sign in sign up
<<
Home , Huckleberry

Managing for Non-Timber Products (NTFPs) in the Burns Lake Community Forest

Forest Science Program (FSP) Project Y11-3158

Executive Summary 2011

In partnership with Ministry of and Range and Burns Lake Community Forest

Funded by Forest Investment Account – Forest Science Program

Managing for Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in the Burns Lake Community Forest

Project logistics

Project lead: Wendy Cocksedge

Organisation: Centre for Livelihoods and Ecology, Royal Roads University

Team members: Will MacKenzie, Ministry of Forests and Range Alistair Schroff, Burns Lake Community Forest (former) Jeff Ragsdale, Burns Lake Community Forest Scott Nielsen, University of Alberta Randy Moody, Keefer Ecological Services Bob Murray, Burns Lake Community Forest Ken Gunter, Burns Lake Community Forest

Project start & end dates: April 2010 to March 2011. Full three-year project initiated April 2008; FIA-FSP project numbers Y09-1158, Y10-2158, and Y11-3158.

Acknowledgements: Our gratitude to the many elders and harvesters who shared their trust, time and knowledge with us in order to compile this report. Many thanks to the measurement team in 2010.

Contact information: Centre for Livelihoods and Ecology, RRU. Tel: 250-391-2600 ext 4348. Email: [email protected]

FSP Y11-3158 2

Table of Contents

Project logistics ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Project Purpose and Objectives...... 4 Background ...... 4 Study Area ...... 6 Project scope and regional applicability ...... 6 Methods ...... 7 Years 1 & 2 ...... 7 Year 3...... 7 Results and Discussion ...... 7 References ...... 10

FSP Y11-3158 3 Introduction

Project Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this three year project was to develop and test a non-timber (NTFP) inventory which assessed both cover and quality of understory species and to develop predictive site and stand attributes for ‘high quality’ habitat within the Burns Lake Community Forest (BLCF). We combined expert (traditional ecological knowledge and local ecological knowledge) and empirical (field data) information to select focal species, develop criteria for quality ratings, and to develop predictive models for site and stand characteristics that support abundant production. We looked at a number of species, and obtained sufficient data to assess a number of species, including: black huckleberry ( membranaceum), soapberry (Shepherdia canadensis), Saskatoon berry (Amelanchier alnifolia), highbush (), arnica (Arnica cordifolia), and Labrador (Ledum groenlandicum). The objectives of the first two years were to: - Build relationships amongst project partners and jointly develop and refine research protocols; - Identify key NTFPs harvested by community members in the Burns Lake Community Forest (BLCF); - Visit and collect field data on the forest characteristics of sites with high quality NTFPs; - Develop and test inventory methods that incorporate quality criteria for cultural use species; - Predict areas in the BLCF tenure where high quality key NTFPs are found, based on field data, literature, and local/traditional knowledge; - Visit predicted areas to compare field observations of NTFP quality and forest characteristics with model predictions; and - Share knowledge and results with the BLCF, and and community harvesters.

The objectives of the third year were to assess stand level production of huckleberry () for one season in identified high abundance areas.

This project’s long-term goals were to develop management recommendations for community forests in northern interior BC to increase the value of non-timber species, and to develop tools for First Nations and forest managers in MPB-affected areas to inventory and manage valuable NTFPs.

Background As stated in the annual reports of Year 1 and Year 2, wild are important to residents, harvesters, and Aboriginal communities of central-Interior . Plants such as huckleberry, soapberry, birch and many others are valuable for food, medicinal, and cultural uses. As wild-harvesting provides people with an ongoing connection to their land and resources, it is a basis of forest stewardship for many. Many are concerned with the conservation of cultural-use plants in this region. Some have observed changes to their quality, abundance and distribution, and many want to know more about how they are being affected

FSP Y11-3158 4 by environmental and social changes such as the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) epidemic, accelerated timber harvesting, increasing interest in commercial non-timber forest product harvesting, and climate change.

Better knowledge of the distribution of sites that are important for NTFP harvesting (now and in the future) is an important step towards protecting these areas. Research on methods to effectively incorporate NTFPs into conventional vegetation inventories, however, is still at the beginning stages (Wong 2000). In theory, an inventory of cultural-use species is really a focused vegetation inventory (Cocksedge 2006) which can be done using existing tools such as a Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI)1, or Terrestrial or Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (TEM2 or PEM3). These inventory tools are limited though, because although they can provide good information on presence and cover, they do not address the quality or productivity. For example, a VRI may provide information on overall cover in area, and an ecosystem map (e.g. TEM) may provide information on which shrub species are supported within that habitat (e.g. black huckleberry), but neither indicate whether the high cover of blueberry corresponds to high productivity; that is, a berry patch that people would want to harvest. An inventory must therefore include an assessment of quality or productivity, which is linked to site conditions, in order to be useful for management implications. Using such an approach could enable preliminary modeling of habitat for potential high production areas until more thorough species specific production research, replicated over many years, can be completed.

Over the past decade, research in Western Canada has helped increase our understanding of relationships with cover and production of some NTFP species (Berch et al. 2010, Burton et al. 2000, Burton et al. 1998). These studies all demonstrate that although there remain gaps in information, there is a strong understanding of the habitat requirements for many of these species. We must recognize, however, that there is a tremendous existing body of knowledge on these species. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal harvesters continue to rely on an understanding of these plants, their habitats, and the production requirements for their livelihood. The strength and validity of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and local ecological knowledge (LEK) in their contributions to resource assessment is increasingly recognized and put into practice (Lertzman 2010, Berkes et al. 2004). Including these knowledge approaches is also important in that characterizing, and managing for, ideal sites for NTFP production must include consideration of local institutions and management strategies (Trusler and Johnson 2008, Parlee et al. 2006, Gottsfeld 1994). Combining expert and empirical data potentially increases the strength and validity of both types of knowledge (Berkes 1999), and vastly decreases the time and resources required to build valid habitat models.

Over the past four years, several studies have been concurrently undertaken in B.C. that address NTFP quality and productivity in relation to site and stand conditions, using a combination of empirical and expert knowledge (CNTR 2010, Robinson et al 2010, CNTR 2009).

1 VRI is an inventory based on photo interpretation and ground sampling designed to determine the distribution and abundance of vegetation resources (MOFR 2007) 2 TEM is a mapping methodology based on air photo interpretation of ecosystem distribution (MOE 2007) 3 PEM is a predictive computer based spatial model of ecosystems (MOE 2007)

FSP Y11-3158 5 This research project continued the development of NTFP inventory protocols, expanding the approach to other regions with broadly similar yet locally distinct social and ecological contexts.

We used participatory research, wherein communities and researchers come together to explore issues of shared interest, with active involvement and recognition of all partners in the research process (modified from McKennitt & Fletcher 2007). Such collaborative initiatives are better positioned to enable Aboriginal communities to control the research questions and issues that are examined on their territory, the methods used to investigate them, and the sharing and ownership of the resulting knowledge (Shackeroff & Campbell 2005). Our study drew on the knowledge, skills, and insights of a range of partners, including elders, harvesters, ecologists, ethnobotanists, foresters and data analysts. We developed protocols for research and for knowledge-sharing and engaged in critical self-assessment of the project’s progress in order to continually improve our study. In so doing, we expected that the project would be more relevant to the local communities, that it would be strengthened from the integration of local, traditional, and western scientific knowledge, and that research outcomes would more likely benefit all partners involved.

Study Area The BLCF is an ecologically diverse landscape with a range of forest types at varying ages and stages. The Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) subzones present within the community forest include Sub-Boreal Spruce dry warm (SBSdw3), Sub-Boreal Spruce dry cool (SBSdk), Sub-Boreal Spruce moist cold (SBSmc2), and Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir moist cold (ESSFmc). These subzones represent ecosystems ranging from dry-warm types characterized by low precipitation, longer growing seasons, and drought adapted species such as Douglas-fir; to ecosystems characterized by high precipitation as snowfall, short growing seasons and heavy snowpack adapted species such as Engelmann spruce (Banner et al. 1993). Based on this range of ecosystems, it is likely that the BLCF offers a range of NTFP harvesting opportunities throughout the growing season.

Project scope and regional applicability This project focused on the BLCF tenure, although there were also field visits to areas outside of the tenure to similar habitats. Plant species were selected by partners and community members based on their cultural, subsistence, or potential market values. Results from this project can be used by the BLCF as well as local First Nations to assist with land use planning. The methodology developed and the criteria ratings are applicable more broadly in BC and beyond.

The community forest presents a good case study to further develop research on inventory methods for NTFPs and to develop the potential to manage for both NTFP and timber species. The BLCF board, which includes members of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs, Wet’suwet’en First Nation, Burns Lake Band, Village of Burns Lake councillors, and directors from the community at large, have identified NTFP development is a priority. The scale of operations in a community forest allows for direct and informal personal interaction between the research team and the forest operations team in the field. This helps to ensure that the

FSP Y11-3158 6 study matches the practical needs of the community forest, so that results are more likely to be directly applicable.

Methods

Years 1 & 2 See reports FSP Y09-1158 and FSP Y10-2158.

Year 3 Stand level productivity In 2010, plot data from previous years were used to identify highly productive black huckleberry sites. Thirty ‘high quality’ sites were selected within the BLCF area for the purpose of assessing berry counts and weights in relation to habitat. At each site, at least one 30 metre transect was established, going through the 2008/2009 waypoint coordinates but with random bearing and waypoint placement along the transect. If the stand was large or if there was noticeable variation in terrain and/or canopy, additional transects were established across the environmental gradients to encompass the variation.

Ten 1m2 circular quadrats were established along the transect to record huckleberry characteristics (cover, stem density, average and maximum huckleberry height, and huckleberry production) as well as site and stand conditions including shrub species cover, canopy cover, and terrain. One quadrat was established at centre of transect (4m2), which recorded similar information but also included vigor and browse. A 50m2 plot from centre was used to record tree regeneration information, including basal area, DBH, and structural class counts.

Predictive models of correlations of plant quality to habitat In 2010, data from BLCF (2008 and 2009) were compiled with similar projects in Fort St. James (2009; CNTR 2010), Williams Lake (2007, 2008, 2009; CNTR 2009), and Likely-Xat’sull Community Forest (2009; Robinson et al. 2010) in order to strengthen the models. Using expert knowledge, we developed hypotheses of site and stand conditions required for high ‘quality’, or productivity. We used Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)4 to rank candidate models which predicted or described high productivity sites in central British Columbia (n = 192 plots) based on climate, stand, terrain, competition, region, year, and complex environmental surrogate variables such as elevation and Biogeoclimatic zone. The analysis included specific attribute hypotheses (e.g. black huckleberry fruit production peaks at semi-open to open canopy (10- 40% cover)) as well as complex interactions (e.g. soapberry fruit production is affected by canopy X summer precipitation X spring frost X previous year summer temperature).

Results and Discussion Stand level productivity

4 Akaike Information Criterion is an index used to assess statistical goodness of fit in order to choose between competing models.

FSP Y11-3158 7 The assessment of stand level productivity of huckleberries in Year 3 was greatly affected by two factors: 1) intense forest fires throughout the study area which directly and indirectly affected the plots and forced postponement of berry measurements into September, and 2) an exceptionally poor fruit production year in the Burns Lake area, acknowledged by local experts. Therefore results are of limited applicability, though do provide indications of increasing climate event effects on access to wild foods.

Predictive models of correlations of plant quality to habitat Interview results and initial data results from Years 1 and 2 can be found in the reports, FSP Y09-1158 and FSP Y10-2158. In 2008 and 2009, the queries underwent modifications in the field based on observations of sites predicted to be high quality. Observations either confirmed the predictions (e.g. soapberry does grow well in association with lodgepole pine), or led to modifications (e.g. while soapberry grows well in association with lodgepole pine, this is only true on south-facing slopes), therefore we further specified the queries so that the models better reflected the reality on the ground. The final predictive maps for all species were not ground-truthed for accuracy due to budget constraints in the final year.

In Year 3, the combined empirical data from the four projects in BC increased the strength of the analysis. The number of observations varied per species, with black huckleberry being the highest with an effective sample size of 192. Using AIC, it appeared that climate normals5 were one of the most explanatory factors in predicting productivity of the fruit species. That is, each species had specific precipitation and temperature requirements in order to maximize productivity. This optimum climate may be produced or affected by a combination of site and stand conditions which vary annually based on the climate conditions in the current and, often, the previous year. For example, a species which thrives in moist, cool conditions may do well under open canopy in a year with increased precipitation and decreased temperatures, but would require increased canopy cover in a hot, dry year, and stand requirements would again vary depending on terrain factors such as slope, aspect and elevation.

Identifying the full range of contributing factors was difficult given the ‘noise’ of the data, however on the whole AIC and regression analysis of the empirical data appeared to support the expert data used in developing the models. For example, AIC ranking supported information from harvesters such as toe slope positions being best for Saskatoon, shrub competition affecting black huckleberry productivity, and heavy summer rains affecting soapberry productivity.

We found that although BEC well explains the cover and presence of these species, for most species in the study it was not sufficient to explain or predict fruit production. As stated above, this is most likely due to the different habitats required to maintain the ideal temperature and precipitation in a given year. Site and climate factors, and their interactions, were required to explain variations in quality, particularly summer temperatures and precipitation in the current

5 Derived from ClimateWNA, a modeling climate surface developed by the University of British Columbia Faculty of Forestry. See Wang et al. 2006 or http://www.genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/cfcg/ClimateWNA/ClimateWNA.html.

FSP Y11-3158 8 and previous year. Shrub competition was also important for some species, such as for black huckleberry and soapberry, as was elevation.

All of the sources of information investigated (i.e. local knowledge, field data, GIS data) offer good exploratory and predictive value. Examining them together strengthens our understanding of the ways in which habitat characteristics influence NTFPs. Expert and field data offer an intuitive set of relationships based on localized information. The GIS data analysis is based on a larger data set, and can be used to develop relationships that are less intuitive, thereby generating new knowledge. While such GIS-based correlations are more difficult to visualize because they are indirect or complex, they are nonetheless valuable for alerting us to the more nuanced factors which may affect NTFP quality, and can suggest areas for further research to clarify their impacts. At times the data from the different sources were in agreement, at other times they complemented each other by adding new and different information.

We found that plant quality, a characteristic that is both subjective and vitally important for NTFP harvesters, was able to be measured and compared by different people across various sites using established criteria. Current vegetation inventories are generally not useful for predicting prime NTFP harvesting sites, as confirmed by our data analyses, which showed that ecological factors predicting the presence or abundance of an NTFP do not necessarily indicate where that plant is found at high quality. By combining the knowledge, skills and perspectives of many partners, however, we were able to develop initial predictions of habitat requirements for high quality NTFP sites.

NTFPs are of great interest to the BLCF and to local harvesters and First Nations, as they are for rural and Aboriginal communities throughout the province. Changes to traditional harvesting areas due to factors such as MPB, climate change, and accelerated timber harvest can significantly impact the abundance, quality, and distribution of these plants. In doing so, they affect the culture, the lifestyle, and the economic and subsistence practices of many residents. The development of quality ranking criteria and the assessment of relationships between plant quality and habitat characteristics enable the incorporation of NTFPs into conventional vegetations inventories. This tool is directly relevant for land use planning by the BLCF and neighbouring communities and agencies, and can be adapted by other communities to suit their cultural needs and ecological landscapes.

FSP Y11-3158 9 References

Banner, A., W.H. MacKenzie, S. Haeussler, S. Thomson, J. Pojar, and R.L. Trowbridge. 1993. A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region (Part 1, Part 2, and Supplement No. 1). Land Management Handbook 26. Ministry of Forests. Berch, Shannon and John Marty Kranabetter. 2010. Compatible management of timber and pine . LMH 64. Ministry of Forests and Range and Royal Roads University. Victoria, BC. Berkes, Fikret. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis. Philadelphia, PA. Berkes, Fikret, Iain Davidson-Hunt, Tracy Ruta and John Sinclair. 2004. Scientific ad First Nation Perspectives of Non-Timber Forest Products: A Case Study From the Shoal Lake Watershed, Northwestern Ontario. NCE-SFMN Project Report. Sustainable Forest Management Network and Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. Winnipeg, MB. BC Ministry of Environment (MOE). 2007. Standards: Terrestrial and Ecosystem Predictive Mapping. Victoria BC. BC Ministry of Forests and Range (MOFR). 2009. Non-Timber Forest Products. Retrieved from www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/ntfp/. Accessed May 2011. BC Ministry of Forests and Range (MOFR). 2007. Vegetation Resource Inventory. Retrieved from www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/vri/. Accessed May 2011. Burton, Philip, Carla Burton and Larry McCulloch. 2000. Exploring Options for the Management of Wild in the Kispiox Forest District: Phase One of a Pilot Project Focusing on the Suskwa River Area. Report prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Kispiox Forest District, Hazelton, BC. Burton, Philip J. 1998. Inferring the Response of Berry-Producing to Different Light Environments in the ICHmc. Report submitted to Forest Renewal BC. Centre for Non-Timber Resources (CNTR), Keefer Ecological Services, Nak'azdli Nation, and Ministry of Forests and Range. 2010. Understanding Understory Plants. The impacts of landscape change on non-timber forest products. Final Report to Forest and Range Evaluation Program. B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range, Victoria, B.C. Centre for Non-Timber Resources (CNTR). 2009. Assessing cultural use species in mountain pine beetle affected areas. Victoria, BC: Final Report for Forest Science Program (FSP) Y093318. Royal Roads University. Victoria, BC. Cocksedge, W. 2006. Incorporating Non-Timber Forest Products into Sustainable Forest Management: An Overview for Forest Managers. Victoria, BC. Royal Roads University; McGregor Model Forest; Canadian Model Forest Network. Gottesfeld, Leslie M. Johnson. 1994. Aboriginal burning for vegetation management in northwest British Columbia. Human Ecology 22(2):171 - 188. Lertzman, D.A. 2010. Best of two worlds: Traditional ecological knowledge and Western science in ecosystem-based management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(3):104– 126. McKennitt, D. & F. Fletcher. 2007. Engaging with Aboriginal Communities in Collaborative Research. University of Alberta Health Sciences Journal , 4 (1).

FSP Y11-3158 10 Parlee, B., Berkes, F. and Teetl’it Gwich’in Renewable Resource Council. 2006. Indigenous knowledge of ecological variability and commons management: A case study on berry harvesting from northern Canada. Human Ecology 34(4). Robinson, Erin, Mike Keefer, Randy Moody and Pascale Gibeau. 2010. An Assessment of the Effects of the Mountain Pine Beetle on Non-Timber Forest Resources in the Likely Xat’sull Community Forest. Final Report to Western Economic Diversification. Project No.: 000007009. University of Northern British Columbia, Royal Roads University, Keefer Ecological Ltd., and the Likely-Xat’sull Community Forest. Shackeroff, J., & L. Campbell, L. 2005. Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Conservation Research: Problems and Prospects for their Constructive Engagement. Conservation & Society , 5 (3), 343-360. Trusler, S. and L.M. Johnson. 2008. “Berry patch” as a kind of place — the ethnoecology of black huckleberry in northwestern Canada. Hum. Ecol. 36(4): 553-568. Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D., and Aitken, S. N. 2006. Development of scale-free climate data for western Canada for use in resource management. International Journal of Climatology, 26(3):383-397. Wong, J. 2000. The biometrics of non-timber forest product resource assessment: a review of current methodology. London: United Kingdom Department for International Development.

FSP Y11-3158 11