Forest Management & Planning for Grizzly Bears · Forest Management & Planning for Grizzly Bears: a...
24
Forest Management & Planning for Grizzly Bears: a case study applying science-based management tools in multiple stages of forest harvest planning CIF Conference l Sept. 2018 l Grande Prairie, AB Laura M. Trout, M. Sc., P. Biol. Photo © Mark Bradley 2015
Transcript of Forest Management & Planning for Grizzly Bears · Forest Management & Planning for Grizzly Bears: a...
Forest Management & Planning for Grizzly Bears: a case study applying science-based management tools in multiple stages of forest harvest planning
CIFConferencelSept.2018lGrandePrairie,ABLauraM.Trout,M.Sc.,P.Biol.
Photo©MarkBradley2015
Concept
• DetailedForestManagementPlan• DraftrevisionforGrizzlyBearRecoveryPlan• fRIResearchGrizzlyBearGISTools
Concept
Objectives
BusinessasUsual“BAU”plantoaGrizzlyBearFriendly“GB”plan
Analyzean
dCo
mpa
re
Communicatewithinandoutwardhowwell[ornotsowell]theGBtoolsintegratedintotheplanningprocess
Commun
icate
Identifykeylessons,adaptandimproveAd
apt
Methods
BuildGBPlan
Roadscorridors
BuildRoadsAccessControls
HarvestBlocks
Timing
Design
ApplyGBTools
RSF,MR,HS
Sightability
Denning
BMPs AccessControl
BuildBAUPlan
ApplyGBTools
RSF,MR,HS
Workshops
Meetings
Study Area The Chungo
Photo©ChrisIngram2017
ExistingRoads
XXXKm XXXKm
Hectares XXXHa XXXKm
BAUPlan
GBPlan
BAUPlan
GBPlan BAUPlanCurrent
BusinessAsUsualPlan GrizzlyBearPlan
Index Current FutureBAU
Difference(+or-)
%changeBAU
FutureGB
Difference(+or-)
%changeGB
MeanMortalityRisk
1.93 2.23 - 15.25% 2.08 - 7.44%
MeanRSF 5.53 7.07 + 27.68% 6.69 + 20.97%OpenRouteDensity 0.44 0.52 - 18.31% 0.48 - 9.38%
HabitatState 0.57 1.08 + 88.78% 0.99 + 71.74%
TotalRoad(Km) 125Km 101KmHarvestArea(Ha) 915.9Ha 1629Ha
BusinessAsUsualPlan GrizzlyBearPlan
Index Current FutureBAU
Difference(+or-)
%changeBAU
FutureGB
Difference(+or-)
%changeGB
MeanMortalityRisk
1.93 2.23 - 15.25% 2.08 - 7.44%
MeanRSF 5.53 7.07 + 27.68% 6.69 + 20.97%OpenRouteDensity 0.44 0.52 - 18.31% 0.48 - 9.38%
HabitatState 0.57 1.08 + 88.78% 0.99 + 71.74%
TotalRoad(Km) 125Km 101KmHarvestArea(Ha) 915.9Ha 1629Ha
BusinessAsUsualPlan GrizzlyBearPlan
Index Current FutureBAU
Difference(+or-)
%changeBAU
FutureGB
Difference(+or-)
%changeGB
MeanMortalityRisk
1.93 2.23 - 15.25% 2.08 - 7.44%
MeanRSF 5.53 7.07 + 27.68% 6.69 + 20.97%OpenRouteDensity 0.44 0.52 - 18.31% 0.48 - 9.38%
HabitatState 0.57 1.08 + 88.78% 0.99 + 71.74%
TotalRoad(Km) 125Km 101KmHarvestArea(Ha) 915.9Ha 1629Ha
BusinessAsUsualPlan GrizzlyBearPlan
Index Current FutureBAU
Difference(+or-)
%changeBAU
FutureGB
Difference(+or-)
%changeGB
MeanMortalityRisk
1.93 2.23 - 15.25% 2.08 - 7.44%
MeanRSF 5.53 7.07 + 27.68% 6.69 + 20.97%OpenRouteDensity 0.44 0.52 - 18.31% 0.48 - 9.38%
HabitatState 0.57 1.08 + 88.78% 0.99 + 71.74%
TotalRoad 76Km 125Km(49Kmadded) 101Km(25Kmadded)HarvestArea(Ha) 915.9Ha 1629Ha
BusinessAsUsualPlan GrizzlyBearPlan
Index Current FutureBAU
Difference(+or-)
%changeBAU
FutureGB
Difference(+or-)
%changeGB
MeanMortalityRisk
1.93 2.23 - 15.25% 2.08 - 7.44%
MeanRSF 5.53 7.07 + 27.68% 6.69 + 20.97%OpenRouteDensity 0.44 0.52 - 18.31% 0.48 - 9.38%
HabitatState 0.57 1.08 + 88.78% 0.99 + 71.74%
TotalRoad(Km) 125Km 101KmHarvestArea(Ha) 915.9Ha 1629Ha
Habitat(Ha)
Secondary 4,414 3,988
Primary 2,489 8,634
Total 6,903 8,634GBPlan
Habitat(Ha)
Secondary 4,414 5,004
Primary 2,489 4,900
Total 6,903 9,903
BAUPlan
What did we learn from applying the RSF/MR/HS Model?
Effectiveness
What’sgoodforbearsisgoodforforestry.Difficulttobalancecostsonaget-in/get-outplan.ChallengeswithotherforestvaluesToolsbestappliedatabroaderlandscape-level.
Process
Heightenedawareness.
Workshopswerenotaseffectiveashoped.
Harvest/roadplansdevelopedontheflyresultingincommunicationissues.
GIStoolsdifficulttorun.
NextSteps
Re-runanalysiswith…-Roadaccesscontrols-Withretention(sightability)-Subsequent10-20years(forestgrowthandroaddeactivation)-Expandstudyarea
The Other Grizzly Bear Tools?
SightabilityDenning
BMPs(AccessControl)
Sightability
• Topography• Roadsiderealestate• AllViewsvs.BestView.• Competeswithnon-mobileretentionanchors• Landscape-levelmatrixretention• Redundanttoroadaccesscontrols• Digitalanomalies(blockedge)
Notcompleteyet…
Denning Notcompleteyet…
• EntireharvestareaisModerateorHighdenningprobability.• Denningsitefidelityisuncertain• Summerground
What did we learn from combining the tools in the planning process?
Effectiveness
Sightabilityandaccesscontrolsareredundantbutsightabilitytoolcanbeusedwhenaccesscontrolisnotanoption.NeedtointegrateSightabilityandAccessControlintoRSF/MR/HSmodel.Denningawarenessforstaff/season
Process
Toolsdidnotcombineaswethoughttheymight.Toolscouldbemodifiedtoalignwithforestryperspective(i.e.roadviews)MorecommunicationontooldevelopmentisneededNeedanin-houseexpert.
NextSteps
ApplythesightabilitytooltotheForestryTruckRd.ConfirmseasonofharvestforHighprobabilitydenningareasandunderstandthelevelofalignment.IntegrateaccesscontrolsandfinalblockshapesandharvestseasonsintoHabitatStatemodel?
Key Lessons on Science-based Active Adaptive Management
Timeanddedicationnottobeunderestimated.
Knowledgegoesbothways.
Greaterunderstandingofspeciespopulations,generally.
Singlespeciesvs.EBM
Adapt/Extrapolate
ByronVriendAaronJones
AnjaSorensonGordonStenhouse
HalJacksonLauraTrout
Questions?
Photo©GaryGulash
