Foothills Model Forest

Natural Disturbance Program

1996-2000

N

A l b e r t a

Weldwood of Canada

FMA

Willmore

Wilderness Area

Study Area = Foothills Model Forest +

ANC

N

Jasper

National

Park

Provincial &

Municipal Lands

Alberta Newsprint

Co.

AlpineCentral MixedwoodLower Foothills

MontaneSub-alpineUpper Foothills

Ecological Zones of the Study Area

What’s the Big Deal about

Disturbance?

What processes shape forest patterns?

- geomorphology

- climate

- tree species traits

- disturbance

What’s the Big Deal about

Disturbance?

What processes shape forest patterns?

stable influence - geomorphology

stable influence - climate

stable influence - tree species traits

source of instability - disturbance

The study of disturbance tells us a lot

about how and why forest landscapes

are dynamic

= “natural range of variation”

Of What Value is the Natural Range of

Variability?

THEORETICAL: Template for maintaining biodiversity

through emulation of “natural” first order ecological

patterns.

Species are ecologically and evolutionarily adapted to

the historical range of patterns. If we learn from, and

use natural patterns as a template, we are more likely to

conserve biodiversity over the long term.

Of What Value is the Natural Range of

Variability?

PRACTICAL: Develop and defend management

strategies based on historical precedent

TRANSLATION: “Pattern” is quantifiable

--> allows translation to planning

--> use in monitoring programs

The FMF Natural Disturbance

Program

• Began from a common desire among partners

to maintain biological diversity.

• Formation of a team of land management

representatives + principle scientist.

• Allowed for direct and constant contact

between the science and the questions

being asked

Organization of NDP

Program Coord. & Science - David Andison, Bandaloop

Program Biologist - Kris McCleary, Bandaloop

Program Team: - Hugh Lougheed, Weldwood

- Alan Westhaver, JNP

- Don Harrison, AEP

- Dan Farr, Foothills Model Forest

- Greg Branton, ANC

Collaboration Formal - Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.

- Forestry Canada, NOFC.

- LFS, Edmonton Fire Centre

- Western Fire Centre

- Banff National Park

Informal - FMF Criterion & Indicators

- PA Model Forest

- MacGregor Model Forest

- Forestry Canada, PFC

- UBC

- University of Wyoming

- University of Colorado

The FMF Natural Disturbance

Program

Strategy Develop a multi-year research program driven by

operational needs that allows the separation of

processes according to scale for investigation, and

the integration of project results for interpretation.

This strategy is outlined in greater detail in the long-term

research project plan (25+ possible projects)

“What are the historical, “natural”

disturbance patterns on the Foothills

Model Forest?”

“What are the historical, “natural”

disturbance patterns on the Foothills

Model Forest?”

Stand replacing or stand maintaining?

Patch size distribution?

How are patch shape and size related to non-forested?

Range of seral-stage percentages?

Numbers and sizes of island remnants?

Edge architecture? Dead standing?

Coarse woody debris?

Patch shape distribution?

Change in structure through riparian strips?

Topographic “hot” and “cold” spots?

How many disturbance regimes are there?

Within-stand age cohorts?

The ND Program Includes Many Projects,

Defined by Scale

Region - Foothills Model Forest

Landscape - Upper Foothills

Natural Sub-region

Disturbance - Gregg River Burn

Stand - Remnant island

PATTERN

APPLICATION

PROCESS

FUNCTION

The FMF Natural Disturbance Program

Focuses on Pattern and Process

Each Annual Workplan is

Developed From:

PRIMARY

• Practical partner needs and priorities

• Scientific possibilities (long-term research plan)

SECONDARY

• Findings from previous, internal research

• Other related research

• The status and progress of each project

• Feedback from experiments, users

Getting it “On the Ground”

• Province-wide workshop, March 1999

• Working with team members to interpret

and integrate in preparing plans and

activities.

• Presentations, working papers, one-on-

one, tours, mini-workshops, reports,

manuscripts, …..

Project Example #1:

Managing Age-Class Distributions

on the Weldwood FMA

Practical Question:

What amounts of old growth forest are

appropriate to manage for on the FMA over the

long term from a biodiversity perspective?

Scientific Question:

What are the natural, historical levels of all seral-

stage percentages over the last 2-300 years?

Non-forested

Year of stand origin<18501851 - 19001901 - 19501951 - 1996No data

1950 Age-Class Distribution of the

Foothills East

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1950 1910 1870 1830 1790 1750 1710 1670 1630

Age-Class of Origin

Perc

en

t o

f A

rea

Subalpine East

Upper Foothills

Lower Foothills

Older Forest as of 1950 on the

Weldwood FMA

Landscape %>300 yrs %>200 yrs %>100 yrs

Lower Foothills 0 0 16

Upper Foothills 0 4 21

Subalpine east 2 15 45

Note that these represent “natural” percentages

of older forest.

HOWEVER, despite high data quality, the

description of age-class “pattern” is limited by

the sample size (1).

So far….

• High degree of confidence that most stands are

even-aged, and therefore well represented by age-

classes.

• Distinctive levels of young, mid-seral, and old

growth forest in each natural subregion.

Estimates of Original Areas Disturbed on

the Weldwood FMA in 20-year Periods

Period Lower Upper Sub east

1930-1949 2 2 1

1910-1929 11 8 15

1890-1919 11 22 23

1870-1889 53 51 27

1850-1869 55 36 4

1830-1849 67 47 27

1810-1829 6 1 4

Project the Range of Disturbance

Rates Over Time, Across the FMA

• Spatially explicit disturbance model

(LANDMINE)

• Equations derived from “rollback” estimates

of 20 year disturbance rates.

• Equations for disturbance.

• Random number generator.

• Initial conditions.

0

25

50

75

100

Y P M O

AC Distribution

Landscape in 1950 - Initial Condition

AC Distribution

0

25

50

75

100

Y P M O

Landscape in 20 Years?

0

25

50

75

100

Y P M O

AC Distribution

Landscape in 20 Years?

0

25

50

75

100

Y P M O

AC Distribution

Landscape in 100 Years?

0

25

50

75

100

Y P M O

AC Distribution

Landscape in 100 Years?

Older Forest as of 1950 on the

Weldwood FMA

Landscape %>300 yrs %>200 yrs %>100 yrs

Lower Foothills 0 0 16

Upper Foothills 0 4 21

Subalpine east 2 15 45

The simple answer.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent Area >200 Years

Fre

qu

en

cy

4%

Projected Historical Range of Area for the Mature Seral-Stage of the Upper Foothills

The more precise answer.

Older Forest as of 1950 on the

Weldwood FMA

Landscape %>300 yrs %>200 yrs %>100 yrs

Lower Foothills 0 0 16

Upper Foothills 0 4 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent Area 101-140 Years

Fre

qu

en

cy

1995

(48%)

1950

(16%)

Projected Historical Range of Area for the Mature Seral-Stage of the Lower Foothills

Amount of mature

forest in the Lower

Foothills in 1995 is

beyond the “natural

range of variability”

Original Question:

What amounts of old growth forest are appropriate to

manage for on the FMA over the long term from a

biodiversity perspective?

Answer:

There is no single amount of old growth forest that is

more “natural” than many others.

Using a combination of empirical research and

simulation modeling Weldwood now has a series of seral-

stage ranges of natural variation with which to compare

long-term planning projections.

Example #1 Summary

Project Example #2:

Disturbance Events and Patch Sizes

Practical Question:

What is an ecologically appropriate way to design

harvesting blocks within operating areas?

Scientific Question:

How do natural disturbance patches arrange

themselves in space?

The simpler scientific question

often is “what is the natural range

of patch sizes”

… but this does not fully address

the original practical question.

Young Forest Patch Size Distribution on

FMF Landscapes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<1

1-4

0

40-

80

80-2

00

2-60

0

600-

1,00

0

1-2,

000

2-5,

000

5-10

,000

10,0

00+

Forest Patch Size Class (ha)

Perc

en

t A

rea

Montane

Subalpine JNP

Subalpine East

Upper Foothills

Lower Foothills

Creating patch-size

distributions is not difficult.

Young Forest Patch Size Distribution on

FMF Landscapes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<1

1-4

0

40-

80

80-2

00

2-60

0

600-

1,00

0

1-2,

000

2-5,

000

5-10

,000

10,0

00+

Forest Patch Size-Class (ha)

Perc

en

t A

rea

Montane

Subalpine JNP

Subalpine East

Upper Foothills

Lower Foothills

Comparing patch-size

distributions is not difficult.

13 Patches 8,886 ha

15 Patches 28 ha

54 Patches 697 ha

76 Patches 1,163 ha

… but forested patches cluster to form disturbances

28 Ha Burnt

38 Ha Event

1,163 Ha Burnt

1,325 Ha Event

697 Ha Burnt

1,422 Ha Event

8,886 Ha Burnt

10,856 Ha Event

Disturbance vs. Event

Original Question:

What is an ecologically appropriate way to design

harvesting blocks within operating areas?

Answer:

A combination of patch sizes, disturbance sizes, and

event sizes accurately describe the design of historical

disturbances. Each can be quantified and directly

translated into harvest block design.

Example #2 Summary

Project Example #3:

Island Structure Within

Disturbances

Practical Question:

What is an ecologically appropriate way to leave

islands within harvest blocks?

Scientific Question:

How much, and where are unburnt island

remnants left by fire naturally?

Greg River Burn

8,886 ha Burn (1956)

13 Disturbed Patches

over 8,415 ha

326 Remnant Islands

covering 471 ha

Island Remnants Example

ISLAND = Any contiguous area of same-

aged forest that survived the last stand-

replacing disturbance.

DISTURBANCE = A collection of young

forest patches created from the same event.

EVENT = The greater area of a

disturbance (formed by a collection of

forest and non-forest patches)

Total Area in Island Remnants by

Disturbance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 500 1000 1500

Gross Disturbance Size (ha)

Pe

rce

nt

of

Gro

ss

Are

a in

Is

lan

ds

AVERAGES 12 %

Island Remnants per Patch

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 500 1000 1500

Patch Size

No

. o

f Is

lan

ds

Increases with Patch Size

Areas in Island Remnants

5,117 Islands in the entire sample dataset

… most are very small.

4,225 islands <1 ha

466 islands 1-2 ha

350 islands 2-10 ha

67 islands 10-100 ha

4 islands > 100 ha

Island Remnant Types

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30Total area in islands (%)

Perc

en

t o

f is

lan

d a

rea b

y

typ

e

100% live

50-99% live

5-49% live

Original Question:

What is an ecologically appropriate way to leave islands

within harvest blocks?

Answer: Another combination of factors:

- Leave anything between 4-20% of the block area in islands.

- The larger the block, the more islands to leave.

- Make the largest island about 1/3 of the total area allowed in

islands.

- Most of the islands are very small (<1 ha).

- Most islands should be at least partially disturbed.

Example #3 Summary

What are we Missing?

In example #1, we have already resolved other

practical issues together with Weldwood to create a

workable solution that is still ecologically sound.

In examples #2 and #3, those practical issues

(economics, public acceptance, groundrules, etc)

have yet to be integrated into workable solutions.

This is where we need to work together.

The Future

By the end of this year, over half of the projects identified

in the long-term research plan will be completed. Of

those that remain, many are related to experimentation,

and simulation.

- Complete outstanding research projects

- Adaptive experimentation

- Increased education, communication

- More workshops, more “hands on” integration

- Provide bridges to other projects

- Encourage ecological response research activities.

- KEEP TALKING AND THROWING OUT IDEAS.