Linking
Innovations &
Networking
Knowledge
Published by FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Winter 2007 Volume 8 Issue 2
How to elicit better public participation
by Ajit Krishnaswamy, Socio-economics Extension
Specialist
A
However, most forest managers are not trained in
participatory processes.
To meet that need, Thomas Beckley, John Parkins, and Stephen Sheppard’s “A Review of Public
Participation in Sustainable Forest Management:
A Reference Guide” synthesizes some of the most
relevant literature and research on public participation, and applies it in a Canadian context.
The need for public participation is particularly relevant in BC because most of the province’s forests
are on Crown land—that is, they are managed as
a public trust by licence-holders on behalf of the
public—and many aboriginal and non-aboriginal
BC communities depend on forest resources. The
authors acknowledge that though the guide has
some applicability to First Nations, different approaches and tools may be needed for participatory approaches involving aboriginal communities. They recommend Dr. Marc Stevenson’s 2005
synthesis document “Traditional Knowledge and
Sustainable Forest Management.”
The authors classify tools as either direct (faceto-face) or indirect (non face-to-face), and further
divide them into tools useful to either small or
large groups. Direct tools include public advisory
committees, focus groups, workshops, round
tables, open houses, and public hearings, as well as
modern technologies, such as community-based
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and threedimensional landscape visualization. Indirect tools
include comment sheets, toll-free lines, referenda,
and surveys. While face-to-face methods tend to be
more participatory, this is changing due to increas-
Elena Jones photo
reference guide on public participation in forest management, published by the Sustainable
Forest Management Network, provides practical
tools for natural resource managers who are currently expected to implement an inclusive and
responsive model of decision making. For example,
forest certiﬁcation systems, such as the Canadian
Standards Association and the Forest Stewardship
Council, require extensive public participation.
Researchers are trying to understand the effects of the
mountain pine beetle on woodland caribou habitat.
Read more on page 8.
ing use of remote methods such as Web-based
dialogue tools.
A section on evaluation outlines performance indicators for assessing the strengths and weaknesses
of a participatory process. A “continuum of public
participation,” spanning nominal participation (e.g.,
information exchange) to full participation (e.g., comanagement), helps conceptualize the level of
. . . continued on page 2
Inside
Embedded culverts are beneﬁcial for crossing ﬁsh-bearing streams . . . . . . . . . . 2
Long-term ecological monitoring: Unravelling the Gordian knot . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
New feature highlights FIA–FSP projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Young pine respond to aspen-retention treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Understanding MPB's effect on caribou winter range habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Monitoring ecological changes in MPB-impacted stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
So what is Future Forest Ecosystems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Prevent the slip and stop the slide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Getting what you need from the MPB Information Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Take it or leave it? MPB infestation sparks more questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Managing log hauling with GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Climate change impacts on forest and range resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
FIA–Forest Science Program: Developing knowledge, delivering results . . . 18
Conference showcases new knowledge management approaches . . . . . . . . . . . 20
NTFPs are understated forest values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Pulling it all together: Urgency for synthesis prompts CFS publication . . . . . 22
Upcoming events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Embedded culverts are beneficial
Clayton Gillies photo
past, the most popular method of protecting the
integrity of a stream was to build a wooden box
culvert over it, similar to a short-span bridge. Constructed from on-site logs, wooden box culverts are
preferably made from the highly durable western
redcedar. When a stream is too wide for wooden
box culverts, managers must often build or install
bridges.
Workers install a closedbottom, corrugated steel
embedded culvert at
Western Forest Product’s
Stillwater Operation near
Powell River.
In recent years, a closed-bottom, corrugated steel
embedded culvert has become an alternative to
the wooden box culvert. As with the wooden box
culvert, the length of the embedded culvert allows
it to maintain stream channel characteristics and
promote ﬁsh passage. Corrugated steel embedded
culverts may actually offer the following potential
advantages over a wooden box culvert:
•
A correctly installed embedded culvert has
a much longer lifespan than a wooden box
culvert, which may need to be replaced several
times when the wood deteriorates. This is
particularly beneﬁcial if the road will be
permanent.
•
As harvesting in coastal British Columbia
increasingly focusses on second-growth stands,
by Ed Proteau, FORREX/FERIC Extension Specialist
D
uring road construction, forest operators must
often cross ﬁsh-bearing streams, making sure
not to jeopardize ﬁsh and/or ﬁsh habitat. In the
Effective public input means better decisions
. . . continued from page 1
participation expected when using a particular
tool. A matrix helps identify tools suitable to the
different stages of a participatory planning process.
Other SFMN
publications
http://sfmnetwork.
ca/html/report_synthesis_listall_page_1_
e.html
http://sfmnetwork.ca/
html/publication_researchnotes_e.html
http://sfmnetwork.ca/
html/report_project_
listall_page_1_e.html
Speciﬁc public participation tools may not rate
highly for every performance indicator. For example, direct methods such as workshops and round
tables provide great opportunities for learning, for
establishing dialogue between individuals with
diverse values, and for identifying workable solutions. Conversely, indirect methods, such as surveys,
provide little opportunity for participants to learn
more about an issue. But they are often cost-efﬁcient, anonymous, and more representative of the
broad public. A participatory process should not
be thought of as a single event or application of a
single tool, but a long-term process integrating a
series of appropriate tools.
Participation should begin at the early stages of information gathering and goal identiﬁcation, ideally
with stakeholder analysis as a ﬁrst step. Representatives of the different groups should be involved in
planning the participatory process and helping to
select appropriate tools. Effective public participation initiatives create a place where criticism and
respectful dissent are welcome. The authors caution that offering people an opportunity to provide
input without any real intention to follow through
is a recipe for disaster.
Research and experience from the natural resource
management sector worldwide have proven that
public participation leads to better decisions, and
builds trust. It also reduces uncertainties, delays,
conﬂicts, and legal costs. In Canada, despite all
the talk about public participation, there hasn’t
been much synthesized information on tools for
natural resource managers to use. Use of the tools
described in this guide could help move natural
resource decision makers from talking about public participation and controlling dissent towards
meaningfully incorporating public values into the
planning process.
Copies of the guide can be obtained by emailing
[email protected]
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
2
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
for crossing ﬁsh-bearing streams
less western redcedar is available and more
smaller-diameter wood must be used for building wooden box culverts. In British Columbia’s
interior, most of the wood is too small in diameter to use in culvert construction. This issue is
avoided with the use of steel in the embedded
culverts. Additionally, a steel culvert’s structural
strength makes it useable when building roads
with deep ﬁlls.
•
Compared to a bridge, embedded culverts can
provide more width on the road surface and on
the stream channel than a bridge.
Design and planning considerations
Once forest operators have determined that an embedded culvert is the optimal choice for a site, they
must consider several planning and design issues.
For example, construction must occur during the
“ﬁsh window” for the area, the time period in which
construction will have the least deleterious effect
on the ﬁsh and their habitat.
A well-designed site plan will aid installation—a
culvert that is properly positioned will minimize
erosion of stream banks. Benchmarks and reference
points may be established during the site survey
and referenced during installation to provide horizontal and vertical control of the culvert’s position
through the road.
Before installation, ﬁsh nets and/or traps are used
both upstream and downstream of the site to
exclude ﬁsh from the construction area. The site is
then dewatered using pumps or diversion channels
to minimize any effects on the stream.
The tools used for embedding the culvert will
depend on the size of the job. A culvert can be
embedded manually using shovels, rakes, and
wheelbarrows. Or, forest operators can use smallpower machinery such as a skid-steer loader or
track-powered wheelbarrow.
During installation, it is important to employ sediment-control techniques, such as using pumps and
hoses to deliver seepage water containing sediment
away from the stream. Fill material should contain
enough ﬁne material and sand to ﬁll voids in the
simulated streambed and maintain surface ﬂow.
Gillies (2003) documents the installation of an
embedded culvert across a tributary stream to
Lewis Lake in coastal British Columbia. This culvert
was 2.7 metres in diameter and 14 metres long. The
total cost of the installation, including ﬁeld surveys,
design, habitat assessment, aggregate production,
and delivery was $29,600. The purchase and delivery of the culvert accounted for approximately
one-third of the total installation cost.
Closed-bottom, corrugated steel embedded
culverts are an excellent choice for culverts with
high ﬁlls, stream crossings on corners, and skewed
crossings. In each of these cases, building a bridge
instead would be more costly. Embedded culverts
provide forest managers with another option for
stream crossings that does not jeopardize ﬁsh or
ﬁsh habitat.
References
Gillies, C.T. 2003. Forest
Engineering Research
Institute of Canada,
Vancouver, B.C. Advantage 4(30). 11 pp.
Gillies, C.T. 2004. Forest
Engineering Research
Institute of Canada,
Vancouver, B.C. Advantage 5(31). 19 pp.
For further information
please contact:
Clayton Gillies,
FERIC, Western Division,
Vancouver, BC
Tel: 604-228-1555
Email: clayton-g@vcr.
feric.ca
Glen Beaton,
StoneCroft Project
Engineering,
Black Creek, BC
Tel: 250-337-5789
Email: [email protected]
Most installation procedures for embedded culverts are similar. Rip rap is placed at either end of
the excavation and set in the soil. Once an excavator places the culvert sections, the culverts are then
ﬁlled with sand or gravel to the desired height. A
ﬁsh monitor may be used to guide the appropriate
placement of larger cobbles and rocks during the
process of creating a simulated stream. Alternately
projecting rock spurs from the sides towards the
centre of the culvert creates a meandering channel during low ﬂows. The spurs as well as randomly
placed aggregate provide velocity shadows or
resting areas for ﬁsh passing through the culvert.
Ultimately, the simulated stream bed should blend
into the existing stream channel at both the inlet
and outlet of the culvert.
Clayton Gillies photo
Construction and embedding process
An operator inﬁlls a culvert with a power wheelbarrow.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
3
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Long-term ecological monitoring:
A
growing need for long-term condition and
trend information across Canada’s many
ecosystems and biomes is prompting an interest
in monitoring protocols. The Ecological Monitoring
and Assessment Coordinating Ofﬁce (EMAN CO), a
branch of Environment Canada, has developed a
series of standardized, peer-reviewed monitoring
protocols at both the entry (FrogWatch and PlantWatch) and technical levels.
Practitioners were able to work with these protocols at a recent 2.5 day Ecosystem Monitoring
workshop, co-sponsored by FORREX and Parks Canada. The focus of the workshop, held at Kootenay
National Park, was EMAN CO’s technical Terrestrial
Vegetation Biodiversity Monitoring protocol.
The workshop’s ﬁrst stop was at a dry Douglas-ﬁr
forest at the south end of Kootenay National Park,
near Radium Hot Springs where participants set
up monitoring plots. Under the tutelage of Brian
Craig, Science Advisor with EMAN CO, participants randomly established a series of 20 x 20
metre plots. Using inexpensive, hand-held infrared
distance meters, they located each tree spatially
Participants discuss wetland
within the plot by measuring the tree’s distance
monitoring during lunch
from two adjacent plot boundaries. Each stem was
break.
tagged and identiﬁed by species, condition, and diameter at breast height. The height of any veteran
trees was estimated using a inclinometer and
tape measure. Back in the classroom, participants
logged onto the EMAN CO Data Management System, and entered all of the tree data from each plot.
The result of the data entry was a permanent,
exportable electronic data archive, plus an actual
spatial map of the plot showing the location and
diameter of each tree. The plot map allowed participants to go back out on site and quickly doublecheck measurements to conﬁrm their accuracy.
Monitoring Methods
Forests are subject to a host of different monitoring
methods, such as permanent sample plots, vegetation resource inventory plots, cruise plots, and forest health plots. The EMAN CO protocol, while not
intended to replace any of the standard timber-related measurements, provides one means of tracking long-term ecological change in forest communities. It also offers some signiﬁcant features:
•
The protocol is standardized, peer-reviewed,
and in use across the entire country.
•
It uses standard, inexpensive equipment.
•
A well-reﬁned technique and explicit instructions make it useable by interested non-professionals, with a minimum of training.
•
The options of electronic data entry and a permanent data archive are available.
•
Other EMAN CO monitoring protocols can be
“layered” on top of the basic vegetation monitoring plot.
Kootenay National Park (KNP) hosted the workshop, as Parks Canada has started an
ambitious program of long-term
ecological monitoring. The
monitoring site, close to the
BC community of Radium,
was a typical example of the
overdense, ingrown forests
found in many parts of the
dry Southern Interior, and is
the result of decades of ﬁre
suppression. Park ofﬁcials
are attempting to return the
forest to a more natural state
through carefully applied
thinning and burning treatments.
Larry Halverson photo
by Don Gayton, Extension Specialist,
Ecosystem Management and Forest Practices
KNP staff also hope these
treatments will help entice
the endangered Rocky
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
4
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Unravelling the Gordian knot
EMAN CO
The Ecological Monitoring and Assessment
Network (EMAN) is
made up of linked
organizations and
individuals involved in
ecological monitoring
in Canada to better
detect, describe, and
report on ecosystem
changes. The network
is a co-operative
partnership of federal,
provincial, and municipal governments,
academic institutions,
aboriginal communities and organizations,
industry, environmental non-government organizations,
volunteer community
groups, elementary
and secondary schools,
and other groups/individuals involved in
ecological monitoring.
The Coordinating Ofﬁce (EMAN CO) works
collaboratively with the
EMAN partners to improve the effectiveness
of ecosystem monitoring to ensure informed
decision making and
to create environmental awareness among
Canadians. For more
information on EMAN
and its monitoring protocols, consult http://
www.eman-rese.ca
Larry Halverson photo
the waterbody. Next,
they would assess the
aquatic life—waterfowl,
benthic invertebrates,
ﬁsh, and amphibians.
Then, they would examine the complex and
highly stratiﬁed riparian
vegetation, including
the small, but important, grove of aspen
at the slough’s south
end. But even after this
exhaustive—and hypothetical—assessment,
monitoring would not
be complete, participants concluded. This
wetland is an integral
part of a larger landscape of dry grassland grading into Douglas-ﬁr forest. Processes at play in the
larger landscape, such as timber harvesting, grazing, ﬁre, ﬁre suppression and soil erosion, all have
a direct bearing on the life of the wetland. Truly, a
monitoring Gordian knot for ecologists and land
managers to untangle.
Mountain bighorn sheep population away from
the Radium townsite area. Park naturalists conclude that the sheep’s natural habitat—the open
benchlands along the sides of the Rocky Mountain
Trench—have been so degraded by ingrowth that
the sheep resort to grazing along roadsides in the
valley bottom. While this phenomenon has delighted many tourists, it has resulted in severe highway
mortality.
Park staff are conﬁdent that the forest restoration
treatments will provide more suitable habitat and
forage for the bighorn sheep, but will reassess the
EMAN forest monitoring plots over time to help
verify the treatment’s effect.
Larry Halverson, Kootenay National Park’s encyclopaedic naturalist and a key player in the forest restoration work, was very pleased with the
monitoring. “I can see this as the beginning of a
community-based monitoring network, which will
help us to understand ecosystem change, focus our
research priorities, and assess the effectiveness of
our management actions.”
Most participants at the workshop informally
agreed on the importance of long-term ecological
monitoring, of establishing baselines, and of tracking the impact of treatments and management
strategies. Participants also recognized that there
is no such thing as a perfect monitoring protocol.
However, using standardized approaches, sharing
and preserving data, and re-monitoring with the
same protocol over time, will help foster a better
understanding of British Columbia’s complex and
magniﬁcent ecosystems.
Wetland Monitoring
Top photo: Brian Craig
(right), EMAN Science Advisor, discussing monitoring with Don Gayton of
FORREX.
Larry Halverson photo
The Radium workshop ended with a half-day session on wetland monitoring. While recognition
of the importance of wetlands to landscape-level
biodiversity is growing, wetlands also present
major monitoring challenges. Participants gathered around a small, slightly saline wetland on
the Nature Trust’s spectacular Hoodoos property,
south of Invermere, and discussed what would
constitute an ideal monitoring suite. First, researchers would analyze the hydrology and chemistry of
Left photo: Sal Rasheed,
Parks Canada, uses an
inclinometer to measure
tree height.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
5
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
FIA–FSP Forest Science Corner
FIA–FSP Forest Science Corner
New feature highlights FIA–FSP projects
by Kathie Swift, Early Stand Dynamics
Extension Specialist
A
References
cited
Eng, M., A. Fall, J.
Hughes, T. Shore, B.
Riel, A. Walton, and P.
Hall. 2006. Provinciallevel Projection of
the Current Mountain
Pine Beetle Outbreak. http://www.
for.gov.bc.ca/hre/
bcmpb/BCMPB.
v3.ReferenceScenario.
Update.pdf
Lotan, J.E. and W. B.
Critchﬁeld. 1990. Silvics of North America.
United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 654.
Miller, B. 1996. Aspen management: a
literature review. NEST
Technical Report TR028, Natural resources
Canada. http://nesi.
mnr.gov.on.ca/spectrasites/internet/nesi/
media/documents/
main/netr028.pdf
Newsome T.A., J. L.
Heineman, and A.F.
Nemec. 2003. Competitive effects of
trembling aspen on
lodgepole pine performance in the SBS and
IDF zones of the Cariboo–Chilcotin region
of South-central British
Columbia. Research
Branch, B.C. Ministry
of Forests, Victoria BC.
Technical Report 005.
s an applied research program, the Forest
Investment Account–Forest Science Program
(FIA–FSP) is trying to address key management
issues facing the Province of British Columbia
through its research investments. In support of
this effort, FORREX, the provincial forest extension provider, is introducing a new section in LINK
called FIA–FSP Forest Science Corner. This feature
dedicates space in each issue to identifying and
highlighting FIA–FSP-funded projects that focus on
addressing speciﬁc management questions.
In upcoming issues of LINK, we will highlight different areas of FIA–FSP research that address challenges such as: How can we use retention to manage species at risk such as the northern caribou?
How do we manage for riparian processes? How
do we model and manage complex stands in the
Interior of British Columbia? What are the growth
and yield implications of alternative silvicultural
systems? How do we manage for non-timber forest
resources? How do we connect information across
scales?
In this ﬁrst FIA–FSP Forest Science Corner, we will
be looking at three research projects: the ﬁrst
addresses the question of how woodland caribou
respond to the changes that occur when winter
range pine-lichen habitat has been salvaged following a mountain pine beetle attack; the second
attempts to understand the impact of mountain
pine beetle-caused lodgepole pine mortality
on stand structure and vegetation; and the last
examines the question of how best to manage
lodgepole pine with aspen mixtures in the central
region of BC.
We hope you will enjoy this new section of LINK
and we look forward to your suggestions about
other topics to cover in this new feature.
Young pine respond to aspen-retention
treatments in BC’s southern interior
by Bruce Rogers, Mountain Pine Beetle Extensionist
R
esearchers predict that in the next 10 years the
volume of standing live lodgepole pine in BC
will drop from 694 million m3 to 134 million m3 (Eng
et al. 2006). This amount includes stands of pure
pine and stands where pine is only a component.
Lodgepole pine tends to thrive and compete well
in a niche that usually involves extreme soil properties and soil moisture (Lotan and Critchﬁeld 1990).
In many British Columbia situations, lodgepole pine
can also be found growing alongside aspen, which
favours some similar environmental conditions
(Figure 1). Maximizing growth and yield and future
site productivity on sites currently dominated by
young planted or natural pine is critical to enhancing the timber supply. However, managing for
aspen is also important to minimize brushing costs,
to increase biodiversity, and, in some locations, to
provide another source of marketable timber.
The ability to predict the growth and yield responses
of lodgepole pine under natural conditions is
challenging. Add to this the variety of treatment
scenarios that include conifer/deciduous mixes,
and the outcomes can expand exponentially. However, assessing silvicultural treatments to ensure
second-growth stands are effectively contributing to our mid-term and long-term timber supply is key to recovering from the impacts of the
mountain pine beetle. Adding to our knowledge
of how management practices are impacting the
growth and yield response of young lodgepole
pine, the BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest Science Program has released two technical
reports by Teresa Newsome, Jean L. Heineman,
and Amanda F. Linnell Nemec that report on the
response of lodgepole pine and aspen to variable aspen retention treatments in the Dry, Warm
Sub-Boreal Spruce, Horseﬂy Variant (SBSdw1)
subzone (Technical Report 032, http://www.for.
gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr032.htm), and in
. . . continued on page 7
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
6
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
FIA–FSP Forest Science Corner
. . . continued from page 6
the Very Dry, Cold Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce (SBPSxc)
subzone (Technical Report 029, http://www.for.
gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr029.htm). The two
installations highlighted are part of a series of trials
established across a variety of biogeoclimatic (BEC)
subzones.
Two years following aspen retention treatments of 0,
1,000 and 2,500 stems per hectare on the 13-year-old
SBPSxc site, pine stem diameter and diameter increment increased and height/diameter ratio decreased
signiﬁcantly on all treatment sites in comparison to
the uncut control (Figure 2). Conversely, four years
after treatment in the 15-year-old SBSdw1 site, no
signiﬁcant differences in pine-diameter growth were
observed between the uncut control and the aspen
retention treatments of 0, 500 to 800, 1,000 to 1,500,
and 2,000 to 2,800 stems per hectare, although a
decrease in pine vigour was
observed in treatments with
more than 500 to 800 aspen
stems per hectare remaining.
Signiﬁcant decreases in height
growth have only been observed on older sites (greater
than 15 years) and under
very high aspen competition
where over 9,000 stems per
hectare of aspen were within
1.8 m of a pine (Newsome et al.
2003). No differences in height
growth between treatments
were found in younger stands
on the SBSdw1 and SBPSxc installations and on two similar
trial sites in the Very Cold, Mild
Interior Douglas-fir (IDFxm) Teresa Newsome photo
and the Dry, Warm Sub-Boreal
Spruce, Blackwater Variant (SBSdw2).
How did the aspen respond to treatment? Two
years after treatment, aspen suckering responses
varied by subzone. In the SBSdw1 site, aspen
suckering densities ranged from 28,187 stems per
hectare in the complete aspen removal area to 344
in the 2,000 to 2,800 stems per hectare treatment
Teresa Newsome photo
These and previous studies determined that the
density of aspen greater than or equal to pine
height was the best predictor of pine stem-diameter growth, and that this relationship becomes
stronger as stands age. So how does retaining different densities of aspen as tall as or taller than the
crop pine impact the pine’s growth?
site. These suckers were 46 to 62 cm in height. In
the SBPSxc site, sucker densities varied from 93,086
to 22,410 stems per hectare in the total aspen
removal area compared to the 2,500 stem retention treatment site respectively, but were only 25
to 30 cm tall. Aspen suckering densities seen in
this study fall within the range of those seen in
studies done in Ontario (Miller, 1996). Miller cites
eight studies with postharvest
aspen suckering densties after
two years ranging from approximately 30,000 to 200,000 stems
per hectare. It was also noted that
regardless of the aspen suckering
density present at stand establishment, most stands progress
towards a density in the range of
20,000 to 25,000 stems per hectare by about year six.
Figure 1 (above). A
mature stand of aspen and
pine in the Very Dry, Cold
Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce
biogeoclimatic subzone.
Figure 2 (centre). Fifteenyear-old site in the Dry,
Warm Sub-Boreal Spruce,
Horseﬂy Variant biogeoclimatic subzone.
The treatment responses seen
across ecosystems in these trials
indicate that there is a need for
ecosystem-speciﬁc stocking and
free growing to reﬂect site differences. Many of the BC sites where
mountain pine beetle has killed
mature pine are best suited to
regrow pine. Thus, from a “results-based” perspective, ﬁnding a balance between acceptable crop
tree growth and yield, and retaining deciduous
components that maintain natural biodiversity
and improve nutrient input and future site quality,
is essential to applying biologically appropriate
competition density thresholds on a site-by-site
basis.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
7
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
FIA–FSP Forest Science Corner
Understanding MPB’s effect on
caribou winter range habitat
by Bruce Rogers, Mountain Pine Beetle Extensionist
R
esearchers are working hard to understand
how woodland caribou respond to the changes
that occur when winter range pine-lichen habitat
has been salvaged following mountain pine beetle
(MPB) attack.
Elena Jones photo
Across much of its range in
British Columbia, lodgepole
pine is an early seral species
that is often associated with
frequent ﬁre disturbance.
Lodgepole pine has specialized
to exploit post-burn conditions
and thrive until it is overtaken
through plant succession and
replaced by slower-growing,
more shade-tolerant species such as spruce and
subalpine ﬁr. However, on some drier and nutrient-poor sites, stand types such as pine-lichen
associations develop and dominate for a long time.
Animals such as caribou, which forage on lichens,
have come to rely on these associations, particularly as components of critical Ungulate Winter
Range (UWR).
Permanent terrestrial
vegetation plot.
More information
For more information on this project
or the results to date,
please contact Dr. Dale
Seip, BC Ministry of
Forests and Range at
250-565-4125 or Dale.
[email protected]
With the accelerated mortality of many of these
stands because of the MPB infestation and subsequent salvage logging practices, researchers have
been addressing questions about the impacts on
lichen availability and caribou response. Dr. Dale
Seip, a wildlife ecologist with the BC Ministry of
Forests and Range, is the proponent for a project
funded by the Forest Investment Account–Forest
Science Program that investigates these questions;
Elena Jones, a wildlife biologist for the McGregor
Model Forest, is the project biologist; and BC Ministry of Environment (MOE) wildlife biologists Doug
Heard and Glen Watts are responsible for radio
collaring the animals in this study.
The team’s project focusses on the Kennedy Siding caribou herd, which is considered threatened
and consists of approximately 160 animals in the
Parsnip River drainage two hours north of Prince
George. The study area is part of an approximately
3,000 ha approved UWR, which means that up to
half of the area (1,500 ha) can be salvage logged.
Prior to the MPB infestation, the seasonal behav-
iour and distribution of the herd was monitored for
ﬁve years, providing considerable baseline data for
post-MPB comparisons. Caribou were observed to remain in the lower elevation pine-lichen range eating
terrestrial lichens until snow conditions became too
hard; after that they would feed more extensively
on arboreal lichens located on lower tree branches.
Eventually, the caribou would leave the pine forest
and move up into higher elevation range to continue
feeding on arboreal lichens.
Primary questions and study approaches are:
1. Will caribou continue to use pine-lichen stands
that have been attacked by MPB?
Post-MPB radio-collar data are compared to preMPB caribou telemetry data.
2. What is the impact of MPB on arboreal lichens
and terrestrial lichens?
Monitoring of arboreal and terrestrial lichen
abundance is ongoing.
3. What is the impact of MPB on snow depth and
snow conditions in pine-lichen stands?
Monitoring of snow stations in MPB-attacked
stands is ongoing.
4. What is the impact of MPB on caribou feeding
behaviour in pine-lichen stands?
Caribou are trailed in winter to record feeding
behaviour, and data are compared to pre-MPB
trailing data.
One scenario proposed by Dr. Seip would see the
lichen forage in the unsalvaged dead pine stands
remain viable and thus, available to the caribou.
Caribou could use these areas until standing dead
trees begin to fall to the ground (15–20 years). If at
that time stand characteristics became unfavourable (e.g., tree fall creating physical barriers), caribou
could then be able to shift and use adjacent salvage
harvested areas where lichen communities have
rejuvenated over time. A concern regarding future
forage availability (addressed with the lichen and
vegetation abundance monitoring component of
this project) centres around successional changes
in the plant communities of the dead pine stands
caused by changes in light availability. Terrestrial
lichens are sensitive to competition and new light
regimes may, or may not, facilitate sufﬁcient lichen
survival or regrowth.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
8
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
FIA–FSP Forest Science Corner
Monitoring ecological changes in
MPB-impacted stands
but variable mortality (21–98%) of smaller
lodgepole pine;
by Craig DeLong, Ben Heemskerk, and Tanya Milner, BC
Ministry of Forests and Range
U
nderstanding the implications of mountain
pine beetle-caused lodgepole pine mortality on stand structure and vegetation is critical in
helping land managers develop strategies that will
mitigate the drop
in mid-term timber
supply and the loss
of key natural forest habitats.
Figure 1. Fifty permanent plots were recently
established in lodgepole
pine-dominated stands.
More information
For more information,
please contact:
Craig DeLong, Regional
Research Ecologist,
Northern Interior
Forest Region, Craig.
[email protected]
Fifty permanent research plots were
recently established in lodgepole
pine-dominated
stands that have
been heavily impacted by mountain pine beetle
(MPB) within the
Vanderhoof Forest
District (Figure 1).
Plots are distributed throughout unsalvaged MPB
stands on three different sites: 1) average sites in
three common biogeoclimatic units within the
Sub-Boreal Spruce Zone (30 plots); 2) dry sites (10
plots); and 3) stands that burned following MPB
attack (10 plots). All plots are associated with a 2 to
5 ha reserve that will remain unharvested.
Within these plots, researchers will monitor changes in stand structure (e.g., snag and log recruitment), vegetation (e.g., species recruitment and
loss, and species cover changes), functional wildlife
habitat, and tree mortality and growth. The main
purpose of this project is to monitor MPB-caused
ecosystem changes over time, allowing researchers
to examine the ecological and economic beneﬁts
and trade-offs of three potential management options: no interference, the use of prescribed burning, and conventional timber harvesting.
Initial results indicate there is:
•
almost complete mortality (98%) of lodgepole
pine above 22 cm diameter at breast height,
•
a wide variation in the density (125–7,175
stems per hectare) and basal area (0.7–23.2
m2/ha) of live non-pine tree species within the
stands; and
•
close to a 200% increase in height growth
increment for understorey white and black
spruce, and 175% for subalpine ﬁr, two years
following death of the lodgepole pine canopy.
The results of this project will assist researchers
and managers to:
•
improve growth and yield estimates for surviving naturally established trees in MPB-impacted stands and to determine their contribution
to mid-term timber supply;
•
determine changes in important wildlife habitat attributes (e.g., large snags, coarse woody
debris [CWD], and berry-producing shrubs)
over time;
•
improve estimates of tree fall-down rates and
CWD decay for input into recently developed
models that track deadwood habitat supply;
and
•
improve estimates of changes in abundance
and productivity of non-timber forest products
due to increased understorey light conditions
associated with MPB mortality.
The project was designed to be able to accommodate future studies in the established reserves,
allowing for signiﬁcant cost and time efﬁciencies.
The plots have been randomly selected, include a
substantial amount of supporting data, and the 2
to 5 ha reserves allow for both non-destructive and
destructive sampling. We encourage other researchers to contact us for more information about
the utility of the reserves for their research.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by the Province of British Columbia through the Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program (Project
Y072072).
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
9
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
So what is Future Forest Ecosystems?
by Kristine Weese, Forest Practices Branch, BC Ministry of
Forests and Range
T
he impacts of climate change on forestry are
being addressed by the BC Ministry of Forests
and Range (MOFR) through a new initiative that will
ensure British Columbia’s forest and rangeland ecosystems remain resilient to ecosystem stress and
continue to provide the basic services, products,
and beneﬁts society values and depends on.
Entitled the Future Forest Ecosystems Initiative
(FFEI), its purpose is to adapt BC’s forest management framework—i.e., the legislation and policy
framework that governs forest management planning and practices—to a changing climate, so that
it remains effective well into the future.
FFEI has its roots in a December 2005 symposium
and workshop held in Prince George under the
sponsorship of the province’s Chief Forester, Jim
Snetsinger. The session was attended by representatives from federal and provincial agencies,
universities, First Nations, forest and range industries, environmental organizations, and consulting
resource professionals. Participants shared their
various perspectives on the changing ecological
conditions in BC, and on how to adapt forest management accordingly.
The discussions and outcomes of the 2005 symposium/workshop were analyzed by a team of MOFR
specialists in early 2006, and developed into a set of
recommendations for moving forward. These were
released by MOFR as a report entitled “Future Forest Ecosystems of BC: Draft Recommendations for
Review and Comment.” The report included 46 recommendations that are intended to help develop
projects designed to:
1. increase understanding of ecological processes
and changes over time (through research, forecasting, and monitoring); and
More information
For more information
on FFEI, please contact
project manager
Kristine Weese, Forest Practices Branch
(Vernon), 250-558-1760
(Kristine.Weese@gov.
bc.ca), or visit the FFEI
Web site, http://www.
for.gov.bc.ca/hts/Future_Forests/
2. use that knowledge to adapt BC’s forest management framework to changing ecological
conditions (through policy evaluation and
change).
The recommendations went through a broad consultation process over the summer and early fall of
2006, with the majority of feedback supporting FFEI
as timely and important.
This past fall, the FFEI team has been working to
address this feedback and to reﬁne the overall
direction of FFEI. Under the updated FFEI direction, MOFR will be working to achieve the following
objectives:
1. Increase understanding of the functional constraints for key species and ecological processes
to establish a baseline of information for forecasting and monitoring ecosystem changes
2. Forecast how a range of climate change scenarios might alter key species and ecological
processes over time
3. Monitor key species and ecological processes
to detect changes over time, and to determine
the agents of change
4. Evaluate a range of existing and new approaches to forest management for their ability
to maintain and enhance ecological resilience
and ecosystem services, products, and beneﬁts
under changing ecological conditions
5. Find mechanisms to adapt the existing forest
management framework to changing ecological conditions
6. Communicate knowledge gained from our
work as well as the expected changes to the
forest management framework
Between now and March 2007, the team will
continue to reﬁne FFEI direction, including laying
out the scientiﬁc foundation and developing a list
of projects that will support the implementation
of these objectives. As well, within that time frame,
MOFR will develop a 3–5 year implementation plan
for FFEI, and will initiate preliminary project work to
support long-term project implementation. Once
FFEI direction is ﬁnalized and the implementation
plan is completed, these products will be broadly
communicated to our constituents and posted on
the FFEI Web site (see address in sidebar).
To implement FFEI, MOFR will work in partnership
with other agencies such as the BC Ministry of
Environment and the Canadian Forest Service, as
well as inter-agency and non-government organizations. The Forest Science Board and FORREX will
likely play an important role in FFEI implementation by overseeing complementary forest science
and extension work. Within government, FFEI will
be implemented in collaboration with other closely
related initiatives, such as the Climate Change Initiative, BC Wildland Fire Strategy, the Mountain Pine
Beetle Action Plan, and the FRPA Resource Evaluation Program.
The scope of FFEI and the work involved will
undoubtedly evolve. The MOFR expects projects
under FFEI to be implemented over the next 3–5
years, with FFEI direction being incorporated into
normal MOFR business within that time frame.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
10
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Prevent the slip and stop the slide:
Measures to control erosion, sediment
by Darcy W. Moshenko,
RPF, FERIC/FORREX Extension Specialist and
Clayton T. Gillies, RPF,
RPBio, FERIC Researcher
D
FERIC photo
id the earth just
move? Sure it did
… and there it goes
again! The forces of
erosion, combined
with sediment that is
continually moving and
depositing, means the
landscape is constantly
changing. Forest stewardship goals, sustainable
management and certiﬁcation, and changing regulations are fuelling the forest industry’s interest in
erosion and sediment control.
Forest roads are widely regarded as the main
source of erosion and sediment in forest operations. Most erosion occurs during, and shortly after,
road and stream crossing construction when the
soil is exposed and vulnerable to movement. Forest
workers and forest practitioners need to fully understand both the effects of erosion and sediment
on the environment, and implement strategies to
prevent erosion during road and stream crossing
construction.
What is erosion and sediment control? Erosion is
caused by rain, moving water, wind, or gravity displacing any amount of soil, loose rock, or dissolved
portions of rock. Sediment is the ﬁne particles of
eroded soil and rock that have been moved and
deposited away from their original location. Erosion is a natural process and is not itself negative.
However, the accelerated erosion caused by huAt this site, participants discuss issues around stream
crossing installations and
maintenance, including
sediment from bridge decks
entering ﬁsh steams.
FERIC photo
Field tour participants
visited a site which used
numerous erosion- andsediment-control techniques, including relocating
the road location further
upslope and away from a
stream, insloping the road
surface, building a French
drain to direct seepage and
subsurface ﬂows away from
the steep cutslope, and
seeding the site.
man development may reach unacceptable levels.
The goal for erosion control is prevention while the
goal for sediment control is containment. Preventing erosion will eliminate the source of sediment.
Including an erosion- and sediment-control plan in
construction activities can save time and effort. It
is less costly to plan ahead and identify techniques
to prevent erosion than to conduct repairs once
the erosion has started. Early planning is especially
important for watercourse crossings as construction often disturbs and removes riparian vegetation, which acts as a ﬁlter for sediment delivery to
the watercourse.
Erosion prevention techniques focus on soil cover,
roughness, and water management, and include
preserving existing vegetation, seeding/mulching/covering bare soil immediately, conﬁguring
the surface to be rough and irregular, and diverting
upland seepage/runoff around exposed soil. Sediment control typically focusses on holding material
in place using check structures such as silt fences,
ﬁbrous rolls, straw bales, aggregate, etc. Detention
through containment is accomplished with techniques such as creating sediment ponds/basins,
using catchment sumps during construction, and
dispersing sediment-laden water onto the forest
ﬂoor. Flocculents are used to enhance the rate of
deposition by attracting ﬁner particles to band
together, making them heavier. All of these techniques have their place on the landscape and many
can work together. A multi-technique approach at
a site is often needed to control erosion and sediment deposits.
This past Fall, a ﬁeld tour called “Erosion and Sediment Control Measures for the Forest Industry” was
sponsored by FERIC, FORREX, the FIA–Forest Science Program, and Tolko Industries Ltd. During the
visit to three Tolko sites near Lumby, participants
viewed numerous erosion- and sediment-control
practices in the ﬁeld and discussed control options
when planning road and stream crossing construction. Clayton Gillies from FERIC led the group
discussion.
Gillies is currently developing a handbook for forest
practitioners titled, “Operator’s Guide to Erosion and
Sediment Control.” The handbook will be available in
Fall 2007. For more information on erosion and sediment control, contact Clayton Gillies at clay-g@vcr.
feric.ca
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
11
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Getting what you need from the
and can be made by contacting Al Wiensczyk
([email protected] or 250-614-4354).
Users of the network can also search more than
25 other information catalogues contributed by a
variety of organizations and housed in NRIN. These
catalogues contain metadata records of research
projects, unpublished project reports (interim and
ﬁnal), and published papers.
The Web site offers a onestop source for mountain
pine beetle information.
by Al Wiensczyk, Extension Specialist, Ecosystems and
Stand Management
A
re you looking for a one-stop source of information on the mountain pine beetle (MPB)?
If so, then look no further than the Mountain Pine
Beetle Information Network (http://www.forrex.
org/mpb). The network provides direct access to a
searchable bibliographic warehouse of published
literature on MPB, a searchable MPB-events catalogue, the Natural Resources Information Network
(NRIN) product databases, as well as a link to the
McGregor Model Forest Association’s Bark Beetle
Links Web site.
The MPB bibliographic warehouse currently contains over 1,200 literature citations. The citations
include all of the pertinent reference information,
keywords, and an abstract (if available) or a description of the article. This is a “living” project; we
will continue to add new references, and locate
and add abstract information to existing records
over time. In cases where the publication is available on-line, the Web address (URL) is included. The
site also provides links to documents containing
search and result-interpretation tips (http://www.
nrin.org/InterpretingTheResults.html) to assist
users.
The MPB events catalogue contains information on
planned MPB-related events (workshops, conferences, meetings, etc.) and is continually being
updated. Contributions to this database are invited
The McGregor Model Forest Association’s Bark Beetle Links Web site (http://www.barkbeetlelinks.
ca) is an information hub providing users with links
to the home pages of organizations involved in
MPB issues, information, or research. The Web site
divides the links into ﬁve main categories: Major
sites, Research sites, Resource sites, Articles and
Media, and Associated sites. Major sites includes
links to the Natural Resources Canada Mountain
Pine Beetle Initiative site, the Province of British Columbia MPB site, as well as several others. The Research sites section links to a searchable database
of MPB-related recent research projects. Examples
of links listed under the Resource sites include the
Entomology Society of British Columbia, the Colorado State University MPB site, and the Bugwood.
org site. The Articles and Media section contains
a link to a CBC interview with Dr. Staffan Lindgren
from the University of Northern British Columbia
as well as links to a variety of articles on MPB. The
Associated sites section contains, as examples, links
to the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Omineca Beetle
Action Coalitions, the Forest Engineering Research
Institute of Canada (FERIC), as well as companies
who produce products using the stained, beetlekilled wood.
Tips on how to search the bibliographic warehouse and events
catalogue
The default search setting or Quick search will conduct a simple search of both the MPB bibliographic
warehouse and the MPB events catalogue, simultaneously. The simple search looks for and presents
records containing at least one of the words in the
search ﬁeld (using an “or” search mechanism). For
example, if you type in mountain pine beetle the
search engine will look for records that contain
the words mountain or pine or beetle. This type of
search usually results in a lot of hits and is useful if
the user is interested in a broad scope assessment
of what information is available. The use of double
quotes around a group of words (“mountain pine
beetle”) will search for those words as a phrase,
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
12
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
MPB Information Network
although Boolean search words such as “and” will
be ignored. For example, a search for “MPB biodiversity and wildlife” using the double quotes will
actually search for MPB biodiversity wildlife.
Bibliographic Warehouse
A more useful approach for looking for speciﬁc
publication information is to use the advanced
search options, which are accessed by selecting the
radio button  located to the left of the database
name. For the bibliographic warehouse, several advanced search options will then appear; the most
useful of these are Limit Search, Without the Words,
Date, and Occurrence.
•
Limit Search will allow users to select one of
three options:
• with all the words,
• with the exact phrase, and
• with any of the words.
•
Selection of “with the exact phrase” is particularly useful when searching for a speciﬁc title
or using the topic keyword phrases. Boolean
search words such as “and” are not ignored and
are included when using this feature. To ease
the searching process, topic keyword phrases
have been assigned to each reference in the
database and broadly classify the reference
according to its subject area. For example, the
MPB Biology topic keyword phrase includes
the following subject areas: ﬂight and dispersal
characteristics and mechanisms, pheromones
(attractants and anti-aggregants), host resistance (e.g., genetics), tree age and size impacts,
and interaction between different species of
beetles and MPB. For a list of the other topic
keyword phrases and the subject areas covered
see http://www.nrin.org/MPBSearchTips.html
•
“Without the words” allows users to further reﬁne their search to not include references with
certain words.
•
Date allows users to restrict their search to
references published during a certain year
or range of years. For example, to search for
literature published in 1997, you would need
to select January 1, 1997 to January 1, 1997.
(Note: Using the same year is correct. Because
this search system was developed for use with
a variety of database types [such as events] the
NRIN data entry protocol requires a full date
for each record [day, month, and year] even
though, in this situation, the day and month
Funding
are not relevant. To satisfy this requirement in
the bibliographic warehouse, the month and
day were arbitrarily set to January 1. For citation purposes, this day and month should be
ignored and only the year used).
•
Occurrence allows users to limit the ﬁelds in
which the search engine looks for the search
term. The default is anywhere. Other choices include keyword, title, and abstract. The methodology choice does not apply to this database.
This Network is funded,
in part, by the British
Columbia Ministry of
Forests and Range
through the Forest
Investment Account–
Forest Science Program
and the Mountain Pine
Beetle Emergency
Response: Canada–B.C.
Implementation
Strategy.
Events Catalogue
Selection of the radio button  located to the left
of the MPB Events catalogue results in the appearance of the advanced search options for this
database. Similar to the bibliographic warehouse,
useful search options include Limit Search, Without
the Words, Date, and Occurrence. The Date search
would be for the date of the event; and, in this case,
the day and month are relevant. For example, to
search for events in the month of February 2007
you would select February 1, 2007 to February 28,
2007. Another useful search ﬁeld unique to this
dataset is the Event Type. The default is, “Any,” with
other choices of Conference, Course, Field Visit,
Meeting, Seminar/Lecture, or Workshop.
.
Use the radio button  to access advanced search features for each
database.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
13
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Take it or leave it? MPB infestation
sparks more questions than answers
by Bruce Rogers, Mountain Pine Beetle Extensionist
I
s the impact of the current mountain pine beetle
(MPB) infestation in British Columbia the result of
a natural catastrophic disturbance? If so, should we
just let nature recover
on its own as it has in
the past? The reality
is that, considering
the vast area affected
and that we probably won’t be able to
artiﬁcially rehabilitate
it all, we will need to
manage some of the
affected forest for
future timber supply
and some will have
to be left alone. Now
the question is: What
do we leave and what
do we salvage and/or
rehabilitate?
Alan Wiensczyk photo
This question was a
major theme at two
recent MPB ﬁeld tours
held in the Prince
George and Vanderhoof Forest Districts. On the ﬁrst tour, held October
3–4, researchers from the British Columbia Ministry
of Forests and Range (MOFR) Southern Interior
Forest Region joined those of the Northern Interior
Forest Region to compare notes on MPB issues.
The second tour, on October 30 and hosted by the
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
Mixedwood Ecology Program, was attended by
forest practitioners and researchers from academia,
industry, and government. The purpose of both
tours was to stimulate discussion, share knowledge,
and raise questions.
Dr. Chris Hawkins speaks to
forest practitioners about
silviculture options in an
old stand with minimal
dominant pine and spruce;
balsam and hemlock are in
the understorey.
The MOFR tour presentations included: ﬁre in
MPB-attacked stands, post-MPB secondary stand
structure, MPB deforestation and hydrology, approaches to maintaining woodland caribou habitat,
climate change, loss of young age class stands,
and light-touch, small-scale partial cutting techniques used to salvage dead pine while protecting
other mature trees and advanced regeneration.
The UNBC tour focussed on MPB attack and stand
structure (both residuals and regeneration) in
immature and mature pine-leading stands and
salvage partial cutting techniques southeast of
Prince George.
At one site visited by both tours, an age class 3
(40–60 years old) ﬁre-origin pure pine stand had
been spaced and pruned in the early 1990s, and
now has approximately 50% mortality due to MPB.
An adjacent unthinned stand had less mortality in
relation to number of stems, but also had a smaller
average diameter at breast height. An age class 8
(140–160 years) stand showcased a few large old
dominant pines with a signiﬁcant understorey of
mostly subalpine ﬁr with some western hemlock
and black spruce. Both tours ended with a stop at a
FERIC/MOFR (BC Timber Sales) light-touch, smallscale partial cutting salvage trial.
A central tenet of both tour discussions was that
it may become necessary to avoid any silvicultural
intervention in MPB-killed stands if it might negatively impact other management objectives. Some
of the comments, questions, and discussion points
echoed among tour groups were as follows:
1. Is it worth using silviculture treatments to
increase yield and quality in lodgepole pine
stands that may be impacted by future MPB
outbreaks? Participants discussed allowing
dense ﬁre-origin lodgepole pine stands to
develop naturally rather than thinning them,
which might encourage some survival should
future MPB epidemics occur.
2. What is considered sufﬁcient secondary structure (density and quality) so that no silvicultural intervention is required? What densities of
regeneration will be acceptable; will we need to
compromise in some stands and have acceptable biological stocking as opposed to meeting
current stocking guidelines (e.g., operational
adjustment factor for certain stands)? Coates
et al. (2006) have predicted that a signiﬁcant
amount of MPB-attacked leading pine stands
have sufﬁcient secondary structure to meet
silvicultural objectives.
3. Limited information on understorey regeneration in pine-leading stand types exists in the
current inventory. Many participants felt that
inventories of understorey regeneration in
leading pine stands should be considered.
continued on page 15 . . .
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
14
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Managing log hauling with GPS
by Ed Proteau, FERIC/FORREX Extension Specialist
T
TimberTrax Solutions photo
he use of Global Positioning System (GPS)
technology within the forest industry has become commonplace
in certain activities, such as forest
mapping where it
is used to improve
accuracy. There are
still, however, plenty
of opportunities for
GPS use in other
areas of forestry, says
Gord Vaughan of
Vancouver’s TimberTrax™ Solutions Ltd.
Highway truck being
loaded.
Recently, TimberTrax Solutions, with the aid of
TELUS Geomatics of Edmonton, customized GPS
technology to track the location of logging vehicles and the weight of their loads. Until now, the
lack of accurate, up-to-date information in these
areas has made monitoring vehicles and their loads
very difﬁcult.
The Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) system
helps forest managers monitor where individual
pieces of equipment are located, allows them to
closely analyze cycle times and shift lengths, and
helps determine where non-productive idle time
may be occurring. In the past, large ﬂeets covering
a very large land base meant dispatchers often
had trouble locating equipment accurately. When
a truck was needed, the dispatcher attempted to
pick the closest truck and, in many cases, a lack of
information meant the wrong truck was selected.
This caused frustration for drivers and dispatchers,
and resulted in non-productive idle time.
TimberTrax Solutions has done several experiments
on this AVL system and reports promising results.
continued on page 16 . . .
What do we take, what do we leave?
. . . continued from page 14
References
cited
Coates, K.D., C. DeLong,
P.J. Burton, and D.L.
Sachs. 2006. Abundance of secondary
structure in lodgepole
pine stands affected
by the mountain pine
beetle. Report for the
Chief Forester, May
2006, Bulkley Valley
Centre for Natural Resources Research and
Management, unpublished report, 17 pp.
Rex, J. and S. Dube.
2006. Predicting the
risk of wet ground
areas in the Vanderhoof Forest District:
Project description
and project report. BC
Journal of Ecosystems
and Management
7(2):57-71.
4. Although secondary structure is more abundant in certain biogeoclimatic units than
others, is the species composition acceptable?
Will mills adapt to using more subalpine ﬁr
or black spruce? Subalpine ﬁr is a substantial
component of understorey regeneneration in
many pine-leading stands, but it is usually not
considered a desirable species for sawmills,
partly because of its moisture properties. Many
ﬁeld tour attendees pointed out that, although
future use of this species may require technological adaptations by sawmills, 20 to 30 years
ago lodgepole pine, now a primary component
of our timber supply, was considered undesirable.
5. What do we do with all of the dead pine when
it falls to the ground in the blocks we haven’t
salvaged? Is there a practical use for dead,
non-merchantable trees from the young killed
stands? During the ﬁeld tour, participants
agreed that there is research into the viability of
using this ﬁbre for bio-fuels and other non-dimensional lumber products, but the economic
viability of some approaches is unclear so far.
6. How will changes in hydrology and water balance because of the loss of live canopy affect
harvesting season choices and watershed run-
off? Rex and Dube�(2006) investigated reports
of conversions of summer-ground to winterground logging conditions due to increases in
soil water content and have presented preliminary results that verify a wet-ground prediction
model.
7. Innovative partial-cutting techniques to maintain
structure may be useful under certain circumstances, but without the cost recovery seen
with high-volume operations, how can major
licensees be expected to use these approaches?
Participants generally agreed that other partialcut harvesting methods could be alternatives to
conventional methods for salvaging dead pine
while maintaining secondary structure. However,
they also agreed that, without some stumpage
appraisal relief, these higher cost methods would
not be economical to mills and would probably
only be applied when clearcut harvesting is not
an option.
Forest practitioners continue to ask questions about
dealing with the MPB-attacked timber supply areas.
Although new research is addressing some of these
questions, many, for the short term, will remain
unanswered. Thus, how we address the immediate question of “What do we take and what do we
leave?” needs to reﬂect sound landscape objectives
and reﬂect the best available research and historical
knowledge.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
15
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Managers receive custom reports
. . . continued from page 15
“Idle times were reduced from 50% to 25% in one
six-week trial period,” said Vaughan. “Warm-up
times were reduced from 24 minutes to as low as
six minutes in another eight-week trial.”
Reducing warm-up and idling times has many
beneﬁts. Service requirements are reduced, lowering costs, and machine production is increased.
The system also allows for better invoice reconciliation. These GPS units can hold drivers to higher
standards, and can also identify unrealistic management targets, which leads to less confusion and
reduced labour/management and contractor/forest company conﬂicts. This kind of raw data will
provide clear evidence for both sides when establishing contracts.
This image shows a truckhauling cycle and was
created by TimberTrax
Solutions.
Another beneﬁt of this AVL system is its ability to
record data that can be used to analyze driving distances and times. Managers can compare the cycle
times between two different routes to the same
location, and then establish which route is most
cost-effective. The data can show when a truck is
on Crown land, private land, or on highways, allow-
ing for much easier veriﬁcation of motor-vehicle tax
rebates.
TimberTrax Solutions has recently developed a
program to allow these GPS units to provide additional data on the weights of loaded logging
trucks. Loader operators can view a scale in their
machine to see how much weight has been loaded
onto the truck. This information allows truck drivers
to haul loads that the truck is capable of handling,
and increases the efﬁciency of the loader operator.
A “load slip” is printed in the loader and then sent
to the truck via wireless transmission. This should
eliminate the human errors that occur when relaying information such as opening number, hammer
mark, and loader numbers—all of which demand
accurate tracking.
There are several times when the unit is triggered
to collect data. These include the following:
•
Time intervals of three minutes
•
Vehicle movements, starting and stopping
•
Vehicle ignition start up and turn off
•
Hood opening and closing
•
Whenever modem re-acquires signal
The data are transferred by one of two wireless
networks, which TELUS Geomatics receives, and
then ﬁlters and stores in a large database. This database is made available to authorized users via the
Internet. TimberTrax is able to use this data to build
custom reports for managers.
The cost of a basic AVL system begins at $2.35 per
day. A modem for transmitting data and a memory
unit that is used to store data when the unit is out
of satellite coverage is also required. The coverage
for these GPS units is generally better than typical
cell phone coverage.
The forest industry has come a long way in implementing technology. The AVL system is a new tool
that can help managers and operators conduct
business more efﬁciently.
For more information:
TimberTrax Solutions Ltd.
Phone: 250-927-9040
Fax: 250-248-9874
Email: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.timbertrax.net
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
16
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Climate change impacts on forest and
range resources: Analysis complete
The document,
commissioned by
the MOFR’s Forest
Stewardship Division, distinguishes
between climate
change mitigation
(reducing greenhouse gas emissions)
and adaptation
(making adjustments
to accommodate
climate change), and
focusses on the latter.
by Don Gayton, Extension Specialist, Ecosystem Management and Forest Practices and Tina Schivatcheva,
Extension Specialist, Ecosystem Productivity
gies for future forests, i.e., forests that will be suited
to the new climate and to changed biophysical
conditions.
A
Many of the report’s recommendations focus on
gathering more information, doing further analysis, and modelling the impacts of climate change
on various forested ecosystems. Another series of
recommendations deal with forest tree species
and genetic diversity, and ways to facilitate species
and genotype shifts in response to climate change.
A third set of recommendations responds to the
impact of climate change on forest-dependent
communities. The report also addresses the increases in mountain pine beetle populations related to
climate change.
new report makes recommendations on how
the Chief Forester should strategically confront
the potential impacts of climate change on the
province’s forest and range resources.
Completed by the BC Ministry of Forests and Range
(MOFR), the report, entitled “Preparing For Climate
Change: Adapting to Impacts on British Columbia’s
Forest and Range Resources,” makes both shortand long-term recommendations, and took a year
to complete. The document, commissioned by the
MOFR’s Forest Stewardship Division, distinguishes
between climate change mitigation (reducing
greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (making adjustments to accommodate climate change),
and focusses on the latter. However, the report also
identiﬁes three sectors where mitigation by the
MOFR can play a key role: policies and programs
that enhance CO2 removal through afforestation
and reforestation; initiatives that support the use
of biomass for energy; and actions to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions from MOFR operations.
As for climate change adaptation strategies, the report recognizes that the government has the dual
roles of “adaptor” and “catalyst.” As an “adaptor,”
the government identiﬁes and manages climate
change-related risks to public values, such as public
safety and health. As a “catalyst,” the government
supports developing regional capacity to recognize
and manage climate-related risks.
Adapting to climate change can be either reactive
(responding to the impacts of climate change) or
proactive (preparing in advance), says the report.
The large scale of the provincial forest land base
means that much of the forest will adapt to climate
change without beneﬁt of human intervention.
The report further acknowledges work by MOFR
researcher Dave Spittlehouse, who recommends
that adaptation efforts focus on the major commercial tree species and perhaps a few animal species
(Spittlehouse 2005).
The report concludes by recognizing the signiﬁcant
threat of climate change to British Columbia’s forest
and range resources, and argues that preparation
requires both both long- and short-term responses.
Long-term actions focus on assessing the potential
impact of climate change on the province’s natural
resources, and the vulnerability of the forest- and
range-based communities to these changes.
Further long-term strategies highlight the need for
more research on the impacts of climate change
in key risk areas; for developing tools that will
support the adaptation strategies; for communication, consultation, and awareness-raising; and for
developing program-speciﬁc management strategies. Short-term recommendations are grouped
into three main strategies: 1) improving knowledge
through analysis and research, 2) reviewing operational policies and practices, and 3) building awareness and capacity within and outside the MOFR.
The Report, published in May 2006, is available for
viewing or downloading as a PDF at http://www.for.
gov.bc.ca/mof/Climate_Change/
Reference
Spittlehouse, D. 2005. Integrating climate change
adaptation into forest management. Forestry
Chronicle 81 (5): 691-695.
The MOFR faces two major challenges according to
the report: 1) the necessity to manage the existing
standing forests to ensure they continue to provide
goods and services to society into the future, and
2) the need to develop forest management strate-
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
17
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
FIA–Forest Science Program: Developing
by the FIA–FSP Secretariat
B
ritish Columbia is investing over $16 million
in the Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program (FIA–FSP) in 2006/07 to help
position the province as a world leader in sustainable forest management.
FIA–FSP programs and
funding categories.
Some 193 research projects, valued at over $12 million, are investigating topics such as stand and forest dynamics following
mountain pine beetle
infestation, riparian
ecology and stream
management, habitat
supply modelling, biodiversity, tree growth
and stand development, silvicultural systems, non-timber forest
values, and species at
risk recovery. Over half
of these projects will be
completed by March 2007.
Another $2.3 million is being invested in extension
activities to deliver existing information that is not
currently accessible to users, as well as new information resulting from research funded through
FIA–FSP and other organizations.
The FIA–FSP funds:
More information
For a list of current
projects, visit: http://
www.bcfsp.com.
For more information on the FIA–FSP,
visit: http://www.
FIA-FSP.ca
•
research projects related to sustainability and
improving timber growth and value;
•
a provincial forest extension program; and
•
infrastructure maintenance activities on
selected long-term research installations that
support short- and long-term research projects.
The allocation of funds reﬂects the information
needs and priorities of those who set provincial
policies, plan, and manage British Columbia’s
public forest lands. Priority topics are identiﬁed
annually by the FIA–FSP Board and its advisory
committees, whose members are drawn from industry, governments, First Nations, universities, and
research organizations.
FIA–FSP Funding History 2002–2006
The Forest Investment Account (FIA) was established in April 2002 to foster sustainable forest
management, improve the public forest asset base,
and promote greater returns from the utilization
of public timber. It authorizes the BC Ministry of
Forests and Range to fund development of a glob-
ally-recognized, sustainably-managed forest industry. Today, the FIA comprises six programs: Land
Base Investment, Crown Land Use Planning, Tree
Improvement, Small Tenures, Market Development,
and Forest Science.1
FIA investments in forest research and extension
were initially administered through Forintek Canada
Corp. (2002/03), then through Forestry Innovation
Investment (FII) (2003/04), and since 2004/05 by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC).
2002/03: In 2002/03, the FIA Forest Research
Program allocated $13.36 million to 172 research
projects to improve decision making (23 projects,
$2.55 M); enhance the value of the forest land asset
(75 projects, $5.47 M); and improve stewardship
and market acceptability of BC forest products (74
projects, $5.34 M). An additional $2.79 million was
spent on extension programs and research extension activities.
2003/04: In 2003/04, $8.7 million was invested in
93 research projects that included investigations of
aquatic and riparian ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems and habitat, biodiversity values, variable retention and mixedwood stand management, timber
supply, and outbreak dynamics and management
strategies for responding to pests and pathogens.
Over 320 extension activities and products—technical reports, scientiﬁc journal papers, workshops,
ﬁeld tours, presentations, and Web sites—were
developed as part of individual research projects. A
further $1.5 million was invested in program-level
extension activities and products through FORREX
to facilitate the synthesis, transfer, and application of
research results.
2004/05: In 2004/05, 109 single- and multi-year
projects were funded under seven interim research
themes—four related to sustainable forest management (58 projects, $4.17 M) and three related to
improving timber growth and value (51 projects,
$3.2 M). Support was also provided to research
partnerships with the Canadian Forest Innovation
Council ($25,500) and Sustainable Forest Management Network ($200,000) to leverage funding at the
provincial and national levels.
Over $1.3 million was invested in provincial extension activities carried out by FORREX, including
workshops, conferences, publications, Web sites,
presentations, ﬁeld tours, and forums that focussed
on ecosystem and biodiversity conservation, forest
dynamics and integrated resources management,
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
18
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
knowledge, delivering results for British Columbia
socio-economics, information and knowledge
systems, and watershed management.
2005/06: In 2005/06, 135 single- and multi-year
projects were funded under 10 themes and 17 topics related to sustainability (66 projects, $3.95 M),
timber growth and value (62 projects, $3.47 M), and
mountain pine beetle (7 projects, $0.18 M). Another
$629,000 was allocated to maintenance activities on key long-term research installations, and
$25,500 to the Canadian Forest Innovation Council.
Some $1.25 million was invested in the Provincial
Forest Extension Program, through which FORREX delivered extension activities and products,
including articles and peer-reviewed papers (LINK,
Streamline, BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management [JEM]), listserv announcements, workshops,
ﬁeld tours, presentations, site visits, outreach, problem-solving sessions, and conferences.
Structured for Success
Since November 2003, the FIA–FSP has been
guided by a Forest Science Board, representing
users and providers of scientiﬁc knowledge. In the
spring of 2006, the Board increased its membership
to include First Nations interests, and established a
First Nations Advisory Group.
Program Advisory Committees (PACs) for sustainability, timber growth and value, and extension
offer strategic advice on research and extension
themes and funding priorities. Working Groups
offer guidance on the Call for Proposals process,
communications, fundraising, and the maintenance
of key long-term research installations. An extension provider (FORREX) designs and implements
the Provincial Forest Extension Program. A program
administrator (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) oversees implementation of the FIA–FSP and audits
FIA–FSP projects. A secretariat (Cortex Consultants
Inc.) supports the Board and PACs.
In its ﬁrst three years, the Board has made signiﬁcant progress—setting strategic direction, building
programs, and developing a robust framework for
allocating and managing research and extension
funds. It has proven its capacity to efﬁciently deliver
new programs, such as mountain pine beetle, and
its ability to leverage cash and in-kind funds from
other sources (71% in 2004/05; 83% in 2005/06).
Looking Ahead
In 2006, the Board began a pilot project to support
graduate student research related to FIA–FSP goals
and strategies as a way of building interest and
capacity in applied research. It added syntheses of
new knowledge to the Call for Proposals process,
solicited gap analyses in four research topics
where it has allocated signiﬁcant funds to date,
and initiated work on deﬁning management issues
to guide further development of its three program
strategies. As part of its strategic planning, the
Board started to actively build relationships with
First Nations. In 2007, it will investigate, with First
Nations, opportunities to integrate First Nations interests and cultural perspectives into the FIA–FSP.
Much remains to be done to nurture a strong
research community focussed on existing and
emerging management issues in British Columbia.
The Forest Science Board believes that effective
collaboration between users and providers of
forest science will ensure the continued success of
the FIA–FSP in developing knowledge and delivering results to further sustainable forest management.
In 2002, FIA funded
seven programs; the
Forest Research Program
was renamed the Forest
Science Program in
2003, and the Product
Development and
International Marketing
programs were combined
as Market Development
in 2006.
1
Area
Accomplishments
Governance
Board, Program Advisory Committees (PACs)
Terms of reference for Board, PACs
Bylaws
Planning
FIA-FSP Strategic Plan
Program strategies (Sustainability, Timber Growth and Value,
Provincial Forest Extension)
Planning framework; annual priority-setting process
Execution
Annual Call for Proposals process
Project selection and funding allocation process
Monitoring
Performance measures
Continuous improvement process
Project audits
Communications
Web site, display, brochures, articles, advertisements
Presentations to science users and providers, senior ofﬁcials
Annual Business Plans, Annual Reports, Project Synopses
Program
Development
Administration of mountain pine beetle research and
development and extension funding
Initiation of research syntheses and gap analyses
Initiation of graduate student research support
Initiation of process to integrate First Nations interests
Highlights of Forest Science Board Accomplishments 2004–2006.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
19
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Conference showcases new
knowledge management approaches
The conference
offered new theoretical approaches and
transferred practical
experiences from
other disciplines of
knowledge management to forestry.
by Jesse Piccin, Information Systems & Development
Specialist
F
orest managers are all looking for ways to
manage knowledge. While practical knowledge
management is a powerful tool, many wonder
how to implement it effectively and to uncover,
and avoid, hidden pitfalls. This shared concern
prompted more than 120 forest managers, scientists, extension specialists, information managers,
and information technology developers from 24
countries to attend an international conference in
Germany that was dedicated to sharing new approaches to practical knowledge management.
Called forestXchange: New approaches in Knowledge Management, the October 2006 conference
was organized by the initiators and operators of
the joint trans-national forest information platform
http://www.waldwissen.net. The conference addressed how knowledge management is increasingly important to forestry. Community building,
new technologies, Web-based knowledge exchange, peer-to-peer communication, new ways of
integrating experts into knowledge management,
and a new perception of the notion of “knowledge”
and “expertise” are expanding knowledge management in forestry. The conference offered new
theoretical approaches and transferred practical
experiences from other disciplines of knowledge
management to forestry.
Höynälänmaa, with Pöyry Forest Industry, shared
his company’s knowledge management challenges
and their experiences with being a global company
that develops methods, practices, and tools for
capturing tacit knowledge, like storytelling digitization and virtual mills. Read more here: http://www.
forestxchange.org/presentation.php?id=200
How Wikis and Weblogs can change the world–Erik Möller
Being a well-known expert on Wikis, as well as a
member of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Erik Möller’s focussed on how adopting the open-source and contribution-friendly environment of Weblogs and the Wikis methodology
can better extend forestry and natural resources
knowledge. Read more here: http://www.forestxchange.org/presentation.php?id=201
Knowledge: Concepts, communication, and production–
Dr. Ulrike Felt
Dr. Ulrike Felt explored the shortcomings of the
classic relationship between communication and
knowledge, and promoted the need to rethink the
traditional methods of distributing knowledge. By
highlighting the complexities of communication
and the transformation process of information, Dr.
Ulrike pointed out that communication is not a
simple process of handing over information, and
that handling knowledge is more about open access than storage. Read more here: http://www.
forestxchange.org/presentation.php?id=202
Conference topics included:
Subset of parallel sessions:
•
From Knowledge Transfer to Knowledge
Management: Knowledge as an organizational
resource
•
The Learning Organization: Implementation of
Knowledge Management Strategies
•
Knowledge Engineering: Information systems
and new media
•
Communicating knowledge and know-how
Using social networks analysis to enhance knowledge management at forest-based organizations–Judd H. Michael
The transferring of tacit knowledge between
individuals in an organization can be one of the
most difﬁcult types of knowledge sharing, especially when faced with a rigid “organizational
chart” structure of communication. So just who
are the knowledge sharers in your organization,
and to whom do you go for advice? Judd Michael
explained how important these informal relationships are for knowledge exchange and management, and how they can be mapped using Social
Networks Analysis (SNA) software. This fascinating
“ﬁngerprint” style graphical display showcases who
speaks to whom, which employees are leaders in
giving advice, and who is sharing information. This
enables management to identify the “gaps” between individuals, teams, and even between one’s
Here are highlights from the presentations and
sessions.
Keynote Presentations:
Practical experiences and concepts of knowledge management
in the forest industry–Anna Aminoff and Mikko Höynälänmaa
How can knowledge management research and
development projects enhance communication,
knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and innovative learning using Information Communications
Technology (ICT) based tools and methods? Mikko
continued on page 21 . . .
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
20
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Workshop
speakers
Presentations at the
workshop included:
“The Importance of
NTFPs/Assessing the
Resources” by Wendy
Cocksedge and Tim
Brigham; “NTFPs in the
East Kootenays” by
Thomas Hobby; “Compatible Management
and NTFPs” by Brian
Titus; and “Integrating Funal NTFPs with
Forest Planning” by
Richard Winder.
The workshop raised
several ethical issues
surrounding sustainable harvests, protocols, First Nations,
provincial tenures,
markets, and practices
involving NTFPs. As
NTFP harvesting has
escalated during the
past ﬁve years, so has
the interest in NTFPs;
however, solid information about the sector
is scant and research is
in its infancy. Increasingly, frequent damage
to plantations and
unsustainable practices
underscore the rising
need for new collaborative approaches,
and new tools to assess
the social, economic,
and environmental impacts of this emerging
industry.
The abstracts may be
found at http://www.
forrex.org/events/
docs/NTFP_Abstracts.
pdf
For further information,
please contact: Dean
Mills at 250-363-0638
or [email protected].
nrcan.gc.ca
NTFPs are understated forest values
by Dean Mills, Paciﬁc Forestry Centre and Tina Schivatcheva, Ecosystem Productivity Extension Specialist
Vancouver Island, posters, and two tables of sample
products.
I
Speakers highlighted the importance of NTFPs,
especially at the community level. Much discussion
revolved around the emerging NTFP industry in the
East Kootenays and the challenges that come with
the need for an inventory of existing resources. Issues surrounding compatible management for timber and NTFP values attracted considerable interest,
as did the topic of integrating fungal NTFPs with
forest management and planning. Practitioners
conveyed two important perspectives: irresponsible harvesting of NTFPs can cause serious damage
to forest ecosystems; and modern technology can
help small woodlot owners by developing planning
tools that include NTFPs in the decision-making
framework.
nterest in Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs) is
growing. One challenge facing the industry is a
general lack of reliable information about both the
business and the science behind NTFP products.
Other questions being asked are: What are the opportunities? Can we increase forest values? Who
can get involved? What should be known?
As a business, NTFPs are complex, involving social,
economic, and environmental values and protocols
such as traditional First Nations’ knowledge. Bringing together various partners and stakeholders
(scientists and the public), Royal Roads University,
FORREX, McGregor Model Forest, and the Canadian
Forest Service organized and delivered an NTFP
seminar and workshop last December in Victoria at
the Paciﬁc Forestry Centre. The event included ﬁve
major speakers (see sidebar), two demonstrations,
feedback from Provincial enforcement on southern
This NTFP event successfully stimulated discussions
on several ﬁeld-oriented and immediate problems
facing this emerging sector.
Piccin summarizes NRIN study at conference
. . . continued from page 20
own company and its external stakeholders. Read
more here: http://www.forestxchange.org/presentation.php?id=26
Interactive Web tool for forest protection knowledge transfer: a
result from exchange between research and practice–Luuk Dorren and Frederic Berger
By synthesizing over 10 years worth of formalized
knowledge from applied research projects, Luuk
Dorren and Frederic Berger have developed a
trilingual, publicly available Web tool called RockFor.Net (http://www.rockfor.net) that quantiﬁes
the protective function of a given forest against
rockfall. Practitioners are able to perform analysis
and efﬁcient assessment using the tool, and can
harness it as a management guide and helpdesk
to, among other things, assist in ﬁeld training
courses in both Switzerland and France. Read more
here: http://www.forestxchange.org/presentation.php?id=40
A multilingual Internet-based approach to transfer forest knowledge in the alpine space–Reinhard Lässig, Martin Moritzi, Marcus
Schaub, and Roderich von Detten
With the creation of http://www.forestknowledge.
net, Reinhard Lassig discussed how this Web site
is the ﬁrst trans-national on-line service in Europe
that aims to supply practical knowledge on forests
in a user-oriented way. It does this by providing a
central hub for practitioners who are looking for
specialized knowledge, advice, or contact information on experts on forest management, forest
protection, silviculture, nature, landscape protection, and natural risk management. Using this service, the trans-national team hopes the exchange
of professional knowledge and know-how will
beneﬁt natural heritage and encourage protection
and proﬁtable forests in the alpine regions. Just
launched in 2005, the site is still mostly in German,
but intends to be in English, Italian, French, and
Slovene by 2006/07. Read more here: http://www.
forestxchange.org/presentation.php?id=50
Exploring knowledge exchange hurdles between organizations
and the willing participants–Jesse Piccin
Are you wondering why users and stakeholders,
who initially embraced a knowledge management
system, have suddenly become resistant? More importantly, how can you overcome this resistance?
By summarizing a six-year case study based on the
Natural Resources Information Network (NRIN),
Jesse Piccin, who works with FORREX, explained
the initial user adoption hurdles and outlined
solutions to help others overcome user resistance.
Piccin also provided real examples, experiences,
and multiple surveys results that were dedicated
to improving NRIN. Read more here: http://www.
forestxchange.org/presentations/61.pdf
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
21
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Pulling it all together: Urgency
by Bruce Rogers, Mountain Pine Beetle Extensionist
W
hen the mountain pine beetle (MPB) ﬁrst struck
with any signiﬁcance in British Columbia, many,
especially those whose livelihoods depend on forestry, were apprehensive about its potential impact
on timber supply areas
(TSAs).The initial reaction
was to try and contain
what many believed were
“isolated” outbreaks. Ten
years on, it has become
clear that controlling the
spread of MPB with harvesting has simply left
us “chasing the beetle.”
The Mountain Pine Beetle:
A Synthesis of Biology,
Management and Impacts
on Lodgepole Pine, edited
by Les Safranyik and Bill
Wilson of the Canadian
Forest Service.
Research suggests that
the epidemic’s broad
scale is due to the abundance of contiguous mature host-tree lodgpole
pine-leading forest and
the absence of the extreme subzero winter
temperatures needed
to control larval population growth. In the past,
preventative techniques
Courtesy of Canadian Forest Service
such as beetle-prooﬁng
stands to increase tree
vigour and reactionary approaches such as snip
and skid, fall and burn, and pheromone-baiting
operations did prove effective for managing MPB
outbreaks. It is understandable, then, that similar
approaches influenced initial control efforts and
guided the funding and direction of early research.
With the realization that within 10 years the beetle,
at its current rate of spread, will have killed more
than 80% of the mature lodgepole pine in BC and
that the projected non-recoverable merchantable timber losses could total 206 million m3 (Eng
et al. 2006), the public, industry, and government
understand the impacts go far beyond affecting
just timber supply. It is now obvious that when the
dust clears from the current MPB-salvage harvesting uplift in allowable annual cuts (AAC), and shifts
occur in AAC for numerous TSAs throughout the
province, there will be diverse and complex socioeconomic and ecological fallouts. These effects
will require equally diverse research approaches to
develop sustainable management strategies that
address the legacy of the current MPB pandemic
on the landscape and society of British Columbia.
Both the volume and multiplicity of questions stemming from this current crisis point to an urgent need
for synthesis of research. Addressing this is a recent
publication of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS),
“The Mountain Pine Beetle: A Synthesis of Biology,
Management, and Impacts
on Lodgepole Pine,” edited
by Les Safranyik and Bill
Wilson. It is available as a
book or CD ROM.
The publication is presented in three parts—1)
Biology, 2) Management,
and 3) Socio-economic
Impacts—and is a useful
resource for forest practitioners, researchers, and
students.
Part 1–Biology:
The ﬁrst three chapters of
the synthesis summarize
information on the biology
of the beetle, the causes for
beetle outbreaks, host-tree
susceptibility, the size of
outbreaks in relation to
weather variation, and MPB
inﬂuences on stand species composition and structure. A better understanding of these factors helps
managers plan appropriate silvicultural systems to
address host-tree susceptibility and to predict future
stand characteristics. The ability of forest landscape
planners to predict and/or inﬂuence future stand
conditions allows for greater success in realizing
long-term multiple resource objectives.
Part 2–Management:
This section discusses preventative and direct control strategies for managing beetle populations,
along with a range of options for detecting and
monitoring MPB at a variety of scales. It concludes
by reviewing some of the available decision-support tools for susceptibility and risk rating. With
the development of more effective management
tools, forest and landscape managers will have an
increased capacity to monitor, predict, prevent,
and/or control future outbreaks, resulting in more
appropriate scenario planning and more effective
operational application.
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
22
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
for synthesis prompts CFS publication
Part 3–Socio-economic Impacts:
Planners and policy makers need decision-support
tools, and forecasters of our future timber supply
need stand dynamics information—this meant
that much of the initial research on the current
MPB outbreak addressed operational and ecological questions. However, because the economies
of many communities rely on timber harvesting,
particularly small communities in central to northcentral BC, answers to questions about the socioeconomic impacts of shifts in the AAC and changes
in product quality are also needed. Part three of
the synthesis examines current knowledge on the
properties and marketability of post-MPB solid
wood products, addresses critical knowledge gaps
and research needs for the use of MPB ﬁbre in the
pulping process, and examines the forest economics literature for multiple perspectives on currentand post-MPB economic strategies.
This document addresses numerous issues and,
as most research does, begs even more questions.
Research funded by the British Columbia Forest
Investment Account–Forest Science Program and
Natural Resources Canada is proceeding at an
incredible rate to meet the immediate and urgent
forest management and socio-economic needs of
–
the province. As new MPB-research ﬁndings are
presented, FORREX will provide venues that synthesize new information and technology and make
it available to forest practitioners and the general
public. The Mountain Pine Beetle Information
Network (http://www.forrex.org/mpb) lets users
search a bibliographic warehouse containing more
than 1,200 records of MPB-related literature citations and events (see article on page 12–13 ).
For more information about “The Mountain Pine
Beetle: A Synthesis of Biology, Management and
Impacts on Lodgepole Pine,” contact: http://
bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/catalog_
e.php?catalog=26116 or http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.
gc.ca/beetlewatch/May-2006_e.html
For FORREX’s Natural Resources Information Network
(NRIN), a virtual metadata library where the users ﬁll
the shelves, go to http://www.forrex.org/
For the McGregor Model Forest Bark Beetle Links,
which contains links to key sites with information on
MPB, go to http://www.barkbeetlelinks.ca
Reference cited
Eng, M., A. Fall, J.
Hughes, T. Shore, B.
Riel, A. Walton, and P.
Hall. 2006. ProvincialLevel Projection of
the Current Mountain
Pine Beetle Outbreak:
Update of the projection of non-recovered
losses for the reference
management scenario.
Based on the 2005 Provincial Aerial Overview
of Forest Health and
revisions to “the model”
(BCMPB.v3). BC Ministry
of Forests and Range,
Victoria, BC, 7 p. http://
www.for.gov.bc.ca/
hre/bcmpb/BCMPB.
v3.ReferenceScenario.
Update.pdf
FORREX Partners
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Alex Fraser Research Forest
British Columbia Community Forest Association
British Columbia Wildlife Park
BC Conservation Foundation
BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
BC Ministry of Environment
BC Ministry of Forests and Range
BC SFI Implementation Committee (SIC)
Bulkley Valley Centre
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Canfor–Canadian Forest Products Ltd.
Cascadia Natural Resource Consultants Inc.
Cirque Resource Associates Ltd.
College of New Caledonia
Columbia Mountains Institute of
Applied Ecology
Council of Forest Industries
Destination Osoyoos
Ditidaht First Nation
En’owkin Centre
FERIC–Forest Engineering Research
Institute of Canada
Forest Management Institute of British
Columbia
Grasslands Conservation Council of BC
Highland Valley Copper Corp.
Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre
Interfor–Adams Lake Lumber
Interfor–Coast Forest Operations
IUFRO–International Union of Forest Research
Organizations
Kamloops and District Woodlot Association
Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council
Lillooet Tribal Council
Malaspina University-College
Malcolm Knapp Research Forest
McGregor Model Forest Association
National Aboriginal Forestry Association
Natural Resources Canada–
Canadian Forest Service
Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forest Society
Nicola Tribal Association–TmixW Research
Nicola Valley Institute of Technology
Northern Lights College
Okanagan Nation Alliance
Pandion Ecological Research Ltd.
Pope & Talbot Ltd.
R. Keith Jones & Associates
Revelstoke Community Forest Corp.
Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources
Society
Royal Roads University
Secwepemc Cultural Education Society
Secwepemc Natural Resources Society
Selkirk College
Shuswap Nation Tribal Council
Simon Fraser University
Snowy River Resources
South Okanagan–Similkameen Conservation
Program
South Peace Enterprise Centre Society
Southern Interior Growth and Yield Co-operative
Sustainable Forest Management Network
Tembec Industries Inc.
The Land Conservancy of British Columbia
Thompson Rivers University
TimberWest
Tolko Industries Ltd.
UBC Okanagan
University of British Columbia (UBC)–
Faculty of Forestry
Vizon SciTec Inc.
West Fraser Mills Ltd.–Williams Lake Division
Western Forest Products
Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.
Whiskey Jack Forest Sciences
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
23
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Upcoming Events
ExpoFor 2007: The ABCFP Forestry Conference and
Annual General Meeting
February 21–23, 2007. Harrison Hot Springs, BC.
This year’s theme, Back to the Future Forests, has many
connotations that will allow us to explore innovative
ideas and grass-roots concepts that can reduce
complicated issues into simpler, more manageable tasks.
For more information, please visit http://www.abcfp.
ca/practice_development/continuing_education/
forestry_conference/expofor2007.htm
FORREX Board
Dr. Dave Wilford—Chair
BC Ministry of Forests and
Range
Dr. Dan Lousier—Vice-chair
Whiskey Jack Forest Sciences
Ms. Annette van Niejenhuis
—Secretary/Treasurer
Western Forest Products Inc.
Ms. Chris Hollstedt—CEO
FORREX
Dr. Philip Burton
Canadian Forest Service,
Natural Resources Canada
Mr. Gerry Fraser
International Forest
Products Ltd.
Dr. John Innes
University of British
Columbia
Mr. Keith Jones
R. Keith Jones and
Associates
Ms. Lorraine Rekmans
National Aboriginal Forestry
Association
Mr. Archie MacDonald
Council of Forest Industries
Managing Energy Use in Woodlands
Operations
March 6, 2007. Village Green Hotel, Vernon, BC.
March 8, 2007. Coast Inn of the North, Prince George, BC.
issues such as climate warming, water shortages, rapid
population growth and development, and relate them
to the role that research and education might play in a
national park. For more information, please visit http://
web.ubc.ca/okanagan/natparksedforum/welcome.
html
2007 Winter SISCO Meeting–Managing Our Growing
Stock in the Midst of Massive Change: Current Options
for Optimizing Today’s Harvest and Ensuring Tomorrow’s
Crop
April 2–4, 2007. Naramata Centre, Naramata, BC.
This year’s agenda looks at issues of maintaining and
managing current and future growing stock in light of
massive change; using what we currently have to the
best advantage, and planning for what we will need in
the future. For more information, please contact April
Anderson at 250-226-7641 or visit http://www.siscobc.
com/
These one-day workshops, sponsored by FERIC,
FORREX, and FIA-FSP will focus on energy strategies
to reduce fuel consumption and environmental
impacts from emissions in your operations using
equipment management and monitoring techniques
for all harvesting and log-hauling phases. To view
more details about the workshops, including
agenda and registration, please visit http://www.
feric.ca/en/?OBJECTID=AC0BEF8F-C09F-3A58EA626415EE30C5C7 (Vernon) or http://www.
feric.ca/en/?OBJECTID=B0F74614-C09F-3A58EACD7E7ADF350881 (Prince George).
ForestLeadership Conference
May 8–10, 2007. Westin Bayshore Hotel, Vancouver, BC.
1st SOS Environmental Issues, Research, and Education
Forum: The Role of a Potential South Okanagan
Similkameen (SOS) National Park
April 15–17, 2007. Naramata Centre, Naramata, BC.
PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Annual Global Forest and
Paper Industry Conference, now in its 20th year, is
recognized by leading industry executives as a notto-be missed event. For more information, please visit
our Web site: http://www.pwc.com/fpp or contact
Martina Luketic, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP at
[email protected] or 604-806-7770.
This public forum will bring international, national,
and local experts together to explore environmental
The 8th in a series of successful strategic conferences
held since 2001, the event will address critical
sustainability challenges faced by the forest and paper
sector in North America. For further information on the
conference, please visit http://www.ForestLeadership.
com
20th Annual Global Forest and Paper Industry
Conference
May 10, 2007. Westin Bayshore Resort, Vancouver, BC.
Mr. John Mann
Forest Engineering Research
Institute of Canada
Project Co-ordinator:
Shelley Church
Dr. Roderick Negrave
BC Ministry of Forests and
Range
Publications Team:
Julie Schooling,
Chris Hollstedt
Mr. Chris Ortner
Cirque Resource
Associates Ltd.
Mr. Brian Pate
West Fraser Mills Ltd.
Ms. Lorraine Rekmans
National Aboriginal
Forestry Association
Mr. Rodger Stewart
BC Ministry of Environment
Mr. Leo Stillas
Ulkatcho
Mr. Randy Trerise
Pope & Talbot Ltd.
Mr. Bill Woodward
Sustainable Forest
Management Network
LINK is published three to four times a year by
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership.
You are encouraged to reprint, copy, or distribute
material in this newsletter provided credit is given.
Please send us a copy of your publication. This
newsletter promotes and encourages the sharing
of resource management information among the
diverse resource community of British Columbia.
We invite your submissions, comments, and
suggestions.
This project is supported in
part by the BC Ministry of
Forests and Range through
the Forest Investment
Account–Forest Science
Program
© FORREX Forest Research
Extension Partnership
Printed on recycled
paper.
FORREX
Suite 702, 235 1st Avenue
Kamloops, BC
V2C 3J4
Tel: (250) 371-3746
Fax: (250) 371-3997
Subscriptions:
Free on-line subscriptions
and back issues are
available. To join the
mailing list for receipt
of LINK on-line, please
visit http://www.forrex.
org/publications/link
ISSN 1709-917x
Printed in Canada
Proud to deliver the Provincial Forest Extension Program in partnership with the
Forest Investment Account–Forest Science Program
w w w . f o r r e x . o r g
24