FINGER TATUK
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Submitted
by
B.A Blackwell and
Associates Ltd.
V7J 3B5
Submitted to
Gail Ross
Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks
Prince George
District
V2N 2J6
March 2000
Table of
Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Objectives of Current Work....................................................................................................................................... 2
OVERVIEW OF FINGER TATUK ECOSYSTEMS AND CONSERVATION GOALS............................................ 2
Seral Stage Distribution.............................................................................................................................................. 4
FIRE.................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Recent Fire History.................................................................................................................................................... 10
Development of Forest Fire Hazard Ratings.......................................................................................................... 11
Present Forest Fire Hazard........................................................................................................................................ 12
The Estimated Fire Cycle.......................................................................................................................................... 15
Fire Weather............................................................................................................................................................... 16
THE MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE (IBM)..................................................................................................................... 18
Mountain Pine Beetle Biology and Population Dynamics.................................................................................. 18
Development of Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Ratings....................................................................................... 19
Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Assessment............................................................................................................ 20
Current Mountain Pine Beetle Incidence............................................................................................................... 22
Relationship between Mountain Pine Beetle and Fire......................................................................................... 24
Mountain Pine Beetle Management and Treatment............................................................................................. 25
WILDLIFE HABITAT................................................................................................................................................... 27
FISHERIES....................................................................................................................................................................... 31
IMPORTANT CULTURAL AND RECREATION FEATURES............................................................................... 33
PRESCRIBED BURNING............................................................................................................................................... 35
Fuel Reduction or Manipulation Options.............................................................................................................. 36
Evaluation of Prescribed Fire Options.................................................................................................................... 36
KEY CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 37
Biodiversity............................................................................................................................................................ 37
Recreation and Aesthetics................................................................................................................................... 37
Public Safety.......................................................................................................................................................... 37
Liability................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Costs....................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Knowledge............................................................................................................................................................. 38
Technical................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Social....................................................................................................................................................................... 38
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................. 42
List of Figures
Figure 1. Finger Tatuk Provincial Park biogeoclimatic subzone
map...................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Distribution of seral stages within the protected
area.............................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Nineteen fifty-eight fire along the eastern boundary
of Finger Tatuk................................................... 6
Figure 4. Distribution of old growth (>150 years) spruce
and pine forests within the protected area.............. 8
Figure 7. Fire Hazard Map of Finger Tatuk Protected area..................................................................................... 14
Figure 8. Mean and maximum August drought codes for Kluskus
station 1310................................................ 17
Figure 9. Number of
days/month with rainfall >1.5mm for Kluskus station 1310............................................... 17
Figure 10. Number of
days/month with high risk of significant ignition and rate of spread for
Kluskus
station 1310..................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 11. Mountain Pine
Beetle Hazard within and adjacent to Finger Tatuk.................................................. 21
Figure 12. Incidence of IBM attack in the Finger Tatuk
Protected area (based on 2000 survey)..................... 23
Figure 14. Cariboo winter habitat Finger Tatuk protected area............................................................................. 28
Figure 15. Moose winter habitat Finger Tatuk protected area............................................................................... 29
Figure 16. Mule Deer
winter habitat Finger Tatuk protected area........................................................................ 30
Figure 17. Overview of riparian forest along Finger Creek..................................................................................... 32
Figure 18. High
value fisheries stream between Finger and Tatuk Lakes........................................................... 33
Figure 19. Important
cultural and recreational features of the Finger Tatuk protected area............................ 34
List of Tables
Table 1. Description of the Seral Stages used in the
Biophysical Vegetation Inventory (adapted from
Ecosystems Working Group, 1993)............................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Forested seral stages expressed as a percentage of the
total area of each of the 3 subzones...........
in
Finger Tatuk: Seral stage
abbreviations are described in Table 1........................................................................... 7
Table 3. Fire history summary for the Finger Tatuk Protected
Area from 1950 - 1994......................................... 10
Table 4. Summary of fire cause in Finger Tatuk........................................................................................................ 10
Table 5. Terrain/Biological Variables used for Fire Hazard
Assessment and Modeling in Finger Tatuk….11
Table 6. Fire Hazard Rating Score Ranges for Stands in Finger
Tatuk.................................................................. 12
Table 7. Criteria for Determining Potential Mountain Pine
Beetle Productivity................................................... 20
INTRODUCTION
In 1999 as part of the Park
Amendment Act the Finger-Tatuk Protected Area was officially designated a
·
Manage for salmon values in the
·
Manage lakes south of
· Recognize archaeological, historic and cultural values.
· Mitigate impacts on archaeological sites.
· Maintain scenic views.
· Promote viable commercial tourism operations
· Manage to avoid beetle population expansion (beyond epidemic levels) within Protected Area and affecting adjacent zones, while maintaining natural forest attributes.
· Maintain existing guiding and trapping opportunities.
· To manage access to achieve management intent for the zone.
In 1996, the Land Use Coordination
Office published a "Provincial Overview and Status Report" of the
Protected Areas Strategy. The report identified that Sub-Boreal Interior
ecoprovinces containing sub-boreal spruce forests (all successional stages) are
one of the most significant conservation features/values of this ecoprovince.
These forests were cited as being internationally significant and represented a
major gap in the existing s
In June 1998, the Vanderhoof
LRMP recommended Protection of Finger Tatuk to create a contiguous area of the
Sub-boreal spruce forest ecos
Over the past several years
Mountain Pine Beetle (
· Pheromone baits and traps
· Individual tree fall and burn on-site
· Prescribed burning
· Skid, pile and burn on site with low impact tools
The degree to which this situation
has evolved poses a dilemma to Park Managers. Should the beetle be left to run
it’s course throughout the Park and accept the risk of a larger infestation
that could dramatically alter stands within the Park and in adjacent commercial
forests? Any actions within the Park should be defined by the need to conserve
Park features and resources.
In the fall of 2000 B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. was contracted by B.C. Parks to evaluate the current status of pine beetle attack in relation to goals and objectives outlined in the Vanderhoof LRMP for
the Finger Tatuk Protected Area. This evaluation included a
review of all significant resource values in the Park and the risks to
management of these resources. Additionally this work has included a review of
resource
Objectives of Current Work
· The first objective of the project was to review the levels of current beetle attack and establish the potential impact on park resources. In addition to detailed survey work carried out by Bugbusters, an overflight of areas attacked by the beetle combined with ground sampling of identified areas to confirm the nature and extent of attack was conducted as part of this project. Many of these same areas had experienced multiple attacks over the past several years as evidence by falling and burning.
·
The second
objective was focused on identification of areas where application of
prescribed burning had the potential to alter the current distribution of seral
stages within the park. Change in the distribution of seral stages provides
several benefits including; a reduction in the landscape level beetle and fire
hazard, establishment of a significant firebreaks, and improved conditions for
regeneration of new spruce stands. This
second objective was accomplished through air photo identification of
prescribed fire opportunities and discussions with management agencies
including; B.C. Parks District staff, MOF District and Regional Protection
staff.
OVERVIEW OF FINGER TATUK ECOSYSTEMS AND CONSERVATION GOALS
The biogeoclimatic subzones of the park are shown in
Figure 1. The park is dominated by the Sub-boreal spruce zone (SBS) with a
smaller area of Engelmann Subalpine fir (ESSF) located at higher elevations.
The protected area is dominated by the SBS zone, with 14,700 ha within the
SBSmc3 biogeoclimatic unit and approximately 550 ha in the SBSdw2
biogeoclimatic unit. The remainder of the protected area falls within the ESSF
mv1 biogeoclimatic unit. The portion of ESSF is restricted to the higher
elevations of the park south of
Figure 1.
Seral Stage Distribution
This section provides a summary of seral stage distribution in the Park. The different seral stages typically recognized in B.C. are described in Table 1. The distribution of seral stages is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is an excellent indicator of historic disturbance in the park. Secondly, in combination with forest cover it highlights the distribution of old growth spruce forests in the park.
Table 1. Description
of the Seral Stages used in the Bioph
|
Seral Stage |
Approximate |
Age Class1 |
Description |
|
1. Shrub Herb (SH) |
1-20 |
1 |
early successional stage dominated by herbs and shrubs; some invading or residual trees may be present |
|
2. Pole Sapling (PS) |
20-40 |
2 |
trees >10 m tall have overtopped shrub-herb vegetation; stands are typically dense and understory vegetation of low cover in conifer-dominated stands; forest canopy in one continuous layer |
|
3. (YF) |
40-80 |
3, 4 |
self-thinning has occurred and forest canopy has begun differentiation into dominant, codominant and suppressed trees; understory vegetation often poorly expressed |
|
4. Mature (MF) |
80-150 |
5-7 |
trees established after the original disturbance have matured and a second cycle of shade-tolerant trees have become established; main canopy less continuous and understory vegetation may be well developed in places |
|
5. (OF) |
> 150 |
8, 9 |
old, structurally complex stands comprised mainly of climax tree species, although seral remnants may be found in the upper canopy; standing and downed snags are common; death of some canopy dominants has created gaps where understory vegetation and coniferous regeneration is well established |
1 age class as per B.C. Ministry of Forests forest inventory age classes
Table 2 shows the relative percentage of seral
stages of forested ecos
Figure 2. Distribution of seral stages within the protected area.
Table 2. Forested seral stages expressed as a percentage of the total area of each of the 3 subzones
in Finger Tatuk: Seral stage abbreviations are described in Table 1.
|
Subzone |
SH |
PS |
YF |
MF |
OF |
Total Area (ha) |
|
SBS mc3 |
1.3 (140) |
5.9 (632) |
9.9 (1,056) |
66.9 (7,118) |
16.2 (1,731) |
10,677 |
|
SBS dw2 |
0.0 (0) |
29.6 (128) |
0.0 (0) |
62.7 (272) |
7.7 (33) |
433 |
|
ESSF mv1 |
0.0 (0) |
0.0 (0) |
0.2 (2.9) |
90.3 (1,689) |
9.5 (179) |
1,871 |
|
Total |
1.1 (140) |
5.9 (760) |
8.2 (1,059) |
69.9 (9,079) |
15.0 (1,943) |
12,981 |
Note: Numbers in parenthesis ( ) are total forested area in hectares.
In both of the lower elevation subzones, the Mature Forest seral stage is the most dominant seral stage within the protected area (Table 2). Much of this area will be recruited to old forest over the next 50 to 70 years. With continued harvesting outside of the protected area boundaries and a shift to more area in shrub herb, pole sapling, and young forest the component of old forest within the protected area will be of increasing importance for conservation management within this landscape unit. Based on harvesting related changes outside the protected area, maintenance of the current seral distributions is an important management goal for BC Parks.
This anal
The area of old forest (>150
years) within the protected area is less than 2,000 ha and represents 15% of
the gross area (table 2 and figure 4).
These older age classes are scattered throughout the protected area. This
limited area of old forest is most likely a function of disturbance history
(fire and
Figure 4. Distribution of old growth (>150 years) spruce and pine forests within the protected area.
Figure 5. Old growth spruce and pine forest in Finger Tatuk
Figure 6. Old growth spruce and pine forest in Finger Tatuk
FIRE
Recent Fire History
The Ministry of Forests fire reporting s
Table 3 summarizes fires that have occurred between 1950 and 1999 in the Park by size class and cause (lightning and human caused). The total number of fires during this period was 10, of which 50% were the result of human causes. The remaining 50% of fire ignitions were lightning caused. One hundred percent of all fires that burned between 1950-1999 were smaller than 4 ha, while no fires were greater than 40 ha. The largest fire within the Park since 1950 occurred in 1958 starting just outside the current boundary and burning an area of 2722.3 ha.
Table 4 summarizes fire cause by decade and provides some interesting insight into the nature of fire within the Park. Through the 1950’ and 60’s no fires recorded within the Park boundaries. From the beginning of the seventies to present human caused fires have equaled those caused by lightning. The total number of fires by decade has been quite variable. Compared to other protected areas the numbers of fires within this Park have been quite low and have for the most part been inconsequential with the exception of the 1958 fire that started outside the boundary and burned into the protected area.
Table 3. Fire history summary for the Finger Tatuk Protected Area from 1950 - 1994.
|
Size Class
(ha) |
Total Number of Fires |
% of Total |
Lightning Caused |
Human Caused |
|
<1.0 |
8 |
80 |
5 |
3 |
|
1.0-4.0 |
2 |
20 |
- |
2 |
|
>4.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
10 |
100% |
5 |
5 |
Table 4. Summary of fire cause in Finger Tatuk
|
Decade |
Lightning |
Recreation |
Total |
|
1950-1959 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1960-1969 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1970-1980 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
|
1980-1989 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1990-1999 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Total All
Years |
5 |
5 |
10 |
Note: Numbers in parenthesis ( ) indicate percentage of total fires for a given decade.
Development of Forest Fire Hazard Ratings
Topographical and biological data generated from the
TRIM and forest cover databases were used to develop the fire hazard ratings
(Table 5 and 6). This forest fire hazard
rating s
Table 5. Terrain/Biological Variables used for Fire Hazard Assessment and Modeling in Finger Tatuk.
|
|
Variable |
Scale |
Weight |
|
Topography |
Slope |
< 10 |
2 |
|
|
(average percent) |
10 - 20 |
3 |
|
|
|
20 - 40 |
4 |
|
|
|
.> 40 |
5 |
|
|
Aspect |
3010 – 650 (N) |
2 |
|
|
|
660 – 1100 (E) |
2 |
|
|
|
1110 – 1500 (SE) |
4 |
|
|
|
1510 – 2400 (S) |
5 |
|
|
|
2410 – 3000 (W) |
4 |
|
|
Elevation |
800 – 920m |
5 |
|
|
|
921 – 1060 m |
4 |
|
|
|
1061 + m |
3 |
|
|
|
Levels - flat |
3 |
|
Biological |
Biogeoclimatic subzone |
SBSdw |
3 |
|
|
|
SBSmc |
4 |
|
|
|
ESSFmv |
2 |
|
|
Successional Stage |
Pioneer stage (1) 0-20 years old |
2 |
|
|
|
Pole sapling forest (2) 20 - 40 years old |
8 |
|
|
|
Young seral forest (3,4) 40 - 80 years old |
5 |
|
|
|
Mature seral forest(5-7) 80 – 150 years old |
4 |
|
|
|
Old growth (8.9) > 150 years old |
3 |
|
|
Species Composition |
Pinus contorta(PL) > 60% |
6 |
|
|
|
Abies lasiocarpa(BL and B), Picea engelmannii(S), Picea glauca(SW)> 60% |
4 |
|
|
|
40 - 60 % Deciduous(AC, AT, EP) and Picea mariana(SB) |
3 |
|
|
|
> 60% Deciduous(AC, AT, EP) and Picea mariana(SB) |
1 |
|
|
Crown Closure |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
1 - 35 |
1 |
|
|
|
36 - 45% |
2 |
|
|
|
46 - 55% |
3 |
|
|
|
56 - 65% |
4 |
|
|
|
> 66% |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6.
|
Hazard Class |
|
|
Low |
0-10 |
|
Moderate |
11-17 |
|
High |
18-24 |
|
Extreme |
>24 |
Rankings for topographical variables are based on the
effects of fire spread for slope and the climatic influence of aspect. Rankings for biogeoclimatic subzones are
related to historical fire evidence found in the literature and other studies. Successional stage, species composition, and
crown closure class are all stand level variables that describe the fuel
complex. The divisions for
biogeoclimatic subzones were arbitrary as no other
The fire hazard rating class for
a given polygon was based on the sum total of individual variable rankings, and
is summarized for the Park in the Fire Hazard Map (figure 7). The hazard code represents individual stand
susceptibility to fire on a landscape level, relative to other polygons. Some polygons had no forest cover data (e.g.
bogs and fens) and some forested polygons are missing key variables necessary
for the hazard evaluation. For these
polygons no hazard was calculated, and these areas are represented in white on
the forest fire hazard map. The
algorithm used to generate hazard was modified from the Mount Robson Ecos
Present Forest
The forest fire hazard map (figure 7) is a graphical representation of landscape-level fire hazard within the Park. The purpose of this hazard map is to provide a basis for presuppression planning, fire control, and as a decision-making aid for prescribe fire planning. The hazard map is a spatial representation of the relative variation of fire hazard in the Park and attempts to provide a framework for assessment of forest fire hazard. It is provided strictly for managers for risk assessment of prescribed fires, natural wildfires, and fire suppression resource requirements. The hazard assessment is not directly related to diversity and wildlife objectives although inferences about fire effects can be determined from this map. The rating scheme makes relative comparisons between stand types.
A large portion of the mappable
area was classified as having a high fire hazard (>8500 ha). In most cases these ratings correspond stands
with high stand densities and crown closure. A smaller portion of the mappable
area was classified as having a low to moderate fire hazard (<5,000 ha).
Past studies have shown high hazard areas correspond well with similar stand
types that have been affected by similar disturbance events (eg. blow down,
root rot, or historic fire). Field visits carried out in 2000 verified
similarities in stand attributes between high hazard polygons. In most cases
low ratings correspond with wetlands adjacent to streams, rivers, lakes, and
forest stands dominated by deciduous tree species. Extreme hazard ratings were associated with the
large fire along the eastern boundary of the protected area that burned in 1958. As discussed previously this area is
dominated by dense pole sapling stands that have a high degree of crown closure
with crown fuels right down to the ground surface. The extreme area within the
boundary is actually quite small encompassing an area of only 428 ha.
The anal
Figure 7. Fire Hazard Map of Finger Tatuk Protected area.
The Estimated Fire Cycle
Given the size of the park and adjacency concerns
the reintroduction of fire should be based on only prescribed fire, which attempts
to mimic natural fire cycles of the past. Prescribed fires, which meet specific
prescription criteria, should be used to remove fuel loadings (eg. blowdown or
dead beetle killed trees) and improve regeneration conditions. The fire cycle
is an estimate of the amount of time required to burn over an area equal to the
entire forested area being managed. This may not mean all stands burn as some
stands may burn more than once during the fire cycle. Fire cycle estimates provide an indication of
the timing and probability of fire related disturbance occurring within a
certain ecos
An approximation of the fire cycle operating within
this region can only be determined by a review of the species compositions, age
and distributions, and inferred from the biogeoclimatic zones and other
studies. Andison (1996) studying the
Sub-Boreal Zone suggested that wildfire in the past was probably the single
most significant force driving stand dynamics in this ecos
To aid in the selection and planning of species and
ecos
0 = No natural fire (or very little)
1 = Infrequent light surface fires (more than 25-year return intervals).
2 = Frequent light surface fires (1- to 25 year return intervals).
3 = Infrequent, severe surface fires (more than 25-year return intervals).
4 = Short return interval crown fires and severe surface fires in combination (25-100 year return intervals).
5 = Long return interval crown fires and severe surface fires in combination (100- year to 300-year return intervals).
6 = Very long return interval crown fires and severe surface fires in combination (over 300-year fire return intervals).
A fire cycle of 50-150 years (Heinselman Regime 4) is appropriate for the lodgepole pine and spruce forests of SBS zone. Within the ESSF zone of the Park fire regime 5 best approximates the fire cycle. This is a conservative estimate based on studies reviewed in the literature and the work of Andison (1996), Parminter (1993), and Parminter (1992).
Fire Weather
Fire weather data was obtained
from the Kulaks climate
station (1310) located in the vicinity of the Protected Area. The weather record for the station is short,
1982 to present. The daily historical record of 13:00 temperature,
precipitation, relative humidity, wind speed and all Canadian Fire Weather
Codes and Indices were obtained. The
digital file for the station was imported into an Excel spreadsheet where
variables could be summarized by month and year. The total number of da
1. Fine fuel moisture code (FFMC) > 88
2. Duff moisture code (
3. Drought code (DC) > 250
4. Initial Spread index (ISI) = 8
Summary graphs were also produced for the number of da
Some general observations from the summary include:
· Few periods were the mean and maximum drought code exceed 500
· Burning windows are generally short with few good opportunities between May and October
· Not every year provides a burning window within the prescription criteria outlined above
Figure 8. Mean and maximum August drought codes for Kluskus station
1310.
Figure 1.
Figure 9. Number of da
Figure
10. Number
of da
THE MOUNTAIN PINE
BEETLE (IBM )
Mountain Pine Beetle
Biology and Population Dynamics
The mountain pine beetle (
The mountain pine beetle, a native pest, is the most serious insect of mature pines in western Canada (Unger 1993). Mountain pine beetle is an extremely aggressive bark beetle attacking and killing older age, live lodgepole pine trees (Pl). In British Columbia, major outbreaks occur in all areas with a significant pine component, except for the northern quarter of the province (Unger 1993). The mountain pine beetle is distributed throughout British Columbia north to 56ř latitude (Unger 1993).
The
Epidemic infestations of the
In most years, populations of the
Development of Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Ratings
The susceptibility of lodgepole pine to mountain
pine beetle (
The stand descriptive data used to develop hazard
values within the Park were those provided in the forest inventory data
files. These forest inventory data files
do not contain estimates for tree diameters or stand densities. As these variables are necessary attributes
for defining the
The
HR = PSP * AF *
where; HR is the hazard rating or potential percentage mortality following an outbreak;
PSP is the percentage of susceptible pine within a stand;
AF is a stand age factor;
EF is an elevation factor.
AF,
The percentage of susceptible pine (PSP) can be calculated with the following formula;
PSP = (
where;
BAT is the basal area of all trees in the stand
The age class (AF), stand density (
Table 7. Criteria for Determining Potential Mountain Pine Beetle Productivity
|
Age Class |
AF |
|
3 |
0.3 |
|
4 |
0.6 |
|
5+ |
1.0 |
|
Density (Stems/ha) |
|
|
<250 |
0.1 |
|
250-750 |
0.5 |
|
751-1500 |
1.0 |
|
1501-2000 |
0.8 |
|
2001-2500 |
0.5 |
|
>2500 |
0.1 |
|
Elevation |
EF |
|
<800m |
1.0 |
|
800-1000m |
0.7 |
|
>1000m |
0.5 |
Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Assessment
The
In the next 20 to 40 years the
risk of pine beetle outbreaks within and adjacent to the protected area will
increase steadily due to increased susceptibility to Mountain pine beetle. It
would be prudent to continue to monitor for the occurrence of this pest in
conjunction with adjacent stakeholders, especially in high-risk areas.
Figure 11. Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard within and adjacent to Finger Tatuk.
Current Mountain Pine Beetle Incidence
Current incidences are scattered
throughout the protected area and in adjacent areas along all boundaries
(Figure 12). Ground surve
The current survey results are indicative of increasing beetle populations that have expanded both within and adjacent to protected area during the past five to six years. Until recently falling and burning has limited population growth. However, given the number of beetles coming out of the southwest and the continuing warm winters the region is experiencing, the effectiveness of single tree treatments has now come into serious question.
Figure 12. Incidence of
Relationship between Mountain Pine Beetle and Fire
The intimate relationship and
critical role that bark beetles and fire play in natural succession of
lodgepole pine forests has been well documented. These forests, which occupy
millions of hectares in the B.C. Interior, are generally even aged stands younger
than 100 years old. This is a result of periodic wildfires which follow high
mortality from bark beetle attacks (Fellin 1979; Mitchell and Martin 1980; Koch 1996; Price 1991; Schowalter et al.
1981) These forests have adapted to these natural rotations, which tend to
repeat every 100 years. Recent examples illustrating this cycle including the
1988 wildfires in Yellowstone Park, the 1961 wildfire in the Bitterroot
Mountain pine beetle outbreaks occur mainly in mature forests, which are 80-150 years old. These outbreaks subside when most of the large diameter trees are killed. The dead trees from these outbreaks then fuel subsequent fires that regenerate the stand (Amman 1990; Fellin 1979; Geiszler et al. 1980; Price 1991). It has been hypothesized that these two agents of disturbance interact to maintain the structure and function of pine forests. Fire regulates forest regeneration in space and time, which is necessary for the pine beetle, and the pine beetle regulates the turnover of patches of dead trees conducive to burning (Schowalter et al. 1981).
In the past, agents
of disturbance were viewed as a threat to the health of the valuable forest
resource. Therefore standard policy has been to suppress all wildfire and
eliminate forest pests. In pine forests this has resulted in unstable forests,
which are increasingly susceptible to ph
Managing forests by mimicking natural disturbances has become widely accepted. Prescribed fire is a management tool that mimics the ecological process, which has historically shaped these forests. Fire can kill forest pests or alter their habitat depending on the fire behavior and on the fuel characteristics.
There has been
mixed success using prescribed fire to control bark beetles. A heavily infected
25 ha Pl stand was clearcut and burned in British Columbia. It was found that
mortality was 100% in burned plots but 0% in unburned plots. As a result of the
fire there was a heavy
It has been
suggested that fire may weaken trees and therefore predispose them to beetle
infestation (Fellin 1979). Surve
Other observations
show that prescribed fire could be used to decrease stand density. This would
increase tree vigor and as a result reduce the severity of
Historically attempts to stop
insect outbreaks have been unsuccessful and expensive. An epidemic of
The risk of wildfires and insect
outbreaks are more easily reduced in commercial forests through intensive
silviculture such as precommercial and commercial thinning, and clear cut
harvesting before the stand becomes over mature (Koch 1996). As well, salvage
harvesting of infested stands and felling and burning techniques allows
managers to control
Mountain Pine Beetle Management and Treatment
Given the current hazard, and the incidence of
beetles which have heavily attacked significant areas of pine both within and
adjacent to the park, fall and burn treatments are no longer considered
effective in limiting
Falling and burning on a small scale has a limited impact on the conservation goals of BC Parks. However when these treatments are conducted over larger scale areas they have the potential to alter stand structure through removal of standing snags, reducing inputs of coarse woody debris, and through creation of numerous gaps that are not part of the normal succession pathway within these stands. At a large scale fall and burn treatments can influence fuel dynamics and resultant fire severity which may be undesirable within a protected area. Figure 13 represents a schematic that compares natural stand dynamics to those following extensive fall and burn treatments.
Figure 13. Schematic comparing natural stand dynamics to conditions following fall and burn treatments.
Given the current incidence levels and the potential negative impacts of extensive falling and burning “Monitor” and “Abandon” are the recommended strategies for the protected area. Specific treatments may be applied in areas of human safety concerns and for mitigation of damage and loss in campgrounds and high-use areas. Any management activities aimed at controlling the beetle will only “buy time” to reduce short-term negative effects on Park management objectives. Current beetle populations are at a level where they can no longer be controlled (except in very limited areas) with the use of single-tree or patch treatments.
In the long-ter
WILDLIFE HABITAT
Limited
The winter cariboo habitat within the protected area is primarily rated as moderate (figure 14). The pole sapling area along the eastern boundary of the protected area has a habitat ranking of nil providing little forage opportunity for this species.
For mule deer and moose the pole sapling forests along the eastern boundary of the protected area are identified as moderate (mule deer) and high (moose) habitats (figure 15 and 16). The remainder of the protected area provides low to nil habitat values for these species. These habitat attributes are primarily a function of forest age and the relationship to available forage. In most of the protected area the forest is mature to old and provides little forage that can be considered valuable to these ungulates. Management of these species should be focused on limiting motorized traffic along the eastern boundary of the PA to established roads. Road access only in this area may help to limit the hunting pressure in this small area of moderate to high habitat. Local observations in the vicinity of the burn along the eastern boundary have suggested the number and diversity of fur bearers (including lynx) and other small mammals has significantly increased over time in this region of the PA.
As discussed previously there is
no site series ecos
Figure 14. Cariboo winter habitat Finger Tatuk protected area.
Figure 15. Moose winter habitat Finger Tatuk protected area.
Figure 16. Mule Deer winter habitat Finger Tatuk protected area
FISHERIES
Fisheries and lakeshore management is one of the key resource management areas identified in the Vanderhoof LRMP (1997). Two major objectives were identified:
1.
Manage for
salmon values in the Chilako River
§ Maintain or improve water quality.
§ Improve fish passage in the watershed.
§ Support stream channel assessment to identify potential barriers to fish migrations and remove or facilitate where appropriates.
§ Support a minimum flow study.
§ Retain riparian reserves along specified stream channel reaches in high.
§ Retain riparian reserves along specified stream channel reaches in high fisheries sensitivity areas or channels identified as having stream temperature concerns.
2. Manage lakes south of Tatuk Lake for high quality sport fishing values.
§ Maintain access restrictions
§ Recommend limiting motorized access to ATV’s, snowmobiles and aircraft
§ Promote sport-fishing restrictions through regulations.
Both Finger and Tatuk Lakes have abundant rainbow trout and kokanee up to two pounds. The group of small lakes south of the Tatuk hills has very high values for rainbow fly-fishing and some contain large trophy trout. They are presently accessed by walk in trails, and sensitive to fishing pressure. The fisheries resource between Finger and Tatuk Lakes are considered particularly important as they provide high value habitat, with a food source from runs of spawning fish in Finger, Tatuk, and Lavoie Creeks and several unnamed tributaries.
The management objectives related to fisheries within the protected area should be focused on the maintenance of the forested riparian zones along all fish bearing creeks and tributaries and at the outlets to each of the lakes (see Figures 17 and 18). Maintenance of these zones will limit fluctuations in stream temperature, provide large organic debris important to stream morphology and integrity, and stabilize stream channel banks limiting inputs of undesirable sediments and debris. The following are recommended management guidelines that should be followed to protect these important riparian zones. They include:
· Map and classify all fish bearing streams within the protected area identifying riparian management zones to the standard of the BC Forest Practices Code.
· Limit the use of falling and burning within identified riparian management zones. Where treatments are deemed absolutely necessary use MSMA as an alternative to fall and burn to maintain snags and input of CWD.
· Consider falling and burning when human safety concern has been identified.
Figure 17. Overview of riparian forest along Finger Creek.
Figure 18. High value fisheries stream between Finger and Tatuk Lakes.
IMPORTANT CULTURAL AND RECREATION FEATURES
A number areas within the protected area are considered significant for cultural and recreation values. These include the following:
·
Archaeological
sites used by the Carrier Indians around both lakes, which includes several
subterranean lodges.
· The Kluskus, Nazko, and Sai’Kuz (Stoney Creek) creeks kokanee fishery.
· Historic fur farming and trapping conducted during the 1930’s.
· The use of the 124th Meridian survey cut for Frontier Cattle Company drives.
Additional cultural and recreational features of the protected area including visual resources, recreation resources, historic sites, and areas of important biodiversity are located on Figure 19. The figure highlights a number of features in the protected area that can be negatively impacted by disturbance. Figure 20 shows an overview of the lodge on Tatuk Lake. The primary consideration in the management of these areas is that public safety is maintained following disturbances such as fire and insects. Therefore sites frequently visited should be assessed each year to identify hazards that pose a significant threat to public safety. In addition to public safety protected area management objectives should focused on the maintenance of important historic and visual resources.
Where public safety is not considered a management issue disturbance management should be focused on maintenance of important conservation features identified in the Figure 19.
Figure 20. Overview of the lodge on Tatuk Lake.
PRESCRIBED BURNING
Where historical emphasis on fire suppression has
resulted in a shift in the age-class distribution, prescribed burning can be considered
as an alternative form of management to reduce the severity of insect
outbreaks, increase diversity and to decrease fuel loading. The protected area
age class distribution has shifted away from younger seral stages to mature and
older forests as a result of fire suppression. This reduction in young seral
stages has the potential to effect many species and communities that are
dependent on wildfire for nutrient cycling, removal of competition,
reproduction and enhancement of habitat. The long-term implications of a shift
from young to old seral stages include decreasing forest health, increasing
fuel accumulations, and a reduction in wildlife habitat. The continued
accumulation of fuel increases the probability that future fires will exhibit
more extreme behaviour, will be more difficult and expensive to control, and
may reduce the long-term ecos
It has been shown that the spread of infestations by forest pests leads to a buildup of fuels (Amman 1990; Fellin 1979; Price 1991). In high risk stands, prescribed burns can also be used as a tool to reduce this fuel buildup. Using prescribed burning to decrease fuel loads has been used with considerable success in parts of the United States (Lotan et al. 1983; Pyne 1982). As a result of this treatment, management has been successful in reducing fire intensity and rate of spread as well as the resistance to control of wildfires.
The uncertainty that exists
concerning the effects of fire on the forest pests is one reason that prescribed
burning is not widely used as a management tool. Many managers are reluctant to
use this tool as they have been trained to view it as a waste of a resource.
Also a lack of education causes skepticism from the public. Finally, there is
the risk of the fire escaping and damaging surrounding structures and healthy
stands. Based on our current state of knowledge, prescribed fire should be
viewed more holistically in its use as a park management tool. Given that a
large amount of uncertainty that exists around controlling insect outbreaks,
prescribed fire should be considered more for it’s long-term benefits of ecos
Within Finger Tatuk the current
age class distribution does not warrant the use of prescribed fire. If a
significant area (>1000 ha) is significantly impacted by
Fuel Reduction or Manipulation Options
In site specific situations where any form of burning is undesirable, it may be necessary to treat an area through mechanical methods or by manipulation of stand structure and tree species composition. This approach may be applied where a stand type poses a significant fire hazard, rare or endangered fauna or flora are threatened by competing vegetation, and/or when stand attributes do not meet current management objectives. Stand manipulation treatments can include chipping of downed surface fuels, removal of standing dead fuels (snags) and spacing and pruning in areas where high stand density is undesirable.
The reduction of fuel accumulations in and around campgrounds is required to safeguard the public. Reducing fuels in and around Park structures and facilities provides improved conditions for fire control. Fuel reduction or manipulation options available to park management within areas not suitable for prescribed burning include the following:
· Reduction of fuel loadings by mechanical removal of surface and standing aerial fuels. This would include chipping of downed coarse woody debris, removal of standing dead fuels (snags), and spacing and pruning in areas where high stand density are considered a hazard.
· Manipulations of stand structure and tree species composition to improve stand stability and reduce long-term fuel accumulations.
Reduction in the mass of fuel reduces the potential energy release per unit of biomass thereby reducing fire intensity. Mechanical fuel manipulation also has the potential to alter fire behavior by changing the fuel complex from one that is susceptible to crown fires to one that maybe more susceptible to surface fires, thus improving conditions for fire control efforts.
Mechanical treatments have several limitations that restrict their application to small-scale areas. Firstly, treatment costs are expensive ranging from $1500 to $8,000 per hectare depending on the nature of the area being treated. Secondly, there is little to no ecological benefit since removal of vegetation biomass has the potential to reduce the nutrient capital of the site and may remove trees that could become important wildlife habitat or coarse woody debris.
No
Treatment
A final option available to park
managers is to allow the
Evaluation of Prescribed Fire Options
The key to any evaluation of the use of prescribed fire in a park or protected area is the management objectives used to make a decision on where and when to burn. The overall objectives that have been identified for the evaluation of prescribe burning within Finger Tatuk include:
· Conservation or enhancement of biodiversity
· Protection of recreation and aesthetics
· Protection of public safety
· Reduce potential liabilities
· Minimize costs
· Improve knowledge
Each proposed area should be evaluated by B.C. Parks staff and Ministry of Forest District and Protection staff based on the following criteria;
· Fires must be consistent with Park Management Plan objectives
·
Fires have the potential to reduce the area
susceptible to
· Fires would increase the area of younger age-class forests.
· Fires have the potential to reduce landscape level fire hazard by reducing fuel loads.
· Fires have the potential to create forage areas for ungulates.
· Fires would not impact important fisheries values and habitat important to protected area wildlife.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Biodiversity
Wood (1999) described protected areas as the cornerstone of conservation biology, indicating that conservation of biodiversity is one of the primary management goals for B.C. Parks. He described biodiversity as an environmental condition. Prescribed burning has the potential to change that environmental condition by altering the landscape level age-class distribution. The extent of this alteration is dependent on the size of the burned area and the present age-class distribution. Recent studies in the Mountain Parks indicate that montane forests in these parks are significantly older than their historic distributions and burning any of this area will result in a greater distribution of younger forests.
Recreation and Aesthetics
The impacts of prescribed fire on park use must be considered to alleviate conflicts. Burning may result in the temporary closure of some areas or activities for short periods of time. Burn areas may affect park visitors wishing to view wildlife or park scenery. Additionally, fires may create smoke management concerns that impair the visual quality of the park. In general the impacts of prescribed fire on recreation and aesthetics are temporary and short-lived.
Public Safety
A key aspect of any burn should address safety issues related to park staff and the public. Public safety considerations include residents living in adjacent communities, park visitors, and those using the forests adjacent to the park. Fire fighter safety is also a key consideration in the implementation of any prescribed burn program.
Liability
Liability associated with prescribed fire can be described as both the legal liability and the potential damage to public relations associated with fire management activities. Liability associated with fire management activities can be related to escaped fires that cause damage to adjacent landowners, negligence, or both. Negligence may results from starting the fire or from a lack of ability to control it. Damage costs can extend from simple rehabilitation to costly repairs of facilities and structures. Other areas of liability concern can be related to health concerns or loss of business opportunities associated with smoke.
Costs
Efficient planning, implementation, and mop-up activities must be the goal of any prescribed burning operation. As an agency of the crown, B.C. Parks is entrusted with the wise use of public funds and the maximization of benefits associated with those funds. Any strategy should look at the long and short-term economic impacts. Other economic impacts of prescribed burning may be a reduction in future suppression costs and a reduction in program costs including training, prevention, and detection.
Knowledge
Our experience with the application of prescribed
fire in protected areas and Parks is limited. Therefore it is critical that the
impacts of fire on different ecos
Technical
The implementation of any prescribed burning strategy is predicated on the likelihood of success. Weather conditions prior to and at the time of the burn must provide suitable fire ignition and behavior conditions that minimize the probability of escape, but are satisfactory to achieve burn objectives. A sound burning prescription is critical to achieving objectives while at the same time ensuring public safety and environmental protection.
Social
Consideration must be given to implications of smoke
management and its impact on park visitors. Any burn has short-ter
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
|
Management Issue |
Objectives |
Recommendation |
|
|
Ecos |
Maintenance of seral stage diversity |
· Based on harvesting related changes taking place outside the protected area boundary, it is recommended that maintenance of current seral stage distribution within the protected area be a high priority. · It is recommended that any disturbance to the mature forest stage be limited. |
|
|
|
Protection of human life and property from fire |
· Any fires ignited in the protected area are cause for concern. Some areas of the park, particularly along the eastern boundary between Finger and Tatuk Lakes, are considered high hazard due to the risk of human ignition. The proximity of these areas to popular recreation sites and the limited road access for evacuation mean that fires pose a moderate to high risk to public safety. · Fire control in the area would be difficult given current stand type characteristics and associated fuel accumulations in some stands. It is recommended that an effective public awareness program for Park visitors be developed in conjunction with good fire prevention, detection and initial attack strategies for the protected area. |
|
|
|
Reintroduction of fire into the forest ecos |
·
Given the size of the park and adjacency
concerns, it is recommended that the reintroduction of fire to the P.A. ecos |
|
|
|
Management of mountain pine beetle ( |
·
The risk of ·
Given the current hazard and the incidence of
beetles which have heavily attacked significant areas of pine both within and
adjacent to the park, fall and burn treatments are no longer considered
effective in limiting ·
It is recommended that beetle treatment
resources to suppress/hold the · Specific treatments may be applied in areas where human safety is a concern and for mitigation of damage and loss in campgrounds and high-use areas. ·
It is recommended that prescribed fire be
considered in the long-term as an alternative treatment but only if the |
|
|
|
Maintenance of important cultural and recreational features |
· Figure 19 highlights a number of features in the protected area that can be negatively impacted by disturbance. The primary consideration in the management of these areas is that public safety is maintained following disturbances such as fire and insects. It is recommended that sites are visited frequently and assessed each year to identify hazards that pose a significant threat to public safety and to the preservation of important historic and visual resources. |
|
|
|
Maintenance of wildlife populations and habitat. |
· Access within the protected area should be controlled in order to reduce hunting pressure. It is recommended that future access be limited to the lake sites. ·
Currently no site series ecos |
|
|
|
Maintenance of moose and mule deer habitat |
· The pole sapling forests along the eastern boundary of the protected are identified as moderate (mule deer) and high (moose) habitats. Management of these species should be focused on limiting access by motorized traffic to established roads along the eastern boundary of the protected area. Road access only to this area may help to limit the hunting pressure in this small area of high habitat value. |
|
|
|
Establish the importance of the protected area to Grizzly bears |
· Given the importance of grizzly bear conservation in the province, it is recommended that more habitat inventory and research be undertaken to establish the importance of this protected area to grizzly bear management. |
|
|
|
Management of Fisheries for salmon, sport fishing and ecos |
· Fisheries management should focus on the maintenance of the forested riparian zones along all fish bearing creeks and tributaries, provide large organic debris important to stream morphology and integrity, and stabilize stream channel banks limiting inputs of undesirable sediments and debris. · Map and classify all fish bearing streams within the protected area identifying riparian management zones to the standard of the BC Forest Practices Code. ·
It is recommended that all trees be retained
in the riparian reserve zone. In the case of · Consider falling and burning when human safety concern has been identified. |
|
REFERENCES
Amman, G.D. 1990. Bark beetle associations in the Greater Yellowstone Area. In:
Proceedings of the fire and the
environment symposium: ecological and cultural perspectives. Knoxville TN, 1990
Mar. 20. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69.
Amman, G.D. 1978. Biology, ecology and causes of outbreaks of the mountain pine
beetle in lodgepole pine forests. In: Berryman, Amman and Stark (eds.). Symposium, theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole pine forests. Washington State Univ. Pullman. p.39-53
Amman, G. D. and W. E. Cole.1983. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine
forests. Part II: Population
dynamics USDA For. Serv. lntermtn. For. & Range Exp. Sta, Ogden. UT,
Andison, D.W. Managing for landscape patterns in the sub-boreal forests of British
Columbia. Ph.D. Dessertation, University of British Columbia. 195 p.
Anonymous. 1995. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Southwestern Region
USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. R-3-95-3. 19pp.
Antos, Joseph A. and James R. Habeck. 1981. Successional development in Abies grandis (Dougl.) Forbes
forests in the Swan Valley, western Montana. Northwest Science 55(10):26-39.
B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd., Ke
Forest Management Services Ltd.,
Oikos Ecological Services Ltd., and Phero Tech Inc. 1996.
Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecos
Cattelino, P.J., I.R. Noble, R.O. Slayter and S. R. Kessell.
1979. Predicting the multiple pathwa
succession. Envir. Mgt. 3(1):41-50.
Dahlsten, D.L., and D.L. Rowney. 1983. Insect pest
management in forest ecos
Environ. Manage. 7:65-72
Day, R.J. 1972. Stand structure, succession, and use of southern Alberta’s Rocky
Mountain forest. Ecology 53(3):472-478.
Fellin, D.G. 1979. A review of some interactions between harvesting, residue
management, fire and forest
insect and diseases. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep.
Furniss, R. L. and V.M. Carolin. 1980. Western forest insects. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service. Miscellaneous Publication 1339.
Forestry Canada. 1992. Selected forestery statistics. Forestry Canada Information
Report EX-44.
Gara, R.I., D.R. Geiszler, W.R. Littke. 1984. Primary attraction of the mountain pine
beetle to lodgepole pine in Oregon. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 77(4): 333-334
Geiszler, D.R., R.I. Gara, C.H. Driver, V.H. Gallucci and R.E. Martin. 1980. Fire, fungi,
and beetle influences on a
lodgepole pine ecos
Geiszler, D.R., R.I. Gara and W.R. Littke. 1984. Bark beetle infestations of lodgepole
pine following a fire in South Central Oregon. Zeitschrift-fur-Angewandte-Entomologie. 98(4): 389-394
Heinselman, M.L. 1978. Fire intensity and frequency as factors in the distribution and
structure of northern ecos
Koch, P. 1996. Lodgepole pine commercial forests: an essay comparing the natural cycle
of insect kill and subsequent wildfire with management for utilization and
wildlife. USDA For. Ser. Gen.
Tech. Rep.
Lotan,J.E., J,K, Brown and L.F. Neuenschwander. 1983. Ecology and regeneration of
lodgepole pine. Agric. Handb. No.606, U.S. Dep. Agric. Sci. Educ. Adm.
Kulmer, M.L. 1969. Plant succession on the sand dunes of the Oregon Coast. Ecology 50(4):425-443.
Mitchell, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1980. Fire and insects in pine culture of the Pacific
Northwest. pp.182-190. In: Proceedings of the sixth conference on fire and forest
meteorology. Seattle, Washington, 1980 Apr 22. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C.
Parminter, J. 1992.
Old-growth forests: problem anal
Forests, Victoria, B.C.
Parminter, J. 1993.
Fire and biomass in Banff
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Price M.F. 1991. An assessment of patterns of use and management of mountain forests
in Colorado, USA: implications for future policies. Transformations of mountain
environments, 11(1): 57-64
Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America. Princeton University Press
Rasmussen, L.A., G,D, Amman, J.C. Vandygriff, R.D. Oakes, A.S. Munson and K.E.
Gibson. 1996. Bark beetle and wood borer infestation in the Greater Yellowstone area
during four postfire years. USDA
For. Ser. Res. Pap.
Richmond, H.A. 1986. Forest Entomology: Fro
of Forests, Pest Management Report 8
Romme W.H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone
Romme, W.H. and D.H. Knight. 1981.Fire frequency and subalpine forest succession
along a topographic gradient in Wyoming. Ecology 62(2):319-326.
Safranyik, L, et al. 1974. Management of lodgepole pine to reduce losses from the
mountain pine beetle. Can. For. Serv., Pac. For. Res. Cent., Victoria, B.C., For. Tech. Rept. 1, 24 pp.
Schmid, J.M. and D.L. Parker. 1990. Fire and forest insect pests. pp.232-233. General
Technical Report RM 191. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Schmid, J.M. and G.D. Amman. 1992. Dendroctonus beetles and old-growth forests in
the Rockies, pp. 51-59. In: Kaufmann, M.R., W.H. Moir, and R.L. Bassett (tech. coord.). Old-growth Forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions, Proceedings of a Workshop. USDA For. Ser., Rocky Mountain For. and Range Exp. Stn. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-213, 201 p. Ft. Collins, CO.
Schowalter, T.D., R.N. Coulson and D.A. Crossley. 1981. Role of the southern pine
beetle and fire in maintenance of structure and function of the southeastern coniferous forest
Shore, J. L and L Safranyik. 1992. Susceptibility and risk rating stands for the mountain
pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. Forestry Canada. Pacific and Yukon Region. Info. Rept. BC-X-336, 12 pp.
Stock, A.J. and R.A. Gorley. 1989. Observations on a trial of broadcast burning to control
an infestation of the mountain pine beetle dendroctonus ponderosae. Canadian Entomologist. 121(6):521-523
Unger, L. 1993. Mountain Pine Beetle. Forestry Canada Forest Pest Leaflet 76.
Wickman, B.E. 1990. The battle against bark beetles in
34. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech.
Rep.
Young, C. 1988. Coming of age in the Flathead: How British Columbia’s Forest Service
contended with the mountain pine
beetle infestation of southeastern B.C. 1976-1986. British Columbia Ministry of Forsts, Pest
Management Report.
About B. A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd.
We are Canadian forestry consultants dedicated to providing high quality, cost-efficient professional forestry and environmental management services. We have diverse experience in a range of forest management disciplines and are at the forefront of Canadian forestry and forestry practice in BC.
We are
based in
Sustainable Forest Management
We have diverse experience in a range of forest management
disciplines. Services include: Forest Fire
Management, Forest Engineering,
Silviculture,
Bioenergy,
Forest
Health, Pine
Beetle, Danger Tree and Windthrow
Management, Timber Valuation,
Forest Practices
Audits, Forestry Research.
Forest
Ecology & Ecological Restoration
Our foundation is forest ecology. Our strength is the
application of this knowledge to natural resource management and ecological
restoration. We have planned and implemented ecological restoration activities
for degraded ecos