (Age 20-60 Year) Phase: No specific standards are developed for this point in stand development. Management of younger age classes (e.g., establishment to free growing 0-20 years) is intended to develop suitable stand conditions through this age class. Existing stands within this age class may be managed to create the desired variable inter tree spacing and total density per ha through late juvenile spacing or commercial harvesting. Mature (Age 60+ Year) Phase: No specific standards are applicable for this age class. In general, subsequent partial cutting harvesting strategies should be implemented that are consistent with the best management practices outlined. | Selected References British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1996. Silvicultural systems for lodgepole pine and northern caribou. BC Min. For., Res. Sec., Ext. Note 19., Williams Lake, British Columbia. URL: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/cariboo/research/research.htm Resources Inventory Committee. 1998. British Columbia wildlife habitat rating standards. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resource Inventory Comm., Wildlife Interpretations Subcommittee., Victoria, British Columbia. Stevens, V. 1995. Database for wildlife diversity in British Columbia: distribution and habitat use of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals in biogeoclimatic zones. Working Pap., British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia. Stevenson, S.K., H.M. Armleder, M.J. Jull, D.G. King, B.N. McLellan, and D.S. Coxson. 2001. Mountain caribou in managed forests: recommendations for managers, 2nd ed. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Report R-26. URL: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/pub/r26/mtcaribou.pdf . Waters, L. and R. DeLong. 2001. Recruiting caribou habitat using silviculture treatments. Unpublished report prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. URL: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/frco/programs/efp/reports.html Wood, C. 1998. Habitat/ecosystem objectives and monitoring procedures for incremental and backlog silviculture treatments, Version 2.0. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resource Stewardship Branch, Victoria, British Columbia.
|
