Is there another approach that should be considered? If so, what is it?

We can protect biodiversity with two general approaches to forest management.

1. Ecosystem or coarse filter approach

2. Species-specific or fine filter approach

1. Ecosystem or coarse filter approach

The ecosystem or coarse filter approach is divided into three subheadings:

The expectation is that the needs and functional capacity of most organisms and processes are fulfilled (or filtered out) by managing habitats at the landscape level. This umbrella style approach is often called coarse filter management.

• Recognizes species and processes are interdependent

• Accounts for changing, yet stable, nature of ecosystems

• Permits blending of social values with environmental values

• Can manage a broad spectrum of species and ecosystems

• Is flexible enough to permit ecosystem management at different planning levels

• Is not suitable for individual species requiring protection

Because of the tremendous ecological variation found in British Columbia, it would be unworkably complex to try to manage for all species on every hectare of land, nor can we manage for each species individually. A more workable and ecologically sound approach is to adopt an ecosystem management or coarse filter strategy.

Ecosystem management (coarse filter strategy) assumes that:

• Management disturbances should be consistent with conditions under which natural species, gene pools, communities, ecosystems, and ecosystem processes evolved

• The more closely that managed disturbances emulate natural disturbances, the lower the risk of losing natural biodiversity

Ecosystem management focuses on managing ecosystem processes and attributes rather than managing individual components. This approach involves maintaining:

• The integrity of ecosystem processes

• The full range of types of habitats and seral stages representative of a particular ecosystem

• The essential structural attributes of each type of habitat

A fundamental premise for maintaining biological diversity is to implement strategies at both the landscape and stand scales.

See Figure 2: Biodiversity maintenance levels

There is a link between how much retention of stand structure is required at the stand scale and how much should be retained across the landscape.

When landscape units have been designated and landscape level biodiversity objectives are established, the requirement for maintaining biodiversity in individual stands can be reduced. Government mandated levels of retention can be determined from Table 1-A.

As a result, the development of landscape unit objectives will allow for greater flexibility at the stand level. When no landscape unit biodiversity objectives have been established, appropriate stand scale retention levels should be determined from Table 1-B.

Ideally, stand level practices should reflect the naturally occurring patterns of disturbance found on the landscape.

The choice of silvicultural system, and the location, pattern and size of reserves should reflect natural disturbances and overall management objectives. This will influence stand structure and consequently the maintenance of stand level biodiversity.