Harvesting To Regenerate A Natural Forest: Site, Cut-Block ...

Harvesting To Regenerate A Natural Forest:
Site, Cut-Block And Operating Area

Indicators Of Sustainable Forest Management-
Progress Report

Manitoba Model Forest Project # 03 – 2 - 49
Prepared By:

ECOSTEM Ltd.

495B Madison Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3J 1J2
[email protected]
(204) 772-7204

For:
The Manitoba Model Forest and
Tembec Paper Group- Pine Falls Operation

February 2004

Table Of Contents

DISCLAIMER .................................................................................................................. 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 INDICATOR SELECTION.................................................................... 16
2.1 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 16
2.1.1 Desirable Properties For An Indicator.......................................................... 16
2.1.2 Coarse Versus Fine Filter Approach ........................................................... 16
2.1.3 Problems With An Approach Dominated By Coarse Filter And/ Or Large
Area Indicators ........................................................................................................ 18
2.1.4 Appropriate Scale For Assessing Sustainability Using Indicators................ 20
2.2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ADOPTED HEREIN ................................................ 22
2.3 PRELIMINARY INDICATOR SET............................................................................. 24

CHAPTER 3 POTENTIAL INDICATORS ASSESSED IN THIS REPORT................ 33
3.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 33
3.1.1 Biodiversity- Species- Elements- Sensitive ................................................. 34
3.1.2 Biodiversity- Species- Elements- Key.......................................................... 60
3.1.3 Biodiversity- Species- Elements- Problem................................................... 66
3.1.4 Ecosystem Condition- Resilience- Elements ............................................... 68
3.2 RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 68

CHAPTER 4 PROGRESS ON POTENTIAL PROCESS INDICATORS FROM POST-
HARVEST AND POST-FIRE ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS RESEARCH........................ 72

4.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 72
4.2 METHODS ......................................................................................................... 74
4.3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 74

4.3.1 Biomass....................................................................................................... 74
4.3.2 Nutrient Content .......................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER 5 LITERATURE CITED........................................................................... 81

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 2

Disclaimer

The results and conclusions in this publication are those of the author and no official
endorsement by the Manitoba Model Forest, the Canadian Forest Service, Tembec Paper
Group- Pine Falls Operation or Manitoba Conservation is intended or should be inferred.

Acknowledgements

A great many individuals and organizations contributed to this project. Special thanks go
to the project collaborators who provided advice and discussion on project design and
implementation and commented on preliminary drafts of the initial reports. Project
collaborators are Dr. Stan Boutin of the University of Alberta (formerly of Alberta Pacific
Forest Industries), Dr. Ian Corns, Derek Sidders and Dr. Mike Weber of the Canadian
Forest Service, Ilkka Vanha-Majamaa of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, Dr.
Richard Westwood of the University of Winnipeg (formerly Manitoba Forestry Branch)
and Deirdre Zebrowski of Manitoba Forestry Branch. Derek Sidders developed the
cutting patterns for the machine operators and the site preparation prescription for
guideline implementation along with some of the training material used in the 1999
winter harvest trials. Shawn Wasel of Alberta Pacific Forest Industries provided advice
on operator training.

Tembec Paper Group- Pine Falls Operation provided an indispensable and unwavering
contribution to the project. Karen Palidwor was one of the initiators and a strong
supporter of the project. James Fraser has spent countless hours providing advice,
aerial photos and maps and in the field assisting with project planning and
implementation. Armand Boulet ably supervised the implementation of the harvest trials.
The machine operators deserve thanks for doing an excellent job implementing the
harvest guidelines in the winter of 1999. Other individuals who made valuable
contributions along the way include Glen Pinnell, Bill Snell, Vince Keenan, Dan Phillipot,
Jennifer Lidgett, Peter Clarkson, Scott Longridge and Doug Dowling.

Manitoba Conservation provided support to many aspects of the project. Fire history
information was provided by Jim Morrell and Peter Konopelny. Helicopter time was

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 3

indispensable for access to about half the sites in the study of post-fire changes in the
composition and structure of woody material. Jim Martinuk was very helpful in
coordinating these trips. Logistical support was provided by Dr. Richard Westwood,
Stan Kaczanowski, Tim Swanson, John Dojack, Russell Bell and Glenn Peterson.

Many other individuals helped with the project. I (James Ehnes) am especially grateful
for the excellent job done by numerous field staff who worked on the project over five
summers. These individuals were Colin Murray, Claudette Bois, David Havixbeck,
Arthur Magri, Shawn Moffatt, Brad Park, Tracy Ruta, Ingrid Skjaerlund, Terhi Solloma,
Kevin Still, Kevin Szwaluk and Peter Toni. Most of the report analysis and writing was
completed by James Ehnes. Rachel Boone assisted with the drafting of some sections.

Last, but not least, I thank members of the Manitoba Model Forest who reviewed
material, provided advice and supported the project along the way. Knowing that I am
sure to miss someone, those people include Mike Waldram, Trent Hreno, Alice
Chambers, David Punter, Glen Pinnell, Vince Keenan, Tim Swanson, Rod Bollman,
Stan Kaczanowski, Gord McColm and Bill Snell.

This project would not have been possible without the financial, logistical and in-kind
support of the Manitoba Model Forest, the Canadian Forest Service, Tembec Paper
Group- Pine Falls Operation, Manitoba Conservation, ECOSTEM, Alberta Pacific Forest
Industries and Environment Canada.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 4

Chapter 1 Introduction

Maintaining long-term ecosystem health while providing benefits for ourselves, our
children and other future generations was established as the overall goal of sustainable
forest management by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (after CCFM 1992).
Translating this value statement into operational goals and guidelines that work is the
focus of this Manitoba Model Forest project (Keeping Forests Healthy While Harvesting
Timber) that is now in its sixth year.

Some argue that we have the greatest chance of maintaining long-term ecosystem
health while harvesting timber if we can design harvest practices that affect forests in
the same ways as large disturbances. Large wildfires are the largest component of the
natural disturbance regime in the central Canadian boreal forest. The plants and
animals found in the central Canadian boreal forest are adapted to frequent disturbance
by large wildfires.

A large wildfire affects spatial scales that span from a landscape down to a site. The
timber harvest analogues for these spatial scales are an operating area, the cut-blocks
within the operating area and the sites within the cut-blocks.

This project has developed and tested wildfire-based timber harvest guidelines relevant
for the portion the Manitoba Model Forest (located in southeastern Manitoba). During the
first two years of the project, we developed and tested landscape design and cut-block
operating guidelines that described practices that are intended to approximate the effects
of a large wildfire. Landscape design guidelines address operating area ecological
objectives while cut-block guidelines address ecological objectives at the cut-block and
site scales.

The landscape design and cut-block guidelines were the outcome of a sequential process
founded on the value statement/ overall goal for the project. A value statement/ overall
goal is critical for a project such as this because it determines what the participants want to
achieve in broad terms. The other steps in the process are simply the pathway to the
achievement of the overall goal.

The logical steps in the process were state the overall goal, principle, operational goals,
ecological objectives and guidelines (Table 1). The guiding principle used during the
development of the landscape design and cut-block guidelines was: an operating area
should look, feel and operate like a natural forest as quickly as possible after harvest. The
operational goals for landscape design and cut-block operations that flow from this guiding
principle are outlined in Table 2. Ecological objectives for operating areas and cut-blocks

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 5

(Table 3), landscape design guidelines and cut-block operating guidelines (Table 4) were
derived by applying the natural disturbance approach to ecosystem based management to
the operational goals.

Benchmarks for the ecological objectives and guidelines were provided from a variety of
sources including the scientific literature and previous research from the area. Landscape
design guidelines were primarily based on an analysis of fire patterns in six historical fires
from the study area that had a combined area of approximately 75,000 ha (Ehnes 2000a).
Benchmarks for cut-block guidelines were derived from data collected at about 800 plots in
the study area for this project (Ehnes 2000b) and from previous research (Ehnes 1998).
Forests included in the benchmark post-fire recovery pathways ranged from 0 to 65 years
old.

Table 1. Steps to implementing sustainable forest management.

Step Task How Details
1 State values Overall Goal
Maintain long-term forest ecosystem
health while providing timber
harvesting benefits to present and
future generations.

2 Develop the fundamental or general Principles A harvested area should look, feel
law used as a basis for reasoning and operate like a natural forest as

and action to achieve the overall goal quickly as possible.

3 Use principles to translate the overall Operational Goals Table 2

goal into broad statements about
what is to be accomplished

4 Develop specific statements on how Ecological Objectives Table 3
the operational goals are applied to
local conditions

5 Develop methods to accomplish Landscape Design Table 4
ecological objectives Guidelines

Cut-Block Guidelines Table 5

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 6

Table 2. Operational goals for timber harvesting.

In the operating area and in cut-blocks:

(1) Minimize the:

A) Differences in the ways that logging and wildfire initially affect plants, soils and soil
animals;

B) Time required for a cut-block to look, feel and operate like a natural forest. That is,
minimize the length of time when harvested sites are outside the range of natural
variability for species composition, physical structure and the rates of ecological
processes. Harvested sites that represent ecosystems outside the range of natural
variability are referred to as divergent sites.

Throughout the region, maintain:

(2) The total area of divergent sites below that which causes regional ecological functions to
vary outside their ranges of natural variability.

(3) Soil fertility at every site that is not a permanent road.

(4) All sensitive, rare native ecosystems.

(5) Viable populations of sensitive species.

(6) Water quantity and quality.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 7

Table 3. Ecological objectives of this project.
Operating Area

• Place cut-blocks in the same places that a large wildfire usually disturbs and place
retention areas in the same places that fire usually skips over; and

• Keep roads and other forms of disturbance out of retention areas.

Cut-Blocks

¾ Create short-term large downed woody material (DWM) structure.
¾ Provide continuous large and small DWM at levels that approximate post-fire within 20

years.
¾ Produce natural snag density by age 20.

¾ Create dense sapling regeneration.

¾ Create a favorable seedbed for jack pine, black spruce and post-fire ephemeral species. On
highlands, disturb lichen/ moss/ duff layer; on lowlands, maintain Sphagnum hummocks for
jack pine and black spruce seedlings.

¾ Provide a seed source that reflects natural post-fire species composition.

¾ Provide shade for tree seedlings.

¾ Eliminate excessive shading from slash.

¾ Maintain an even age structure and natural species composition.

¾ Prevent shifts in overstory composition towards aspen or fire intolerant species (e.g. balsam
fir, tamarack).

¾ Promote post-fire ephemeral species.

¾ Minimize disturbance or compaction of soil other than the LFH.
¾ Maximize retention of immobile and mineralized nutrients on site.
¾ Initiate natural soil nutrient cycling.

¾ Distribute benefits widely in cut-blocks. 8
ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected]

Table 4. Timber harvest landscape design guidelines in the Southeast Vegetation
District.

Step Task

1 Select operating area.

Area should be at least 1,000 ha. On average, 71% of this area will be harvested. Actual
percentage cut is determined by the area distribution of macro-site types within the operating area.

2 Overlay soils, topography and FRI layers to produce a map showing the macro-site types.

If soils and topographic information are not available, use FRI, FRI photography and orthophotos.

3 Map potential wetland corridors and islands using shallow water table wetland types (i.e. treed
muskeg, sparsely treed muskeg, marsh and beaver flood FRI types).

A corridor is an undisturbed area that extends into the operating area and typically connects to the
external boundary of the operating area in several locations (i.e. a corridor). An island is an
undisturbed area completely surrounded by disturbance.

4 Locate external boundary of operating area.

Shape of operating area should approximate a simple or compound ellipse (compound ellipse = a
second ellipse originating from the first) rather than a circle, square or rectangle. External edge
micro-shape should be complex rather than simple and follow the general direction of the ellipse
rather than topography unless large wetlands or lakes are encountered. When the edge
encounters wetlands with a shallow water table that are more than 500 m across, proceed towards
the interior of the operating area until the wetland narrows to 500 m. The edge can cross muskeg,
water bodies or waterways as a straight line.

5 Map shallow water table wetland corridors.

Wetland corridors will comprise most of the undisturbed area in the operating event. Rather than
develop a protocol to produce a particular distribution of patch shapes on the landscape, corridors
are located using topographic and soil features. Corridors are selected from the map of potential
corridors as follows. “Internal retention” percentages for each shallow water table wetland type are
multiplied by the area of the wetland type. With the exception of beaver floods, most residual area
is located by leaving 80 to 95% of wetland corridors intact rather than dispersing retention in all or
most corridors. These corridors should use topography to provide an interconnected network that
also connects to the operating area boundary in numerous locations.

For the 5 to 20% of shallow water table wetland corridors that are disturbed, residual area is
distributed differently if they are (1) large (i.e. > 10 ha) or small. Large disturbed corridors retain
residual area in fingers that comprise about half of the corridor’s area. Small corridors are
completely disturbed.

Disturbed area in the beaver flood FRI type is generally distributed along the fringe of the actual
flood. We expect that fire probably burned the grassy vegetation in some of these areas but this is
not relevant here because the areas are not treed.

Wetland corridors near the perimeter of the operating area are located where shallow water table
wetlands extend into the operating event for a short distance. The combined area of perimeter
corridors in the macro-site type will be similar to that determined by multiplying the appropriate
“perimeter retention” percentage and area.

6 Locate residual area for deep water table wetland types.

Residual treed bog, treed fen or swamp in fires tends to occur adjacent to or within wetland
corridors. Determine retention area to be located internally and on the perimeter using disturbance

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 9

Step Task

percentages. Locate 80 – 95% of internal retention adjacent to or within the wetland corridors
mapped in Step 5. Distribute the balance of internal retention as 9.5 scattered islands per 1,000 ha
in various sizes ranging from 1 to 160 ha but with 75% of them less than 6.5 ha. The maximum
possible island size will be determined by relating the area of the operating event to the number of
islands per 1,000 ha.

Locate perimeter retention at the amount of 3 to 4 corridors per 1,000 ha in various sizes ranging
from 1 to 1700 ha but with 75% of them less than 16 ha.

7 Locate balance of wetland islands.

Balance of wetland island area is calculated as follows:

A) Multiply the area of the operating event by 8%;

B) Subtract area allocated in Steps 5 and 6;

C) Distribute the balance of area from B) as 9 to 10 scattered islands per 1,000 ha in various sizes
ranging from 1 to 160 ha but with 75% of them less than 6.5 ha. Select from potential islands
mapped in Step 3.

8 Locate upland corridors.

Majority of area in upland corridors in fires occur along the perimeter of the event. Distribute
upland perimeter retention in scattered locations at the rate of 3.3 corridors per 1,000 ha in various
sizes ranging from 1 to 1,700 ha but with 75% of them less than 16 ha.

9 Locate balance of undisturbed upland area.

¾ Distribute balance of upland retention area by macro-site type as follows.
Outcrop and mid-slope site types: In scattered patches at the rate of 4 to 5 per 1,000 ha (area
weighted mean of corridor and island rates) and ranging in size from 1 to 1400 ha but with
75% of them less than 14 ha.

¾ Level dry soils: Completely accounted for in Step 8.

¾ Level moist soils: Scattered patches with some adjacent to wetland corridors or downwind side
of large lakes. Rate and size distribution same as for outcrop and midslope types.

¾ Ravine bottoms: Locate where they occur.

¾ Islands in lakes: Leave about half of the islands.

10 Locate roads and landings.

Avoid shallow water table wetlands wherever possible.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 10

Table 5. Summary of wildfire-based guidelines for cutting, site preparation and
regeneration.

Cutting Guidelines
1) Modified clear-cutting with partial retention of post-fire pioneer tree species. In specific:
a) Leave scattered merchantable jack pine and black spruce trees (retention trees) at a
density equal to 5% of typical mature density for the macro-site type (e.g. 70 stems/
ha on shallow mineral soil). This addressed several ecological objectives.

b) Leave aspen and birch standing except on harvest trails. This helps to minimize
suckering and sprouting.

c) Eliminate balsam fir, white spruce and tamarack either by cutting them down,
knocking them down or killing them during post-harvest silviculture. This retards a
shift in overstory composition towards fire intolerant species (native biodiversity
maintenance objective) and insect outbreaks.

2) Scatter slash to retain nutrients on site.

3) Leave snags standing where possible.

4) Avoid trampling black spruce seedlings and saplings.

5) Disturb only the duff layer of the soil.

6) Avoid rutting and compaction.

7) Avoid sensitive ecosystems/ ecosites.

8) Pile wood inside the cut-block boundary.

Site Preparation Guidelines
9) Disturb only the duff layer.
10) Create suitable micro-sites for jack pine and black spruce regeneration from seed.

Regeneration Guideline
11) Year 3 jack pine and black spruce density that is 75% of the density typical for the macro-site.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 11

The wildfire-based cut-block guidelines were tested in four harvest trials located in two
operating areas that were at least 1,300 ha in area. Two cutting methods were tested in
each harvest trial area: wildfire-based and conventional. A detailed description of the
timber harvest guidelines, the harvest trial design and implementation results can be found
in companion reports (ECOSTEM 2003a, 2003b).

Post-harvest ecosystem recovery is being monitored and compared with recovery in a
recent burn created by a natural wildfire. Short-term patterns of post-fire and post-harvest
recovery were examined in a companion report (ECOSTEM 2003b). As expected, there
were dramatic initial and short term differences between post-fire and post-harvest
recovery, regardless of the harvest method or harvest season. Trees were absent
following wildfire but present after harvesting at densities that ranged from 0 to 105
stems/ ha depending on harvest method and harvest season. Snag density and basal
area were dramatically higher following wildfire (2,870% and 1,600% higher than
harvesting for density and basal area, respectively) because fire converted trees into
snags, whereas harvesting knocked down some snags. Relative to harvesting, the fire
initially generated slightly less coarse downed woody material and approximately 65%
less fine downed woody material. There were no plants in the initial post-fire plant
community whereas harvesting did not eliminate any species although the abundance
of some was reduced.

Large differences in post-fire and post-harvest recovery pathways persisted over the
short term. The wildfire stimulated a dramatic increase in seedling and sapling
recruitment whereas harvesting had little net effect on recruitment even though the cut-
blocks were planted and/ or seeded. By age 1, post-fire recruitment was 6,600% higher
than average post-harvest recruitment. The disturbance type difference in short term
recruitment may decline slightly since there may be a longer lag in the peak of post-
harvest recruitment. Although the amount of downed woody material was lower during
the first few years after fire, this difference was expected to quickly reverse as more
snags topple in the burn. Plant community structure and species composition were
dramatically different in the burn and harvest areas. Compared with the cutovers, the
burn had no trees, fewer shrubs and more herbs, grasses and sedges. Species that
performed substantially better in the burn relative to the harvest areas included tickle
grass (Agrostis scabra), bristly sarsaparilla (Aralia hispida), certain sedges (Carex spp.),
pink corydalis (Corydalis sempervirens), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), Bicknell’s
geranium (Geranium bicknellii), common liverwort (Marchantia polymorpha), jack pine
(Pinus banksiana) and aspen (Populus tremuloides). Conversely, reed grass
(Calamagrostis canadensis) and wild raspberry (Rubus ideaus) performed better in all
but one of the harvest study areas (no species performed better in all of the areas). The

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 12

frequency of exposed rock was much higher following wildfire, while deciduous litter,
exposed mineral soil and slash was much higher following harvesting.

None of the overall post-fire and post-harvest differences in initial effects and short term
recovery were surprising despite their high magnitude (ECOSTEM 2003b). The
differences in post-fire and post-harvest recovery were consistent with those initially
assumed when developing the original cut-block guidelines. It was always recognized
that some of the initial differences were too great to be eliminated or even substantially
reduced over the short term (e.g. snag density, mineral soil exposure, soil chemical and
physical properties). However, the operational goal for other ecosystem components
was to promote much smaller divergences between recovery pathways and/ or rapid
pathway convergence over the short to medium term.

A number of questions are raised if one accepts that there will be some short-term
deviations in post-harvest vegetation and dead woody material composition and
structure:

• Are there also short-term deviations in the intangible ecosystem components
(e.g., soil attributes and processes) and, if so, will that have long-term effects on
ecosystem recovery and ecosystem health (reduced mature tree volume due to
reduced site fertility)?
o What is the evidence?
o What are the indicators that can monitor these types of states?

• Can we develop and operationally measure leading indicators of long-term
trends?

Indicators of sustainability have been identified as a key component of ecosystem
based management (Bakkes et al. 1994; CCFM 1995; KPMG 1995). They are a critical
source of feedback for an adaptive management approach and a means by which
sound forest management can be demonstrated to the public (e.g. by certification
procedures such as FSC and CSA {1996}). The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
established four ecological and two socioeconomic criteria to assess the sustainability
of forest management in Canada (CCFM 1995). Each of the ecological criteria
essentially represents a component of ecosystem health. These criteria are to be
applied at the national, provincial, regional, landscape, stand and site spatial scales.
Because the criteria represent values that must be sustained or enhanced, indicators
need to be identified and monitored for each criterion and spatial scale (CCFM 1995;
Noss 1990).

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 13

Indicators are a necessary component of ecosystem based land management. Over the
past ten years, scientists, land managers and other interest groups have expended
considerable effort on developing indicator and monitoring programs to assess the
effects of human activities on ecosystems at various spatial scales (c.f., Farr et al. 1999;
CCFM 2004; miller project; Kneeshaw et al. 2000; Tembec 2002; Manitoba
Conservation 2003; WWF gap analysis). As noted above, indicators and monitoring are
a key component of the Keeping Forests Healthy While Harvesting Timber project.

There are many species, patterns and processes that contribute to long-term ecosystem
health. However, we cannot develop and monitor indicators for every ecosystem entity,
pattern and process. We need a subset that provides a reliable representation of the
whole. Since our scientific understanding of how ecosystems operate is limited, many
indicators that we propose will be tentative until subjected to validation. A component of
monitoring is intensive research at a small number of sites to propose suitable
indicators and validate those that have already been proposed (Mulder et al. 1999).

Indicators can be classified in many ways depending on the questions that one is trying
to answer. Based on a review of indicators developed for sustainable forest
management, Kneeshaw et al. (2000) propose a dichotomy between prescriptive/
planning and evaluative/ environmental indicators. Prescriptive/ planning indicators
assess how well management guidelines were implemented. Evaluative/ environmental
indicators assess to how well the prescriptions are meeting the overall goal and
operational objectives.

This indicator dichotomy was applied in the Keeping Forests Healthy While Harvesting
Timber project. The overall value/ goal (maintain long-term ecosystem health while
providing benefits to present and future generations) led to a statement of principle,
operational goals, ecological objectives and harvest guidelines (Table 1). These
guidelines were tested in two harvest areas. The degree to which these guidelines were
implemented were assessed in a companion report (ECOSTEM 2003b). The measures
used in that report were directly related to the implementation targets (e.g., number of
retention trees/ ha). However, these prescriptive indicators do not tell us whether or not
ecosystem health is being maintained. As Kneeshaw et al. (2000) point out, evaluative
indicators are required for that end.

An example of how prescriptive and evaluative indicators arise from the guideline
development framework (Table 1) is provided by the sapling regeneration guideline for
cut-block operations. The regeneration guideline is a target post-fire pioneer tree
recruitment density of 75% of typical year three post-wildfire density for the macro-site
type. A prescriptive indicator for this guideline would be a field measurement of actual

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 14

jack pine and black spruce seedling and sapling density in three year old cut-blocks.
This regeneration guideline contributes to several ecological objectives: maintain a
natural tree species composition; shade out atypical post-harvest survivors; generate
snags after age 40; and maintain nutrients on site. Recruitment density is an evaluative
indicator for maintaining the natural tree species composition in addition to assessing
prescription success. Additional evaluative indicators are required for the remaining
ecological objectives. These indicators would relate to understory species composition,
snag density and site fertility.

As noted above, prescriptive indicators were measured and assessed against the
wildfire based harvest guidelines in companion reports (ECOSTEM 2003a, 2003b). The
development and partial testing of a preliminary evaluative indicator set is the focus of
this report.

This report has three goals. First, to propose a preliminary indicator set for the site, cut-
block and operating area spatial scales based on the literature and monitoring results to
date from the harvest trials and the benchmark wildfire. Second, to provide preliminary
results for selected indicators based on scientific research from the harvest trial areas
and benchmark wildfire. Third, to propose any other indicators that appear warranted
based on the intensive research that is taking place on a subset of the permanent
sample plots in the Keeping Forests Healthy While Harvesting Timber project.

This is a progress report on the indicators component of the KFWHT project. Monitoring
of permanent sample plots, data analysis and literature review is ongoing. This report
provides a first approximation of an indicator set, preliminary measurements for those
indicators and early results from the research into site scale nutrient dynamics.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 15

Chapter 2 Indicator Selection

2.1 Methodology

2.1.1 Desirable Properties For An Evaluative Indicator

There is no consensus on all of the properties that an evaluative indicator must possess
(Farr et al. 1999). Based on a number of sources (c.f., Angemeier and Karr 1994;
Mulder et al. 1999; Noss 1990), an indicator ideally should:

• Provide an unambiguous signal (i.e., there is a high likelihood that a change in
value indicates a change in the status of the ecosystem attribute of concern). A
component of this property is distinguishing stress induced variation from natural
variation;

• Tell us where the system is going, i.e., be a leading rather than a lagging
indicator;

• Respond rapidly to changes in the system (i.e., have a very short lag if it is not a
leading indicator);

• Applicable over a wide geographic area;
• Relatively unaffected of sample size;
• Relevant to societal concerns and management goals;
• Easy and cost-effective to measure and interpret;
• Have low temporal variability.

Because no single indicator will possess all of these desirable properties, a set of
complementary indicators is required to monitor effects on biodiversity (Noss 1990) and
long-term ecosystem health (implicit in CCFM 1995). Also, due to the hierarchical
organization of ecosystems, an indicator set should include subsets of indicators at
each of the nested ecosystem scales of space, time and biological organization relevant
to the question being addressed ((Allen and Hoekstra 1992).

2.1.2 Coarse Versus Fine Filter Approach

Many indicators of long-term ecosystem health have been proposed by others (c.f.
Waring 1979; Odum 1985; Rapport, Regier and Hutchinson 1985; Noss 1990;
Angermeier and Karr 1994). Angermeier and Karr (1994) argue that biological elements
(e.g. genes, species, communities) are used as indicators more frequently than
processes because “. . . elements are typically more sensitive to degradation, more fully

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 16

understood, and less expensive to monitor”. However, as they also note, changes in
process rates are usually followed by changes in species composition whereas the
converse often does not occur. In other words, species indicators are usually lagging
and species indicators provide ambiguous indications for the broader ecosystem. That
is, a change in a species indicator does not necessarily signal changes in ecosystem
processes. For example, a decline in a species’ population level could be the result of
increased hunting pressure.

Some argue that it is more appropriate for a monitoring program to focus on habitat
rather than species:

“For forested ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest, we propose that
measurable, biotic and abiotic structure and composition reflect underlying
driving forces. In turn, knowledge of habitat structure and composition
(amount and distribution) allows reliable predictions of biological diversity
and the integrity of the ecosystem.” (Mulder et al. 1999)

However, it is not an either- or situation when selecting indicators for monitoring:
“We recognize that knowledge of the status and trends of a small set of
habitat attributes will not provide comprehensive insight into species
viability, biodiversity, and ecological integrity; that is, monitoring the
change in habitat structure from management actions is simply a
surrogate for directly measuring biodiversity and ecological integrity. As
such, it is accompanied by uncertainty. To reduce this uncertainty, regular,
local-scale validations of assumed relations between habitat (primarily
vegetation structure and composition) and species viability and
fundamental ecological processes will be required. Despite this important
caveat, accurate and timely monitoring of changes in the status and trends
of habitat should provide a reliable early warning system of changes in
biological diversity and ecological processes.” (Mulder et al. 1999)

As suggested by the above quotes, an ecosystem based approach to land management
should use a combination of coarse and fine filter indicators. Some indicators, such as
those that relate to habitat composition and structure fall into both categories. Habitat is
a coarse filter because we assume that we can maintain species if we maintain habitat
composition and patterns within their ranges of natural variability, all other things being
equal. Loss of habitat has generally been the most important factor in biodiversity loss
(Noss ??). Habitat is also the population factor that land managers have the greatest
ability to manage. Of course, all other things rarely remain equal. Hunting pressure
changes, global change is continual, migratory species suffer from effects including
habitat loss during migration and their winter ranges, etc.. Regardless of these other

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 17

influences, viable populations of species will not be maintained if local habitat is lost or
substantially altered.

2.1.3 Problems With An Approach Dominated By Coarse Filter And/ Or Large
Area Indicators

What are some of the inherent drawbacks of coarse filters (here we also refer to
measures taken over large areas such as regions as coarse filters)? Coarse filters such
as regional habitat composition:

• work well when there is a short time lag time between timber harvest impacts and
their effects on processes and coarse scale outcomes;

• are lagging indicators precisely because they represent outcomes of patterns and
processes occurring at smaller organizational scales;

• do not provide an unambiguous signal because the relationship between
outcome and process indicators is asymmetric.

Coarse scale indicators can work well when the lag time between effects on processes
and coarse scale outcomes is short. Since they integrate the behavior of lower levels
and are generally more cost effective in terms of data collection, they are frequently
used. This is the approach of the aquatic Index of Biological Integrity (IBI; Karr 1997). It
uses the composition of fish communities as an indicator of the degree to which human
activities have impacted a stream. The IBI has worked well in streams because
contaminants or effects on processes are rapidly passed through the system variables
(e.g. oxygen concentration of water) and exhibited by fishes and because the ecology of
stream fishes is relatively well-known (Loucks 1997).

A comparable degree of understanding is not available for most boreal plant,
invertebrate or microbial species. Also, species composition responds differently and
more slowly in forest than in stream ecosystems. Periodic disturbance by wildfire is the
background to which boreal plants (Rowe 1983) and site ecosystems are adapted.
Many of the adaptations which enable plants to persist through frequent fire disturbance
also facilitate persistence or delayed mortality after other types of disturbance. Long
delays in effects result from the presence of reserves and the natural pattern of large
disturbance induced deflections in successional cycles.

Soils are a critical component of ecosystems that are particularly subject to the
deficiencies of coarse filters. Soils contain reserves of important materials such as

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 18

nutrients and organic matter. Reserves may take more than a decade to deplete to
levels where they are manifested in measures of plant species composition (see Ehnes
1998 for a review of the literature). The delay in effect is partly due to natural dynamics
which are comprised of periodic disturbance and recovery or degeneration. During the
initial post-fire period, nutrients are cycled rapidly due to the short life spans and easily
decomposable litter of herbaceous colonizers. As time passes, an increasing proportion
of the nutrients retained in the site ecosystem are immobilized in tree biomass and the
forest floor. Consequently, it may be more than a decade before atypical nutrient losses
are manifested (see Ehnes 1998 for a review of the literature).

A concern with a monitoring approach dominated by coarse filter indicators is that
coarse filters represent the outcomes of patterns and processes occurring at smaller
organizational scales. Thus, they are lagging indicators. By the time some coarse filters
indicate ecologically substantial change it may be too late to avoid highly undesirable
consequences. The AIDS virus provides a clear example of the concern. A reliable test
to detect the presence of the AIDS virus is a useful indicator of a person’s health.
However, most people would probably be more concerned about having an indicator
that tells them how to avoid or minimize their risk of contracting AIDS in the first place.
Participation in high risk activities such as unprotected sex with an infected person is a
good leading indicator that you are likely to contract AIDS.

Another way to look at this issue is that large scale patterns are simply snapshots of
dynamics on an extremely large number of sites. To reliably project future trends in
large scale indicators, we need site scale indicators that respond rapidly to harvesting.

To provide leading indications of adverse effects on long-term ecosystem health, the
chronology of causality is traced backwards with indicators of elements, patterns and
processes represented at each organizational level. Of the levels below the ecological
region, greatest emphasis is placed on site level indicators since they originate higher
scale patterns. This is not to say that the spatial patterns at higher scales do not
influence site scale dynamics. Clearly they do in terms of factors such as climate
change and seed availability. However, over a single successional cycle in the boreal
forest, the most substantial influences on the post-disturbance vegetation of a particular
site are its pre-disturbance vegetation and disturbance type. This is because most
boreal plants regenerate in situ. It is at the site scale that long-term differences in the
direct and indirect effects of fire and timber harvested are initiated.

This points to a key issue. There is nothing special about the current natural state. In
Canada, it is the result of a sequence of stochastic and deterministic events since the
last Ice Age. It will shift over time. Regardless of how well we understand these

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 19

systems, we will have great difficulty predicting where they are going because they are
complex systems. Complexity derives from non-linear causality and the large number of
inter-relationships.

The upshot is that an evaluative indicator set should include a mixture of coarse and
fine filters. However, the number and types of evaluative fine filters that are animal
species will be limited by our current understanding of the factors that determine long-
term population viability for a species and because population trends and levels are
difficult to measure for most animal species. Species fine filters also present a concern
that also applies to some coarse filters. That is, they often are lagging indicators and
provide ambiguous signals due to the asymmetric relationship between processes and
outcomes. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t monitor any animal species. Some will
always be monitored to some extent because they are high priority species.

2.1.4 Appropriate Scale For Assessing Sustainability Using Indicators

Conclusions from hierarchy, causal and systems theory (c.f., Allen and Starr 1982; Allen
et al. 1987; Cook and Campbell 1979; King 1993; Rowe 1961; Saris and Stronkhorst
1984) suggests that the ecological region is the appropriate scale for assessing
sustainability (Miller and Ehnes 2000; ECOSTEM Ltd. and Calyx Consulting 2003). How
the boundaries of the ecological region are delineated is determined by whether the
question of interest relates to a “project” or to wide area land use management and/ or
planning. A bottom-up approach is appropriate for the former situation whereas a top-
down approach is appropriate for the latter.

Since the focus of this report is timber harvesting by Tembec in FML # 1, the focus is on
a “project”. In this case, the “project” consists of operating areas scattered throughout
the FML over a long period of time. At most, only a few of these operating areas will be
in use at any point in time. Retired operating areas should blend in with the natural
mosaic of the region over time if we can deliver on the overall guiding principle used in
the Keeping Forests Healthy While Harvesting Timber project. That is, operating areas
should look, feel and operate like a natural forest as quickly as possible after harvesting.

Based on the analysis completed for Manitoba’s Ecosystem Based Management Pilot
Project Science Team Report (Bulloch 2002), our preliminary conclusion is that the
Southeast Vegetation District in Ecoregion 90 (Bulloch et al. 2002; Figure 1) is the
appropriate region to assess the sustainability of Tembec’s timber harvest operations in
the portion of FML # 1 applicable to the KFWHT operating area and cut-block
guidelines.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 20

Figure 1. Habitat map for the South-East and SouthWest vegetation districts.

Data source: Manitoba Conservation FRI. [ the data used to generate this map still
needs to be cross-checked ]

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 21

2.2 Methodological Approach Adopted Herein

A combination of coarse and fine filters are used in the Keeping Forests Healthy While
Harvesting Timber project. Through implementation of the wildfire based timber harvest
guidelines we try to regenerate harvested areas so they look, feel and operate like a
natural forest as quickly as possible after harvesting (the coarse filter approach
monitored by habitat composition indicators) while also doing follow-up monitoring using
evaluative indicators that include focal species and other indicators for issues of
concern (fine filter indicators). In addition, it is recommended that individual
assessments and programs be implemented for high priority species not already
included in the indicator set proposed below (fine filters). High priority species are those
that require special attention because they are vulnerable or have very high social,
economic or cultural value (e.g., woodland caribou, moose).

A useful approach to identifying a multi-scale indicator set for the effects of human
activities (ECOSTEM Ltd and Calyx Consulting 2003) is provided by using the Canadian
Criteria and Indicators framework (CCFM 1995, 2004) in conjunction with Canadian
environmental impact assessment (EIA) guidance documents such as:

• A guide on biodiversity and environmental assessment (FEARO 1996);
• Reference guide: Addressing cumulative environmental effects (FEARO 2001);
• Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999), and;
• Cumulative Effects Assessments In The Inuvialuit Settlement Region: A Guide For

Proponents (KAVIK-AXYS 2002).

The CCFM have identified the overall goal/ value of sustainable forest management
essentially as: maintain long-term ecosystem health while providing benefits to present
and future generations (CCFM 1992). The Canadian Criteria and Indicators defines
ecosystem health and establishes a monitoring framework by first sub-dividing
ecosystem health into broad components (the criteria; Table 6) and then by further
disaggregating these broad components into sub-components.

Issues of concern as determined by potential effects on each sub-component of forest
ecosystem health vis-à-vis timber harvesting can be identified by using environmental
impact assessment guidance documents, the scientific literature and research from the
study area. Each issue of concern represents a potential response to a stress that may
arise from timber harvesting (i.e., a “stressor- response” approach to identifying
evaluative indicators). For each issue of concern, a generic indicator of the status of
each effect is identified for use in the ecosystem health indicator set. One or more
specific measures are then identified for each of the generic indicators.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 22

Table 6. Components and sub-components of ecosystem health (after CCFM
1995).

Component (Criteria) Sub-Component

Biodiversity Ecosystem

Species

Genetic

Ecosystem Condition & Productivity Incidence of disturbance & stress

Ecosystem resilience

Extant biomass

Soil Resources Quantity

Quality

Contributions To Global Ecological Cycles Carbon budget

Forest land conversion

Hydrological cycles

The indicator set developed for the KFHWT project should coincide with its guiding
principle, operational goals (Table 2), ecological objectives (Table 3) and guidelines
(Table 4) for timber harvesting. The project’s guiding principle is: Harvest timber in a way
that generates areas that look, “feel” and operate like a natural forest as quickly as
possible after harvesting. These guidelines were developed for use in the Southeast
Vegetation District.

It is the intention that the indicator set address the components of ecological and
evolutionary function. That is:

• Do we have all of the natural pieces?
• Are the pieces fitted together/ arranged in a natural way?
• Do the pieces interact with each other in a natural way?

In other words, the indicator set should include response measures for elements,
patterns and processes at ecosystem scales relevant to this project.

The CCFM has proposed a set of national and provincial indicators (CCFM 2004).
Some of the CCFM (2004) indicators are irrelevant at the cut-block or even operating
area scale (e.g., area of forest types in a protected areas network; percentage of forest
dependent species at risk). Other indicators have relevance for the regional or local

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 23

spatial scales. However, they do not “roll down” from the national to the local spatial
scale (Farr et al. 1999). This occurs even the though the same ecological processes
operate at all spatial scales. Some process indicators do not “roll down” because they
are manifested and/ or interact differently at each ecosystem scale. Take nutrient
cycling as an example. Nutrient cycling in the cell ecosystem is manifested as enzyme
mediated chemical reactions, in the organism as transport in the circulatory system, in
the site ecosystem as transfers between individual organisms (e.g., nutrients leached
from a tree leaf are taken up by soil microbes) and in soil processes such as
decomposition, in the landscape ecosystem as time steps of autogenic change in soil
conditions or vegetation and in the regional ecosystem as biogeochemical cycling.

2.3 Preliminary Indicator Set

Table 7 identifies a preliminary set of measurable indicators for use at the site, cut-block
and operating area spatial scales. As described above, the indicator set is identified
through a sequential process: identify issues of ecological concern for effects on the
forest ecosystem by sub-component of ecosystem health, state the type of harvesting
effect that would be considered negative, identify a generic indicator for the effect, and
identify one or more measurable indicator for each generic indicator. Where relevant,
the measurable indicator set includes indicators from Tembec’s Forest Management
License Area indicator set (Tembec 2002). Benchmarks and targets are only addressed
for some indicators in this progress report.

The preliminary site, cut-block and operating area indicator sets include indicators for
elements, patterns and processes. Despite some of the cautions described in Chapter
2.1, most of the element indicators are plant species because they are measurable at
the site and cut-block scales and are not subject to large natural inter-annual variations
in abundance measures such as plot or quadrat frequency.

It must be emphasized that Table 7 identifies a preliminary indicator set that will be
revised based on input from others and future results from the monitoring of permanent
sample plots in the harvest trial areas and benchmark wildfire.

Preliminary values for some of the site, cut-block and operating area indicators are
provided in Chapter 3 of this report.

Other indicators relevant to the site and cut-block spatial scales are the focus of
ongoing research in this project. This project is contributing to the development of an
integrated set of site and stand scale evaluative indicators for the ecological criteria (i.e.,

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 24

sub-components of ecosystem health) established by the CCFM (1995). Preliminary
progress on these indicators is reported in Chapter 4 of this report.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 25

Table 7. Main issues of concern for terrestrial habitat, how the issue could be affected by the P
health.

Sub- Indicator Attribute Generic Indicator
#
Compone (type of change that is considered to be adverse is shown in italics)
nt

1. Biodiversity 1.1.1 1.1.1.1 Ecosystem diversity Post- harvest dynamics of habitat ty
1.1 Ecosystem Elements- 1.1.2.1 - increase or decrease
General Habitats that support high species diversity Amount and location of riparian hab
- area loss. Amount and location of rich fen alter
1.1.2 Amount and location of other types
Elements- Critical habitat for plants and animals Amount and location of critical habit
Priority - area loss.
Habitats Relic habitats Amount and location of relic habitat
- area loss.
1.1.2.2

1.1.2.3

1.1.2.4 Rare or uncommon habitats other than relic Amount and location of rare or unco
1.1.2.5 - area loss. altered or lost
1.1.2.6
Fragile ecosystems Amount and location altered or lost.
- area loss
Amount and location of wetlands alt
Habitat for vulnerable, threatened and
endangered species Amount and location of VTE habitat
- area loss

1.1.3 1.1.3.1 Landscape mosaic Arrangement of disturbed and leave
Patterns - modified pattern. operating area.

1.1.4 1.1.3.2 Core area for interior habitat needs Road density.
Pr oc ess e 1.1.4.1 Rapid disappearance of hard edge i
s Connectivity & Fragmentation
- decrease & increase, respectively Fragmentation indices
Mosaic of disturbed and leave patch
area.

Project and measures/ indicators of effects by components and sub-component of ecosystem

Metric for the Southeast Vegetation District Linkages to National &
Tembec Indicators
ype1 composition Amount and locations of each habitat type over initial, short-, medium- (CCFM 2004; Tembec
and long-term periods. 2002)
bitat altered or lost. Italics indicate an
red or lost. indirect linkage
altered or lost.
tat types 1.1.1
T1.1.1.1, T1.1.1.2
types Amount and locations of old forest disturbed.
ommon habitats Amount and location of forest targeted to become old forest. T1.2.3.1
Amount and locations of native prairie disturbed.
T1.2.2.1
.
tered or lost. T1.1.2.1.1,
t altered or lost. T1.1.2.1.2
All T1.2.1
indicators

e patches in Locations of cut-blocks relative to where a large wildfire would leave
them.
in cut-blocks. Locations of roads, wood piles, camps, etc. relative to where a large
hes in operating wildfire would leave them.
Total interior area by habitat type.
km of roads per km2 by road type
Height growth and density of commercial post-fire pioneer tree species.

Locations of cut-blocks relative to where a large wildfire would leave
them.

Sub- Indicator Attribute Generic Indicator
#
Compone (type of change that is considered to be adverse is shown in italics)
nt

1.2 Species 1.2.1 1.2.1.1 Species diversity Questionable usefulness
- decreases in general; can increase in Dominance measure
Elements- species poor habitats Distribution and abundance
General
Species dominance
1.2.1.2 - increases in general; can decrease in
species poor habitats
1.2.2 1.2.2.1
Elements- Protected species
Sensitive - loss or substantial reduction in abundance

1.2.2.2 Rare species Distribution and abundance
1.2.2.3 - loss or reduction in abundance
1.2.2.4 Distribution and abundance
1.2.2.5 Forest “dependent” species
- loss or substantial reduction in abundance Distribution and abundance
1.2.2.6
“Old” forest “dependent” species Abundance and distribution where fe
1.2.2.7 - loss or substantial reduction in abundance amount and location of high quality
Populations at outer limits of their range lost.
- population loss or substantial reduction in White spruce and balsam fir abunda
abundance distribution

Species with low reproductive capacity Abundance and distribution where fe
- population loss or substantial reduction in amount and location of high quality
abundance lost

Species highly sensitive/ low resilience to
disturbance
- population loss or substantial reduction in
abundance

1.2.3 1.2.3.1 Forest associated species Richness
Elements-
Key - loss or substantial reduction in abundance

1.2.3.2 Fire dependent species Richness
Fire promoted species Richness
1.2.3.3 Fire reduced species Richness
Fire intolerant species Richness
1.2.3.4

1.2.3.5

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected]

Metric for the Southeast Vegetation District Linkages to National &

Tembec Indicators
(CCFM 2004; Tembec

2002)
Italics indicate an

indirect linkage

Simpson’s Index

Pre-harvest surveys

Distribution and population size where feasible; otherwise, amount and
location of high quality habitat altered or lost.

Number affected.
Disturbance of black ash, red pine, white cedar
Number and percentage of forest species found in cut-blocks.

Number and percentage of old forest species found in cut-blocks.

easible; otherwise,
habitat altered or

ance and

easible; otherwise,
habitat altered or

Number and percentage at risk 1.2.1
1.2.2, 1,2,3
Number and percentage of typical fire dependent species found in cut-
blocks.
Number and percentage of typical fire promoted species found in cut-
blocks.
Number and percentage of typical fire reduced species found in cut-
blocks.
Number and percentage of typical fire intolerant species found in cut-
blocks.

27

Sub- Indicator Attribute Generic Indicator
#
Compone (type of change that is considered to be adverse is shown in italics)
nt

1.2.4 1.2.4.1 Invasive species Richness

Elements- - increase in abundance and/ or distribution
Problem

1.2.4.2 Exotic species Richness

- increase in abundance and/ or distribution

1.2.5 1.2.5.1 All species elements listed above Distributions and abundances
Patterns- to
All Above 1.2.7.2 Genetic interchange See below
1.2.8.1
1.2.8 Reproduction See below
Pr oc ess e 1.2.8.2 Regeneration, colonization & expansion See below
s 1.2.8.3

1.3 Genetic 1.3.1 1.3.1.1 Local stocking Recruitment from natural seed sourc
Elements Recruitment from other sources

1.3.2 1.3.2.1 Natural spatial distribution of local Connectivity measures
Patterns 1.3.3.1 populations (see above)
1.3.3.2 Dispersal barriers
1.3.3 Genetic interchange Extirpations
Pr oc ess e - inhibited
s
Genetic interchange
- blocked

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected]

Metric for the Southeast Vegetation District Linkages to National &
Tembec Indicators
Number of invasive species (CCFM 2004; Tembec
Population size for species with substantial presence. 2002)
Italics indicate an
Number of exotic species. indirect linkage
Population size for species with substantial presence.
1.2.4
Sample plot frequency by species and ecosite type.
Mean sample quadrat frequency by species and ecosite type. 1.2.4

ce. Natural recruitment density by species and growth form 1.3.1
T1.3.1.1, T1.3.1.3
Artificial recruitment density by species, growth form and regen method
(i.e., seeding/ planting)

28

Sub- Indicator Attribute Generic Indicator
#
Compone (type of change that is considered to be adverse is shown in italics)
nt

2. Ecosystem Condition & Productivity 2.1.1 2.1.1.1 Disturbance regime Types of substantial stand replacing
2.1 Incidence of disturbance & stress Elements ecological region.
Wildfire regime- wildfires still occur
2.1.1.2 - change in frequency, intensity or severity Size distribution of wildfires.
Timing of large wildfires.
2.1.2 2.1.2.1 Area disturbed over successional cycle Change in frequency, intensity and s
Patterns Mosaic of disturbances Proportion of region with substantial
2.1.2.2 Cutting patterns disturbance in past 20 years
2.1.2.3 Area disturbed by disturbance type
Regeneration of natural vegetation after
2.1.2.4 cutting Area and location of habitats that ar
Increased plant, animal and soil removal are not typically disturbed by wildfire
due to better access Cut area successfully regenerated

2.1.3 2.1.3.1
Pr oc ess-
Corridor 2.1.3.2
eff ects 2.1.3.3

Invasive plant introduction or expansion Qualitative analysis
Air pollution
- increase

2.2 Ecosystem resilience 2.2.1 2.2.1.1 Wetland function Amount and location of wetland alte
Elements 2.2.1.2 - net loss & location
Richness, distribution and abundanc
2.2.1.3 Large, long-lived species
- loss or substantial reduction in abundance Within block tree, slash and snag re
production
Continuous supply of large and small
diameter woody material

2.2.1.4 Regeneration of vegetation types typical for Dense regeneration of commercial p
2.2.1.5 the site conditions. tree species typical for the site type
Prevent shifts in overstory composition.
Appropriate regeneration of non-com
r-strategists species based on site and long-term
- Increased proportion
Protection of advanced regeneration
post-fire pioneer tree species.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected]

g disturbance in Metric for the Southeast Vegetation District Linkages to National &
Tembec Indicators
Inventory. (CCFM 2004; Tembec
Number and percentage of naturally occurring. 2002)
Italics indicate an
severity. indirect linkage
l stand-replacing
3.3
re cut in places that
e every rotation. 2.3

2.2.2
T2.2.1.1, T2.2.1.2

Road dust generated/ annum

ered or lost by type

ce White spruce distribution in landscape appropriate locations

etention and Post-harvest volume of woody material. T1.1.5.1.1
Snag density by age class.

post-fire pioneer Jack pine and black spruce stems/ ha by macro-site type at 1, 3, 5 and
?? years after regeneration efforts.
mmercial tree
m considerations. Aspen, balsam fir, tamarack, etc. stems/ ha by macro-site type at ages
5 and ?? years after cutting.
n of commercial
Density of jack pine and black spruce stems < 3m tall after site
preparation by macro-site type

29

Sub- Indicator Attribute Generic Indicator
#
Compone (type of change that is considered to be adverse is shown in italics)
nt

2.2.1.6 Even age structure in cut-blocks Extent of clear-cutting with modifica
other ecological objectives.

2.2.1.7 Favorable post-harvest micro-site Area and distribution of duff by thick
2.2.1.8 conditions for post-fire pioneers. type.

Distribute benefits widely Dispersion of commercial retention t
micro-sites, slash, etc.

2.3 Extant biomass 2.2.2 2.2.2.1 Nutrients retained in site ecosystem Amount and distribution of nutrients
Pr oc ess- Leaching losses.
Leakage 2.2.3.1 Landscape flows Fragmentation
- alteration Water drainage
2.2.3 2.3.1.1 Same as for ecosystem diversity
Pr oc ess- 2.3.2.1 Habitat type composition
Flows 2.3.3.1 Primary productivity
2.3.3.2 - reduction or increase Mean annual tree increment
2.3.1 Primary productivity
Elements - reduction or increase Area deforested
Additions and deletions of forest area, by Area in roads by type and location (
2.3.2 cause versus leave areas)
Patterns

2.3.3
Pr oc ess

2.3.3.3

2.3.3.4 Total growing stock
- reduction or increase

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected]

Metric for the Southeast Vegetation District Linkages to National &

Tembec Indicators
(CCFM 2004; Tembec

2002)
Italics indicate an

indirect linkage

ations to capture Density of commercial and non-commercial retention trees by species.
kness class and site
Distribution of commercial and non-commercial retention trees by
species.

trees, favorable Dispersion index for commercial retention trees by species.
s in system Dispersion index for slash.
Dispersion index for micro-sites by type and macro-site type.
Foliar nutrient content
Soil nutrient availability

Short-term: stem elongation rate, root collar diameter T2.3.1.1
Basal area/ ha 2.2
2.1
(i.e., in cut-blocks

30

Sub- Indicator Attribute Generic Indicator
#
Compone (type of change that is considered to be adverse is shown in italics)
nt

3. Soil Resources 3.1.1 Productive soil Area rutted or eroded by rutting and
3.1 Soil Quantity & Quality 3.1.2 -loss Area in roads or other non-vegetate
road type
Alteration of soil properties
- chemical or physical change Area compacted
Site type
- conversion Area of permafrost melted
Soil fertility Area converted to a different site typ
Within block tree, slash and snag re

3.2 Water Quantity 3.2.1 Decomposition Patterns over time release nutrients
& Quality 3.2.2 captured
Ground and surface water flow Area with altered flows
- change
Area and locations of altered sites
Sites that influence water quality (e.g. Area and locations of altered riparia
riparian) Incidence of contamination by type

Site contamination
- any

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected]

Metric for the Southeast Vegetation District Linkages to National &
Tembec Indicators
d soil type (CCFM 2004; Tembec
ed conditions by 2002)
Italics indicate an
pe Calcium content of foliage. indirect linkage
etention Calcium availability in soil. (Johnson 1994)
3.1.1
s when they can be T3.1.2.1
T3.1.1.1
an zone
T3.1.2.4.1,
T1.1.5.1.1
3.2
T3.1.3.1
T3.2.1

T3.1.5

31

Sub- Indicator Attribute Generic Indicator
#
Compone (type of change that is considered to be adverse is shown in italics)
nt

4. Contributions To Global Ecological Cycles Elements 4.1.1 Vegetation biomass Change in habitat composition by ty
4.1 Carbon Budget 4.1.2 - reduction Change in tree volume and ground m
& Area in roads by type and location (
Patterns Additions and deletions of forest area, by versus leave areas)
cause Change in habitat composition by ty
4.2.1 Soil carbon distribution Area in peatlands by type
Soil carbon in peatlands Area with permafrost by type
- loss Loss of soil organic matter in minera

Soil carbon in mineral soils

Carbon emissions from harvesting activities Fossil fuel use in harvesting and tra

Carbon sequestration in forest products

Hydrological Forest 4.2. Additions and deletions of forest area, by Area in roads by type and location (
Cycles land cause versus leave areas)
conversi
Reforestation of deforested areas Area within operating area that is re

4.3.1 Water quantity Standardized surface area of lakes,
- increase or decrease and ponds

4.3.2 Alterations to surface and ground water Area altered by road development
drainage

4.3.3 Alterations to depth to water table

* Spatial scales for targets: S = Site; C = Cut-Block; O = Operating Area; L = Landscape or Sub-Region; R = Region.

1 Habitat type refers to combinations of vegetation, vegetation age, soils, ground water, surface water, permafrost and dis
2 Land type refers to similar broad combinations of soils, ground water, surface water and permafrost.
Sensitive species = species that is vulnerable, threatened or endangered or is in danger of becoming vulnerable because i

some of the effects of wildfire, etc.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected]

Metric for the Southeast Vegetation District Linkages to National &
Tembec Indicators
ype (CCFM 2004; Tembec
moss biomass 2002)
(i.e., in cut-blocks Italics indicate an
indirect linkage
ype
4.1.1, 4.1.2

T4.1.1.1

2.2

al soils 4.1.4
ansport T4.1.3.1
4.1.3
(i.e., in cut-blocks T4.1.2.1
eforested T4.2.1.1
, rivers, streams
T4.2.2.1
T4.3.1.1

3.2
T4.3.2.1

sturbance regime that are relatively homogenous at the spatial scale of interest.
it has specialized or critical habitat requirements, is long-lived, sensitive to disturbance, near the limit of its range, requires

32

Chapter 3 Potential Indicators Assessed In This Report

3.1 Background

Section 2.3 identified a set of evaluative measurable indicators for timber harvesting at
the site, cut-block and operating area spatial scales. This chapter presents further
background information and results for that subset of the species indicators for which
there exists relevant data from the KFHWT study areas (Table 8). The intention is to
conduct a preliminary assessment of the practicality and potential reliability of these
indicators.

Table 8. Potential evaluative species indicators assessed in this report*.

Indicat Attribute Generic Indicator
or # Biodiversity- Species- Elements Sensitive

1.2.2

1.2.2.1 Protected species Distribution and abundance
- loss or substantial reduction in

abundance

1.2.2.2 Rare species Distribution and abundance
- loss or reduction in abundance

1.2.2.3 Forest “dependent” species Distribution and abundance
- loss or substantial reduction in
abundance

1.2.2.4 “Old” forest “dependent” species Distribution and abundance
1.2.2.5 - loss or substantial reduction in
abundance Abundance and distribution where
feasible; otherwise, amount and
Populations at outer limits of their location of high quality habitat
range altered or lost.
- population loss or substantial
reduction in abundance

1.2.2.6 Species with low reproductive White spruce and balsam fir
abundance and distribution
capacity
- population loss or substantial

reduction in abundance

1.2.2.7 Species highly sensitive/ low Abundance and distribution where
feasible; otherwise, amount and
resilience to disturbance location of high quality habitat
- population loss or substantial altered or lost

reduction in abundance

1.2.3 Biodiversity- Species- Elements Key

1.2.3.1 Forest associated species Richness
1.2.3.2 - loss or substantial reduction in Richness
abundance

Fire dependent species

1.2.3.3 Fire promoted species Richness

1.2.3.4 Fire reduced species Richness

Indicat Attribute Generic Indicator
Richness
or # Problem
Richness
1.2.3.5 Fire intolerant species
Richness
1.2.4 Biodiversity- Species- Elements
All Of The Above
1.2.4.1 Invasive/ Alien species Distributions and abundances
- increase in abundance and/ or Elements
Richness, distribution and
distribution abundance

1.2.4.2 Exotic species
- increase in abundance and/ or

distribution

Biodiversity- Species- Patterns

1.2.5. – All species elements listed above

1.2.7.

2.2.1 Ecosystem Condition- Resilience-

2.2.1.2 Large, long-lived species
- loss or substantial reduction in

abundance

2.2.1.4 r-strategists
- Increased proportion

* See Table 7 for further details.

3.1.1 Biodiversity- Species- Elements- Sensitive

3.1.1.1 Protected species
The Manitoba Endangered Species Act (MESA) and the federal Species At Risk Act
(SARA) provide legislative protection for Manitoba plant species.

3.1.1.1.1 MESA (Manitoba Endangered Species Act)
Species protected under MESA are those which are threatened, endangered or
extirpated (MESA 2004 – passed in 1990, list updated in 2004):

• Endangered = “a species indigenous to Manitoba is threatened with imminent
extinction or with extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its Manitoba
range”;

• Threatened = “a species indigenous to Manitoba is likely to become endangered;
or is, because of low or declining numbers in Manitoba, particularly at risk if the
factors affecting its vulnerability do not become reversed”;

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 34

• Extirpated = “a species formerly indigenous to Manitoba no longer exists in the
wild in Manitoba but exists elsewhere”;

“Once a species has been declared by regulation as being threatened, endangered or
extirpated, it is unlawful to kill, injure, possess, disturb or interfere with the species;
destroy, disturb or interfere with the habitat of the species; or damage, destroy, obstruct
or remove a natural resource on which the species depends for its life and propagation.”
(http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/legislation/endangered_act.html)

A total of 7 plant species are protected under MESA (Table 9). None of the MESA
threatened or endangered plant species have been previously recorded in the
Southeast Vegetation District. All of these plant species are found in open prairie
habitats in southern and southwestern Manitoba, with the small white lady's-slipper also
found in wet meadows, and the western silvery aster also found in openings in bur
oak/trembling aspen woodlands, roadsides, and ditches (MCDC 2004). Additionally,
culver’s-root is also found along woodland margins and in wet meadows.

Table 9. Plant species protected under MESA by status.

Status Species Name Scientific
Common

Endangered Great plains ladies'-tresses Spiranthes magnicamporum
Small white lady's-slipper Cypripedium candidum
Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara
Aster sericeus; Symphyotrichum
Threatened Western silvery aster sericeum
Tradescantia occidentalis
Western spiderwort Solidago riddellii
Riddell’s goldenrod Veronicastrum virginicum
Culver's-root
Extirpated None currently listed

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 35

3.1.1.1.2 SARA (Species At Risk Act)

Species protected under SARA are those which are threatened, endangered or
extirpated (SARA 2003 – passed in 2002, updated in 2003).

Species of special concern (formerly vulnerable under COSEWIC), threatened,
endangered, and extirpated are the four categories of concern.

• Endangered = facing imminent extirpation or extinction;
• Threatened = likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the

factors leading to its extirpation or extinction;
• Extirpated = no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the

wild;
• Species of special concern = may become a threatened or an endangered

species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified
threats.

SARA vulnerability criteria are based on IUCN red list categories. IUCN red list
categories are those that fall into the broad category of concern called threatened.
Threatened species include those that are:

• Critically endangered;
• Endangered;
• Vulnerable.

The general IUCN criteria used to establish status for each threatened category are:
• Declining population size;
• Small geographic range manifested either as extent of occurrence and/ or area of
occupancy;
• Small population size (threshold based on number of mature individuals) and
declining population trend. Vulnerable threshold for a declining population is
10,000 mature individuals;
• Very small population size or very restricted distribution. Vulnerable threshold for
population size is 1,000 mature individuals;
• Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is above the
threshold.

A total of 7 Manitoba plant species are protected under SARA (Table 10). None of the
SARA threatened, endangered or vulnerable plant species have been previously
recorded in the Southeast Vegetation District. All of these plant species are found in
open prairie habitats in southern and southwestern Manitoba, with the small white
lady's-slipper also found in wet meadows, and the western silvery aster also found in

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 36

openings in bur oak/trembling aspen woodlands, roadsides and ditches (MCDC 2004).
Additionally, culver’s-root is also found along woodland margins and in wet meadows.

Table 10. Manitoba plant species protected under SARA by status.

Status Species Name
Common
Scientific

Endangered Small white lady's-slipper Cypripedium candidum

Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara

Threatened Western silvery aster Aster sericeus; Symphyotrichum
sericeum

Culver's-root Veronicastrum virginicum

Buffalograss Buchloë dactyloides

Prairie-clover Dalea villosa var. villosa

Special Riddell’s goldenrod Solidago riddellii
Concern

Extirpated No Manitoba species currently listed

There are a few obvious differences between the species protected under each act. For
example, under MESA, Great Plains ladies’-tresses are listed as endangered, but are
not protected under SARA. The reason for this is that this species is relatively common
in Ontario so is not considered to be at risk in Canada. Similarly, the western spiderwort
is listed as threatened under MESA, but is not listed under SARA. Range-wide, this
species is considered to be secure, and is therefore only listed as threatened in
Manitoba.

There are also two species, buffalograss and prairie-clover, that are not listed under
MESA, but are considered threatened under SARA. These species occur in mixed-
grass prairie in southwestern Manitoba, in only a few small areas, but are not yet listed
provincially.

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 37

3.1.1.2 Rare Species

Some species that are not currently protected by legislation still pose concern due to
population size, population trend or geographic distribution. In some cases, the lack of
legislative protection simply indicates that the required inventory and reporting work has
not yet been completed.

For the purposes of this preliminary assessment, a species was considered to be rare if
it has a local distribution and a scarce or common abundance in the Southeast
Vegetation District based on species habitat information prepared for the EBM Pilot
Project Science team report (Bulloch et al. 2002) by Elizabeth Punter (partial
information is provided in Crescent Botanical Services 1994; Punter 2002a, 2002b). On
this basis, 144 rare species may occur in the study area (Table 11).

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 38

Table 11. Evaluative indicator species that may occur in the SouthEast Vegetation District.

Species Rare Forest Range Forest Fire Fire Fire Fire Large Exotic Invasive r-strategists
dependent limit associated dependent intolerant promoted reduced 41 24 27
long- 1
lived 1
1
Total 91 3 115 88 4 7 5 2 16

Abies balsamea 11

Acer negundo var. interius 1

Acer spicatum 1

Achillea sibirica 1

Actaea rubra 1

Agastache foeniculum 1

Agrimonia striata 1

Allium stellatum 1

Ambrosia artemisiifolia
var. elatior

Amelanchier humilis 1

Amorpha canescens 1

Amphicarpa bracteata 1

Anaphalis margaritacea 1

Anemone cylindrica 1

Anemone quinquefolia 1
var. interior

Anethum graveolens 1

Antennaria plantaginifolia 1 1

Apocynum cannabinum 1

Aralia hispida 1

Aralia racemosa 1

Arceuthobium 1
americanum

Arceuthobium pusillum 1

Arethusa bulbosa 1

Species Rare Forest Range Forest Fire Fire Fire Fire Large Exotic Invasive r-strategists
dependent limit associated dependent intolerant promoted reduced long-

1 1 lived
1
Artemisia ludoviciana var. 1 1 1 1
gnaphalodes 1 1 1
Artemisia ludoviciana var. 1 1 1
pabularis
Artemisia vulgaris 1 1
Asarum canadense 1
Aster ericoides 1 1
Aster lateriflorus 1
Aster modestus 1
Betula papyrifera 1 1
Betula papyrifera var. 1
neoalaskana 1
Botrychium virginianum 1
Bromus porteri 1
Calamagrostis neglecta 1
Calypso bulbosa 1
Cardamine pratensis 1
Carex argyrantha
Carex brevior
Carex castanea
Carex filifolia
Carex gracillima
Carex livida
Carex pauciflora
Carex pedunculata
Carex projecta
Carex rossii
Carex xerantica

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 40

Species Rare Forest Range Forest Fire Fire Fire Fire Large Exotic Invasive r-strategists
dependent limit associated dependent intolerant promoted reduced long-

1 1 lived

Ceanothus herbaceus 1 1

Celastrus scandens 1

Chenopodium 1 1
leptophyllum var.

oblongifolium

Chimaphila umbellata var. 1 1
cisatlantica

Chimaphila umbellata var. 1 1
occidentalis

Chrysopsis villosa 1

Cinna latifolia 1

Circaea alpina 1

Circaea quadrisulcata var. 1 1
canadensis

Cirsium flodmanii 1 1

Cladium mariscoides 1 1

Clintonia borealis 11

Collinsia parviflora 1

Comandra umbellata 1

Coptis trifolia ssp. 1
groenlandica

Corallorhiza maculata 1

Corallorhiza maculata 11
forma flavida

Corispermum 1

hyssopifolium var.
hyssopifolium

Cornus canadensis 1

Cornus rugosa 1 1

Corydalis sempervirens

Corylus americana 11

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 41

Species Rare Forest Range Forest Fire Fire Fire Fire Large Exotic Invasive r-strategists
dependent limit associated dependent intolerant promoted reduced long-

lived

Crataegus rotundifolia 1 1 1
Crataegus succulenta 1 1

Cryptogramma crispa ssp. 1 1
acrostichoides 1 1
1
Cynoglossum boreale 1
Cyperus houghtonii 1 1
Cypripedium acaule 1
1 1
Cypripedium arietinum 1
Cypripedium calceolus 1
var. parviflorum 1 1
Cypripedium reginae
Danthonia spicata var. 1
pinetorum
Dianthus plumarius 1
1
Diervilla lonicera 1
Disporum trachycarpum 1
Drosera linearis 1

Dryopteris fragrans 1
Eleocharis tenuis var.
borealis
Elymus canadensis
Elymus virginicus var.
submuticus
Empetrum nigrum

Equisetum scirpoides
Equisetum sylvaticum
Erigeron glabellus

Erigeron lonchophyllus
Erigeron strigosus

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 42

Species Rare Forest Range Forest Fire Fire Fire Fire Large Exotic Invasive r-strategists
dependent limit associated dependent intolerant promoted reduced long-

1 lived
1
Eriophorum 1 1
brachyantherum

Erysimum inconspicuum 1

Euphorbia serpyllifolia 1

Fragaria vesca var. 1
americana

Fraxinus nigra 1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
var. austinii

Galium aparine 1 1

Gaultheria procumbens 11

Gentiana linearis var. 1 1
rubricaulis

Geocaulon lividum 1

Geranium bicknellii

Gerardia tenuifolia var. 1 1
parviflora

Geum rivale 1

Geum triflorum 1 1

Glaux maritima 1

Goodyera repens var. 1 1
ophioides

Goodyera tesselata 1 11

Grindelia squarrosa var. 1
quasiperennis

Gymnocarpium dryopteris 1

Gypsophila paniculata 1

Habenaria hookeri 1 1

Habenaria obtusata 1

Habenaria orbiculata 1

ECOSTEM Ltd. (204) 772-7204 [email protected] 43