FOREST MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE LANDSCAPES

Transcription

1 0 FOREST MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE LANDSCAPES DRAFT Environmental Registry Posting November 00 Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

2 Table of Contents How to Use this Guide... Policy Background.... Purpose of the Guide.... Guide Phase-In..... Previous guides replaced.... Applying the Forest Management Guide for Landscapes to Phase II (second five year term) of forest management plans..... Forest management plans with Phase I written without the Landscape Guide..... Forest management plans with Phase I written with the Landscape Guide.... MNR s Statement of Environmental Values.... Standards, Guidelines and Best Management Practices.... The Coarse and Fine Filter Management Approaches.... Public Engagement.... Notes on symbols used... 0 Overview of the Landscape Guide... Developing the Landscape Guide.... OMNR Goals.... Experience..... Pilot testing and impact assessment of landscape guide.... Knowledge: Biodiversity Conservation at Landscape Scales..... What is a landscape?..... Adaptive Cycles of Landscapes..... Landscapes as Habitat Climate Change and the Landscape Guide.... Analysis Framework.... Landscape Guide Indicators..... Landscape Structure and Composition Indicators Amount of area by landscape class Amount of area by selected forest composition grouping Amount of old growth forest..... Landscape Pattern Indicators Texture of the Mature and Old Forest Matrix Young Forest Patch Size..... The Fine Filter: Habitat for Special Species.... Ranges and Milestones..... Landscape Guide Regions..... Landscape Guide Ranges..... Apportioned landscape guide ranges..... Milestones... Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

3 0 Applying the Landscape Guide in a Forest Management Plan.... Implementing the Landscape Guide in Phase I of Forest Management Plans..... Measure the condition of current forest landscape..... Use Apportioned Landscape Guide Ranges as Desirable Levels... Develop Targets for Biodiversity Objectives..... Identify Large Landscape Patches to Meet Targets... Monitoring and Evaluating.... Approach to Effectiveness Monitoring.... Emulation of Natural Disturbance as Policy Hypothesis Efficiency... Literature Cited... Glossary... Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

4 How to Use this Guide The most efficient way to use the Landscape Guide in Forest Management Planning is to follow these steps:. Read the Landscape Guide: The main body of the guide describes how the guide was developed, FMP implementation steps and an approach to effectiveness monitoring of the guide direction.. Read the Landscape Guide Direction Appendix pertaining to your area of interest: There are landscape guide regions across Ontario. At the time of publication of the landscape guide each forest management planning unit is contained within a single landscape guide region. The Direction Appendix contains specific details on the indicators relating to each landscape guide region and forest management unit.. Use Ontario s Landscape Tool (OLT) to measure and assess the landscape of interest. The OLT is a computer-based tool that measures landscape guide indicators described in the Landscape Guide and Appendices. OLT also contains science and information packages (SIP) that describe, in great detail, how landscape guide ranges were determined.. Incorporate the landscape guide direction into forest management planning. Policy Background. Purpose of the Guide The Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes (referred to as the ) is one of a series of forest management guides used by forest managers when planning and implementing forest management activities. In order to protect or enhance environmental, recreational and cultural heritage values, the series of guides provide direction to assist forest managers decide, for example, what areas of forest to harvest (and equally important, what areas not to harvest), how large the harvest areas should be, and what harvesting and regeneration practices to use. Consistent with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA), the overall objective of this guide is to contribute to the sustainable management of Crown forests through the maintenance of their long term health. A key aspect of this objective is the conservation of biodiversity. Conservation has been defined as the preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration and enhancement (World Conservation Strategy 0, as cited in OMNR ) or the protection and/or sustainable use (Ontario Biodiversity Strategy, Anon. 00) of biological resources. The purpose of this guide is to provide direction on planning and conducting forest operations at the landscape scale (i.e. 000s of km) so that forest biodiversity will be conserved and Ontario s forests will remain healthy and sustainable. The Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales (the Stand and Site Guide) provides direction on conserving Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

5 0 0 biodiversity, and hence sustaining forest health, at smaller scales (i.e. 00s m to 00s km). These two guides are linked, both philosophically and literally within the text of each guide. The Landscape Guide is applied at the beginning of the forest management planning process and helps planning teams set the strategic direction for the entire forest management unit, in the context of surrounding forest management units. This strategic direction provides the background when planning teams develop operations specific to the forest management unit, through the implementation of the Stand and Site Guide. An overview of the complete set of forest management guides and their role in the sustainable management of Ontario s forests is provided in Ontario s Forest Management Guides: An Introduction (OMNR 00).. Guide Phase-In The Landscape Guide for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence (GLSL) forest region will be used in preparation with all 0 and subsequent Forest Management Plans in the GLSL-South and GLSL-North Landscape Guide Regions (Figure ). 0 Figure. GLSL-North and GLSL-South Landscape Guide Regions (yellow)... Previous guides replaced For the GLSL-North and South guide regions, this guide replaces the landscape level direction in the following forest management guides: Forest management guide for natural disturbance pattern emulation, 00 Forest management guidelines for the provision of marten habitat, Forest management guidelines for the provision of pileated woodpecker habitat, Forest management guidelines for the provision of white-tailed deer habitat, Timber management guidelines for the provision of moose habitat, Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

6 Applying the Forest Management Guide for Landscapes to Phase II (second five year term) of forest management plans There will be two types of forest management plans preparing Phase II (second five year terms) those that prepared 0-year plans with the Landscape Guide, and those that did not... Forest management plans with Phase I written without the Landscape Guide Forest management plans that have been written prior to implementation of the Landscape Guide are not required to update the Long Term Management Direction or the landscape indicators in FMP- based on the Landscape Guide (standard)... Forest management plans with Phase I written with the Landscape Guide Teams that did apply the landscape guide to develop their 0-year FMP will be planning operations for the second five-year term starting in 0. During Phase I, Stage Three (Operational Planning), the spatial assessment of sustainability is updated and documented in the final version of FMP-. This includes landscape scale spatial assessments of the effects of planned operations for both the first five-year term and the second five-year term of the Forest Management Plan. A similar assessment is not done in Phase II planning. Rather, at this stage the assessment is done through the annual reporting process. During Phase Two (second five year term) the landscape guide will be used two ways:. The plan author will determine whether or not the long-term direction remains valid for the second five-year-term. Part of this determination will consider biodiversity objectives that were developed with the landscape guide.. The landscape guide pattern indicators (section ) will be used in evaluating the ability of the management unit to meet the spatial objectives of the Forest Management Plan (guideline).. MNR s Statement of Environmental Values The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is the steward of Ontario s provincial parks, forests, fisheries, wildlife, mineral aggregates, and the Crown lands and waters that make up per cent of the province. This is a major responsibility which MNR manages through a diverse legislative mandate and an array of programs aimed at meeting the needs of a broad client base. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

7 The Ministry envisions a healthy environment that is naturally diverse and supports a high quality of life for the people of Ontario through sustainable development. The Ministry s mission is to manage Ontario s natural resources in an ecologically sustainable way to ensure that they are available for the enjoyment and use of future generations. The Ministry is committed to the conservation of biodiversity and the use of natural resources in a sustainable manner. In 00 the MNR revised its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The SEV is a document that describes how the purposes of the EBR are to be considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made in the Ministry. The Ministry has considered its SEV during the development of the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes. This document is intended to reflect the direction set out in the SEV and to further the objectives of managing our natural resources on a sustainable basis.. Standards, Guidelines and Best Management Practices Direction within this document is characterized as a standard, a guideline, or a best management practice. It is important to understand the differences between these three terms since they have different implications with respect to writing a forest management plan. standard: a component of a guide that provides mandatory direction guideline: a component of a guide that provides mandatory direction, but requires professional judgment for it to be applied appropriately at the local level best management practice: a component of a guide that suggests a practice or strategy to help implement the overall purpose of the standards and guidelines Standards must be followed as written; there is no room for interpretation on the part of the planning team. Guidelines are also mandatory and must be followed, but require professional expertise and local knowledge in order to be implemented. They may be expressed as a range of values or may need to be implemented in different ways according to the site conditions or circumstances encountered. Best management practices are not mandatory direction, but rather are examples of practices that the planning team may wish to use. The list of best management practices is not intended to be exhaustive; planning teams may think of and implement other ideas or strategies. There is no requirement to use any of these best management practices, and a specific best management practice may not be applicable to local circumstances.. The Coarse and Fine Filter Management Approaches There are hundreds of species of vertebrates in the boreal and Great-Lakes St. Lawrence (GLSL) forest regions of Ontario (see D Eon and Watt, Bellhouse and Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

8 Naylor ) and invertebrate species are likely to number in the tens of thousands. Thus, a species-by-species approach to the provision of wildlife habitat and the conservation of biodiversity is impossible in the context of forest management. However, this might be achieved through the hierarchical application of standards and guides that are judiciously selected to act as coarse and fine filters. The concept of coarse and fine filters was popularized by Hunter (0) and is illustrated in Figure. In order to manage Ontario s forests to reflect society s ecological, social and economic expectations, Ontario has, over the last ten years, begun to rely on a nested coarse and fine filter approach to meet wildlife habitat needs and provide healthy forests. This forest management guide builds upon this approach. The coarse filter component creates a diversity of ecosystem conditions through space and time, in turn providing habitat for the majority of native species. A series of fine filters is then used, if necessary, to modify the results of applying the coarse filter. A fine filter may be required for one of two reasons: ) the societal and/or economic aspects of sustainable development require more or less habitat than would be provided by nature, or ) the ecological requirements of a particular species or value are not addressed or accommodated sufficiently through application of only the coarse filter, in some cases because the proposed actions cannot completely mimic natural events. The extent to which the first type of fine filter is applied will vary across the province, depending on local forest conditions and societal expectations. Both the coarse and fine filters are applied at all scales, from the landscape to the site. In designing a coarse filter, one must determine the most desirable mix of ecosystem conditions to include. One of the principles of the CFSA provides direction on what to consider as the coarse filter (i.e. a mix based on nature), as well as what fine filters to develop. 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 [coarse filter] while minimizing adverse effects on plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values [fine filters]. (CFSA s. ()) In Ontario, the emulation of natural disturbances and landscape patterns is used as the basis of the coarse filter. The many values that a forest provides, as identified in this principle (e.g. plant life, animal life, water, soil, etc.), are the topics of the series of fine filters. The predominant natural disturbance in Ontario s boreal forest is wildfire, while a combination of fire, wind, and insect outbreaks play a role in the development of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest region. In the Landscape Guide, Ontario s forest landscape is designed through application of the coarse filter by addressing three key prescriptive indicators: pattern, composition and structure. At this scale only a few fine Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

9 filters are applied to provide for or evaluate the landscape scale habitat requirements of one or more of caribou, white-tailed deer, moose, marten, and pileated woodpecker. 0 0 Figure. A conceptual model showing the relationship between coarse and fine filters in habitat management. A coarse filter operates at a variety of spatial scales to: provide habitat for a very broad range of wildlife, to support interactions among species, and to facilitate ecosystem processes. A fine filter may be required for species whose needs are not captured by the coarse filter. Biodiversity is most likely to be conserved by hierarchical application of both filters on the landscape. (Figure by K. Szuba, as found in OMNR 00) The coarse and fine filter approach to wildlife habitat management has existed for some time and has gradually been introduced and at least partially implemented in most parts of Ontario. It is, however, quite different from the featured species approach used extensively in the past and will take some time before forest planners and operators are familiar with it and understand it fully.. Public Engagement We discussed and listened to suggestions and ideas of technical and non-technical public throughout the development of the landscape guide including: Participation of NGOs on development teams of both guides (Ontario Forest Industries Association, Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association, Wildlands League, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

10 0 0 Discussions with science advisors from Canadian Forestry Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, various universities, natural resource agencies in other provinces Presentations to all three Regional Advisory Committees Multiple presentations to forest industry groups, environmental organizations (e.g. Wildlands League, Forest Ethics, Greenpeace, Ecojustice, Earthroots, Wildlife Conservation Society), local trappers councils, local field naturalists Ongoing advice from Provincial Forest Technical Committee. Notes on symbols used Throughout the landscape guide, the reader will encounter three aids to application: FMPM Link, Documentation, and Application Hints these aids are intended to assist forest management planning teams in applying the guide. FMPM Link An FMPM link indicates a link between a specific part of the landscape guide with the appropriate FMP task or product. Italicized text indicates direct excerpts from the 00 Forest Management Planning Manual (OMNR 00). Documentation of landscape guide application is identified as: Documentation Documentation means that application of the listed landscape guide steps are to be documented in the FMP section indicated. Assistance in landscape guide application is identified as: Application Hint These hints are intended to assist planning teams to apply the landscape guide. They are best management practices that contain questions that may be used to help teams discuss the application of the guide. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00 0

11 Overview of the Landscape Guide The goal of the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes (hereafter called the landscape guide) is to provide direction to forest managers on how to conserve biodiversity in an effective and efficient manner through landscape-level approaches, thereby contributing to the achievement of forest sustainability. We consider that the direction may be effective because it considers the entire landscape mosaic a full range of habitat types that can be provided through forest management planning. Efficiency is promoted through conserving biodiversity while minimizing costs to other values by allowing practitioners the flexibility to use timing and location of management actions to meet not only biodiversity objectives but also social and economic objectives. Application of the guide recognizes the importance of the natural variability of landscapes and attempts to provide a parsimonious set of standards, guidelines and best management practices designed to assist planners in conserving these characteristics within desirable ranges into the future. The landscape guide supports setting landscape mosaic objectives and targets for forest composition and structure (forest tree species groups and age classes), pattern, and habitat in forest management plans. Additional guides (e.g. stand-site, silvicultural guides) provide complementary direction at other scales (see section ). An adaptive management approach ( learning while doing ) will allow us to evaluate if the landscape guide will meet its goal. The landscape guide is organized into sections based on an adaptive management approach: development, implementation, and monitoring and evaluating.. The development section (section.0) introduces the adaptive management approach used to develop the guide including goals, knowledge and the analysis framework. The section then discusses the indicators that were selected to direct forest management. The last part of the development section deals with landscape level direction and hypothesis construction based on explicit predictions about the outcomes of future management activities on the landscape mosaic.. The application section (section.0) provides direction to FMP teams on how to implement the results of the development section into forest management plans. This section contains the standards, guidelines and best management practices along with the documentation required for preparing forest management plans.. The monitoring and evaluating section (section.0) describes MNR s approach to effectiveness monitoring of the landscape guide. Predictions made in the development section will be evaluated through effectiveness monitoring. The results of this monitoring will be used for subsequent reviews of the landscape guide. Efficiency will be determined through the ease with which people can write, read and implement forest management plans that apply the landscape guide, while balancing important ecological, social and economic values. Our Sustainable Future (OMNR 00) speaks to uncertainty in resource management: Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

12 0 As our understanding of the way the natural world works and how our actions affect it is often incomplete, [we] should exercise caution and special concern for natural values in the face of such uncertainty. The landscape guide deals with caution and special concern (See OMNR 00) by applying aspects of adaptive management (e.g. Holling, Walters, Baker 000) and decision analysis approaches (eg Morgan and Henrion 0). The goal of science-based (adaptive) management is to speed the process of learning by treating policies as hypothesis, and developing monitoring and research programs that directly test the effectiveness of the polices and guidelines. This interface between Science and Policy forms the foundation of Forest Management Guide development and testing. Adaptive management links science and policy to enable the development of policy through a cycle that facilitates continuous improvement to practices using a four-phase adaptive management cycle (Figure ). 0 Figure. The adaptive management cycle that is proposed for development, implementation, monitoring and evaluating of the landscape guide. Green Boxes represent shared activities of management and science during development and evaluation phases, whereas yellow and blue boxes represent parallel but separate activities of science and management (respectively) in the monitor and evaluation phases. The concept of efficiency is inherent in the analysis box seeking to minimize adverse effects. The development of the guide brought together science and management to combine goals, experience, knowledge, technology and inventory to develop an analytical Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

13 framework (see Error! Reference source not found.) from which landscape direction and testable hypotheses were developed (Adapted from Stankey et al. 00.) The landscape guide was developed by linking science and policy based on MNR s goals, existing knowledge, current technology, and existing inventories. As shown in Figure, the analysis framework allowed for gaming of alternative scenarios of management actions and an evaluation of the effects of those actions. The alternative scenarios that were generated to meet landscape guide goals were treated as hypotheses to be tested. By predicting outcomes of alternative sets of standards and guidelines and comparing the simulated results, MNR was able to select the set that is predicted to best meet goals (i.e., the landscape guide) (Rempel et al. 00). To complete one adaptive management cycle as described in Fig., the effectiveness of the landscape guide in achieving the desired, predicted outcomes must be determined, and if necessary, the landscape guide should be revised in light of that experience (e.g. Nudds ). More detail on the Analysis Framework is provided in section.. For the landscape guide, the analysis framework was created to deal with the development part of the adaptive management cycle that involves making predictions, determining degrees of belief, and selecting a best guess. In doing so we have identified variables that indicate the result that management actions should try to achieve (prescriptive indicators) and variables that indicate if these actions are meeting our goals (e.g. evaluative indicators; see Rempel et al. 00 for a discussion on prescriptive and evaluative indicators, and Kneeshaw et al. (000) for related concepts). There are two outcomes of the development phase:. Predicted changes in the variables we directly control through manipulation of forest cover (e.g. edge, patch size, old growth).. Predicted changes in the variables not directly managed for but used to evaluate achievement of our goals (e,g, presence/absence of the golden-crowned kinglet) The first outcome of the development phase for the landscape guide is landscape direction to forest management planning teams in the form of apportioned landscape guide ranges for the prescriptive indicators, herein called landscape guide indicators. In the implementation phase, science and management continue through the adaptive management loop in a separate but parallel manner. On-the-ground actions are initiated through forest management actions that are used to meet biodiversity conservation objectives. Scientific studies are initiated to assess the effectiveness of guide direction based on the predicted changes in landscapes established in the development phase. In the monitoring phase management will simply ensure compliance of operational with strategic planning (i.e. are desired ranges being met?). Science will carry out monitoring activities that will contribute to the evaluation of the ecological effectiveness of guide direction (i.e. are possible target ranges conserving biological diversity effectively and efficiently and as expected?). Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

14 In the evaluation phase management and science rejoin to support the review of the landscape guide and bring new experience, new knowledge, new technology and updated inventory to the review process to assist in revising, if necessary, the goals. This evaluation becomes the basis for future versions of the landscape guide. See the monitoring and evaluating section of the landscape guide for more details. Developing the Landscape Guide. OMNR Goals The goal of the landscape guide, conserving biodiversity in an effective and efficient manner (see section ) is based upon the principles of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) (RSO ). Specifically, the first principle defines effectiveness, which is conserving biological diversity. The second principle tells to us to emulate landscape patterns within silvicultural limits while bringing in the concept of efficiency through minimizing adverse effects on other values:. Large, healthy, diverse and productive Crown forests and their associated ecological processes and biological diversity should be conserved.. 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., c., s. (). Emulation of natural disturbance patterns through forest management is also required under the EA declaration Order (EA Condition ).. Experience The guide takes a holistic approach to the management of forested landscapes by directing the management of a landscape mosaic at ecologically meaningful scales (both larger and smaller than individual management units). It builds upon past forest management guides that focused on individual components at the landscape scale (e.g. marten, NDPEG, caribou, old growth policy) and fills gaps in direction. It consolidates existing forest management guides as suggested through a review conducted by independent consultants (Arborvitae et al. 000) in support of the Ontario Forest Accord, an agreement endorsed by OMNR, the Partnership for Public Lands, and the Forest Industry in. Development team members sought advice from field staff on experience gained from forest management plans implemented since. Finally, the guide refers to the results of applicable scientific research, the results of relevant and appropriate monitoring programs, advantages and disadvantages of changes to current forest management practices, advances in analytical and operational technology, and extensive landscape-level scenario analyses. The Landscape Guide attempts to provide Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

15 FMP planning teams with the effective and efficient direction needed to produce a landscape that emulates, to the extent possible, the pattern and composition of a naturally disturbed landscape. A multi-disciplinary team provided MNR with advice and guidance on how to develop the landscape guide. Boreal and GLSL Science teams were formed to support the development team in predicting and evaluating the effectiveness and effects of possible forest management direction. The Provincial Forest Technical Committee (PFTC) provided MNR with advice on the development of the landscape guide. These groups helped to iteratively refine the problem statement and the analysis of what landscape-level resource management direction is required and appropriate to help to meet the objective of biodiversity conservation... Pilot testing and impact assessment of landscape guide Pilot testing and impact assessment were part of the development of the landscape guide. Pilot testing dealt with evaluating the efficiency of implementing the landscape guide, identifying and correct problems in draft direction. The landscape guide directs strategic forest management planning and so the development team sought the advice of experienced forest management planning professionals in the writing of the guide and development of direction. In addition, the development of milestones (section.) allowed for further refinement of guide direction and implementation steps through discussions with foresters and biologists. Impact assessment examined the potential impacts of landscape guide implementation by simulating the use of the guide in forest management plans. A variety of approaches were used to generate scenarios that represented likely management trajectories that resulted from guide implementation. These scenarios were compared to current management projections and impacts were assessed for wood supply, silviculture costs and habitat for selected wildlife species. The results of pilot testing and impact assessment were presented to Provincial Forest Technical Committee.. Knowledge: Biodiversity Conservation at Landscape Scales Current ecological literature (e.g., Lindenmayer and Franklin 00) suggests that strategies for biodiversity conservation should consider a variety of ecological scales, thus supporting the approach MNR has taken in earlier guides (e.g., NDPEG, OMNR 00; GLSL silviculture guides, MNR a and b). Larger-scale approaches at the levels of landscapes may help to conserve the ecological processes and functions that operate at larger scales. Examples are size classes of natural disturbances, predator prey relationships, and nutrient cycling, all of which may occur at multiple scales or at larger scales, depending on the function or organism in question. The forest management direction in this guide supports biodiversity conservation at landscape scales, as described by Lindenmayer and Franklin (00), by: Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

16 Supporting populations of species (including species that have larger home ranges, and those affected by the overall supply of habitat on the landscape) Facilitating the movement of organisms within and across large areas Supporting sensitive and/or protected areas Maintaining the integrity of aquatic systems at the level of watersheds Bergeron et al. (00) concluded that forest management that maintains a variety of forest compositions and structures at different scales on the landscape is a valid conservation strategy. This has been a component of Ontario s coarse filter strategy for maintaining biological diversity, as noted in section.. Landscape biodiversity conservation strives to maintain ecological processes that may function at landscape scales like dispersion, predator prey relationships, disturbance and renewal. These processes in turn support the biodiversity that we rely upon to provide us with benefits from the forest... What is a landscape? The landscape guide recognizes two ways to define landscapes: first, a forestcentric approach that characterizes the natural factors that reflect structure, composition and function across space and time (Rowe and Sheard, Franklin ); second, a wildlife-centric approach that reflects the decisions made wildlife these decisions can be based on choosing food, homes or dispersal paths. The landscape guide directs forest management decisions to conserve ecological processes and biodiversity by emulating natural disturbances and landscape patterns using the forest-centric approach while minimizing adverse effects on the ability of wildlife to make decisions using the wildlifecentric approach to defining landscapes. For the purpose of this guide, a landscape is considered to be similar in size to an ecoregion or site region (see Hills ) an area of land on which the response of vegetation to the features of landform follow a consistent pattern and succession. The landscape scale is an integration of the landscape features of structure, composition and function that are created, maintained and contribute to natural disturbances and landscape patterns. Application of the landscape guide begins at the landscape scale and progresses to the smaller scale of the FMU. There are two relevant levels of integration of the Ecological Land Classification (OMNR 000) that are used to define appropriate scales of measurement. The ecoregion and ecodistrict help forest managers in scaling direction to the forest management unit. Ecoregions are spatial units occurring at a sub-provincial scale that are primarily based on macro-climatic features like humidity and temperature. Maintaining ecological processes is essential for the functioning of the biosphere, and biological diversity must be conserved at the scale of forest ecosystems (OMNR ). Processes that operate at ecoregional scales include disturbance regimes and population dynamics (e.g. wildlife with large home ranges like caribou, wolves, moose, goshawk, great grey owl) which help to explain patterns of primary productivity and biotic distributions. Ecodistricts are sub-divisions of ecoregions based on the sub-regional patterns of landforms, landscape Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

17 complexity and landform mediated climate features (e.g. lake effects). A process that may vary at the ecodistrict scale includes forest succession. In theory, one can think of the decisions made by wildlife spanning several scales. By making similar decisions at different scales these animals demonstrate that landscapes represent a continuum from needles to forests (Figure ). In other words, landscape size can vary with species -- a moose may think of a forest as a very large home range whereas only a very small part of the same forest may be the home range of a mouse. 0 0 Figure. A theoretical depiction of wildlife decision hierarchies in the boreal forest (from Holling ). Shown are relative positions in the hierarchy for decisions about food choice, home range, or migration that would be made by each of three species from three different body mass categories... Adaptive Cycles of Landscapes The relationship between biodiversity measured at the landscape scale and ecological processes that result in natural disturbance patterns has been described as an adaptive cycle (Gunderson and Holling 00). The following commentary, adapted from Bunnell (00), follows the progress of a possible cycle for an ecological system, with an emphasis on forest cycles. Landscapes are dynamic ecosystems that can be conceptualized as following an adaptive cycle that has four phases: growth, maturity, collapse and reorganization (Figure ). Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

18 0 0 Figure. A schematic illustration of an adaptive cycle in a forest landscape (from Bunnel 00). It shows that forest ecosystems are dynamic and can be thought of as following an adaptive cycle that has four phases: growth, maturity (K), collapse (Ω) and reorganization (alpha). According to the phases represented in this schematic diagram (Fig. ), Ontario s forested landscapes developed as a mixture of species which became established in a reorganization phase of the adaptive cycle and developed along a trajectory during the growth, maturity and collapse phases. Management strategies designed to conserve biodiversity must ensure that, at a landscape scale, future forest conditions contain all phases of the adaptive cycle in order to maintain the ecological processes that service all values. The landscape guide recognizes the importance of maintaining this dynamic by directing forest management to create and/or maintain the landscape mosaic created by and driving this adaptive cycle. In both the reorganization and growth phases, surviving residual vegetation and physical structures from previous cycles create new structures. The reorganization phase becomes rapidly dominated by plants and animals that are adapted to high variability of microclimate and extremes of soil conditions and can further occupy unexploited territory through effective dispersal. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

19 According to the framework in Figure, competition among vegetation dominates the reorganization and growth phases of a forest ecosystem that exhibits shifts from pioneers and surviving species from previous cycles to a progression to maturity. As the species expand and grow they accumulate potential from resources acquired such as carbon and nutrients. Subsets of species begin to develop close interrelations that may be mutually supportive- i.e. they form self organized clusters of relationships which define the new ecosystem. Forest management decisions to emulate this phase of the adaptive cycle focus primarily on the silvicultural intervention required to create future forest conditions. Perera et al. 00 provide a thorough review of concepts and applications in emulating natural disturbance. Figure suggests that ecological resilience decreases as the landscape moves from reorganization and growth to maturity and the system becomes more vulnerable to change. In the forest, fuel for fires and food for insect defoliators increase with forest age older continuous forests may have fewer fire "breaks" and a sparser density of insecteating birds. Forest management decisions that emulate the growth to maturity phases deal primarily with maintaining landscape patches in amounts and distributions similar to landscape mosaic created by natural disturbances. Finally, Figure suggests that in the shift from maturity to collapse, disturbances such as fire or insects or forest harvest exploit the increased fuel, food or timber capital and connectivity of the landscape (e.g. the trees in the mature forest). But that process is transient and only persists until the resources to do so are exhausted. Insect pests run out of food, and fire runs out of fuel. The progress from growth to maturity represents a period during which short term predictability increases, but the shift from collapse to reorganization represents an increase in uncertainty. It is the phase where conditions might arise for chaotic behavior that in the long term may serve to maintain diversity, resulting in a new forest that may be different from the old. Species and individuals have loose connections to others and function in a wide, loosely regulated domain of stability as they progress to the phase of reorganization. Forest management decisions made to emulate natural disturbances or the collapse phase are a blend of landscape level direction on the type, size, shape and distribution of forest harvest. Landscapes are made up of a mosaic of patches in different phases of the adaptive cycle. Each phase can be described in terms of its pattern, composition and structure as well as how it functions to provide ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat. The Landscape Guide uses landscape disturbance and succession models to simulate the adaptive cycles of landscapes as they might occur without human intervention. Science teams estimated a simulated range of natural variation (SRNV) for landscape composition and pattern using the Tool for Exploratory Landscape Simulation and Analysis (ESSA 00). In addition, historical information from Ontario Land Surveys provides an estimate the pre-industrial condition of the forest (PIC). There are two science and information Packages that accompany the Landscape Guide: Package A: Simulations, Rationale and Inputs: This document provides the rationale and methodology of modeling and accompanying science that has been submitted and presented to the Landscape Guide development Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

20 0 team and is intended for use by forest management planning teams when considering direction from the Landscape Guide Package B: Results and Tools for Forest Management Planning: This document includes results and tools for Landscape Guide implantation in forest management planning.. Landscapes as Habitat The link between the concepts of ecosystem dynamics and integrity and wildlife habitat dynamics was explored by the Other Wildlife Working Group () in support of the original Class Environmental Assessment for Forestry (reference), and is illustrated in Figure. Theoretically, a community that is balanced in terms of functional and compositional structures leads to ecosystem vigour. The natural development of patterns and processes should lead to an integrated organization of ecosystem structures and composition. The occurrence of communities capable of adaptation permits the ecosystem to deal with stress, and to maintain ecosystem resilience. Figure. Relationship between ecosystem dynamics and integrity and wildlife. 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 e.asp) Environmental Registry Draft, November 00 0

21 This link between ecosystem integrity and wildlife habitat and dynamics supports the conceptual and scientific basis for the effectiveness monitoring strategy. If we are doing a good job of sustainable forest management, and in the process conserving ecosystem integrity and resilience, then we would expect to maintain quality habitat conditions and sustain healthy population levels of wildlife species. Monitoring habitat quality and population levels are tangible and achievable objectives, and provide meaningful evaluations if cast in the proper context. Section. describes the approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the Landscape Guide... Climate Change and the Landscape Guide Climate change may impact biological diversity in many ways by changing patterns of insect and disease outbreaks, plant and animal distributions and natural disturbance events (MNR 00). Climate change projections for Ontario (Colombo 00) allow policymakers in Ontario to envision the potential impacts of climate change on people, infrastructure and the environment. Recent ecological literature proposes policy-level strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation (e.g. Chapin et al. 00, Spittlehouse et al. 00, McKinnon and Webber 00). At a management unit level, sustainable forest management that maintains or increases forest carbon stocks and produces an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre, or energy from the forest, provides the largest sustained mitigation of climate change ((Ter-Mikaelian et al. 00, IPCC 00), while also providing many social and environmental benefits (IPCC 00). The landscape guide directs sustainable forest management to manage a range of forest species mixes, ages, and patch sizes with an assumption of being resilient (i.e. having the capacity to adapt) to changes in temperature and precipitation. In addition, the Landscape Guide must, by law, be reviewed every five years and revised when appropriate to reflect new knowledge and experience. As our understanding and predictions about climate change improve, future versions of the Landscape Guide may be able to address its effects more directly.. Analysis Framework In the development phase of the landscape guide, existing knowledge, technology and inventories were combined to create an analysis framework to predict outcomes of alternative guide scenarios, and thus, to help to identify the attributes that would result in an efficient, effective guide. The landscape-level direction contemplated for guide development may have had unexpected cumulative effects on landscapes over long time periods and wide spaces effects that might not be detected until long after management prescriptions have been applied. Thus an analysis framework was constructed for GLSL forest landscapes, using a virtual reality approach created to deal with this policy development challenge. There were three components to this framework: simulation of landscape dynamics, using models of possible and historical landscapes to understand the range in variation; Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

22 0 simulation of strategic forest management activities to predict future forest landscapes in response to management direction from possible standards and guidelines; and, simulation of the effects of future forests on other values such as wildlife habitat, wood cost, and recreation. These three components created a framework for estimating the range of variation of natural disturbances and landscape patterns, simulating the ability of forest management to emulate these within silvicultural limitations, and evaluating effects on plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values hence linking back to the CFSA s principles of sustainability. Emulate Natural Disturbances & Landscape Pattern Forest Practices (limits of silviculture) Minimize Adverse Effects 0 Figure. Three components of the landscape guide analysis framework that simulated forest practices, natural disturbances and landscape patterns and effects on plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values. As mentioned earlier, science teams used landscape simulation models to estimate the SRNV. These natural landscape patterns were identified to serve as a null hypothesis or benchmark for biodiversity conservation. It was assumed that these natural patterns support a natural balance of species, ecosystems, and functions, and thus, the conservation of biodiversity that is required by the CFSA. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

23 As part of the analysis framework, strategic forest management model (SFMM) simulations were used to assess alternative ways to meet goals and objectives. The development and science teams assessed combinations of potential standards and guidelines as alternative ways to emulate natural landscape patterns through the use of management simulation models (to evaluate the predicted effectiveness on five forest management units). The scenarios were evaluated against a set of indicators. This enabled selection of a parsimonious set of standards and guidelines required to direct the emulation of natural landscape patterns to efficiently conserve landscape-level biodiversity. Simulation of potential guide effects on other values also provided a socioeconomic impact analysis. The measured effect on industrial forest management was medium and long term harvest volume by species group and silvicultural costs. Nontimber values included habitat for featured wildlife species and old growth. Explicit acceptable levels of tolerance for effects of management simulations on social and economic values were not generated in the development of this guide. Relative impacts, however, were assessed by the development and science teams through the comparison of possible management scenarios. These frameworks were adapted for use in developing landscape direction, and for continued use in effectiveness monitoring.. Landscape Guide Indicators The analysis frameworks were also used to select quantitative variables or indicators that will direct management through the Landscape Guide. The FMPM defines an indicator as a systematically measured and assessed quantitative or qualitative variable, which, when observed periodically, demonstrates trends. The landscape guide coarse and fine filter indicators are variables that are used to describe the current landscape mosaic, make predictions on the future landscape mosaic and assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the Landscape Guide. The guide builds upon the CFSA principle of emulating landscape patterns to conserve biological diversity. It does so by considering pattern as the combination of the composition, age, complexity and texture (degree of interspersion) that results from natural disturbances. Lindenmayer et al. (000) suggest using coarse filter measures such as heterogeneity, structural complexity and connectivity to direct landscape-level forest management prescriptions for biodiversity conservation. On landscapes subject only to natural disturbances, heterogeneity and structural complexity are the result of characteristics of the natural disturbance regimes. As discussed in the previous section, landscapes develop from a mixture of species established following the collapse phase of an adaptive cycle in a reorganization, and are consolidated during the growth and maturity phases. This means that natural disturbances and landscape patterns can be conceptualized as cause Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

24 0 and effect relationships (should be fig ). Hunter () identified two ways in which timber harvesting practices can emulate natural disturbance at the landscape scale: The frequency of harvest can be matched to the frequency of natural disturbance, The total area, size and distribution of harvest blocks can be matched to the total area, size and distribution of openings created by natural disturbance, The combination of disturbance frequency, intensity and spatial configuration (size, shape) directly affect the resulting landscape mosaic s characteristics of composition, structure and pattern. The characteristics of natural disturbances and resulting landscapes can be thought of as three dimensions of respective boxes (Figure ). 0 0 Figure. Schematic diagram depicting the relationship between the collapse phase of the adaptive cycle (figure ) shown here as natural disturbances with the characteristics of intensity, frequency and size, and the other three phases of the adaptive cycle (growth, maturity and reorganization), depicted as the landscape indicators of pattern (e.g. interspersion or edge), composition (e.g. forest unit), and age (e.g. seral stage). The range in each of these indicators defines the dimensions of the landscape box". Through implementation of the landscape guide, forest management will produce a landscape that remains within a defined portion of the landscape box. The coarse filter indicators used in the landscape guide that fall under the CFSA forest diversity objective categories for natural landscapes are landscape pattern and structure, composition and abundance. The purpose of the landscape guide is to direct management to create and maintain a landscape mosaic that represents the ranges of these indicators, thereby emulating natural disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing the adverse effects on other values. These indicators can be directly measured from forest resource inventories using Ontario s Landscape Tool (OMNR 00). The range of each of these indicators defines the dimensions of the "landscape box" in Figures and. We assume that creating/maintaining landscapes that fill-out the Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

25 corners of this box will allow for specific wildlife to use the landscape -- this assumption becomes testable hypotheses for effectiveness monitoring as discussed in section. While coarse filter indicators are independent indicators of the landscape that do not make an interpretation of ecological function, the guide also employs functional indicators that measure a predicted functional use of the landscape by selected wildlife. These indicators are dependent variables based upon our understanding of how wildlife will use the landscape (food, cover, etc.). For example, Goodwin (00) treats connectivity as a dependent variable that requires a species-specific assessment of movement across the landscape of interest (i.e., connectivity means different things to different wildlife species). The fine filter or habitat indicators used in the landscape guide fall under the CFSA forest diversity objective category of habitat for animal life, and the forest cover objective category of values dependent on the crown forest. They are: Habitat for animal life including: o Habitat Area, and o Habitat Distribution (including connectivity) FMPM Link: The biodiversity criterion for the assessment of sustainability in the FMPM suggests that indicators are developed from direction in forest management guides. The landscape guide provides the framework for developing forest diversity and forest cover objectives that are compatible with sustainability. Lindenmayer et al. (000) suggest using an adaptive management approach for testing the validity of the coarse filter indicators by treating management as an experiment this is described in detail in section of the Landscape Guide (effectiveness monitoring). Evaluating the accuracy of these predicted functional responses will form part of the approach to effectiveness monitoring for the landscape guide. Knowledge gained from effectiveness monitoring will assist forest managers in understanding how harvest and retention actions may affect both of indicators (i.e. those we use to direct landscapes and those we use to evaluate). During development of the Landscape Guide, coarse and fine filter indicators were chosen in order to describe differences between what we see in today s forest compared to what we see in natural landscapes. Observations of historic forest condition, analysis of natural disturbances, and simulationbased modelling shape our understanding of how to emulate natural disturbances and landscape patterns from the CFSA. Comparing coarse and fine filter indicator values from these observations to the current landscape condition provides us with a demonstration of the intended or accidental effects of past forest policy, protection and management. The sections below describe the nature of these effects in more detail. FMPM Link: The coarse filter and fine filter indicators of the Landscape Guide are to be used as the Indicators of Objective Achievement for the criterion conserving biological diversity in Ontario s forests (FMPM Figure A-). The Landscape Guide indicators replace the training direction provided in the C&I Handbook (OMNR 00). Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

26 Landscape Structure and Composition Indicators Forest harvesting, coupled with fire suppression have altered forest stand composition across Ontario compared to naturally disturbed landscapes (Rodger, Aird, Hearndon et al ). However, the majority of landscapes for which this guide is applicable have remained continuously forested. The current age class structure and species composition of the landscape are two of the strongest drivers of the future forest landscape condition, and are likely to influence future forest condition as strongly as management activities. For example, according to the forest inventory, Ontario s forests currently have a biomodal age-class distribution and are increasing in age (OMNR 00). The literature varies in its use of the terms forest structure and composition. For purposes of this guide, landscape composition indicators consider forest structure to be a combination of development stage (or seral stage) and canopy structure (even or uneven aged). Composition is measured at the landscape scale using regional standard forest units (SFUs). These SFUs are based on a classification system that aggregates forest stands for management purposes, combining those that will normally have similar species composition, will develop in a similar manner (both naturally and in response to silvicultural treatments), and will be managed under the same silvicultural system. Comparisons of historical with current forest condition across the landscape tend to show reductions in fire-dependent species in favor of more shade-tolerant species. For example, in an analysis of land surveyors notes observed along a km long transect through central Ontario, Jackson et al. (000) found significant reductions from the mid 00-s to the present of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.), balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.), and eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.) and significant increases of poplar (Populus spp.) and white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.). In a comparison of historic survey notes and current forest inventory, Elkie (00 in prep) found that boreal forests in northwestern Ontario currently contain more mixedwood forest than was found historically. Pinto and Romaniuk (00) also compared land surveyor notes in the Temagami region of Ontario and found a decrease in conifer dominated forest cover and an increase in intolerant and mid-to-tolerant hardwood forest. Debate continues in the ecological literature about the effects of fire suppression on the composition and age-class structure of the forest (e.g. Johnson et al. 00, Podur 00). For example, Suffling et al. () concluded that younger age classes represented a much higher proportion of the landscape prior to fire suppression in NW Ontario. Carleton and MacLellan () compared 0 upland post-fire and upland post-logging stands and found that the logged stands were less likely to have returned to their original composition than if they had burned. Carleton (000) provides a more detailed discussion of vegetation responses to the managed forest landscapes of central and northern Ontario. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

27 A landscape provides habitat for a mixture of wildlife species, each with its own preferences for combinations of vegetation types (forest units), seral stages, patch sizes and configurations. It would be impossible to assess landscapes for each species of wildlife individually within the context of a forest management plan. Therefore the landscape guide classifies landscapes according to our understanding of how forests function as habitat (as codified through wildlife habitat matrices (e.g., Holloway et al. 00)). Landscape classes are based on a cluster analysis of the preferred habitat types (forest units and seral stages) used by a range of wildlife. (see SIP for full methodology and results). This landscape classification will be subject to effectiveness monitoring. There are three landscape guide composition indicators: (i) amount of area by selected landscape class, (ii) amount of area by selected forest units, and (iii) amount of old growth forest. Help interpreting composition indicators (best management practice): What are other disturbance agents affecting forest age What are the rates of these disturbances? What are mature landscape class and old growth onset ages in the area of interest? o How do these compare to stand ages (age of dominant species in forest stand) and site ages (time since stand-replacing disturbance) of forest stands within area of interest? How much variability exists in the amount of mature and late seral stage forest within the area of interest?... Amount of area by landscape class The forest mosaic across landscapes provides habitat for many wildlife species, each with its own preferences for combinations of vegetation types, development stages, patch sizes and configurations. As noted above, it would be impossible to assess landscapes for all species individually within the context of a forest management plan. To reduce the complexity of this problem, the landscape development team suggested the development of landscape classes according to our understanding of how forests function as habitat. They requested a classification scheme of between -0 classes for easy visual interpretation. The landscape classes are the fundamental coarse filter assessment units. Landscape classes were developed based on cluster analyses of preferred and habitat types depicted in OMNR s habitat matrices (e.g., Holloway et al. 00). The habitat matrices summarize habitat affinities of selected vertebrate species based on forest type and development stage How to measure: The amount of area by landscape class is a non-spatial measure of the area, in hectares, of the landscape classified into landscape classes. Indicator specifics Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

28 will vary by landscape guide region. Refer to science and information package A for more details.... Amount of area by selected forest composition grouping Specific groupings of standard forest units were selected by the science teams based on differences between current landscape conditions, pre-industrial condition, and simulated ranges of natural variation. These groupings differ from the landscape classes (habitat-function-based groupings) by focusing on specific and efficient tree-species groupings that require consideration in biodiversity objectives. For example, through comparison with the SRNV and PIC to the current landscape, this indicator may be used to direct the amount of all-ages of white pine on the landscape, considering not only in stands that white is a leading species but also where is non-leading component. Indicator specifics will vary by landscape guide region, see appendices for details. In addition, forest management teams will develop objectives and strategies to maintain no less than the amount (the total number of hectares) of red and white pine (standard). Forest management teams can refer to the Science and Information Packages for the amount of old growth red and white pine for each management unit in (teams should recalculate areas in cases where management unit changes has occurred since ) (Best Management Practice). How to measure: The amount of area by selected forest composition groupings is a nonspatial measure of the area, in hectares. Planning teams should refer to these groupings when creating FMP forest units (best management practice).... Amount of old growth forest Up to the writing of this guide, no vertebrate wildlife were known to be totally dependent on old growth forest to meet their needs for food and cover in the boreal forest of Canada (see OMNR 00, Euler and Wedeles 00). In fact, the cluster analysis of preferred habitat described above suggests that wildlife tend to benefit similarly from mature forest. However, MNR has developed an explicit Old Growth Policy, and the FMPM lists the amount and distribution of old growth as an indicator of objective achievement. Thus, old growth is addressed under a separate indicator in the landscape guide. Ongoing discussion regarding the importance of old growth forests is muddied due to inconsistent use of the terms old growth and mature forest. For the purposes of this guide, a forest is in a mature stage of development when overstorey trees attain full development and sexual maturity mortality of over-storey trees begins to create gaps and encourages understorey development height growth slows dramatically. On the other hand, the old growth period is usually manifested by heavy mortality/turnover of Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

29 overstorey trees and results in a mosaic of gaps that encourage development of a multilayered canopy and an abundance of snags and downed woody debris. It is a functional condition of a forest ecosystem that embodies a characteristic set of physical features in dynamic forest ecosystems. Old growth features and characteristics typically include the following: relatively complex forest stand structure (e.g. old trees for the ecosite, relatively large tree size and wide spacing, multiple canopy layers and gaps, and low rates of change in species composition); relatively large dead standing trees (snags), accumulations of downed woody material, up-turned stumps, root and soil mounds, and accelerating tree mortality; and ecosystem functions (e.g. stand productivity, nutrient cycling, and aspects of wildlife habitat) that may operate at different rates or intensities compared with earlier stages of forest development. The old growth policy for Ontario s Crown Forests explains how MNR will ensure that old growth conditions and values are present in Ontario s Crown forests in order to conserve biological diversity at levels that maintain or restore ecological processes, while allowing for sustainable development now and in the future. The LG direction for old growth conservation addresses: old growth forest stands, forest units, or ecosites for all forest communities (provincial forest types) will be identified based on the old growth definitions report; old growth in all forest units (or ecosites) will be identified as a portion (per cent) of current and future forest conditions (section..); current old growth conditions will be compared with future forest conditions to describe changes in forest cover as a context for determining desired future forest conditions and benefits (section..); historic forest condition will be compared with current forest condition as a context for determining desired future forest conditions and benefits (section..); current, future and historic forest conditions will be used to guide the development of old growth objectives and targets that protect and/or restore, the distribution and abundance of each forest community towards their natural geographic ranges (section..); the distribution of old growth to be maintained across the forest landscapes or ecoregions within the management unit is considered in two landscape guide indicators: amount of old growth (see how to measure below) and texture of the mature and old forest matrix (section...). The landscape guide directs a thorough consideration of old growth as part of the sustainability assessment of alternative management strategies. Additionally, as part of the approach to effectiveness monitoring of the landscape guide (section ), old growth as it functions as habitat for selected wildlife species will be evaluated using, in addition to others, the following species: Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

30 the black-backed woodpecker (Boreal and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest regions), the red-breasted nuthatch (east half of the Boreal Forest Region), the ruby-crowned kinglet (Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region), the lynx (denning only) (Boreal and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest regions), and the black bear (foraging only) (Boreal and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest regions).... Old Growth Sites The canopy structure of forests can be even-aged or uneven-aged, reflecting disturbance history. Even-aged canopies tend to result from stand-replacing disturbances, whereas uneven-aged canopies are often created over a relatively longer term through gap-phase disturbances or succession. Even-aged canopies are more common in boreal forests and uneven-aged in the Great-Lakes St Lawrence Forest. However, boreal forests dominated by the shade-tolerant fir (Abies) spruce (Picea) complex are particularly well-adapted to the development of long-term, old-growth continuity in the absence of large-scale disturbance McCarthy (00). In many cases, identification of old growth is straightforward (e.g., where FRI stand ages are known to equal those in the Old Growth Definitions Report [OMNR 00]). However, in some cases old growth sites may consist of stands with FRI stand ages younger than their site ages but less than the old growth duration time specified in the Old Growth Definitions Report (OMNR 00). This is so because FRI stand age is based on the age of the dominant forest canopy at the time of photo interpretation. In contrast, site age reflects the time since the last major disturbance. For example, a stand typed in as 0 year old black spruce then retyped as 0 year old spruce mixedwood in 000 may have a site age of years in 00 and thus should be considered an old growth site. Current FRI may not contain the resolution required to allow evaluation of site ages for the current forest hence while we may be able to calculate a target range for old growth, managers may not be able to fully account for the old growth on the landscape when comparing current forests to this range. Planning teams may investigate potential old growth sites when evaluating old growth forest, especially for early and mid-succession forest stands not known to have originated from recent disturbances (best management practice). How to measure: Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation for regional standard forest units are provided, by forest management unit, in Science and Information Package B. Planning teams will use this information to develop a SRNV for each of their even-aged FMP forest units. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00 0

31 Landscape Pattern Indicators Many important concepts in landscape ecology (e.g., fragmentation, edge effects, corridors and connectivity, metapopulation dynamics, reserve size) were developed where forests are not the dominant feature on the landscape (e.g., predominantly agricultural landscapes with islands of residual forest; see Lindenmayer and Franklin 00, Perera and Baldwin 000). However, the landscapes where this guide will be applied are very different in that they provide continuous forest cover and the average rate of annual disturbance will be low (< % per year). Numerous studies identified differences in landscape patterns resulting from forest harvest when compared to fire disturbance. Results can vary depending on scale of measurement and spatial proximity rules for defining disturbances. For example, Gluck and Rempel () found clearcut patches to be larger and more irregular in shape than natural disturbances, when comparing individual disturbances. However, Perera and Baldwin (000) reported the opposite when comparing disturbances across Ontario. Differences about the importance of landscape pattern for biodiversity conservation exist in the ecological literature. For example, there are many empirical and theoretical studies indicating that the primary importance of habitat is its amount rather than its spatial configuration, unless the total amount drops below a certain threshold (e.g., McGarigal and McComb (), Drolet et al. (), Drapeau et al. (000), Fahrig (00), (Malcolm et al. 00).). Other studies suggest the importance of pattern in affecting habitat quality (e.g. Ferguson and Elkie 00, Chapin et al., Thompson et al. 00). The texture of the forest matrix and young forest patch size are coarse filter indicators used to characterize landscape pattern in this guide. Although they are related in both structure (the amount and distribution of young forest patches can affect the texture of the forest matrix) and function (e.g. interior loving wildlife species vs. edge loving species), they are often the result of different forest management actions (e.g. harvesting vs. maintaining). Managing pattern involves managing the distribution (concentration or dispersal) of young and mature forest across the landscape.... Texture of the Mature and Old Forest Matrix In landscape ecology terms, the dominant class on the landscape is called the matrix. Non-matrix patches are quite easily measured using traditional patchmeasurement techniques (e.g. McGarrigal and Marks. ). However, characterizing the pattern associated with the matrix has been identified as a challenge in boreal landscape ecology (e.g. Schmiegelow et al. 00). The landscape matrix for most of Ontario s forests is a mature forest with patches of young forest. Visually, one can look at a landscape map and see areas in which mature and old forest is arranged in relatively high concentrations, areas with low concentrations and areas that have a relatively medium amount. The texture of the mature and old forest indicator quantifies what the map observer sees by representing the proportions of the landscape in different concentration classes on a histogram thus quantifying the texture of the matrix as shown in Figure. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

32 0 0 0 Figure. Concentrations in the amount of mature and old forest are mapped on the left hand side of the figure and quantified in a histogram on the right. 0 ha hexagons are used in this example with green hexagons having high (> 0%) concentrations of mature and old forest and brown hexagons having a low (<0%) amount. The red line across the histogram bars depicts the landscape signature or the texture of the mature and old forest. In this example, the majority of the landscape has very high and high concentrations of mature and old forest ( and percent of the landscape respectively). Assessing, at multiple scales, the texture of the mature forest matrix of different landscapes reveals different signatures, or combinations of patch sizes, shapes, and compositions. There are at least two reasons for assessing at landscape texture at multiple scales. Firstly, it is thought that wildlife make habitat use decisions at multiple scales (see Figure ). Secondly, assessing the mature forest matrix at both the 0 and 00 ha ensures that the texture of the landscape at both levels is recognized. Two assessment levels are used because it is possible that the texture measurement at one level, as expressed in a proportional frequency histogram, is exactly the same between two landscapes even though the same texture measurement at a finer or coarser level is significantly different between the two landscapes. In other words, measuring landscape texture at two levels ensures that we characterize the true spatial configuration of the landscape. Striving through forest management to produce a specific landscape signature can be thought of as one way to use a coarse filter approach for the conservation of biological diversity (e.g., emulating a large high intensity burn versus emulating a medium sized, low intensity burn), or to provide for the habitat requirements of a specific species (e.g., a relatively fine textured landscape with many small patches for moose, or a relatively coarse-texture landscape for caribou and other forest interior species). Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

33 How to measure: The texture of the mature forest is measured using a landscape signature approach for each landscape class this signature is a five-class frequency histogram of the landscape that shows how much of the landscape contains areas in which the mature forest is a minor, a medium or a majority component. Indicator specifics will vary by landscape guide region, see appendices for details. Help interpreting texture (best management practice): Describe the texture of the mature forest: o Describe the typical forest units associated with the mature forest matrix. o Is most of the mature and old forest in relatively high, medium or low concentrations? o Does it vary across the area of interest; why or why not? o In general explain the origin of the matrix (e.g. natural disturbance, past management direction, etc.).... Young Forest Patch Size Patches deal with the extent of the homogeneous forest types that make up the landscape mosaic. Like edge, patches have also been the focus of extensive review and analysis in the ecological literature (see Lindenmayer and Franklin 00). Patch sizes can influence the availability of specific contiguous habitat conditions, an overall landscape mosaic and the amount and distribution of edge (Lindenmayer and Franklin 00). From a management perspective, experience with past forest management guidelines in Ontario has demonstrated that use of specific patch sizes and shapes can have long-lasting consequences for forests that will require focused efforts over very long time periods to reverse. How to measure: Young forest patch size is measured using a size class distribution. The SIP contains technical details on how this indicator of landscape patch size is calculated. Indicator specifics will vary by landscape guide region, see appendices for details Help interpreting young forest patch size: Describe the young forest patch size distribution: o Is there an even distribution or varied range of patch sizes? o Does it vary across the area of interest? o In general describe the origin of different types (i.e. describe the mosaic not individual patches) of large landscape patches (e.g. by disturbance type, time since disturbance, forest type and age structure) o Describe the forest units associated with the young forest types. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

34 The Fine Filter: Habitat for Special Species Habitat is an organism-specific concept (Whitaker et al. ), representing the range of physical and environmental conditions across which a species can be found (Thompson 00). The landscape guide adopts this definition and considers habitat to be how the specific pattern, structure and composition of landscapes function to provide food, shelter and cover for wildlife. Landscape function means that wildlife respond to the amount or arrangement of habitat at scales broader than a forest stand. Thompson and Angelstam () refer to special species as those wildlife that are either managed individually or monitored as indicators of some feature and are selected based on values attached by society. For example society may feel they may not have adequate habitat provided through natural disturbance emulation, or more habitat is desired than might naturally occur. Species at Risk are considered special species by the landscape guide. Forest dwelling woodland caribou (herein referred to as caribou) is the only wildlife species for which the landscape guide uses fine filter direction. Direction for caribou habitat provision will be found in the boreal version of the landscape guide. Landscape supply of habitat for other special species such as moose, deer, marten and pileated woodpecker will be provided by coarse-filter indicators at the landscape scale and fine filter direction at the stand and site scale (see text box). Landscape-level habitat may be assessed by Forest Management Planning Teams to assist in developing forest cover objectives. Teams can use spatial habitat models included in Ontario s Landscape Tool (OMNR 00) (best management practice). Special species are used in the approach to monitoring the effectiveness of the landscape guide (section ). A variety of wildlife species, that are predicted to have a landscape-level response to forest management activities have been selected to assist in evaluating the effectiveness of landscape guide application. In some cases, however, these predicted responses represent our scientific reasoning (or untested hypothesis) about landscape function. Scientific studies used to evaluate the effectiveness of this guide may also test this hypothesis. Text Box What Happened to Featured Species Direction? Previous forest management guides directed management to provide habitat for specific wildlife species. The goal of the landscape guide is to direct forest managers in how to meet the objective of conserving biodiversity in an effective and efficient manner, and hence contribute to sustainability, by setting landscape mosaic goals and targets for forest pattern, composition and structure in forest management plans. Landscape composition, structure and pattern functions as habitat for a range of wildlife species including those wildlife featured in previous management guides. The table below relates direction in previous featured species guides to the landscape guide direction. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

35 Previous Management Guide(line) Landscape Guide Name Landscape Level Direction Comparable landscape guide direction Timber Management Clearcut size and Young Forest Patch Guidelines for the Provision arrangement Size of Moose Habitat (OMNR Distance to cover Texture of the ) mature forest matrix 0 0 Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat (OMNR ) The Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Marten Habitat (OMNR ) The Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat (OMNR ) Moose habitat Forage and thermal cover that is arranged together in large landscape patches known as deer yards Supply and arrangement of mature and older coniferdominated forest across the boreal landscape Supply and arrangement of mature and older forest across the GLSL landscape Area of mature landscape class Young Forest Patch Size Texture of the mature forest matrix Area of mature landscape class Texture of the mature forest matrix Area of mature landscape class Moose are a socially and economically important resource whose populations and habitat are protected and enhanced to provide opportunities for recreation and continuous social and economic benefit for the people of Ontario. Ontario developed Moose management strategies to meet the goals established for the moose management policy (OMNR 0, currently under review) including harvest control, population management, enforcement, inventory and assessment, research, allocation, hunter education and habitat management. The habitat management strategy of the moose policy addressed landscape-scale forest management as follows: Wildlife managers will work closely with forest managers to produce moose habitat in the northern forest regions which approximates the habitat created by a large forest fire of medium intensity. The production of irregular shaped cuts, scattered shelter patches and a high diversity of age class and species stands is the prime objective. This objective translated into direction that can best be visualized in Figure of the Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat (OMNR ). The goal of the landscape guide is to direct forest managers in how to meet the objective of conserving biodiversity in an effective and efficient manner, and hence contribute to sustainability, by setting landscape mosaic goals and targets for forest pattern, composition and structure in forest management plans. The landscape guide also provides an opportunity to provide additional habitat, on parts of the landscape, consistent with the moose management policy. Management of special moose habitats Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

36 (e.g. salt licks, aquatic feeding areas and calving areas) that may occur on the landscape is discussed in the stand and site guide. Moose habitat is characterized at the landscape scale by the availability of browse, cover, and special habitats. Moose can use heterogeneous landscapes of young forest that produce browse mixed with relatively small patches of older conifers or other habitat types as cover habitat. If there are few or no suitable patches of cover habitat interspersed in mostly feeding habitat, moose may need to move considerable distances to find cover. The ability of moose to move between cover and feeding habitats depends upon a number of factors, such as time of year, weather, snow characteristics, the quality and quantity of cover and forage, etc. (Hundertmark, Renecker and Schwartz ). Moose are animals that benefit from forest edges, particularly edges that provide food (browse) in close proximity to cover. Thus, the suitability of a patch as winter feeding or cover habitat or both -will depend strongly on the ratio of young forest to residual, mature conifer. Highly interspersed areas provide a greater likelihood of the area functioning as feeding habitat, whereas low interspersion mature areas will more likely be moose cover habitat. Deer habitat The Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat (OMNR ) suggested that maintenance or creation of particular landscape characteristics important to deer (percent of forest types and age classes, forest patch size and distribution, etc) will increase the likelihood that all the biological diversity associated with the landscape will be perpetuated. Landscape-level deer habitat considers forage and thermal cover that is arranged together in large landscape patches known as deer yards. Where they exist, deer yards are used during the winter, and the major cover is provided by conifer species. Although the value of different conifer species varies because of their crown shapes and leaf characteristics, the key indicator is crown closure. Coniferous trees enhance winter habitat by intercepting snowfall which allows deer to conserve energy and retain mobility and access to food supplies (Mattfeld, Hanley and Rose ). A coarse filter that emulates natural disturbances should provide an adequate amount of deer habitat in general across the landscape specifically, the structure-based indicators for forest composition will prescribe a level of mature conifer across the landscape which would function as winter habitat and other forest types with value as foraging habitat. However, deer yards require fine filter management. Like other fine filters, deer yards must be appropriately identified and located. The three most important features of a successful yard are traditional use, cover, and browse. Marten habitat The marten is a featured species in Ontario. The Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Marten Habitat (OMNR ) was written in response to the EA decision to include featured species that have mature forest habitat requirements. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

37 0 0 0 Landscape level direction in the marten guide was intended to provide habitat for martens, and, in so doing, to influence the supply and arrangement of mature and older conifer-dominated forest across the boreal landscape. The coarse filter direction in the landscape guide contains coarse filter indicators for forest pattern and composition of upland mature and overmature forest. Recent research (Naylor et al. 00) suggests that large patches ( 000 ha) of suitable habitat may not be required to sustain marten populations. However, patches of suitable habitat at least the size of home ranges ( 00 ha) may be necessary. These results support provision of marten habitat through the use of a coarse filter that emulates the landscape patterns, specifically the amount and distribution of mature forest that would have resulted from natural disturbances. These results have also been incorporated into a new habitat model for martens (see Science and Information Package A for details). Pileated woodpecker habitat Landscape level direction in the Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat (OMNR ) was intended to provide habitat for pileated woodpeckers, and, in so doing, to influence the supply and arrangement of mature and older forest across the GLSL landscape. The coarse filter direction in the landscape guide influences the pattern and composition of upland mature and older forest which will affect the supply of pileated woodpecker habitat. Research suggests that a coarse filter emulation of natural disturbance supplies the composition and patch size required for pileated woodpecker habitat (Bush ).. Ranges and Milestones.. Landscape Guide Regions As discussed in section.., landscapes can be managed at multiple scales. The landscape guide uses ecoregional scales for directing landscape-level biodiversity conservation through a combination of coarse and fine filter direction. Landscape Guide Regions are groupings of Forest Management Units that approximate ecoregional boundaries (Figure 0). The landscape guide region is the scale at which the SRNV 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 Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

38 was summarized along with the forest management unit level. In the approach to effectiveness monitoring (Section ) considers landscape guide regions in the design of an evaluation framework. 0 Figure 0. Landscape Guide Regions, in 00.. Landscape Guide Ranges Landscape guide ranges for each of the landscape guide indicators represent a science-based estimate of the natural condition based on the SRNV. MNR-based science teams were responsible for creating landscape guide ranges. It is unlikely that any single source of information will provide enough insight to estimate ranges of natural variation for all indicators; rather, multiple information sources should be considered as bodies of evidence during the development of estimates. The Science and Information Packages provide complete descriptions of information sources including the simulated range of natural variation (SRNV), historical survey records (Pre-Industrial Condition), and, current ecological databases (e.g. FRI, remote sensing, 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..). Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

39 growth and yield plots). Additional science and information can be used in application of the landscape guide with the approval of OMNR forest science and regional planning specialists. FMPM Link: A discussion of natural ranges of variability can be used in describing Historic Forest Condition, Current Forest Condition and Strategic Analyses... Apportioned landscape guide ranges Apportioned landscape guide ranges provide planning teams with a geographically explicit contribution to the larger landscape guide region. Forest management unit boundaries were used to apportion the landscape guide ranges (Figure 0)... Milestones Milestones provide planning teams with the intent of the landscape guide direction. Milestones describe a possible management trajectory (qualitatively and, in some cases quantitatively) that meets the intent of the landscape guide. For example, if the current landscape condition differs from the apportioned landscape guide range, then what is the intended direction of movement toward the apportioned landscape guide range? The following development principles were used to develop milestones: Landscape guide direction, together with forest management planning, supports CFSA principles of sustainability. Consider current landscape conditions, silvicultural limitations, and effects on other values (for example, provincially featured species) in order to set implementation up for success. These factors were not considered to take precedence over biodiversity conservation, but rather identified realistic management opportunities. Differences between the current condition of the landscape and the apportioned landscape guide ranges may be the result of management actions that occurred long before the era of forest sustainability (white pine logging in the late 00 s) and/or may be the result of exotic pests or pathogens (e.g. white pine blister rust). The development process should be transparent and well documented. These general steps were followed in each landscape guide region to develop milestones (Figure ):. Draft landscape guide ranges were presented at workshops attended by representatives of forest management planning teams.. Revisions to landscape simulation model inputs were made based on input from workshop participants (e.g. changes to forest succession rules) and a revised SRNV was estimated and/or additional information added to PIC. Final apportioned landscape guide ranges were created and are available digitally as part of Ontario s Landscape Tool. Environmental Registry Draft, November 00

40 . A range of management scenarios to maintain or move the landscape towards the apportioned landscape guide ranges was explored through an iterative process to select a scenario that met the development principles. A socioeconomic impact assessment was carried out using these milestones and documented.. Milestones were presented to Provincial Forest Technical and Regional Advisory Committees and posting of Landscape Guide in EBR. The Milestones were documented in the appendix of the landscape guide. 0 Figure. Process used to develop apportioned landscape guide ranges and milestones. The first set of apportioned landscape guide ranges, developed for each landscape guide region, will be used for 0 year forest management plans commencing in 0 and subsequent FMPs. Planned review of landscape guide ranges will start in 0 in anticipation of the next set of 0 year forest management plans which will start planning in 0 for April 0 approval 0 Documentation The appendices of the landscape guide provide milestones for all landscape guide indicators for each landscape guide region (apportioned landscape guide rangcan be found in the Science and Information Packages). Environmental Registry Draft, November 00 0