1. LANDSCAPE LEVEL BIODIVERSITY

2. Relevant FREP questions 1. Are ecosystems represented across the landscape in time and space? 2. Is there a sufficient degree of connectivity among ecosystems? 3. Are stand-level management objectives for maintaining biological diversity (e.g., retention of wildlife trees and coarse woody debris) adequately contributing to the maintenance of diverse ecosystems over the landscape?

3. Milestones Initial scoping papers completed (L.Kremsater) Initial scoping papers completed (L.Kremsater) (May-July 2006) Working group established (Sept 2006) Working group established (Sept 2006) Review, revision and prioritization of “DART” tool and indicators (Dec 2006) Review, revision and prioritization of “DART” tool and indicators (Dec 2006) Project Charter developed (draft) (Jan 2007) Project Charter developed (draft) (Jan 2007)

4. Draft Project Objectives TWO Inter-related projects To provide quantitative data on a range of indicators which are generally accepted as important elements of “patterns of natural disturbance”. To provide quantitative data on a range of indicators which are generally accepted as important elements of “patterns of natural disturbance”. To provide landscape-level context to stand-level biodiversity RSM data through pilot effectiveness evaluations. To provide landscape-level context to stand-level biodiversity RSM data through pilot effectiveness evaluations. How……Proposed Pilots which will Critically assess the pilot approach, and apply this knowledge to developing standardized procedures for future effectiveness evaluations. Critically assess the pilot approach, and apply this knowledge to developing standardized procedures for future effectiveness evaluations.

5. Goal #1: Evaluating biodiversity attributes using current DART indicators Current Indicator HighMediumLowModifyRemove 1Average site index by leading speciesx yes 2Average height by leading species xyes 3Slope/aspect class xyes 4Ancient forestxx yes 5Leading species x yes 6Complexity: Veteran layer yes 7Structural complexity -Rank 2 layer xyes 8Structural complexity xyes 9Seral stage distributionx yes 10Forest interiorx yes 11Size classes of forest interior for each OGMA x 12Connectivity x 13Patch size x 14Recruitment x 15Marbled Murrelet x

6. directed by the goals of stand-level retention and what is being monitored at the stand-level directed by the goals of stand-level retention and what is being monitored at the stand-level need to know the distribution of important stand level elements across the landscape (i.e., snags, big trees, and large CWD) need to know the distribution of important stand level elements across the landscape (i.e., snags, big trees, and large CWD) Need to develop predictive “attribute trajectories” for different stand ages and forest types for these elements Need to develop predictive “attribute trajectories” for different stand ages and forest types for these elements Data from: literature values, cruise data, stand-level FREP data Data from: literature values, cruise data, stand-level FREP data Compare predicted “natural” abundance of these structures to actual FREP field data – how well are we doing? Compare predicted “natural” abundance of these structures to actual FREP field data – how well are we doing? Goal #2: Putting FREP stand-level data into a landscape context

8. Next steps 1. Update DART code to meet current software standards 2. Modify DART logic model to incorporate new/revised indicators and FREP objectives 3. Develop trajectories for each of the stand level elements 4. Pilot implementation in Prince George TSA and Sunshine Coast TSA