Get documents about "Figure 1 ASSESSMENT FLOW DIAGRAM
Document Sample
Using Key Biodiversity Indicators as Measures for
Monitoring Effectiveness of Pope & Talbot’s Sustainable
Forestry Operations
Prepared for:
Pope & Talbot Ltd.
Prepared by:
Dennis Hamilton,RPBio1
Steven Wilson, PhD, RPBio2
Marlene Machmer, MSc, RPBio3
Pat Field4
March 31, 2006
1
Nanuq Consulting Ltd., Nelson, BC
2
EcoLogic Research, Gabriola Island, BC
3
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd,, Nelson, BC
4
aBoulder Institute, Castlegar, BC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Framework for monitoring biodiversity indicators of Sustainable forest Mangement.............................. 5
Objective........................................................................................................................................... 5
Approach .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Prioritization ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Implementation ................................................................................................................................. 9
Reporting ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Monitoring Indicators of Biodiversity..................................................................................................... 10
Indicator 1:...................................................................................................................................... 10
Indicator 2....................................................................................................................................... 11
Indicator 3....................................................................................................................................... 12
Literature Cited........................................................................................................................................ 14
Survey ............................................................................................................................................. 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Pope & Talbot Management Units in southeastern British Columbia ....................................... 4
Figure 2: Pope & Talbot’s Sustainable Forest Management Ecological Criteria and Indicators
Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework......................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Problem Assessment and Decision Flow Diagram for overall SFM and adaptive management
approach............................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 4: Adaptive Management Feedback............................................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Indicator species selected for the Pope & Talbot SFPM monitoring plan. ............................... 12
2
BACKGROUND
Pope & Talbot Ltd., is in the process of completing a Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
framework for their operations on Tree Farm Licenses (TFL) 8 and 23 and the Boundary Timber
Supply Area (TSA) located in southeastern British Columbia (Figure 1). Their SFM Plan (in prep)
outlines the company’s commitment for meeting Objective 4 of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
(SFI®; 2005-2009 Edition) and certification to the ISO 14001 standard environmental management
system (EMS).
An SFI® program third party verification audit in 2002 recommended improvements to the ecological
component of Pope & Talbot’s SFM framework regarding identification of “measurable targets to allow
for the assessment and improvement of SFI performance over time” (Holmsen et al 2002). Significant
effort and resources have since been expended to localize key indicators, fill information and data gaps,
and expand analytical and decision-support tools for three key SFM indicators associated with the
ecological criteria of biological richness:
Indicator 1: ensure ecologically distinct ecosystems are represented in an unmanaged state;
Indicator 2: the amount, distribution and heterogeneity of important habitat elements and
structural conditions important to sustain biological richness are sustained; and,
Indicator 3: ensure productive population of selected species or species guilds are well
distributed throughout the range of their habitat.
As the next step in expanding the SFM framework within an adaptive management context, this report
outlines a standardized, scientifically-credible and cost-effective effectiveness monitoring strategy for
biodiversity indicators of forest sustainability. It identifies the specific indicators and forest practices to
be measured, data needs, model forecasting requirements, and monitoring design and protocols. Use of
current data gathering and data capture processes will be used wherever possible. Decision support
needed to trigger adaptive management changes in response to monitoring results is also described.
The relationship between biodiversity and forest practices and activities is very complex so monitoring
must necessarily be focused to be effective (FIA 2004). Keying on the ecological indicators is
consistent with Pope & Talbot’s current SFM emphasis, specifically addressing the ecological gaps
identified by the 2002 SFI audit of their forestry operations.
3
Figure 1: Pope & Talbot Management Units in southeastern British Columbia
4
FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS
OF SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANGEMENT
OBJECTIVE
The general objective of the monitoring framework is to evaluate the success of forest practices in
sustaining biodiversity by measuring specific SFM ecological indicators to validate or otherwise
substantiate the effects, consequences or results of forestry activities on the principles of sustainable
forest management. The monitoring outcomes are expected to be applied within an adaptive
management framework, including the decision-support needed to verify and alter, as needed, forest
management practices and strategies in response to monitoring outcomes (Figure 2).
SFMP Process Flow
Biodiversity
• Ecosystem representation Timber Supply Economic Value
Strategic • Habitat supply forecasting • Spatial analysis • Merchantability
• Indicator species trends
Decision Support
Legal Requirements • Multi-criteria analysis Timber Objectives
Tactical • KBHLPO • Optimization • P&T internal
• FRPA • Reporting Suite (office) • AAC
• Monitoring Plan (field)
Adaptive
Management
Operational Plan
Reporting
• Management Implications
Operational • Best Management Practices
• Annual Report (office)
• 5-year Report (field)
• STRIP
• Indicators and Measures
Forest Practices
Figure 2: Pope & Talbot’s Sustainable Forest Management Ecological Criteria and Indicators Monitoring
and Adaptive Management Framework
APPROACH
Many types of monitoring are required to enable an effective monitoring program (Brown 1999). For
example, Compliance monitoring assesses if the regulated management schemes were implemented as
stated (Bunnell 2003); Implementation monitoring assesses the extent to which management practices
and strategies were consistent with management plans (Noss and Cooperrider 1994); Effectiveness
monitoring assess the extent to which management practices and strategies were effective in achieving
stated goals (Mulder et al 1999, Bunnell et al 2003); Validation monitoring determines the extent to
which stated goals were achieved as a result of the management activities; and, Refinement monitoring
5
samples beyond the range of normal practices, requires experimental design and is synonymous with
research (Bunnell 2003).
Bunnell (2003) makes a distinction between model-based and designed-based approaches to designing a
monitoring program. A designed-based approach derives its strength from sample design; however,
they also require sufficiently large sample sizes from which to draw comparative inferences. A model-
based approach relies on representative sites (sometimes called sentinel sites) for the purpose of
constructing a model of some ecological process (form of relationship). The model is then applied
more widely to similar sites or locations. The most appropriate approach depends on the circumstances.
Model-based approaches are effective where relationships are relatively simple and can be extrapolated
with confidence, or where field sampling is expensive or not feasible. Sampling-based approaches
might be more appropriate where relationships are difficult to model and expected outcomes depend on
site-specific conditions.
When applying monitoring results within an adaptive management framework, Bunnell et al (2003)
differentiate between operational (passive adaptive management) and experimental (active adaptive
management) approaches. The operational approach uses available sites for comparisons between
harvest and silviculture methods and retrospective studies of logged sites and forest disturbance. It can
be used in effectiveness monitoring and promotes adaptive management through operations rather than
research. The experimental approach tests a wide range of selected treatments against each other. It
can contribute to effectiveness and refinement monitoring, but can also be more costly than the
operational approach.
The scope of this document is effectiveness monitoring of forest practices linked to key ecological
indicators of sustainability. Managers will need to decide on whether to also conduct other types of
monitoring.
The monitoring framework presented here was developed in accordance with direction provided in the
FIA Activity Standards Document (2004). Three key SFM ecological indicators (measures) for the
biological richness criteria (objectives) were selected for evaluation. For each indicator, a description is
provided for attributes to be measured, sample design and statistical significance, supporting data and
data modelling needs, ecological benchmarks (or measure of risk), and procedures for conducing risk
analysis. Rationale and supporting information is also referenced.
Objectives, Indicators, and Thresholds
Setting clear objectives for monitoring of biodiversity and sustainability is challenging because of
the difficulty in linking implications of forest practices to a subject so difficult to define (Bunnell et
al 2003, Mulder et al 1999). For monitoring purposes, outcomes desired from management practices
must be clearly linked to objectives in the SFMP.
The link between Pope & Talbot’s SFMP criteria and indicators and the objectives for monitoring is
as follows:
• Ecological Criteria 1 (biological richness) defines a broad objective to be evaluated at
a coarse filter scale;
• Indicator 1 (representative ecosystem), Indicator 2 (habitat elements and structural
conditions), and Indicator 3 (species distribution and abundance) identify specific
measures to be assessed at a medium-scale in relation to the broad objective.
6
• Sub-indicators (snag frequency, shrub abundance, coarse woody debris volume,
deciduous presence and riparian habitat) identify stand-level, or fine filter, measures
of specific attributes or elements for Indicator 2.
Ideally, evaluation of current management practices and strategies are compared to set targets or
established thresholds that are supported by empirical data and published literature and/or
regulation. A combination of benchmarks and associated risk ratings, habitat supply modelling
projections and assessing ecosystems and species at risk has been proposed.
Resource Inventory Standards Committee standards
Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) standards provide comprehensive methods for
inventories related to a variety of ecological values. These methods are broadly applicable in
the collection of indicator data in the field. However, there are gaps that need to be filled using a
combination of existing RISC standards and innovative approaches (FIA 2004).
Where innovative approaches are needed, the sample design and statistical significance will be
developed as part of the monitoring plan. Field data will be collected and stored for upload into
database libraries by P&T staff.
Connection to Forest Planning and Practices
Monitoring will focus on SFM-related forest planning and practices intended to achieve specific
sustainability objectives (i.e., key SFM indicators, sub-indicators, and species at risk). Only
practices that are intended to be implemented will become part of the monitoring plan.
Corporate management direction will be required to guide forest managers and operational
practitioners in response to monitoring results, and to further ensure changes to operational
practices needed to demonstrate sustainability are implemented most effectively and efficiently on
the landbase for which Pope & Talbot has responsibility.
Pope & Talbot is committed to the development of a monitoring plan to direct SFM-related
monitoring activities. Fundamental to this will be participation of Pope & Talbot decision-makers
regarding initial issue identification, monitoring design and implementation and follow-up
evaluation of monitoring outcomes, including adaptive management decisions regarding changes to
management practices.
Pope & Talbot managers will be involved in initial problem assessment, monitoring design,
implementation and evaluation of monitoring outcomes. Figure 3 provides a problem assessment
flow chart to assist with this process. Key questions that need to be addressed by decision-makers
to direct the monitoring plan include, but are not limited to:
• What does assessment of current conditions tell us? What are the issues (i.e., rare or
vulnerable ecosystem types, supply of habitat elements or structural conditions, species at
risk)?
• Have forestry practices met Pope & Talbot’s SFM management objectives? Which
practice(s) are to be evaluated and in relation to which objective?
• What are the monitoring questions? What monitoring design is required to reduce
statistical uncertainty?
• What are the data needs to assess current conditions and monitoring requirements? What
are the data gaps? What RISC standards are to be followed and to what extent? Are
innovative or combinations of RISC standards needed?
7
• What will be the monitoring priorities? Which objectives and forestry practices are likely
to have the most impact on biodiversity?
It is assumed a Pope & Talbot Senior Planning Forester and monitoring consultant would
conduct the initial problem assessment and present the information to the Woodlands Manager,
or their designate. The monitoring plan would be written based on direction provided by Pope &
Talbot.
The monitoring plan will be signed by a qualified registered professional that prepared or
supervised the preparation of the plan.
Figure 3: Problem Assessment and Decision Flow Diagram for overall SFM and adaptive
management approach.
Clear identification of Ecological, criteria (objectives)
What is changing? At what scale can we best Impacts to past and
address our concerns? current management
Assessment for each indicator
What is not working?
Maintain status quo
YES Should we act? NO
What would trigger an
assessment in the future?
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
• Participation required • Decisions to be made
• Decision-maker needs • Decision-making
processes
How to build capacity?
YES Can we act? NO
Interim actions to be taken
DEFINE ALTERNATIVES/DEVELOP SCENARIOS
• Management Goals and Objectives
• Learning Objectives
• Strategies to test
How can we best act?
DEFINE DIRECTION
• Complete analysis of scenarios
• Determine Preferred scenarios
• Reject and document
Create work plan and process to move
to design phase
8
Feedback to Forest Management
An adaptive management framework will ensure integration of monitoring and reporting results
with decision-making through an evaluation mechanism where management changes and
interventions are implemented to sustain SFM biological richness (criteria/objective) and its
associated values (indicators/measures). Pope & Talbot managers must ensure the monitoring
results are interpreted, the results are integrated back into the management process, the necessary
decisions are made. Monitoring will need to be repeated as required to test the adjustments and
report trends. This is an interactive process, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Monitoring Results
Analysis
&
Interpretation
Monitoring Outputs
Management
Monitoring is repeated Process
Evaluate new
management practices
Management Interventions
Changes in forest management
and forest practices
Figure 4: Adaptive Management Feedback
PRIORITIZATION
Pope & Talbot has chosen to develop an SFM monitoring framework for the ecological criteria and
indicators from their current SFMP (2004) and SFI® Standard and certification to the ISO 14001
Standard EMS. The ecological SFM criteria and indicator have been the focus of many FIA projects
over the past few years. It follows that this component should be selected to test and validate
monitoring tools and techniques to ensure monitoring strategies are effective, cost-efficient and
consistent with government’s Forest Resources Evaluation Program.
IMPLEMENTATION
Monitoring projects will be implemented following direction provided in the monitoring plan. Existing
standards will be followed; however, the complexity of measuring and monitoring diversity may require
combinations of existing standards and, in some instances, innovative approaches. Such circumstances
will be supported through literature to ensure they are repeatable, credible and statistically valid. This
will be documented in the monitoring plan.
9
REPORTING
The current state of biodiversity indicators will be reported according to the outline provided in Section
5.0 of FIA Terrestrial Biological and Physical Monitoring (2004) and as directed by Pope & Talbot.
The future states of biodiversity indicators will be projected whenever timber supply analyses are
conducted.
MONITORING INDICATORS OF BIODIVERSITY
Pope & Talbot's Sustainable Forest Management Plan (in prep.) outlines their plan for meeting
Objective 4 of the SFI® Standard (2005-2009 Edition): to manage the quality and distribution of
wildlife habitats and contribute to the conservation of biological diversity by developing stand- and
landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest plants and
animals, including aquatic flora.
Pope & Talbot's approach to management of biodiversity rely on monitoring and adaptively managing
resources related to three broad indicators:
INDICATOR 1:
Ecologically distinct habitat types are represented in an unmanaged state in the management
unit to sustain lesser known species and ecological function.
Rationale and Background
The rationale for maintaining representative ecosystems in an unmanaged stated was developed
by Bunnell et al. (2003). Wells et al. (2004) grouped the ecosystem units of the West Kootenay
into distinct ecosystem types, and then Wilson (2004a, 2004b) developed a method of
classifying the ecological risk associated with the distribution and abundance of distinct
ecosystems within management units, based on their representation in unmanaged land base.
Finally, Timberline and Wilson (2006) recommended a system of ecosystem reserves, based on
a multi-criteria trade-off analysis with other indicators. The ecological risk calculation and
trade-off analysis was based on the best information available; however, the analysis will need
to be updated periodically as new information becomes available.
Sub-indicators and Measures
Sub-indicator Measure Unit
1. Distinct ecosystems in an Proportion in unmanaged land Ecological risk
unmanaged state base
Monitoring Design and Protocols
Office Procedures:
The base layer for the analysis is the Predictive Ecosystem Map and Terrestrial Ecosystem Map
coverages for the management unit. Ecosystem units are grouped according tables in <digital file>. The
unmanaged land base is defined as areas in the Arrow TSA, TFL 23 and TFL 3 outside the THLB but
inside the contributing land base. Ecological risk is calculated as:
Risk = ((Runmanaged)2 • Rpcont)1/3 + (Dpatch size • Dpatch distance)0.5 • (1 - ((R unmanaged)2 • Rpcont)1/3
Details on calculation methods are provided in Wilson (2004a, 2004b). The resulting map should be
themed on ecosystem risk and areas of high risk that are within the THLB should be noted. The
ecosystem risk map is used as an input to the multi-criteria analysis (see below – somewhere).
10
The risk map should be updated and the multi-criteria analysis revisited whenever the ecosystem map is
updated or when the THLB changes.
Field Procedures:
Site series information collected at field plots (MacDonald and Hamilton 2006) provides the basis for
periodic updates of the ecosystem maps. Site series information also provides immediate feedback on
whether stand characteristics in operational blocks or in reserves matches the information on which the
ecosystem representation analysis was conducted.
Forest Planning and Practices
Forest planning and practices that accommodate ecosystems represented in the unmanaged land base
are adjustments in ecosystem reserve (also called OGMAs) boundaries, wildlife tree patches or other
reserve areas intended as permanent set-asides. Management of any kind, including salvage or fire
suppression, are discouraged within ecosystem reserves.
INDICATOR 2
The amount, distribution, and heterogeneity of terrestrial and aquatic habitat types, elements and
structure important to sustain biological richness are maintained over time.
Rationale and Background
The rationale for maintaining specific habitat types, elements and structure was originally
proposed by Bunnell et al. (2003). The sub-indicators were developed in Bunnell et al. (1999).
Hamilton and Wilson 2003a, 2003b) conducted site series and structural stage classifications
and collected habitat plot data for snags, coarse woody debris, shrubs and hardwoods in th
Boundary TSA and TFL 23. Steeger and Wilson (2005), Wilson (2006) set benchmarks and
established a method for determining ecological risk associated with different levels of sub-
indicators.
Sub-indicators and Measures
Sub-indicator Measure Unit
1. Large snags Density of snags >20 cm DBH Ecological risk
2. Coarse woody debris CWD m3/ha Ecological risk
3. Shrub abundance B2 percent cover Directly monitored
4. Hardwood abundance Proportion of stands and percent Directly monitored against
composition current distribution and
abundance
5. Old forest Proportion old by NDT Ecological risk
6. Riparian habitat Area Directly monitored against
current distribution and
abundance
Monitoring Design and Protocols
Office Procedures:
Levels of snags, CWD shrub and hardwood abundance can be estimated using the conceptual models in
<digital file> developed by Timberline (2004a, 2004b) and Timberline and Wilson (2004), which
estimate abundance by BEC-stand type decade. Old forest can be determined by a simple age class
query by NDT type (<digital file>), as defined by Steeger and Wilson (2005) and Wilson (2006).
11
Riparian habitat and pure deciduous stands are calculated from standard timber supply netdowns. Areas
of high ecological risk are determined through the multi-criteria analysis.
Levels of sub-indicators should be recalculated each time conceptual models are updated or when
timber supply is projected.
Field Procedures:
Stand-level data on snag density, coarse woody debris and shrub cover is the basis for updating
conceptual models (link to STRIP). Data related to habitat elements collected in field plots also provides
immediate feedback on whether stand characteristics in operational blocks or in reserves matches the
information on which the conceptual models are based.
Forest Planning and Practices
Stand-level prescriptions that retain snags, green trees and CWD are the principal mechanisms used to
influence stand-level attributes. Additional stand-level retention will be considered where mapping
suggests high risk conditions.
INDICATOR 3
Ensure productive population of selected species or species guilds are well distributed throughout the
range of their habitat.
Rationale and Background
For the Pope & Talbot SFMP monitoring program, Steeger and Wilson (2005) selected 14 species
(Table 1), to function as sub-indicators for Indicator 3 of Biological Richness (Criteria 1). Six of these
species currently have an “at risk” conservation status. Table 1 also indicates guilds or species groups
for the indicator species, which will form the basis for designing a multi-species inventory program for
Indicator 3. Boundary TSA range maps and species accounts are available for the six species at risk
(Steeger 2004).
Sub-indicators and Measures
Sub-indicator Measure Unit
3. productive populations Species presence and abundance Species risk
distributed across their range
Monitoring Design and Protocols
Office Procedures:
Table 1: Indicator species selected for the Pope & Talbot SFPM monitoring plan.
Indicator Species Species at risk Species Guild / Group
Black Bear no Wide-ranging carnivore; large mammal
Great Blue Heron yes Wildlife tree user; open stick nester
Wood Duck no Secondary cavity nester; waterfowl
Hooded Merganser no Secondary cavity nester; waterfowl
Flammulated Owl yes Secondary cavity nester; owl
Western Screech-owl yes Secondary cavity nester; owl
Northern Pygmy Owl no Secondary cavity nester; owl
Pileated Woodpecker no Primary cavity excavator
Williamson’s Sapsucker yes Primary cavity excavator
12
Lewis’s Woodpecker yes Primary cavity excavator
Pygmy Nuthatch no Primary cavity excavator
Winter Wren no Resident songbird
Yellow-breasted Chat yes Neo-tropical migrant songbird
Field Procedures:
Recommended survey methods to determine presence/absence (PN), relative abundance (RA) and
absolute abundance (AA) of the 14 indicator species are provided in Appendix 1. The most appropriate
survey intensity (PN, RA, AA) and associated survey method will depend on the precise objectives of
an inventory, hence options are provided. Methods recommended generally follow those proposed by
the Resources Inventory Standards Committee (RISC), except in a few cases where more recent
methodologies are available and have been tested for particular species (e.g., Williamson’s Sapsucker,
Yellow-breasted Chat). When available, information pertaining to the appropriate season, timing and
frequency of surveys, stratification, as well as surveyor qualifications, time and cost required is also
provided. It is assumed that some descriptive habitat data will be gathered in conjunction with species
surveys, and the appropriate RISC manual should be consulted to determine what is required.
Opportunities to combine inventories for multiple species (i.e., species within the same wildlife guild or
occupying the same habitat concurrently) and increase survey efficiency are discussed, where they
arise. For example, surveys for Wood Duck and Hooded Merganser (both secondary cavity nesting
waterfowl) should be conducted concurrently. There may be opportunities to increase efficiency by
combining aerial surveys for Wood Duck and Hooded Merganser with aerial surveys for Great Blue
Heron breeding sites, since all three species use wetland habitats. Although all three owls (i.e.,
Flammulated, Western Screech and Northern Pygmy) are cavity nesters, Flammulated and Western
Screech Owls use different habitat types. Nevertheless, surveys for the more generalist Northern Pygmy
Owl should be combined with surveys for each of the other two species. There are opportunities to
combine surveys for some woodpecker and cavity nesting species. For example, Pileated Woodpecker,
Williamson’s Sapsucker, Lewis’ Woodpecker and Pygmy Nuthatch have some potential to co-occur
within selected habitats, and two or more may be co-surveyed, at least at the PN level of survey
intensity. Similarly, Northern Flying Squirrel, Winter Wren and Pileated Woodpecker have some
potential to co-occur and PN surveys may be conducted concurrently.
Site series information collected at field plots (MacDonald and Hamilton) provides the basis for
periodic updates of the ecosystem maps. Site series information also provides immediate feedback on
whether stand characteristics in operational blocks or in reserves matches the information on which the
ecosystem representation analysis was conducted.
Forest Planning and Practices
Forest planning and practices that accommodate ecosystems represented in the unmanaged land base
are adjustments in ecosystem reserve (also called OGMAs) boundaries, wildlife tree patches or other
reserve areas intended as permanent set-asides. Management of any kind, including salvage or fire
suppression, are discouraged within ecosystem reserves.
13
LITERATURE CITED
Bunnell, F.L., and R.W. Wells, J.D. Nelson, K.L. Kremsater. 1999. Patch sizes, vertebrates and effects
of forest policy in southeastern British Columbia. In Rochelle, J.A., Leslie A. Lehmann, and
Joe Wisniewski, editors. 1999. Forest Fragmentation Wildlife and Management Implications.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Bunnell, F.L., and B.G. Dunsworth, D.J. Huggard and L.L. Dremsater. 2003. Learning to sustain
biological diversity on Weyerhauser’s coastal tenure. Weyerhauser, Nanaimo, BC.
Bunnell, F.L. 2003. Monitoring to sustain biodiversity in British Columbia. Report to BC Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.
FIA (Forest Investment Account). 2004. FIA Activity Standards Document. Information
gathering and management component, monitoring values for SFM activity area –
Terrestrial, biological, and physical monitoring.
Gyug, L.W. 2006. Williamson’s Sapsucker Inventory standards, Draft 3. Ecosystems Branch, BC
Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC.
Hamilton, D., and S.F. Wilson. 2003a. Habitat field sampling in support sustainable forest management
planning for Boundary TSA. Prepared for Pope & Talbot, Midway, BC.
Hamilton, D., and S.F. Wilson. 2003b. Habitat field sampling in support sustainable forest management
planning for TFL 23. Prepared for Pope & Talbot, Nakusp, BC.
Holmsen, S., and M. Alexander, B. Steward and C. Roessler. 2002. AF& PA SFI Program Third Party
Verification Audit of Pope & Talbot/s Defined Forest Area. Final audit report. Prepared for
Pope & Talbot, Grand Forks, BC
MacDonald, P., and D. Hamilton. 2006. Sustainable Forest Management Sub-indicator 2 Field
Monitoring Procedures. Prepared for Pope & Talbot, Nakusp, BC
McKibbon, R. 2005. Protocol for Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens auricollis) productivity study in
the South Okanagan, BC. 14pp.
Moul, I.E., R.G. Vennesland, M. L. Harris and R.W. Butler. 2001. Standardizing and interpreting Great
Blue Heron nesting records for British Columbia. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Note No.
217, June 2001.
Mulder, B.S., and B.R. Noon, T.A. Spies, B.G. Raphael, C.J. Palmer, A.R. Olsen, G.H. Reeves and
H.H. Welsh. 1999. The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the
northwest forest plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station. PNW-GTR-437.
Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature legacy: Protecting and restroing biodiversity.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
14
Resources Inventory Standards Committee. 1998. Inventory methods for Bears. Standards for
components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 21, Version 2.0. Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch.
(http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/bears/index.htm#table%20of%20Contents)
Resources Inventory Standards Committee. 1998. Inventory methods for colonial-nesting freshwater
birds: Eared Grebe, Red-necked Grebe, Western Grebe, American White Pelican and Great
Blue Heron. Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 8, Version 2.0.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch
(http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/colonial/index.htm).
Resources Inventory Standards Committee. 1998. Inventory methods for pikas and sciurids: pikas,
marmots, woodchuck chipmunks and squirrels. Standards for components of British
Columbia’s biodiversity No. 29, Version 2.0. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,
Resources Inventory Branch. (http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/pisc/index.htm )
Resources Inventory Standards Committee. 1999. Inventory methods for waterfowl and allied species.
Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 18, Version 2.0. Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch.
(http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/waterfowl/index.htm)
Resources Inventory Standards Committee. 1999. Inventory methods for woodpeckers. Standards for
components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 19, Version 2.0. Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch.
(http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/woodpeckers/index.htm)
Resources Inventory Standards Committee. 1999. Inventory methods for forest and grassland songbirds.
Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 15, Version 2.0. Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch.
(http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/songbird/index.htm)
Resources Inventory Standards Committee. 2001. Inventory methods for raptors. Standards for
components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 11, Version 2.0. Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Resources Inventory Branch.
(http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/raptors/version2/rapt_ml_v2.pdf)
Steeger, C. 2004. Wildlife-habitat relationships and species at risk in Boundary TSA. Prepared for Pope
& Talbot, Midway, BC
Steeger, C., and S.F. Wilson. 2005. Recommendations for preliminary benchmarks and interpretation of
habitat supply forecasts. Prepared for Pope & Talbot Ltd., Midway, BC
Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd., and S.F. Wilson. 2006. Boundary optimization project
summary report. Prepare for PopE & Talbot Ltd., Midway, BC.
Wells, R. W., D. Haag, and T. Braumandl. 2004. Defining ecosystem groups for the West Kootenays.
Prepared for: BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Nelson.
Wilson, S.F. 2004a. Boundary ecosystem representation analysis. Prepared for Pope & Talbot Ltd.,
Midway, BC
15
Wilson, S.F. 2004b. West Kootenay ecosystem representation analysis. Prepared for Pope & Talbot,
Nakusp, BC.
16
Appendix 1: Recommended survey methods for selected wildlife species for SFM Indicator 3
Black Bear (RISC 1998).
Survey
Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Season and
Type Description Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Group Timing
Bears Bear Sign - record bear - May to - min. of one - stratify habitat - able to - survey an - results could be
and sightings & sign October in survey per based on expected differentiate estimated 3- substantiated
Sightings (hair, scats, tracks, the interior season densities and survey black and 4 km per through use of hair
(PN) beds, feeding sign, randomly within each grizzly bears hour, capture stations with
mark trees and trails) strata and their sign; depending DNA analysis (see
along fixed-width - establish transects bear safety on terrain below)
transects within strata and training
survey systematically
Bears DNA - establish a grid with - prior to - consult a - stratify habitat - requires a - lab DNA - consult quantitative
Mark hair capture stations berry season quantitative based on expected minimum of 2 analysis of ecologist to develop
Recapture (with bait & barbed (late June to ecologist to densities and survey biologists hair a sample design that
(RA, AA) wire) randomly mid-July in assist with randomly on samples can incorporates trade-
located within each the interior) site-specific transects within strata be costly offs associated with
grid cell; collect hair design and time- optimizing total grid
for analysis consuming size & grid cell size.
17
Great Blue Heron (RISC 1998; Moul et al. 2001).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Group Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Colonial- Aerial - count # of - April-May, - annual counts - select suitable - must have - 2 or more - sensitive to
Nesting surveys nests/birds at prior to leaf-out recommended areas near lakes, previous surveyors disturbance;
Freshwater (PN, RA) breeding of deciduous wetland, rivers for experience required; minimize time
Birds colonies and/or trees surveys from maps, with aerial large areas at breeding
nearby foraging - ≥3 hours after heron surveys covered sites
areas dawn/before dusk perday
Colonial- Direct nest - count # of - min. of 2 counts - min. of 2 counts - make use of all - experience - 1-2 - sensitive to
Nesting counts total, active and per season (April per breeding sightings & data with heron surveyors disturbance so
Freshwater (AA) successful nests to early May for season available for area surveys required; minimize time
Birds in colonies active nests and - annual counts - select suitable - must be able - 0.5-1 day spent in colony
late June for recommended areas near lakes, to distinguish per count - draw a map of
successful nests) wetland, rivers adults from per colony, nests to avoid
- do not survey in from maps for young depending confusion on
rainy or very surveys on size and later visit(s)
cold/hot weather proximity
18
Wood Duck (RISC 1999).
Survey
Survey Survey SURVEY Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Group Type and Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Description Timing
Waterfo Observation - birds surveyed - pair - conduct - entire wetland - previous - preferred - less disturbance
wl and Stations (for by a stationary counts in multiple surveyed or random waterfowl method for but wetland must
Allied breeding pair observer at May counts to stations; wetlands count accessible be accessible on
Species or brood wetlands - brood improve chosen systematically, experience areas; the ground;
counts) distributed counts in estimate randomly, or randomly - precise but - multi-species
(PN, RA, through area June through stratified parts more time- inventory with
AA) of area consuming HOME
Waterfo Aerial - birds surveyed - pair - conduct - transects selected - previous - preferred - more disturbance
wl and Transects along a continuous counts in multiple systematically, or waterfowl method for - multi-species
Allied (for breeding route taken May counts to randomly through count nonaccessible inventory with
Species pair or brood through the study - brood improve stratified portions of experience areas HOME
counts) area counts in estimate area; - costly but
(PN, RA, June large areas
AA) covered
quickly
19
Hooded Merganser (RISC 1999).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Group Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Waterfo Observation - birds detected - pair counts in - conduct - entire wetland - previous - preferred - less disturbance
wl and Stations (for by a stationary May multiple counts surveyed or random experience method for but wetland must
Allied breeding pair observer at each - brood counts to improve stations; wetlands with waterfowl accessible be accessible on
Species or brood of several in June & early estimate and chosen counts and areas; the ground
counts) wetlands July increase systematically, ability to - precise but - multi-species
(PN, RA, distributed opportunities randomly, or distinguish more time- inventory with
AA) throughout the for brood randomly waterfowl consuming WODU
project area detection throughout stratified species
parts of area
Aerial - birds are - pair counts in - conduct - transects selected - previous - preferred - more disturbance
Transects detected along a May multiple counts systematically, or experience method for - multi-species
(for breeding continuous - brood counts to improve randomly through with waterfowl non accessible inventory with
pair or brood route taken in June & early estimate and stratified portions of counts and areas WODU
counts) through the July increase the area; ability to - costly but
(PN, RA, study area opportunities - transects spaced to distinguish large areas
AA) for brood avoid recounting waterfowl covered
detection species quickly
Flammulated Owl (RISC 2001).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Group Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Raptor Call playback - broadcast species- - May, June, July - 2 or more - stratify suitable - previous -2 - multi-species
s/ surveys (RA) specific calls at - from 2200 and surveys habitat (Fd/Py forest) experience surveyors inventory only
Owls (may follow stations on roadsides 0100 hours during May, based on expected with owl call required used to determine
up with or transects June, July densities and survey playback PN
cavity nest - follow with searches randomly within - must be able - single species
searches, for cavity nests and strata to distinguish inventory required
depending on sign (prey remains, - systematically different owl to determine RA
objectives) pellets, whitewash, sample at stations calls
feathers) located 500 m apart
along transects
20
Western Screech Owl (RISC 2001).
Surveyer
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Time and Other
Qualification
Group Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Costs Considerations
s
Raptor Call playback - broadcast species- - mid-March to - 2 or more - stratify suitable - previous -2 - multi-species
s/ surveys (RA) specific calls at late May surveys from habitat (mixed experience surveyors inventory can only
Owls (may follow stations on roadsides - survey from mid-March to forest near water) with owl call required be used to
up with or transects 2200 and 0100 late May based on expected playback determine PN
cavity nest - follow with searches hours densities and - must be able - single species
searches, for cavity nests and survey randomly to distinguish inventory required
depending on sign (prey remains, within strata different owl to determine RA
objectives) pellets, whitewash, - systematically calls
feathers) sample at stations
located 800 m apart
along transects
Northern Pygmy Owl (RISC 2001).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time/Cost Other
Group Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Estimates Considerations
Raptor Call playback - broadcast species- - mid-April to - 2 or more - stratify suitable - previous -2 - multi-species
s/ surveys (RA) specific calls at mid-June surveys from habitat (conifer or experience surveyors inventory can only
Owls (may follow stations on roadsides - survey after mid-March to mixed forest) based with owl call required be used to
up with or transects dusk to 0.5 to late May on expected playback determine PN
cavity nest - follow with searches 4.5 hours after densities and - must be able - single species
searches, for cavity nests and sunset survey randomly to distinguish inventory required
depending on sign (prey remains, within strata different owl to determine RA
objectives) pellets, whitewash, - systematically calls
feathers) sample at stations
located 800 m apart
on transects
21
Pileated Woodpecker (RISC 1999).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Group Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Woodpeckers Call - broadcast species- - mid-March to - once per - stratify habitat - previous - on foot, - multi-species
Playback specific calls or May breeding season based on expected woodpecker min. of 1 inventory can only
(PN, RA) drumming from - from 0.5 hrs - do not survey densities and survey km transect be used to
stations located on a after sunrise to during steady survey randomly experience per hour, determine PN
road, transect or grid noon rain or wind within strata depending - single species
(≥3 Beaufort - systematically on terrain inventory required
scale) sample at stations to determine RA
300-400 m apart
Woodpeckers Nest - find all nests and - early April to - within year, - conducted as a - previous - more
Searches breeding territories early July conduct a 2nd follow-up to initial woodpecker labour
(AA) within census area by - from 0.5 hrs visit if PIWO call playback and survey intensive
listening for birds and after sunrise to detected but detection of PIWO experience
inspecting trees noon preferred nest not found
Williamson’s Sapsucker (RISC 1999; Gyug 2006).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Group Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Woodpeckers Call - broadcast species- - late March to - once per - stratify habitat - previous - on foot, - multi-species
Playback specific calls or mid-June breeding season based on expected woodpecker min. of 1 inventory can
(PN, RA) drumming from - from 0.5 hrs (annual surveys densities and survey km of only be used to
stations located along after sunrise to recommended) survey randomly experience transect per determine PN
a road, transect or noon preferred - don’t survey in within each strata hour,
grid steady rain, wind - systematically depending
(≥3 Beaufort scale) sample at stations on terrain
or >28°C temp. located 300 m apart
Woodpeckers Nest - find all nests and - April to mid- - within year, - conducted as a - previous - more
Searches breeding territories June conduct a 2nd visit follow-up to initial woodpecker labour-
(AA) within census area by - from 0.5 hrs if WISA detected call playback survey intensive
listening for birds and after sunrise to but nest not found experience
inspecting candidate noon preferred
nest trees
22
Lewis’s Woodpecker (RISC 1999).
Survey
Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Season and Survey Frequency
Type Description Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Group Timing
Woodpeckers Call - broadcast species- - April to - once per breeding - stratify habitat - previous - on foot, - multi-species
Playback specific calls or June season (annual based on expected woodpecker min. of 1 inventory can
(PN) drumming from - from 0.5 surveys densities and survey km of only be used to
stations located on hrs to 5 recommended) survey randomly experience transect per determine PN
a road, transect or hours after - don’t survey during within strata hour,
grid sunrise steady rain or wind - sample depending
(≥3 Beaufort scale) systematically at on terrain
stations 300 m apart
Woodpeckers Nest - search for all - April to - conduct a 2nd visit - conduct as a - previous - more
Searches active nests within July if LEWO detected follow-up to initial woodpecker labour
(AA) an area but nest not found call playback experience intensive
Northern Flying Squirrel (RISC 1998).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Group
Pikas & Direct - record animals and - late March to - min. of once - stratify habitat - previous - survey at - combine with PN
Sciurids Observation and their sign continuously July per season based on expected experience; estimated surveys for PIWO
Sign Sampling along a transect (also - most active at densities and survey able to identify rate of 0.5-2
(PN, RA) distance on transect) dawn and dusk randomly within sciurids by km/hr
each strata sight and sign
Pikas & Live Trapping/ - live capture, animal - any season - min. of twice - traps set up in a - previous - more time
Sciurids Mark Release marking and release - traps set at to complete systematic grid trapping and effort
/Recapture followed by night and capture and within sampling experience;
(AA) subsequent recapture checked early recapture strata able to identify
of the marked animal am; dry sessions species
bedding, rolled
oats & peanut
butter required
23
Pygmy Nuthatch and Winter Wren (RISC 1999).
Time
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Other
and
Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Considerations
Group Costs
Forest & Encounter - record all bird - April to July - min. of once - stratify habitat based - experience - survey - encounter transects
Grasslan Transect species detected at - 1st 4 hours per season on expected densities with songbird at a rate may be combined
d and distances along the after sunrise and survey randomly surveys and of 0.5-2 with call surveys for
Songbird Simple transect and at - 5 minute within each strata ability to km/hr woodpecker species
s Point point count stations count - sample systematically identify birds & flying squirrels
Count of unlimited radius along transect and at by sight & where they co-occur
(PN) count stations 200 m sound
apart
Forest & Variable - record the - April to July - min. of twice - stratify habitat based - experience - survey
Grasslan Radius species, sex, - 1st 4 hours per season on expected densities with songbird 8-10
d Point behavior of all after sunrise - min. of 30 and survey randomly surveys and stations
Songbird Count birds and estimate - 5 minute count stations within strata ability to in a day
s (RA) their distances count per strata - sample systematically identify birds
from point count at count stations ≥200 m by sight &
station centres apart sound
Forest & Nest - search for all - April to July - within year, - conduct as a follow-up - experience - more - may conduct
Grasslan Searches active nests within conduct a 2nd to initial encounter with songbird labour simultaneously with
d (AA)1 an area visit if bird transect or point count surveys and intensive nest searches for
Songbird detected but ability to selected woodpecker
s nest not found identify birds species
by sight &
sound
1
RISC recommends spot mapping, but nest searches permit simultaneous surveys for PYNU and WIWR with woodpecker indicator
species that may co-occur.
24
Yellow-breasted Chat (RISC 1999; McKibbon 2005).
Survey Survey Survey Survey Season Survey Survey Surveyer Time and Other
Type Description and Timing Frequency Stratification Qualifications Costs Considerations
Group
Forest & Encounter - record all bird - May to early - min. of once - stratify habitat - experience - survey at a
Grassland Transect species encountered at July per season based on expected with songbird rate of 0.5-2
Songbirds and distances along the - 1st 4 hours densities and survey surveys and km/hr
Simple transect and at point after sunrise randomly within ability to
Point count stations of - 5 minute each strata; identify birds
Count unlimited radius count - sample by sound
(PN) recommended systematically at
count stations
spaced 200 m apart
Forest & Variable - record the species, - May to July - min. of twice - stratify habitat - experience - survey 8-
Grassland Radius sex, behavior of all - 1st 4 hours per season based on expected with songbird 10 stations
Songbirds Point birds and estimate their after sunrise (more densities and survey surveys and in a day
Count distances from point - 5 minute depending on randomly within ability to
(RA) count station centres count objectives) strata identify birds
recommended - min. of 30 - sample by sight &
count stations systematically at sound
per strata count stations
spaced ≥200 m
apart
Forest & Spot - repeated surveys to - May to July - within year, - conduct as a - experience - 2 or 3
Grassland Mapping record bird species, conduct a 2nd follow-up to initial with songbird hours to
Songbirds (AA) sex and behaviour visit if YBCH encounter transect surveys and survey 20
within measured plots; detected but or point count ability to ha of
clusters of registrations nest not found identify birds grassland or
are assumed to by sight & forest,
represent territories sound respectively
with a breeding pair
25
Related docs
