British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range SQUAMISH FOREST DISTRICT Forest Health Strategy April 28, 2010 André Germain, RPF District Manager Squamish Forest District Date Prepared by: Andrea Lyall, RPF Stewardship Forester, Squamish Forest District Paul Filippelli, RFT Geomatics Technician, Squamish Forest District Kevin Haberl, RPF Operations Manager, Squamish Forest District Ben Andrew, RPF BA Blackwell Consultants Nicole Jeans-Williams ForHealth Consulting Technical Advisors: Don Heppner, Forest Entomologist Jeff Hallworth, Invasive Plant Specialist Stefan Zeglen, Forest Pathologist ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................................................................................1 FOREST HEALTH ACTIVITIES IN THE SQUAMISH FOREST DISTRICT ...........................................................................1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION - SQUAMISH FOREST DISTRICT ...................................................................................2 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................................................4 FOREST HEALTH CONDITIONS IN THE DSQ ...............................................................................................................4 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ................................................................................ 6 DEFINITIONS ..............................................................................................................................................................6 LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................................................................7 PRIORITY INVASIVE PLANTS ......................................................................................................................................7 MANAGEMENT: .........................................................................................................................................................9 Education .............................................................................................................................................................9 Inventory and Early Detection .............................................................................................................................9 Set Invasive Plant Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................................................9 Planning and Prevention.................................................................................................................................... 10 Proactively revegetating disturbed areas........................................................................................................... 10 Treat the Priority Species................................................................................................................................... 10 Monitoring and Reporting.................................................................................................................................. 10 PRIORITY FOREST HEALTH PESTS IN DSQ .................................................. 10 PEST PROFILES ................................................................................................ 13 VERY HIGH PRIORITY PESTS ................................................................................................................................... 13 Laminated Root Rot, Phellinus weirii (DRL) ..................................................................................................... 13 Armillaria Root Rot, Armillaria ostoyae (DRA) ................................................................................................ 15 Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (IBM) .................................................................................. 16 Western Spruce Budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis (IDW).......................................................................... 20 White Pine Blister Rust, Cronartium ribicola (DSB) ......................................................................................... 25 HIGH PRIORITY PESTS ............................................................................................................................................. 27 Douglas-fir Beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae (IBD) ..................................................................................... 27 Spruce Beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis (IBS)................................................................................................... 30 Annosus Root Rot, Heterobasidion annosum (DRN) ......................................................................................... 33 Hemlock Dwarf Mistletoe, Arceuthobium tsugense (DMH) ............................................................................... 34 Douglas-fir Needle Cast, Rhabdocline pseudotsugae (DFR) ............................................................................. 36 Balsam Woolly Adelgid, Adelges piceae (IAB) .................................................................................................. 36 Spruce Weevil, Pissodes strobi (IWS) ................................................................................................................ 37 Western Gall Rust, Endocronartium harknessii (DSG) ..................................................................................... 39 Mammals (A) ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 Fire (NB) ............................................................................................................................................................ 39 MEDIUM PRIORITY PESTS ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Swiss Needle Cast, Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii (DF) ...................................................................................... 41 Pine Needle Cast, Lophodermella concolor (DFL) ........................................................................................... 41 Black Stain Root Rot, Leptographium wageneri var pseudotsugae (DRB) ........................................................ 41 Western balsam bark beetle, Dryocoetes confusus (IBB) .................................................................................. 42 Western Hemlock Looper, Lambdina fiscellaria lugubrosa (IDL)..................................................................... 44 Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar (IDM) ............................................................................................................... 45 LONG TERM PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .............................. 45 FOREST HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS IN THINNING, VARIABLE RETENTION AND CONVERSION TO MULTI-AGED STANDS AND WILDLIFE TREE PATCHES................................................................................................. 46 iii TREE WOUNDS AND DECAY ORGANISMS ................................................................................................................ 46 WINDTHROW ........................................................................................................................................................... 46 ROOT ROT ............................................................................................................................................................... 47 HEMLOCK DWARF MISTLETOE ................................................................................................................................ 47 DEFOLIATORS .......................................................................................................................................................... 47 IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FOREST HEALTH ...................... 48 PRIORITY PESTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 50 Western Spruce Budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis (IDW).......................................................................... 51 Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae (IBM) .................................................................................. 51 Spruce Beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis (IBS)................................................................................................... 52 Douglas-fir Beetle, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae (IBD) ..................................................................................... 52 Pathogens ........................................................................................................................................................... 52 DSQ SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................... 53 IMPLICATIONS OF FOREST HEALTH FOR THE TIMBER SUPPLY REVIEW (TSR3) LATE 2009 PROCESS FOR SOO TSA . 53 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 54 FACILITATE TRAINING AND EXTENSION PROGRAMS IN RELEVANT AREAS OF FOREST HEALTH ................................. 54 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 54 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 55 RECOGNIZE AND REPORT SUSPECT CLIMATE CHANGE RELATED ISSUES ................................................................... 55 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 55 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 55 MAINTAIN DETAILED AERIAL DETECTION AND GROUND SURVEY PROGRAMS .......................................................... 55 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 55 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 56 HEIGHTEN AWARENESS OF INVASIVE PLANTS AND IMPROVE REPORTING BY FOREST MANAGERS ............................ 56 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 56 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 56 ENCOURAGE LONG TERM AND PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND TACTICS AT THE LANDSCAPE UNIT LEVEL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 57 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 57 EVALUATE RESULTS OF CURRENT FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................ 57 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 57 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 57 SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................ 58 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 58 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 58 COMMUNICATE WITH, AND INVOLVE FOREST MANAGERS OUTSIDE THE DSQ OFFICE, IN FOREST HEALTH ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................................................ 59 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 59 Potential Activities ............................................................................................................................................. 59 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 60 APPENDIX 1 – REFERENCE MATERIAL ......................................................... 66 APPENDIX 2 – LEGISLATION AND POLICY SUPPORT.................................. 68 PROGRAM DELIVERY ............................................................................................................................................... 69 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 70 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of Acronyms in This Document ............................................................ vi Table 2. Ministry of Forests and Range - Pest Species Codes ............................... vii Table 3. Summary of affected area mapped from the 1999 to 2009 Provincial Aerial Overview in the DSQ............................................................................ 5 Table 4. Summary of Area Mapped during the 2008 Aerial Overview in DSQ .......... 5 Table 5. Priority Invasive Alien Plants Relative to High Risk Sites in the DSQ ....... 7 Table 6. Ranking of Priority Pests in the DSQ ......................................................... 12 Table 7. Host Tree Species of Phellinus ................................................................... 13 Table 8. Landscape level hazard rating for Phellinus by BEC unit in the DSQ ...... 14 Table 9. Landscape level hazard rating for Armillaria by BEC unit in the DSQ ..... 15 Table 10. Disease treatment thresholds for Armillaria in BC coastal forests ........ 16 Table 11. Mountain Pine Beetle in DSQ from 1999 to 2008 ..................................... 17 Table 12. Western Spruce Budworm population 1999 to 2008 ............................... 21 Table 13. Host Tree Species of Western Spruce budworm ..................................... 21 Table 14. Total years and area (ha) of defoliation from 1943 to 2004 by BEC Units in the DSQ. .................................................................................................... 22 Table 15. Douglas-fir Beetle Populations in DSQ 1999 to 2008 .............................. 29 Table 16. Spruce Beetle Populations in DSQ 1999 to 2008 ..................................... 31 Table 17. Hazard rating for hemlock dwarf mistletoe in the DSQ ........................... 34 Table 18. Spruce Weevil risk for Sitka Spruce by BEC Unit in the DSQ ................. 37 Table 19. Fire in the Soo TSA (excludes TFL and parks) 1999 to 2008 .................. 39 Table 20. Western Balsam Bark Beetle Populations ............................................... 44 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Squamish Forest District (DSQ) 2 Figure 2. Mountain Pine Beetle Populations in the DSQ (Source: 1999 - 2008 Provincial Aerial Overview survey). ............................................................ 18 Figure 3. Severity of Western Spruce Budworm in DSQ (Source: 1999 to 2008 Provincial Aerial Overview survey). ............................................................ 21 Figure 4. Area defoliated by western spruce budworm from 1943 to 2004 in the DSQ ............................................................................................................... 22 Figure 5. Area infested by Douglas-fir beetle in the DSQ in 1999 to 2008.............. 28 Figure 6. Spruce Beetle Populations in the DSQ 1999 to 2008 ............................... 32 Figure 7. Historic Fire in the Squamish Forest District ........................................... 39 Figure 8. Balsam Bark Beetle Severity in DSQ 1999 to 2008 .................................. 43 Figure 9. Area affected in BC forests by the 6 most damaging forest insect pests, 1972 to 1990 (taken from Harding 2005, adapted from Harding 1994) ...... 49 v Table 1. List of Acronyms in This Document BEC BMP BMU CFR CWH DBH DSQ FHIS FHS FIA FREP FRPA FPC IAPP IDF IPCC MFR MH SSISC SOP TFL TSA TSR WCA Biogeoclimatic zone Best Management Practices Beetle Management Unit Coast Forest Region Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone Diameter at Breast Height Squamish Forest District Forest Health Implementation Strategy Forest Health Strategy Forest Investment Account FRPA Resource Evaluation Program Forest and Range Practices Act Forest Practices Code Invasive Alien Plant Program Interior Douglas-Fir biogeoclimatic zone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Ministry of Forests and Range Mountain Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone Sea-to-Sky Invasive Species Council Standard Operating Procedures TFL 38 Soo TSA Timber Supply Review Weed Control Act vi Table 2. Ministry of Forests and Range - Pest Species Codes A AB AD AE AM D DF DFG DFL DMH DR DRA DRB DRL DRN DSB DSG IAB I IAB IB IBB IBD IBM IBS IBT IBW ID IDH IDL IDW Animal Damage Bear Deer Elk Moose Diseases Swiss Needle Cast (Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii) Cottonwood Leaf Rust (Melampsora occidentalis) Pine needle cast (Lophodermella concolor) Hemlock Dwarf Mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense) Root Disease Armillaria Root Disease (Armillaria ostoyae) Black Stain Root Disease (Leptographium wageneri var pseudotsugae) Laminated Root Rot (Phellinus weirii) Douglas-fir strain Annosus Root Disease (Heterobasidion annosum) White Pine Blister Rust (Cronartium ribicola) Western Gall Rust (Endocronartium harknessii) Balsam Woolly Adelgid (Adelges piceae) Insects Balsam Woolly Adelgid (Adelges piceae) Bark Beetles Western Balsam Bark Beetle (Dryocoetes confusus) Douglas-fir Beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Spruce Beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) Red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) Western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis) Defoliators Western Blackheaded Budworm (Acleris gloverana) Western Hemlock Looper (Lambdina fiscellaria lugubrosa) Western Spruce Budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) ISP/ISQ Northern pitch twig moth (Petrova albicapitana) / Sequoia Pitch Moth Synanthedon sequoiae Spruce Weevil (Pissodes strobi) Non Biological (Abiotic) Injuries Fire Flooding Drought Slide Windthrow Root Rot Timber Harvesting Land Base IWS N NB NF ND NS NW RT THLB vii INTRODUCTION This document comprises the first iteration of a Forest Health Strategy (FHS) for the Squamish Forest District (DSQ) and will be incorporated into the comprehensive Regional Forest Health Strategy for the Coast Forest Region (January 2008). A FHS is required for all Timber Supply Areas (TSA) in BC. However, at this time, strategies for TSAs within the Coast Forest Region are covered by the Regional Forest Health Strategy. For the purposes of this report, “damaging agents” will refer to the following that negatively affect forest health and resilience: forest insects, pathogens, mammals, and abiotic damaging agents such as fire and wind. In addition, a section is added to in include the affects of invasive plant species on forest health. Goals and Objectives District level roles and responsibilities are outlined in the Forest Health Implementation Strategy (BC MFR, March 2007) and detail the Ministry of Forest and Range’s (MFR) provincial mandate. The DSQ specific objectives and goals of this FHS are: 1. List the locally important priority forest health pests with the use of provincial overview survey information. 2. Rank each pest and describe specific management objectives for priority forest health pests. 3. Describe the extent to which the pests occur. 4. Identify the tactics, issues and strategies to address the identified forest health concerns, which particularly apply to DSQ. Forest Health Activities in the Squamish Forest District 1. Monitor forest health i.e. develop detailed aerial detection and ground survey programs as required. 2. Budgeting and prioritization of forest health projects. 3. Document how the impacts of the forest health pests affect the Timber Supply Review process for Soo TSA (TSR3). 4. Analyze climate change related forest health risks. 5. Heighten awareness of invasive plants issues and improve reporting by land managers. 6. Identify steps for managing invasive plants in DSQ provincial Crown land using principles of the Invasive Plant Management Program. 7. Encourage long-term and proactive management strategies and tactics for best management practices and operational plans. 8. Communicate with the forest licensees and other stakeholders outside the forest district office about forest health activities. 9. Give feedback to forest licensees about Forest Investment Account (FIA) criteria. 1 10. Develop a Haylmore ecosystem restoration area. 11. Facilitate forest health training. This plan does not expire. It will be reviewed periodically as part of an adaptive management approach to forest management. Reviews will be completed jointly by district and regional staff. The dynamic nature of the document will allow for the incorporation of new management options, changing pest status as new information is obtained and prioritization of activities according to current objectives and pest impacts. Background Information - Squamish Forest District This FHS is applicable to the area within the Squamish Forest District (DSQ). The DSQ covers approximately 1.1 million ha in south-western BC and is located 60 kilometres north of Greater Vancouver (Figure 1). Figure 1. The Squamish Forest District (DSQ) 2 The DSQ covers approximately 1.1 million hectares in southwestern British Columbia and is comprised of the Soo Timber Supply Area (TSA), Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 38, and several small area-based forest tenures. Parks and protected areas within the DSQ have an area of approximately 270,000 ha or 24%. Based on Timber Supply Review 2, the TSA has an annual allowable cut (AAC) of 503,000 m3/year. Included in this cut allotment to forest and range agreement tenures that have a volume based non-replaceable cut of 261,219 m³ over 5 years. BC Timber Sales is the largest licensee in DSQ. The DSQ has three types of area based forest tenures that are managed separately from the Soo TSA: TFL 38, 11 Woodlot licensees and the Cheakamus Community Forest. The cut also supports eight major replaceable forest licensees: Northwest Squamish Forestry Ltd., Squamish Mills, Terminal Forest Products (so to become Blackmount), Halray Logging, CRB logging, Richmond Plywood Corporation, Creekside Resources Ltd., In-SHUCK-ch Development Corp. In-SHUCK-ch, Lil’wat, N’quatqua, Squamish and Tsleil-waututh Nations each have a Forest and Range Agreement with the DSQ. The forests are dominated by amabilis fir (Abies amabilis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). There are smaller areas consisting of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), western white pine (P. monticola), whitebark pine (P. albicaulis), red alder (Alnus rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa). The DSQ is primarily in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH dm, ds1, ms1, vm1 and vm2) biogeoclimatic variants along the valleys, with a band of Mountain Hemlock (MH mm1 and mm2) at high elevations (900m to 1,650m elevation) and Alpine Tundra (AT) (1,650m and higher). The northeast portion of the TSA also has areas of Interior Douglas Fir (IDFww) and Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir (ESSF mw). The DSQ is equivalent to the plan area of the Sea-to-Sky Land and Resource Management Plan (Sea-to-Sky LRMP) (BC MAL April 2008). The Sea-to-Sky LRMP provides direction for planning and management of natural resources and a framework to resolve land use issues. The Sea-to-Sky LRMP process is consistent with provincial government policy for land use planning. The Sea-to-Sky LRMP built upon the recommendations put forward by a public planning forum, a range of resource sectors, and outcomes of government-to-government agreements between the Province and First Nations. The Sea-to-Sky LRMP provides current a future direction and guidance for the development of the entire DSQ. There are three main communities in within the TSA boundary: District of Squamish (Squamish), Resort Municipality of Whistler (Whistler), and Village of Pemberton (Pemberton). 3 There are numerous small communities: Lions Bay, Furry Creek, Britannia Beach, D’Arcy, Mount Currie, Baptiste Smith, Birken, Black Tusk Village, Devine, Port Douglas, Paradise Valley, Pinecrest, Porteau Cove, Frank’s Place, Sachteen, Skatin, Tenas Narrows, Tipella. Jurisdiction This FHS is primarily focused to give strategic direction to the Soo TSA, most of which has volume-based forest tenures. It is understood that TFL 38 has direction from the Forest Act section 35d.iv.(E) that “licensees must propose management objectives regarding forest health, including pest management”. Forest Health Conditions in the DSQ Annual provincial overview flights have been carried out by the MFR regional office to provide indications of insect and disease occurrences in provincial forests since 1999 (information has been compiled and summarized in this FHS). These flights are conducted using fixed wing aircraft and give an indication of areas where insects are attacking, severity of attack and changes in insect populations over time. Survey results are limited to visible impacts; usually in the DSQ records are made of bark beetle and defoliation activities. Ground surveys have occurred by DSQ staff and consultants in areas of high attack when resource and funding have allowed. 4 Table 3. Summary of affected area mapped from the 1999 to 2009 Provincial Aerial Overview in the DSQ Mt. pine beetle Spruce beetle W. balsam bark beetle Douglas-fir beetle W. spruce budworm Abiotic Diseases 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2,678 1,871 1,484 3,585 3,660 7,173 11,006 11,921 16,848 7,778 2,222 449 218 278 1,257 1,253 255 670 832 98 105 21 61 437 0 0 0 0 130 360 4,545 2,187 226 16 0 2 6 16 1,166 482 266 208 212 76 0 0 267 1,543 9,206 4,183 2,907 7832 18,702 50 708 973 0 0 78 112 0 5 69 77 94 2,225 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 277 317 211 Table 4. Summary of Area Mapped during the 2008 Aerial Overview in DSQ Bark Beetles Mountain Pine Beetle Spruce Beetle W. Balsam Bark Beetle Douglas-fir Beetle Total All Bark Beetles Defoliators Defoliators W. Spruce Budworm Total Defoliators Other Fire Flooding Slide Total Abiotic Disease Unknown Root Disease Laminated Root Disease Total Diseases Trace Light 1,284. 7 3,559.2 14.8 249.0 88.4 3911.2 1,904. 0 121.6 3310. 3 Severity Rating Moderate Severe Very Severe 2,349.7 90.4 2440.1 553.5 Severe 31.3 38.8 7,778.4 105.2 2186.6 212.0 10282.1 0.3 0.0 .3 49.8 50.1 10.3 26.0 2.0 581.5 7.6 .3 0.0 49.8 49.8 0.0 10.0 0.0 39.1 11.7 27.2 66.3 0.0 73.2 213.1 286.3 5.6 5.6 0.8 24.8 25.5 10.0 Total 7.6 17.9 49.3 11.7 34.8 94.2 0.0 74.0 243.4 317.4 5 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES Invasive plants often exhibit aggressive growth and typically out-compete indigenous plant species in new habitats. As a result, invasive plants are difficult to control and can adversely affect BC's natural resources. Invasive plant species are a significant threat to biodiversity. All resources occurring on infested lands are impacted to some degree by these invasive plant species, whether it is the loss of productive forage, browse for wildlife and livestock, biodiversity or loss of aesthetic values. The socio-economic impact to the province is large, and therefore efforts to reduce these impacts through prevention and control are an integral part of managing Crown land. In March 2009, the Sea-to-Sky Invasive Species Council or the “SSISC” was formed with the intent of becoming the local/regional weed committee for the area, but with the added mandate of coordinating management of other known invasive species besides just plants e.g. gypsy moth, grey squirrel, American bullfrog. The Sea-to-Sky corridor was the last geographical region in the province to develop an Invasive Plant Species Council. The SSISC has six founding Directors that collaborate with local municipalities, First Nations governments, forestry consultants, landscapers, farmers, and naturalists. Two DSQ staff acted as advisory roles for the start up on this new non-profit organization. As a result of this last year’s work, the SSISC now has a 5-month job opportunities program that supports a crew of 5 full-time staff responsible for inventorying and eradicating weeds. Definitions The terms “alien”, “invasive” and “noxious” are commonly confused and misinterpreted. Within the context of the FHS, the following definitions will be used to distinguish them. Alien plants are those species that establish in locations outside their indigenous (historic) range or distribution. They did not exist in DSQ prior to European settlement. Synonyms for alien include non-native, exotic, and introduced. Although introduced, most alien plant species incorporate with the native flora and generally are not considered problems. Invasive plants are plants alien to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive plants reproduce rapidly, either vegetatively, by seed or both. Their phenomenal reproduction and growth rates and lack of indigenous predators or pests allow invasive plants to overwhelm and displace existing native vegetation, often creating dense monocultures. The establishment and spread of invasive plants can directly affect many areas, biodiversity, water quality, fish habitat, forage quality and quantity, recreational opportunities, soil nutrient and hydrologic cycling, forest regeneration, and fire regimes. Numerous invasive plant species require disturbance for their seeds and/or plant propagules to germinate and grow, and most take advantage and rapidly spread in native plant communities that are under stress from drought, overuse, trampling, compaction, etc. One of the main means of spread in coastal BC is through the sale of invasive garden ornamentals and then improper disposal into natural areas such as parks, ravines and water courses. The term invasive plant is synonymous 6 with invasive alien plant. Invasive plants are regulated on provincial Crown forest and range lands under the Forest & Range Practices Act - Invasive Plant Regulation. Noxious weeds refer to those plant species (and their seeds) designated “noxious” under BC’s Weed Control Act (WCA). All of these species are a primary threat to agriculture, although some also pose a risk to native ecosystems. It is illegal to sell WCA-listed species commercially. WCA is administered by the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and pertains to listed species on both public and private land. Legislation The Invasive Plant Council of British Columbia has produced a document that outlines legislation as it pertains to invasive plants and their management within the Province. See: http://invasiveplantcouncilbc.ca/publications/ipcbc-reports/IPC3-LegislativeGuidebook.pdf Priority Invasive Plants MFR’s Coastal Invasive Plant Specialist has identified the IDFww biogeoclimatic (BEC) variant as being a high risk site at the landscape level within the DSQ. Invasive plant species are ranked by priority classes, as shown in the following table 5. Generally, high priority invasive plant species are considered the most persistent and the most difficult to manage. MFR’s Coastal Invasive Plant Specialist has identified the IDFww as being a high risk biogeoclimatic (BEC) variant at the landscape level within the DSQ. At the local level, riparian, wetland, estuaries, open ecologically significant terrestrial areas (including forest gaps), private farms and rangelands are highly likely to include to priority invasive plants as follows: Table 5. Priority Invasive Alien Plants Relative to High Risk Sites in the DSQ High Priority Riparian, Wetland, Estuary Invasive Plants Bohemian Knotweed Fallopia x bohemica Butterfly Bush Buddleja davidii Cutleaf Blackberry Rubus laciniatus Garden Loosestrife Lysimachia vulgaris Giant Hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum Giant Knotweed Fallopia sachalenensis Himalayan Blackberry Rubus armeniacus (discolor) Himalayan Knotweed Polygonum polystachum Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica Poison Hemlock Conium maculatum Policeman's Helmet Impatiens glandulifera Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 7 Yellow Flag Iris Iris pseudacorus High Priority Open Terrestrial, Pasture and Rangeland Invasive Plants Blueweed Echium vulgare Brown Knapweed Centaurea jacea Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Burdock (Common) Arctium minus Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense Carpet Burweed Soliva sessilis Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare Dalmatian Toadflax Linaria dalmatica Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa Gorse Ulex europaeus Hairy Cat’s Ear Hypochaeris radicata Hedgehog Dogtail Cynosurus echinatus Hoary Alyssum Berteroa incana Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula Meadow Hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum Meadow Knapweed Centaurea debauxii Milk Thistle Silybum marianum Orange Hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum Oxeye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Queen Anne’s Lace Daucus carota Scentless Chamomile Matricaria maritima Scotch Broom Cytisus scoparius Scotch Thistle Onopordum acanthium Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa St. John's Wort Hypericum perforatum High Priority Open Terrestrial, Pasture and Rangeland IP’s Continued Sulphur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta Tansy Ragwort Senecio jacobaea Teasel Dipsacus fullonum Wild Chervil Anthriscus sylvestris Yellow Hawkweeds Hieracium spp. Yellow Toadflax Linaria vulgaris High Priority Understory and Forest Gap Invasive Plants Dame's Rocket Hesperis matronalis Daphne (Spurge Laurel) Daphne laureola English Ivy Hedera helix English Holly Ilex aquifolium Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata Goutweed Aegopodium podagraria Hedge Bindweed Convolvulus sepium 8 Henbit (Common Deadnettle) Lamium amplexicaule Herb Robert (Stinky Bob) Geranium robertianum Old Man's Beard Clematis vitalba Periwinkle Vinca major, V. minor Purple Deadnettle Lamium purpureum Yellow Archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon Note: There is no static list of high priority plants (as new invaders can present themselves at any time). Management: Steps for managing invasive plants in DSQ provincial Crown land using principles of the Invasive Plant Management Program are as follows (BC MAFF 2002): EDUCATION a. Educate yourself, your staff and contractors on how to identify invasive plants. (see Appendix 1 – Reference Material). Effective invasive plant management is complex and requires knowledgeable staff who understand where priority species exist. Generally, it is easiest to identify an invasive plant by its flower. Flowering times vary by species, latitude and elevation. Actions: Training for the Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP) was offered at the Squamish Forest District office in the spring of 2009 and 2010. It was attended by representatives from DSQ, municipalities, forestry consultants, First Nations governments, Ministry of Transportation, naturalists and farmers. INVENTORY AND EARLY DETECTION a. Conduct invasive plant inventories and monitor invasive plant populations. b. Confirm known locations of priority invasive plant species within the DSQ using the provincial IAPP. Inventories should be updated periodically. Actions: SSISC is ran a Job Opportunity Program (JOP) that consisted of a crew of 3 that inventoried invasive plants the Squamish area the winter of 2010. A crew of 5 staff will inventory the remainder of DSQ the summer of 2010. SET INVASIVE PLANT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Each forest licensee has measures in their Forest Stewardship Plans to prevent the introduction or spread of invasive plants. i.e. within one year of completion of the harvest, the licensee will ensure the seeding of areas of disturbed soil with grass seed that meets or exceeds Canada Forage #1 Specifications as defined by the Canada Seed Act. 9 PLANNING AND PREVENTION Prevent the initial establishment and spread of invasive plants. This is the single, most effective, and often most overlooked method of invasive plant control. a. Keep equipment, yards, and storage areas free of invasive plants. b. Clean and wash clothing, footwear and / or equipment that may have any invasive plant species on them and dislodging associated water, mud and dirt. c. Keep roadside, gravel pits and log dumps clear of invasive plant species, so that they are not inadvertently transported. d. Ensure grub and fill for road construction are free of invasive plant species i.e. minimize soil disturbance where there is a potential invasive plant seedbed. e. Keep equipment or livestock out of infested areas. PROACTIVELY REVEGETATING DISTURBED AREAS a. Re-vegetate disturbed areas with grass. Grass seed mixtures used to re-vegetate disturbed sites should be of sufficient quality as to not introduce weed seeds. It is recommended that agronomic reclamation grass seed mixtures are ecologically-suited and of a grade that is Common #1 forage or better. For reclamation within high value natural areas, an ecologically-suited native grass seed mixture is recommended. Disturbed sites include: road, landing, skid trail construction, maintenance or site preparation, after woody debris piles are burned, range developments. TREAT THE PRIORITY SPECIES a. Treat priority invasive plant species with contracts to implement control strategies (manual, biological and / or chemical) by partnering with the SSISC and / or looking at FIA or alternate funding sources. MONITORING AND REPORTING a. Monitor the re-vegetated and treated areas and repeat as necessary. b. Enter the monitoring and treatment information into IAPP. PRIORITY FOREST HEALTH PESTS IN DSQ This section prioritizes each pest within the DSQ. It also lists the locally important priority forest health damaging agents with the use of provincial overview survey information. Other information to form the rankings were based on input from the Regional Forest Pathologist, Regional Forest Entomologist, Invasive Plant Species Specialist, Defined Forest Area Management members, available overview survey data, knowledge regarding the hazard and risk of the landscape to various pests and the distribution of current incidence within the DSQ. Pest rankings were separated into pests of mature forests and plantation pests for ease of comparison of relative impacts. 10 Pests were ranked as very high, high or medium priority based on the following definitions. VERY HIGH PRIORITY PESTS have impacts that are broad ranging. They can influence harvest scheduling, harvesting methods and species selection for regeneration. High priority plantation pests are a primary mortality pest of the regenerating species and can cause plantation failures or regeneration delays. These pests have the potential to have a substantial impact on timber supply and are relatively widespread across the DSQ. HIGH PRIORITY PESTS have the capacity to impact timber resources but are not present at high levels, have a cyclical nature, or have moderate impacts on timber growth and form. MEDIUM PRIORITY PESTS have very limited impact on tree growth or form, and are either geographically or temporally limited in their distribution within the DSQ. Medium priority plantation pests can cause some stem defects or growth losses, but are generally not wide spread within plantations and usually don’t result in high levels of mortality. 11 Table 6. Ranking of Priority Pests in the DSQ VERY HIGH MATURE FORESTS Laminated root rot (Phellinus) Armillaria root rot (Armillaria) Mountain pine beetle Western spruce budworm White pine blister rust Fire PLANTATIONS Phellinus Armillaria White pine blister rust HIGH MEDIUM Douglas-fir beetle Spruce beetle Annosus root rot Hemlock dwarf mistletoe Swiss needle cast Balsam woolly adelgid Pine needle cast Black stain root rot Western balsam bark beetle Western hemlock looper Gypsy Moth Mammals (deer, elk) Western gall rust Hemlock dwarf mistletoe Spruce weevil Balsam woolly adelgid Douglas-fir needle cast Swiss needle cast Annosus root rot Dothiostroma needle blight Pine needle cast Phellinus, western spruce budworm and white pine blister rust are rated as high management priorities provincially (for more details regarding provincial priorities see http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/Strategy/FH%20Program.pdf); however they are rated very high in the DSQ. This is because their potential impact on forest values is higher when looked at on a small – scale local perspective given the local hazard and tree species composition. Similarly, Douglas-fir beetle, western hemlock dwarf mistletoe have been given a higher priority for DSQ than provincially because of local hazard and forest composition. Annosus, mammals, western gall rust, spruce weevil, balsam woolly adelgid, swiss needle cast and black stain root rot have been documented locally and warrant management emphasis. Spruce beetle is not considered a very high priority in the DSQ because of the limited percentage of spruce in the DSQ. 12 PEST PROFILES This section of the strategy will analyze the priority forest health pests within the DSQ: 1. Extent to which priority pests occur currently and historically. 2. Hazard and risk. Hazard as the probability of pest occurrence for a given area. Risk is defined as a relative rating for the potential failure of a management objective due to a pest. The risk rating is the product of the hazard rating and the incidence of the pest (BC MFR January 2008). 3. Impacts on current and future timber supply. 4. Specific management objectives. 5. Research and new potential management tools under the heading “Future Outlook”. To keep the strategy document concise, the description of strategies, tactics and other measures are restricted to a citation of information currently available in BC Forest Practices Code Guidebooks and the Provincial Forest Health Strategy (BC MFR January 2008). More detailed recommendations for forest health management are included only in so far as the recommended procedures deviate from the above-mentioned provincial documents. The obligation of individual licensees to implement activities to counter pests depends on the legislated requirement under the BC Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and the BC Forest Act. The majority of these activities (other than the individual licensees’ obligations under FRPA) would be either the responsibility of the ministry, or can be conducted voluntarily by industry as enhanced or incremental activities presently eligible for FIA funding. Very High Priority Pests LAMINATED ROOT ROT, PHELLINUS WEIRII (DRL) Laminated root disease, caused by Phellinus weirii (Phellinus), is the most damaging root disease in coastal forests. Its ability to kill primarily Douglas-fir, at any age, makes a notable economically significant pathogen. Table 7. Host Tree Species of Phellinus Highly Susceptible Douglas-fir true fir mountain hemlock Susceptible spruce western hemlock Tolerant pine Immune western redcedar yellow cedar deciduous It is also the most important single natural disturbance pest causing long-term change to forest ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Another strain of Phellinus is known to occur as a butt rot of western redcedar but this disease is rarely noted on the coast. Phellinus can create very noticeable mortality in coastal forests since almost all conifers are susceptible to some extent. Juvenile stand mortality can start as early as age 5 and 13 continues throughout stand development, often culminating in large, obvious mortality centres, surrounded by non-susceptible host species of trees and shrubs. Hazard and Risk The occurrence of Phellinus is closely tied to the presence of Douglas-fir. For example, while western hemlock is susceptible to Phellinus, infected trees are rarely found in stands that are not substantially mixed with Douglas-fir. Essentially, this indicates that there is a very high risk of Phellinus occurring in stands that were previous predominant to Douglas-fir, particularly if they are being reforested with Douglas-fir. Table 8. Landscape level hazard rating for Phellinus by BEC unit in the DSQ Biogeoclimatic unit CWH dm CWH ds1 CWH ms1 IDF ww Hazard Rating High High High High Impact Phellinus can cause substantial mortality in young plantations, while mature trees often suffer growth losses, are at increased risk to windthrow and are prone to a subsequent attack by insects such as bark beetles. However, Phellinus root disease can cause substantial mortality in Douglas-fir and true fir of any age. It is estimated that 1.4 million m3 are lost annually in BC through mortality and growth reduction. Mortality is typically observed from age 6 to 10 and continues throughout a forest stand’s lifespan, culminating in the creation of large openings and ingress of less susceptible climax species. Management Management of this root rot should follow the BC Forest Practices Code Root Disease Management Guidebook. For the most part, intensive treatments to remove innoculum are suitable only on productive sites that will benefit most and that are amenable to machinery and some amount of disturbance. Site Preparation: Removing infected stumps “destumping” will reduce future attack of the new crop of trees. June 1, 2007 the BC MFR Coast Appraisal Manual (section 4.4.5) added destumping to control root disease to the market pricing system for calculating stumpage rates. Licensees may apply for an adjustment of $1114.00/ha of area that will be destumped. Intensive treatments that would benefit the most are suitable on productive sites and less than 35% side slopes. Reforestation: In areas where laminated root rot has been observed, do not reforest with Douglas-fir, true firs or hemlock; 14 Plant back less susceptible conifer species, such as western redcedar or western white pine, if they are ecologically suitable; and The development of rust resistant western white pine provides a new viable planting option for laminated root rot sites. Future Outlook Current research is focussed on the efficacy of various treatment options (e.g., stumping) and the search for resistant individuals in field trials. ARMILLARIA ROOT ROT, ARMILLARIA OSTOYAE (DRA) Armillaria root rot refers to a group of several related fungal species found across forest types worldwide. Armillaria ostoyae, (Armillaria) has the greatest impact on management of coniferous trees in BC. On the coast, Armillaria occurs mainly in young stands or plantations less than 15 years old. Vulnerable species include Douglas-fir, true fir, spruce, cedar, hemlock and pine. In older stands its effect tends to be diluted and the occurrence of dead trees more difficult to spot, especially in stands dominated by coastal climax species. In DSQ, Armillaria is more obvious in the coast/interior transition zone (IDFww). Hazard and Risk Table 9. Landscape level hazard rating for Armillaria by BEC unit in the DSQ Biogeoclimatic unit CWH dm CWH ds1 CWH ms1 IDF ww Hazard Rating Higha Higha Higha High a This high hazard rating applies primarily to juvenile stands being regenerated to highly susceptible species in these BEC variants. All tree species are susceptible to Armillaria. It can cause substantial mortality in trees of any age; however, mortality in the DSQ is most pronounced on trees less than 15 years old. Rates of infection tend to be greatest on mesic sites (Henigman et al. 2001). Impact On the coast, Armillaria is seldom serious in trees older than about 15 years old. In transition forests, such as the IDFww, trees of all ages are killed. The extent of volume impact of root disease within transition zone forests is unclear. Local stands show significant impacts from Armillaria, and some studies imply risk to future timber supply if these stands are left untreated. 15 Management Guidelines for managing Armillaria are similar to those for laminated root disease with the added complication that the suitable host list for Armillaria is larger, making choice of species suitable for reforestation more difficult. For the most part, intensive treatments to remove innoculum are suitable only on productive sites that will benefit most and that are amenable to machinery and some amount of disturbance. The thresholds for treatment decisions break at three points illustrated in Table 10. Table 10. Disease treatment thresholds for Armillaria in BC coastal forests Disease incidence <2% Treatment level Minimal 2-15% Alternate >15% Intensive Description Conduct harvesting and reforestation with no specific constraints. Ensure good knowledge of disease distribution. Reforest with mix of alternative species. Avoid partial cutting. Consider inoculum removal (stumping, push falling) if site suitable. If not, implement alternative strategy that avoids or minimizes most susceptible species. Silviculture treatment regimes can impact rates of Armillaria infection, and differences in fungal properties as a result of site differences have been noted. Armillaria can be a serious problem in retention systems if it is not properly identified and appropriate management tactics applied, i.e. avoidance of ground-based logging machinery where occurrence of Armillaria is found. Reforestation: In areas where Armillaria has been observed, do not replace with Douglas-fir, true firs, spruce, cedar, hemlock or pine. Future Outlook Armillaria is the top priority forest pathogen for research in BC. However, most of the work is being done in the southern interior. Work on the coast is limited mainly to studies on the efficacy of stumping as a treatment and its relationship with Phellinus in maturing stands. MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS PONDEROSAE (IBM) Mountain pine bark beetle attacks all pine species in DSQ, but is primarily associated with lodgepole and ponderosa pine. Most of the infestations have been in timber that is inaccessible and/or unmerchantable, and is usually found on rocky benches and ridges. 16 Hence, most stands with infestations of this bark beetle are considered to be inoperable economically in DSQ. The first recorded infestations of mountain pine beetle occurred on mostly white pine in the Squamish River Valley in the 1940’s, with extensive white pine mortality noted in 1960. Small, contained infestations continued sporadically until the early 1970’s. Larger infestations began in the 1970’s near Birkenhead and Lillooet Lakes, and Haylmore and Blackwater Creeks. In 1978 and 1979 white pine was attacked near Joffre Creek. Beetle populations increased in the early 1980’s, specifically near Haylmore Creek and Birkenhead Lake. In 1985, populations began increasing significantly with a peak of over 58,000 trees newly attacked in the DSQ in 1986. The populations decreased thereafter with only 525 ha noted in 1989 near Birkenhead and Lillooet Lakes. In 1992, populations increased again in the Birkenhead and Gates Rivers and the north side of Blackwater Creek. Area infested declined once again from 1993 to 1994 but doubled in the Birkenhead River area in 1995. In 2004, approximately 7100 ha of mountain pine beetle were recorded along most highway corridors in the DSQ: from Whistler to D’Arcy, northeast along Lillooet River, east along Birkenhead Lake and south of Pemberton from Lillooet Lake to Harrison Lake. There have been several mountain pine beetle attacks in 2005 to 2008, mainly in the D’arcy area, but also in the Birkenhead and Lillooet River Valleys and near the northern half of Harrison Lake. Attacks have recently declined, and are now mainly limited to low elevations in the D’arcy area. However, much of the pine timber near D’arcy should now be considered high risk. Table 11. Mountain Pine Beetle in DSQ from 1999 to 2008 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Very Severe Severe Moderate Light 08 20 06 07 20 20 05 20 03 04 20 20 02 20 01 20 00 Trace 20 19 99 hectares (ha) Mountain Pine Beetle populations in DSQ 1999-2008 Hazard and Risk While they preferentially attack large diameter healthy pines, when populations are low, they will survive on unthrifty small diameter trees that are stressed by various biotic or abiotic factors. Epidemics occur when there are a series of climatically favourable years for beetle development combined with an abundance of suitable host material. Within the DSQ, pine stands within the coast/interior transition zone have the highest hazard for 17 attack by mountain pine beetle (i.e. IDFww, CWHds1 and ESSFmw). During outbreaks virtually all pine stands within a 10 km radius of currently infested trees could be at risk. The BC Forest Practices Code Bark Beetle Management Guidebook provides methodologies to assess hazard and risk based on stand age, density, elevation, longitude and latitude. Figure 2. Mountain Pine Beetle Populations in the DSQ (Source: 1999 2008 Provincial Aerial Overview survey). 18 Impact In the last 10 years, mountain pine beetle has attacked 108,000 m3 of pine or 5% in the timber harvesting land base (THLB). Timber supply impacts are low in the DSQ because pine contributes to only 4% of the tree species composition and most of the pine is outside the THLB, because it typically occurs on steep, rocky terrain where tree quality is low. Additionally, timber supply impacts are low because coastal BC operators find it difficult to mill and market pine, especially when timber markets are poor. While mountain pine beetle does not have a large impact on timber supply, it does have non-timber impacts. For instance, dead standing trees may have a negatively impact on: the scenic viewscape and the recreational experiences, community watersheds and water quality, wildlife habitat areas, and increasing fire fuels, of particular concern in heavily populated areas like the Seato-Sky corridor around Whistler, Pemberton, D’Arcy, Mount Currie and the communities / infrastructures around Lillooet Lake. Management A number of salvage operations have occurred in the district over the past two decades. For instance, in previous years the MFR and the Resort Municipality of Whistler worked together on managing the beetle infestation; funds were spent on fall and burn projects. Until 2005, beetle management efforts were focused on trying to prevent the spread of the beetle into the general Whistler area and further southward, and to manage for fire risk by preventing a build-up of ground fuels in the forests surrounding Whistler. While single tree treatments were successful in controlling infestations locally, they could not prevent a new influx of beetles from the heavily infested Soo River area to the north. In 2004, due to low percent of pine in the DSQ, low timber values and difficulty to access, the recommended mountain pine beetle strategy for the DSQ outlined in the “Soo TSA Bark Beetle Strategy” was to Monitor / Abandon (Marquis 2004). A salvage strategy will be implemented where it is feasible, taking into account community water quality, wildlife, fuels management, safety and all additional resource values. Management efforts within the DSQ have focused on communities surrounded by dead pine and creating fire breaks for safety reasons because dead trees can potentially causing a high hazard to community infrastructure and human life. Hence, the strategy to deal with the mountain pine beetle in the DSQ has shifted to fire hazard planning, creating fire breaks around communities and fuel treatment prescriptions following recommendations in the 2003 Filmon report (Filmon 2003), the Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011 (BC MFR 2006) and the Canadian Forest Service “The forestry component of the Mountain Pine Beetle Program” (NRCAN webpage access August 12, 2009). Forest licensees could apply for FIA funding, or Forests for Tomorrow to restore sites or re-establish young forests that would otherwise remain under productive. Communities 19 could apply for fire hazard funding from the Union of BC Municipalities or the First Nations Forestry Program. Future Outlook In the last decade, mountain pine beetle has been the most funded and researched forest insects in North America. There are several research initiatives underway including: effectiveness of fertilization to reduce the impacts of mountain pine beetle attack (Jack, D., J. McLean, and G. Weetman. 2008) and weighing in on the cost benefits of for stand rehabilitation (Burton, 2006). WESTERN SPRUCE BUDWORM, CHORISTONEURA OCCIDENTALIS (IDW) Western spruce budworm is a misnomer – western spruce budworms is best described as a defoliator-insect, not a worm; its primary host is Douglas-fir, not spruce Five outbreaks of western spruce budworm have been recorded in the DSQ in 1943 to 1944, 1953 to 1959, 1968 to 1979, 1986 to 1993, and most recently 2001 to 2007. The first record of western spruce budworm in the DSQ occurred in 1943 between Pemberton and Anderson Lake. In 1953 light defoliation occurred along the Lillooet River between Harrison and Lillooet Lakes. Populations expanded in previously infested stands in 1954 and from Gowan Creek to Pemberton and near Haylmore Creek. The infestation continued to expand in 1955 along the Lillooet River, with new defoliation recorded between Pemberton, Birkenhead Lake and D’Arcy. Populations continued to increase in 1956 and 1957 and moved southward to Alta Lake in 1958. In 1959 populations collapsed. The next outbreak commenced in 1968, once again near Pemberton. This outbreak continued to increase and expanded into the Lillooet River and Lillooet Lake area until 1974 when defoliation area and intensity began decreasing. In 1976 tree mortality and top-kill were noted at Rutherford and Railroad Creeks. Populations continued to decline with a slight increase noted in 1977 near Lillooet and Birkenhead Rivers. By 1979 populations had collapsed. An assessment conducted in 1980 found that within stands previously defoliated, up to 39% of the Douglas-fir had top-kill and 28% were dead from either repeated defoliation or bark beetle attack. A small infestation was noted in 1981 near Haylmore Creek. The third recorded outbreak commenced in 1986 with over 1,225 ha defoliated in the Blackwater and D’Arcy Creek drainages. This infestation expanded into the Haylmore drainage the following year. Populations continued to expand annually with a peak in 1992 of almost 21,000 ha defoliated. In 1993 populations collapsed. Defoliation was recorded once again in 2001 near D’Arcy and once again in 2004 when approximately 4,200 ha were defoliated. In 2006, defoliation in the Whistler – Pemberton area (Shadow Lake Interpretive forest) was very obvious from the highway, and some egg mass sampling was done. Levels were not high enough to warrant treatment. Over 4,000ha of impact was noted in the 2006 aerial overview survey, particularly in the Haylmore and Blackwater Creek areas. Areas continued to increase from 2005 to 2007 reaching up to 18,700 ha of defoliation in 2007. In 2008 the population collapsed with 50 ha defoliated. Although infestation levels within the DSQ over the past couple of decades were primarily light, this insect caused significant damage here in the 1970’s. Western spruce budworm has had it largest impact in the DSQ within the Pemberton and Birkenhead 20 areas. Outbreaks in the DSQ are periodic occurring approximately every decade and usually last 3 to 5 years. Table 12. Western Spruce Budworm population 1999 to 2008 20,000 18,000 hectares (ha) 16,000 14,000 12,000 Severe 10,000 Moderate 8,000 Light 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Hazard and Risk Within the DSQ, defoliation often occurs in elevational bands across mountain sides, particularly on south and west facing slopes. Western spruce budworm prefer warm, dry sites with greater than 80% Douglas-fir. Historically, budworm defoliation reoccurs in the same general sites of previous outbreak episodes. Stand hazard can be estimated from maps of previous outbreaks. An overlay analysis of western spruce budworm defoliation since 1943 found that the CWHms1 and CWHds1 have incurred the greatest amount of defoliation, with the majority sustaining 3 to 10 years of defoliation (Table 14). The range of western spruce budworm is expanding as a result of climate change to higher elevations and north in latitude. In the DSQ, defoliation is most common in the D’Arcy and Birkenhead, on the mountain slopes on the north side of the Lillooet River, northwest of Pemberton and the areas south of Pemberton to Whistler. Defoliation occasionally expands beyond these areas, but seldom causes significant damage. Table 13. Host Tree Species of Western Spruce budworm Highly Susceptible Douglas-fir Susceptible amabilis fir subalpine fir Englemann spruce Tolerant western hemlock Pine 21 Table 14. Total years and area (ha) of defoliation from 1943 to 2004 by BEC Units in the DSQ. Subzone IDFww CWHds1 CWHms1 ESSFmw MHmm2 Total Area Total Years of Defoliation 1-2 3-6 7-10 973 19,392 6,183 8,381 31,325 9,983 35,392 20,249 3,166 5,116 2,803 596 10,727 1,702 2 60,589 75,471 19,930 >10 1,569 3,519 318 0 0 5,406 Total 28,117 53,208 59,125 8,515 12,431 161,396 % of Total 21 39 44 6 9 100 Figure 4. Area defoliated by western spruce budworm from 1943 to 2004 in the DSQ 22 Figure 3. Severity of Western Spruce Budworm in DSQ (Source: 1999 to 2008 Provincial Aerial Overview survey). Impact From 2001 to 2008 27,333 ha of productive forest land in the DSQ was impacted by western spruce budworm, of which 71% (19,459 ha) of the area impacted was light; 27% (7,451 ha) of the area that was of a medium severity. From 2001 to 2007, the weighted average of the outbreak duration was found to be 1.4 years. This data set was used to 23 calculate Thomson and Alfaro’s volume reduction percentage for the impacted areas. As a result, this yielded an estimated site volume reduction of 1% over one third of the area attacked by western spruce budworm (Timberline 2008). The DSQ have completed an analysis of average volume reduction per year using the Thomson Alfaro’s volume reduction formula and recommend that a 2,083m3 should be included for a net down for the TSR 3. This pest is typically not a mortality factor in coastal areas. Impacts of defoliation are greatest and seen quickly on understorey and suppressed trees. Top-kill and the resulting stem defects are common in understorey trees, with mortality sometimes occurring after as little as 2 years of severe defoliation. Multi-storey, uneven aged stands Douglas-fir will incur the greatest levels of damage and tend to prolong the duration of an outbreak. Stand mortality, even after 7 consecutive years of moderate to severe defoliation, averages about 1% of the trees. However, individual stand extremes can reach 50% mortality. Forks, crooks and creases caused by up to three previous infestations were found on 11% of standing Douglas-fir but ranged from 0 to 70% in individual stands. The combined effect of four budworm outbreaks that occurred during the life of a Douglas-fir stand amounted to a loss of about 12% in radial growth. Cumulative stand volume losses following an outbreak can range as high at 19%. Areas that have been defoliated for several years should be monitored for bark beetle activity. Management Re-establishing Douglas-fir in high budworm hazard areas assumes a risk of future damage from budworm defoliation. Spray treatments may be required to meet regeneration and stand objectives. Species for reforestation are limited in high hazard areas; however, utilizing non-host species (e.g. ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine) within a mixed planting with Douglas-fir will help reduce impacts, especially along edges of mature timber. Spruce can be used for reforestation at higher elevations as an alternative to Douglas-fir. In areas of historic budworm activity, where possible, even-aged management should be practiced. Spray treatments are indicated for young stands of Douglas-fir in the DSQ when severe defoliation is predicted for the following year (as determined by predictive egg sampling surveys – refer to the BC Forest Practices Code Defoliator Management Guidebook). However, a current Pest Management Plan, as required by the Environmental Protection Branch of the BC Ministry of Environment, is not in place in the DSQ. The biological control agent Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) is the product of choice for budworm control (refer to the BC Forest Practices Code Defoliator Management Guidebook). The outbreak of the 1970’s was the last time treatments were justifiable in the DSQ. Since then the damage has generally not been severe enough to warrant intervention. Areas that may warrant Btk treatment in the future include areas that are (Hodge 2003): productive forests, 24 Woodlots, have incremental silviculture investment including: spacing, pruning, thinning, approaching free to grow status, stand has suffered a minimum of 1 year of defoliation and defoliation predictions are moderate to high for the coming season, in areas of chronic budworm activity (>8 years of defoliation). Future Outlook Canadian Forest Service researchers are studying the phenology of bud break and the emergence of budworm larvae in the spring and the influence this has on budworm populations. They are also studying the population dynamics (survival/mortality) of the larvae populations from emergence in the spring to pupation in mid-summer. WHITE PINE BLISTER RUST, CRONARTIUM RIBICOLA (DSB) White pine blister rust is an introduced pathogen that was introduced from Europe in the 1850’s and has severely impacted indigenous 5-needle pines - western white (Pinus monticola) and whitebark (Pinus albicaulis) pines - within DSQ probably starting in the 1920s. By the 1930’s most white pine on the BC coast were affected. While the rust may infect trees of any age, the greatest impact on western white pine is to young trees since the zone of highest infection incidence is the lower two metres of the bole. Infection occurs through foliage and progresses to the branch (or main stem in the case of direct stem needle infections) where swellings (cankers) appear after a year or two. Most cankers are conspicuous in the spring when the blisters holding masses of orange aeciospores open and spores spread to an alternative host, naturally occurring Ribes spp. (current shrubs). In the fall, basidiospores return to infect pine needles, usually best during humid warm periods, and the cycle starts anew. Hazard and Risk Site hazard for white pine blister rust is considered high in BC anywhere that five-needle pines grow. One factor that is a reasonable predictor of potential infection is proximity to Ribes spp. Pines within 30 m of Ribes spp. will usually suffer higher levels of infection. Impact Since its introduction, white pine blister rust has decimated the proportion of white pine in natural forests. Western white pine was once 1% of the BC coast forest species. The high mortality rate associated with the disease has resulted in the nearly discontinued use of western white pine in reforestation as a preferred or acceptable species. Despite its susceptibility to infestation, western white pine is still a desirable species because it is a fast growing tree (25 year rotation), it can grow from 600 to 450 metres elevation and is currently being planted in root rot areas. Western white pine has favourable wood characteristics for value added markets and is mainly being planted by woodlot licensees. 25 Whitebark pine is a slow growing, long-lived tree of the sub-alpine including the high elevations (1300 to 3700 m). Whitebark pine is not used for lumber, but is an important it is considered a keystone species for wildlife (grizzly bear and Clark’s nutcraker) that eat the seeds for food. Surveys to date by the Regional Forest Pathologist indicate 50% of whitebark pine stands in BC are dead or infected by white pine blister rust. White pine blister rust, along with mountain pine beetle, has severely impeded the reproductive capability of whitebark pine, threatening the survival of this high-elevation species in some areas. In 2008, whitebark pine was added as a blue-listed species by the BC Ministry of Environment’s Conservation Data Centre. Traditionally, forest management has not planted whitebark pine and little research has been complete to test the success of planting whitebark pine (Scott and McCaughey 2006). Management Over the past decades several attempts have been made to control this disease. The most was the widespread attempt to eradicate Ribes spp. across the US from the 1930’s to the 1960’s. This attempt was largely unsuccessful due to the impossible task of locating and eradicating every Ribes spp. across the landscape. The recommended treatment regime is outlined in the BC Forest Practices Code Pine Stem Rust Management Guidebook and below. Forest Genetics: Resistant stock was first found in the US in the 1970’s in sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) – the Cr1 gene. The Cr2 gene was found in Washington state a few years later and this is the gene that affects western white pine. Since then, Cr3 and Cr4 genes have been found in other pine species. Resistant stock has been used for replanting; survival rates have increased to 75% on the BC Coast. Silviculture Practices (Zeglen, et al. 2009): Planting with Cr2 gene resistant seedlings, pruning should not be necessary when planting this resistant stock. Pruning trees up to two metres from the ground prevents spores from Ribes spp. from infecting the needles. However, several prunings may be necessary. Consider trimming boughs up to two metres from the ground for non-timber forest products to provide revenue if sold as ornamental floral arrangements. Solid deer protectors can prevent deer browsing and could also prevent spores from jumping to branches. Planting an extra 100 stems/ha may also be planted to account for possible mortality. Records of planted resistant seed lots need to be kept. If possible, threatened whitebark pines should be not be cut during harvesting operations. High elevation developments: Do not cut down whitebark pine for helicopter landings. 26 Consider planning to protect whitebark pine stands at the landscape level, for instance, development stands around whitebark pine stands (such as communication towers and transmission lines). Future Outlook Research in BC for white pine blister rust began shortly after its first discovery on the west coast. This includes 25 years of testing and breeding for resistant stock in BC and twice that long in the US. This remains a high profile pest on the coast with ongoing projects testing manual (i.e., pruning) and genetic (i.e., resistance) management techniques. The most recent work involves testing the offspring of both major and minor gene resistant parents with the hope of combining both attributes. High Priority Pests DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS PSEUDOTSUGAE (IBD) Douglas-fir beetle is a bark beetle that attacks only Douglas-fir and has stayed within endemic levels (characteristic of or prevalent in a particular area) within the DSQ. It is common throughout the range of Douglas-fir where it normally breeds in trees that are stressed, windthrown, recently dead or cut and decked by for logging, land clearing or firewood operations. Historically, outbreaks have occurred periodically in the DSQ (approximately once every decade) and tended to last 3 to 4 years before subsiding. Trees previously defoliated by western spruce budworm were attacked by Douglas-fir beetle in the Pemberton Valley in 1953. Scattered attacks occurred annually until 1956, and then again in 1960, 1967, 1975 to 1981 and 1983 to 1985. In 1989, 11 separate infestations totaling 77 ha were noted on the east side of Lillooet Lake, between Billygoat Creek and Ure Creek. Douglas-fir beetle activity was noted annually until 1995 in many of the areas, which had been defoliated, by western spruce budworm or where laminated root disease was found. In 2004, populations increased substantially to approximately 1,124 ha between Lillooet River and Pemberton, Pemberton to D’Arcy, Birkenhead Lake, south between Lillooet Lake and Harrison Lake, including Snowcap Creek and was mapped in 2009 (Table 15). Hence, the Regional Forest Entomologist expects that this year, the population will decrease. The 2004 to 2008 Douglas-fir beetle attack was primarily around Glacier Lake. An understanding of the decomposition rate of the standing dead Douglas-fir will guide any salvage decisions in this area. Significant mortality was identified within Garibaldi Provincial Park but there are no plans to salvage within the park. 27 Figure 5. Area infested by Douglas-fir beetle in the DSQ in 1999 to 2008 Hazard and Risk Douglas-fir can be attacked anywhere in the DSQ if it becomes stressed. It is often associated with trees that are stressed due to drought, windthrow, logs that have been cut and left lying on the ground, or have been killed by root disease. However, within the DSQ, Douglas-fir beetle generally only becomes a pest within the coast/interior transition 28 area (i.e. IDFww, CWHds1). During outbreaks, scattered patches of apparently healthy Douglas-fir can be killed across extensive areas. Impact The Douglas-fir beetle has remained within endemic (typical) mortality rates in the DSQ and affecting mainly the area around Glacier Lake. However, this beetle tends to attack the larger Douglas-fir in a stand and it can kill substantial volumes of valuable timber. Table 15. Douglas-fir Beetle Populations in DSQ 1999 to 2008 1200 1100 hectares (ha) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 Severe Moderate Light Trace 300 200 100 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 0 Management Proactive management approaches involve direct control are by best management, sanitation practices, using trap trees and felling and burning. See BC Forest Practices Code Bark Beetle Management Guidebook (1995). Best management and sanitation management practices (Douglas-fir Beetle Information Bulletin, Chilliwack Forest District, Stad 2008): Felled or windthrown Douglas-fir trees should be removed before the end of March of the following year. If not removed, beetles that breed in this material will likely attack healthy standing trees nearby. When non-forestry developments occur that fell Douglas-fir, especially in areas with decadent Douglas-fir and areas of known attack, trees should be decked for removal before March of the following year. All Douglas-fir cull logs, log pieces and slash >20 cm in diameter should be removed. 29 Stumps should be cut as low as possible (beetles from approximately 24 infested stumps are enough to kill a live tree). During partial harvest operations, minimize scarring and damage to trees that are to be left. When planning cutblocks or road locations, design activities to minimize chance of windthrow. For logging operations in areas of known Douglas-fir beetle attack, the preferred activity timetable is between September and December; possible time frame for operations is between September to March. During line of sight clearing on roads, minimize the number of Douglas-fir trees that are felled. When possible, remove limbs and leave tree standing. The district manager may limit movement and storage of infested timber. Harvested areas should also be monitored for up to 3 years post harvest for the occurrence of beetle populations in slash, stumps or recent windthrow and perimeter trees and infested trees should be removed promptly. Hanging pheromone on “trap trees”: MCH Bubble Cap, a pheromone that repels attacking beetles, shows promise for protecting high value trees, such as those in parks, residential areas, old growth management areas, etc. MCH Bubble Caps work best when deployed at the recommended concentration of 75 to 100 Bubble Caps / ha, in a grid pattern, to produce an area wide permeation of the active ingredient. Highest rates are advised for areas experiencing high infestation levels or where cool weather could reduce release rates. Each treatment area should be at least ½ ha in size. For more information on management practices for Douglas-fir beetle see the Pacific Forestry Center Pest Leaflet at the following link: http://warehouse.pfc.forestry.ca/pfc/4091.pdf Future Outlook MCH Bubble Cap operational trials are ongoing in the southern interior has shown promising results. Federal registration may soon permit its use operationally. SPRUCE BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS RUFIPENNIS (IBS) The spruce beetle is the most destructive pest affecting mature spruce in BC and the Yukon and has been active in DSQ since 1995. Activity in the Haylmore drainage has been ongoing for several years, with some scattered patches in Salamander Mountain southeast of Lillooet Lake, northeast of Harrison Lake, Lizzie and Rogers landscape units. Affected and dead spruce does not assume a bright red colour common to other dying conifers. In 2002 and 2003, approximately 1,250 ha of spruce beetle infestation were recorded each year in the DSQ. In 2006, 832 ha of infestation was mapped, this decreased to about 100 hectares in both 2007 and 2008. 30 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Very Severe Severe Moderate Light 08 20 07 20 06 20 04 03 05 20 20 20 02 20 01 20 20 19 00 Trace 99 hectares (ha) Table 16. Spruce Beetle Populations in DSQ 1999 to 2008 Hazard and Risk High hazard stands have an average spruce DBH greater than or equal to 40 cm; a spruce volume exceeding 300 m³ /ha and more than 65% spruce in well-drained creek bottoms. In general, the order of hazard for spruce stands is: 1. Stands in creek bottoms 2. Better stands of spruce on benches, slopes, and high ridges 3. Poorer stands on benches, slopes, and high ridges 4. Mixtures of spruce and lodgepole pine 5. Stands containing all immature spruce Stands with a higher rating will sustain greater damage from spruce beetle attack than a stand with a lower rating. The ratings are qualitative, not quantitative. When downed host trees are not removed, or otherwise treated, the fallen trees can produce a high number of beetles that are capable of successfully attacking and killing stands of spruce over an extensive area. Impact Spruce beetles will preferentially attack windthrow, stumps and large diameter slash. However, if there is sufficient breeding material, populations can build up and standing trees can rapidly be attacked and killed. At endemic levels, the spruce beetle is not often detected by the overview flights as they are usually in downed material. It is only when populations are high enough to attack standing trees that infestations are mapped from the air. Spruce the leading species for merely 1% of the forest stands in the DSQ, much of which is contained within parks, riparian areas, high elevations and / or otherwise inoperable areas. Because of the prolonged attack in the northeast part of the DSQ, 31 most of the mature spruce is likely affected or dead especially in the Haylmore Creek watershed. Because of the lack of suitable host in the DSQ, there is little prospect for significant future damage due to this pest. Figure 6. Spruce Beetle Populations in the DSQ 1999 to 2008 Management A bark beetle strategy for DSQ was developed in 2004. Areas of spruce windthrow should be monitored for spruce beetle activity. The margins of recent cutblocks and 32 rights-of-way or road construction are common areas of blowdown where breeding material is often present. Maintaining windfirm edges, salvaging spruce blowdown and not leaving large green spruce slash on cutblocks will help prevent the build-up of spruce beetle populations. Beetle attack in riparian areas is difficult to deal with because of the need protect fish and water quality values. ANNOSUS ROOT ROT, HETEROBASIDION ANNOSUM (DRN) In BC, Annosus Root rot (Annosum), affects hemlock, true fir, Douglas-fir, wetern redcedar, big leaf maple, and alder (Allen, et al. 1996) The fungus is adept at invading new hosts via airborne spores and entry through fresh stump surfaces or stem wounds is common. Once colonized, growth of mycelia along root systems to neighbouring trees facilitates spread. Hazard and Risk In DSQ, Annosum generally affects the most susceptible hosts (in descending order) are true fir, Sitka spruce, western hemlock and Douglas-fir. For mature trees, the risk of rot caused by Annosum increases markedly in trees >120 years old. Harvesting and management practices increase the vulnerability of stands affected by Annosum. Harvesting provides stumps that become a new source of food for the fungi (Morrison, et al. 1991). Pre-commercial thinning could increase the number of trees exposed to inoculums, increases the rate of spread and introduces a high risk for infection in the remaining amabilis fir and Sitka spruce, but a low risk to western hemlock and Douglas-fir. This rating also applies for damage to residual stems caused by partial cutting. Also, the risk for new infections decreases markedly if activities are performed during winter or summer when spore dispersal is inhibited by cold temperatures or dry conditions, respectively. Impact While Annosum spreads readily and through varied pathways and is a major mortality factor of conifers in Europe, its impact in coastal BC is less dramatic. While the disease is endemic to coastal forests, its impact in mature stands is not considered as significant as that of laminated root rot on Douglas-fir. This may be because the disease is considered more as a grade loss factor rather than a mortality factor. As such, its impact on timber supply is muted by being combined with all other decay, waste and breakage factors and it is likely included in these calculations. Management It is rare to single out Annosum for management in mature stands since it usually does not occur extensively enough or it is often found with other root diseases like Armillaria or Phellinus. As such, most recommendations regarding the disease are preventive in nature aiming to reduce the risk of creating new infections. Management of this root rot should follow the BC Forest Practices Code Root Disease Management Guidebook and the following recommendations are typical. 33 When conducting forest operations such as partial cutting, minimize wounding to deny entry points for spores. For pre-commercial thinning, do not overly worry about colonization of fresh stump surfaces. While the incidence of Annosum does increase in thinned stands, the impact appears limited in terms of volume loss over a rotation. Treatment of stumps using a liquid or powder formulation of Borax or zinc chloride appears unnecessary. In areas where Annosum occurs with Armillaria or Phellinus, management strategies for those diseases will usually suffice to control Annosum. Future Outlook Considerable work was done regarding Annosum 20 to 30 years ago western in North America. However, fears that it would cause considerable losses in managed (thinned) stands has not materialize. That, combined with the reluctance to practice intensive silviculture on the coast, has led to a lack of interest in research of this fungus. In Europe, where Annosum causes significant difficulties in forest management, research into chemical (urea, borax) and biological control (Phlebiopsis gigantea) measures is active. HEMLOCK DWARF MISTLETOE, ARCEUTHOBIUM TSUGENSE (DMH) Hemlock dwarf mistletoe is an obligate parasitic plant (a parasitic organism that cannot live independently from its host). Its infection causes swelling and abnormal branching or “witches broom” formations, defect and sometimes mortality. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe is found only on the coast, not in the interior. Like most plants, dwarf mistletoes produce flowers, which are pollinated by insects and produce seeds that spread within the same canopy (intensification) or to adjacent canopies. This process is slow and often difficult to observe, especially in young trees, as there may be up to a four-year lag from the time of infection until the first aerial shoots are produced. On older trees the results of prolonged infection are more readily observed. Hazard and Risk While the primary host is western hemlock, hemlock dwarf mistletoe can also be found on mountain hemlock, amabilis fir, grand fir, Sitka spruce and shore pine. The BC Forest Practices Code Dwarf Mistletoe Guidebook states that all forests within the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone are considered high hazard of infection from hemlock dwarf mistletoe. A more refined hazard rating is provided by Muir et al. (2004) and is summarized in table 17. Table 17. Hazard rating for hemlock dwarf mistletoe in the DSQ Biogeoclimatic variant CWH ms1, vm Hazard Rating Low CWH ds CWH dma Moderate High 34 a Shore pine may be infected in these BEC variants. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe fruits shoot seeds 5 to 15m away from infected trees. Therefore, the risk of hemlock dwarf mistletoe typically manifests itself in two ways. First, the risk to susceptible regeneration growing within 10 to 15 m of infested residual trees along cutblock boundaries or adjacent to single-tree or group reserves is high. Second, the risk to uninfected residual trees remaining after partial cutting is dependent on the amount of infested neighbouring trees left behind. The opening of infested canopies stimulates the formation of mistletoe aerial shoots and increases spread of the parasite. Impact Although not primarily a mortality factor, it has been estimated that for coastal BC hemlock dwarf mistletoe is responsible for over 1 million m 3 in annual growth loss. Mistletoe infection can cause height and diameter growth loss, reduced tree vigour, topkill and increased susceptibility to other insects and diseases. Moderately and severely infested trees have demonstrated growth reductions of 20 to 40%, respectively, compared to uninfested trees. Trees initiating under infested canopies can undergo decades of suppressed growth and creation of stem deformities (witches broom) that result in unmerchantable stem form and occasionally death. While individual tree growth effects have been quantified, currently there is no operational adjustment factor (OAF) reduction to account for stand-level infestation for use in TSRs. Management Being an obligate parasites, management of dwarf mistletoes should be easy: kill the host and you kill the pest. For years, application of this principle formed the basis for dwarf mistletoe management in BC. Infested stands were clear-cut, with straight edged boundaries and strict adherence to the “3-m knockdown rule”. On the coast led to successful sanitation of large areas that were successfully regenerated to western hemlock and other susceptible hosts. In the late 1990’s, with the advent of partial cutting to the coast with its emphasis on irregular cutblock shape and tree retention has resulted in a corresponding increase in concern over perpetuation of dwarf mistletoe in harvested areas. While it will be difficult to eradicate dwarf mistletoe from infested stands that are partially cuts or precommercial thinning, reducing the risk to regeneration and residual trees is possible: Try to reduce the perimeter edge of the cutblock and use natural barriers in placing cutblock boundaries. Avoid leaving severely and moderately infested trees should be, unless they remain in reserves where there is little chance for their seed to disperse onto susceptible regeneration. Plant non-host tree species along cutblock edges. Do not leaving advanced regeneration > 3 m tall of susceptible species in a dispersed retention system. 35 Remove as many infested trees in partial cuts and pre-commercial thins as possible to reduce the proliferation of new aerial shoots and consequent spread of seed. If conducting pre-commercial thinning along cutblock or reserve edges, identify and remove any infested young trees. Future Outlook A great deal of work on dwarf mistletoes was done in the 1950’s through 1970’s in BC. Since the biology was well understood and forest management practices at the time were effectively dealing with the pest, further research was gradually discontinued. With the implementation of variable retention systems, interest in dwarf mistletoe impact in these harvested stands has been rekindled. Recent questions regarding tree retention and regeneration in partial cut western hemlock stands require resolution. Some recent work has been initiated on quantifying the impact of dwarf mistletoe in these stands and applying the results for use with current growth and yield models. DOUGLAS-FIR NEEDLE CAST, RHABDOCLINE PSEUDOTSUGAE (DFR) Douglas-fir plantations up to age 30 are most susceptible to damage by the Douglas-fir needle cast. Moist environmental conditions favour disease development and impacts are greatest in pure dense stands of Douglas-fir. Several years of infection can result in a tree having only the current year’s foliage, i.e. a lion’s tail appearance. Management tactics other than planting resistant species are not currently available; however, incidence and impacts of this disease should be recorded in case future management is required. BALSAM W OOLLY ADELGID, ADELGES PICEAE (IAB) The balsam woolly adelgid is an introduced “sucking” insect from Europe. This small, wingless aphid-like insect damages trees by injecting a toxic substance to its host during feeding. During one year, the adelgid has 2 to 4 generations. The damage caused includes: twig swelling, “gout” and irregular annual growth rings, top-kill, defoliation and sometimes mortality. Dispersal occurs at the nymph or “crawlers” stage of the adelgids life cycle. They can crawl for up to 30m in 8 days; otherwise they can travel by wind, birds and animals from 90m to several kilometres. Hazard and Risk Balsam woolly adelgid feed exclusively in all true fir (Abies species), of all ages and vigour. The infested area continues to expand north from the U.S. Subalpine fir stands are the most sensitive to attack in BC; however they not yet well spread. The adelgid are noted to occur up to about 1000m elevation in the Fraser Valley. Amabilis fir is the second most affected host and heavy mortality has occurred in BC. Some trees will die within a few years of becoming infested while others will remain chronic for many years; however a significant number do not seem to be affected. Pure regenerating amabilis stands in DSQ have succumbed to balsam woolly adelgid. 36 Grand fir is the least susceptible true fir, mortality is less common, but trees can suffer deformation. Their decline in health can be taken advantage of by the fir engraver beetle, Scolytus ventralis, especially following dry summers. Impact To date, balsam woolly adelgid have not been identified in the provincial aerial overview. However, populations have been identified by the Regional Forest Entomologist from ski lifts in Whistler, in the Joffre watershed and within amabilis fir plantations at the Hurley overpass. The Whistler area is particularly heavily infested. Management Pursuant the Plant Protection Act and BC Ministerial Order in Council 493/2006, the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands enabled regulation 213/2006 to establish a quarantine zone to restrict movement of true firs’ use in reforestation or as an ornamental or a Christmas tree. Its purpose is to help prevent spread of the adelgid from the area of the quarantine area. Any nursery wanting to grow true fir species must get a permit from the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. The quarantine area includes six forest districts within the Coast Forest Region, including the DSQ (see http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/balsamwa.htm for details). If relying on true fir species for reforestation within or near an area of known infestation, lower the proportion of true fir for re-establishment and increase the stems/ha, as these trees may be infested and killed. No tactics to deal with infested trees are currently available. The use of insecticides in the forest setting is not considered to be practical at present. SPRUCE W EEVIL, PISSODES STROBI (IWS) The spruce weevil is “woody tissue feeder” and the major insect pest of young Sitka spruce in the DSQ where it seriously limits the use of Sitka spruce for reforestation. Repeated weevil attack of the leading shoots of young Sitka spruce leads to suppressed height growth and stem deformities. Young Sitka spruce become susceptible at about age 5 years and continues to be attacked until the age 35 years. Dense stands have slightly lower attack rates and less deformity. Hazard and Risk Weevil hazard zones are based on climate; warmer sites have more successful broods. Spruce plantations adjacent to stands that have heavy attack are at risk. Englemann spruce stands are also susceptible to attack but because of the higher elevation and cooler climate, weevil attack is usually much less intense, and generally not a concern. Hazard zones for Sitka spruce have been correlated to biogeoclimatic unit: Table 18. Spruce Weevil risk for Sitka Spruce by BEC Unit in the DSQ 37 Biogeoclimatic variant CWH dm CWH ds1 CWH vm1 IDF ww remaining variants Hazard Rating High High High High Low Impact Repeated attack by the weevil can result in severe stem deformation as lateral braches turn upward and compete for dominance and losses in height growth. Forks, crooks and heavy branching can result. In severe cases, little commercial volume is produced with many of the attacked trees becoming overtopped and suppressed by competing, less valuable tree species. Management When establishing new stands containing Sitka spruce, utilize weevil resistance planting stock. If improved “A” seed is used (from selected orchard grown weevil resistant trees, R+87), it is suggested that possibly up to half of the stand could be planted with Sitka spruce in areas considered to have moderate to high weevil hazard ratings. If “B” seed is used (from naturally resistant stands, R+64), caution is recommended and it is suggested that only about a third of the stand be Sitka spruce. If weevil resistant stock is not available, plant Sitka spruce as follows: In low hazard areas, Sitka spruce can be planted in accordance with normal species selection guidelines. Low levels of weevil attack can be tolerated (e.g. ≤ 10% stems attacked per year). In areas with a moderate risk of attack, Sitka spruce can be planted back at 20% Sitka Spruce composition for stand reestablishment. In areas considered to have a moderate hazard, it is recommended that Sitka spruce only be planted to compose up to 20% of the stand. In high hazard areas, alternative non-host tree species should be planted, and limit spruce to 10% for stand reestablishment. Plant Sitka spruce with other tree species at high densities (greater than 1600 stems/ha) and delay thinning (or don’t thin). Future Outlook Unfortunately no practical method has yet been developed to control established infestations. However, it is now feasible to plant weevil-resistant spruce with naturally resistant genotypes and improved stock. Research efforts are now focused on further developing and implementing weevil resistant spruce. 38 WESTERN GALL RUST, ENDOCRONARTIUM HARKNESSII (DSG) Lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine are both highly susceptible to western gall rust. Stem infections usually result in mortality through girdling or stem breakage, while branch infections are not as serious. Western gall rust can be a serious problem in partial-cut systems where infected stems are retained and pine regeneration is desired. In these cases, surveys should be conducted to identify all infected trees (including understorey or suppressed trees) which should be removed during harvest. Management should follow the BC Forest Practices Code Pine Stem Rust Management Guidebook and: Remove galls whenever practical. Favour uninfected trees during thinning. MAMMALS (A) Large ungulates such as deer, moose and elk can be considerable problems in plantations by damaging seedlings until they reach a height of 1.5 m. Damage is caused by the ungulates pulling seedlings from the ground or browsing on terminal and lateral shoots causing stunted growth and deformities. Additional damage can occur as a plantation ages, and the trees are used for antler rubbing. Management options range from planting species mixes that include less palatable species and browse guards. FIRE (NB) For the Soo TSA Timber Supply Review 2 and again for Timber Supply 3, fire accounts for 30,000 m3 of non-recoverable losses - the Soo TSA and Squamish Forest District have more fire losses than any of the other forest districts within the Coast Forest Region. Over the last ten years, fire has impacted 236.8 hectares in the Soo TSA, excluding park and the TFL. Table 19. Fire in the Soo TSA (excludes TFL and parks) 1999 to 2008 hectares Fire each year Soo TSA 1999-2008 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 year 39 Figure 7. Historic Fire in the Squamish Forest District 40 Medium Priority Pests SWISS NEEDLE CAST, PHAEOCRYPTOPUS GAEUMANNII (DF) This is an indigenous fungus that attacks only Douglas-fir and causes the yellowing and eventual loss of needles. While only a very minor pest in BC, this pathogen has caused substantial losses in Douglas-fir stands along the Oregon coast, with severely impacted trees having up to 50% growth reduction (Johnson 2003). Economic damage can affect Douglas-fir growing in Christmas tree plantations. Management tactics other than planting resistant species are not currently available; however, incidence and impacts of this disease should be recorded in case future management is required. PINE NEEDLE CAST, LOPHODERMELLA CONCOLOR (DFL) Lodgepole pine is the primary host, but the disease has also been recorded on ponderosa pines. Outbreaks can cause significant damage in young pine plantations and are favoured by moist summers. The diseased needles on previous years' growth are shed as the summer progresses and remaining new growth has a lion's tail appearance. Repeated infestations can result in growth reductions and mortality. Management tactics other than planting resistant species are not currently available; however, incidence and impacts of this disease should be recorded in case future management is required. DOTHISTROMA NEEDLE BLIGHT, MYCOSPHAERELLA PINI (DFS) Currently, dothistroma has had insignificant impacts in DSQ, but should be monitored in the future. The unprecedented outbreak recently seen in the Skeena-Stikine Forest District, located in the northwestern BC interior forest, has coincided with a marked increase in summer precipitation and an increase in frequency of warm, wet days. Dothistroma needle blight will infect lodgepole and ponderosa pine and introduced species of 2-needle pines of all ages. Damage is most pronounced in plantations, complete defoliation can occur within several weeks of infection and mortality can occur with repeated infections. Current management are limited to planting alternative species. BLACK STAIN ROOT ROT, LEPTOGRAPHIUM WAGENERI VAR PSEUDOTSUGAE (DRB) Black stain root rot is also unique in that, unlike other root diseases, it neither kills the cambium nor decays roots. Instead, the fungus is brought into the host by root-feeding beetles and spreads into the sapwood, causing a vascular wilt as it effectively blocks the flow of water to the crown. This insect-driven dispersal also makes predicting spread of the disease difficult. Hazard and Risk Douglas-fir is the primary host of black stain root rot in the DSQ. There are no external signs of the black stain pathogen. The sapwood of the lower bole or major roots of 41 infected trees has a purple-brown to black stain in long, tapered streaks. L. wageneri is not a saprophyte and needs a living host to survive. In areas where black stain root rot has been noted, the risk of attack by beetles may be stimulated along road or skid trail edges as roots are disturbed or trees are physically damaged. Harvesting can also push emerging beetles into surrounding stands or plantations in a search for suitable new habitat. Such displacement can temporally elevate the local population and cause an “outbreak” of mortality, especially in younger trees already suffering from competition, drought, root disease, etc. It is possible that with climate change the occurrence of black stain root rot could increase in areas where Douglas-fir is a marginal species. Impact The impact of black stain root rot is usually localized and rarely exceeds a few dozen trees in a stand unless circumstances are exceptional. The usual pattern is for the sudden appearance of a few dead trees in a stand followed by additional but gradual mortality for several years following. The pattern of occurrence can appear random since nearest neighbours often do not succumb to the disease. Management In areas where black stain root rot may be a concern, low mortality levels can be encouraged by minimizing site disturbance and avoiding tree injury associated with road building and harvesting in areas predominant to young Douglas-fir. The survival of the fungus in stumps is short-lived so they are not considered important in spreading the disease. One point to consider is that since the vectors are attracted to weakened trees other root diseases may be present on these sites. Future Outlook This disease has a low priority for further research. However, it may serve as a useful indicator of the effects of climate change in future studies. WESTERN BALSAM BARK BEETLE, DRYOCOETES CONFUSUS (IBB) Western balsam bark beetle is indigenous to western North America and has been responsible for significant losses of subalpine fir (millions of cubic metres in the province). Secondary hosts include: amabilis fir, Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. In 1987 infestations were first recorded in the Haylmore and Cayoosh drainage. Activity has been noted annually thereafter with a peak of 375 ha in 1991. Another infestation began in 2006 and peaked in 2007 with a population of 4,545 ha (with predominately “trace” incidence). Trees killed by this beetle are difficult to map because attacked trees are dispersed and widespread rather than clumped like most other bark beetles. Western balsam bark beetle frequently occurs in association with drought, winter injury, and / or a complex of secondary pests. 42 Figure 8. Balsam Bark Beetle Severity in DSQ 1999 to 2008 43 Table 20. Western Balsam Bark Beetle Populations 5000 4500 4000 hectares (ha) 3500 3000 Severe 2500 Light 2000 Trace 1500 1000 500 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 WESTERN HEMLOCK LOOPER, LAMBDINA FISCELLARIA LUGUBROSA (IDL) Hazard and Risk Western hemlock is the preferred host, but in outbreaks the larvae will feed on any foliage they encounter. Stands that are high hazard for western hemlock looper damage include dense, overstocked stands with >50% hemlock or a hemlock-cedar mix, that have multi-storeys and are at least age class 6 and located in either the CWH vm1 or CWH dm and within the Howe Sound area. Outbreaks of western hemlock looper have been forecast to occur more frequently and to be more wide spread on the coast of BC as a result of a warming climate (BC MFR 2009). Impact Minimal impact for the western hemlock looper has been documented in the DSQ. Coastal western hemlocks are more tolerant to defoliation impacts than interior hemlocks, and can generally recover from several years of moderate defoliation. Defoliation begins in the upper crown, but as feeding progresses more of the crown is affected, increasing the risk of top-kill and tree mortality. Older stands of western hemlock, Sitka spruce and amabilis fir generally suffer the greatest damage, while young Douglas-fir stands tend to have increased levels of damage relative to older stands. 44 Management Btk (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki) was recently registered for use on this insect. Management of defoliator outbreaks, when using of Btk, is a joint district, region MFR responsibility. However, management of the landscape to minimize hazard is the responsibility of individual licensees. Management should be consistent with the BC Forest Practices Code Defoliator Management Guidebook. GYPSY MOTH, LYMANTRIA DISPAR (IDM) The Gypsy Moth is a defoliator and was introduced to North America from Eurasia in the late 1860s and has been a serious problem in the eastern Canada and the U.S. for over 100 years. Though not established, it is now directly threatens the lower mainland of BC. In BC, gypsy moths are mostly introduced from container vessels from Asia and Russia. The gypsy moth hosts on more than 300 species of trees (usually hardwoods) and shrubs, although feeding may occur on softwoods in mixed stands. Because of its ability to kill some plants, including valuable fruit and landscaped trees. Traps containing pheromones have been hung annually to determine if gypsy moth are in the DSQ, however no gypsy moths have been caught. This is part of a larger program coordinated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In 2008, over 100 egg masses were found at Harrison Hot Springs, on a privately owned hazelnut orchard in the adjacent Chilliwack Forest District. Spraying of Btk was carried out in May 2009. LONG TERM PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The benefits of implementing a forest health program with long-term strategies and proactive management are wide-ranging. Proactive management can help reduce landscape-level hazard and risk and reduce future losses due to pests; essentially improving the resiliency of forested ecosystems. These strategies could also serve to increase plantation success and increase the productivity of immature stands. The results lead to a more predictable planning environment, serve to stabilize and augment timber supply and create more secure silvicultural investments. A landscape with a diverse mix of forest types, composed of different tree species and age classes is generally much more resilient to insect and fungal damage than a more homogeneous landscape. A much smaller portion of the landscape will be susceptible at any given time, and as a result outbreaks are less likely to spread across large areas. This, however, will not necessarily impact the level of damage seen in a given stand or drainage. 45 FOREST HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS IN THINNING, VARIABLE RETENTION AND CONVERSION TO MULTI-AGED STANDS AND WILDLIFE TREE PATCHES The implementation of variable retention systems, as well as pre-commercial and commercial thinning has created new challenges with respect to forest health. Which trees are selected for removal and retention could dramatically impact the success of the remaining or regenerating stand. There are several different forest health factors that have the potential to impact the success of the types of stands described and each is discussed below. Tree Wounds and Decay Organisms Wounding is a natural process of tree growth – it occurs every time a branch is lost. Tree wounds are often the points of entry for many decay micro-organisms. The depth and area of xylem damaged or exposed location on the stem and timing of occurrence will determine the impact of the wound on the tree. Incidence of wounding increases during harvesting, and may include mechanical wounding to stems, roots and root collars, and broken tops resulting from falling trees. There can also be indirect wounding such as sunscald of newly exposed trunks and windthrow of retained stems (Zeglen 1997). Some key considerations for minimizing wounding of retained stems and reducing residual stand impacts during partial cutting are taken from the BC Forest Practices Code Tree Wounding and Decay Forest Practices Guidebook: Consider windthrow risk when evaluating volume removal. In areas of high wind risk, removal of more than 25% of the stand volume could result in high windthrow in the residual stand. Residual trees should have at least 50% live-crown, a minimum of 20 cm current leader growth, a straight bole and no evidence of decay (e.g. fruiting bodies of decay fungi on stem) or other disease (e.g. dwarf mistletoe). Identify “rub” or “bump” trees that are to be harvested last. Placing cull logs along the trail can help protect the edges of skid trails. Limbing logs prior to skidding decreases wounding on retained stems. To minimize redirection of skidded trees into retained stems, limbs should be cut flush with the bole. The level and severity of wounding can also be a factor of the experience and training of the falling crews. Having well trained experienced crews can dramatically reduce the level of damage to the residual stand. Windthrow Whenever a stand is opened up there is increased risk of windthrow. In some situations, the loss of trees to windthrow will not be a concern. The volume loss of scattered trees is usually marginal. Depending on the species, bark beetle populations in windthrow may be a cause for concern. A decision support system should be developed to set 46 expected and acceptable levels of windthrow both within the partial-cut and adjacent stands. The expected level of windthrow will take into account stand hazard (Stathers et al., 1994), tree species present and the incidence, distribution and species of root rot. The acceptable level of windthrow will be dependent on factors such as non-timber values, bark beetle hazard and volume recovery. Root Rot There is a high risk of spread of root rot infestation in the retained stems and the regenerating stand. Retained stems that are wounded may be more susceptible to attack by secondary pests. Armillaria root rot will rapidly overtake the entire root system of harvested trees that were infected. This will increase infection rates of roots of remaining trees and any regeneration that comes in contact with the infected root system. Root rot pockets should be clearly mapped, and where possible either the whole pocket should be harvested, the stumps and roots removed or a plan should be implemented to mitigate impacts on the remaining and regenerating stand. For example, western white pines that are resistant to laminated root rot could be planted. Annosus root disease can cause significant impacts in partial-cut systems. Freshly cut stumps and logs present large wounds that can be readily infected by annosus spores, which then spread throughout the root system and can spread to adjacent retained stems through root contact. Stump treatments (biological control, borax or urea) may be considered in areas where high levels of annosus root disease are identified. Hemlock Dwarf Mistletoe The increased light penetration into the canopy of a partially harvested stand can activate latent dwarf mistletoe infections. The opening of the stand also allows mistletoe seeds to spread a greater distance, and infection of the regenerating stand is likely. When dwarf mistletoe infections are present in a stand, infected trees should be removed. Suppressed and understorey trees with stem or large branch infections should also be removed to decrease innoculum levels in the stand. Do not plant western hemlock close to the edge of harvest cut blocks that have infected trees in the neighbouring stand. Defoliators Impacts on suppressed and understorey trees are greatest, with substantial top-kill and mortality occurring before significant damage is seen in the crowns of dominant trees. In areas of historic western spruce budworm outbreaks, regeneration of Douglas-fir in dispersed variable retention systems and/or other silviculture systems that create a multi-storied Douglas-fir component could result in substantial stem deformities, growth losses and low stocking due to mortality of the advanced regeneration. In recent years, the historic incidence data of the Forest Insect and Disease Survey has been digitized and is available on the Pacific Forestry Centre’s webpage. This will allow for a historical analysis of areas that have been chronically infested by western spruce budworm within the DSQ. Once these areas are identified, where possible forest managers should promote single storey, even age and mixed species regeneration to 47 reduce the impact of the spruce budworm. Portions of the Haylmore drainage have already been identified as areas of historically high budworm incidence (Hodge 2003), and a management plan has been written for this area. Defoliated trees will also be more susceptible to mortality due to root rots and secondary pests such as bark beetles. While the concept of wildlife tree patches and reserves may be ecologically sound, it can have substantial implications for forest health management. These remnant patches often harbour diseases and insects that can easily colonize a new plantation as well as spread within the retained stand. The remaining trees are also often not wind-firm and substantial blowdown can occur, causing potential problems with pests such as Douglas-fir and spruce bark beetles. Selection of patches and reserves should take into consideration the level of insect and disease present; relatively healthy stands should be left to minimize impacts on the regenerating forest and margins should be designed to reduce the effect of wind. IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FOREST HEALTH A 2002 review of climate change indicators for BC found a warming trend between 1895 and 1995 of 0.5⁰C on the coast to a maximum of -1.7⁰C in the northern boreal mountains (WLAP 2002). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) General Circulation Model results from 2007 predicts temperatures will continue to rise 2.5 to 3.0⁰C over the next 90 years (Christensen et al. 2007). This is confirmed by an analysis conducted by the Canadian Institute for Climate Studies that predicts warming trends of 1⁰ to 4⁰C for BC (WLAP 2002). In general, the following trends are anticipated by the IPCC’s 2007 report on climate change: Night time temperatures will increase more rapidly than daytime temperatures (i.e., a decrease in diurnal temperature range) resulting in a lengthening of the freeze–free season. Summer temperatures are likely to increase slightly on average but winter temperature increases will tend to be greater. Winter and spring precipitation levels will increase. Summer precipitation will remain near current levels. Increased summer drying will occur over most mid-latitude continental interiors and increase the associated risk of drought. Droughts and floods associated with El Nino events will intensify in many different regions, including DSQ. Higher CO2 levels will affect photosynthesis but the effect will be moderated by the influence of other climatic and environmental factors. Extreme climatic events will increase in frequency: Increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation events; Reduction in extreme low temperatures with a smaller increase in the frequency of extreme high temperatures; Higher maximum temperatures, more hot days and heat waves; and, 48 Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days, frost days and cold waves. The IPCC suggests that forest management will be affected by an alteration in disturbance regimes due to fires and pests. Recent changes in the distribution of tree species and encroachment in alpine tundra corroborate these warming trends. In the DSQ, the effects of climate change on tree species distribution were noted in the 1950s by Brink (1959); glacier retreat and the encroachment of subalpine tree species into heath communities within Garibaldi Park were observed. Definitive predictions regarding the response of forest health pests to climate change are difficult to make, however general trends are evincible for some species. Figure 9 illustrates the upward trend in area impacted by five pests over a 20 year period in BC: 1) mountain pine beetle; 2) western spruce budworm; 3) western blackhead budworm; 4) spruce bud moth; and 5) five tent caterpillar. Increasing populations of these and other insects have been impacting greater and greater areas and the trend has continued in the last decade. In BC, the mountain pine beetle epidemic, dothistroma needle blight outbreak, and western spruce budworm outbreaks are examples that support the hypothesised impacts of a warming climate on forest damaging agents. Figure 9. Area affected in BC forests by the 6 most damaging forest insect pests, 1972 to 1990 (taken from Harding 2005, adapted from Harding 1994) Much of the modelled data indicates an increase in precipitation for most of BC. However, historical data for the CFR does not show any trend from 1928 to 1998. The IPCC predicts increased winter precipitation for BC and summer droughts along the south-coast and southern-interior. Precipitation increases are estimated at 20 to 30% (Bates et al. 2008). Summer precipitation is predicted to remain stable but, because of warming, drought related effects on tree species may occur, particularly where species inhabit moisture limiting sites such as ridges, bedrock controlled topography, or upper 49 water shedding slopes. Individual tree species will be most at risk at the edge of their ranges or in ecological transition zones, where environmental stress is already high. Any climate change effect on insect populations will be largely driven by temperature, precipitation, and host tree health, distribution, and abundance. Insects may benefit by: to higher rates of overwinter survival longer reproductive seasons facilitating shorter life-cycles host trees stressed by drought or pathogens fewer frost events at critical life stages It is also possible that some insect populations will be negatively affected by increasing temperatures in southern and low-elevation portions of BC because of an extended summer season, although climate change is predicted to be beneficial for most insect species (Carrol et al. 2003). It is thought that the timing of critical life stages between herbivores and their host plants or between predators and prey may be upset by a longer summer season (Carrol et al. 2003; Volney and Fleming 2000). For example, defoliating insects that require new spring buds as a food source must synchronise their development with that of their hosts in order to survive (Volney and Fleming 2000). If development timing changes in host or insect, then that synchrony is interrupted and a food shortage could cause substantial insect mortality. The short life cycle, mobility, reproductive potential and physiological sensitivity to temperature (i.e., insects are cold blooded) will mean that the distribution of many insects could change in a relatively short period of time as they take advantage of new climatically suitable habitats (Ayres and Lombardero 2000; Carroll et al. 2003). Insect species with large geographical ranges will tend to be less affected than those with small ranges (Bale et al. 2002). This is because insects with a larger range already exist over more varied climates. It is also likely that changes in tree physiology and the number of natural enemies, mutualists and competitors will impact insect populations, both positively and negatively, although it is not yet clear exactly where and how this impact will be evident (Ayres and Lombardero 2000). Some insect populations are likely to benefit more than others meaning that some currently innocuous insects may become major pest in the future while current major pests may become less important (Fleming and Volney 1995). The co-occurrence of multiple forest health pests may result in general forest health decline. Drought stress in particular may reduce host tree vigour, increasing the potential for successful disease or insect attack (Hogg et al. 2002). Priority Pests The possible influence of climate change on insects identified as ‘Very High’ and ‘High’ priority in the DSQ was reviewed. This included western spruce budworm, mountain pine beetle, spruce beetle, and Douglas-fir bark beetle. A general review of the possible effects of climate change on fungal pathogens is also included. 50 WESTERN SPRUCE BUDWORM, CHORISTONEURA OCCIDENTALIS (IDW) The severity and size of western spruce budworm outbreaks have increased over the past century according to tree ring reconstruction data (Anderson et al. 1987, Swetnam et al. 1995). This increase has been correlated with climatic variations. In particular, spruce budworm defoliation frequency increases when precipitation and temperature increase (Ryerson et al. 2003, Campbell et al. 2005). It is hypothesized that the positive influence of climate on western spruce budworm populations helps synchronize larval emergence and bud burst. If IPCC climate predictions are correct and spring precipitation and temperature increases, then this may positively influence western spruce budworm populations. However, as previously mentioned insect populations may also be negatively influenced if synchronization is disrupted. Monitoring to identify population dynamics and patterns is integral to predicting the effects of climate change on this budworm. In the DSQ, the CWHds1 has a high hazard rating and CWHms1 a low-moderate rating, and it is these zones that have historically experienced the greatest defoliation frequency (Heppner and Turner 2006). Because of the warmer temperatures, a shift in the range of this species to more maritime climates with suitable hosts may occur as summer temperatures increase. The current behaviour of western spruce budworm within the CFR appears to be within the range of historical outbreaks. It cannot yet be said that the warming climate has made budworm outbreaks worse within the coast/interior transition zone. However, it has recently moved upwards in elevation and northward in latitude. This recent movement may suggest that the budworm may become more chronic in the DSQ, as it is in the interior. MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS PONDEROSAE (IBM) The current mountain pine beetle outbreak is correlated with the warming trend of the 20th century and climate change is considered a key causal factor. The range of the beetle has expanded because of climate change and is now larger than its historic distribution (Carroll et al. 2004). Host availability has not constrained beetle populations as it had done in the past, as jack pine, a suitable host tree species and substantial component of the boreal forest, was not affected until recently when warmer temperatures introduced favourable conditions for the beetle. Carroll et al. (2003) suggest that, because of climate change, beetle population dynamics have and will continue to change. In the DSQ, mountain pine beetle populations have expanded dramatically over the past nine years, but declined in 2008. Most stands with pine in the DSQ have already been impacted by the beetle, although mortality may continue at higher severities in some of these areas until host densities are reduced. The only remaining area with significant, unaffected pine stands is located north of Squamish. If the current pattern of infestation from north to south along the Sea to Sky corridor continues and beetle populations are not reduced by unfavourable temperatures, this area could experience significant mortality in the foreseeable future. 51 Most pine forests here are restricted to xeric, bedrock controlled sites and are not a major stand component across the landscape. Host trees on these sites are generally small in diameter and widely spaced. As a result they provide poor quality habitat and beetle overwintering survival is potentially lower than in larger diameter trees which provide better thermal cover. However, drought conditions have been correlated with beetle outbreaks and increased tree mortality. As xeric sites tend to be more adversely affected by droughts (Ferrell 1996, Thomson and Shrimpton 1984), the susceptibility of these trees may be elevated in comparison with trees on mesic sites. SPRUCE BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS RUFIPENNIS (IBS) Little research has been conducted upon the effects of climate change on this beetle in southern BC. A study in the Kenai Peninsula indicated that major spruce beetle outbreaks were related to unusually high summer temperatures, which facilitated increased overwinter survival, shortened the beetle’s life cycle to one year (univoltine) and caused drought-stress in host trees (Berg et al., 2006; Hansen et al. 2001). The same factors are thought to have contributed to the ongoing outbreak in the Yukon (Garbutt 2005). Currently, central BC is experiencing an increase in spruce beetle populations. Climate change is predicted to cause an increase in extreme weather events such as drought and high winds, which could result in weakened trees and increased windthrow of shallow rooted spruce (Coates et al. 1994). Windthrow and slash are the preferred breeding habitats for this beetle but as populations build to outbreak, attack of live hosts may occur. A one year, rather than two year, life cycle could double the annual population growth rate, resulting in larger and more frequent outbreaks of this beetle. Dendroecological studies in central BC have found that spruce is highly sensitive to environmental factors (Zhang et al. 1999). Drought stress may increase the susceptibility of this species to beetle attack. Outbreaks of this beetle are also associated with moist springs, which climate models predict will increase (Zhang et al. 1999). Current beetle outbreaks have largely been limited to the MHmm2 and CHWms1 in the D’Arcy area. An increase in the prevalence of this beetle should be anticipated as climatic conditions become more favourable. DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE, DENDROCTONUS PSEUDOTSUGAE (IBD) Douglas-fir bark beetle occurs at endemic levels within the DSQ, however provincial aerial health survey data has recorded a dramatic increase in population for the last 6 years in BC (Westfall and Ebata 2007). Populations have remained fairly stable in the DSQ over the last 4 years. Climate and weather are thought to be highly important to the population dynamics of this beetle. If there is a co-occurrence of spruce budworm and summer drought, the reduction in tree vigour could make trees more susceptible to Douglas-fir beetle the following year (Christiansen et al. 1987, Furniss et al. 1979). Extreme weather could also increase windthrow, which is the preferred habitat of this beetle. If climate change occurs as predicted, the prevalence of this beetle will likely increase. PATHOGENS It is difficult to make predictions regarding pathogens and how climate change might affect their prevalence and severity in the DSQ. Some fungal pathogens may benefit from warmer, drier temperatures because of increased drought stress in host trees. Root 52 rots that spread clonally or fungi with non-waterborne spores would be likely to benefit under this scenario because of increased colonization success within stressed hosts. However, pathogens that rely on moisture at critical times for dispersal (e.g., blights, rusts and needle casts) may become less abundant under drier conditions. If summer conditions are wetter in the future, the opposite would be true as host trees would not be moisture stressed but fungal dispersal may be more successful. DSQ SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES This section of the FHS deals with specific objectives for the forest health program in the DSQ in the immediate future. Each objective is related to the mandate of BC Forest Health Implementation Strategy. Implications of forest health for the Timber Supply Review (TSR3) late 2009 process for Soo TSA RATIONALE Timber volume losses due to insects and diseases that normally affect stands (endemic losses) are generally accounted for in inventory sampling for existing timber yield estimation or through other methods. Endemic unrecoverable losses associated with second-growth stands are addressed by application of operational adjustment factors (OAF's). However, estimates for unrecoverable losses that account for epidemic (abnormal) infestations are not automatically incorporated the timber supply analyses. Additional analyses need to be complete at the TSA level. In his October 2000 determination, the chief forester stated he accepted that the figures used in the analysis constituted the best available information and adequately accounted for unrecoverable losses. Yet he encouraged district staff to continue to monitor trends so that any additional information can be incorporated into future timber supply analyses. The last timber supply analysis for the Soo TSA, TSR 2, was completed in 1999 and assumed a total 34,000 m3/year in unrecoverable losses, of which 4000 m3/year was attributable to insects and 30,000 cubic m3/year to attributable to fire. The losses resulting from insect epidemics were derived for the previous timber supply analysis by applying a loss factor to the volumes of stands in the timber harvesting land base under attack at that time. This number did not account for losses of the lodgepole pine stands because these areas were excluded from the timber harvesting land base in the last analysis. The estimated loss due to fire was based on data from ten years of district fire reports. The total losses were reduced to include estimates only the volume loss that occurred in the timber harvesting land base. For TSR 2, the default operational adjustment factors (OAF’s) used in managed stand yield table generation were: OAF1 of 15% (a constant percentage reduction at all ages to represent incomplete site occupancy for example, small holes in a stand), and OAF2 of 5% (an increasing reduction, to represent losses such as decay that increase with stand age). 53 A major objective for the FHS in the Soo TSA will be to support improvements to loss estimates focusing first on those pests identified as high priority. A system to evaluate the impact of losses due to these pests on the timber supply needs to be established. In March 2004, the Chief Forester postponed the date for the next AAC determination until 2010. At the present, the data package was released for TSR3 in September 2008 and determination will occur in late 2009. The 1999 to 2008 overview flight information and the Thomson Alfaro’s volume reduction formula for spruce budworm were used to recommend a pest net down for the TSR 3. Non-recoverable data from 1999 to 2008 was comparable to the TSR2 net down. For TSR 3 it is recommended to use continue to use a net down of 4000 m3/year for pests; similarly, there is no compelling reason to change the net down for fire from 30,000 cubic m3/year. This objective supports Functions 3 (Support Statutory Decision Makers) and 11 (Conduct Operational Research and Monitoring of Pest Behaviour) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Improve the estimate of root disease impacts by remeasurement of permanent sample plots by the Forest Inventory Branch. Examine second growth hemlock stands severely impacted by dwarf mistletoe and identify areas for possible rehabilitation (i.e. those with a site index >18 where reestablishment of Douglas-fir is possible). Revisit Armillaria and Phellinus hazard rating that was done in 1980s, recalculate based on recent stand data. Monitor future affects of climate change on non-recoverable losses. Facilitate training and extension programs in relevant areas of forest health RATIONALE Forest diseases are not mapped in aerial surveys, so it is important to have trained staff, licensees and consultants who can identify pest species on the ground. Since there is ongoing research for many of the priority pest species, prompt and targeted technology transfers is key to the implementation of new knowledge and tactics. Staff training is necessary to maintain corporate strength, expertise, interest and innovation. Access at all levels to science-based information will vastly improve the field component of management. 54 This objective supports Function 10 (Provide or Facilitate Training and extension Activities) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Identify needs for training with both MFR staff and licensees and facilitate delivery of training with Region collaboration; training can be from the informal field trip to multi-day instructional courses and updating guidebooks. Implement of a local forest health surveyor certification program, if certification cannot be verified by some other means. Certified surveyors should be trained to look for and identify major forest pests, and there should be an identified route through which they report observations of pests in the field. Recognize and report suspect climate change related issues RATIONALE As a result of ongoing climate change, the future behaviour and range of many pests is less certain. Many of the historic patterns of infestation and population growth may become invalid predictors of future events. The MFR is addressing the impacts of climate change on forestry through the Future Forest Ecosystems Initiative (FFEI). Projects under FFEI are being designed to ensure BC’s forest ecosystems remain resilient to stress, and continue to provide sustainable benefits. For instance, initiatives to help professionals identify means for selecting tree species are being developed. See: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/Future_Forests/ This objective supports Functions 1 (Develop DSQ Strategy), 4 (Conduct Program Planning, Management and Partnering) and 5 (Detect, Assess and Predict Pest Damage) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Increase monitoring to ensure that future damaging events are recognized early, and preventative actions initiated in a timely fashion. Use existing hazard and risk rating systems to predict future impacts. Maintain detailed aerial detection and ground survey programs RATIONALE The key to sound forest health practices is good detection. The MFR (at Region level) retains responsibility for conducting the province’s annual overview flights. This monitoring program is unprecedented of its type in North America. This survey captures 55 all catastrophic landscape level occurrences on an annual basis and allows for evaluation of forest health impacts at the medium and large scale. Often the most efficient and effective management for a biotic pest is to apply treatment at the incipient stage. This objective supports Function 5 (Detect, Assess and Predict Pest Damage) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Conduct detailed flights and/or ground surveys at the DSQ level in areas identified through the overview or other flights as required to determine the level of incidence of the identified pest(s). For example, Gates, Birkenhead, and Soo landscape units would benefit from small scale monitoring. Heighten awareness of invasive plants and improve reporting by forest managers RATIONALE Invasive plants are not currently a growth and yield issue in the DSQ; however they are a great concern with respect to biodiversity. With major road and infrastructure projects along the Sea-to-Sky corridor, there is increased risk of introduction of invasive species. This objective supports Function 7 (Manage Endemic Pests and Prevent Establishment of Invasive Plants during Forestry Operations) and 10 (Provide or Facilitate Training and Extension Activities) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Continue to offer training in invasive plant identification and monitoring program (IAPP). Prioritize specific invasive plants species (Japanese knotweed and spotted knapweed) and the IDFww as high priority areas for eradication treatments. Encourage prompt, proactive re-vegetation following road construction and timber harvesting. Raise awareness of best management practices to avoid the spread of invasive plant species in pre-works and contract documents for forest management developments and gravel pits. Improved reporting of observed infestations i.e. collect invasive plant species inventory information while doing field work. Facilitate a Forest Stewardship Plan annual monitoring of invasive plants. 56 Encourage long term and proactive management strategies and tactics at the landscape unit level RATIONALE Proactive management can help reduce landscape hazard and risk and reduce future losses due to pests, both of which help to stabilize and augment timber supply. This objective supports Functions 4 (Conduct Program Planning, Management and Partnering), 6 (Treat Pest Outbreaks and Prevent the Establishment of Key Introduced Pests) and 9 (Monitor and Evaluate Treatment Regimes) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Provide input into the development of Best Management Practices. Identify and establish DSQ-specific operational trials. Improve understanding of ecosystem resiliency and its relation to forest health. Evaluate results of current forest health management practices RATIONALE Adaptive management combines management, research, monitoring, and ways to change practices so that management activities are improved based on experience. The intended outcome of adaptive management implementation is that science-based management is delivered by proficient forest practitioners who know how to best alter practices, as required, and to meet the expectations of professional reliance for forest professionals. This objective supports Function 9 (Monitor and Evaluate Treatment Regimes) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Inspect field practices to ensure forest management objectives are met. Facilitate a Forest Stewardship Plan annual monitoring program. Evaluate the entire FHS annually to update incidence data, change pest rankings, and discuss impacts and conditions throughout the DSQ, and set management and research priorities for the coming year. Identify priority research topics to Regional specialists. 57 Support the implementation of the District Fire Management Plan RATIONALE DSQ completed a Fire Management Plan in 2009. The purpose of Fire Management Plans is to provide support to decision makers for integrated wildland fire response and resource management activities. These plans are intended to ensure collaboration occurs across programs within the scope of this policy while working towards cost efficient and effective protection of resource values. The need for district Fire Management Plans stem from Policy 9.4 (July 2008): http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/manuals/policy/resmngmt/rm9-4.htm The history of fire occurrence and fire exclusion have continue to play major roles in shaping the ecosystems of BC. The influence of fire or its exclusion plays a role in ecological succession, nutrient cycling, water cycling, erosion, carbon cycling, habitat maintenance and productivity as well as directly impacting human values and infrastructure occurring in the path of wildfire. Adoption of the recommendations outlined in the Firestorm 2003 – Provincial Review (Filmon 2003 http://www.2003firestorm.gov.bc.ca/firestormreport/FirestormReport.pdf) is leading to a different perception and context for the role of wild land fire within the Province. There is currently a movement from a predominantly suppression oriented strategy to managing the effects of wildfire on the landscape, developing strategies for fuels modification, and deliberate use of controlled fire where appropriate. Development of these strategies is resulting in closer ties between the Wildfire Management Branch and Field Services sides of the MFR. Fire exclusion is a driver for some of our forest health problems in the DSQ because of the unhealthy stand conditions created in areas that typically would have a higher fire return. In part, the suppression of fire has created age class distributions in natural disturbance types that are beyond the normal variation and has exacerbated recent pest occurrence. This objective supports Functions 2 (Participate in Interagency Efforts), 3 (Support Statutory Decision Makers) and 11 (Conduct Operational Research) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Identify beneficial uses of fire in land management activities including forest health and silviculture and communicate to relevant personnel. Participate in the implementation of district fire management plans. 58 Communicate with, and involve forest managers outside the DSQ office, in forest health activities RATIONALE This FHS should serve as an important information source for MFR, licensee and consulting foresters to consider in development of their prescriptions, and may be referenced by the district manager during the review of Forest Stewardship Plans. There is recognition that the forest health strategy must be a collaborative effort in order to be successful. This objective support Functions 1 (Develop DSQ Strategy), 4 (Program Planning, Management and Partnering) and 6 (Treat Pest Outbreaks and Prevent the Establishment of Key Introduced Pests) of the Forest Health Program (see Appendix 2 – Legislation and Policy Support). POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Ask licensees to participate in a review of this strategy document and future documents. Re-evaluate the list of priority forest health pests. Organize meetings with licensees and other stakeholders to discuss forest health issues and provide updates, invite regional experts to share “new and emerging knowledge” as required. Hold licensees accountable to identified responsibilities with respect to forest health, as identified in the draft Forest Health Implementation Strategy (BC MFR 2007): Review the DSQ strategies to provide input to the MFR, and incorporate recommendations in Forest Stewardship Plans. Provide industry perspective to draft policies and procedures developed by interagency committees. Conduct surveys and assessments on behalf of government and as part of the licensees’ stewardship responsibilities. Meet legal obligations to accommodate forest health issues in Forest Stewardship Plans. Attend or send staff, consultants, and contractors to forest health training courses. 59 REFERENCES Allen, E., D. Morrison and G. Wallis. 1996. Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, BC, pp 1-178. Anderson, L., C.E. Carsosn and R.H Wakimoto. 1987. Forest fire frequency and western spruce budworm outbreaks in western Montana. For. Ecol. Manage. 22:251-260. Ayres, M. and M. Lombardero. 2000. Assessing the consequences of global changes for forests. The Science of the Total Environment, 262, pp.263-86. B.A. Blackwell. 2009. Climate Change and Forest Health prepared for the Squamish Forest District. Vancouver, BC. Bale, J. et al., 2002. Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Global Change Biology, 8:1-16. Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds. 2008. 2008: Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp. Brink, V. C. 1959. Environmental change in Garibaldi Provincial Park, Southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia. Geosciences Canada. Ecology Vol. 40(1):10-16. BC Forest Practices Code Guidebooks. BC Ministry of Forests; website Accessed April 2009 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/guidetoc.htm • Generic Forest Surveys Guidebook (2001) • Bark Beetle Management Guidebook (1995) • Defoliator Management Guidebook (1995) • Dwarf Mistletoe Management Guidebook (1995) • Pine Stem Rust Management Guidebook (1996) • Root Disease Management Guidebook (1995) • Tree Wounding and Decay Guidebook (1997) BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. April 2008. Sea-to-Sky Land and Resource Management Plan. Accessed August 7, 2009. http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/surrey/s2s/docs/S2S_LRMP_Final/S2SLRMP_ Final_April2008.pdf BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 2002. Seven Steps to Managing Your Weeds – A Manual for Integrated Weed Management in British Columbia. Open Learning Agency. pp1-33. Accessed August 7, 2009. http://www.weedsbc.ca/pdf/7StepsToManagingYourWeeds.pdf BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002. Indicators of Climate Change for BC 2002. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/climate/pdfs/indcc.pdf. Accessed: March 5, 2009. 60 BC Ministry of Forests. 1998. Tree Farm Licence 38 Issued to International Forest Products Limited. Rationale for Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) Determination. Accessed August 7, 2009 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tfl/tfl38/tsr2/rationale.pdf BC Ministry of Forests. 1999. Soo Timber Supply Area 2 Analysis Report. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa31 BC Ministry of Forests. 2000. Soo Timber Supply Area Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut Determination. BC Ministry of Forests. 2001. Tree Farm Licence 39, Issued to Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd. Rationale for Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) Determination. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tfl/tfl39/tsr2/rationale.pdf BC Ministry of Forests and Range. 2006. Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2006-2011: Sustainable Forests, Sustainable Communities. Accessed August 12, 2009. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/actionplan/2006/Beetle_Action_ Plan.pdf BC Ministry of Forests and Range. March 2007. Provincial Forest Health Implementation Strategy. Accessed July 2009. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/Strategy/FH%20Impl.%20Strategy.pdf BC Ministry of Forests and Range. 2007. Provincial Forest Health Program Brochure. Accessed July 2009. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/health/Strategy/FH%20Strategy.pdf BC Ministry of Forests. 2008. Soo Timber Supply Area 3 Data Package. BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Coast Forest Region. 2008. Coast Region Forest Health Overview. Accessed July 2009. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Aerial_Overview/2008/Aerial%20 Overview%202008.pdf BC Ministry of Forests and Range. 2008. Pest Management Plan for Invasive Alien Plant and/or Noxious Weed Control on Provincial Crown Lands Within South Coastal British Columbia. Accessed April 2009. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/publications/invasive_plants/Draft_PMP.pdf BC Ministry of Forests and Range. January 2009. The Implications of Climate Change to Forest Health in British Columbia: A Report to the Chief Forester. Burton, Phil. 2006. Restoration of forests attacked by mountain pine beetle: Misnomer, misdirected, or must-do? BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 7(2):1–10. URL: http://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS35/vol7_no2_art1.pdf Campbell, R., D. Smith and A. Arsenault. 2005. Multicentury history of western spruce budworm outbreaks in interior Douglas-fir forests near Kamloops, British Columbia. Can. J. For. Res. 36(7): 1758–1769. 61 Carroll, A.L., Regniere, J., Logans, J.A., Taylor, S.W., Bentz, B.J. and J.A. Powell. 2006. Impacts of climate change on range expansion by mountain pine beetle. Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative Working Paper 2006-14. Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service. Pacific Forestry Centre, 506 West Burnside Road Victoria, British Columbia V8Z 1M5. Christiansen, E., R.H. Waring, and A.A. Berryman. 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack: Searching for general relationships. Forest Ecology and Management 22:89-106. Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R.K. Kolli, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr and P. Whetton, 2007: Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and NewYork, NY, USA. Coates, K.D., S. Haeussler, S. Lindeburgh, R. Pojar, and A.J Stock. 1994. Ecology and silviculture of interior spruce in British Columbia. FRDA report 220. Forestry Canada and Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BC, pp. 126. Filmon, Gary. 2003. BC Firestorm 2003 A Provincial Review. Accessed July 2009. http://www.2003firestorm.gov.bc.ca/firestormreport/FirestormReport.pdf Ferrell, G.T. 1996. The influence of insect pests and pathogens on Sierra forests. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Volume II. Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Center Rep. 38: 1177-1192. Fleming, R. and W. Volney. 1995. Effects of climate change on insect defoliator population processes in Canada's boreal forest: some plausible scenarios. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 49: 235-49. Furniss, M.M., M.D. McGregor, M.W. Foiles and A.D. Partridge. 1979. Chronology and characteristics of a Douglas-fir beetle outbreak in northern Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-59. Ogden, UT. Garbutt, R. 2005. 2004 Yukon Report. Canadian Forest Service Hansen, E.M., B.A. Bentz and D.L. Turner. 2001. Temperature-based model for predicting univoltine brood proportions in spruce beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist. 133: 827–841. Harding, L.E. 2005. Climate change and biodiversity a global perspective. Presented at “Implications of climate change in BC’s southern interior forests”, April 26-27, 2005. http://www.sciwrite.ca/Resources/Global%20Perspective_txt.pdf. Accessed: March 8, 2009. 62 Heppner, D. and J. Turner. 2006. British Columbia’s coastal forests: Spruce weevil and western spruce budworm forest health Stand Establishment Decision Aids. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 7(3):45–49. http://www.forrex.org/jem/ISS38/vol7_no3_art6.pdf. Accessed: March 9, 2009 Henigman, J., T. Ebata, E. Allen, J. Westfall and A. Pollard. 2001 Second Edition. Field guide to forest damage in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests and Range and Canadian Forest Service Joint Publication Number 17. Victoria B.C. Hennon, P.E., J.S. Beatty, and D. Hildebrand. 2001. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 135. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Hodge, J. 2003. Forest Health Management in the Haylmore Creek Drainage; with Emphasis on Douglas-fir. Lumby, BC. JCH Forest Pest Management. pp 1-44 Hodge, J. and J. Burleigh. 2004. Soo and Sunshine Coast TSA Forest Health and Bark Beetle Strategy. Hogg, E.H., J. Brandt and B. Kochtubajda. 2002. Growth and dieback of aspen forests in north-western Alberta, Canada, in relation to climate and insects. Can. J. For. Res. 32(5): 823–832. Jack, D., J. McLean, and G. Weetman. 2008. Evaluation of a mature lodgepole pine stand’s resistance to the current mountain pine beetle infestation after nitrogen fertilization. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 9(1):50–53. url: http://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS47/vol9_no1_art6.pdf Johnson, R. 2003. The Scourge of the Yellow Trees: Tackling Swiss Needle Cast in the Coast Range. Pacific Northwest Research Station Science Findings. Issue 58. Koot, H.P. 1992. Western Blackheaded Budworm. Forest Pest Leaflet # 24. Forestry Canada. Marquis, Dave. 2004. Richmond, BC. Soo TSA Bark Beetle Strategy. Terminal Forest Products. Morrison, Duncan, H. Merier, D. Norris. 1991. Detection, Recognition and Management of Armillaria and Phellinus Root Diseases in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. Forest Resource Development: FRDA II. McMullen, L.H. 1976. Spruce weevil damage. Ecological basis and hazard rating for Vancouver Island. Environ. Canada. For. Serv. Rep. BC-X-141. Natural Resources Canada webpage. The Forestry Component of the Mountain Pine Beetle Program. http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/forestry_e.html. Accessed August 12, 2009. Nicol, D., Armstrong, K.F., Wratten, S.D., Walsh, P.J., Straw, N.A., Cameron, C.M., Lahmann, C., and Frampton, C.M. 1998. Genetic diversity of an introduced pest, 63 the green spruce aphid Elatobium abietinum (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Bull. Entomol. Res. 88:537-543. Phero Tech Inc. 1999. Wolverine-Mackenzie Bark Beetle Management Plan. Report to BC Ministry of Forests, Squamish Forest District. Final Phero Tech Inc. 1998. 1998 Squamish Forest District Spruce Beetle Surveys. Final Report to BC Ministry of Forests, Squamish Forest District. Scott, Glenda and W.W. McCaughey. 2006. Whitebark Pine Guidelines for Planting Prescriptions. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-43. (accessed June 2009): http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p043/rmrs_p043_084_090.pdf Sorensen, Jean. 2009. Western White Pine, Shaking Off the Rust. Truck Logger, The Voice of BC’s Forest Industry. Spring 2009. pp. 23-27 Stad, Lucy. October 2008. Douglas-fir Beetle Information Bulletin. Chilliwack Forest District. Stathers, R.J., Rollerson, T.P. and Mitchell, S.J. 1994. Windthrow handbook for British Columbia Forests. B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Working Paper 9401. Timberline Natural Resource Group. 2008. Squamish Forest District: Impact of Western Spruce Budworm in the Squamish Forest District 2001 – 2007. Victoria, BC. Project Number: BC0308313 Thomson, A. J. and D. M. Shrimpton. 1984. Weather associated with the start of mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 14:255258. Volney, W. and R. Fleming. 2000. Climate change impacts of boreal forest insects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 82:283-94. Westfall, J. and T. Ebata. 2007. 2007 Summary of forest health conditions in British Columbia. Pest management report number 15. Ministry of Forests and Range, BC http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HFP/external/!publish/Aerial_Overview/2007/Aerial%20 OV%202007.pdf. Accessed March 03, 2009. Zhang, Q., R.I. Alfaro and R. Hebda. 1999. Dendroecological studies of tree growth, climate and spruce beetle outbreaks in Central British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management. 121:215-225. Zeglan, S., R. Hunt and M. Cleary. 2009. BC Forests: White Pine Blister Rust Forest Health Stand Establishment Decision Aid. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(1) 97-100. http://www.forrex.org/JEM/ISS50/vol10_no1_art9.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2009. Zeglan, S. 1997. Tree wounding and partial-cut harvesting: a literature review for British Columbia. Pest Management Report Number 14. Province of British Columbia. 64 65 APPENDIX 1 – REFERENCE MATERIAL General references for field identification of forest health pests include: Allen, E., Morrison, D. and Wallis, G. 1996. Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia. Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, BC. Duncan, R.W. 2006. Conifer Defoliators of British Columbia. Human Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Henigman, J., Ebata, T., Allen, E., Westfall, J. and Pollard, A. 2001. Field Guide to Forest Damage in British Columbia. Can. For. Serv. and BC Min. For. Joint Pub. No. 17. 2nd Edition. General references for management of some of the major pests include the BC Forest Practices Code Guidebooks. These and other guidebooks can be downloaded from the MFR website at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/guidetoc.htm. Bark Beetle Management Defoliator Management Dwarf Mistletoe Management Management of Terminal Weevils Pine Stem Rust Management Root Disease Management Tree Wounding and Decay For some pests (e. g. western spruce budworm and laminated root disease), more region-specific management tools and second approximations to hazard ratings exist. These are found in within pest-specific reference publications such as the Stand Establishment Decision Aids published in the BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management: Heppner, D. and J. Turner. 2006. British Columbia’s coastal forests: Spruce weevil and western spruce budworm forest health Stand Establishment Decision Aids. BC J Ecosystems and Management 7(3):45–49. Sturrock, R., S. Zeglen, and J. Turner. 2006. British Columbia’s coastal forests: Laminated root rot Forest Health Stand Establishment Decision Aid. BC J. Ecosystems and Management 7(3):41–43. Muir, J., J. Turner and K. Swift. 2004. Coast Forest Region: Hemlock dwarf mistletoe stand establishment decision aid. BC J. Ecosystems and Management 5: 7-9. The Balsam Woolly Adelgid Regulation is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and can be found online at: http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/P/PlantProtection/414_92.htm; for quarantine zone details see http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/balsamwa.htm Coastal field guidelines are available that incorporate forest health considerations into the decision-making process for selecting free growing stands suitable for spacing. These guidelines address biological, financial and forest health factors that can affect the success of a spacing activity and the subsequent growth, yield and value of a spaced stand. Government of Canada, Province of British Columbia. 1996. Interim field guidelines for the selection of stands for spacing (Coastal). FRDA II document. Invasive Alien Plant Species Reference Material: Books: Burrill, L.C. et al. 2006. Weeds of the West. 9th edition, Western Society of Weed Science. Turner, M and P. Gustafson. 2006. Wildflowers of the Pacific Northwest. Timber Press Field Guide. Pojar, J and A. MacKinnon. 2005. “Plants of Coastal British Columbia” – Revised. Lone Pine books. Cranston, R. and R. David. 2007. Field Guide to Noxious Weeds and Other Selected Invasive Plants of British Columbia, 6th Edition. Food Safety and Quality Branch, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Websites: Coastal Invasive Plant Committee - http://www.coastalinvasiveplants.com/ Greater Vancouver Invasive Plant Council - http://www.gvipc.ca/ UBC’s Electronic Atlas of Plants - http://www.eflora.bc.ca/ Invasive Plants of South Western British Columbia http://www.shim.bc.ca/atlases/invasivespecies/Title.htm Weeds BC - http://www.weedsbc.ca/browse.html University of California Plant Photo Database - http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/flora/ Ministry of Forests & Range - http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/Plants/index.htm Ministry of Agriculture & Lands - http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/weeds.htm Evergreen - http://www.evergreen.ca/nativeplants/search/searchresults.php?mode=guided&province=BC&type=invasive APPENDIX 2 – LEGISLATION AND POLICY SUPPORT This BC Forest Health Implementation Strategy (FHIS) (BC MFR March 2007) describes how and by whom the broad forest health program goals and objectives described in the Forest Health Program will be met. It identifies forest health roles and responsibilities at the provincial, regional and district level. The following are district roles and responsibilities based on the 3 emphasis areas (and 11 functions) of the FHIS: legislation and policy support, program delivery and adaptive management. Function 1: Develop a FHS for the DSQ Lead the production and updating of the FHS, particularly addressing mature and non-obligatory immature stand impacts or forest health issues, using contractors for data analysis. Identify priority research topics in the FHS that are of local interest to research committees through regional specialist or directly to research organizations. Consider and incorporate climate change strategies into the FHS using regional specialist advice, and provide input to regional specialists for advising research organizations. Bring suspected climate change-related observations to the attention of regional specialists. Participate in revisions of species selection guides. Review Forest Stewardship Plans, and directly recommend policy change through the policy secretariat. Provide feedback into the FRPA Resource Evaluation Program (FREP). Function 2: Participate in Interagency Efforts Provide input into Best Management Practices for BC Parks within district boundaries. Develop rationale notes for identifying key issues, and Best Management Practices for improving forest health-related activities. Maintain liaison with other agencies to develop coordinated responses and information exchange for intra- and interagency government plans or committees, such as the Spread Control Overhead Team. Function 3: Support Statutory Decision-Makers Support SDM, immediate supervisor and others about forest health to improve forest management. Promote workshops, training and other sessions to improve skill set for staff, licensees and others, and make training opportunities available. Embed training requirements into Employee Performance and Development Planning (EPDPs) and professional learning plans. Program Delivery Function 4: Conduct Program Planning, Management, and Partnering Provide feedback to Headquarters re: FIA, Land Based Investment Program eligibility criteria. Provide feedback to regions re: Standard Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices. Set priorities for Beetle Management Unit (BMUs), pest-specific operations, surveys and trials. Submit funding proposals based on district priorities. Manage forest health contracts. Integrate forest health with other Ministry initiatives and programs (i.e., Tree Improvement, BC Timber Sales, Forests for Tomorrow, species selection and Small Scale Salvage). Function 5: Detect, Assess, and Predict Pest Damage Submit to Headquarters and the region any amendments to standards. Provide district feedback to the draft overview map. Assist in identifying new infestations from the overview survey. Provide logistical support from the district to provide local information for setting up and planning surveys. Facilitate the establishment of permanent sample plots. Identify abnormal levels of damage and notify regional staff when necessary. Participate in the FREP for forest health through feedback for stocking standards and possibly other standards, policies or practices (e.g., cutblock design and windthrow). Monitor forest health conditions in natural and managed stands. Function 6: Treat Pest Outbreaks and Prevent the Establishment of Key Introduced Pests Liaise and consult with other agencies, particularly with First Nations, licensees, communities, other ministries and stakeholder groups. Define treatment regimes in conjunction with the region, e.g., bark beetles and defoliators. Provide first response to examine a new infestation. Develop and implement contracts to address infestations. Conduct proactive rather than reactive management where possible. Function 7: Manage Endemic Pests and Prevent Establishment of Invasive Plants During Forest Operations Provide local advice to licensees to implement and develop BMPs within the stewardship mandate, such as local interpretation of more general provincial guide book information and regional guidelines. Examples include prescribed burns, species selection decisions, use of trap trees and stumping. For invasive plants, examples include pro-active re-vegetation after harvesting or road construction, using local or regional indigenous seed sources, reporting of new or spreading infestations, and other aspects of invasive plant management. Identify invasive plant locations and update provincial database. Adaptive Management Function 9: Monitor and Evaluate Treatment Regimes Assist in permanent sample plots remeasurements set up by region by providing logistical support. District roles will be developed when the effectiveness evaluation protocol for forest health is available as a routine evaluation under the FREP. Function 10: Provide or Facilitate Training and Extension Activities Provide facilitation of courses hosted by regional specialists Budget for delivery of a specific number of courses per year. Review the updated versions of the Forest Health FPC Guidebooks. Facilitate ad hoc courses presented by regional specialists for training ministry and non-ministry staff. Function 11: Conduct Operational Research and Monitoring of Pest Behaviour, and Natural and Managed Populations Establish district operational trials. Identify problems, issues and potential research questions to Branch and regional specialists. Assist in locating suitable study sites with set-up and evaluation where needed. Implement a monitoring program on an annual or 5-year cycle, as applicable. Maintain data files of monitoring activities. Report annually on monitoring activities. Prepare budget requests for new and continuing monitoring projects. Communicate research results to clients. Test or evaluate hazard and risk ratings
© Copyright 2025 Paperzz