forest management guide for great lakes-st....

DRAFT

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscape Guide Environmental Registry Draft, November 2008

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FOREST MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR 8

GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE 9

LANDSCAPES 10

11

DRAFT 12

Environmental Registry Posting 13

November 2008 14

15

DRAFT


2

Table of Contents 1 2 How to Use this Guide..................................................................................................... 4 3 4 1 Policy Background ................................................................................................... 4 5

1.1 Purpose of the Guide....................................................................................... 4 6 1.2 Guide Phase-In................................................................................................. 5 7

1.2.1 Previous guides replaced........................................................................ 5 8 1.3 Applying the Forest Management Guide for Landscapes to Phase II 9 (second five year term) of forest management plans ............................................. 6 10

1.3.1 Forest management plans with Phase I written without the 11 Landscape Guide ..................................................................................................... 6 12 1.3.2 Forest management plans with Phase I written with the Landscape 13 Guide ..................................................................................................................... 6 14

1.4 MNR’s Statement of Environmental Values................................................. 6 15 1.5 Standards, Guidelines and Best Management Practices .......................... 7 16 1.6 The Coarse and Fine Filter Management Approaches .............................. 7 17 1.7 Public Engagement .......................................................................................... 9 18 1.8 Notes on symbols used ................................................................................. 10 19

20 2 Overview of the Landscape Guide ...................................................................... 11 21 22 3 Developing the Landscape Guide ....................................................................... 14 23

3.1 OMNR Goals................................................................................................... 14 24 3.2 Experience....................................................................................................... 14 25

3.2.1 Pilot testing and impact assessment of landscape guide ................ 15 26 3.3 Knowledge: Biodiversity Conservation at Landscape Scales ................. 15 27

3.3.1 What is a landscape? ............................................................................ 16 28 3.3.2 Adaptive Cycles of Landscapes........................................................... 17 29 3.3.3 Landscapes as Habitat .......................................................................... 20 30 3.3.4 Climate Change and the Landscape Guide ....................................... 21 31

3.4 Analysis Framework....................................................................................... 21 32 3.5 Landscape Guide Indicators......................................................................... 23 33

3.5.1 Landscape Structure and Composition Indicators ............................ 26 34 3.5.1.1 Amount of area by landscape class ................................................ 27 35 3.5.1.2 Amount of area by selected forest composition grouping............ 28 36 3.5.1.3 Amount of old growth forest.............................................................. 28 37

3.5.2 Landscape Pattern Indicators............................................................... 31 38 3.5.2.1 Texture of the Mature and Old Forest Matrix................................. 31 39 3.5.2.2 Young Forest Patch Size .................................................................. 33 40

3.5.3 The Fine Filter: Habitat for Special Species....................................... 34 41 3.6 Ranges and Milestones................................................................................. 37 42

3.6.1 Landscape Guide Regions ................................................................... 37 43 3.6.2 Landscape Guide Ranges .................................................................... 38 44 3.6.3 Apportioned landscape guide ranges ................................................. 39 45 3.6.4 Milestones ............................................................................................... 39 46

DRAFT


3

1 4 Applying the Landscape Guide in a Forest Management Plan ...................... 41 2

4.1 Implementing the Landscape Guide in Phase I of Forest Management 3 Plans ........................................................................................................................... 42 4

4.1.1 Measure the condition of current forest landscape........................... 42 5 4.1.2 Use Apportioned Landscape Guide Ranges as Desirable Levels . 42 6 4.1.3 Develop Targets for Biodiversity Objectives ...................................... 44 7 4.1.4 Identify Large Landscape Patches to Meet Targets ......................... 46 8

9 5 Monitoring and Evaluating .................................................................................... 47 10

5.1 Approach to Effectiveness Monitoring ........................................................ 48 11 5.2 Emulation of Natural Disturbance as Policy Hypothesis .......................... 50 12 5.3 Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 51 13

14 6 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 53 15 16 7 Glossary................................................................................................................... 62 17 18

DRAFT


4

How to Use this Guide 1 2

The most efficient way to use the Landscape Guide in Forest Management Planning is 3 to follow these steps: 4

1. Read the Landscape Guide: The main body of the guide describes how the guide 5 was developed, FMP implementation steps and an approach to effectiveness 6 monitoring of the guide direction. 7

2. Read the Landscape Guide Direction Appendix pertaining to your area of interest: 8 There are 6 landscape guide regions across Ontario. At the time of publication of 9 the landscape guide each forest management planning unit is contained within a 10 single landscape guide region. The Direction Appendix contains specific details 11 on the indicators relating to each landscape guide region and forest management 12 unit. 13

3. Use Ontario’s Landscape Tool (OLT) to measure and assess the landscape of 14 interest. The OLT is a computer-based tool that measures landscape guide 15 indicators described in the Landscape Guide and Appendices. OLT also contains 16 science and information packages (SIP) that describe, in great detail, how 17 landscape guide ranges were determined. 18

4. Incorporate the landscape guide direction into forest management planning. 19 20

1 Policy Background 21

1.1 Purpose of the Guide 22 23 The Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes (referred to 24

as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscape Guide) is one of a series of forest 25 management guides used by forest managers when planning and implementing forest 26 management activities. In order to protect or enhance environmental, recreational and 27 cultural heritage values, the series of guides provide direction to assist forest managers 28 decide, for example, what areas of forest to harvest (and equally important, what areas 29 not to harvest), how large the harvest areas should be, and what harvesting and 30 regeneration practices to use. 31

32 Consistent with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA), the overall objective of 33

this guide is to contribute to the sustainable management of Crown forests through the 34 maintenance of their long term health. A key aspect of this objective is the conservation 35 of biodiversity. ‘Conservation’ has been defined as the preservation, maintenance, 36 sustainable utilization, restoration and enhancement (World Conservation Strategy 1980, 37 as cited in OMNR 1992) or the protection and/or sustainable use (Ontario Biodiversity 38 Strategy, Anon. 2005) of biological resources. The purpose of this guide is to provide 39 direction on planning and conducting forest operations at the landscape scale (i.e. 1000s 40 of km2) so that forest biodiversity will be conserved and Ontario’s forests will remain 41 healthy and sustainable. The Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at 42 the Stand and Site Scales (the Stand and Site Guide) provides direction on conserving 43

DRAFT


5

biodiversity, and hence sustaining forest health, at smaller scales (i.e. 100s m2 to 100s 1 km2). 2

3 These two guides are linked, both philosophically and literally within the text of each 4

guide. The Landscape Guide is applied at the beginning of the forest management 5 planning process and helps planning teams set the strategic direction for the entire forest 6 management unit, in the context of surrounding forest management units. This strategic 7 direction provides the background when planning teams develop operations specific to the 8 forest management unit, through the implementation of the Stand and Site Guide. 9

10 An overview of the complete set of forest management guides and their role in the 11

sustainable management of Ontario’s forests is provided in Ontario’s Forest Management 12 Guides: An Introduction (OMNR 2006). 13 14

1.2 Guide Phase-In 15 16

The Landscape Guide for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence (GLSL) forest region will 17 be used in preparation with all 2011 and subsequent Forest Management Plans in the 18 GLSL-South and GLSL-North Landscape Guide Regions (Figure 1). 19 20

21 Figure 1. GLSL-North and GLSL-South Landscape Guide Regions (yellow). 22

1.2.1 Previous guides replaced 23 24

For the GLSL-North and –South guide regions, this guide replaces the landscape 25 level direction in the following forest management guides: 26 • Forest management guide for natural disturbance pattern emulation, 2001 27 • Forest management guidelines for the provision of marten habitat, 1996 28 • Forest management guidelines for the provision of pileated woodpecker habitat, 1996 29 • Forest management guidelines for the provision of white-tailed deer habitat, 1997 30 • Timber management guidelines for the provision of moose habitat, 1988 31 32

DRAFT


6

1.3 Applying the Forest Management Guide for Landscapes to 1 Phase II (second five year term) of forest management plans 2

3 There will be two types of forest management plans preparing Phase II (second five 4

year terms) – those that prepared 10-year plans with the Landscape Guide, and those that 5 did not. 6

7

1.3.1 Forest management plans with Phase I written without the 8 Landscape Guide 9

10 Forest management plans that have been written prior to implementation of the 11

Landscape Guide are not required to update the Long Term Management Direction or the 12 landscape indicators in FMP-13 based on the Landscape Guide (standard). 13

14

1.3.2 Forest management plans with Phase I written with the 15 Landscape Guide 16

17 Teams that did apply the landscape guide to develop their 10-year FMP will be 18

planning operations for the second five-year term starting in 2014. During Phase I, Stage 19 Three (Operational Planning), the spatial assessment of sustainability is updated and 20 documented in the final version of FMP-13. This includes landscape scale spatial 21 assessments of the effects of planned operations for both the first five-year term and the 22 second five-year term of the Forest Management Plan. A similar assessment is not done 23 in Phase II planning. Rather, at this stage the assessment is done through the annual 24 reporting process. 25

26 During Phase Two (second five year term) the landscape guide will be used two 27

ways: 28 1. The plan author will determine whether or not the long-term direction remains 29

valid for the second five-year-term. Part of this determination will consider 30 biodiversity objectives that were developed with the landscape guide. 31

2. The landscape guide pattern indicators (section 3) will be used in evaluating 32 the ability of the management unit to meet the spatial objectives of the Forest 33 Management Plan (guideline). 34

35

1.4 MNR’s Statement of Environmental Values 36 37

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is the steward of Ontario’s provincial 38 parks, forests, fisheries, wildlife, mineral aggregates, and the Crown lands and waters that 39 make up 87 per cent of the province. This is a major responsibility which MNR manages 40 through a diverse legislative mandate and an array of programs aimed at meeting the 41 needs of a broad client base. 42

DRAFT


7

1 The Ministry envisions a healthy environment that is naturally diverse and supports 2

a high quality of life for the people of Ontario through sustainable development. The 3 Ministry’s mission is to manage Ontario’s natural resources in an ecologically sustainable 4 way to ensure that they are available for the enjoyment and use of future generations. The 5 Ministry is committed to the conservation of biodiversity and the use of natural resources 6 in a sustainable manner. 7

8 In 2008 the MNR revised its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) under the 9

Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The SEV is a document that describes how the 10 purposes of the EBR are to be considered whenever decisions that might significantly 11 affect the environment are made in the Ministry. The Ministry has considered its SEV 12 during the development of the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 13 Landscapes. This document is intended to reflect the direction set out in the SEV and to 14 further the objectives of managing our natural resources on a sustainable basis. 15 16

1.5 Standards, Guidelines and Best Management Practices 17 18

Direction within this document is characterized as a standard, a guideline, or a best 19 management practice. It is important to understand the differences between these three 20 terms since they have different implications with respect to writing a forest management 21 plan. 22

23 standard: a component of a guide that provides mandatory direction 24 guideline: a component of a guide that provides mandatory direction, but requires 25

professional judgment for it to be applied appropriately at the local level 26 best management practice: a component of a guide that suggests a practice or strategy 27

to help implement the overall purpose of the standards and guidelines 28 29 Standards must be followed as written; there is no room for interpretation on the 30

part of the planning team. Guidelines are also mandatory and must be followed, but 31 require professional expertise and local knowledge in order to be implemented. They 32 may be expressed as a range of values or may need to be implemented in different ways 33 according to the site conditions or circumstances encountered. Best management 34 practices are not mandatory direction, but rather are examples of practices that the 35 planning team may wish to use. The list of best management practices is not intended to 36 be exhaustive; planning teams may think of and implement other ideas or strategies. 37 There is no requirement to use any of these best management practices, and a specific 38 best management practice may not be applicable to local circumstances. 39 40

1.6 The Coarse and Fine Filter Management Approaches 41 42

There are hundreds of species of vertebrates in the boreal and Great-Lakes St. 43 Lawrence (GLSL) forest regions of Ontario (see D’Eon and Watt 1994, Bellhouse and 44

DRAFT


8

Naylor 1997) and invertebrate species are likely to number in the tens of thousands. Thus, 1 a species-by-species approach to the provision of wildlife habitat and the conservation of 2 biodiversity is impossible in the context of forest management. However, this might be 3 achieved through the hierarchical application of standards and guides that are judiciously 4 selected to act as coarse and fine filters. 5 6

The concept of coarse and fine filters was popularized by Hunter (1990) and is 7 illustrated in Figure 2. In order to manage Ontario’s forests to reflect society’s ecological, 8 social and economic expectations, Ontario has, over the last ten years, begun to rely on a 9 nested coarse and fine filter approach to meet wildlife habitat needs and provide healthy 10 forests. This forest management guide builds upon this approach. The coarse filter 11 component creates a diversity of ecosystem conditions through space and time, in turn 12 providing habitat for the majority of native species. A series of fine filters is then used, if 13 necessary, to modify the results of applying the coarse filter. A fine filter may be 14 required for one of two reasons: 1) the societal and/or economic aspects of sustainable 15 development require more or less habitat than would be provided by nature, or 2) the 16 ecological requirements of a particular species or value are not addressed or 17 accommodated sufficiently through application of only the coarse filter, in some cases 18 because the proposed actions cannot completely mimic natural events. The extent to 19 which the first type of fine filter is applied will vary across the province, depending on 20 local forest conditions and societal expectations. Both the coarse and fine filters are 21 applied at all scales, from the landscape to the site. 22 23 In designing a coarse filter, one must determine the most desirable mix of ecosystem 24 conditions to include. One of the principles of the CFSA provides direction on what to 25 consider as the coarse filter (i.e. a mix based on nature), as well as what fine filters to 26 develop. 27 28

The long term health and vigour of Crown forests should be provided for 29 by using forest practices that, within the limits of silvicultural 30 requirements, emulate natural disturbances and landscape patterns 31 [coarse filter] while minimizing adverse effects on plant life, animal life, 32 water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational 33 values and heritage values [fine filters]. (CFSA s. 2(3)2) 34

35 In Ontario, the emulation of natural disturbances and landscape patterns is used as the 36 basis of the coarse filter. The many values that a forest provides, as identified in this 37 principle (e.g. plant life, animal life, water, soil, etc.), are the topics of the series of fine 38 filters. 39 40 The predominant natural disturbance in Ontario’s boreal forest is wildfire, while a 41 combination of fire, wind, and insect outbreaks play a role in the development of the 42 Great Lakes – St. Lawrence forest region. In the Landscape Guide, Ontario’s forest 43 landscape is designed through application of the coarse filter by addressing three key 44 prescriptive indicators: pattern, composition and structure. At this scale only a few fine 45

DRAFT


9

filters are applied to provide for or evaluate the landscape scale habitat requirements of 1 one or more of caribou, white-tailed deer, moose, marten, and pileated woodpecker. 2 3

4 5

Figure 2. A conceptual model showing the relationship between coarse and fine filters in habitat 6 management. A coarse filter operates at a variety of spatial scales to: provide habitat for a very 7 broad range of wildlife, to support interactions among species, and to facilitate ecosystem processes. 8 A fine filter may be required for species whose needs are not captured by the coarse filter. 9 Biodiversity is most likely to be conserved by hierarchical application of both filters on the landscape. 10 (Figure by K. Szuba, as found in OMNR 2001) 11 12 The coarse and fine filter approach to wildlife habitat management has existed for some 13 time and has gradually been introduced and at least partially implemented in most parts 14 of Ontario. It is, however, quite different from the featured species approach used 15 extensively in the past and will take some time before forest planners and operators are 16 familiar with it and understand it fully. 17 18

1.7 Public Engagement 19 20

We discussed and listened to suggestions and ideas of technical and non-technical 21 public throughout the development of the landscape guide including: 22 23 Participation of NGOs on development teams of both guides (Ontario Forest 24

Industries Association, Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association, Wildlands 25 League, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters 26

DRAFT


10

Discussions with science advisors from Canadian Forestry Service, Canadian Wildlife 1 Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, various universities, natural resource 2 agencies in other provinces 3

Presentations to all three Regional Advisory Committees 4 Multiple presentations to forest industry groups, environmental organizations (e.g. 5

Wildlands League, Forest Ethics, Greenpeace, Ecojustice, Earthroots, Wildlife 6 Conservation Society), local trappers councils, local field naturalists 7

Ongoing advice from Provincial Forest Technical Committee 8 9

1.8 Notes on symbols used 10 Throughout the landscape guide, the reader will encounter three aids to application: 11

FMPM Link, Documentation, and Application Hints – these aids are intended to assist 12 forest management planning teams in applying the guide. 13 14

FMPM Link 15 An FMPM link indicates a link between a specific part of the landscape guide with the 16 appropriate FMP task or product. Italicized text indicates direct excerpts from the 2004 17 Forest Management Planning Manual (OMNR 2004). 18 19 Documentation of landscape guide application is identified as: 20

Documentation 21 “Documentation” means that application of the listed landscape guide steps are to be 22 documented in the FMP section indicated. 23 24 Assistance in landscape guide application is identified as: 25

Application Hint 26 These hints are intended to assist planning teams to apply the landscape guide. They are 27 best management practices that contain questions that may be used to help teams discuss 28 the application of the guide. 29

DRAFT


11

2 Overview of the Landscape Guide 1 The goal of the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence 2

Landscapes (hereafter called the landscape guide) is to provide direction to forest 3 managers on how to conserve biodiversity in an effective and efficient manner through 4 landscape-level approaches, thereby contributing to the achievement of forest 5 sustainability. We consider that the direction may be effective because it considers the 6 entire landscape mosaic – a full range of habitat types that can be provided through forest 7 management planning. Efficiency is promoted through conserving biodiversity while 8 minimizing “costs” to other values by allowing practitioners the flexibility to use timing 9 and location of management actions to meet not only biodiversity objectives but also 10 social and economic objectives. 11

12 Application of the guide recognizes the importance of the natural variability of 13

landscapes and attempts to provide a parsimonious set of standards, guidelines and best 14 management practices designed to assist planners in conserving these characteristics 15 within desirable ranges into the future. The landscape guide supports setting landscape 16 mosaic objectives and targets for forest composition and structure (forest tree species 17 groups and age classes), pattern, and habitat in forest management plans. Additional 18 guides (e.g. stand-site, silvicultural guides) provide complementary direction at other 19 scales (see section 1). 20

21 An adaptive management approach (“learning while doing”) will allow us to 22

evaluate if the landscape guide will meet its goal. The landscape guide is organized into 3 23 sections based on an adaptive management approach: development, implementation, and 24 monitoring and evaluating. 25 1. The development section (section 3.0) introduces the adaptive management approach 26

used to develop the guide including goals, knowledge and the analysis framework. 27 The section then discusses the indicators that were selected to direct forest 28 management. The last part of the development section deals with landscape level 29 direction and hypothesis construction based on explicit predictions about the 30 outcomes of future management activities on the landscape mosaic. 31

2. The application section (section 4.0) provides direction to FMP teams on how to 32 implement the results of the development section into forest management plans. This 33 section contains the standards, guidelines and best management practices along with 34 the documentation required for preparing forest management plans. 35

3. The monitoring and evaluating section (section 5.0) describes MNR’s approach to 36 effectiveness monitoring of the landscape guide. Predictions made in the development 37 section will be evaluated through effectiveness monitoring. The results of this 38 monitoring will be used for subsequent reviews of the landscape guide. Efficiency 39 will be determined through the ease with which people can write, read and implement 40 forest management plans that apply the landscape guide, while balancing important 41 ecological, social and economic values. 42

43 “Our Sustainable Future” (OMNR 2005) speaks to uncertainty in resource 44

management: 45

DRAFT


12

1 As our understanding of the way the natural world works and how our actions 2 affect it is often incomplete, [we] should exercise caution and special concern for 3 natural values in the face of such uncertainty. 4

5 The landscape guide deals with “caution and special concern” (See OMNR 2005) 6

by applying aspects of adaptive management (e.g. Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Baker 7 2000) and decision analysis approaches (eg Morgan and Henrion 1990). The goal of 8 science-based (adaptive) management is to speed the process of learning by treating 9 policies as hypothesis, and developing monitoring and research programs that directly 10 test the effectiveness of the polices and guidelines. This interface between Science and 11 Policy forms the foundation of Forest Management Guide development and testing. 12 Adaptive management links science and policy to enable the development of policy 13 through a cycle that facilitates continuous improvement to practices using a four-phase 14 adaptive management cycle (Figure 3). 15

16

17 18 19 Figure 3. The adaptive management cycle that is proposed for development, implementation, 20 monitoring and evaluating of the landscape guide. Green Boxes represent shared activities of 21 management and science during development and evaluation phases, whereas yellow and blue boxes 22 represent parallel but separate activities of science and management (respectively) in the monitor 23 and evaluation phases. The concept of “efficiency” is inherent in the analysis box seeking to 24 “minimize adverse effects”. The development of the guide brought together science and management 25 to combine goals, experience, knowledge, technology and inventory to develop an analytical 26

DRAFT


13

framework (see Error! Reference source not found.) from which landscape direction and testable 1 hypotheses were developed (Adapted from Stankey et al. 2005.) 2 3

The landscape guide was developed by linking science and policy based on 4 MNR’s goals, existing knowledge, current technology, and existing inventories. As 5 shown in Figure 3, the “analysis framework” allowed for gaming of alternative scenarios 6 of management actions and an evaluation of the effects of those actions. The alternative 7 scenarios that were generated to meet landscape guide goals were treated as hypotheses to 8 be tested. By predicting outcomes of alternative sets of standards and guidelines and 9 comparing the simulated results, MNR was able to select the set that is predicted to best 10 meet goals (i.e., the landscape guide) (Rempel et al. 2007). To complete one adaptive 11 management cycle as described in Fig. 3, the effectiveness of the landscape guide in 12 achieving the desired, predicted outcomes must be determined, and if necessary, the 13 landscape guide should be revised in light of that experience (e.g. Nudds 1998). More 14 detail on the Analysis Framework is provided in section 3.4. 15 16

For the landscape guide, the analysis framework was created to deal with the 17 development part of the adaptive management cycle that involves making predictions, 18 determining degrees of belief, and selecting a best guess. In doing so we have identified 19 variables that indicate the result that management actions should try to achieve 20 (prescriptive indicators) and variables that indicate if these actions are meeting our goals 21 (e.g. evaluative indicators; see Rempel et al. 2004 for a discussion on prescriptive and 22 evaluative indicators, and Kneeshaw et al. (2000) for related concepts). There are two 23 outcomes of the development phase: 24

1. Predicted changes in the variables we directly control through manipulation of 25 forest cover (e.g. edge, patch size, old growth). 26

2. Predicted changes in the variables not directly managed for but used to evaluate 27 achievement of our goals (e,g, presence/absence of the golden-crowned kinglet) 28

29 The first outcome of the development phase for the landscape guide is landscape 30

direction to forest management planning teams in the form of apportioned landscape 31 guide ranges for the prescriptive indicators, herein called landscape guide indicators. 32 33

In the implementation phase, science and management continue through the 34 adaptive management loop in a separate but parallel manner. On-the-ground actions are 35 initiated through forest management actions that are used to meet biodiversity 36 conservation objectives. Scientific studies are initiated to assess the effectiveness of 37 guide direction based on the predicted changes in landscapes established in the 38 development phase. 39 40

In the monitoring phase management will simply ensure compliance of operational 41 with strategic planning (i.e. are desired ranges being met?). Science will carry out 42 monitoring activities that will contribute to the evaluation of the ecological effectiveness 43 of guide direction (i.e. are possible target ranges conserving biological diversity 44 effectively and efficiently and as expected?). 45 46

DRAFT


14

In the evaluation phase management and science rejoin to support the review of the 1 landscape guide and bring new experience, new knowledge, new technology and updated 2 inventory to the review process to assist in revising, if necessary, the goals. This 3 evaluation becomes the basis for future versions of the landscape guide. See the 4 monitoring and evaluating section of the landscape guide for more details. 5

6

3 Developing the Landscape Guide 7

3.1 OMNR Goals 8 9 The goal of the landscape guide, conserving biodiversity in an effective and 10

efficient manner (see section 2) is based upon the principles of the Crown Forest 11 Sustainability Act (CFSA) (RSO 1994). Specifically, the first principle defines 12 effectiveness, which is conserving biological diversity. The second principle tells to us to 13 emulate landscape patterns within silvicultural limits while bringing in the concept of 14 efficiency through minimizing adverse effects on other values: 15

1. Large, healthy, diverse and productive Crown forests and their associated 16 ecological processes and biological diversity should be conserved. 17

2. The long term health and vigour of Crown forests should be provided for by 18 using forest practices that, within the limits of silvicultural requirements, emulate 19 natural disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing adverse effects on 20 plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including 21 recreational values and heritage values. 1994, c. 25, s. 2 (3). 22

Emulation of natural disturbance patterns through forest management is also required 23 under the EA declaration Order (EA Condition 39). 24

3.2 Experience 25 26 The guide takes a holistic approach to the management of forested landscapes by 27

directing the management of a landscape mosaic at ecologically meaningful scales (both 28 larger and smaller than individual management units). It builds upon past forest 29 management guides that focused on individual components at the landscape scale (e.g. 30 marten, NDPEG, caribou, old growth policy) and fills gaps in direction. It consolidates 31 existing forest management guides as suggested through a review conducted by 32 independent consultants (Arborvitae et al. 2000) in support of the “Ontario Forest 33 Accord”, an agreement endorsed by OMNR, the Partnership for Public Lands, and the 34 Forest Industry in 1999. Development team members sought advice from field staff on 35 experience gained from forest management plans implemented since 1996. Finally, the 36 guide refers to the results of applicable scientific research, the results of relevant and 37 appropriate monitoring programs, advantages and disadvantages of changes to current 38 forest management practices, advances in analytical and operational technology, and 39 extensive landscape-level scenario analyses. The Landscape Guide attempts to provide 40

DRAFT


15

FMP planning teams with the effective and efficient direction needed to produce a 1 landscape that emulates, to the extent possible, the pattern and composition of a naturally 2 disturbed landscape. 3

4 A multi-disciplinary team provided MNR with advice and guidance on how to 5

develop the landscape guide. Boreal and GLSL Science teams were formed to support 6 the development team in predicting and evaluating the effectiveness and effects of 7 possible forest management direction. The Provincial Forest Technical Committee 8 (PFTC) provided MNR with advice on the development of the landscape guide. These 9 groups helped to iteratively refine the problem statement and the analysis of what 10 landscape-level resource management direction is required and appropriate to help to 11 meet the objective of biodiversity conservation. 12

3.2.1 Pilot testing and impact assessment of landscape guide 13 14

Pilot testing and impact assessment were part of the development of the landscape 15 guide. Pilot testing dealt with evaluating the efficiency of implementing the landscape 16 guide, identifying and correct problems in draft direction. The landscape guide directs 17 strategic forest management planning and so the development team sought the advice of 18 experienced forest management planning professionals in the writing of the guide and 19 development of direction. In addition, the development of milestones (section 3.6) 20 allowed for further refinement of guide direction and implementation steps through 21 discussions with foresters and biologists. 22

23 Impact assessment examined the potential impacts of landscape guide implementation 24

by simulating the use of the guide in forest management plans. A variety of approaches 25 were used to generate scenarios that represented likely management trajectories that 26 resulted from guide implementation. These scenarios were compared to current 27 management projections and impacts were assessed for wood supply, silviculture costs 28 and habitat for selected wildlife species. The results of pilot testing and impact 29 assessment were presented to Provincial Forest Technical Committee. 30

31

3.3 Knowledge: Biodiversity Conservation at Landscape 32 Scales 33

34 Current ecological literature (e.g., Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002) suggests that 35

strategies for biodiversity conservation should consider a variety of ecological scales, 36 thus supporting the approach MNR has taken in earlier guides (e.g., NDPEG, OMNR 37 2002; GLSL silviculture guides, MNR 1998a and 1998b). Larger-scale approaches—at 38 the levels of landscapes – may help to conserve the ecological processes and functions 39 that operate at larger scales. Examples are size classes of natural disturbances, predator 40 prey relationships, and nutrient cycling, all of which may occur at multiple scales or at 41 larger scales, depending on the function or organism in question. The forest management 42 direction in this guide supports biodiversity conservation at landscape scales, as described 43 by Lindenmayer and Franklin (2002), by: 44

DRAFT


16

• Supporting populations of species (including species that have larger home 1 ranges, and those affected by the overall supply of habitat on the landscape) 2

• Facilitating the movement of organisms within and across large areas 3 • Supporting sensitive and/or protected areas 4 • Maintaining the integrity of aquatic systems at the level of watersheds 5

6 Bergeron et al. (2002) concluded that forest management that maintains a variety of 7

forest compositions and structures at different scales on the landscape is a valid 8 conservation strategy. This has been a component of Ontario’s coarse filter strategy for 9 maintaining biological diversity, as noted in section 1.4. Landscape biodiversity 10 conservation strives to maintain ecological processes that may function at landscape 11 scales like dispersion, predator prey relationships, disturbance and renewal. These 12 processes in turn support the biodiversity that we rely upon to provide us with benefits 13 from the forest. 14

3.3.1 What is a landscape? 15 The landscape guide recognizes two ways to define landscapes: first, a forest-16

centric approach that characterizes the natural factors that reflect structure, composition 17 and function across space and time (Rowe and Sheard 1981, Franklin 1993); second, a 18 wildlife-centric approach that reflects the decisions made wildlife – these decisions can 19 be based on choosing food, homes or dispersal paths. The landscape guide directs forest 20 management decisions to conserve ecological processes and biodiversity by emulating 21 natural disturbances and landscape patterns using the forest-centric approach while 22 minimizing adverse effects on the ability of wildlife to make decisions using the wildlife-23 centric approach to defining landscapes. 24

25 For the purpose of this guide, a landscape is considered to be similar in size to an 26

ecoregion or site region (see Hills 1961) – an area of land on which the response of 27 vegetation to the features of landform follow a consistent pattern and succession. The 28 landscape scale is an integration of the landscape features of structure, composition and 29 function that are created, maintained and contribute to natural disturbances and landscape 30 patterns. Application of the landscape guide begins at the landscape scale and progresses 31 to the smaller scale of the FMU. 32 33

There are two relevant levels of integration of the Ecological Land Classification 34 (OMNR 2000) that are used to define appropriate scales of measurement. The ecoregion 35 and ecodistrict help forest managers in scaling direction to the forest management unit. 36 Ecoregions are spatial units occurring at a sub-provincial scale that are primarily based on 37 macro-climatic features like humidity and temperature. Maintaining ecological processes 38 is essential for the functioning of the biosphere, and biological diversity must be 39 conserved at the scale of forest ecosystems (OMNR 1994). Processes that operate at 40 ecoregional scales include disturbance regimes and population dynamics (e.g. wildlife 41 with large home ranges like caribou, wolves, moose, goshawk, great grey owl) which 42 help to explain patterns of primary productivity and biotic distributions. Ecodistricts are 43 sub-divisions of ecoregions based on the sub-regional patterns of landforms, landscape 44

DRAFT


17

complexity and landform mediated climate features (e.g. lake effects). A process that 1 may vary at the ecodistrict scale includes forest succession. 2

3 In theory, one can think of the decisions made by wildlife spanning several scales. 4

By making similar decisions at different scales these animals demonstrate that landscapes 5 represent a continuum from needles to forests (Figure 4). In other words, landscape size 6 can vary with species -- a moose may think of a forest as a very large home range 7 whereas only a very small part of the same forest may be the home range of a mouse. 8 9

10 Figure 4. A theoretical depiction of wildlife decision hierarchies in the boreal forest (from Holling 11 1992). Shown are relative positions in the hierarchy for decisions about food choice, home range, or 12 migration that would be made by each of three species from three different body mass categories. 13

3.3.2 Adaptive Cycles of Landscapes 14 15

The relationship between biodiversity measured at the landscape scale and 16 ecological processes that result in natural disturbance patterns has been described as an 17 adaptive cycle (Gunderson and Holling 2001). The following commentary, adapted from 18 Bunnell (2003), follows the progress of a possible cycle for an ecological system, with an 19 emphasis on forest cycles. Landscapes are dynamic ecosystems that can be 20 conceptualized as following an adaptive cycle that has four phases: growth, maturity, 21 collapse and reorganization (Figure 5). 22

23

DRAFT


18

1 Figure 5. A schematic illustration of an adaptive cycle in a forest landscape (from Bunnel 2003). It 2 shows that forest ecosystems are dynamic and can be thought of as following an adaptive cycle that 3 has four phases: growth ® , maturity (K), collapse (Ω) and reorganization (alpha). 4

5 6 According to the phases represented in this schematic diagram (Fig. 5) , Ontario’s 7

forested landscapes developed as a mixture of species which became established in a 8 reorganization phase of the adaptive cycle and developed along a trajectory during the 9 growth, maturity and collapse phases. Management strategies designed to conserve 10 biodiversity must ensure that, at a landscape scale, future forest conditions contain all 11 phases of the adaptive cycle in order to maintain the ecological processes that service all 12 values. The landscape guide recognizes the importance of maintaining this dynamic by 13 directing forest management to create and/or maintain the landscape mosaic created by 14 and driving this adaptive cycle. 15 16

In both the reorganization and growth phases, surviving residual vegetation and 17 physical structures from previous cycles create new structures. The reorganization phase 18 becomes rapidly dominated by plants and animals that are adapted to high variability of 19 microclimate and extremes of soil conditions and can further occupy unexploited territory 20 through effective dispersal. 21 22

DRAFT


19

According to the framework in Figure 5, competition among vegetation dominates 1 the reorganization and growth phases of a forest ecosystem that exhibits shifts from 2 pioneers and surviving species from previous cycles to a progression to maturity. As the 3 species expand and grow they accumulate potential from resources acquired such as 4 carbon and nutrients. Subsets of species begin to develop close interrelations that may be 5 mutually supportive- i.e. they form self organized clusters of relationships which define 6 the new ecosystem. Forest management decisions to emulate this phase of the adaptive 7 cycle focus primarily on the silvicultural intervention required to create future forest 8 conditions. Perera et al. 2004 provide a thorough review of concepts and applications in 9 emulating natural disturbance. 10 11

Figure 5 suggests that ecological resilience decreases as the landscape moves 12 from reorganization and growth to maturity and the system becomes more vulnerable to 13 change. In the forest, fuel for fires and food for insect defoliators increase with forest age 14 – older continuous forests may have fewer fire "breaks" and a sparser density of insect-15 eating birds. Forest management decisions that emulate the growth to maturity phases 16 deal primarily with maintaining landscape patches in amounts and distributions similar to 17 landscape mosaic created by natural disturbances. 18 19

Finally, Figure 5 suggests that in the shift from maturity to collapse, disturbances 20 such as fire or insects or forest harvest exploit the increased fuel, food or timber capital 21 and connectivity of the landscape (e.g. the trees in the mature forest). But that process is 22 transient and only persists until the resources to do so are exhausted. Insect pests run out 23 of food, and fire runs out of fuel. The progress from growth to maturity represents a 24 period during which short term predictability increases, but the shift from collapse to 25 reorganization represents an increase in uncertainty. It is the phase where conditions 26 might arise for chaotic behavior that in the long term may serve to maintain diversity, 27 resulting in a new forest that may be different from the old. Species and individuals have 28 loose connections to others and function in a wide, loosely regulated domain of stability 29 as they progress to the phase of reorganization. Forest management decisions made to 30 emulate natural disturbances or the collapse phase are a blend of landscape level direction 31 on the type, size, shape and distribution of forest harvest. Landscapes are made up of a 32 mosaic of patches in different phases of the adaptive cycle. Each phase can be described 33 in terms of its pattern, composition and structure as well as how it functions to provide 34 ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat. 35

36 The Landscape Guide uses landscape disturbance and succession models to 37

simulate the adaptive cycles of landscapes as they might occur without human 38 intervention. Science teams estimated a simulated range of natural variation (SRNV) for 39 landscape composition and pattern using the Tool for Exploratory Landscape Simulation 40 and Analysis (ESSA 2003). In addition, historical information from Ontario Land 41 Surveys provides an estimate the pre-industrial condition of the forest (PIC). There are 42 two science and information Packages that accompany the Landscape Guide: 43

• Package A: Simulations, Rationale and Inputs: This document provides 44 the rationale and methodology of modeling and accompanying science that 45 has been submitted and presented to the Landscape Guide development 46

DRAFT


20

team and is intended for use by forest management planning teams when 1 considering direction from the Landscape Guide 2

• Package B: Results and Tools for Forest Management Planning: This 3 document includes results and tools for Landscape Guide implantation in 4 forest management planning 5

6

3.3.3 Landscapes as Habitat 7 8

The link between the concepts of ecosystem dynamics and integrity1 and wildlife 9 habitat dynamics was explored by the Other Wildlife Working Group (1995) in support 10 of the original Class Environmental Assessment for Forestry (reference), and is illustrated 11 in Figure 6. Theoretically, a community that is balanced in terms of functional and 12 compositional structures leads to ecosystem vigour. The natural development of patterns 13 and processes should lead to an integrated organization of ecosystem structures and 14 composition. The occurrence of communities capable of adaptation permits the 15 ecosystem to deal with stress, and to maintain ecosystem resilience. 16 17

18 Figure 6. Relationship between ecosystem dynamics and integrity and wildlife. 19

1 An ecosystem has integrity when it is deemed characteristic for its natural region, including the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes." (see http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/ie-ei/report-rapport_1_e.asp)

DRAFT


21

1 2

This link between ecosystem integrity and wildlife habitat and dynamics supports 3 the conceptual and scientific basis for the effectiveness monitoring strategy. If we are 4 doing a good job of sustainable forest management, and in the process conserving 5 ecosystem integrity and resilience, then we would expect to maintain quality habitat 6 conditions and sustain healthy population levels of wildlife species. Monitoring habitat 7 quality and population levels are tangible and achievable objectives, and provide 8 meaningful evaluations if cast in the proper context. Section 5.2 describes the approach 9 to evaluating the effectiveness of the Landscape Guide. 10

11

3.3.4 Climate Change and the Landscape Guide 12 13

Climate change may impact biological diversity in many ways by changing patterns 14 of insect and disease outbreaks, plant and animal distributions and natural disturbance 15 events (MNR 2005). Climate change projections for Ontario (Colombo 2007) allow 16 policymakers in Ontario to envision the potential impacts of climate change on people, 17 infrastructure and the environment. Recent ecological literature proposes policy-level 18 strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation (e.g. Chapin et al. 2006, 19 Spittlehouse et al. 2003, McKinnon and Webber 2005). At a management unit level, 20 sustainable forest management that maintains or increases forest carbon stocks and 21 produces an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre, or energy from the forest, provides 22 the largest sustained mitigation of climate change ((Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2008, IPCC 23 2007), while also providing many social and environmental benefits (IPCC 2007). The 24 landscape guide directs sustainable forest management to manage a range of forest 25 species mixes, ages, and patch sizes with an assumption of being resilient (i.e. having the 26 capacity to adapt) to changes in temperature and precipitation. In addition, the Landscape 27 Guide must, by law, be reviewed every five years and revised when appropriate to reflect 28 new knowledge and experience. As our understanding and predictions about climate 29 change improve, future versions of the Landscape Guide may be able to address its 30 effects more directly. 31

32

3.4 Analysis Framework 33 In the development phase of the landscape guide, existing knowledge, technology 34

and inventories were combined to create an analysis framework to predict outcomes of 35 alternative guide scenarios, and thus, to help to identify the attributes that would result in 36 an efficient, effective guide. The landscape-level direction contemplated for guide 37 development may have had unexpected cumulative effects on landscapes over long time 38 periods and wide spaces – effects that might not be detected until long after management 39 prescriptions have been applied. Thus an analysis framework was constructed for GLSL 40 forest landscapes, using a “virtual reality” approach created to deal with this policy 41 development challenge. There were three components to this framework: 42

• simulation of landscape dynamics, using models of possible and historical 43 landscapes to understand the range in variation; 44

DRAFT


22

• simulation of strategic forest management activities to predict future forest 1 landscapes in response to management direction from possible standards 2 and guidelines; and, 3

• simulation of the effects of future forests on other values such as wildlife 4 habitat, wood cost, and recreation. 5

6 These three components created a framework for estimating the range of variation 7

of natural disturbances and landscape patterns, simulating the ability of forest 8 management to emulate these within silvicultural limitations, and evaluating effects on 9 plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including 10 recreational values and heritage values – hence linking back to the CFSA’s principles of 11 sustainability. 12 13

14 Figure 7. Three components of the landscape guide analysis framework that simulated forest 15 practices, natural disturbances and landscape patterns and effects on plant life, animal life, water, 16 soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values. 17

As mentioned earlier, science teams used landscape simulation models to estimate 18 the SRNV. These natural landscape patterns were identified to serve as a null 19 hypothesis or benchmark for biodiversity conservation. It was assumed that these 20 natural patterns support a natural balance of species, ecosystems, and functions, and thus, 21 the conservation of biodiversity that is required by the CFSA. 22

23

Emulate Natural Disturbances & Landscape Pattern

Emulate Natural Disturbances & Landscape Pattern

Forest Practices (limits of silviculture)

Forest Practices (limits of silviculture)

Minimize Adverse Effects

Minimize Adverse Effects

DRAFT


23

As part of the analysis framework, strategic forest management model (SFMM) 1 simulations were used to assess alternative ways to meet goals and objectives. The 2 development and science teams assessed combinations of potential standards and 3 guidelines as alternative ways to emulate natural landscape patterns through the use of 4 management simulation models (to evaluate the predicted effectiveness on five forest 5 management units). The scenarios were evaluated against a set of indicators. This enabled 6 selection of a parsimonious set of standards and guidelines required to direct the 7 emulation of natural landscape patterns to efficiently conserve landscape-level 8 biodiversity. 9

10 Simulation of potential guide effects on other values also provided a socio-11

economic impact analysis. The measured effect on industrial forest management was 12 medium and long term harvest volume by species group and silvicultural costs. Non-13 timber values included habitat for featured wildlife species and old growth. Explicit 14 acceptable levels of tolerance for effects of management simulations on social and 15 economic values were not generated in the development of this guide. Relative impacts, 16 however, were assessed by the development and science teams through the comparison of 17 possible management scenarios. 18

19 These frameworks were adapted for use in developing landscape direction, and for 20

continued use in effectiveness monitoring. 21 22

23

3.5 Landscape Guide Indicators 24 25 The analysis frameworks were also used to select quantitative variables or indicators 26

that will direct management through the Landscape Guide. The FMPM defines an 27 indicator as a systematically measured and assessed quantitative or qualitative variable, 28 which, when observed periodically, demonstrates trends. The landscape guide coarse and 29 fine filter indicators are variables that are used to describe the current landscape mosaic, 30 make predictions on the future landscape mosaic and assist in evaluating the effectiveness 31 of the Landscape Guide. The guide builds upon the CFSA principle of emulating 32 landscape patterns to conserve biological diversity. It does so by considering pattern as 33 the combination of the composition, age, complexity and texture (degree of interspersion) 34 that results from natural disturbances. 35 36

Lindenmayer et al. (2000) suggest using coarse filter measures such as heterogeneity, 37 structural complexity and connectivity to direct landscape-level forest management 38 prescriptions for biodiversity conservation. On landscapes subject only to natural 39 disturbances, heterogeneity and structural complexity are the result of characteristics of 40 the natural disturbance regimes. As discussed in the previous section, landscapes develop 41 from a mixture of species established following the collapse phase of an adaptive cycle in 42 a reorganization, and are consolidated during the growth and maturity phases. This 43 means that natural disturbances and landscape patterns can be conceptualized as cause 44

DRAFT


24

and effect relationships (should be fig 8). Hunter (1993) identified two ways in which 1 timber harvesting practices can emulate natural disturbance at the landscape scale: 2

• The frequency of harvest can be matched to the frequency of natural 3 disturbance, 4

• The total area, size and distribution of harvest blocks can be matched to the total 5 area, size and distribution of openings created by natural disturbance, 6

7 The combination of disturbance frequency, intensity and spatial configuration (size, 8 shape) directly affect the resulting landscape mosaic’s characteristics of composition, 9 structure and pattern. The characteristics of natural disturbances and resulting landscapes 10 can be thought of as three dimensions of respective boxes (Figure 8). 11 12

13 14 Figure 8. Schematic diagram depicting the relationship between the collapse phase of the adaptive 15 cycle (figure 5) shown here as natural disturbances with the characteristics of intensity, frequency 16 and size, and the other three phases of the adaptive cycle (growth, maturity and reorganization), 17 depicted as the landscape indicators of pattern (e.g. interspersion or edge), composition (e.g. forest 18 unit), and age (e.g. seral stage). The range in each of these indicators defines the dimensions of the 19 “landscape box". Through implementation of the landscape guide, forest management will produce a 20 landscape that remains within a defined portion of the landscape box. 21

The coarse filter indicators used in the landscape guide that fall under the CFSA 22 forest diversity objective categories for natural landscapes are landscape pattern and 23 structure, composition and abundance. The purpose of the landscape guide is to direct 24 management to create and maintain a landscape mosaic that represents the ranges of these 25 indicators, thereby emulating natural disturbances and landscape patterns while 26 minimizing the adverse effects on other values. These indicators can be directly 27 measured from forest resource inventories using Ontario’s Landscape Tool (OMNR 28 2008). The range of each of these indicators defines the dimensions of the "landscape 29 box" in Figures 5 and 8. We assume that creating/maintaining landscapes that fill-out the 30

DRAFT


25

corners of this box will allow for specific wildlife to use the landscape -- this assumption 1 becomes testable hypotheses for effectiveness monitoring as discussed in section 7. 2 3

While coarse filter indicators are independent indicators of the landscape that do not 4 make an interpretation of ecological function, the guide also employs functional 5 indicators that measure a predicted functional use of the landscape by selected wildlife. 6 These indicators are dependent variables based upon our understanding of how wildlife 7 will use the landscape (food, cover, etc.). For example, Goodwin (2002) treats 8 connectivity as a dependent variable that requires a species-specific assessment of 9 movement across the landscape of interest (i.e., “connectivity” means different things to 10 different wildlife species). 11 12

The fine filter or habitat indicators used in the landscape guide fall under the CFSA 13 forest diversity objective category of habitat for animal life, and the forest cover 14 objective category of values dependent on the crown forest. They are: 15

• Habitat for animal life including: 16 o Habitat Area, and 17 o Habitat Distribution (including connectivity) 18

19 FMPM Link: The biodiversity criterion for the assessment of sustainability in 20

the FMPM suggests that indicators are developed from direction in forest management 21 guides. The landscape guide provides the framework for developing forest diversity 22 and forest cover objectives that are compatible with sustainability. 23 24

Lindenmayer et al. (2000) suggest using an adaptive management approach for 25 testing the validity of the coarse filter indicators by treating management as an 26 experiment – this is described in detail in section 5 of the Landscape Guide (effectiveness 27 monitoring). Evaluating the accuracy of these predicted functional responses will form 28 part of the approach to effectiveness monitoring for the landscape guide. Knowledge 29 gained from effectiveness monitoring will assist forest managers in understanding how 30 harvest and retention actions may affect both of indicators (i.e. those we use to direct 31 landscapes and those we use to evaluate). During development of the Landscape Guide, 32 coarse and fine filter indicators were chosen in order to describe differences between 33 what we see in today’s forest compared to what we see in natural landscapes. 34 Observations of historic forest condition, analysis of natural disturbances, and simulation-35 based modelling shape our understanding of how to emulate natural disturbances and 36 landscape patterns from the CFSA. Comparing coarse and fine filter indicator values 37 from these observations to the current landscape condition provides us with a 38 demonstration of the intended or accidental effects of past forest policy, protection and 39 management. The sections below describe the nature of these effects in more detail. 40

41 FMPM Link: The coarse filter and fine filter indicators of the Landscape 42

Guide are to be used as the “Indicators of Objective Achievement” for the criterion 43 “conserving biological diversity in Ontario’s forests” (FMPM Figure A-5). The 44 Landscape Guide indicators replace the training direction provided in the C&I 45 Handbook (OMNR 2005). 46

DRAFT


26

1

3.5.1 Landscape Structure and Composition Indicators 2 3 Forest harvesting, coupled with fire suppression have altered forest stand 4

composition across Ontario compared to naturally disturbed landscapes (Rodger 1978, 5 Aird 1985, Hearndon et al 1992). However, the majority of landscapes for which this 6 guide is applicable have remained continuously forested. The current age class structure 7 and species composition of the landscape are two of the strongest drivers of the future 8 forest landscape condition, and are likely to influence future forest condition as strongly 9 as management activities. For example, according to the forest inventory, Ontario’s 10 forests currently have a biomodal age-class distribution and are increasing in age (OMNR 11 2002). 12

13 The literature varies in its use of the terms “forest structure” and “composition”. 14

For purposes of this guide, landscape composition indicators consider forest structure to 15 be a combination of development stage (or seral stage) and canopy structure (even or 16 uneven aged). Composition is measured at the landscape scale using regional standard 17 forest units (SFUs). These SFUs are based on a classification system that aggregates 18 forest stands for management purposes, combining those that will normally have similar 19 species composition, will develop in a similar manner (both naturally and in response to 20 silvicultural treatments), and will be managed under the same silvicultural system. 21 22

Comparisons of historical with current forest condition across the landscape tend 23 to show reductions in fire-dependent species in favor of more shade-tolerant species. For 24 example, in an analysis of land surveyors’ notes observed along a 278 km long transect 25 through central Ontario, Jackson et al. (2000) found significant reductions from the mid 26 1800-s to the present of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.), balsam fir (Abies 27 balsamea (L.) Mill.), and eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.) and significant 28 increases of poplar (Populus spp.) and white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.). In a 29 comparison of historic survey notes and current forest inventory, Elkie (2005 in prep) 30 found that boreal forests in northwestern Ontario currently contain more mixedwood 31 forest than was found historically. Pinto and Romaniuk (2002) also compared land 32 surveyor notes in the Temagami region of Ontario and found a decrease in conifer 33 dominated forest cover and an increase in intolerant and mid-to-tolerant hardwood forest. 34 35

Debate continues in the ecological literature about the effects of fire suppression 36 on the composition and age-class structure of the forest (e.g. Johnson et al. 2001, Podur 37 2002). For example, Suffling et al. (1982) concluded that younger age classes 38 represented a much higher proportion of the landscape prior to fire suppression in NW 39 Ontario. Carleton and MacLellan (1994) compared 250 upland post-fire and 132 upland 40 post-logging stands and found that the logged stands were less likely to have returned to 41 their original composition than if they had burned. Carleton (2000) provides a more 42 detailed discussion of vegetation responses to the managed forest landscapes of central 43 and northern Ontario. 44 45

DRAFT


27

A landscape provides habitat for a mixture of wildlife species, each with its own 1 preferences for combinations of vegetation types (forest units), seral stages, patch sizes 2 and configurations. It would be impossible to assess landscapes for each species of 3 wildlife individually within the context of a forest management plan. Therefore the 4 landscape guide classifies landscapes according to our understanding of how forests 5 function as habitat (as codified through wildlife habitat matrices (e.g., Holloway et al. 6 2004)). Landscape classes are based on a cluster analysis of the preferred habitat types 7 (forest units and seral stages) used by a range of wildlife. (see SIP for full methodology 8 and results). This landscape classification will be subject to effectiveness monitoring. 9

10 There are three landscape guide composition indicators: (i) amount of area by 11

selected landscape class, (ii) amount of area by selected forest units, and (iii) amount of 12 old growth forest. 13 14

Help interpreting composition indicators (best management practice): 15 • What are other disturbance agents affecting forest age 16 • What are the rates of these disturbances? 17 • What are mature landscape class and old growth onset ages in the area of 18

interest? 19 o How do these compare to stand ages (age of dominant species in forest 20

stand) and site ages (time since stand-replacing disturbance) of forest 21 stands within area of interest? 22

• How much variability exists in the amount of mature and late seral stage forest 23 within the area of interest? 24

25

3.5.1.1 Amount of area by landscape class 26 27

The forest mosaic across landscapes provides habitat for many wildlife species, 28 each with its own preferences for combinations of vegetation types, development stages, 29 patch sizes and configurations. As noted above, it would be impossible to assess 30 landscapes for all species individually within the context of a forest management plan. To 31 reduce the complexity of this problem, the landscape development team suggested the 32 development of landscape classes according to our understanding of how forests function 33 as habitat. They requested a classification scheme of between 5-10 classes for easy visual 34 interpretation. The landscape classes are the fundamental coarse filter assessment units. 35

36 Landscape classes were developed based on cluster analyses of preferred and 37

habitat types depicted in OMNR’s habitat matrices (e.g., Holloway et al. 2004). The 38 habitat matrices summarize habitat affinities of selected vertebrate species based on forest 39 type and development stage 40

41 How to measure: The amount of area by landscape class is a non-spatial measure of the 42 area, in hectares, of the landscape classified into landscape classes. Indicator specifics 43

DRAFT


28

will vary by landscape guide region. Refer to science and information package A for 1 more details. 2 3

3.5.1.2 Amount of area by selected forest composition grouping 4 5

Specific groupings of standard forest units were selected by the science teams 6 based on differences between current landscape conditions, pre-industrial condition, and 7 simulated ranges of natural variation. These groupings differ from the landscape classes 8 (habitat-function-based groupings) by focusing on specific and efficient tree-species 9 groupings that require consideration in biodiversity objectives. For example, through 10 comparison with the SRNV and PIC to the current landscape, this indicator may be used 11 to direct the amount of all-ages of white pine on the landscape, considering not only in 12 stands that white is a leading species but also where is non-leading component. Indicator 13 specifics will vary by landscape guide region, see appendices for details. 14

15 In addition, forest management teams will develop objectives and strategies to 16

maintain no less than the 1995 amount (the total number of hectares) of red and white 17 pine (standard). Forest management teams can refer to the Science and Information 18 Packages for the amount of old growth red and white pine for each management unit in 19 1995 (teams should recalculate areas in cases where management unit changes has 20 occurred since 1995) (Best Management Practice). 21

22 23

How to measure: The amount of area by selected forest composition groupings is a non-24 spatial measure of the area, in hectares. Planning teams should refer to these groupings 25 when creating FMP forest units (best management practice). 26 27

3.5.1.3 Amount of old growth forest 28 29

Up to the writing of this guide, no vertebrate wildlife were known to be totally 30 dependent on old growth forest to meet their needs for food and cover in the boreal forest 31 of Canada (see OMNR 2003, Euler and Wedeles 2005). In fact, the cluster analysis of 32 preferred habitat described above suggests that wildlife tend to benefit similarly from 33 mature forest. However, MNR has developed an explicit Old Growth Policy, and the 34 FMPM lists the amount and distribution of old growth as an indicator of objective 35 achievement. Thus, old growth is addressed under a separate indicator in the landscape 36 guide. 37

38 Ongoing discussion regarding the importance of old growth forests is muddied due to 39

inconsistent use of the terms “old growth” and “mature” forest. For the purposes of this 40 guide, a forest is in a mature stage of development when overstorey trees attain full 41 development and sexual maturity—mortality of over-storey trees begins to create gaps 42 and encourages understorey development—height growth slows dramatically. On the 43 other hand, the old growth period is usually manifested by heavy mortality/turnover of 44

DRAFT


29

overstorey trees and results in a mosaic of gaps that encourage development of a multi-1 layered canopy and an abundance of snags and downed woody debris. It is a functional 2 condition of a forest ecosystem that embodies a characteristic set of physical features in 3 dynamic forest ecosystems. Old growth features and characteristics typically include the 4 following: 5

• relatively complex forest stand structure (e.g. old trees for the ecosite, relatively 6 large tree size and wide spacing, multiple canopy layers and gaps, and low rates 7 of change in species composition); 8

• relatively large dead standing trees (snags), accumulations of downed woody 9 material, up-turned stumps, root and soil mounds, and accelerating tree mortality; 10 and 11

• ecosystem functions (e.g. stand productivity, nutrient cycling, and aspects of 12 wildlife habitat) that may operate at different rates or intensities compared with 13 earlier stages of forest development. 14

15 The old growth policy for Ontario’s Crown Forests explains how MNR will “ensure 16

that old growth conditions and values are present in Ontario’s Crown forests in order to 17 conserve biological diversity at levels that maintain or restore ecological processes, while 18 allowing for sustainable development now and in the future.” The LG direction for old 19 growth conservation addresses: 20

• old growth forest stands, forest units, or ecosites for all forest communities 21 (provincial forest types) will be identified based on the old growth definitions 22 report; 23

• old growth in all forest units (or ecosites) will be identified as a portion (per cent) 24 of current and future forest conditions (section 4.1.1); 25

• current old growth conditions will be compared with future forest conditions to 26 describe changes in forest cover as a context for determining desired future forest 27 conditions and benefits (section 4.1.2); 28

• historic forest condition will be compared with current forest condition as a 29 context for determining desired future forest conditions and benefits (section 30 4.1.2); 31

• current, future and historic forest conditions will be used to guide the 32 development of old growth objectives and targets that protect and/or restore, the 33 distribution and abundance of each forest community towards their natural 34 geographic ranges (section 4.1.3); 35

• the distribution of old growth to be maintained across the forest landscapes or 36 ecoregions within the management unit is considered in two landscape guide 37 indicators: amount of old growth (see how to measure below) and texture of the 38 mature and old forest matrix (section 3.5.2.1). 39

40 The landscape guide directs a thorough consideration of old growth as part of the 41

sustainability assessment of alternative management strategies. Additionally, as part of 42 the approach to effectiveness monitoring of the landscape guide (section 6), old growth as 43 it functions as habitat for selected wildlife species will be evaluated using, in addition to 44 others, the following species: 45

DRAFT


30

• the black-backed woodpecker (Boreal and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest 1 regions), 2

• the red-breasted nuthatch (east half of the Boreal Forest Region), 3 • the ruby-crowned kinglet (Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region), 4 • the lynx (denning only) (Boreal and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest regions), 5

and 6 • the black bear (foraging only) (Boreal and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest 7

regions). 8 9 10 11

3.5.1.3.1 Old Growth Sites 12 13 The canopy structure of forests can be even-aged or uneven-aged, reflecting 14

disturbance history. Even-aged canopies tend to result from stand-replacing disturbances, 15 whereas uneven-aged canopies are often created over a relatively longer term through 16 gap-phase disturbances or succession. Even-aged canopies are more common in boreal 17 forests and uneven-aged in the Great-Lakes St Lawrence Forest. However, boreal forests 18 dominated by the shade-tolerant fir (Abies) – spruce (Picea) complex are particularly 19 well-adapted to the development of long-term, old-growth continuity in the absence of 20 large-scale disturbance McCarthy (2001). In many cases, identification of old growth is 21 straightforward (e.g., where FRI stand ages are known to equal those in the Old Growth 22 Definitions Report [OMNR 2002]). However, in some cases old growth sites may consist 23 of stands with FRI stand ages younger than their site ages but less than the old growth 24 duration time specified in the Old Growth Definitions Report (OMNR 2002). This is so 25 because FRI stand age is based on the age of the dominant forest canopy at the time of 26 photo interpretation. In contrast, “site age” reflects the time since the last major 27 disturbance. For example, a stand typed in 1977 as 120 year old black spruce then re-28 typed as 70 year old spruce mixedwood in 2000 may have a site age of 153 years in 2010 29 – and thus should be considered an old growth site. 30 31

Current FRI may not contain the resolution required to allow evaluation of site 32 ages for the current forest – hence while we may be able to calculate a target range for 33 old growth, managers may not be able to fully account for the old growth on the 34 landscape when comparing current forests to this range. Planning teams may investigate 35 potential old growth sites when evaluating old growth forest, especially for early and 36 mid-succession forest stands not known to have originated from recent disturbances (best 37 management practice). 38 39 How to measure: Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation for regional standard forest 40 units are provided, by forest management unit, in Science and Information Package B. 41 Planning teams will use this information to develop a SRNV for each of their even-aged 42 FMP forest units. 43

DRAFT


31

3.5.2 Landscape Pattern Indicators 1 2

Many important concepts in landscape ecology (e.g., fragmentation, edge effects, 3 corridors and connectivity, metapopulation dynamics, reserve size) were developed 4 where forests are not the dominant feature on the landscape (e.g., predominantly 5 agricultural landscapes with islands of residual forest; see Lindenmayer and Franklin 6 2002, Perera and Baldwin 2000). However, the landscapes where this guide will be 7 applied are very different in that they provide continuous forest cover and the average 8 rate of annual disturbance will be low (< 1% per year). 9 10

Numerous studies identified differences in landscape patterns resulting from forest 11 harvest when compared to fire disturbance. Results can vary depending on scale of 12 measurement and spatial proximity rules for defining disturbances. For example, Gluck 13 and Rempel (1996) found clearcut patches to be larger and more irregular in shape than 14 natural disturbances, when comparing individual disturbances. However, Perera and 15 Baldwin (2000) reported the opposite when comparing disturbances across Ontario. 16 Differences about the importance of landscape pattern for biodiversity conservation exist 17 in the ecological literature. For example, there are many empirical and theoretical studies 18 indicating that the primary importance of habitat is its amount rather than its spatial 19 configuration, unless the total amount drops below a certain threshold (e.g., McGarigal 20 and McComb (1995), Drolet et al. (1999), Drapeau et al. (2000), Fahrig (2004), (Malcolm 21 et al. 2004).). Other studies suggest the importance of pattern in affecting habitat quality 22 (e.g. Ferguson and Elkie 2004, Chapin et al. 1998, Thompson et al. 2003). 23

24 The texture of the forest matrix and young forest patch size are coarse filter 25

indicators used to characterize landscape pattern in this guide. Although they are related 26 in both structure (the amount and distribution of young forest patches can affect the 27 texture of the forest matrix) and function (e.g. interior loving wildlife species vs. edge 28 loving species), they are often the result of different forest management actions (e.g. 29 harvesting vs. maintaining). Managing pattern involves managing the distribution 30 (concentration or dispersal) of young and mature forest across the landscape. 31

32

3.5.2.1 Texture of the Mature and Old Forest Matrix 33 34

In landscape ecology terms, the dominant class on the landscape is called the 35 matrix. Non-matrix patches are quite easily measured using traditional patch-36 measurement techniques (e.g. McGarrigal and Marks. 1995). However, characterizing the 37 pattern associated with the matrix has been identified as a challenge in boreal landscape 38 ecology (e.g. Schmiegelow et al. 2004). The landscape matrix for most of Ontario’s 39 forests is a mature forest with patches of young forest. Visually, one can look at a 40 landscape map and see areas in which mature and old forest is arranged in relatively high 41 concentrations, areas with low concentrations and areas that have a relatively medium 42 amount. The texture of the mature and old forest indicator quantifies what the map 43 observer sees by representing the proportions of the landscape in different concentration 44 classes on a histogram – thus quantifying the texture of the matrix as shown in Figure 9. 45

DRAFT


32

1

2 Figure 9. Concentrations in the amount of mature and old forest are mapped on the left hand side of 3 the figure and quantified in a histogram on the right. 50 ha hexagons are used in this example with 4 green hexagons having high (> 80%) concentrations of mature and old forest and brown hexagons 5 having a low (<20%) amount. The red line across the histogram bars depicts the landscape 6 “signature” or the texture of the mature and old forest. In this example, the majority of the 7 landscape has very high and high concentrations of mature and old forest (63 and 16 percent of the 8 landscape respectively). 9 10

Assessing, at multiple scales, the texture of the mature forest matrix of different 11 landscapes reveals different “signatures”, or combinations of patch sizes, shapes, and 12 compositions. There are at least two reasons for assessing at landscape texture at 13 multiple scales. Firstly, it is thought that wildlife make habitat use decisions at multiple 14 scales (see Figure 4). Secondly, assessing the mature forest matrix at both the 50 and 15 500 ha ensures that the texture of the landscape at both levels is recognized. Two 16 assessment levels are used because it is possible that the texture measurement at one 17 level, as expressed in a proportional frequency histogram, is exactly the same between 18 two landscapes even though the same texture measurement at a finer or coarser level is 19 significantly different between the two landscapes. In other words, measuring landscape 20 texture at two levels ensures that we characterize the true spatial configuration of the 21 landscape. 22

23 Striving through forest management to produce a specific landscape signature can 24

be thought of as one way to use a coarse filter approach for the conservation of biological 25 diversity (e.g., emulating a large high intensity burn versus emulating a medium sized, 26 low intensity burn), or to provide for the habitat requirements of a specific species (e.g., a 27 relatively fine textured landscape with many small patches for moose, or a relatively 28 coarse-texture landscape for caribou and other forest interior species). 29

30

DRAFT


33

How to measure: The texture of the mature forest is measured using a landscape 1 signature approach for each landscape class – this signature is a five-class frequency 2 histogram of the landscape that shows how much of the landscape contains areas in 3 which the mature forest is a minor, a medium or a majority component. Indicator 4 specifics will vary by landscape guide region, see appendices for details. 5

6 7

Help interpreting texture (best management practice): 8 • Describe the texture of the mature forest: 9

o Describe the typical forest units associated with the mature forest matrix. 10 o Is most of the mature and old forest in relatively high, medium or low 11

concentrations? 12 o Does it vary across the area of interest; why or why not? 13 o In general explain the origin of the matrix (e.g. natural disturbance, past 14

management direction, etc.). 15 16

3.5.2.2 Young Forest Patch Size 17 18 Patches deal with the extent of the homogeneous forest types that make up the 19

landscape mosaic. Like edge, patches have also been the focus of extensive review and 20 analysis in the ecological literature (see Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). Patch sizes can 21 influence the availability of specific contiguous habitat conditions, an overall landscape 22 mosaic and the amount and distribution of edge (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). From 23 a management perspective, experience with past forest management guidelines in Ontario 24 has demonstrated that use of specific patch sizes and shapes can have long-lasting 25 consequences for forests that will require focused efforts over very long time periods to 26 reverse. 27 28 How to measure: Young forest patch size is measured using a size class distribution. 29 The SIP contains technical details on how this indicator of landscape patch size is 30 calculated. Indicator specifics will vary by landscape guide region, see appendices for 31 details 32 33

Help interpreting young forest patch size: 34 • Describe the young forest patch size distribution: 35

o Is there an even distribution or varied range of patch sizes? 36 o Does it vary across the area of interest? 37 o In general describe the origin of different types (i.e. describe the mosaic 38

not individual patches) of large landscape patches (e.g. by disturbance 39 type, time since disturbance, forest type and age structure) 40

o Describe the forest units associated with the young forest types. 41 42

DRAFT


34

3.5.3 The Fine Filter: Habitat for Special Species 1 2

Habitat is an organism-specific concept (Whitaker et al. 1973), representing the 3 range of physical and environmental conditions across which a species can be found 4 (Thompson 2004). The landscape guide adopts this definition and considers habitat to be 5 how the specific pattern, structure and composition of landscapes function to provide 6 food, shelter and cover for wildlife. Landscape function means that wildlife respond to 7 the amount or arrangement of habitat at scales broader than a forest stand. Thompson 8 and Angelstam (1999) refer to special species as those wildlife that are either managed 9 individually or monitored as indicators of some feature and are selected based on values 10 attached by society. For example society may feel they may not have adequate habitat 11 provided through natural disturbance emulation, or more habitat is desired than might 12 naturally occur. Species at Risk are considered special species by the landscape guide. 13

14 Forest dwelling woodland caribou (herein referred to as caribou) is the only 15

wildlife species for which the landscape guide uses fine filter direction. Direction for 16 caribou habitat provision will be found in the boreal version of the landscape guide. 17 Landscape supply of habitat for other special species such as moose, deer, marten and 18 pileated woodpecker will be provided by coarse-filter indicators at the landscape scale 19 and fine filter direction at the stand and site scale (see text box). Landscape-level habitat 20 may be assessed by Forest Management Planning Teams to assist in developing forest 21 cover objectives. Teams can use spatial habitat models included in Ontario’s Landscape 22 Tool (OMNR 2008) (best management practice). 23

24 Special species are used in the approach to monitoring the effectiveness of the 25

landscape guide (section 5). A variety of wildlife species, that are predicted to have a 26 landscape-level response to forest management activities have been selected to assist in 27 evaluating the effectiveness of landscape guide application. In some cases, however, 28 these predicted responses represent our scientific reasoning (or untested hypothesis) 29 about landscape function. Scientific studies used to evaluate the effectiveness of this 30 guide may also test this hypothesis. 31 32 33 Text Box 34 35 What Happened to Featured Species Direction? 36 37

Previous forest management guides directed management to provide habitat for 38 specific wildlife species. The goal of the landscape guide is to direct forest managers in 39 how to meet the objective of conserving biodiversity in an effective and efficient manner, 40 and hence contribute to sustainability, by setting landscape mosaic goals and targets for 41 forest pattern, composition and structure in forest management plans. Landscape 42 composition, structure and pattern functions as habitat for a range of wildlife species – 43 including those wildlife featured in previous management guides. The table below 44 relates direction in previous featured species guides to the landscape guide direction. 45

46

DRAFT


35

Previous Management Guide(line) Landscape Guide Name Landscape Level Direction Comparable landscape

guide direction Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat (OMNR 1988)

Clearcut size and arrangement Distance to cover

• Young Forest Patch Size

• Texture of the mature forest matrix

Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat (OMNR 1997)

Forage and thermal cover that is arranged together in large landscape patches known as deer yards

• Area of mature landscape class

• Young Forest Patch Size

The Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Marten Habitat (OMNR 1996)

Supply and arrangement of mature and older conifer-dominated forest across the boreal landscape



The Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat (OMNR 1996)

Supply and arrangement of mature and older forest across the GLSL landscape



1 Moose habitat 2

3 Moose are a socially and economically important resource whose populations and 4

habitat are protected and enhanced to provide opportunities for recreation and continuous 5 social and economic benefit for the people of Ontario. Ontario developed Moose 6 management strategies to meet the goals established for the moose management 7 policy (OMNR 1980, currently under review) including harvest control, population 8 management, enforcement, inventory and assessment, research, allocation, hunter 9 education and habitat management. The habitat management strategy of the moose policy 10 addressed landscape-scale forest management as follows: 11

12 Wildlife managers will work closely with forest managers to 13 produce moose habitat in the northern forest regions which 14 approximates the habitat created by a large forest fire of medium 15 intensity. The production of irregular shaped cuts, scattered 16 shelter patches and a high diversity of age class and species 17 stands is the prime objective. 18

19 This objective translated into direction that can best be visualized in Figure 1 of the 20 Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat (OMNR 1988). The 21 goal of the landscape guide is to direct forest managers in how to meet the objective of 22 conserving biodiversity in an effective and efficient manner, and hence contribute to 23 sustainability, by setting landscape mosaic goals and targets for forest pattern, 24 composition and structure in forest management plans. The landscape guide also 25 provides an opportunity to provide additional habitat, on parts of the landscape, 26 consistent with the moose management policy. Management of special moose habitats 27

DRAFT


36

(e.g. salt licks, aquatic feeding areas and calving areas) that may occur on the landscape 1 is discussed in the stand and site guide. 2 3

Moose habitat is characterized at the landscape scale by the availability of browse, 4 cover, and special habitats. Moose can use heterogeneous landscapes of young forest that 5 produce browse mixed with relatively small patches of older conifers or other habitat 6 types as cover habitat. If there are few or no suitable patches of cover habitat interspersed 7 in mostly feeding habitat, moose may need to move considerable distances to find cover. 8 The ability of moose to move between cover and feeding habitats depends upon a number 9 of factors, such as time of year, weather, snow characteristics, the quality and quantity of 10 cover and forage, etc. (Hundertmark 1998, Renecker and Schwartz 1998). Moose are 11 animals that benefit from forest edges, particularly edges that provide food (browse) in 12 close proximity to cover. Thus, the suitability of a patch as winter feeding or cover 13 habitat – or both -will depend strongly on the ratio of young forest to residual, mature 14 conifer. Highly interspersed areas provide a greater likelihood of the area functioning as 15 feeding habitat, whereas low interspersion mature areas will more likely be moose cover 16 habitat. 17 18 Deer habitat 19 20

The Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer 21 Habitat (OMNR 1997) suggested that maintenance or creation of particular landscape 22 characteristics important to deer (percent of forest types and age classes, forest patch size 23 and distribution, etc) will increase the likelihood that all the biological diversity 24 associated with the landscape will be perpetuated. 25 26

Landscape-level deer habitat considers forage and thermal cover that is arranged 27 together in large landscape patches known as deer yards. Where they exist, deer yards are 28 used during the winter, and the major cover is provided by conifer species. Although the 29 value of different conifer species varies because of their crown shapes and leaf 30 characteristics, the key indicator is crown closure. Coniferous trees enhance winter 31 habitat by intercepting snowfall which allows deer to conserve energy and retain mobility 32 and access to food supplies (Mattfeld 1974, Hanley and Rose 1987). 33

A coarse filter that emulates natural disturbances should provide an adequate 34 amount of deer habitat in general across the landscape – specifically, the structure-based 35 indicators for forest composition will prescribe a level of mature conifer across the 36 landscape which would function as winter habitat and other forest types with value as 37 foraging habitat. However, deer yards require fine filter management. Like other fine 38 filters, deer yards must be appropriately identified and located. The three most important 39 features of a successful yard are traditional use, cover, and browse. 40 41 Marten habitat 42 43

The marten is a featured species in Ontario. The Forest Management Guide for 44 the Provision of Marten Habitat (OMNR 1996) was written in response to the 1994 EA 45 decision to include featured species that have mature forest habitat requirements. 46

DRAFT


37

Landscape level direction in the marten guide was intended to provide habitat for 1 martens, and, in so doing, to influence the supply and arrangement of mature and older 2 conifer-dominated forest across the boreal landscape. 3

4 The coarse filter direction in the landscape guide contains coarse filter indicators 5

for forest pattern and composition of upland mature and overmature forest. Recent 6 research (Naylor et al. 2005) suggests that large patches (≥3000 ha) of suitable habitat 7 may not be required to sustain marten populations. However, patches of suitable habitat 8 at least the size of home ranges (≥ 500 ha) may be necessary. These results support 9 provision of marten habitat through the use of a coarse filter that emulates the landscape 10 patterns, specifically the amount and distribution of mature forest that would have 11 resulted from natural disturbances. These results have also been incorporated into a new 12 habitat model for martens (see Science and Information Package A for details). 13

14 Pileated woodpecker habitat 15 16

Landscape level direction in the Forest Management Guide for the Provision of 17 Pileated Woodpecker Habitat (OMNR 1996) was intended to provide habitat for pileated 18 woodpeckers, and, in so doing, to influence the supply and arrangement of mature and 19 older forest across the GLSL landscape. The coarse filter direction in the landscape guide 20 influences the pattern and composition of upland mature and older forest which will 21 affect the supply of pileated woodpecker habitat. Research suggests that a coarse filter 22 emulation of natural disturbance supplies the composition and patch size required for 23 pileated woodpecker habitat (Bush 1999). 24 25

3.6 Ranges and Milestones 26

3.6.1 Landscape Guide Regions 27 28

As discussed in section 3.2.1, landscapes can be managed at multiple scales. The 29 landscape guide uses ecoregional scales for directing landscape-level biodiversity 30 conservation through a combination of coarse and fine filter direction. Landscape Guide 31 Regions are groupings of Forest Management Units that approximate ecoregional 32 boundaries2 (Figure 10). The landscape guide region is the scale at which the SRNV 33

2 All crown land will be included in the area of interest. Where forest condition

information is available and defined management intent (e.g. through a forest management plan) is known for large (at least one township in size) areas of forested private land or federal land (e.g., federal parks), this information may be used to assist in guide application with approval of the OMNR planning specialists. This area of interest will also be considered when developing desired ranges of variability, specifically when considering how the FMU contributes to meeting landscape guide region targets for the conservation of biodiversity. The crown land base of some forest management units may be fragmented by a high degree of private land ownership where forest condition information is not available and management intent is unknown. Across these units, areas

DRAFT


38

was summarized along with the forest management unit level. In the approach to 1 effectiveness monitoring (Section 6) considers landscape guide regions in the design of 2 an evaluation framework. 3

4

5 Figure 10. Landscape Guide Regions, in 2008 6

3.6.2 Landscape Guide Ranges 7 8

Landscape guide ranges for each of the landscape guide indicators represent a 9 science-based estimate of the natural condition based on the SRNV. MNR-based 10 science teams were responsible for creating landscape guide ranges. It is unlikely that 11 any single source of information will provide enough insight to estimate ranges of 12 natural variation for all indicators; rather, multiple information sources should be 13 considered as “bodies of evidence” during the development of estimates. The Science 14 and Information Packages provide complete descriptions of information sources 15 including the simulated range of natural variation (SRNV), historical survey records 16 (Pre-Industrial Condition), and, current ecological databases (e.g. FRI, remote sensing, 17

of high ownership fragmentation may be delineated and exempt from application of landscape pattern indicators by the Forest Management Planning Teams. The crown-land portion of these exempt areas will be considered for composition, abundance, and structure indicators (section 3.5.2).

DRAFT


39

growth and yield plots). Additional science and information can be used in application 1 of the landscape guide with the approval of OMNR forest science and regional planning 2 specialists. 3

4 FMPM Link: A discussion of natural ranges of variability can be used in 5

describing Historic Forest Condition, Current Forest Condition and Strategic 6 Analyses. 7

8

3.6.3 Apportioned landscape guide ranges 9 10

Apportioned landscape guide ranges provide planning teams with a geographically 11 explicit contribution to the larger landscape guide region. Forest management unit 12 boundaries were used to apportion the landscape guide ranges (Figure 10). 13

3.6.4 Milestones 14 15

Milestones provide planning teams with the intent of the landscape guide 16 direction. Milestones describe a possible management trajectory (qualitatively and, in 17 some cases quantitatively) that meets the intent of the landscape guide. For example, if 18 the current landscape condition differs from the apportioned landscape guide range, 19 then what is the intended direction of movement toward the apportioned landscape 20 guide range? The following development principles were used to develop milestones: 21

• Landscape guide direction, together with forest management planning, 22 supports CFSA principles of sustainability. 23

• Consider current landscape conditions, silvicultural limitations, and effects on 24 other values (for example, provincially featured species) in order to “set 25 implementation up for success”. These factors were not considered to take 26 precedence over biodiversity conservation, but rather identified realistic 27 management opportunities. 28

• Differences between the current condition of the landscape and the 29 apportioned landscape guide ranges may be the result of management actions 30 that occurred long before the era of forest sustainability (white pine logging in 31 the late 1800’s) and/or may be the result of exotic pests or pathogens (e.g. 32 white pine blister rust). 33

• The development process should be transparent and well documented. 34 35 These general steps were followed in each landscape guide region to develop milestones 36 (Figure 11): 37

1. Draft landscape guide ranges were presented at workshops attended by 38 representatives of forest management planning teams. 39

2. Revisions to landscape simulation model inputs were made based on input from 40 workshop participants (e.g. changes to forest succession rules) and a revised 41 SRNV was estimated and/or additional information added to PIC. Final 42 apportioned landscape guide ranges were created and are available digitally as 43 part of Ontario’s Landscape Tool. 44

DRAFT


40

3. A range of management scenarios to maintain or move the landscape towards 1 the apportioned landscape guide ranges was explored through an iterative 2 process to select a scenario that met the development principles. A socio-3 economic impact assessment was carried out using these milestones and 4 documented. 5

4. Milestones were presented to Provincial Forest Technical and Regional 6 Advisory Committees and posting of Landscape Guide in EBR. The Milestones 7 were documented in the appendix of the landscape guide. 8

9

10 Figure 11. Process used to develop apportioned landscape guide ranges and milestones. 11

12 The first set of apportioned landscape guide ranges, developed for each 13

landscape guide region, will be used for 10 year forest management plans commencing in 14 2011 and subsequent FMPs. Planned review of landscape guide ranges will start in 2012 15 in anticipation of the next set of 10 year forest management plans which will start 16 planning in 2015 for April 2018 approval 17

Documentation 18 19 The appendices of the landscape guide provide milestones for all landscape guide 20 indicators for each landscape guide region (apportioned landscape guide rangcan be 21 found in the Science and Information Packages). 22

DRAFT


41

4 Applying the Landscape Guide in a Forest 1 Management Plan 2

The following points summarize the standards, guidelines and best management 3 practices of the landscape guide in a Phase I forest management plan: 4

1. Measure the current forest condition using landscape guide indicators that 5 will act as measurable indicators for the biodiversity indicators of 6 objective achievement described in the FMPM (standard). See section 4.2. 7

2. The apportioned landscape guide ranges (SRNVs) will be used as the 8 desirable levels of these indicators (guideline). See section 4.3. 9

FMPM Link: FMP Targets will normally be consistent with the 10 desirable level of the indicator (i.e. currently within the desirable level) or 11 established to encourage movement towards the desirable level (.i.e. if currently 12 outside the desirable level). Where targets remain outside the desirable level over 13 the modeling period, clear rationalization must be provided in the FMP that 14 addresses this deviation. How the deviation affects the balancing of social, 15 economic and environmental considerations, as well as consideration of other 16 values (including desirable benefits), the current forest condition and/or 17 silvicultural limitations must also be discussed. 18

3. A possible management trajectory of remaining within or moving towards 19 (or maintenance within) landscape guide ranges was developed through 20 landscape direction setting workshops. 21

a. Milestones are directional statements describing this trajectory. 22 Forest Management Planning Teams will develop targets for the 23 landscape guide indicators that are consistent with these directional 24 statements over short, medium and long terms. (guideline). See 25 section 4.3. 26

b. Potential impacts of following this management trajectory were 27 assessed as part of direction setting by modelling impact 28 assessment values. These values represent a possible 29 quantification of the directional statements and may be used by 30 Forest Management Planning Teams to help them set appropriate 31 targets for their forest management plan (best management 32 practice). 33

4. Identify large landscape patches (LLPs) required to meet targets. Planning 34 teams will identify LLPs required to meet targets created for landscape 35 guide pattern indicators (e.g. texture of the mature forest matrix, young 36 forest patch size) (guideline). 37

38 39 40

DRAFT


42

4.1 Implementing the Landscape Guide in Phase I of Forest 1 Management Plans 2 The Landscape Guide will be used in the preparation of forest management plans 3

within the Area of the Undertaking in Ontario during development of long-term 4 management direction in the forest management planning process. 5

6 FMPM Link: The Landscape Guide is used throughout the development of the 7

Ten-Year Forest Management Plan. During development of the long-term management 8 direction between Stage One (Invitation to Participate) and Stage Two (Review of 9 Proposed Long-Term Management Direction) of Phase I (Figure A-3, FMPM), it 10 supports landscape-level biodiversity conservation. Products of the guide application in 11 Stages One and Two will assist in selecting areas for proposed operations and therefore 12 it will also be used in Stage Three (Information Centre: Review of Proposed Operations 13 (Figure A-6, FMPM)). 14

15

4.1.1 Measure the condition of current forest landscape 16 17 The landscape guide indicators will act as measurable indicators for the 18

biodiversity indicators of objective achievement described in the FMPM (standard). The 19 landscape guide indicators represent the best tools available to direct management to 20 create a landscape mosaic that meets the purpose of the guide. 21

22 FMPM Link: Landscape Guide indicators support Scoping Analysis 23

to examine a range of possibilities for management, and provide insight into what 24 the forest is capable of producing and potential management considerations. 25

26

Documentation 27 The forest management planning team can use the Ontario’s Landscape Tool to 28 analyze and document their planning inventory to calculate plan start levels for each 29 of the Landscape Guide indicators (described in section 3.5) in table FMP-133 (best 30 management practice) 31

4.1.2 Use Apportioned Landscape Guide Ranges as Desirable 32 Levels 33

34 The apportioned landscape guide ranges will be used as the desirable levels for the 35

landscape guide indicators (guideline). Since this is a guideline, professional judgment 36 is required for it to be applied appropriately at the local level. 37 38

3 Or in the applicable documentation table for objective achievement in the forest management planning manual.

DRAFT


43

This guideline draws its intent from the Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests 1 (OMNR 1995) which states: 2

Management practices must be flexible to allow for new information as it 3 becomes available. While many of the specifics remain to be developed, there are 4 some fundamental ideas about ecosystem management that provide a solid 5 premise upon which to build. 6 7

• Ecosystem boundaries are defined for the primary components. 8 • Goals and measurable targets for ecosystem conditions are developed. 9 • Management strategies are designed, implemented and, as necessary, 10 modified to achieve goals and targets. 11 • Ecosystem conditions are monitored and compared with the goals and 12 targets. 13

14 The intent of this guideline is to ensure that the desirable levels for biodiversity 15

objectives in the FMP will represent a science-based estimate of landscape conditions and 16 patterns resulting from a pre-industrial and/or simulated range of natural variation. Forest 17 cover, socio-economic and silvicultural objectives will each have their own desirable 18 levels and targets. The preliminary determination of sustainability, which will reflect 19 implementation of this guideline, will determine whether on balance the ecological, 20 socio-economic, and silvicultural objectives of the FMP are being achieved, and progress 21 is being made towards the desired forest and benefits, consistent with the CFSA 22 principles4. 23 24 Application of this guideline should consider landscape guide indicators in the 25 following hierarchy (Best Management Practice): 26

1. Composition: Landscape Classes 27 2. Composition: Old Growth 28 3. Pattern: Texture of the Mature and Old Forest 29 4. Composition: Forest Unit Groupings 30 5. Pattern: Young Forest Patch Size 31

The order of this application recognizes that pattern is dependent on composition, for 32 example it is difficult to arrange the texture of the mature and old forest if, non-spatially, 33 it does not exist on the landscape. Teams should follow this order through all subsequent 34 application steps in this section. 35 36

Documentation 37 Documentation requirements for biodiversity objectives are outlined in the FMPM. 38 Planning teams may compare (identify any major differences) indicator values between 39 4 1. Large, healthy, diverse and productive Crown forests and their associated ecological processes and biological diversity should be conserved. 2. The long term health and vigour of Crown forests should be provided for by using forest practices that, within the limits of silvicultural requirements, emulate natural disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing adverse effects on plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values

DRAFT


44

the plan start level, SRNV year zero and the desirable level (best management practice). 1 Discussion may include, but is not limited to: 2

• Natural Disturbances 3 • Silvicultural requirements 4 • Insect and/or disease limitations 5 • Socio-economic effects 6 • Change in forest resources inventories 7

8 FMPM Link: 1.2.6.1 Objectives and Indicators 9

10 The planning team, with the assistance of the local citizens committee, will develop 11 management objectives related to the objective categories and indicators (Figure A-5), 12 and may develop additional management objectives and indicators, including the timing 13 of assessment of each indicator. 14 15 The development of management objectives will consider the objectives in the current 16 approved forest management plan. The results of the desired forest and benefits meeting 17 (Part A, Section 1.2.5) and the background information (Part A, Section 1.1.7), in 18 particular, the forest management guides (Part A, Section 1.1.7.3), will also be used in 19 the development of management objectives and indicators (e.g., landscape pattern). 20 21 For each management objective, a desirable level for each indicator will be established. 22 A desirable level is a specific number, a range or a trend for an indicator, to be achieved 23 and maintained over time. Desirable levels are established locally, and will be used in 24 the determinations of sustainability. The establishment of a desirable level for each 25 indicator will consider the appropriate background information (Part A, Section 1.1.7), 26 the results of the desired forest and benefits meeting (Part A, Section 1.2.5), and the 27 results of the scoping analysis (Part A, Section 1.2.4.5). 28

29 30

4.1.3 Develop Targets for Biodiversity Objectives 31 32

Possible management trajectories towards (or maintenance within) landscape guide 33 ranges for each indicator were developed through landscape direction setting workshops. 34 Milestones are directional statements along this trajectory and can be found in the 35 appendices of the landscape guide. Forest Management Planning Teams will develop 36 targets for the landscape guide indicators that are consistent with these directional 37 statements over short, medium and long terms. (guideline). 38 39

The intent of this guideline recognizes that targets are an outcome of the planning 40 process and that milestones for landscape guide indicators represent possible 41 management trajectories towards or within landscape guide ranges. These trajectories 42 reflect a long term consideration and contain limited incorporation of social and 43 economic considerations. Consistent with FMPM direction, application of this guideline 44

DRAFT


45

within a forest management plan will consider a broader balancing of social, economic 1 and environmental considerations consistent with the with the CFSA principles. 2

Potential impacts of following the management trajectories identified for each 3 indicator were assessed, in portions of the province, as part of direction setting by 4 modelling impact assessment values. These values represent a possible quantification of 5 the directional statements and may be used by Forest Management Planning Teams to 6 help them set appropriate targets for their forest management plan (best management 7 practice). 8

FMPM Link: 1.2.6.1 Objectives and Indicators 9 For each management objective, a target will also be established. A target is a specific 10 number, a range, or a trend, with a timeframe for achievement. The establishment of 11 targets for each objective will reflect a balancing of objectives and will consider: 12 (a) a balance of social, economic and environmental considerations; 13 (b) the associated indicator and its desirable level; 14 (c) the current forest condition; and 15 (d) the short term (10 years), medium term (20 years), and long term (100 years). 16 The target may be the same as, or different from, the desirable level of the indicator. 17 Normally, the target will be consistent with the desirable level of the indicator, or the 18 target will be established to encourage movement towards the desirable level. 19 20

Documentation 21 The documentation requirements regarding targets for landscape guide indicators 22

are outlined in the FMPM. 23 24

FMPM Link: The management strategy developed by the planning team should 25 strive to conserve biodiversity at the landscape scale by maintaining landscape-level 26 indicators within the desired ranges of variability. FMP Section 1.2.6.2 can document 27 how the biodiversity conservation priorities and strategies will be applied. This section 28 of the guide must be applied prior to the FMP CHECKPOINT – SUPPORT FOR 29 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. 30 31

DRAFT


46

4.1.4 Identify Large Landscape Patches to Meet Targets 1 2

Planning teams will identify any large landscape patches (LLPs) that may be 3 required to; meet targets created for landscape guide pattern indicators (e.g. texture of the 4 mature forest matrix, young forest patch size), and allow for the efficient implementation 5 of other guides (e.g. Stand and Site), on a strategic landscape map guideline). A strategic 6 landscape map is a way of identifying those parts of the landscape that are being used to 7 meet biodiversity objectives for which the adjustments strategic forest management 8 model must be made. In other words, the strategic landscape map informs the strategic 9 management model about how the pattern indicators of the landscape guide will affect the 10 Long Term Management Direction of the forest. The Planning team will use common 11 sense to determine the level of detail (in time and space) that is required for LLP 12 identification by considering the landscape condition at the start of the planning term, 13 past management, natural disturbances and the apportioned landscape guide range 14 (guideline). 15

16 The following examples (best management practice) are provided to help 17

planning teams determine the level of detail: 18 • In forests where the texture of the mature and old forest indicator is close to the 19

SRNV and there is a long management history of silviculture systems that 20 maintain mature forest canopies, no identification would be required for the 21 texture of the mature forest pattern indicators. 22

• In forests that will require a significant change in harvest pattern (e.g. from a 23 narrow range of harvest openings to a larger range of young forest patch 24 sizes), LLPs that will be managed to maintain high concentrations of mature 25 forest to meet the 500 ha scale mature forest texture could be identified. 26

• Areas with specific management intent that are identified through existing 27 protocols (e.g. deer yards) can be indicated on strategic landscape to assist in 28 application of the Stand and Site Guide. 29 30

31 Once the planning team determines the appropriate level of identification, each LLP 32 requires the following documentation (guideline): 33

a. Where: Identification number mapping 34 b. What and Why: What targets are met by the LLP (indicate landscape 35

indicators(s) or specific fine filter objective). 36 c. When: When will these areas be managed (use 20 year periods). The strategic 37

landscape map should identify prioritized management actions for spatially 38 explicit indicators (i.e. pattern and habitat) over a length of time sufficient to 39 demonstrate movement into and maintenance within desired ranges of 40 variation 41

d. How (For LLPs within the 20 year planning period): Describe the 42 management actions to be taken in the LLP including a description of 43 silviculture anticipated. In cases where an LLP is managed to create specific 44 fine filter conditions the stated DFFC must produce these conditions (e.g. a 45

DRAFT


47

LLP managed for deer habitat must have a DFFC that provides deer habitat). 1 A description of how the LLP was taken into account in strategic modelling of 2 proposed management strategy (e.g. available for harvest, deferred harvest, 3 additional residual, specific silviculture, etc.). 4

e. Roads (For LLPs within the 20 year planning period): Description of the 5 expected length of time that planned or existing roads within the LLP will be 6 required to carry out management actions. This documentation does not 7 replace or direct road access planning; however, it can be used as input to the 8 development of a roads strategy. 9

10

Planning teams should design the strategic landscape map starting with the 11 largest, most difficult patches to locate, those that will have an influence on 12 landscape pattern for the longest period of time and/or those LLPs that require 13 special considerations. LLPs should only be identified if the planning team 14 determines that spatially explicit management direction needs to be identified in 15 the Long Term Management Direction. It is assumed that the remaining areas not 16 identified as LLPs will be comprised of smaller sized harvest and retention 17 decisions to complete the landscape mosaic. Not all areas of harvest or retention 18 will be identified as, or incorporated into, the LLPs. These smaller areas also 19 contribute to meeting the overall landscape objectives for the unit. 20 21

5 Monitoring and Evaluating 22 23

Monitoring of the landscape guide is intended to deal with three questions: 24 • Compliance – addressed in FMPM 25 • Effectiveness – are the management actions based on contributing to biodiversity 26

conservation at the landscape scale as intended? 27 • Efficiency – what is the ease with which people can write, read and implement 28

landscape-level direction in forest management plans, while balancing important 29 ecological, social and economic values, and minimizing adverse ecological effects 30 on other values? Is this an improvement from previous guides? 31

32 These monitoring types are connected – effectiveness relies on proper compliance, 33

efficiency requires effectiveness, compliance must not interfere with efficiency, etc.. 34 Successful integration of these types of monitoring will require successful relationships 35 based on the following roles and responsibilities. In the FMP, forest managers are 36 accountable for writing clear objectives, documenting landscape guide application, and 37 compliance with the FMP. OMNR has a lead role in designing scientific studies to 38 evaluate the effectiveness of forest management guides (EA condition 31) and monitoring 39 wildlife populations to support guide effectiveness monitoring (EA condition 30). 40 41

DRAFT


48

5.1 Approach to Effectiveness Monitoring 1 2

Effectiveness monitoring is the evaluation phase of an adaptive management 3 approach to resource management. An adaptive approach to resource management 4 speeds the process of learning by treating policies as hypotheses, and developing 5 monitoring and research programs that directly test the effectiveness of policies and 6 subsequent guideline direction. This interface between Science and Policy forms the 7 foundation of Forest Management Guide development and testing. 8 9

During the process of Guide development various forest growth, harvest, 10 disturbance, and habitat models were used to evaluate simulated forest conditions. 11 Through this modeling exercise alternative management options were initially assessed, 12 and management options that failed to meet policy objectives were rejected. Specific 13 Guide direction has thus undergone an initial evaluation, but only through 14 implementation on the ground and through measurement and comparison of expected 15 results versus observed results can the effectiveness of policy options be rigorously 16 evaluated. 17 18

The goal of the forest management guides is in part to ensure forest sustainability, 19 as mandated by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994). As written, “The purpose of 20 the Act is to ensure the long-term health of our forest ecosystems for the benefit of the 21 local and global environments, while enabling present and future generations to meet 22 their material and social needs”. This broad ecological goal of maintaining ecosystem 23 health is defined more specifically by the concept of ecological integrity: 24 25

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: The capacity to support and maintain a balanced, 26 integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, 27 diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitats of 28 the region (Noon et al. 1999; Karr 1996). 29

30 The concept of ecological integrity embodies three important principles of 31

balance, integration, and adaptation, and these principles provide direction in how 32 effectiveness monitoring questions should be defined. 33 34 Balance: An ecosystem that is functioning well has a balanced set of organisms. Stressed 35 systems may lose species diversity and shift towards a simpler species composition. In 36 contrast, natural forest habitats in which sound timber management has been applied 37 support a host of species that reflect natural gradients and succession in stand age, 38 configuration of the mature forest matrix, and the relative proportion of deciduous versus 39 coniferous trees species. 40 41 Integration: An ecosystem that is functioning well has an integrated set of organisms. 42 Whether it is a songbird community or a community of soil organisms, integrated 43 communities are the lifeblood of healthy ecosystems. Examples include primary-44 secondary consumer complexes, such as Bay Breasted Warblers that feed on spruce 45 budworm and help prevent the spread of forest disease; functional systems, such as a 46

DRAFT


49

community of soil organisms that decompose fallen wood, thus helping to both provide 1 nutrients to future trees and habitat for amphibians and small mammals; and nest webs, 2 such as those that depend on keystone woodpeckers to excavate holes and provide nesting 3 habitat and food sources for a web of wildlife. 4 5 Adaptive: An ecosystem that is functioning well has an adaptive set of organisms. Plant 6 and wildlife communities must be adaptive because environmental conditions never 7 remain constant. Whether it is long-term cycles of solar activity, the effects of global 8 increases in particular gases, or the adaptive cycles of exploitation, conservation, release, 9 and reorganization (Holling et al. 2002), environments will change. Genetic diversity and 10 pathways of mobility are key elements for ensuring populations and communities can 11 adapt to ever changing environmental conditions. As environments change through 12 normal successional development stages, individual species will rise and fall in relative 13 abundance, but because of “functional compensation” and redundancy in species 14 organization the system will be resilient, and ecosystem integrity will remain in tact. 15 16

Ontario’s forest management guidelines are further based, in part, on the two 17 CFSA principles that direct development of Ontario’s forest management planning 18 manual (CFSA 1994). 19 20

The Forest Management Planning Manual shall provide for determinations of the 21 sustainability of Crown forests in a manner consistent with the following 22 principles: 23

1. Large, healthy, diverse and productive Crown forests and their associated 24 ecological processes and biological diversity should be conserved. 25

2. The long term health and vigour of Crown forests should be provided for by 26 using forest practices that, within the limits of silvicultural requirements, emulate 27 natural disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing adverse effects on 28 plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including 29 recreational values and heritage values. 1994, c. 25, s. 2 (3). 30

31 The first principle mandates that the determination of sustainability should be 32

based on whether or not ecological processes and biodiversity were conserved. The 33 second principle directs that this conservation should be achieved through emulation of 34 natural disturbance, but while minimizing adverse effects on forest values. 35 36

These principles of the Act provide the direction for both the development of the 37 Forest Management Guides, and the determination of Effectiveness. The principle 38 measurement, as mandated by the Act, is the conservation of biodiversity and ecological 39 processes. The principle comparison for evaluating effectiveness is between forests that 40 have arisen from natural disturbance versus those that have arisen through application of 41 the forest management Guides. 42

DRAFT


50

1 However, embedded within the policy are essentially two directions: one to emulate 2

natural disturbance, and the other to minimize adverse effects. While much of the 3 direction provided in the SSG and LG are based on emulating natural disturbance (which 4 indirectly will minimize adverse effects), considerable direction is also given to directly 5 minimize adverse effects. Such direction is designed to mitigate direct effects of timber 6 harvest for which there is no natural disturbance analogue, or where emulating natural 7 disturbance is deemed insufficient to meet societal goals. Development of both the SSG 8 and LG took emulation of natural disturbance as the first principle to follow where a 9 natural equivalent exists (e.g., wildfire disturbance), and this was termed the “coarse 10 filter”. Where there was no natural equivalent (e.g., rutting, noise disturbance, traffic 11 effects, etc) developers used “minimize adverse effects” as the guiding principle. Hence 12 Natural Disturbance Paradigm and Minimize Adverse Effects represent two distinct and 13 relatively exclusive hypotheses in Guide development 14 15

5.2 Emulation of Natural Disturbance as Policy Hypothesis 16 17 The emulation of natural disturbance, as directed by the Act, is both policy and 18 hypothesis. The Act implicitly states that this is an effective approach to obtaining long-19 term health of the forest ecosystems. The policy, however, is still a hypothesis, and the 20 direction provided in the SSG and LG is the implementation of this policy. Each element 21 of Guide direction results in expected outcomes that arise from the “emulation of natural 22 disturbance hypothesis”. Some of these expected outcomes are more uncertain than 23 others, and a principal purpose of this document is to translate key elements of Guide 24 direction into explicit hypotheses, and to identify those key hypotheses with the highest 25 level of uncertainty that require effectiveness monitoring. 26 27 The CFSA (1994) requires determination of sustainability in terms of conservation of 28 biodiversity and ecological processes. The response of the forest ecosystem to forest 29 management and natural disturbance can be measured at the levels of population trends, 30 community organization and functional properties. These three classes of response are 31 used to organize a strategy to monitor the effectiveness of forest management direction 32 given in the Guides in terms of conserving both biodiversity and ecological processes. 33 34 PREDICTIONS ARISING FROM THE EMULATION OF NATURAL DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS: 35

36 1. Population Trend Responses: Across spatial scales and over time, the observed 37

(and expected) trends in abundance for selected focal species are similar (at the 38 stand and large landscape areas) between habitats that have arisen from natural 39 disturbance versus habitats that have arisen through application of the forest 40 management guides. 41

42 2. Community Structure Responses: Across spatial scales and over time, the 43

community composition and diversity of monitored species is similar between 44

DRAFT


51

habitats that have arisen from natural disturbance versus habitats that have arisen 1 through application of the forest management guides. 2

3 4

3. Functional Properties Responses: Across spatial scales and over time, the biotic 5 and abiotic indicators of functional properties (primary production, nutrient 6 cycling, energy flow, and hydrological cycles) are similar between habitats that 7 have arisen from natural disturbance versus habitats that have arisen through 8 application of the forest management guides. 9

10

5.3 Efficiency 11 12

Efficiency is measured as the ease with which people can write, read and 13 implement forest management plans, while balancing important ecological, social and 14 economic values, and minimizing adverse effects on other ecological values. The 15 approach to monitoring the efficiency of the landscape guide will be a comparison of 16 impacts of previous guides on efficiency indicators with similar indicators undertaken 17 during the review of the landscape guide planned for 2011. Table 1 provides an overview 18 of the predicted effects of the landscape guide implementation on socio-economic values. 19 20 Table 1. An overview of the predicted effects of the landscape guide implementation on socio-21 economic values. A table like this will be complete for each landscape guide based on possible target 22 ranges. 23

Socio economic Value

Predicted Effect Target Evaluative Indicator

Time Required to evaluate

Forest Management: Delivered wood cost

- Slight reduction Decrease -$ of FMP prep - volume available before & after LG - available harvest area before & after LG - degree of reduction in available landbase (i.e., held in deferrals) The 3 above indicators reflect the extent of the options available (the potential) for forest operations to find efficiency during implementation of the FMP.

10 year

DRAFT


52

Forest Management: Planning efficiency

-More efficient Increase -duration of FMP planning -# of IR’s & Individual EA’s -LCC satisfaction with process -$ of FMP preparation

10 year

Roads: Reduced footprint in areas of concentrated harvest

Minimize ‘Active’ Road density / FMU

5 year

Recreation: Hunting

- Negative -Decrease overall road network * (however, degree of access restrictions may mitigate effect) - Reduced moose population (less edge habitat) (may be mitigated through desired forest benefits target setting)

Enhance Minimize access restrictions Plan for elevated moose habitat targets for socio-economic reasons

Publicly Accessible Road Density /FMU Moose habitat (winter/summer) Edge (supplement with moose population info, in collaboration with wildlife branch)

10 year

Recreation: Fishing

- Potential Reduction (resulting from reduced access) (may be mitigated through planning)

Enhance Plan access to consider fishing opportunities and impacts

- # direct lake access points - # roads < 100m from lakes (supplement with fisheries info from fisheries branch)

5 year

Recreation: Remote experiences

Increased level of remote experiences (creating less pressure to close roads when built)

Enhance Plan to ensure desired level of remoteness is respected. Plan remoteness to balance access

- Active road density - proportion of unit >500m from roads

5 year

Impact of direction on other ecological values

Balanced such that indicator species requiring old forest and those requiring young forest conditions remain within the SRNV

Remain within SRNV or move toward

1 2 3

DRAFT


53

6 Literature Cited 1 2 Aird, P. L. 1985. In Praise of Pine: The Eastern White Pine and Red Pine Timber Harvest 3 from Ontario's Crown Forest. Can. For. Serv., Petawawa National Forestry Institute, 4 Report No. PI-X-52. 5 6 Ahti, T. and R.L. Hepburn. 1967. Preliminary studies on woodland caribou range 7 especially lichen stands, in Ontario. Dept. of Lands and Forests, Research Report No. 74. 8 134 pp. 9 10 ArborVitae Environmental Services Ltd., CMC Ecological Consulting, and Callaghan 11 and Associates Inc. 2000, Review of Forest Management Guides. Report Submitted to the 12 Provincial Forest Technical Committee 13 14 Baker, J. A. 2000. Adaptive Management at the Landscape Level. Pages 310-322 in A. H. 15 Perera, D. L. Euler, and I. D. Thompson, editors. Ecology of a managed terrestrial 16 landscape: patterns and processes of forest landscapes in Ontario. University of British 17 Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 18 19 Ballard, W.B. 1994. Effects of Black Bear Predation on Caribou - A Review. Alces Vol 20 30. 21 22 Bush, P.G. 1999. Influence of landscape-scale forest structure on the presence of pileated 23 woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus)in central Ontario forests. MScF Thesis, Lakehead 24 Univ., Thunder Bay. 87pp. 25 26 Bellhouse, TJ and BJ Naylor. 1997. Habitat relationships of wildlife in central 27 Ontario. OMNR, Southcentral Science and Technology, Technical Report No 53. Queens 28 Printer for Ontario. 29 30 Bergeron, Y., A. Leduc, B.D. Harvey, and S. Gauthier. 2002. Natural fire regime: A 31 guide for sustainable management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fennica 36(1):81 32 95. 33 34 Brinson, MM and J. Verhoeven. 1999. Chapter 8. Riparian Forests. Pages 265-299 in 35 M.L. Hunter (editor). Maintaining Biodiversity in Forested Ecosystems. Cambridge 36 University Press, Cambridge, England. 37 38 Broadfoot, J.D., and D.R. Voigt. 1996. White-tailed deer migration behaviour: a 39 resource management perspective. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., STERS Tech. Rpt. No. 5. 34 p. 40 41 Brown, W.K. and J.B. Theberge. 1990. The effect of extreme snowcover on feeding-site 42 selection by Woodland Caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:161-168. 43 44

DRAFT


54

Bunnell, P. 2003 The adaptive cycle in a forest: Resilience Alliance (3.1) URL: www. 1 resalliance.org. 2 3 Carignan, R., and Steedman, R.J. 2000. Impacts of major watershed perturbations on 4 aquatic ecosystems. Introduction to Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 5 Volume 57, Supplement S2. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(Suppl. 2): 1-4. 6 7 Carignan, R., D’Arcy, P., and Lamontagne, S. 2000. Comparative impacts of fire and 8 forest harvesting on water quality in boreal shield lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 9 57(Suppl. 2): 105-117. 10 11 Carleton, T. J. 2000. Vegetation responses to the managed forest landscape of central and 12 northern Ontario. Pages 179--197 in A. H. Perera, D. L. Euler, and I. D. Thompson, 13 editors. Ecology of a managed terrestrial landscape: patterns and processes of forest 14 landscapes in Ontario. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British 15 Columbia, Canada. 16 17 Carleton T.J. and P. MacLellan. 1994. Woody vegetation responses to fire versus clear-18 cut logging: a comparative survey in the central Canadian boreal forest. Ecoscience 1: 19 141-152. 20 21 Chapin, T.G., Harrison, D.J., and Katnik, D.D. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern on 22 habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation. Biology. 12: 1327–23 1337. 24 25 Chowns T. 2003. State of the Knowledge of Woodland Caribou in Ontario. Report 26 Prepared for the. Forest Research Partnership, 27 28 Chowns, T.G., and C.C. Gates. 2004. Ecological interactions among caribou, moose, and 29 wolves: literature review. NCASI technical Bulletin No. 893. Research Triangle Park, 30 North Carolina: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Inc. 31 COSEWIC. 2002. Assessment and update status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer 32 tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 33 Ottawa. 34 35 Cumming, H.G. and B.T. Hyer. 1998. Experimental log hauling through a traditional 36 caribou wintering area. Rangifer, Special Issue No. 10:241-258. 37 38 Cumming, H. G., and D. B. Beange. 1993. Survival of woodland caribou in commercial 39 forests of northern Ontario. Forestry Chronicle 69: 579–588. 40 41 Darby, W.R., H.R. Timmermann, J.B. Snider, K.F. Abraham, R.A. Stefanski, and C.A. 42 Johnson. 1989. Woodland Caribou in Ontario: Background to a Policy. Ontario Ministry 43 of Natural Resources, Toronto. 38 pp. 44 45 D'Eon RG and WR Watt. A Forest Suitability Matrix for Northeastern Ontario. 1994. 46

DRAFT


55

NEST Technical Manual TM-004. Queens Printer for Ontario. 1 2 Demarchi, M.W., and F.L. Bunnell. 1993. Estimating forest canopy effects on summer 3 thermal cover for Cervidae (deer family). Can. J. For. Res. 23:2419-2426. 4 5 Drapeau, P. et al. 2000. Landscape-scale disturbances and changes in bird communities 6 of boreal mixed-wood forests. Ecological Monographs 70: 423–444. 7 8 Drolet, B., Desrociiers, A. and M.J. Fortin. 1999. Are songbirds affected by landscape 9 structure in exploited boreal forest? Condor 101: 699-704. 10 11 Elkie 2005. A review of the original baseline and meridian surveys of Northwest Ontario. 12 in prep 13 14 Euler, D. and C. Wedeles. 2005. Defining old-growth in Canada and identifying wildlife 15 habitat in old-growth boreal forest stands. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 909. Research 16 Triangle Park, North Carolina: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Inc. 17 18 Fahrig, L. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. 19 Ecological Applications 12: 346-353. 20 21 Ferguson. S.H and P.C. Elkie. 2004. Habitat requirements of boreal forest caribou during 22 the travel seasons. Basic and Applied Ecology 5 (2004) 465—474 23 24 Franklin, J. F., 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes. 25 Ecological 1 Applications, 3, 202-205. 26 27 France, R.L. 2000. Factors influencing sediment transport from logging roads near 28 boreal trout lakes (CNFER manuscript report). 29 30 Gluck, M.J. and RS Rempel. 1996. Structural characteristics of post-wildfire and clear-31 cut landscapes. Environmental Assessment and Monitoring. 39:435-450. 32 33 Gluck M.J. 2004. Comparison of clearcut regulations. Unpublished Report. 34 35 Goodwin, B. 2003. Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent measure? 36 Landscape Ecology18 (7) 687 - 699 37 38 Gunderson, L.H. and C. S. Holling, eds 2001 Panarchy: Understanding Transformations 39 in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press 40 41 Hanley, T.A., and C.L. Rose. 1987. Influence of overstory on snow depth and 42 density in hemlock-spruce stands: implications for deer management in southeastern 43 Alaska. USDA For. Serv., PNW-RN-459. 11 p. 44 45

DRAFT


56

Hearnden, K.W., S.V. Millson, and W.C. Wilson. 1992. A Report on the status of Forest 1 Regeneration. Ont. Min. Natur. Resourc. Independent Forest Audit Committee. Queen's 2 Printer for Ontario. Toronto, ON. 117 pp. 3 4 Herrmann et al. 2005. Biol. Cons 5 6 Hills, G.A. 1961. The Ecological Basis for Land Use Planning. Research Report No. 46. 7 Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. 8 9 Holling, C.S. 1978 Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley 10 & Sons, Chichester. 11 12 Holloway, G., B. Naylor, and W. Watt, Editors. 2004. Habitat Relationships of wildlife in 13 Ontario – revised habitat suitability models for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and Boreal 14 East Forests. OMNR, Science and Information branch, Southern Science and Information 15 and Northeast Science and Information. Joint Technical Report No. 1. Queen’s Printer for 16 Ontario. 120 pp. 17 18 Houlahan and Findley. 2003. CJF&AS 19 20 Hundertmark, K.J. 1998. Home range, dispersal and migration. In Ecology and 21 management of the NorthAmerican moose. Franzmann, A.W. and C.C. Schwartz, Eds. 22 Smithsonian Inst. Press. Wash. and London. pp 303-335. 23 24 Hunter, ML 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for 25 biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 370 pp. 26 27 Hunter, M.L. 1993. Natural disturbance regimes as spatial models for managing boreal 28 forests. Biological Conservation 65:115-120. 29 30 Jackson, S. M., F. Pinto, J. R. Malcolm, and E. R. Wilson. 2000. A comparison of pre-31 settlement (1857) and current (1981-1995) forest composition in central Ontario. 32 Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:605-612. 33 34 Johnson, E.A, K. Miyanishi, and S.R.J. Bridge. 2001. Wildfire regime in the boreal forest 35 and the idea of suppression and fuel buildup. Conservation Biology 15 (6) 1554-1557. 36 37 Kelsall, J.P. 1984. Status Report on Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). 38 COSEWIC. 103 pp. 39 40 Kneeshaw, D.D., A. Leduc, P. Drapeau, S. Gauthier, D. Paré, R. 41 Carignan, R. Doucet, L. Bouthillier and C. Messier. 2000. Development 42 of integrated ecological standards of sustainable forest management 43 at an operational scale. For. Chron. 76: 481–493. 44 45 Knutson et al. (1999) 46

DRAFT


57

1 Landstrom J. 2004 Shoreline forest disturbance rates in natural and managed forests of 2 northwestern Ontario. Master’s thesis. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, 3 Canada. 4 5 Lee K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope. Island Press 6 7 Lindenmayer, D.B., Margules, C.R., Botkin, D.B. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for 8 ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14 (4): 941-950. 9 10 Lindenmayer, D.B. and J.F.Franklin, 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A 11 Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Island Press. 352 pp. 12 13 Malcolm, J.R, B.D. Campbell, B.G. Kuttner, and A. Sugar 2004. Potential indicators of 14 the impacts of forest management on wildlife habitat in northeastern Ontario: A 15 multivariate application of wildlife habitat suitability matrices Forestry Chronicle 80:91-16 106. 17 18 Matlack, G.R., Litvaitis J.A. (1999) Forest edges in Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest 19 Ecosystems. Edited by ML Hunter Cambridge University Press 1999. Paperback 714 pp 20 21 Mattfeld, G.F. 1974. The energetics of winter foraging by white-tailed deer. A 22 perspective on winter deer concentration. State University of New York, Ph. D. 23 Thesis. 306 p. 24 25 McCarthy, J. 2001. Gap dynamics of forest trees: A review with particular attention to 26 boreal forests. Environmental Review. 9: 1-59. 27 28 McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for 29 quantifying landscape structure. Program documentation. Gen Tech Rep US Dep Agric 30 For Serv Pac Northwest Res Stn 351, Portland 31 32 McGarigal, K. and W.C. McComb. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and 33 breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Monographs 65:3 pp. 235-260 34 35 Mladenoff, D. J., and J. Pastor. 1993. Sustainable forest ecosystems in the northern 36 hardwood and conifer forest region: concepts and management. Pages 145--180 in G. H. 37 Aplet, N. Johnson, J. T. Olson, and V. A. Sample, editors. Defining sustainable forestry. 38 Island Press, Washington, D.C., United States. 39 40 Morgan, M.G. and Henrion, M., 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty 41 in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 42 43 Mosley, E., S. Holmes, and E. Nol. 2006. Songbird diversity and movement in upland 44 and riparian habitats in boreal mixedwood forest of northeastern Ontario. Can. J. For. 45 Res. 36:1149-1164. 46

DRAFT


58

1 Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H., and Pollock, M. 1993, 'The role of riparian corridors in 2 maintaining regional biodiversity', Ecological Applications, vol. 3 (2), pp. 209–12. 3 4 Naylor, B.J. 1998a. Integrating timber and wildlife habitat management. Section 8.0 In: 5 OMNR, 1998. A silvicultural guide for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence conifer forest in 6 Ontario. Version 1.1. OMNR, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto. 7 8 Naylor, B.J. 1998b. Habitat management considerations. Section 10.0 In: OMNR, 1998. 9 A silvicultural guide for the tolerant hardwood forest in Ontario. Version 1.1. OMNR, 10 Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto. 11 12 Naylor, B., S. Mills, and L. Landriault. 2005. Evaluating the importance of marten cores 13 to trapper harvests: final report for phase I. Forest Ecosystem Science Co-operative 14 Technical Report. 15 16 Niemela, J. 1999. Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest. Forest 17 Ecology and Management 115:127—134 18 19 Nudds 20 21 O'Connell, M.A., J.G. Hallett, and S.D. West. 1993. Wildlife use of riparian habitats: A 22 literature review. TFW-WL1-93. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Timber, 23 Fish & Wildlife Program, Olympia, WA. 162pp. 24 25 OMNR 1980. Moose Management Policy 26 27 OMNR 1988. Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat. 28 Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 29 30 OMNR. 1990. Environmental guidelines for access roads and water crossings. Ontario 31 Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario. 64 p. 32 33 OMNR 1990. Featured Species Policy. Wildlife Branch Policy No. 6.04.01. 34 35 OMNR 1994. Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests: A Statement of the Ontario 36 Government released on April 6, 1994. 37 38 OMNR 1997. Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-Tailed Deer 39 Habitat. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 40 41 OMNR. 1998a. A silvicultural guide for the tolerant hardwood forest in Ontario. OMNR, 42 Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 43 44 OMNR. 1998b. A silvicultural guide for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence conifer forest in 45 Ontario. OMNR, Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 46

DRAFT


59

1 OMNR 1999. Forest Management Guidelines for the Conservation of Woodland Caribou: 2 A Landscape Approach. Version 1.0 3 4 OMNR 2000 Proposed architecture for ecological land classification in Ontario. Final 5 Draft – October 2000. 6 7 OMNR 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for 8 Ontario. 9 10 OMNR. 2003. Old growth policy for Ontario’s Crown forests. OMNR Forest Policy 11 Section. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 12 13 OMNR 2005. Our Sustainable Future. Ministry of Natural Resources. Strategic 14 Directions. Queens Printer for Ontario. 29 pp. 15 16 Packer, P.E. 1967a. Criteria for designing and locating logging roads to control 17 sediment. Forest Science 13(1): 2-18. 18 19 Perera, A.H. and D.J.B. Baldwin. 2000. Spatial patterns in the managed forest landscape 20 of Ontario. Pages 74-99.In: A.H. Perera, D.L. Euler and I.D. Thompson (editors). 21 Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial Landscape: Patterns and Processes in Forest 22 Landscapes of Ontario. UBC Press, Toronto 23 24 Perera, A.H., L J. Buse, and M.G. Weber (eds), 2004. Emulating Natural Forest 25 Landscape Disturbances: Concepts and Applications. Columbia University Press. 352 26 pages 27 28 Pinto, F. and S.M. Romaniuk. 2002. Presettlement forest cover in northeastern Ontario. 29 Pp. 59-61 in Emulating Natural Forest Landscape Disturbances: Concepts and 30 Applications Popular Summaries. Buse, L.J. and A.H. Perera, comp. Sault Ste. Marie, 31 ON. May 11-16, 2002. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Ont. For. Res. Inst., For. Res. Inf. Pap. 32 No. 149. 100 p. 33 34 Plamondon, A.P. 1982. Augmentation de la concentration des sédiments en suspension 35 suite à l’exploitation forestière et durée de l’effet. Can. J. For. Res. 12:883-892. 36 37 Justin P, D. L. Martell, and K. Knight. 2002. Statistical quality control analysis of forest 38 fire activity in Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 32(2): 195-205 39 40 Rempel, R.S., P. Elkie, A. R. Rodgers, and M. J. Gluck. 1997. Timber-management and 41 natural-disturbance effects on moose habitat: landscape evaluation. J. Wildl. Manage. 42 61:517-524. 43 44 Rempel, R.S., D.W. Andison, and S.J. Hannon. 2004. Guiding principles for developing 45 an indicator and monitoring framework. Forestry Chronicle. 80: 82-90 46

DRAFT


60

1 Renecker. L.A. and C.C. Schwartz. 1998. Food Habits and feeding behaviour. In Ecology 2 and management of the NorthAmerican moose. Franzmann, A.W. and C.C. Schwartz, 3 Eds. Smithsonian Inst. Press. Wash. and London. pp 403-439. 4 5 Rettie, W.J. and F. Messier. 1998. Dynamics of woodland caribou populations at the 6 southern limit of their range in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 251-259. 7 8 Rowe, J.S. and J.W. Sheard. 1981 Ecological Land Classification: a survey approach. 9 Environmental Management 5:451-64. 10 11 RSO 1994 12 13 Stankey, George H.; Clark, Roger N.; Bormann, Bernard T. 2005. Adaptive management 14 of natural resources: theory, concepts, and management institutions. 15 Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 16 Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 73 p. 17 18 Suffling, R. B. Smith, and J.D. Molin. 1982. Estimating past forest age distributions and 19 disturbance rates in north-western Ontario: a demographic approach. Journal of 20 Environmental Management 14 :45-56. 21 22 Thompson, I. 2000. Forest vertebrates of Ontario: patterns of distribution. Pages 54-73 23 In: A.H. Perera, D.L. Euler, and I.D. Thompson (editors). Ecology of a Managed 24 Terrestrial Landscape: Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes. UBC Press, Toronto. 25 Thompson, I.R. 2004. The importance of superior-quality wildlife habitats. Forestry 26 Chronicle 80:75-81. 27 28 Thompson, I.D., Angelstam, P., 1999. Special species. In: Hunter, M.L. (Ed.), 29 Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 30 pp. 434–459. 31 32 Trimble, G.R., and Sartz, R.S. 1957. How far from a stream should a logging road be 33 located? Journal of Forestry 53:339-341. 34 35 Vessey and McComb Salamander Abundance and Amphibian Species Richness in 36 Riparian Buffer Strips in the Oregon Coast Range 37 38 Voigt, D.R., G. Deyne, M. Malhiot, B. Ranta, B. Snider, R. Stefanski, and M. Strickland. 39 1992. White-tailed deer in Ontario: background to a policy. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Wildl. 40 Policy Br. Draft Document. 83 p. 41 42 Voigt, D.R., J.A. Baker, R.S. Rempel and I.D. Thompson. 2000. Forest vertebrate 43 responses to landscape-level changes in Ontario. Pages 198-233 In: A.H. Perera, D.L. 44 Euler, and I.D. Thompson (editors). Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial Landscape: 45 Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes. UBC Press, Toronto. 46

DRAFT


61

1 Walters C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan Publishing 2 Co., New York. 3 4 Whittaker, RH, SA Levin, and RB Root. 1973. Niche, habitat, and ecotope. 5 American Naturalist 107: 321-338 6 7

DRAFT


62

7 Glossary 1 2 Pattern: 3 4 Composition: 5 6 Structure: 7 8 Landscape: The Forest Management Planning Manual (MNR 2004) defines a landscape 9 as a heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems that is 10 repeated in similar form throughout. A landscape is normally defined by geomorphology 11 or climate.” 12 13 A landscape can be defined as “many sets of stands or patches that cover an area ranging 14 from many hundred to tens of thousands of hectares… it often is necessary to consider 15 much smaller areas or very large regional units (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). 16 17 Landscape Mosaic: 18 19 Patch: a unit of forest distinct in composition or structure or both from adjacent areas 20 (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002) 21 22 Stand: The Forest Information Manual (OMNR 2001) defined a Forest Stand as a 23 community of trees possessing sufficient uniformity in composition, age, arrangement, or 24 condition to be distinguishable from the forest or other growth on adjoining areas, thus 25 forming a silvicultural or management entity. 26 27 Matrix: the dominant and most extensive patch type in a landscape. 28 29 Connectivity: 30 31 Desired Forest and Benefits: The forest structure and composition and the goods and 32 services, which are desired from the forest to achieve a balance of social, economic and 33 environmental needs. The long-term management direction for the management unit is 34 developed to achieve the desired forest and benefits. 35 36 Desirable Level: The measurable amount for an indicator, expressed as a specific 37 number, a range or a trend, used in the assessment of sustainability 38 39 Indicator: The Forest Management Planning Manual (MNR 2004) defines an indictor as 40 “a systematically measured and assessed quantitative or qualitative measure, which when 41 observed periodically, demonstrates trends. Indicators are identified in each forest 42 management plan to assess the effectiveness of forest management activities in achieving 43 management objectives, and to assess the sustainability of the forest.” 44 45

DRAFT


63

Indicators: In forest management planning, indicators are the qualitative or quantitative 1 units used to establish targets and desirable levels, and are used in assessments of 2 objective achievement and determinations of sustainability. (Ranta pers comm. 2006) 3 4 Target: Use of Indicators in Forest Management Planning (OMNR 2005) defines a target 5 as “a specific number, a range, or a trend, with a timeframe for achievement. The target 6 may be the same as, or different from, the desirable level of the indicator, or the target 7 will be established to encourage movement towards the desirable level. 8 9 For each management objective, a target will also be established. A target is a specific 10 number, a range, or a trend, with a timeframe for achievement. The establishment of 11 targets 12 13 Natural Range of Variation: CFSA link to natural disturbance and landscape patterns. 14 Estimated through PIC & landscape simulations models (after current management 15 footprint has been erased) 16 17 Possible Target Ranges: 18 19 Desired Ranges: 20 21 Large Landscape Patch: 22 23 Measure: 24 25 Ecosystem Integrity: "An ecosystem has integrity when it is deemed characteristic for 26 its natural region, including the composition and abundance of native species and 27 biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes." (see Parks Canada 28 http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/ie-ei/report-rapport_1_e.asp) 29 30

forest management guide for great lakes-st....

Documents