REVISED ECOSYSTEM-BASED UNGULATE HABITAT MODELS FOR BOUNDARY TSA AND TFL 8 PREPARED BY Dennis L. Hamilton, RPBio Nanuq Consulting, Nelson, BC Steven F. Wilson, Ph.D, RPBio. EcoLogic Research, Gabriola Island, BC Kathleen McGuinness Touchstone GIS Services, Nelson, BC PREPARED FOR International Forest Products Limited Grand Forks, BC March 2009
15
Embed
REVISED ECOSYSTEM-BASED UNGULATE HABITAT MODELS …a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r16358/... · REVISED ECOSYSTEM-BASED UNGULATE HABITAT MODELS FOR BOUNDARY TSA AND TFL 8
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
REVISED ECOSYSTEM-BASED UNGULATE HABITAT
MODELS FOR BOUNDARY TSA AND TFL 8
PREPARED BY Dennis L. Hamilton, RPBio
Nanuq Consulting, Nelson, BC
Steven F. Wilson, Ph.D, RPBio.
EcoLogic Research, Gabriola Island, BC
Kathleen McGuinness
Touchstone GIS Services, Nelson, BC
PREPARED FOR International Forest Products Limited
Grand Forks, BC
March 2009
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8
ii
Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................. ii
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... ii
Figure 1: Biogeoclimatic zones found in the Boundary TSA. and TFL 8. ..................................... 5
Figure 2: 2004/05 and 2006/07 Ungulate Snow Track Count Survey Transects in Boundary TSA
and TFL 8 ................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 3: 2009 Ungulate Snow-track Count Survey Transects in Boundary TSA and TFL 8........ 7
Figure 4: Bayesian belief network model for mule deer, elk and moose winter habitat suitability
for Boundary TSA and TFL 8. The capability model was the same except that there were no
nodes for Age, Structural Stage and Canopy (these were constant in the capability model). . 8
Appendices
Appendix 1: Ecosystem-based Habitat Capability Map for Deer................................................. 11
Appendix 2: Ecosystem-based Habitat Capability Map for Elk................................................... 12
Appendix 3: Ecosystem-based Habitat Capability Map for Moose ............................................. 13
Appendix 4: Ecosystem-based Habitat Suitability Map for Deer ................................................. 14
Appendix 5: Ecosystem-based Habitat Suitability Map for Elk ................................................... 15
Appendix 6: Ecosystem-based Habitat Suitability Map for Moose .............................................. 16
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8
4
Introduction
In support of their sustainable forest management planning framework, Interfor (formerly Pope
& Talbot) adopted the ecosystem-based wildlife-habitat model approach (Resources Inventory
Committee 1999) for mapping of ungulate winter habitats. This has led to development of
species-habitat models for deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus) and moose (Alces
alces) for the Boundary TSA and TFL 8 (Wilson and Hamilton 2008) and TFL 23 (Hamilton and
Wilson 2002a) and for mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus) on TFL 23 (Hamilton and Wilson
2002b).
The Wildlife Habitat Ratings method is one of the few available that addresses both habitat
suitability and capability (thereby providing the basis for future habitat supply modelling),
captures broad knowledge, and can use empirical data (where available) to test and adjust
ratings. In additional, subsequent maps can be updated easily when additional work warrants
changes to base maps coverages or wildlife-habitat models.
Both expert knowledge and recent empirical data from sample plot characteristics (Hamilton
and Torrans 2008) and winter track encounter survey data (Stent and Hamilton, in prep.) were
used in improving the wildlife habitat ratings. We used a revised methodology based on
Bayesian Belief Network modelling to generate revised ratings tables, with the goal of making
the generation of wildlife-habitat models more defensible and transparent.
Methods
Study Area
Boundary TSA and TFL 8 are located in the Arrow-Boundary Forest District in south-central B.C.
The TSA encompasses approximately 580,000 hectares and includes the communities of Grand
Forks, Beaverdell and Greenwood. TFL 8 consists of 77,456 hectares of crown land and fresh
water and in the Boundary Creek area north of Greenwood and the Trapping Creek and Carmi
Creek drainages north of Beaverdell. Communities in the vicinity of TFL 8 include Grand Forks,
Greenwood, Midway, Rock Creek, Westbridge and Beaverdell (Figure 1).
The western portion of the TSA is the Northern Okanagan Highland ecosection which is drained
by the Kettle River. This ecosection consists of a rolling highland with wide, deep, north-south
valleys. In the eastern portion of the TSA, drained by the Granby River, is the Selkirk Foothills
ecosection, which is characterized by subdued mountain terrain with wide, north-south valleys
and trenches. The Southern Okanagan Highland ecosection consists of a narrow band along
the Canada-US border. This ecosection is characterized by east-west valleys with rounded
forested hillsides on north facing slopes and open grasslands on south slopes (Quesnel and
Thiessen 1993, Meidinger and Pojar 1991).
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8
5
Figure 1: Biogeoclimatic zones found in the Boundary TSA. and TFL 8.
The climate is arid to sub-humid continental with warm summers and cool, snowy winters. In
the past, natural forest fires were common. Large animals, notably mule and white-tailed deer,
moose, elk and black bear are prevalent throughout the area, along with numerous smaller
animals, reptiles, amphibians and birds.
The area is ecologically diverse, with ecosystems ranging from low-elevation, dry rangelands in
the south, to relatively wet, high-elevation Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir (ESSF) parkland
forests. The forests are predominately mixtures of Douglas-fir, larch, lodgepole pine and
ponderosa pine types at lower and mid elevations, and lodgepole pine, and spruce/balsam
types at the higher elevations. Ecologically they occur primarily in the Montane Spruce (MS),
Interior Douglas-fir (IDF), and Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) biogeoclimatic zones (Braumandl
and Curran 2002).
Annual precipitation in the vicinity of the TFL ranges from about 30 to 127 centimetres
(increasing with elevation) with drought periods frequently as long as 80 days. The frost-free
period may last from only 20 to 100 days. Because of low humidity, droughts, and frequent
thunderstorms, the summer season is often characterized by extreme fire hazard.
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8
6
Field Data
Development of the original draft wildlife-habitat models for deer, elk and moose (Wilson and
Hamilton 2008) was based on knowledge gained during two seasons of ungulate winter snow
track count surveys (Stent and Hamilton 2007; Figure 2). This winter range distribution and use
data were supplemented by summer field investigations of the habitat characteristics of
ungulate winter range habitats identified from the snow track count surveys (Hamilton and
Torrans 2008). Additional ungulate snow track count surveys were completed over a broader
landscape in winter 2009 (Stent and Hamilton, in prep; Figure 3).
Figure 2: 2004/05 and 2006/07 Ungulate Snow Track Count Survey Transects in Boundary TSA and TFL 8
Revisions to Ecosystem-based Habitat Models
The development of the earlier wildlife-habitat ratings for deer, elk and moose on Boundary
TSA an TFL 8 were based on Bayesian Belief Network models, using Netica 3.24 (Norsys
Software Corp.) and are described in Wilson and Hamilton (2008). As reported, the structure of
the wildlife-habitat models allow for new information to be incorporated more quickly,
ensuring that management is always based on the most robust information available. This
report incorporates new knowledge gained through additional field data attained from
ungulate winter snow track count surveys, further analysis of data and additional knowledge
gained from related winter and summer field sampling.
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8
7
Figure 3: 2009 Ungulate Snow-track Count Survey Transects in Boundary TSA and TFL 8
Revisions were made to ratings for several non-forested site series; most importantly, ratings
of site series associated with open range ecosystems, cultivated fields and clearings were
adjusted to reflect the expected abundance of rooted forage. This increased the suitability of
these areas for both deer and elk.
Revisions to Map Database
The map database was changed as follows:
• age class for shrub-dominated ecosystems and NSR (not sufficiently re-stocked) forest
cover was adjusted to age class 1 to reflect the composition of the ecosystems;
• ICHdm1 was changed to ICHmk1 because of an assumed error in the ecosystem
coverage (ICHdm1 does not exist);
• the following substitutions were made for BEC subzone variants without defined site
series (R. Waterous, pers. comm.):
o ICHdw2 – used ICHdw site series
o IDFxh4 – used IDFxh1 site series
o MSdm1a – used ICHmk1 site series
• Several other site series were substituted for unknown map codes, based on site
descriptions
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8
8
Results and Discussion
Inputs for the winter ungulate capability and suitability habitat models (Figure 4) included:
• biogeoclimatic subzone variant (BECLABEL; based on the provincial biogeoclimatic
mapping, version 6)
• Site Identification (Braumandl and Curran 2002; Braumandl and Dykstra 2005)
• DBO TEM (Oikos Ecological Services 2000 and Biome Ecological Consultants 2004)
• DBO PEM (Timberline 2003)
• TSA forest cover – VRI data from GeoBC (April 2008)
• TFL 8 forest cover (coverage from Randy Waterous)
• Slope and aspect grid (zonal majority processing by Tom Koftinoff)
Basing the wildlife-habitat models for mule deer, elk and moose on Bayesian belief networks
(Figure 4) has been described in detail as part of development of ungulate habitat models for
Boundary TSA and TFL 8 by Wilson and Hamilton (2008) and for ungulate habitat models,
including mountain caribou, for TFL 23 (Wilson and Hamilton 2007).
Figure 4: Bayesian belief network model for mule deer, elk and moose winter habitat suitability for Boundary TSA and TFL 8. The capability model was the same except that there were no nodes for Age, Structural Stage and Canopy (these were constant in the capability model).
Capability is defined as the ability of the habitat, under optimal natural (seral) conditions for a
species to provide its life requisites, irrespective of the current condition of the habitat. It is an
estimate of the highest potential value of a particular habitat for a particular species (RIC 1999).
The ecosystem-based habitat capability maps for deer, elk and moose are found in Appendices
1-3.
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8
9
Suitability is defined as the ability of the habitat in its current condition to provide the life
requisites of a species. It is an estimate of how current habitat conditions meet the specified
life requisites for a specified species – suitability is frequently less than the capability because
of unfavourable seral conditions (RIC 1999). The ecosystem-based habitat suitability maps for
deer, elk and moose are found in Appendices 4-6.
The strengths of the more objective Baysian belief network basis for assigning habitat ratings to
ecosystem units, compared to the tradition approach of manually populating wildlife habitat
tables is also discussed in the habitat model reports by Wilson and Hamilton (2007, 2008) and
others (McNay 2006, Nyberg et al 2006) . In summary, the original intent of the wildlife-habitat
ratings system was to capture expert knowledge, rather than to explicitly model relationships.
In this respect, the manual approach is entirely justified. However, over time it has become
evident that the ratings methodology must become more rigorous, transparent and repeatable
if it is to be used to map wildlife habitat in relation to ecosystem maps.
The Bayesian belief network models were still based on expert knowledge; however, they have
the advantage of explicitly documenting the interactions among variables that were considered
in developing the ratings. There is still room to improve the models; for example, forage
capability in the deer, elk and moose models was still based entirely on an expert
interpretation site series descriptions. This could be made more explicit by incorporating
directly into models variables related to key forage species and correlates of their abundance.
Acknowledgements
Funding for the project was provided by the Forest Investment Account through Interfor, Grand
Forks, BC. We thank Sandra Cheverie as contract manager. Randy Waterous provided
ecosystem mapping files, assisted with interpretation of PEM mapping codes and provided
review of an earlier draft. Tom Koftinoff processed slope and aspect grid data used in the
mapping.
Hamilton, D., S.F. Wilson and K. McGuinness. Ungulate Habitat Models For Boundary TSA and TFL8