2006 RSM CI Workshop

1. 2006 RSM CI Workshop Laurel Point Inn Feb 28 March 1

2. The answer is ….. 53

3. Trivia • 5% of all reserves were floaters • 37% were internal (58% on the edge) • 20% of blocks had Vets – of those ~ 32 Vets per block • 69% of patches <2ha (31% bigger)

4. Overall 19% retained but……

6. CWD Sampling Accuracy • McCrae et al; (1979) (from Van Wagner – Practical Aspects of the Line Intersect Method) recommended 90 m. CWD line transect per 20 ha. (4.5m/ha.) From 2005 sampling: 21,840 m/6,916 ha gross area ~ 3.2 m/ha

7. Tree Sampling Accuracy • MOFR cruise manual – 15% sampling error, or … 1 plot per ha 2SE ________ mean

9. Estimating within plots • precision and accuracy of estimating heights and diameters? • Review of Q/A data – comparison of measured to estimated heights

11. Vision • enough cutblocks sampled in a landscape unit • baseline data for each subzone variant in the LU • landscape level biodiversity assessment complete • Representation, interior habitat, road density… • ..celebrate • species work

12. Continuous Improvement • Why does the assessment ask for a Professional Opinion? • Indicators used are surrogates. • Compared to Baselines. • Humans are great integrators and ecological systems are varied. • Ultimately your opinion is a check against how the model scores the cutblock.

13. Continuous Improvement • Should we have the assessor answer a series of questions? • Does the retention represent the pre harvest stand? • Yes No If no what is different? • Does the retention capture rare elements? • Yes No If no what elements are missing? • Has the retention been distributed through the cutblock in a way that will benefit wildlife? • Yes No explain?

14. Continuous Improvement

15. Continuous Improvement • What are Innovative Forest Practices? • Innovation – Something newly introduced, a new method, device.

16. Continuous Improvement • Has the licensee used a practice not normally seen in the district that may be beneficial to biodiversity? Yes No If yes describe…. • Could create a list… but • Is stubbing innovative? Used quite widely in areas of the interior… but might be an innovation on the coast. • Fungal inoculation… Innovation… Yes… but unless you have the prescription or the block has a sign up will be difficult to know. • Cavity creation…. Has been tried but not implemented widely… would fit the innovative practice.

17. Continuous Improvement • Volume Calculation – • Evaluation – focused on structural attributes that we believe are reasonable indicators of “Biodiversity” • Premise – If you maintain the range of structural attributes you will lifeboat species through the next rotation. • Emphasis not on volume but quality of structures… legacies… number of large tall dead trees etc.

18. Continuous Improvement

19. Ecological anchors • What are they? • Plot based assessment of rare elements (you don’t find them) • statistically viable way to assess rare elements (i.e. cluster sampling)

20. Time on block versus accuracy • Dispersed retention and importance of stratification . • Small patches - how many 0.1 ha patches do we need to sample anyway? • Should we keep track of time and manpower spent on block?

21. Proposal for card changes

22. SLBD dataContinuous Improvement • Map with plot numbers noted • Patches on map – no form B • Edge patch on map – not in gross

23. Reserve summary covers complete block • Separate reserve summaries – no lumping

24. Unique (simple) reserve ID for each area • Commercial thinning – DT • No more DU (DO will do) • If any RRZ/RMZ call it PR or DR

25. Missing heights (but only 4%) • Creative tree species (not too bad) • Missing header info (where does this plot belong?)

26. Please list trees on stand table (rather than comments) • Try to avoid the multi-card stand tables

27. Check your logic – a WT class 1, 50 cm dbh pine – 5 metres tall? • There was one mirage plot! (OK – no more)