Hlp 2009 10 prsnttn hintonshortcourseday2part3

Natural Disturbance Approaches

to Forest Land Management

Day 2, Part 3: Evaluation Techniques

October 6-8, 2009

Hinton, Alberta

On at Least Four Different

Levels:

If there is no single natural pattern

approach, then how to evaluate?

1. Objective

2. The use of NRV

3. Process

4. Success

First, Identify the Objective

1. (create a tool to) Improve the capacity to create

more sustainable forest management options.

2. (develop a system to) Integrate all forest

management activities under a single

biologically-defendable umbrella.

3. (design a framework that allows us to) Manage a

landscape based on the health of the

ecosystem.

Examples:

Ideally, objectives should include:

• Scale

• Level of planning

• Agencies involved

• Landscape elements involved

• Landscape area involved

• How natural patterns are used

• Which natural patterns?

“FM companies. A, B, and C & local

ENGO’s are developing a

comprehensive series of universal NRV

indicators and targets to help guide long-

term planning for all physical elements

of landscape X.”

A good objective statement.

FM companies. A, B, and C &

local ENGO’s are developing

a comprehensive series of

universal

NRV indicators and targets

to help guide long-term

planning for all physical

elements of landscape X.

Agency breadth

Description

of patterns Scale

Use of

patterns

Use of

patterns

Land area Elements

“The BC provincial gov’t wishes to

develop new forest management

planning guides focusing on

biodiversity.”

A so-so objective statement:

“The BC provincial gov’t wishes to

develop new strategic scale forest

management planning guides for the

forested areas of those bits of BC with

licenses focusing on biodiversity using a

small number of the more critical natural

pattern metrics, coupled with target

levels based on the best available

knowledge to date.”

Here is how it could have been better;

Vague objectives cannot be evaluated.

Technical: Knowledge, tools, & indicators.

Physical: Nature of the landscape & its pieces.

Process: Variation, how NRV is used, feedback,

regulatory issues, integration of natural disturbances,

& available tools.

Partnership: Who is involved, how, and to what

degree.

Elements of an ND Approach

Now, Evaluate Success. Compare Expected to Observed.

THE NATURAL PATTERN INTEGRATION GAME How "Natural" is Your Planning Exercise?

TECHNICAL ELEMENTS Max. Ave.

The number and nature of disturbance patterns being included (0=none, 10=many and varied) 10 2

The number and nature of landscape condition patterns included (0=none, 10=many and varied) 10 3

How well do you know the historical disturbance patterns? (0=not at all, 10=intimately) 10 5

What pattern related decision-support tools & data do you have available? (0=none, 10=plenty) 10 2

Technical Sub-Total 40 12

PHYSICAL ELEMENTS Max. Ave.

Is the size of the landscape large enough to be a disturbance regime / ecossytem ? (0=no, 10=yes) 10 3

Is the landscape complete, and representative of the larger region? (0=no, 10=yes) 10 2

How well do the boundaries align with natural boundaries? (0= not at all, 10= very well) 10 3

Do plans include consideration of all parts of the landscape? (0=no, 10=yes) 10 4

Physical Sub-Total 40 12

PROCESS ELEMENTS Max. Ave.

To what degree is (disturbance pattern) variation included? (0=not at all, 10=intimately) 10 1

How is NRV used in planning? (0=not at all, 4= post-hoc, 7=indicators,10= foundation) 10 2

Is feedback incorporated? (0=no, 3=passive AM, 5=focused research, 10=active AM) 10 2

Are responses to natural disturbance events part of the plan? (0=no, 10=fully integrated) 10 1

How many, and what type of disturbance tools are available?

(2 points each for harvesting and thinning, 3 points each for fire and girdling) 10 2


PARTNERSHIP ELEMENTS Max. Ave.

What proportion of land neighbours are involved? (0=none, 10=everyone) 10 1

Average level of involvement by land neighbours (0=just chit chat, 10= fully integrated planning) 10 1

What proportion of overlapping land partners are involved? (0=none, 10=all) 10 1

Average level of involvement by land partners (0=just chit chat, 10= fully integrated planning) 10 1

Does the plan include water-related agencies? (0=none, 10=all) 10 1

Intra-agency regulatory collaboration (0=none, 10=complete) 10 1

Inter-agency regulatory collaboration (0=none, 10=complete) 10 1

Institutional Sub-Total 70 7

Grand Totals 200 39

First, Identify the Objective

1. (create a tool to) Improve the capacity to create

more sustainable forest management options.

2. (develop a system to) Integrate all forest

management activities under a single

biologically-defendable umbrella.

3. (design a framework that allows us to) Manage a

landscape based on the health of the

ecosystem.

Examples:

Improve the

capacity to create

more sustainable

forest

management

options


TECHNICAL ELEMENTS Max.

The number and nature of disturbance patterns being included (0=none, 10=many and varied) 10

The number and nature of landscape condition patterns included (0=none, 10=many and varied) 10

How well do you know the historical disturbance patterns? (0=not at all, 10=intimately) 10

What pattern related decision-support tools & data do you have available? (0=none, 10=plenty) 10

Technical Sub-Total 40

PHYSICAL ELEMENTS Max.

Is the size of the landscape large enough to be a disturbance regime / ecossytem ? (0=no, 10=yes) 10

Is the landscape complete, and representative of the larger region? (0=no, 10=yes) 10

How well do the boundaries align with natural boundaries? (0= not at all, 10= very well) 10

Do plans include consideration of all parts of the landscape? (0=no, 10=yes) 10

Physical Sub-Total 40

PROCESS ELEMENTS Max.

To what degree is (disturbance pattern) variation included? (0=not at all, 10=intimately) 10

How is NRV used in planning? (0=not at all, 4= post-hoc, 7=indicators,10= foundation) 10

Is feedback incorporated? (0=no, 3=passive AM, 5=focused research, 10=active AM) 10

Are responses to natural disturbance events part of the plan? (0=no, 10=fully integrated) 10


(2 points each for harvesting and thinning, 3 points each for fire and girdling) 10


PARTNERSHIP ELEMENTS Max.

What proportion of land neighbours are involved? (0=none, 10=everyone) 10

Average level of involvement by land neighbours (0=just chit chat, 10= fully integrated planning) 10

What proportion of overlapping land partners are involved? (0=none, 10=all) 10

Average level of involvement by land partners (0=just chit chat, 10= fully integrated planning) 10

Does the plan include water-related agencies? (0=none, 10=all) 10

Intra-agency regulatory collaboration (0=none, 10=complete) 10

Inter-agency regulatory collaboration (0=none, 10=complete) 10

Institutional Sub-Total 70

Grand Totals 200

Improve the

capacity to create

more sustainable

forest

management

options































Grand Totals 200

15-30

0

0

0































Grand Totals 200

>20

>10

>10

>5

Integrate all forest

management

activities under a

single biologically-

defendable

umbrella.































Grand Totals 200

>6 each

>6 each

>6 each

>6 each

Manage a

landscape

based on the

health of the

ecosystem.































Grand Totals 200 39

The number and nature of disturbance patterns being included.

QUESTION 1:

Are we

considering

a complete

list of

natural

patterns……

…or just a

select few?

Disturbance frequency

Seral-stage percentages

Old growth spatio-temporal tendencies

Disturbance types / severity

Disturbance event sizes

Patch size distribution

Patch shape distribution

Event mosaics

Area of island remnants

Numbers of island remnants

Island remnant locations

Edge architecture

Within patch heterogeneity

Coarse woody debris

Dead & live standing individuals

Mineral soil exposure

Biomass loads

Soil nutrients

Soil compaction

Disturbance probabilities

Water temperatures

Water flows

Water nutrients

Cherry-Picking

check A

QUESTION 2:

Are we

considering a

broad spectrum of

indicators, or

many that are

variations on a

single scale, type,

or theme?

Disturbance frequency

Seral-stage percentages

Old growth spatio-temporal tendencies

Disturbance types / severity

Disturbance event sizes

Patch size distribution

Patch shape distribution

Event shape

Total area in residuals

Area of island remnants

Numbers of island remnants

Island remnant locations

Size of island remnants

Number of patches per event

Dead & live standing individuals

Mineral soil exposure

Biomass loads

Soil nutrients

Soil compaction

Disturbance probabilities

Water temperatures

Water flows

Water nutrients

Cherry-Picking

check B































Grand Totals 200 39

To what degree is disturbance pattern variation included?

Are we now, or in the future, staying within “natural range of

variation” benchmarks, at any one point in time?

QUESTION 1:

Red Flag

check

Old Forest %

Time

2000

NRV

2030

Old Forest %

Time

1950

2000

Unknown Territory

Unknown Territory

Are we representing the full range of natural variation over

time? … or just hanging around the bare minimums?

QUESTION 2:

Temporal High-Grade

check

NRV

1%

2%

6%

0% 25%

11%

9%

1%

5%

15%

7%

17%

3%

7%

14%

4%

2%

6%

4% 5% 3%

2%

5%

5%

5%

3%

3%

3% 4%

4%

QUESTION 3:

Are we representing the full range of natural variation

over space?

Spatial High-Grade

Check A “natural” distribution

of island remnants %

Island remnants %

left by harvesting































Grand Totals 200 39

Is feedback incorporated?

What proportion of overlapping land partners are involved?

Examples:

-Billy Bob’s 1-step program.

-Dudley’s 7-step program.

- Hwy40 questions.

Example:

Desired Future Forest

Condition (DFFC).

Could Also Evaluate the Process.

Desired Future Forest Condition:

1. What is the natural pattern in question? (NRV)

2. What is the current condition? (CC)

3. What are the (ecological, cultural, economic)

reasons for the differences? (gap analysis)

4. With this in mind, choose a desired future forest

condition (DFFC).

5. Reassess, defend, monitor, and adapt to this

standard.

1. NRV obj. (based on research) = 3-50%

2. Current conditions = 0 to 10%.

3. Other ecological obj. (small mammal res.) = 3-50%

4. Socially and culturally. 3-50% is fine.

5. Economically, would prefer to limit “leave areas”,

but if it can be worked into alternative silvicultural

plans so leave areas could vary between 3-50%

and design a monitoring program around this.

Example: Island Area

NRV (3-50%) = DFFC (3-50%) < CC (0%) so we can

make a change.

- Do it.

1. NRV obj. = 1-100,000 ha

2. Current conditions = 0 to 10%.

3. Not comfortable going above 2,000 for now

because of wind and erosion concerns.

4. Economically, below 10 ha is costly.

5. Socially, the acceptance line is about 2,000

hectares, but a moving target.

Example: Patch Sizes

NRV (1-100,000) > DFFC (10-2,000) > CC (10-40 ha)

- Reword objective to allow for flexibility over time.

- Possible to go >2,000 and <10 ha on trial basis? If so,

integrate trial and results directly into monitoring.

1. In what way / to what degree is the

landscape more “natural”?

2. In what way / to what degree have

biodiversity values improved?

3. Were there any side effects? (+/-)

• Planning time and effort.

• Convergence with other values.

• Cumulative effects mgmt.

• Policy conflicts.

• Cost.

4. Etc…

Evaluate Outcomes.

1) Patterns

2) Process

3) Outcomes

4) Objectives

5) Others?

Compare the pattern results,

regardless of intent.

Demonstrate that you have

followed a robust, systematic

design process.

Did your strategy accomplish

what you originally intended?

What do you intend to do, and

did you do what you said you

would? (sub-evaluations)

Summary of Possible Evaluations:

Enough for Day 2?

Documents

Hlp 2009 10 prsnttn hintonshortcourseday2part3