United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Tongass National Forest
Forest Plan Interdisciplinary
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
19071 586-8700
Reply To:
RG-G-10-b
Subject :
TLMP Revision Old Growth Assessment Panel Summary
To:
TLMP Revision Planning File
From:
Gene DeGayner,
Date:
Team
February 20, 1996
RO, WFEW
I. Introduction
A panel of experts on old-growth forest ecosystems met on November 15-16, 1995
in Juneau, Alaska to evaluate the relative likelihood that TLMP Revision
alternatives would conserve critical elements of old-growth forests after 100
years of full alternative implementation. The experts integrated their personal
experience and knowledge of old-growth ecology with technical information
presented on local old-growth ecology and details concerning design elements of
TLMP alternatives. Using this information, they developed professional
judgments about likely outcomes related to the long-term persistence and
distribution of old-growth forests on the Tongass National Forest.
This summary
provides a synopsis of the salient factors and concepts discussed and used to
evaluate plan alternatives as to their effects on old-growth forests.
A complete set of notes kept during the 2-day session are available in the TLMP
Planning Record. This information is not repeated here except for important
factors affecting likelihood outcomes.
The following information was provided to the old-growth panelists to conduct
this assessment:
- Ecology of the Tongass, FSL.
- Forest Planning Process by Bruce Rene, TLMP
- Alternative Development by Chris Iverson, TLMP/Regional
Office
- Panel Rating Process by Terry Shaw, FSL/TLMP
- A description of old growth on the Tongass and how it would
change per alternative by Gene DeGayner.
- Copies of:
TLMP Assessment Procedures
Tongass Land Management Plan Framework of development of
Draft Alternatives; Resource Assessment Panel Meetings,
November 7-8 and 15-16, 1995.
- Tongass-wide maps illustrating the 9 proposed alternatives;
present old growth abundance and distribution by
alternative; and about 30 maps displaying interior
productive old growth, other forest lands, and young
growth for each island group by alternative.
Estimates of the abundance of old-growth forest types presented here have been
refined since the panel meeting and vary slightly, within a few percentage
points, of those presented to the panel. The magnitude of change is not
significant.
The panel used maps to determine the amount of private and State
lands within each province. This information is presented here as a table for
clarity. Province boundaries also have been slightly modified for clarity and
data from the Yakutat are has been added.
II.
Synopsis of old-growth ecology and information available to the Panel.
Temperate rain forests once covered an estimated 90 million acres across the
Pacific Northwest, Southern Chile, New Zealand, Tasmiania and environs around
the Eastern Black Sea and Northeastern Atlantic. Approximately 56 percent of
this forest biome remains undeveloped today (Hagenstein 1993). The Tongass
National Forest contains 14% of the world's acreage and 29% of the remaining
unlogged acreage of temperate rain forest (Weigand 1990). These figures reflect
the basis for some of the national and international attention that is focused
on the Tongass National Forest (Kiester and Eckhart 1994).
This assessment of the status of old-growth forests is part of the assessment of
the conservation of biodiversity.
Biological systems are too complex, species
are too numerous, and our information base is too small for a species-by-species
approach to conservation of biological diversity. The alternative is to assess
how well planning alternatives maintain the variety, function, and abundance of
ecosystems in SE Alaska. This is called a coarse filter approach; it assumes
that if a representative array of ecosystems are protected, then the vast
majority of species that reside within them also will be protected (The Nature
Conservancy 1982).
The coarse filter approach is not fool proof since no ecosystem classification
scheme is comprehensive enough to capture needs of every species. To fill the
void, this EIS contains individual assessments (e.g. goshawk) or guild
assessments (e.g. endemic small mammals) to supplement the coarse filter for
species on which information and concerns exist.
Current Forest Ownership
The Tongass National Forest is distributed along the mainland and the Alexander
Archipelago from Yakutat Bay south to Dixon Entrance and is comprised of coastal
mountain ranges and small to very large islands and fjords that create more than
11,000 miles of shoreline. Federal ownerships include 2.7 million acres within
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and 17 million acres within the Tongass
National Forest. Private, State, and Municipal lands encompass about 1 million
acres, with the largest holdings being Annette Island, native corporations'
lands on Prince of Wales and Dall Islands, and in the Juneau area.
Types and Amounts of Old-growth Forest.
Ten old-growth forest types have been ecologically defined on the Tongass NF
(USFS 1992); however, these forest types have not been mapped to create a
comprehensive inventory that could be used in this assessment. Estimates of
old-growth abundance are inferred from a 1978 timber and land type map (TIMTYP)
that has been updated with maps of timber harvest and soils information.
Generally, forests'inventoried as productive old-growth (operationally defined
as forests over 150-yrs-old in TIMTYP (SSIZEC = 3 or 4) are classed as old
growth for this assessment. The majority of these stands would exhibit
attributes that are consistent with the definitions of old-growth forest.
For this assessment, old growth is broken into 3 forest types:
1) Higher Volume Productive Old Growth are lands capable of
growing more that 20 cu ft/acre/year in the highest timber
volume stratum. There are about 2.1 million acres of this
forest type on the Tongass.
2) Lower volume Productive Old Growth are lands capable of
growing more than 20 cu ft/acre/year in the 2 lower timber
volume stratum. There are about 2.7 million acres of this
forest type on the Tongass.
3) Other Forest Lands are defined within TIMTYP as having at
least 10% tree cover, but they are not capable of growing 20
cubic feet/acre/year. There are about 3.4 million acres of
these lands on the Tongass. Timber harvest rarely occurs in
this forest type.
4) Young Growth (YG) are the approximately 450,000 acres of
land that have undergone timber harvest, primarily by
clear-cutting since 1950.
For this analysis, the region is broken into 24 physiographic provinces (see
biodiversity), excluding Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (Figure 1).
These provinces have been modified somewhat from the province scheme used in the
Supplement to the Draft EIS (1992) to better represent the island nature of SE
Alaska. Table 1 displays the abundance of old-growth types, private and state
ownership, and past timber harvest activities. Note that these features are not
evenly distributed across SE Alaska.
These
Current vegetation inventories do not exist for private and State lands.
lands tend to be on the more productive sites found at lower elevations. About
75% of these lands contain forests that are suitable for timber harvest and
about 80% of the suitable timber lands have been harvested in the last 50 years.
Within the Tongass NF, 91% of the productive old growth has not been logged
since the beginning of large scale timber harvest activities in the 1950's.
Since the 1950's, timber harvest has been concentrated in the higher volume
.
stratum, of which 82% is remaining. To a lesser extent, timber harvest has also
been concentrated at the lower elevations; 78% of the higher volume productive
old growth below 800 ft. in elevation are remaining. Timber harvest has
occurred in a spatially clumped fashion across the Tongass with activity
concentrated on islands like Prince of Wales, Dall, Northeast Chichagof, and
Zarembo whereas only limited activity has occurred on islands and parts of the
mainland within the 40+ LUD 1 & 2 areas, including wilderness (Table 2).
Timber harvest increases the level of forest fragmentation and the amount of
forest edge. The Tongass NF is naturally highly fragmented at the landscape
scale due to its archipelago's nature and dramatic topographic relief. At the
stand scale, the forest is also spatially heterogeneous due to a diverse and
fine scale mosaic of forest, soils, and land types.
The microclimate of productive forest within 2-3 tree lengths (300 ft.) of
forest openings tends to differ from the microclimate (i.e., humidity,
temperature, transmitted light) further from the edge (Concannon 1995). For
example, edges tend to be warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter than
interior forests. Some species increase in abundance close to an edge while
others decrease in abundance near an edge. Conservation biologists are
concerned with species that may be associated with interior forest habitat
because timber harvest tends to decrease the amount of such habitat, especially
in a highly fragmented landscape.
For this analysis, natural edge was defined as productive old growth within 300
feet of nonforested areas (i.e., beach, muskeg, lake) or unproductive forest.
Productive old growth within the inside boundary of this edge is defined as
"interior forest" habitat.
The abundance of interior forest habitat depends on
the shape of the stands, the number and size of openings, and, now, the size,
shape, and location of clear-cuts.
Table 2 displays by province the reduction in interior, productive old-growth
forest from 1954 to 1995.
Before 1954, approximately 2.9 million of the 5.5
million acres of productive old growth were classified as interior forest
habitat. Timber harvest, primarily by clear-cut logging, over the past 40 years
has reduced the amount of such interior forest habitat to 2.3 million acres.
During this same time period and using the above definition, the amount of edge
has remained roughly constant.
Effects of Alternatives on Old-srowth Forests
Projections to 2095 across the alternatives show that from 62% to 90% of the
productive old growth present in 1954 would be retained (Table 3).
These
amounts represent from 66% to nearly 100% of the 1995 levels of remaining old
growth.
In addition, most of the other forest lands, except those disturbed by
roads or natural events, would remain approximately the same across all
alternatives in 2095. For the higher volume old growth, 2095 projections across
the alternatives would retain from 57% to 82% of the 1954 level of productive
old growth (Table 4). The degree of retention varies by province and ownership.
The highest levels of retention occur within wilderness and roadless areas; the
lowest levels occur in provinces that either have large holdings of private or
state lands, or have already experienced high levels of timber harvest.
Harvest levels used in this assessment for each alternative should be viewed as
maximums.
In each alternative, we projected that all available productive old
growth would be harvested by 2095.
In all likelihood, actual harvest rates
would be below this level because of logging economics, resource concerns
uncovered during project planning, and addressing errors in inventories.
Therefore, the numbers presented here should be viewed as "worst case" scenarios
for the old-growth resource.
The proportion of old growth remaining at 2095 varies among alternatives because
the boundaries of various types of old-growth reserves, rotation ages, and
standard & guides vary by alternative.
III.
Important
Methodology
of
Assessment
Factors
Old-growth
Assessment
Assessments of the likelihood of maintaining a functional and interconnected,
old-growth ecosystem were performed for nine alternatives by a panel of
experts.
The set of outcomes used by the ecosystem assessment panel differed
from the set of outcomes defined for the species assessment panels because an
ecosystem perspective requires different evaluation criteria than a species
perspective.
Species assessments were based on habitats of specific organisms,
while the ecosystem assessment was broader, and focused on the primary producers
of the old-growth system (i.e., vegetation), and the processes and functions
(i.e., physical, chemical, and biological, including disturbances) associated
with the dynamics of those primary producers. The effects of the alternatives
on late-successional forest ecosystems were evaluated in terms of degrees
(Outcomes 1 through 4) of ecosystem quantity and quality (abundance, diversity,
processes, functions, and connectivity).
Information used to assess the effects of the alternatives on old growth
included estimates of the abundance of old growth in 1954, 1995, and 2095 from
planning inventories. Available maps displayed the spatial distribution of
old-growth reserve areas, productive old-growth lands, other forest lands
(sometimes referred to as unproductive forest), non-federal lands, and timber
harvest areas by alternative.
In addition, the panelists relied heavily on
their experience with old-growth forest and community types found on the Tongass
to evaluate alternatives.
Assessment
Ratings
The rating of late-successional ecosystems was based on three attributes that
characterize the quality and quantity components of the ecosystem.
The Panel
evaluated each of these attributes recognizing that these elements were not
completely independent. The attributes are described as follows:
1) Abundance and ecological diversity - the acreage and variety of plant
communities and environments.
2)
Processes and functions - the ecological actions that lead to the
development and maintenance of ecosystems, and the values of the ecosystem
for species and populations.
3) Connectivity - the extent to which the landscape pattern of the ecosystem
provides for biological flows that sustain animal and plant populations.
Abundance
and
Ecological
Diversity
Abundance of old-growth communities and ecosystems refers to the total acreage
of forest that meets structural or functional criteria, based on ecological
conditions and definitions of each province. In this effort, old-growth
community types are considered to be any assemblages of species that are found
within or across old-growth forest types. Ecological diversity also is
indicated by the distribution of old-growth communities on the landscape, and
the interrelationships among the variety of geographic and topographic features,
climatic conditions, and soil distributions.
The four possible outcomes that characterize different levels of abundance and
ecological diversity of old-growth forest communities and ecosystems, analyzed
by the panel of old-growth ecosystem experts, appear in Table 5,
Table 5. Possible outcomes of the maintenance of abundance and ecological
of late-successional or old-growth ecosystems.
diversity
Outcome #l.
Old growth is equal to or greater than long-term average (100
year), well distributed across environmental gradients,
provinces, and community types.
Outcome #2
Old growth is somewhat less than long-term average in forest
types of some provinces. Representation in all major forest
types, but with under representation in some types (may be
within range of variability).
Outcome #3
Old growth is below long-term average in most forest types.
Examples of a few old-growth types are eliminated.
Outcome #4
Old growth is well below long-term average in all provinces.
Examples of several OG types eliminated in some provinces.
As a benchmark, old growth abundance is compared to its abundance in 1954, prior
to large-scale timber harvest. As discussed earlier, this abundance varies by
province and ownership.
Process and Function Processes refer to the ecological changes or actions that
lead to the development and maintenance of old-growth ecosystems at all spatial
and temporal scales. Examples include: (1) tree establishment, maturation, and
death; (2) gap formation and filling; (3) understory development; (4) small and
large-scale disturbances such as landslides and wind; (5) decomposition; (6)
nitrogen fixation; (7) canopy interception of energy and matter; and (8) energy
and matter transfers among forest biota and between the forest and atmosphere.
Functions, as used in this assessment, refer to ecological values of the
late-successional ecosystem or its components that maintain or contribute to the
maintenance of populations of species that used these ecosystems, and
contribute to the diversity and productivity of other ecosystems. Examples of
ecosystem functions include habitat for organisms, climatic buffering, soil
development and maintenance of soil productivity through inputs of coarse woody
debris, nitrogen fixation, spread of biotic and abiotic disturbance through
landscapes, and nutrient cycles (production, storage, utilization, and
decomposition).
The four possible outcomes that characterize different levels of ecological
processes and functions of old-growth forest communities and ecosystems,
analyzed in the old-growth assessment, are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Possible outcomes of the maintenance of ecological processes and
function of late-successional or old-growth ecosystems.
Outcome #l.
Full range of disturbance processes are represented. Stand
structure/dynamics and landscape structure/dynamics/age
attributes occur across all provinces.
Outcome #2
Moderately wide range of disturbance processes. Old-growth
process and function that are dependent on large unaltered
landscapes are limited. Old-growth process, structure, or
function that are dependent on a wide range of ages are
moderately limited.
Outcome #3
Old-growth process/structure/function limited in many
provinces.
Many landscapes and stands too small/young to
sustain old-growth process/structure/function or stand
structure does not develop.
Outcome #4
old-growth process/structure/function
absent in some provinces.
is
extremely
limited
or
Connectivity Connectivity is a measure of the extent to which the landscape
pattern of the old-growth ecosystem provides for biological and ecological flows
that sustain old growth associated animal and plant species across Southeast
Alaska. Connectivity does not necessarily mean that old-growth areas need to be
physically joined in space because many late-successional species can move (or
'be carried) across areas that are not currently in old-growth ecosystem
conditions.
Landscape features affecting connectivity of old-growth ecosystems
are distance between old-growth areas and forest conditions in the areas between
the old-growth areas. Given the island nature of Southeast Alaska, connectivity
is always compared with 1954 conditions and connectivity is more strongly
related to within islands than among islands,
The four possible outcomes that characterize different levels of ecological
connectivity of old-growth forest communities and ecosystems analyzed in the
old-growth assessment are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Possible outcomes for the maintenance of connectivity of
late-successional or old-growth ecosystems.
Outcome #l.
Connectivity is as strong as prior to large scale timber
harvest.
Outcome #2
Connectivity is strong, characterized by moderate distances
between old-growth areas. Matrix contains high levels of
old-growth elements and riparian corridors.
Outcome #3
Connectivity is moderate, characterized by moderately-wide
distances between old growth and elements of old growth in
matrix (retention patch, riparian corridors, etc.)
Outcome #4.
Connectivity is weak. Wide distances and limited presence of
connectivity elements in matrix.
Overall Old Growth Descriptions Four overall outcome descriptions for the
ecosystem as a whole were obtained by combining the three individual attribute
outcomes: (1) abundance and diversity of ecological communities; (2) the degree
to which natural processes and functions are maintained or restored; and (3) the
connectivity of habitats and ecological communities. The likelihoods of
achieving overall outcomes were computed by averaging the likelihoods of
individual attribute outcomes (Table 8).
Individual panelist's scores are in
the planning record.
III.
Comparison
of
Alternatives
Average panelists' scores for each old-growth assessment element are shown in
Table 8. The mean of scores for the 4 panelists before and after the discussion
are presented for each of the 4 possible outcomes. The 'before' ratings
occurred following presentations on alternatives and Local old-growth ecology,
but before the merits of individual alternatives were discussed among panelists
in relation to old growth. A second rating was conducted after review by
panelists of their first rating and full discussion among them about old growth
in relation to the various features of each alternative.
Scores changed little between ratings, indicating that panelists likely had a
good understanding of specific factors involved in alternatives design and thus
further discussion did not significantly affect their ratings. The after mean
scores are referenced for the remainder of the discussion since these scores
reflect full dialog among panelists.
Even alternative #l, which has the highest degree of old-growth protection, did
not receive the majority of its points in outcome #l.
This was attributed to
past timber harvest levels on non-federal lands (e.g. Dall Island) and localized
extensive timber harvest on the National Forest (e.g. some watersheds on North
Prince of Wales Island).
Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 conserve more old-growth ecosystem elements
than do alternatives 2, 7, 8, and 9. Features of alternatives that rated
relatively high included: 1) longer rotations; 2) additional old-growth
reserves; 3) two-aged management in the matrix; and 4) additional beach and
riparian protections. Alternatives 1 and 5 received the highest scores in
outcomes I & II.
Alternative #2 was rated relatively low because it did not propose alternative
silviculture at the stand level and it did not maintain additional reserves at
the landscape level. The short rotations and "clean" silviculture would result
in a low level of biological legacy retained within young-growth stands thereby
decreasing connectivity among reserves. Reserves were deemed to be too clumped
in their distribution which created gaps in some areas where reserves were
absent (e.g., Zarembo Island).
The relatively low likelihood scores assigned to Outcome 1 for most alternatives
reflect, in part, a lack of information about: processes and functions of
late-successional or old-growth ecosystems; the nature, role, and importance of
landscape-level ecological processes including disturbance; the role and
relationship of species diversity and ecosystem functions such as productivity,
nutrient cycling, and decomposition; and the effects of climate change.
Other Information provided by the Panel:
The panel provided the following information about the nature of old growth and
the features of the TLMP Revision alternatives.
Distribution
and
abundance
comments:
Old-growth reserves by themselves are not adequate. Specific
matrix management strategies are needed to retain more of a
biological legacy within clear-cuts. Two-aged management as
proposed in alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 would help to
maintain lichens, fungi, and other species. This legacy
attribute is also an important consideration for
connectivity, structure, function, and processes.
Alternatives with longer rotations were rated higher because
more old growth remained for longer time periods.
The panel had concerns about the representation of higher
volume stands of yellow-cedar and the higher volume hemlock
series in areas that did not have reserves.
The panel had a concern that there was no longer a
representation of the very large, riparian spruce stands on
the Tongass.
The panel did not endorse alternative silviculture over
reserves and did not have high confidence in either, since
these are working hypotheses.
Structure and Function comments:
Disease is important to old-growth function; it's a component
that is missing in younger stands. For example, heart rots
and dwarf mistletoe are often lost in younger stands.
Two-aged management and longer rotations help to conserve
these features.
In managed landscapes, expect an increase in processes
associated with wind disturbances along edges of cutting
units and a decrease in wind disturbances within young
stands.
Two-aged harvesting leaving legacy trees will allow
for some blowdown and subsequent soil mixing within
regenerating stands; however, if only the more wind-firm
trees are retained, then a reduction in the rate of
stand-level disturbance can be expected.
Large, old trees with large root systems will churn more soil
than smaller trees. Such soil churning may prevent or retard
a productive stand's evolution to muskeg.
Connectivity
Comments:
Wider beach fringe and riparian reserves enhance
connectivity.
They provide vertical and horizontal
corridors.
Smaller harvest units, despite
lead to more connectivity.
increasing
fragmentation,
can
Mitigation measures for connectivity (corridors) are good
ideas, but need to be tested to see if they work.
Five hundred year-old, old growth may not be needed to
maintain connectivity, but structures inherent to such old
growth do need to be maintained.
The "other forest lands" old growth provides corridors for
many species.
Other
Manauement
Considerations
Retention of Old-growth Fragments: Old-growth fragments sometimes serve as the
only habitat in a landscape for many lichens, fungi, bryophytes, plants , and
small-bodied animals that contribute to the biodiversity and productivity of
forest ecosystems. Old-growth fragments may be critical for species that are
locally endemic, occur only in very specific conditions of forest structure or
soil, or have limited dispersal capabilities.
Stand Features --Green Trees and Dead Wood in the Matrix: Residual green trees
and dead wood in harvested areas of the matrix function as a temporal bridge
between past and future forests and a spatial bridge between old-growth habitat
fragments. Green trees serve several important functions:
they are available
for snag recruitment; contribute to multistoried canopies; provide shade and
suitable habitat for many organisms in the matrix; and serve as refugia and
centers of dispersal.
Patches of green trees of various sizes, ages, and species will promote species
diversity of fungi, lichens, plants, and arthropods. Complex canopy structure
is beneficial for some lichens and snow interception. Large green trees, snags,
and coarse woody debris are important for many animals.
Literature
Cited
Concannon, J.A.
1995:
Characterizing structure, microclimate, and
decomposition of peatland, beachfront, and newly-logged forest edges in
Southeastern Alaska.
Ph.D. thesis; Univ. of Wash,. Seattle.
Hagenstein, R. H.
1993.
A report on the costal temperate rain forest
geographic information system with emphasis on Alaska's Prince William Sound.
Ecotrust and Conservation International. 21 p.
Kiester, A.R.; Eckhardt 1994. Review of wildlife management and conservation
biology on the Tongass National Forest: A synthesis with recommendations.
Pacific Northwest Research Station; Corvallis, OR. 282 p.
The Nature Conservancy.
1982.
Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
Natural heritage program operations manual. The
Virginia. 238 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Ecological
definitions
of old-growth forest types in southeast Alaska. Alaska Region Report R-10-TP-28.
Weigand, James.
1980.
Coastal Temperate Rain Forests:
distribution with particular emphasis on North America.
prepared for Ecoturist/Conservation International.
Definition and global
Unpublished report
OLD GROWTH PANEL - NOVEMBER 15 and 16, 1995
FACILITATOR - Tom Spies, --need position-RESOURCE PERSON - Gene DeGayner, USFS Regional Office, Juneau
PANELISTS - Glenn Juday, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Bob Ott, University of Alaska. Fairbanks
Paul Hennon, FSL, Juneau
Lowell Suring, Chugach NF, Anchorage
RECORDER - Ellen Campbell, USFS Regional Office. Juneau
SILENT OBSERVER - Dick Zaborske, USFS Regional Office. Juneau
VISITORS - Judy Sherbume. ADF&G, Douglas
various members of TLMP team (Winston Smith. Terry Shaw. Don Golnick)
no visitors were present through the full session
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15
Tom reviewed the process to be used with this panel and discussed how the FEMAT
process operated. He said that scientists were often uncomfortable with this
process. but there is a strong basis for using expert judgement/Delphi process
to evaluate alternatives. There are occasionally some concerns by
non-participants as to who is named to panel and whether bias is introduced
this way. He stated that the problem before this panel is: given a set of
alternatives, how can we discriminate between them when assessing different
aspects of the resource (different outcomes). For an individual alternative,
several outcomes can be described/developed. He clarified that, for the
purpose of this exercise, “long term” is 100 years.
He cautioned the group to avoid “group-think”, stick w/your individual
scientific judgement. While we are in a group setting, what you decide is your
call and there is no “right” or “wrong.“
Tom stated that the process is useful one, a way to evaluate difficult and
complex alternatives. Any discussion is not to force consensus, but to bring
out other items which might need to be considered. The biggest problem is
understanding all the alternatives and distinguishing nuances between them.
It is possible that some of the alternatives will not be distinguishable.
Need to discuss what the criteria and outcome categories should be in order to
characterize old growth (OG). FEMAT used the following criteria: 1)
abundance/ecological diversity (whole gamut); 2) process/structure/function;
3) connectivity (patterns provide for biological flow between ecosystems). Must
recognize that each criteria is not exclusive, and that there is overlap. Do
people feel comfortable w/this approach?
Q: Wonder if the info we have will be enough to allow us to distinguish between
alternatives using these criternia? A: Have asked Gene to provide some info
on environmental diversity, OG, elevational diversity, etc. Feel that we do
have info that will allow panel members to make some judgement calls for
Criteria 1. For Criteria 2, that’s where information on blow-downs and
judgement on alternatives to clear-cutting (cc). For Criteria 3, including
collection of landscape characteristics, think we have info to use these
criteria.
Q: About abundance and diversity, will we be judging plant abundance and
diversity ? A: We don’t have info on maps, will have to infer effects on
plant abundance and diversity.
Q: How to take into consideration island effects? A: recognize that natural
fragmentation exists. C: Puts some of the elements at risk because of this.
C: Forest mgmt will have effect on connectivity of landscape, on top of
natural fragmentation caused by island geography. Anything that can stratify
effects by biogeographic zones. or whatever landscape system we use will give
strength to our response.
Panel’s job is to pick up all those species that aren’t being dealt with
elsewhere: vascular, non-vascular plants. etc. Need to use general principles
of landscape ecology, ecological science. conservation biology to evaluate and
rate.
Q: Regarding long-term persistence and viability. Some areas are more prone
to windthrow, some are in glacial retreat. Not all OG is created equal. some
will hang around, other OG might evolve into muskeg. Want to be sure that the
places where we provide OG forest ecosystems will also be there into the
future. A: We’re supposed to be looking at long-term. True, some systems
will be more dynamic, more susceptible to disturbance changes. Susceptibility
to change will be a judgement call. Some of this wil come out in discussion.
C: Over a 100 yr rotation, there’s a 90% chance that a stand will experience
wind effect.
C: All these factors need to be taken into account.
C: May be useful to think about trajectories - even if looking at 100 year
horizon, momentum will go beyond that.
Began discussion of Evaluation Criteria and related Outcome Categories (OC)
Reviewed OC’s used in FEMAT process. beginning with Abundance/Diversity
criteria. (See attached copy of hand-out.) Is this what we want to use?
C: In ne Chich, we have looked at pulses of wind effects over long term. Now
we have to consider interaction w/ managed landscapes. We now have a lot of
abrupt edges, may have a lot more damage on landscape now than preharvest. A
1953-78 study of wind effect compared to a recent survey shows a huge increase
in wind effects. We should expect greater frequency in the future than in the
past (warmer weather in n Pacific, more storms) Farr’s work, with random
survey of sites across the Tongass and with a large # of plots, might gives some
info on distribution.
C: We made the assumption that the longterm (lt) average is what we have now
exlusive of areas cut.
Q: When we’re looking at structure and function, are we looking at 100,200,
300 yr old OG? A: Essentially look at stands over 140 yrs.
C: If we use FEMAT criteria. there are a couple important elements missing FEMAT scale just one of “inventory readjustment,” what it really should be is
viability, persistence, representation, etc. (NFMA stuff).
C: Abundance is just total amount but diversity gets at distribution concerns.
Q: Have any S&G’s taken into account fragmentation? ie could have a million
acres of OG, but it’s all edges with little interior. A: Will tease this out
in second criteria. Regarding “completeness” of representation, this will be
considered in OC 2 where panelist might determine that we’re getting gaps.
C: Change definition in OC 3 to include some OG types missing/not represented.
Panelists agreed on general Evaluation Criteria and then proceeded to
“fine-tune” the associated OC’s.
Discussion of OC’s for Abundance/Diversity:
C: For OC 1, we will be trying to compare to natural disturbance regimes, this
will be difficult. A: This will serve as a reference point. there is a fine
line between recognizing how things used to be vs how things are.
C: For OC 1, how do we define longterm? A:. 2000 years.
C: We will have to make assumptions on what community types we’re evaluating?
A: Perhaps can use more generic terms? This would be ok if our reference is
by elevational gradients.
C: There are some specific community types that we should watch out for such
as riparian areas, areas dominated by spruce, and hemlock areas being
converted.
C For OC2: Everything represented, but a noticeable imbalance in
distribution. Local landscapes may have gaps.
C: Only a couple % is naturally less than 200 years old, identified as
historic blow-down across forested habitat.
C: Some small areas of blowdown that are young will be lumped into OG because
they have not been identified or they are too small to map out.
C: Certain areas of the landscape are more prone to blowdown - SE gales funnel
up the channels, hit E side of POW, go up Lynn Canal for example.
C: Nearly all forested land shows some effects. Biggest I’ve seen is a few
thousand acre.
C: The amount of OG is historically fairly stable. Some landforms are fairly
young, however such as Glacier Bay and Yakutat Forelands.
C: A working hypothesis might be that, since the migration of species into
this area, this system has remained fairly stable as a whole, but dynamic at
the fine scale. We could assess the departure from this stability. For OC 3,
for example, we looked for a certain forest type on the Ketchikan Area and
couldn’t find it, we had to assume that it’d all been cut.
C: Should we be wording OCs to not take into account areas in wilderness and
other protected areas? C: May never get to OC 4. A: Need to not take into
account land allocations. C: Need TO take into acct land allocations.
--At this point the silent observer made comments and expressed an opinionC: Maybe need to establish an OC 5?
Q: Is one of the rules that you do not take into account outside effects?
Knowing that you live in a volcanic area may affect how you manage in order to
hedge your bets. Our management will have an effect as to what’s left after
natural disturbance. A: My not be a problem as some of these things will be
constant across all alternatives and outcomes.
C: Need to make known to folks that some effects will be there no matter what,
and it may be difficult to get high outcomes in certain criteria because of
this.
C: Even with wilderness out there. it may not be there in the future given the
bills moving through Congress. Congress made them and Congress can take them
away. C: Have to rate what’s out there now and on the maps, not what might or
might not happen.
Following are the Outcome Category definitions for the Abundance/Diversity
Criteria agreed to by the panelists. These definitions were used for the
initial rating of alternatives. See later in the document for revised
definitions used for the second rating.
OC 1) Old growth equal or more than long term average. well-distributed across
environmental gradients and community types.
OC 2) OG less than long term average but within range of variability.
Representation in all major forest community types but with underrepresentation
in some types.
OC 3) OG below range of variability in most forest types. Examples of a few
OG types eliminated.
OG 4) OG well below range of variability in all provinces. Examples of
several OG types eliminated.
OG 5) OG present in only a few provinces and many types missing within these
provinces--or--0G present in most provinces but many types missing.
---Note---This OC was deleted before it was used in evaluating alternatives-Proceeded to discussion of definitions for outcome categories for
Process/Structure/Function criteria.
C: OC 2 definition may not be the best description for Tongass.
C: Blowdown of small trees has different effects from blowdown of large trees.
C: Gap dynamics, soil churning need to be considered
C: Large scale disurbances will be at province scale not at stand scale.
C: We need distribution factor for OG, for ex Admiraly may have all the OG we
want but POW won’t.
C: Need to pick a state of stand development to refer back to. 150 year old
stands are still not OG.
Q: Will each of us be working w/our own definition of OG? A: Consider stands
from understory reinitiation and on out, though we know structure will change.
Should take into account this diversity of structure.
C: Use broadest definition. should be large live trees, large logs on ground,
large snags.
C: Can’t come up w/a set criteria, knowing that there will be changes over
time, can have OG pieces in young stands.
C: Didn’t Franklin talk about “degrees of oldgrowthedness”?
C: For OC 2, there is shrinking range, convergence on one thing, increasing
homogeneity. For ex NTMB’s need large blocks of OG to reproduce at a positive
rate, yet edge goes far in.
C: For OC 3, stands are too small or young to sustain P/S/F, or stand
structures do not develop.
Q: When talking age structure, is this within OG or across all ages? A: Age
structure is a continuum, have to deal w/a shifting mosaic across whole area.
all age structures.
At this point it was decided that there was no OC 5 for this criterion. and OC
5 for Abundance/Diversity criterion should be deleted.
The following were agreed to as Outcome Category definitions for the
Process/Structure/Function criterion:
OC 1) Full range of disturbance processes (eg gap dynamics, uprooting of large
trees). Stand structure/dynamics and landscape/structure dynamics/age
structures occur across all provinces.
OC 2) Moderately wide range of disturbance processes. OG P/S/F dependent on
large unaltered landscapes are limited. OG P/S/F’s dependent a wide range of
ages is moderately limited.
OC 3) OG P/S/F limited in many provinces. Many landscapes and stands too
small/young to sustain P/S/F or stand structure does not develop.
OC 4) Og P/S/F extremely limited or absent in some processes,
Discussion continued on Connectivity Criterion
There was a short discussion of deer habitat and corridor use, noted that
corridors were not important to deer panel discussion.
C: Some plants need large open areas, lots of light.
C: Might not have big patches, but also have to consider smaller
steppingstones. There is continuum in connectivity, dependent on species being
considered. Might consider connectivity relative to 1954 condition.
The following Outcome Categories were agreed to for the Connectivity criterion:
OC 1) Connectivity strongly similar to pre-management levels.
OC 2) Connectivity is strongly characterized by moderate distances between
OG areas. Matrix contains high levels of OG elements and riparian corridors.
OC 3) Connectivity is moderate. Characterized by moderately-wide distances
between OG and elements of OG in matrix (retention patches, riparian corridors
etc).
OC 4) Connectivity is weak. Wide distances and limited presence of
connectivity elements in matrix.
Gene gave slide presentation of mapping OG problems, different types of forest
classifications, how to model vegetation. Noted that one can’t get volume
figures from aerial photos. You can get volume at discrete site but this
doesn’t translate to larger areas. If you use different scales, will get
different answers on amount and distribution of OG and other forest types, ie
the forest is very heterogeneous, hard to map. Thematic mapping gives a very
fine grain, more accurate than aerial photos which show large areas in one
type.
C: Can’t id at pixel scale (l-4 hectare as min size). Walk through of sale
unit to identify plant associations has great variation also. C: plant
associations don’t necessarily relate upward to larger assemblages.
Walkthroughs for volume examinations also show great variability, variability
is large with older stands because of small openings. Have to sample the
begeezus out of a stand in order to get good volume estimates.
Q: So tymtyping is subjective to individual typer? A: Yes
Q: Is inventory now consistent across forest? A: Yes, but hard to use at
small scale, lumps higher volume classes in w/lower volume classes.
Took tymtypes + harvest units + landownership + hydric soils = basemap for gis
for for-plan. Forplan-generated GIS maps assume that we get all volume in an
alternative, that there is no fall-down.
Described what colors on check maps stand for 3 new volume strata which have
been developed.
Q:. What’s the average volume for these 3 strata? A: Not sure. dont have
info here but think that high 32, mod 24, low 16.
C: Have confidence that green is productive, less confidence that crosshatch
is highly productive.
Gene explained the series of maps available that show volume, reserve areas by
alternative. He also discussed and distributed five charts displaying
productive OG and high volume stands by island groups and other area
designations (see attached).
C: When looking at forest-wide changes by alternative, need to look at
individual island. Forest-wide might look ok, but individual islands may be
significantly affected.
C: Also recognize that there are small clumps of big trees in unproductive
(yellow) OG that can’t be mapped, and also small 5-10 acres of unproductive
forest in areas mapped out as productive.
C: Chart for 1995 productive OG volume shows that acres set up to harvest now
is cut. Panelists should also assume that private land is 80% forested, and 80%
of that will be harvested by 2095.
Group broke for dinner and decided to come back in the evening to do first
round ratings.
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
In morning group began discussion of alternatives by criteria.
For Alternative 1:
C: High scores for OC 2 indicate a reluctance to assume good abundance and
distribution (this hold true for all alternatives).
C: Even with no harvest. most reviewers think we’ve gone past good abundance
because of recent harvesting.
C: Native land harvesting and past FS harvesting in combination have
significantly impacted some provinces.
C: There is representation in all major types, but underrepresentation in
some.
C: This alternative has abundance well distributed, but abundance to meet long
term average is not there.
C: We can’t meet It average for abundance because we’ve lost something out
there already.
C: A forest that’s prisitne. untouched is not possible.
Q: Do we have departure from natural range of variability already? A: No,
still within natural range.
C: Suggestion to make list of groups that have been eliminated.
C: Have problem with lack of data.
C: Can’t point out places where OG types are being eliminated. don’t have
knowledege.
C: The group is not expected to do this.
C: Might identify places where we think OG types might be eliminated.
C: Concerned with elimitation of genetic material in certain locations, Even
if you try to fill the gaps with material transplanted from other locations, it
might not work because plants are genetically adapted to specific locations.
Move them elsewhere and they don’t do well.
C: Diversity matters more than raw abundance. If we lose abundance, we’re
just adjusting numbers, diversity matters more.
C: Loss of abundance could mean greater chance of loss.
Q: Can you partition out past harvesting from currently planned harvesting?
A: No.
C: Very concerned w/native land harvesting.
Abundance/Diversity, Alternative 2
C: What’s really significant is how Alt 2 stacks up in relation to 3,4,5,6.
It’s not as good as Alt 1 but better than the timber emphasis alternatives.
Deficient on most evaluation criteria, because reserves buy you a lot and
extended rotation achieves al lot, this alternative lacks that. This achieves
a “blocky” landscape, too concentrated actions in certain areas. It can start
eliminating OG-dependent organisms on a regional basis because of “black
holes,” which is why this panelist rated it low.
Q: Should we be saying OG-dependent or OG-associated? A: OG-associated
probably better.
Q: Did anyone look at range of variability? A: Difficult to determine what
range of variability was. A: Saw more bioregions impacted so went with OG
types eliminated as stronger criterion.
C: One panelist used range of variability as a feeling, but used “diversity
eliminated” as a stronger criterion. Another panelist felt that he could use
It average to compare in a general sense, but diversity is important. A third
panelist did not rate/quantify range of variability.
Q: What if we’re looking beyond 100 yrs, could species recolonize? Is it a
mitigation? A: From plant perspective, dispersal characteristic of species is
an important consideration. If you reduce plant populations, then could have
local refugia develop. Some plants do fine with timber harvesting, some can be
represented in cc’s, but there would be a concern about abundance.
C: Have some concerns w/first harvest? and with repeated harvest may have
increasing effects. Some plants can wait out long periods of unfavorable
conditions after treatment, but if faced with repeated short rotations they may
not be able to maintain themselves.
C: With several short rotations in in area. you could eliminate local seed
source, which would not allow the understory to redevelop.
At this point, the panel developed revised definitions for Abundance/Diversity
outcome categories. The revisions (with exception of deletions) are
highlighted:
OC 1) Old growth equal to or greater than long-term average. well-distributed
across environmental gradients, Provinces. and community types.
OC 2) OG somewhat less than longterm average in some Provinces and forest
types. Reprentation in all major forest types but with underrepresentation in
some types (may be within range of variability).
OC 3) OG below long-term average in most forest types. Examples of a few OG
types eliminated (may be below long-term variability).
OC 4) OG well below long-term average in all provinces. Examples of several
OG types eliminated.
Panelists then proceeded to discuss alternatives by Evaluation Criteria. using a
table which displayed the mean scores of intitial ratings.
Evaluation Criteria Abundance/Diversity:
Alternative # 1
Q: What specific types are at risk? A: Types in the southern and central
portion of the forest, especially highly productive spruce, riparian spruce.
Q: Isn’t riparian protection doing what we need? A: Yes it will.
alternatives that have riparian protection scored better than timber
alternatives.
C: Regarding types at risk, most high volume yellow cedar type will disappear,
especially on Sitka ash sites (most on NE Chichagof).
Q: There’s lots of cedar in wilderness areas, is it still a concern ? A: Yes
C: Has concern that most high productivity sites are already usurped for
timber management. In future, we will be making riparian sites skinny, with
greater risk to windthrow. Potential mitigation could be to use higher
riparian standards.
C: One panelist stated that he looked for areas with at least 25% reduction in
the OG component to concentrate his evaluation.
C: The best sites have low elevation, deep soils, hydrologic types, have fish
runs. big spruce
C: High volume western red cedar, especially on karst soils (POW, Dall
Island), is at risk.
Alternative # 2
C: Gets a low rating because some species were underrepresented. with low
riparian protection, lack of reserves, short rotation. Having a
well-distributed network of reserves buys you a lot and this doesn’t have it.
The magnitude of harvesting is fairly high.
Q: Regarding Alt # 1, there is a perception of risk here. Why is that? A: As
long as there’s timber harvesting, will be risk of losing diversity.
C: This Alt (#3?) showed positive effects of reserves. fewer islands with
greater than 25% loss of OG. Didn’t give much credit for 2-stage timber mgmt.
Maintaining riparian areas buys a diversity of types. as do reserves also.
C: Thinks reserves fairly well placed.
Q: Are we looking at net reductions. or final outcome? A: My concern is
distribution, not amount of OG, ie where it is and where is it not.
Q: Does 2-age silviculture buy anything in rating scheme? A: Not here, this
is larger scale (maintaining type), not within stand diversity. OG reserves
will help lichens, wood-rotting fungi, but may not help wider-ranging species
(more of this will come out in P/S/F evaluation).
C: Weighted value of 2-story stands more in Connectivity and P/S/F Criteria
rather than Diversity/Abundance.
C: Forest researchers in Sweden are finding many species to be extemely rare
because of very clean forestry operations, canopy fungi, etc. We’re going down
this same road.
Alternative #4 (maxtix plus OG ret, no reserves, longer rotation)
C: Only alt where there was less than 25% loss of OG on all areas.
Q: This Alt has no set reserve areas. Are there any problems with this? A:
There is a problem with reserve areas in that you’ll get pieces here and there,
but not full complement. May have a lot but it’s scattered. but not what’s
needed to keep full structure.
C: Hard to weight difference, because I’m not confident that we can capture
all diversity through reserves.
C: If reserves float but if they’re up against a lot of edge, they may
preserve some OG elements but they’re not at good as could be. Problem with
reserves-only is you can’t have enough of them to capture all diversity needed.
C: Riparian spruce at greater risk.
Alternative #5 (reserves only in high risk provinces, long rotation, OG
retention, matrix mgmt)
Panelists recognized this is pretty good. Reserves help, but note that
reserves are not in all areas. Intrigued that this might be used. This
alternative bumped up % uncut on many islands. Commend group that came up with
this, it’s pretty innovative and applies the best ideas around.
Q: Any knowledge gaps? A: Don’t know if some of the things to be applied
really work. Other alternatives which which push OG to the limit, are where
can we be most effective, more critical because elements are “on the edge.”
Alternative #6 (similar to #5 but shorter rotation)
C: Consistent slippage by all evaluators. The longer rotation is better,
keeps more OG on landscape for longer. Rotation seems to be key evaluation
item here.
C: If a reserve was put on Zarembo, it might help raise evaluation.
C: But 40-60% of artifical landscape is a reason to be concerned.
C: Zarembo is a concern.
C: This alternative goes back up to 7 island with big reductions of OG. The
central portion of the Tongass is being hit hard.
C: In terms of diversity, it may make sense to do this. There may be nothing
unique there to protect.
C: Disagree, things do get more unique the closer one gets to the Stikine R.
Alternative #7 (no reserves. short rotation)
C: One of the lowest score. Has only a couple of provinces with protection,
others are devastated. Risk of outside effects. No beach or estuary
protection influenced some panelists. Could improve significantly with better
riparian and beach protection.
C: Good to have this as a “pure play” for purposes of comparison. However,
this alternative is really bad in that it makes no provision for landscape
level stuff. It’s not bad because of high level of timber being cut. but
because of the way timber-harvesting level is being brought about.
Alternative #8 (all reserves, 100yr rotation, alternative silviculture)
C: Reserves made a difference (especially in OC IV when compared to Alt #7).
This moves this alternative up one outcome level from lowest. Hard-hit islands
are improved dramatically.
Alternative #9 (not much different from Alt #7 but there is some OG retention
and stream protection)
C: Could detect improvement in standards. Did have problem with “blocking” of
concentrations of cutting and concentration of reserves.
C: Standards are ok but weak, need stronger standards to improve
significantly.
C: Does maintain RNA's, which could function as OG reserves.
C: Someone will ask us to identify what we mean by “forest types.” A: They
are on a continuum scale, not specific/discrete.
Discussion in terms of Process/Strucure/Function criteria:
Alternative #1
C: Constraint is on native corporation lands, will not have distribtion across
landscapes.
C: Concerned with processes over very large blocks (keeping in mind the term
“full range of disturbance processes” when thinking in terms of large blocks,
not sure it will happen. There is enough harvesting in some provinces that it
may disrupt large scale natural processes.
C: There is some element of risk in concentrating harvest. The use of
alternatives to clearcutting harvest methods is so limitedd that it is
insignificant.
C: In terms of small scale processes, this is a good one.
C: Haven’t applied new procedures yet, so not sure what problems will be.
operability, and actual responses.
C: Group wanted to note that the following was an important point: To endorse
alternatives to clearcutting or reserves is more than we can endorse, or have
high confidence in either.
Alternative #2
C: Greatly reduce landscape level dynamics. Hits at 2 different scales. no
alternatives to clearcutting at the stand scale and no provisions for
maintaining reserves at the landscape scale. Short rotation and clean
silviculture will never allow sites to grow back similar to OG.
C: Don’t need huge area to maintain stand dynamics, but you do need large
areas to mtng landscape dynamics. so you have to look at 2 scales. Some small
scale processes will be maintained at this level.
C: Our knowldege gap is that we dont’ have info on the level of fragmentation.
% change isn’ t as significant as distribution.
Q: What would be a mitigation, besides some knowledge of how OG is
distributed? A: establish reserves such as ar in Alt #3, they are a reseeming
factors in that Alt along with riparian and beach protection.
C: The real constraint is that we’re looking at landcapes. and harvesting on
native corporation lands means that we’ll never rate well.
C: Most panelist indicatated that they had to think at two or more different
scales.
C: So? you could give a positive or negative rating depending on scale
percieved, could rate at 2 different scales. Scale issue is particularly
important when evaluating on Process criteria. Large landscape scale at
higher risk (more negative impacts).
Alt #4
C: Put lots of emphasis on reserves & other stuff. Probably preserves small
scale fairly well, has better distribution of OG.
C: Long rotation captures some of the P/S/F needs but not all. Stand can
acquire some OG characteristics, but. won’t live long enough to collect all of
them. Maintains more intact canopies, may maintain more OG processes over
landscape.
Q: Any comment on retention of undesignated reserves? A: In genral it’s ok,
need to allow people in best position to use judgerment to put reserve in best
location (Ideally. However, you can’t guaranatee that they’ll do it
correctly). Natural disturbances such as big blowdowns, might determine where
you put a reserve. There is some utility in having flexibility down the line.
C: This alternative would be better if you couldn’t do uneven-age management
in the second 500 ft. of beach fringe.
Alt #5
C: Have a very high confidence that this alternative will reach OC’s I or II.
C: Distribution concern a bit more under control, decent amount and better
distribution of OG, not fragmented.
C: Did have one concern about whether reserves were fully in place, otherwise
could score similar to Alt #1.
C: A strong feature is the variety of strategies, plus threshholds that allow
other strategies to kick in.
Alt #6
C: Possible mitigations could be to change rotation and add reserves.
C: Worse than Alt #5 in that there is permanent removal of Og (due to short
roation), and doubles the cut.
C: Disease is really important in terms of OG function. it’s a component that
is missing in younger stands. Mistletoe lost in younger stands.
C: That might sound good to some. But you could have stands without
decomposers in enough abundance. You won’t get snapped trees, and associated
soil disturbance, if there’s no heart rot. It’s important for wildlife to have
mistletoe and hear-trot. Hear-trot starts to become common at 200 yrs, but
mistletoe not even then.
Alt #7
C: Doesn’t offer any mitigating factors. Lots of harvest across many
provinces.
C: Still saw lots of stand levei processes in place (still half of OG
remaining).
C: Landscape level practices are most seriously affected in this alternative
when compared to all others.
C: Plus it is getting hit at the stand level
Q: What processes are impeded? A: At the landscpe level you will get more
large scale wind disturbances because of interaction with edges. But young
healthy stands will blow down less frequently. Large old trees which have big
root systems allow more soil disturbance when they blow down.
Q: Will using 2-stage harvesting allow soil churning? A: Yes, but if you’re
taking out older trees and leaving younger more wind-firm trees, then it will
reduce the rate of stand level disturbance.
C: Need to do significant disturbance to set back evolution to muskeg.
C: Note that this is theoretical.
C: Snap-off doesn’t disturb soil, but stand-level blowdown does. Even with
smaller blow-down you gt a domino effect and a lot of pushed-over trees. Don’t
have a lot of knowledge of this.
C: Another important process is the placement of coarse woody debris into
streams, even considered at a landscape scale. Absence of this debris is going
to be felt at the site or downstream. If trees are not big enough to provide
this, thene there’s a missing component. Smaller trees wont stay put.
Q: What about the effect of roads? A: More important in relation to animals
than plants. Roads will alter hydrology and increases fragmentation,
Alt #8 (2 age stand, 100yr rotation, reserves, moderate riparian protection.
OG retention)
C: Can mitigate by going to highest riparian standards.
C: Alluvial fan scheme is great stuff.
C: If we broke our evaluation out into stand level and landscape level and
gave 2 scores, those scores would be very different. Landscape level processes
will kill my evaluation.
C: Would prefer a strategy that uses all mitigations. not just some. No one
mitigation strategy is obviously and inherently superios, so should use all up
to the limits allowed.
C: Western hemlock series being hit hard,
C: There’s been an obvious shifting and increasing series of issues and
areas/types to be protected (TTRA provisions, karst considerations, etc). Put
in enough S&G’s and you’ll be restricted to harvesting in fairly limited areas
such as upland hemlock (putting all eggs in one basket).
Alt #9
C: Absence of mitigation strategies will have negative effect.
C: See many processes protected as long as some OG is out there.
Panel then addressed Connectivity criterion:
Alt #1
C: Rated this pretty high because I couldn’t see much more to be done,
Q: But does this equate to what vou want? A: No. but I used standard of what
options are available now, and the palnners did the best they could. ( Realized
may have been inconsistent based on original criteria.) Judgement that
.
Connectivity is only relatively less than maximum level. It’s less than
optimum but it won’t isolate wide-ranging wildlife component.
C: With the exception of one province and native lands.
C: Had problem/concern with native land effects.
C: Don’t need 500yr old OG to maintain Connectivity, but there you do need to
watch Structure.
C: Large harvest areas may be significant barriers to plant movement.
C: Fingers of different habitat can allow connectivity. Natural fragmentation
in SE selects for species that are adapted to this habitat.
C: This alternative does the best job at avoiding OC IV
Alt #2 (weaker riparian protection and shorter rotations)
C: Impression that there was within-region fragmentation. and cetain provinces
looked pretty chopped up.
C: Fragmentation can lead to Connectivity. The matrix has fewer large areas
but more smaller ones that may be better connected.
C: Where riparian habitats are preserved, you are maintaining good
connectivity, beach fringes add to that. They provide vertical and horizontal
corridors respectively.
C: Some mitigations are good ideas for Connectivity, but they really need to
be tried out. The big question mark is: do they work? Yet they’re touted as
“the answer.”
C: Then you throw in the problem of islands to confound Connectivity.
C: Common undertory plant species around here probably have pretty good
dispersal mechanisms. Species appear to be present where there is habitat for
them, so isolation and fragmentation may not be a problem. Evolution may have
selected for the species that can adapt to this island fragmentation’
Alts #4 & 5
C: For Alt #5, there is uncertainty as to where reserves are going to be.
C: The problem with the is that it may not be appied correctly, may not be
understood, may get pressure to change...lots of uncertainty down the line.
Alt #7
C: Weak protection of riparian.
C: Had problem with Alt #&.
C: Had problem giving OC IV to any alternative because there is some OG left.
Not much difference between Alts #7,8,9 for Connectivity, did rate them
relative to each other.
C: Alts #4,5,6 were similar in features.
There followed some closing, general comments by the panelists.
C: One panelist urged the TLMP folks to look at how many evaluators gave each
alternative the highest score. Don’t look at individual scores numbers but
rather look at how many rated Alt #5 as first in preference, how many rated Alt
#2 as fifth, for example.
Q: Which categories are more important (carry more weight)? A: One panelist
rated them equally, two ordered by 1) Abundance/Diversity, 2) P/S/F, 3)
Connectivity.
C: In part because we may know more about Abundance.
C: In terms of management, it’s hard to address Processes and easier to
mitigate Abundance and Connectivity (you can measure and put numbers on the
latter two). It’s hard to measure Process.
C: Need to capture all major plant communities in reserves or some protected
area, and that will also take care of P/S/F.
Q: What about endemics?
C: We are often finding sensitive plants on unproductive sites,
C: Need to look at anomalies, what are unique species/groups that might not
be taken care of.
C: Could have done a better job if they’d had the information for a day ahead
and had time to look it over.
C: At the time that a Preferred Alternative is identified, it might be good
for this panel to be called on to advise on how to “tweak” it and make it
better for the criteria they were asked to judge.
C: Panelists would like copies of the final ratings, notes, and summary.
C: Commend TLMP for the quality of data and maps provided.