Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
by
Sarah Lindsay Michelle Todgham
A research project submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation
Faculty of Forestry University of Toronto
© Copyright by Sarah Lindsay Michelle Todgham, 2016
Management of Carbon, Water, and Biodiversity Across Canada’s SFI Certified Forest Landscapes
i
Management of Carbon, Water, and Biodiversity Across Canada’s SFI Certified Forest Landscapes
Sarah Todgham
Masters in Forest Conservation
University of Toronto
2016
Abstract
Meeting future economic demands without compromising the needs of society, sustainable forest
management has become a pressing issue for those involved in forestry. The primary focus of
this research was to examine how land managers are accounting for conservation values such as
carbon, water, and biodiversity in their long-term management plans. More specifically, this
paper investigates the contribution of forest certification schemes such as, Sustainable Forestry
Initiative (SFI), in the Canadian forest management framework. To investigate this research
topic, a survey was distributed to fourteen land managers operating in the Pacific Maritime,
Montane Cordillera, Boreal Plains, Boreal Shield, and Atlantic Maritime. The survey results
indicate that SFI certification has led land managers to consistently focus on landscape level
planning, protection of water quality and protection of special sites. Other indicators such as tree
diversity, carbon management, and pest management within the SFI standard have varying
degrees of focus due to geographic and policy differences.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors, Andrew de Vries, from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative,
and Tat Smith from the University of Toronto who offered their knowledge and expertise that
greatly assisted the research. I would also like to show my gratitude to the participants of this
survey for their honesty and willingness to share their expertise and experiences in forest
management. A special thanks to Donna Kopecky for the invitation to visit a forest license area
in Swan Valley, Manitoba. This visit not only gave me the opportunity to observe forest
management strategies on the ground-level but helped expand my understanding of forest
operations. I am also grateful for the assistance of Darren Sleep from NCASI who offered to
provide comments that greatly improved the manuscript. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the
support from the Faculty of Forestry at the University of Toronto towards the completion of this
project.
iii
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................II
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................V
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................VI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................VII
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................11.2 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Forest Operations in Canada..........................................................................................21.2.2. Emergence of Forest Certification Schemes...............................................................31.2.3 Application of Sustainable Forest Management for Maintaining Conservation
Values.................................................................................................................................................31.2.4 Previous Studies Focused on Forest Certification and Sustainable Forest
Management......................................................................................................................................5
2. METHODS...........................................................................................................................72.1 SURVEY DESIGN.........................................................................................................................72.2 RECRUITING PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................82.3 INTERVIEW DESIGN.....................................................................................................................92.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................92.5 DATA REPRESENTATION..........................................................................................................10
3. RESULTS..........................................................................................................................113.1 HIGHEST RANKED VALUES.......................................................................................................11
3.1.1 Landscape Level Management.....................................................................................113.1.2 Water Quality...................................................................................................................123.1.3 Important Sites.................................................................................................................13
3.2 LOWEST RANKED VALUES.......................................................................................................143.2.1 Tree Diversity...................................................................................................................143.2.2 Carbon Management......................................................................................................143.2.3 Vertebrate Pest Management.......................................................................................15
3.3. SIGNIFICANT RESULTS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ECO ZONES......................................203.3.1 Pest Management: Pacific Maritime and Boreal Shield/ Montane Cordillera.........203.3.2 Road Networks: Boreal Plains and Boreal Shield/Pacific Maritime.........................203.3.3 Natural Disturbance: Atlantic Maritime and Boreal Shield/ Pacific Maritime..........213.3.4 Fish Populations: Boreal Shield and Pacific Maritime...............................................22
3.4 VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF RADAR CHARTS........................................................................22
4. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................264.1 PRIORITIZATION OF VALUES.....................................................................................................264.2 FOREST CERTIFICATION VS. PROVINCIAL GUIDELINES..........................................................274.3 ROLE OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................29
5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................325.1 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................325.2 FUTURE RESEARCH..................................................................................................................32
iv
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX B.............................................................................................................................45
APPENDIX C.............................................................................................................................47
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of structure and topics in survey (refer to Appendix A) ................................... 7 Table 2. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis statistical test (n = number of respondents included, mean = average, med = median, sd = standard deviation, se = standard error, ci = confidence interval, x2 = chi square statistic, df= degrees of freedom, p-value = significance value). ......... 16 Table 3. Results of Dunn posthoc test. Ecozone that were significantly different from anonther ecozone are bolded. Ecozone represented as AM= Atlantic Maritime, BP = Boreal Plains, BS = Boreal Shield, MC = Montane Cordillera, PCM = Pacific Maritime ......................................... 19 Table 4. This chart demonstrates rank values overall and per ecozone. Differences were identified by subtracting the mean response from each ecozone (AMavg, BSavg, BPavg, MCavg,PCMavg) from overall mean (Oavg) and if the difference was greater than one standard deviation (sd) then it was deemed as noteworthy. These findings are shaded in dark gray and are bolded with *. Due to small sample sizes, assumptions of normality cannot be met, therefore, these findings cannot be deemed significant in a strict statistical sense. ..................................... 24
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Box-whisker graphs of ranking of values in land management strategies for each ecozone. The boxes represent the responses that lie within the upper and lower quartiles. The line dividing the box represents the median rank vlaue. Lines that extend outward from the box indicate outliers. Larger boxes with extended lines indicate a large variation in ranking of values, meanwhile, small boxes (or lines) indicate small variation in the ranking of values. Furthermore, boxes that are positioned higher indicate the value is a higher priority and boxes that are lower indicate a value that is a lower priority. Responses are divided by ecozone (AM= Atlantic Maritime, BP = Boreal Plains, BS = Boreal Shield, MC = Montane Cordillera, PCM = Pacific Maritime). * indicates there is an ecozone that ranked that value significantly different than the others whch will be described in section 3.3 .................................................................................................................................................. 17-19 Figure 2. Anthropogenic linear structures across landscape near Edson, Alberta. (Source: Taylor, 2015)................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 3. Radar charts of rank responses of values in land management strategies per ecozone. Mean responses of all ecozones represented in dotted line and are compared to each mean response represented in solid line. Dots that are further from each other indicate an ecozone response that differs from the overall mean results. The outer circle signifies a value of highest priority (5) and inner circle signifies the lowest priority (1). ....................................................... 25 Figure 4. Governance framework in Canada ............................................................................... 28 Figure 5. Adaptive management cycle (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2014a) ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 6. Relationship between sustainable forest management and carbon storage (Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016) ....................................................... 31
vii
List of Abbreviations
CSA – Canadian Standards Association FSC – Forest Stewardship Council SFI – Sustainable Forestry Initiative
Land managers represented as:
AM (1,2,3) – Atlantic Maritime BP (1,2,3) – Boreal Plains BS (1,2,3) – Boreal Shield MC (1,2,3) – Montane Cordillera PCM (1,2,3) – Pacific Maritime
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1. Introduction According to the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainable forest management is the practice of
meeting current societal needs and desires for forest resources (i.e. services, products, and
values) without compromising the availability of these needs for future generations. This concept
originated in the seventeenth and nineteenth century when there was a lack of wood due to the
increased demands of forest resources due to war, the need for fuel, and cover for hunting which
was exacerbated by the clearing of land for agricultural purposes (Boyle, Tappeiner, Waring, &
Smith, 2016). However, sustainable forest management has been developed as a more complex
concept due to the increased awareness for the interconnectedness of ecosystem and societal
values (Boyle, Tappeiner, Waring, & Smith, 2016). Current standards, criteria, and indicators
that are used in sustainable forestry are developed to help guide forest management to consider
environmental and social impacts in addition to timber supply needs (Gullison, 2003).
Furthermore, these standards, criteria, and indicators have become accepted as valuable science-
based tools to help define important values associated with forests, and to measure the degree to
which forests are being managed to conserve these values in sustainable forest management
(Steenberg, Duinker, Van Damme, & Zielke, 2013). With respect to the contribution forest
certification has had on the effectiveness of sustainable forest management, there have been
discrepancies in its legitimacy due to the use or consideration of different criteria, spatial scales,
expectations, and economic contexts (Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, & Elliot, 2016). As a result, it
has become difficult to validate whether forest certification has supported the growth of
sustainable forest management in the North American context (Moore, Cubbage, & Eicheldinger,
2012).
This report aims to investigate the degree to which conservation of carbon, water, and
biodiversity are incorporated into land managers' strategies across Canada. More specifically,
this paper focuses on the role forest certification and governmental organizations have in
sustainable forest management. To further investigate this research question, interviews with
forest managers across Canada were conducted to investigate techniques that are used to achieve
2
desired goals of maintaining biodiversity, protecting water, and increasing carbon storage on
well-managed forests in five eco-zone regions including: (1) Pacific Maritime, (2) Montane
Cordillera, (3) Boreal Plains, (4) Boreal Shield, and (5) Atlantic Maritime. Through analysis of
these responses, this report aims to (1) present a greater understanding of strategies utilized in
these eco-zones and investigate challenges they face in achieving desired goals for biodiversity,
water, and carbon management, (2) gain insights into the role of SFI certification and best
management practices in the management of Canada’s forested landscapes, and (3) provide
future recommendations for future sustainable forest management objectives.
1.2 Background 1.2.1 Forest Operations in Canada Since the 19th century, public ownership of forestland has been rooted as a Canadian institution
(Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). This concept emerged when Great Britain gained sovereignty
over Canada and all the resources belonged to the British Crown (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg,
2011). Following the Constitution Act (1867), established during the Canadian Confederation,
the rights to most land and resources were transferred to the provincial governments, with the
exception of Crown Grants, where some individuals and groups were permitted to hold land
ownership (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). Many of these properties persist today and
compromise 7% of Canada’s forestland, mostly in the Maritime and southern regions of Upper
and Lower Canada (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011).
To increase revenues and stimulate economic growth on public land, a tenure system was
established to promote private sector capital investment through licensing agreements (Luckert,
Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). These agreements, formally known as Crown Forest Tenues, delegated
varying degrees of responsibility for managing public land to the private sector in exchange of
financial returns to the government (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). In addition to financial
return for the use of public resources, regulations were also established to meet public interests,
such as reforestation (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). In the circumstance that a private forest
company did not comply with these regulations, they would not be able to exercise the right to
harvest on Crown land (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). Presently, most timber harvested on
Crown land is by private sector companies which hold tenure agreements and follow
3
governmental regulations (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). Examples of regulations and
performance measures that land managers operating on Crown Land follow in the province of
Ontario, New Brunswick, and British Columbia are outlined in Appendix C.
1.2.2. Emergence of Forest Certification Schemes
Historically, as the majority of the forest land in Canada is owned by the Crown, Canadian forest
policy has been dominated by strict provincial regulations to promote sustainable forest
management (Luckert, Haley, & Hoberg, 2011). However, skepticism by the public developed
concerning the effectiveness of governmental regulation to protect forests, thus resulting in the
rise of forest certification in the 1990s as a method to verify sustainable forest management using
criteria and indicators (Rametsteiner & Simula, 2003). These certification schemes were
developed to provide a means to describe and monitor the status of forest ecosystems and set
performance targets for a given forest management unit (Rametsteiner & Simula, 2003).
Furthermore, it helped address public concerns about environmental degradation thought to
result from forestry operations through third-party verifications which ensured compliance with
performance targets (Auld, Gulbrandsen, & McDermott, 2008). Today, the three main forest
certification schemes in Canada are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI), and the Canadian Standards Association CSA Z809 (CSA) (Steenberg,
Duinker, Van Damme, & Zielke, 2013). These forest certification schemes were established "in
response to market concerns about forest management and illegal logging, primarily in
developing countries" (Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), 2016). SFI will be the primary focus
of this paper.
1.2.3 Application of Sustainable Forest Management for Maintaining Conservation Values
There is a wealth of research surrounding the importance of sustainable forest management in
maintaining conservation values such as carbon stocks, water systems, and biodiversity. The
following provides an overview of the important roles that forests contribute to each
conservation value.
Carbon is an influential driver of greenhouse gas effects and its atmospheric abundance is
affected by society’s dependency on fossil fuels (Woodall et al., 2015). Fortunately, forest
4
ecosystems have the capability of recycling CO2 and can store more than 80% of all terrestrial
aboveground and 70% of all soil organic carbon (United Nations New York, Declaration of
Forests, 2014; Jandl et al., 2007). Kurz et al. (2013) investigated the role of forest management
on carbon stocks using modelling techniques and discovered that in the past several years, forest
management disturbances had a lower impact on carbon stocks than natural disturbances (Kurz
et al., 2013). This finding was attributed to the use of best management practices which
harvested trees with minimal disturbance, before they become dead standing wood and emit
carbon into the atmosphere (Kurz et al., 2013). Furthermore, these trees are typically converted
to wood products which store carbon over longer periods than would occur naturally (Kurz et al.,
2013).
Forests also play a fundamental role in the hydrological cycle as they help regulate surface and
groundwater flows and maintain water quality through rainfall interception, evapotranspiration,
and soil protection, infiltration, and storage (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2013; Zhang & Wei, 2014). It is recognized that forests help contribute to the function
of several important water-related ecosystem services such as regulating flow patterns which
prevent severe water-related events (i.e. landslides, local floods, and droughts) and prevent
occurrences of desertification or salinization by maintaining hydrological microclimates (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013). Forests also play a significant role in
providing safe and sustainable water supply, while maintaining aquatic habitat for biodiversity
and providing area for recreational activities such as fishing and canoeing (Creed et al., 2011;
Creed, et al., 2016). Regarding the importance of water management, NCASI (2009) reviewed
the literature on the link between best management strategies and water quantity and quality and
determined that best management practices for protecting ecological features such as riparian
zones, wetlands, and stream crossings during cutblock designs helps to maintain and protect
water systems (NCASI, 2009).
In regards to conservation of biodiversity, it is a highly debated value due to its nature of being
both an abstract concept and difficult to measure (Rametsteiner & Simula, 2003). Nevertheless,
maintaining biodiversity is a fundamental consideration for sustainable forest management, due
to the many linkages biodiversity has in several ecological processes (Klenner, Arsenault,
Brockerhoff, & Vyse, 2009; Laurila-Pant, Lehikoinen, Uusitalo, & Venesjärvi, 2015). For
5
instance, the loss of biodiversity may lead to interference of trophic-level interactions resulting
from an over-population or decline of species, thus leading to a depletion or super-abundance of
a particular resource (Laurila-Pant, Lehikoinen, Uusitalo, & Venesjärvi, 2015). Moreover,
increasing evidence suggests that biodiversity is not only a passive result of interactions between
abiotic and biotic factors, but may play a significant role in ecosystem dynamics (Klenner,
Arsenault, Brockerhoff, & Vyse, 2009). As forests contain 80% of terrestrial biodiversity
globally, forest managers are under pressure to maintain biodiverse forest ecosystems (Aerts &
Honnay, 2011). However, most land managers across North America recognize that a productive
forest can provide many ecosystem services that synergistically support forest industry planning
objectives such as lower likelihood of disease transmission and insect pest damage, faster tree
growth rates, and opportunity for recreational activities (Klenner, Arsenault, Brockhoff, & Vyse,
2009).
1.2.4 Previous Studies Focused on Forest Certification and Sustainable Forest Management
Although the relationships between forests and these conservation values are well-documented,
there are challenges as to how they should be measured as these concepts are interconnected and
will vary based on temporal and spatial considerations (Creed et al., 2011). For instance, land
managers may be restricted in their ability to meet conservation goals due to the multiple users
and interests across a given landscape (Berland, Nelson, Stenhouse, Graham, & Cranston, 2008).
In the presence of global climate change, there is uncertainty surrounding the ability of future
management of forest resources to prevent environmental degradation, further validating that
forest certification standards are significant in achieving sustainable forest management is
important (Kurz et al., 2013; Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, & Elliot, 2016).
Several studies have aimed to investigate the role of forest certification in sustainable forest
management by analyzing certification systems and corrective action requests from certification
bodies, with only a few studies attempting to use survey methods (Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, &
Elliot, 2016). For instance, in a study conducted by Moore, Cubbage, & Eicheldinger (2012)
surveys were sent to organizations that were certified by FSC and SFI to determine if forest
certification influenced changes in forest management practices and whether these changes were
significantly and practically different between systems. The results from the survey suggested
6
that forest certification prompted substantial changes in practices as firms implemented an
average of thirteen to fourteen changes in their environmental, social, and economic systems
practices to obtain or maintain forest certification (Moore, Cubbage, & Eicheldinger, 2012).
Additionally, it was concluded that forest managers felt that certification accomplished their
objectives and helped validate the concept of sustainable forest management (Moore, Cubbage,
& Eicheldinger, 2012).
Another similar survey was a study which addressed the linkages of FSC certification to
stakeholder adaptability to changing opportunities and innovations (Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak,
& Elliot, 2016). The research project was based on a survey which was distributed to various
stakeholders in the forest sector (Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, & Elliot, 2016). The results
suggested that stakeholders had high adaptability for biodiversity conservation, carbon storage
and provision of non-timber forest products; meanwhile, there was only medium adaptability for
watershed protection services (Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, & Elliot, 2016). It was hypothesized
that the high adaptability to biodiversity conservation was attributed to the FSC principles and
criteria which were originally aimed to address biodiversity loss (Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, &
Elliot, 2016). Furthermore, carbon storage was hypothesized to reach an overall high score due
to the popularity of carbon projects which has developed over the past few years with growing
climate change concerns (Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, & Elliot, 2016). As the paper presented by
Jaung, Putzel, Bull, Kozak, & Elliot (2016) addressed similar conservation topics but with FSC
certification, it will be most appropriate to compare results of this research project, with its focus
on SFI certification.
7
Chapter 2 Methods
2. Methods
2.1 Survey Design A structured interview with a survey consisting of three sections was identified to be the most
efficient method to satisfy the objective of this project. The first section contained fifteen general
questions on the interviewee's experience and current knowledge of sustainable forest
management. The second section asked interviewees to describe how they incorporate the
sixteen identified forest management values in their strategic planning schemes. The
interviewees were then asked to rank each of these values from high (5) to low (1) priority based
on which values received the most attention. The values selected were based on whether they
were controversial or important for meeting common sustainable forest management objectives.
As the topics discussed in this survey encompass a large range of topics, the last section asked
respondents for recommendations on academic sources that would help interpret the results. In
addition, participants were asked to comment about how they achieve desired goals for
biodiversity and how it should be addressed in the future. Table 1. Overview of structure and topics in survey (refer to Appendix A)
SECTION TOPICS QUESTIONS # OF TOTAL QUESTIONS
TYPE OF DATA
PART 1 Experience in current position; landbase history with forest certification and wildlife management; challenges in achieving vertebrate biodiversity goal; indicators used to measure biodiversity; adequate tools for measuring carbon, water, biodiversity; differences in natural and harvest disturbances in regards to carbon, water, and biodiversity management
Q1-Q7 15 Qualitative
PART 2(A)
Biodiversity = pest management; landscape level management; road networks; edge effects; identifying ecological important sites; suppression of natural disturbances; stand level management; habitat diversity; downed woody debris; wildlife trees; tree diversity (un-mixing of the mixed wood forests) Water = water quality; water quantity; maintenance of diverse fish populations; erosion
Biodiversity = Q1-Q11 Water = Q12-Q15 Carbon = Q16
Biodiversity = 27 Water = 9 Carbon = 1
Qualitative
8
Carbon = carbon management PART 2(B)
Ranking of topics mentioned above from high priority to low priority.
Biodiversity = Q1-Q11 Water = Q12-Q15 Carbon = Q16
Biodiversity = 11 Water = 4 Carbon = 1
Quantitative (Rank)
PART 3 Opinions on how to address multi-causal relationship in management of biodiversity; specific literature for biodiversity/ species inventory; specific literature for water management; specific literature for carbon management; addition information concerning conservation impact
Q1 – Q5 6 Qualitative
As mentioned in Table 1, qualitative data was used to augment the quantitative data and develop
a greater understanding of the survey results. Therefore, the data collected from the survey
enabled quantification of land management values prioritized by managers and provided
qualitative data that helped explained the patterns that emerged.
Following the development of the survey, a consent form was compiled in accordance with the
regulations of the Board of Ethics at the University of Toronto (refer to Appendix B).
2.2 Recruiting Participants This study used a direct survey technique with land managers across Canada who operate on SFI
certified forests. To recruit these participants, a pre-survey email was sent introducing the
interviewer and announcing the intent of the survey as part of a research project for the SFI Inc.
and the University of Toronto to investigate how the management of SFI-certified lands
contributes to the conservation of carbon, water, and biodiversity. A draft of the survey was also
attached in the email so the participants were aware of the topics that would be discussed. Once
the participant expressed their interest, a date for the interview was scheduled along with a
follow-up email. At week prior to the scheduled interview, the final draft and consent form was
distributed.
The intent in interviewing participants was to gain perspectives from those involved in the
forestry planning process and who were able to comment on the output legitimacy of forest
governance in Canada. Additionally, the individuals chosen for the survey were selected based
on their involvement with conservation projects or on their level of experience with forest
operations on SFI certified lands. Lastly, land manager’s location geographically was considered
9
in the recruiting process, to obtain representatives from each ecozone. In some cases, the
contacted individual passed our request to someone else within their company who was the most
knowledgeable for answering the survey questions. In total, the participants had over eighty-five
years of collective experience in their current position upon which to base these results.
From the fourteen requests that were sent by email, there was a 93% response rate. Along with
the high response rate, the survey included three submissions from each ecozone. However, in
the Pacific Maritime, only two interviews were conducted with one interviewee wanting to
contribute an additional ranking for their forest operations in the Great Bear Rainforest. It was
anticipated that the Pacific Maritime would have only two interviewees as it is the smallest
ecozone with only a few land management sites certified under SFI. With respect to the number
of total participants, some land managers requested that more than one individual contribute to
the interview which amounted to nineteen participants from fourteen different land management
sites.
2.3 Interview Design Before conducting the interviews, each participant was given the survey and a consent document.
This provided the interviewee an opportunity to gather more information on a topic if necessary.
Furthermore, interviewees were given a consent form which outlined their rights as a participant
and contact information to the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board.
Twelve out of fourteen interviews were conducted over the phone. One interview was conducted
in-person at the SFI office in Ottawa, Ontario and the other was during a site-visit. All of the
interviews were allocated an hour and fifteen minutes to discuss the survey questions. This
method of obtaining information allowed opportunity to expand on topics, if necessary, and
encouraged trust between the interviewee and the interviewer.
2.4 Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was conducted using R software to establish differences in responses between
and within the rank values. The Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized as it is a non-parametric test that
uses median values which are best to represent ordinal data with small samples sizes.
10
Furthermore, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare samples with continuous outcomes in
more than two independent samples.
Where significance was indicated, Dunn posthoc tests were used to identify which eco-systems
were significantly different from one another. This test was chosen as it is more conservative
than other posthoc tests which reduces the likelihood of Type I errors in the small dataset.
2.5 Data Representation Quantitative results have been displayed in charts and diagrams and are supported by qualitative
data gathered from the responses in the interview. To outline the rankings of land management
strategies from all participants, box-whisker diagrams were selected. This approach helps to
distinguish similarities and dissimilarities between results for each ecozone. For instance, a box-
whisker plot with a large box would indicate that land manager’s responses varied, meanwhile, a
small box would indicate an agreement of a specific ranking of a land management value.
Radar charts were used to compare the means of the rank values for each ecozone to the overall
means. To identify dissimilarities among the ecozones, calculations that were one standard
deviation from the overall mean were recognized. Significance testing was not calculated for this
data due to small sample sizes and the fact that assumptions for parametric testing could not be
satisfied. However, inferences were made to hypothesize what the data would infer if data
statistical assumptions were met.
11
Chapter 3 Results
3. Results
3.1 Highest Ranked Values
The rankings of values provided quantitative data which was supported with the qualitative data
obtained from the interviews. It was identified that landscape level, water quality, and important
sites were ranked the highest.
3.1.1 Landscape Level Management
Landscape level values were indicated by land managers to have the highest priority with an
average of 4.8 out of 5 in their forest management strategies (Table 2). Land manager’s
responses were consistent across the country, as thirteen out of fifteen land managers ranked
landscape level values as one of the highest priorities (Figure 1). Out of the remaining land
managers, one designated the landscape level management value as a high priority (4) and one
land manager as a moderate priority (3).
Eleven land managers mentioned they manage for wildlife diversity by providing a diversity of
habitat conditions at a landscape scale. A common strategy mentioned was the use of a
combination of coarse and fine filter approaches to ensure that habitat is maintained for a wide
range of organisms but also to manage for at-risk or vulnerable species which require special
objectives. There was also an emphasis on the effort that land managers put towards maintaining
a diversity of habitat conditions to meet the needs of a large suite of animals. For instance, land
manager AM1 mentioned that their management strategy subscribes to the shifting mosaic theory
which aims to rotate forest stands across different successional time frames to provide a suite of
different habitats (stand ages) at any given time. AM1 cautions that when applying this method,
it is important to keep in mind the layout of age classes to ensure that habitat connectivity is
achievable at the landscape scale and not fragmented.
12
Another common response from land managers (total = 4) was that they followed a guidebook
which provides harvest planning techniques which are designed to emulate natural disturbance
regimes through patch size distribution. More specifically, MC1 described how natural
disturbance regimes vary over their forest tenure, and sometimes patches result from an
accumulation of events or from one single stand-replacing event. To ensure diverse habitat
conditions are maintained, harvests will emulate these disturbances and if necessary, areas will
be reserved for conservation to help offset a large harvested area. Moreover, MC1 reports that to
ensure they aren’t disrupting natural ecosystem dynamics, they use fire history data to confirm
that they are managing their stands within 75% of the range in natural variation (or whatever
would likely occur naturally).
Lastly, four land managers simply explained that there were several components concerning
landscape level management in their long-term plans. These usually included guidelines and
objectives set by the government in addition to targets developed within their company. In the
case of BP1, they have 20-year forest management plans which are renewed every 10 years and
incorporate the latest science into management strategies. Furthermore, they also use adaptive
management to continually improve practices and develop new knowledge.
3.1.2 Water Quality
The findings from table 2, and figure 1 demonstrate that similar to landscape level values,
managers ranked water quality high (average 4.8) and it was consistently a high priority in
planning strategies with twelve out of fifteen land managers ranking it as one of the highest
priorities (5) and the remaining three land managers ranking it as a high priority (4).
The most common concern with respect to maintaining water quality was sedimentation entering
the streams. A total of ten land managers mentioned that design of road infrastructure was a
major consideration in preventing sedimentation events. More specifically, four managers
indicated that old infrastructure which is not built to current standards was a substantial issue.
For instance, PCM1 even mentioned how water quantity issues such as changes in peak flows
have contributed to the degradation of old infrastructure, thus, impacting water quality.
13
Most managers felt that with the application of best management practices, more specifically
buffer zones to surround watercourse, potential changes to stream water temperatures have not
been a concern. Furthermore, some land managers such as MC3 indicated that they have
identified temperature sensitive streams on their landbase, and have implemented restrictions on
the type of harvests activities that can occur around them. Three land managers indicated they
see stream temperature changes as a future issue with rising global temperatures which may lead
to earlier low-flows and hotter summers.
Overall, most land managers felt that by applying best management practices, they can mitigate
impacts to water systems through techniques such as riparian buffers and proper planning
techniques for infrastructure (i.e. placing and sizing of culverts). Some land managers indicated
that other sectors and their activities (e.g., agriculture or railway transportation) may have greater
effects on water quality.
3.1.3 Important Sites
Identification and protection of important sites was also ranked highly by land managers with an
average of 4.5 as outlined in (see table 2). Most land managers indicated management of
important sites as highest priority (total=8), meanwhile, six land managers indicated it had a
higher priority and one deemed it as a moderate priority. In figure 1, box plots were moderately
small indicating there was relatively high consistency among rankings.
Many respondents (total = 11) indicated that their provincial government provided them with
accurate spatial information, such as locations of wetlands, wildlife areas, protected areas, and
refuge sites, which guides the areas to be avoided in cutblocks. Nine land managers noted that
they identified additional sites discovered during field work or during daily operations. As these
land bases are SFI certified, they are required to have logger training which incorporates
recognition of “important and unique sites” not identified by the government, or other parties. A
total of three land managers specifically indicated that they enforce logger training and felt it was
beneficial in conserving ecologically important sites. Another method used by land managers to
identify unique regions is through consultations with other stakeholders such as the public and
First Nations (total = 5).
14
3.2 Lowest Ranked Values
Through surveys and interviews with land managers it was also determined that tree diversity,
carbon management, and vertebrate pest management were the lowest ranked management
values.
3.2.1 Tree Diversity
Maintaining tree diversity was the lowest ranked land management strategy with an average
response of 2.40 (see table 2). Respondents’ rankings of this value were quite varied with two
land managers classifying tree diversity as a high priority, four as a moderate priority, and nine
as a low or lowest priority resulting in large box plots in figure 1.
The consensus was that ensuring mixedwood forests regeneration occurs after harvest was not a
concern for land managers as they described their landscape as naturally diverse (total = 9).
These land managers mentioned that even when silvicultural techniques were used to promote
re-growth of coniferous only stands, some deciduous components would naturally regenerate.
Four respondents mentioned that there were strict guidelines put in place by provincial
governments to ensure that land conversion activities did not occur. In terms of meeting these
standards, land managers did not indicate that these guidelines were difficult to meet using best
management practices.
3.2.2 Carbon Management
With an average of 2.46 (see table 2), carbon management was also depicted as a low priority,
however, this value was inconsistently ranked by land managers. Four land managers ranked
carbon management as a high or highest priority (4-5), one as a moderate priority (3), eight as
low or lowest priority (1-2), and two indicated that this value was not applicable (NA). As the
rankings for this value varied greatly, the box plots in figure 1, covered a large range.
Of those ranking carbon management as moderate, higher or highest priority, it was reasoned
that they had investments in carbon projects to help guide their land management strategies for
15
the future (total = 6). Some land managers mentioned that their efforts in suppressing forest fire
activity and promoting reforestation contribute to the management of carbon stocks.
Overall, this value was ranked as a low priority primarily because managers didn't have specific
objectives on carbon management as it is a relatively recent concern and they are waiting for
more guidance (total = 4). Most land managers (n = 6) explained that they have supported
research in projects such as carbon modeling and hope this will help direct carbon management
in the future.
3.2.3 Vertebrate Pest Management
Pest management values were ranked third lowest priority with an average of 2.85 in land
management strategies (see table 2). Similar to carbon management, this value had a high
variability in ranking among respondents, resulting in large box plots in figure 1. Four land
managers indicated that pest management has a high or highest priority (4-5), three as a moderate
priority (3), six as low or lowest priority (1-2), and two deemed this as not applicable (NA).
The most common vertebrate pest that land managers had to manage for was beaver (total = 10).
It was explained that beavers influence forestry operations by affecting the stability of road
infrastructure and stream crossings. To ensure that degradation does not occur, land managers
stated they have used beaver stoppers to prevent dam building near crossings. Other land
managers mentioned they have had to hire individuals to displace or trap beavers.
Other common vertebrate species that caused concern for land managers were ungulates which
browse on seedlings. In cases where ungulates were considered pests, cones or fishnets were
used to cover planted seedlings and prevent browsing. Land managers in Pacific Maritime even
mentioned they have attempted to breed browse-resistant cedar but these attempts have been
largely unsuccessful.
Overall, this value was not ranked highly as land managers found it difficult to control for
vertebrate species, and in many cases, found that their efforts were ineffective.
16
Tabl
e 2.
Sum
mar
y of
Kru
skal
-Wal
lis s
tatis
tical
test
(n =
num
ber o
f res
pond
ents
incl
uded
, mea
n =
aver
age,
med
= m
edia
n, sd
= s
tand
ard
devi
atio
n, s
e =
stan
dard
err
or, c
i = c
onfid
ence
inte
rval
, x2 =
chi
squa
re s
tatis
tic, d
f= d
egre
es o
f fre
edom
, p-v
alue
= s
igni
fican
ce v
alue
).
Med
ians
wer
e ut
ilize
d to
inve
stig
ate
the
thre
e hi
ghes
t (sh
aded
in d
ark
gray
) and
low
est r
anke
d va
lues
(sha
ded
in li
ght g
ray)
and
stan
dard
de
viat
ion
valu
es c
ompa
red
to o
vera
ll m
edia
n ra
nks
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er re
spon
ses w
ere
cons
iste
nt. I
n ot
her w
ords
, hig
h st
anda
rd d
evia
tions
(s
hade
d in
dar
k gr
ay) w
ould
impl
y th
at re
spon
ses v
arie
d be
twee
n la
nd m
anag
ers
and
low
sta
ndar
d de
viat
ions
(sha
ded
in li
ght g
ray)
wou
ld
impl
y co
nsis
tenc
y in
rank
val
ues.
V
alue
s th
at w
ere
deem
ed s
igni
fican
t (*)
or v
ery
sign
ifica
nt (*
*) in
dica
ted
that
at l
east
one
eco
zone
rank
ed v
alue
s diff
eren
tly th
an o
ther
ec
ozon
es. R
esul
ts o
f thi
s ar
e ou
tline
d in
“Si
gnifi
cant
Res
ults
for D
iffer
ence
s B
etw
een
Eco
Zone
s” se
ctio
n.
17
** *
Figu
re 1
a. B
ox-w
hisk
er g
raph
s of r
anki
ng o
f pes
t man
agem
ent,
land
scap
e le
vel,
road
net
wor
ks, e
dge
effe
cts,
impo
rtant
site
s, a
nd n
atur
al
dist
urba
nce
valu
es in
land
man
agem
ent s
trate
gies
for e
ach
ecoz
one.
The
box
es re
pres
ent t
he re
spon
ses
that
lie
with
in th
e up
per a
nd lo
wer
qua
rtile
s. Th
e lin
e di
vidi
ng th
e bo
x re
pres
ents
the
med
ian
rank
vla
ue. L
ines
that
ext
end
outw
ard
from
the
box
indi
cate
out
liers
. La
rger
box
es w
ith e
xten
ded
lines
indi
cate
a la
rge
varia
tion
in ra
nkin
g of
val
ues,
mea
nwhi
le, s
mal
l box
es (o
r lin
es) i
ndic
ate
smal
l var
iatio
n in
the
rank
ing
of v
alue
s. F
urth
erm
ore,
box
es th
at a
re p
ositi
oned
hig
her i
ndic
ate
the
valu
e is
a h
ighe
r prio
rity
and
boxe
s th
at a
re lo
wer
indi
cate
a v
alue
that
is
a lo
wer
prio
rity.
Res
pons
es a
re d
ivid
ed b
y ec
ozon
e (A
M=
Atla
ntic
Mar
itim
e, B
P =
Bor
eal P
lain
s, B
S =
Bor
eal S
hiel
d, M
C =
Mon
tane
Cor
dille
ra,
PCM
= P
acifi
c M
ariti
me)
. * in
dica
tes
ther
e is
an
ecoz
one
that
rank
ed th
at v
alue
sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t tha
n th
e ot
hers
whc
h w
ill b
e de
scrib
ed in
se
ctio
n 3.
3.
18
Figu
re 1
b. B
ox-w
hisk
er g
raph
s of r
anki
ng o
f st
and
leve
l, ha
bita
t div
ersi
ty, d
owne
d-w
oody
deb
ris, w
ildlif
e tre
es, t
ree
dive
rsity
and
wat
er q
ualit
y va
lues
in la
nd m
anag
emen
t stra
tegi
es fo
r eac
h ec
ozon
e. T
he b
oxes
repr
esen
t the
resp
onse
s th
at li
e w
ithin
the
uppe
r and
low
er q
uarti
les.
The
line
di
vidi
ng th
e bo
x re
pres
ents
the
med
ian
rank
vla
ue. L
ines
that
ext
end
outw
ard
from
the
box
indi
cate
out
liers
. La
rger
box
es w
ith e
xten
ded
lines
indi
cate
a la
rge
varia
tion
in ra
nkin
g of
val
ues,
mea
nwhi
le, s
mal
l box
es (o
r lin
es) i
ndic
ate
smal
l var
iatio
n in
the
rank
ing
of v
alue
s. F
urth
erm
ore,
box
es th
at a
re p
ositi
oned
hig
her i
ndic
ate
the
valu
e is
a h
ighe
r prio
rity
and
boxe
s th
at a
re lo
wer
indi
cate
a v
alue
that
is
a lo
wer
prio
rity.
Res
pons
es a
re d
ivid
ed b
y ec
ozon
e (A
M=
Atla
ntic
Mar
itim
e, B
P =
Bor
eal P
lain
s, B
S =
Bor
eal S
hiel
d, M
C =
Mon
tane
Cor
dille
ra,
PCM
= P
acifi
c M
ariti
me)
. * in
dica
tes
ther
e is
an
ecoz
one
that
rank
ed th
at v
alue
sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t tha
n th
e ot
hers
whc
h w
ill b
e de
scrib
ed in
se
ctio
n 3.
3.
19
Figure1.Box-whiskergraphsofrankingofvaluesinlandmanagementstrategiesforeachecozone.Theboxesrepresenttheresponsesthatliewithintheupperandlowerquartiles.Thelinedividingtheboxrepresentsthemedianrankvlaue.Linesthatextendoutwardfromtheboxindicateoutliers.Largerboxeswithextendedlinesindicatealargevariationinrankingofvalues,meanwhile,smallboxes(orlines),BP=BorealPlains,BS=BorealShield,MC=MontaneCordillera,PCM=PacificMaritime).
Table3.ResultsofDunnposthoctest.Ecozonethatweresignificantlydifferentfromanontherecozonearebolded.EcozonerepresentedasAM=AtlanticMaritime,BP=BorealPlains,BS=BorealShield,MC=MontaneCordillera,PCM=PacificMaritime
*
Figu
re 1
b. B
ox-w
hisk
er g
raph
s of r
anki
ng o
f w
ater
qua
ntity
, fis
h po
pula
tions
, sev
ere
eros
ion,
and
car
bon
valu
es in
land
man
agem
ent s
trate
gies
for
each
eco
zone
. The
box
es re
pres
ent t
he re
spon
ses
that
lie
with
in th
e up
per a
nd lo
wer
qua
rtile
s. T
he li
ne d
ivid
ing
the
box
repr
esen
ts th
e m
edia
n ra
nk
vlau
e. L
ines
that
ext
end
outw
ard
from
the
box
indi
cate
out
liers
. La
rger
box
es w
ith e
xten
ded
lines
indi
cate
a la
rge
varia
tion
in ra
nkin
g of
val
ues,
mea
nwhi
le, s
mal
l box
es (o
r lin
es) i
ndic
ate
smal
l var
iatio
n in
the
rank
ing
of v
alue
s. F
urth
erm
ore,
box
es th
at a
re p
ositi
oned
hig
her i
ndic
ate
the
valu
e is
a h
ighe
r prio
rity
and
boxe
s th
at a
re lo
wer
indi
cate
a v
alue
that
is
a lo
wer
prio
rity.
Res
pons
es a
re d
ivid
ed b
y ec
ozon
e (A
M=
Atla
ntic
Mar
itim
e, B
P =
Bor
eal P
lain
s, B
S =
Bor
eal S
hiel
d, M
C =
Mon
tane
Cor
dille
ra,
PCM
= P
acifi
c M
ariti
me)
. * in
dica
tes
ther
e is
an
ecoz
one
that
rank
ed th
at v
alue
sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t tha
n th
e ot
hers
whc
h w
ill b
e de
scrib
ed in
se
ctio
n 3.
3.
20
3.3. Significant Results for Differences Between Eco Zones The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated land manager’s responses
differed significantly across ecozones in four ranking values. Using
the Dunn Post hoc test, the groups that were significantly different
were identified as values under 0.30 and are highlighted in table 3.
The following are the hypothesized reasoning behind these
differences using the qualitative data obtained from the interviews.
3.3.1 Pest Management: Pacific Maritime and Boreal Shield/ Montane Cordillera
Pest management was ranked significantly higher in the Pacific
Maritime than the Boreal Shield and the Montane Cordillera. This is
likely a result of the Pacific Maritime managing for both beaver
populations and limiting deer browsing through browse-resistant
cedar. Meanwhile, in the Boreal Shield and the Montane Cordillera,
pest management was much more limited to beaver and mice.
3.3.2 Road Networks: Boreal Plains and Boreal Shield/Pacific Maritime
In the Boreal Plains, land managers indicated that the design of road
networks was a higher priority than in the Boreal Shield or Pacific
Maritime. All land managers in the Boreal Plains agreed that the
configuration of road networks takes away productive area of the
forest and increases edge effects. It is hypothesized that there is heightened awareness of road
networks in the Boreal Plains as it is intensively managed for other resources such as oil and gas.
This is evident in aerial photographs taken near Edson, Alberta, with linear structures that are
already prevalent from hydrolines and pipelines (see figure 2).
DunnPosthocTestPestManagement AM BP BS MC
BP 1 - - -
BS 1 1 - -
MC 1 1 1 -
PCM 1 0.69 0.24 0.24
RoadNetworks AM BP BS MC
BP 1 - - -
BS 0.62 0.27 - -
MC 0.93 0.62 1 -
PCM 0.62 0.27 1 1
NaturalDisturbance AM BP BS MC
BP 1 - - -
BS 0.14 1 - -
MC 1 1 0.72 -
PCM 0.24 1 1 1
FishPopulations AM BP BS MC
BP 1 - - -
BS 0.49 1 - -
MC 1 1 1 -
PCM 1 0.82 0.07 1
Table 3. Results of Dunn posthoc test. Ecozones that were significantly different from another ecozone are bolded. Ecozones represented as AM= Atlantic Maritime, BP = Boreal Plains, BS = Boreal Shield, MC = Montane Cordillera, PCM = Pacific Maritime
21
Figure 2. Anthropogenic linear structures across landscape near Edson, Alberta. (Source: Taylor, 2015)
In the Boreal Shield and Pacific Maritime, land managers indicated that typically they did not
need to consider accommodating the needs of other stakeholders as their operations are typically
located far from civilization. In addition, some land managers mentioned that there are strict
provincial regulations surrounding road infrastructure and they were not permitted to limit road
access to the public. Therefore, due to locational factors and limitations on road networks that
can be deemed private, this value was given a lower ranking.
3.3.3 Natural Disturbance: Atlantic Maritime and Boreal Shield/ Pacific Maritime
In the Atlantic Maritime, suppression of natural disturbances was deemed as high or highest
priority to land managers. AM2 describes that in New Brunswick, being the most forestry
dependent province in Canada, it is a high priority for these land managers to ensure that natural
disturbance events do not impact the sustainability of forestry jobs. Additionally, land managers
in the Atlantic Maritime ecozone described spruce budworm (Choristoneura orae), as a large
issue for them in maintaining forest productivity. As a result, this epidemic has heightened
concerns of natural disturbances for land managers operating in this ecozone.
22
Meanwhile, in the Boreal Shield and Pacific Maritime, suppression of natural disturbance events
was ranked as moderate to lowest priority in land management strategies. The Pacific Maritime
land manager, identified that in this ecosystem natural disturbances occur in small patches, rather
than over a large scale. This is unique from other ecosystems in Canada such as in the boreal
where large-scale disturbances are an integral part of the ecosystem dynamics. In regards to fire
suppression, Pacific Maritime land managers mentioned they would intervene in the case of
forest fire when necessary as it is the law. Meanwhile land managers in the Boreal Shield
reasoned that their suppression efforts were lower as it is mostly under the responsibility of the
provincial government.
3.3.4 Fish Populations: Boreal Shield and Pacific Maritime
In the Pacific Maritime, land managers stressed that fisheries on the West Coast are extremely
important to their economy and thus, there was a high priority in ensuring that forest operations
did not impact fish habitats negatively. Therefore, there were strict regulations on stream buffers
and special measures put in place to ensure water crossings did not impact fish migration. In the
Atlantic Maritime, it was also emphasized that the fisheries were important to the region’s
economy, however, the significance was weaker as only one land manager ranked this value. The
land manager that did respond mentioned that they have invested in research projects involving
electro-fishing to ensure that forest operations do not impede on fish populations.
On the other hand, maintaining fish populations was ranked significantly lower in Boreal Shield
compared to the maritime ecozones. It was emphasized by all three land managers that they
utilized preventative strategies to help manage for fish populations, such as setting aside riparian
zones. However, BS1 indicated that instead of monitoring fish populations directly, there is a
greater emphasis on maintaining forest habitats to support the functioning of water ecosystems. It
is hypothesized that this is attributed to the fact that as the Boreal Shield consists of a rolling
topography, which lowers the risk of sedimentation impeding water quality. Furthermore, as the
Boreal Shield is inland, the economy is less reliant on fisheries to sustain their economy.
3.4 Visual Interpretation of Radar Charts The most striking difference revealed by radar plot analysis (figure 2), was that the Boreal Shield
was the least similar from the mean trend line. Important sites, water quantity, and fish
23
populations were all one standard deviation lower than the mean (see Table 4). In Appendix C,
there is an outline of the provincial guidelines that are mandatory in Ontario, which demonstrates
that the government is very involved in forest operations, and largely influences how this value is
managed. As previously mentioned, this lowers the need for land managers to prioritize certain
values such as maintaining diverse fish populations. For the values of water quantity and
prevention of severe erosion events, it was recognized that due to the rolling topography of this
ecozone these values were a lower concern. The remaining ecozones had only one identified
value that is one standard deviation from the mean responses.
In the Atlantic Maritime, suppression of natural disturbances was ranked one standard deviation
from the mean as shown in table 4. As previously mentioned, land managers prioritize
suppression of natural disturbance highly in this ecozone as their economy is more susceptible to
natural disturbances impacts in many ways. Therefore, to maintain jobs for the local
communities, efforts are put forth to moderate natural disturbance events.
The Boreal Plains means were the most similar to the overall mean trend line (see figure 2).
However, it was identified that road networks planning was deemed one standard deviation
higher than other ecozones in table 4. As mentioned previously, land managers in this ecozone
place road networks as the highest priority as this landscape is intensively managed for natural
resources (e.g., oil and gas).
Regarding the Montane Cordillera, tree diversity was ranked just over one standard deviation
from the mean rank value (see table 4). Land managers indicated that they place tree diversity as
a high to moderate priority in their land management strategies as there was a lower component
of mixedwood forests on their landbases which had significant wildlife value. MC2 even
revealed that in their province, forestry operations have a legal obligation to regenerate the forest
back to its original state.
Lastly, in the Pacific Maritime, pest management was determined as more than one standard
deviation from the mean responses as shown in table 4. The qualitative results suggest that this is
a result of the additional efforts that land managers in this region put towards ungulate browsing,
specifically elk and deer.
24
Table 4. This chart demonstrates rank values overall and per ecozone. Differences were identified by subtracting the mean response from each ecozone (AMavg, BSavg, BPavg, MCavg,PCMavg) from overall mean (Oavg) and if the difference was greater than one standard deviation (sd) then it was deemed as noteworthy. These findings are shaded in dark gray and are bolded with *. Due to small sample sizes, assumptions of normality cannot be met, therefore, these findings cannot be deemed significant in a strict statistical sense.
Oavg
sd AMavg
AMavg-Oavg
BSavg
BSavg-Oavg
BPavg
BPavg-Oavg
MCavg
MCavg-Oavg
PCMavg
PCMavg-Oavg
PestManagement
2.8
5
1.5
2 3.33 0.49 1.50 1.35 2.33 0.51 1.50 1.35 4.7 1.82*LandscapeLevel
4.8
0
0.5
6 4.80 0.00 5.00 0.20 5.00 0.20 5.00 0.20 4.7 0.13
RoadNetworks
4.0
0
0.9
3 4.67 0.67 3.33 0.67 5.001.00* 3.67 0.33 3.3 0.67
EdgeEffects 3.0
0
1.1
3 2.33 0.67 4.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 3.67 0.67 2.0 1.00
ImportantSites
4.4
7
0.6
4 4.67 0.20 3.670.80* 4.33 0.13 5.00 0.53 4.7 0.20
NaturalDisturbance
3.0
7
1.1
6 4.33 1.27* 2.00 1.07 3.00 0.07 3.67 0.60 2.3 0.73
StandLevel 3.8
0
1.2
1 3.67 0.13 4.00 0.20 2.67 1.13 4.33 0.53 4.3 0.53
HabitatDiversity
4.2
0
0.5
6 4.00 0.20 4.67 0.47 4.33 0.13 4.00 0.20 4.0 0.20
DWD 3.3
3
1.4
0 2.00 1.33 3.00 0.33 4.00 0.67 3.67 0.33 4.0 0.67
WildlifeTrees
3.5
3
0.9
9 3.33 0.20 3.33 0.20 3.33 0.20 4.00 0.47 3.7 0.13
TreeDiversity
2.4
0
0.9
1 2.33 0.07 2.33 0.07 2.00 0.40 3.33 0.93* 2.0 0.40
WaterQuality
4.8
0
0.4
1 5.00 0.20 4.67 0.13 4.67 0.13 5.00 0.20 4.7 0.13
WaterQuantity
2.9
2
1.1
9 3.00 0.08 1.671.26* 3.33 0.41 3.33 0.41 3.3 0.41
FishPopulations
3.6
9
1.3
8 5.00 1.31 2.001.69* 3.33 0.36 4.00 0.31 5.0 1.31
Erosion 4.2
7
0.9
6 5.00 0.73 3.33 0.93 3.67 0.60 4.67 0.40 4.7 0.40
CarbonManagement
2.4
6
1.3
9 2.00 0.46 3.00 0.54 2.33 0.13 2.33 0.13 3.0 0.54
25
Figu
re 3
.Rad
ar c
harts
of r
ank
resp
onse
s of
val
ues
in la
nd m
anag
emen
t stra
tegi
es p
er e
cozo
ne. M
ean
resp
onse
s of a
ll ec
ozon
es re
pres
ente
d in
dot
ted
line
and
are
com
pare
d to
eac
h m
ean
resp
onse
re
pres
ente
d in
solid
line
. Dot
s th
at a
re fu
rther
from
ea
ch o
ther
indi
cate
an
ecoz
one
resp
onse
that
di
ffer
s fro
m th
e ov
eral
l mea
n re
sults
. The
out
er
circ
le s
igni
fies
a va
lue
of h
ighe
st p
riorit
y (5
) and
in
ner c
ircle
sig
nifie
s th
e lo
wes
t prio
rity
(1).
26
Chapter 4
Discussion
4. Discussion 4.1 Prioritization of Values
The results reveal that land managers are prioritizing most values selected in this project as
moderately to very highly. Moreover, land managers are placing a high emphasis on values that
are associated with objectives set by the government and certification schemes. Outlined in
Appendix C are the objectives/ performance measures for forestry regulations in New Brunswick,
Ontario, British Columbia, and certification standards for SFI. Consistent with the findings of
this paper, landscape level planning, water quality, and habitat diversity have the most detailed
objectives and hold the highest priorities in land management strategies.
On the other hand, values such as tree diversity, carbon management, and vertebrate pest
management have less detailed objectives, therefore, they are ranked lower. This was confirmed
through interviews with the land managers, as in some cases, they justified ranking values lower
due to minimal direction from governance structures on how to manage for certain values. This
was most evident in carbon management as many land managers indicated they are waiting on
guidance on the best approach to managing carbon stocks. However, in this case, many believed
that in maintaining productive forests they were already managing carbon indirectly. This was
also the case for tree diversity, where land managers mentioned that it was not a priority as
regeneration on the landscape was naturally diverse.
Another instance where forest managers ranked a value lower was when the government claimed
responsibility, such as in the case of suppression of natural disturbances in the Boreal Plains and
Boreal Shield. Meanwhile, where the government expected the forest industry to address certain
values, these were identified to have a higher importance in some regions in comparison. For
instance, in the Atlantic Maritime, forestry is essential to the province’s economy and therefore
land managers were expected to help in suppressing natural disturbances to help maintain forest
productivity and timber supply.
27
There were also variations between ecozones due to geographical location. For instance, in the
Coastal ecozones, the government has very detailed expectations on how forestry should operate
near water bodies to minimize risk to diverse fish populations.
Lastly, as information for this study was obtained through interview, it is subject to mis-
interpretations of some land management value rankings. In the case of tree diversity, there were
discrepancies on the importance of this value, which potentially contributed to the large variation
in rankings. This was likely attributed to the fact that there was confusion on whether this
involved concerns of planting stocks, regeneration standards, and non-conversion requirements.
The interviewer attempted to be consistent on the amount of information provided during the
interview, however, errors in data collection may have occurred.
4.2 Forest Certification vs. Provincial Guidelines In regards to the role that SFI certification plays in the prioritization of land management
strategies, it has contributed through reconfiguring the power from a state-centered government
of forest resources to a collection of non-state actors (Hackett, 2013). Many believe that this shift
has accompanied a power shift from government to governance, however, Hackett (2013) argues
it is more a reconfiguration of state power in the face of environmentally induced legitimacy
crisis. In the Canadian context, forest certification and provincial guidelines work simultaneously
to ensure that forest management operations are considering economic, social, and
environmental values in long-term strategic planning. This framework, as outlined in figure 3
describes the dynamics of these governance structures in promoting sustainable forest
management:
1. Provincial Regulations: Within each province, there are regulations set by the
provincial government which are mandatory if forest managers want to operate on Crown
land. Provincial standards encourage forest managers to participate in forest certification
programs.
2. Forest Certification Standards: These entail voluntary national objectives that
forest management and industry must follow to gain access to green markets. To support
compliance with provincial regulation, forest certification has a requirement to follow
provincial and national regulations.
3. Company Policies: Each company will have their own standards which they
28
must follow for health and safety reasons.
4. Implementation of Forest Management Plan: This step takes consideration of
all regulations and policies and applies it to each individual site.
Figure 4. Governance framework in Canada
On private land, this relationship is altered slightly as the land managers are not required to
operate by the same provincial guidelines as those operating on Crown land. However,
management of land certified by SFI must comply with regional and national standards so land
managers mentioned they apply provincial requirements to their industry standards. Therefore,
forest certification was deemed important in verifying that they are managing their forests
sustainably, even when not operating on Crown land.
It has also been established that forest certification has a unique role in forest governance,
particularly in influencing forest management decisions beyond what is required by the
government (Floyd, 2002). Forest certification benefits the forest industry through the ability to
“better integrate scientific, technical, and non-expert forms of knowledge [to] secure legitimacy
across broad collations of stakeholder groups and provide flexibility” (Hackett, 2013). This has
been a benefit for land managers as it was expressed in interviews that the government uses a
“wait and see approach” which limits growth and development in sustainable forestry (Mansoor,
ForestCertificationStandards
ProvincialRegulations
CompanyPolicies
1
2
3
4 ImplementationofForestManagementPlan
29
Stupak, & Smith, 2016). Thus, forest certification could be useful in providing greater
opportunity for significant breakthroughs in forest management. Furthermore, it is argued that
the state cannot be the only institution responsible for tackling complex environmental problems
such as climate change, which require broad collaborative efforts (Hackett, 2013). Consequently,
forest certification has potential to cover these information gaps not addressed in governmental
research, as addressed in SFI’s 2015-2019 standard which requires continual improvement
(Objective 11, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 2015).
4.3 Role of Adaptive Management
A common response for all management values was the use of adaptive management to help
ensure that their strategies designed to help promote environmental productivity which are
evaluated and adjusted over time. Over the past several years, forest governance structures have
been challenged to develop effective strategies for accommodating evolving economic and social
environments. Furthermore, as societal attitudes towards forestry have changed, there has been
increasing expectations of the forest industry. Consequently, forest certification acts as a
validation tool while incorporating new knowledge and emerging concerns of dynamic forest
ecosystems through adaptive management (Boyle et al., 2016). Figure 3 outlines the adaptive
management framework with its reassessment of ID issues, standards, and design practices
following the implementation, monitoring, and assessment of new techniques (Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2014a).
30
Figure 5. Adaptive management cycle (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2014a)
Certification schemes are complementary to this adaptive management approach as it compares
management to a set of standards which are then monitored and assessed by an external
verification source (Lattimore, Smith, & Richardson, 2010). On the other hand, many provincial
governments (e.g., Ontario) use adaptive management in their forest management programs;
however, it is not with the degree of freedom that forest certification schemes have since they
can regularly revise their standards. In the case of SFI, their standards are revised every five
years with an external board of directors to develop improvements based on current knowledge
on forest ecosystems (Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 2016). With the climatic changes
associated with global warming, addressing uncertainties in environmental conditions will be (if
not already) a great concern for land managers. Therefore, adaptive management is the most
logical framework to employ, especially considering the changing societal perspectives of the
forest industry.
Consequently, as adaptive management is a crucial component of sustainable forest
management, it is anticipated that land manager’s prioritization of values will evolve with
increasing knowledge. One value specifically that is expected to change in the future is carbon
management with the emergence and dissemination of the results of various climate change
projects. Ontario has recognized the urgency of governmental action to help mediate climate
31
change through a cap and trade initiative. This initiative is set to begin January 1, 2017 and will
limit the amount of greenhouse gases businesses and institutions can emit (Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016). Over time, companies can earn allowances which they
can buy or sell to other companies if they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or have surplus
credits (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016). This program also permits
the use of carbon offsets from industries that do not have a cap, but which can contribute to the
removal of carbon emissions (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016). The
forest industry will be crucial to this component of the project as sustainable forest management
is “one of the largest most cost-effective climate solutions available today” (United Nations New
York, Declaration of Forests, 2014). Outlined in figure 5 is the relationship between carbon
storage and the forest industry (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016).
Through harvesting forests, we capture carbon and store it in wood products It is estimated that
two cubic meters of wood product is equivalent to almost one tonne of CO2 removed from the
atmosphere (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016). Furthermore, using
techniques to promote prompt regeneration, carbon that is released from wood waste is absorbed
by growing forests (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016).
Figure 6. Relationship between sustainable forest management and carbon storage (Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2016)
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT MITIGATES CLIMATE CHANGEIn Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has responsibility to ensure Crown forests are managed in a way that addresses ecological, social and economic sustainability.
Before any forestry activities can occur on Crown land in a defined management unit, an approved forest management plan must be in place that is consistent with relevant legislation including the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and Declaration Order MNR-75, made under the Environmental Assessment Act. Forest management planning is a rigorous, five-stage process that takes up to three years to complete. It provides opportunities for the involvement of Indigenous com-munities, stakeholders and the public at various stages. It also includes detailed forest inventory information and modelling, and requires regular monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the 10-year forest management plan.
Ontario’s sustainable forest management framework provides an opportunity for increasing the contribution to climate change mitigation while continuing to deliver resource benefits such as timber and biomass to sup-port jobs and related economic activities; clean water and wildlife habitat; and social opportunities including community development and recreation. Growing healthy, resilient forests and supporting sustainable harvesting can increase carbon sequestration. Forest management activities can regenerate the forest to increase carbon storage and revitalize the forest as it ages through harvest, reducing its capacity to become a carbon source. Sustainable harvesting can also increase carbon storage in wood products, supporting the reduction of GHG emissions in Ontario (Figure 8).
Two cubic metres of wood = almost one tonne of CO2 removed from atmosphere.
Figure 8: What is the relationship between forest carbon and sustainable forest management?
10 OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE CARBON STORAGE?
32
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Future Recommendations
5. Conclusion and Future Recommendations 5.1 Conclusion This study examined the management strategies of land managers to outline how conservation
values such as carbon, water and biodiversity are addressed on SFI certified lands in Canada.
From the results gathered in this survey, it is evident that forest managers are expected to
manage forests to ensure the longevity of forest health while balancing other values such as
ecological, social and economic needs. Thus, land managers look towards governance systems
such as forest certification and provincial governments which have a large influence on the
prioritization of certain land management values. Forest certification schemes such as SFI have a
particularly important role in sustainable forest management in Canada by supporting the
innovation of new strategies through adaptive management. It is anticipated that with this
governance framework, the forest industry’s management values will continue to evolve with
new research directed towards solutions on how to mediate effects of a changing climate. This
will be particularly apparent with carbon management as forests play a significant role in the
carbon cycle. Overall, it is evident in this paper that forest managers in Canada put forth
significant efforts to achieve sustainable management of Canada’s forests. It is hoped that our
understanding of forest ecosystems will continue to develop innovations to meet economic,
societal and environmental needs for the future.
5.2 Future Research In future research, a deliberation that would be interesting to research in more depth is how land
managers will adjust strategies to accommodate climate change. A study conducted by Johnson
& Heslen (2012) acknowledges that climate change is likely to affect the forest sector and
management strategies will need to adapt to these changes. Potential changes that will directly
impact forest management include increased frequency and intensity of fires, increased disease
and insect pest outbreaks, and increased frequency of extreme weather events (Johnson &
Heslen, 2012). As these risks have potential to impact forest productivity, it is acknowledged that
33
there is a need to adapt to climate change; however, strategies to help mediate these impacts are
less known.
Future studies should include field-based analysis of management strategies of land managers
across Canada. It is evident that land managers work to maintain forest health, but it would be
valuable to have ground-level observations to validate this conclusion.
Another consideration for future studies is to interview other industries and stakeholders that
impact the landscape. For instance, many land managers indicated that at times their
sustainability goals were hindered due to incidents caused by other industries or stakeholders
operating on the landscape such as oil and gas operation, railways, mining, and livestock.
Conversely, as the forest industry is more prevalent on the landbase, the public is more likely to
perceive them as the source of the problem.
Lastly, as SFI certifies forest across North America, it would be interesting to investigate how
prioritization of land management strategies differ from Canada to the United States. This would
be particularly interesting as the United States has a different governance structure and
geographical condition from Canada, which would expand on the findings of this study. In turn,
this would provide SFI with a greater understanding of the underlying factors that influence land
management strategies.
34
References
Aerts, R., & Honnay, O. (2011). Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BMC ecology, 11(1), 29.
Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & McDermott, C. L. (2008). Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annual review of environment and resources, 33(1), 187.
Berland, A., Nelson, T., Stenhouse, G., Graham, K., & Cranston, J. (2008). The impact of landscape
disturbance on grizzly bear habitat use in the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada. Forest ecology and Management,256(11), 1875-1883.
Boyle J.R., Tappeiner J.C., Waring R.H., & Smith T. C. (2016). Sustainable Forestry: Ecology and
Silviculture for Resilient Forests, Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09761-X
Brundtland, G. H. World Commission on Environment and Development.(1987) Report of the World
Commission on environment and development: ‘Our common future’. New York, United Nations. Creed, I. F., Weber, M., Accatino, F., & Kreutzweiser, D. P. (2016). Managing Forests for Water in the
Anthropocene—The Best Kept Secret Services of Forest Ecosystems. Forests, 7(3), 60. Creed, I.F., G.Z. Sass, F.D. Beall, J.M. Buttle, R.D. Moore, & M. Donnelly. (2011). Hydrological
principles for conservation of water resources within a changing forested landscape. Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Alberta.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Forests and Water: International
Momentum and Action. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3129e/i3129e.pdf Floyd, D. W. (2002). Forest sustainability: the history, the challenge, the promise. Forest History
Society.
Gullison, R. E. (2003). Does forest certification conserve biodiversity?. Oryx, 37(2), 153-165. Hackett, R. (2013). From government to governance? Forest certification and crisis displacement in
Ontario, Canada. Journal of Rural Studies, 30, 120-129. Jandl, R., Lindner, M., Vesterdal, L., Bauwens, B., Baritz, R., Hagedorn, F., & Byrne, K. A. (2007). How
strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration?. Geoderma, 137(3), 253-268. Jaung, W., Putzel, L., Bull, G. Q., Kozak, R., & Elliot, C. (2016). Forest Stewardship Council
certification for forest ecosystem services: An analysis of stakeholder adaptability. Forest Policy and Economics, ISSN, 70, 91 – 98
Johnston, M., & Hesseln, H. (2012). Climate change adaptive capacity of the Canadian forest sector.
Forest Policy and Economics, 24, 29-34. Klenner, W., Arsenault, A., Brockerhoff, E. G., & Vyse, A. (2009). Biodiversity in forest ecosystems and
landscapes: A conference to discuss future directions in biodiversity management for sustainable forestry. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, S1-S4.
35
Kurz, W. A., Shaw, C. H., Boisvenue, C., Stinson, G., Metsaranta, J., Leckie, D., Dyke, A., Smyth, C., & Neilson, E. T. (2013). Carbon in Canada’s boreal forest—A synthesis 1. Environmental Reviews, 21(4), 260-292.
Lattimore, B., Smith, T., & Richardson, J. (2010). Coping with complexity: designing low-impact forest
bioenergy systems using an adaptive forest management framework and other sustainable forest management tools. The Forestry Chronicle, 86(1), 20-27.
Laurila-Pant, M., Lehikoinen, A., Uusitalo, L., & Venesjärvi, R. (2015). How to value biodiversity in
environmental management?. Ecological Indicators, 55, 1-11. Luckert, M. K., Haley, D., & Hoberg, G. (2011). Policies for Sustainably Managing Canada? s Forests:
Tenure, Stumpage Fees, and Forest Practices. UBC Press. Mansoor, M., Stupak, I., & Smith, T. (2016). Private Regulation in the Bioenergy Sector. In Law and
Policy of Biofuels. (pp.406-438). Edward Edgar Publishing. Moore, S. E., Cubbage, F., & Eicheldinger, C. (2012). Impacts of forest stewardship council (FSC) and
sustainable forestry initiative (SFI) forest certification in north America. Journal of Forestry, 110(2), 79-88.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). (2009). Effects of forest management
on water resources in Canada: A research review. Technical Bulletin No. 969. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. (2014). Forest Operations Compliance Audit
Performance Indicators. Retrieved from: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/nr-rn/pdf/en/ForestsCrownLands/AuditPerformanceIndicators.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2014a) Forest Management Guide for Boreal
Landscapes. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2014b). Independent Forest Audit Process and
Protocol 2015. Retrieved from: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/3971/ifapp-2015-2014-11-30-aoda.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2016) Ontario’s Crown Forests: Opportunities to
Enhance Carbon Storage? A Discussion Paper. Retrieved from: http://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/files/er/mnrf-16-244-discussion-paper.pdf
Province of British Columbia (2016). Forest and Range Practices Act: Chapter 69. Retrieved from:
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_02069_01 Rametsteiner, E., & Simula, M. (2003). Forest certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest
management?. Journal of environmental management, 67(1), 87-98. Steenberg, J. W. N., Duinker, P.N., Van Damme, L., & Zielke, K. (2013). Criteria and Indicators of
Sustainable Forest Management in a Changing Climate: An Evaluation of Canada's National Framework. Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(1), 32-64
36
Sustainable Forestry Initiative. (2015). SFI 2015-2019 Forest Management Guide. Retrieved from: http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/2015-2019-standardsandrules-section-2-pdf/
Sustainable Forestry Initiative. (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.sfiprogram.org
Taylor, A., (2015). Human Landscapes of Canada. The Atlantic. Retrieved from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/02/human-landscapes-of-canada/385306/ United Nations New York, Declaration of Forests. (2014). Forests Action Statements and Action Plans.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2014/07/New-York-Declaration-on-Forest-–-Action-Statement- and-Action-Plan.pdf
Woodall, C. W., Coulston, J. W., Domke, G. M., Walters, B. F., Wear, D. N., Smith, J. E., Andersen,
H.E., Clough, B.J., Cohen, W.B., Griffith, D.M. & Hagen, S. C. (2015). The US forest carbon accounting framework: stocks and stock change, 1990-2016. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs154.pdf
Zhang, M., & Wei, X. (2014). Contrasted hydrological responses to forest harvesting in two large
neighbouring watersheds in snow hydrology dominant environment: implications for forest management and future forest hydrology studies. Hydrological Processes, 28(26), 6183-6195.
37
Appendix A
38
TheaimofthisstudyistointerviewforestmanagersacrossCanadatoinvestigatethechallengesin
achievingdesiredbenefitsofbiodiversity,water,andcarbonstorageonwell-managedforestsinfive
eco-zoneregionsincluding(1)PacificMaritime,(2)MontaneCordillera,(3)BorealPlains,(4)Boreal
Shield,and(5)AtlanticMaritime.Theobjectiveistoidentifydifferencesinmanagementstrategiesin
thesementionedeco-zonesandhighlightreal-worldexamplesofhowforestsmanagersareaddressing
environmentalconcernsacrossCanada.Asbiodiversityisabroadtopic,thisstudywillbeprimarilyfocusedonissuesconcerningvertebrate
diversityinmanagedforests.Ifappropriate,non-vertebratescanbementionedinyouranswers,but
pleasespecifyspecies,orclass,wheneverpossible.Withtheresponsesofthissurvey,theywillbeappliedtotwodifferentprojects:1.) Ameta-analysisforSFIInc.outlininghowissuesconcerningcarbon,water,andbiodiversityare
addressedinforestmanagementstrategies2.) AcapstoneprojectfortheUniversityofTorontowhichfocusesonvertebrateinteractionson
managedforestlandscapes.
Thissurveyshouldnottakemorethan60minutes;however,weareaskingyoutorespondtothis
surveywithasmuchdetailaspossibleinordertogainagreaterunderstandingofthepositiveeffectsof
forestmanagementhasonconservationimpact.StructureofSurvey:Thesurveyisstructuredinto3parts:- Part1–Asksyougeneralquestionsaboutyourlandbase
- Part2a–Asksyouquestionsconcerningbiodiversity,waterandcarbonmanagementinyour
forestmanagementstrategies
- Part2b-Asksyoutorankvalueswhichwerementionedinpart2b
- Part3–Asksyouadditionalquestionsconcerninginformationaboutyourlandbaseandasksfor
youropinionsinachievingdesiredgoalsforbiodiversityonmanagedlands.
39
Part 1 – General Questions
1. Howlonghaveyoubeenworkinginyourcurrentposition?
2. Howlonghasyourlandbasebeencertifiedtooneofthethreeforestmanagementstandards
occurringinCanada(e.g.SFI,CSAandFSC)?
a. WhendidyoufirstcertifytoSFI?
b. Hasyourlandbaseeverbeencertifiedtomorethanonestandard?Pleasespecifyyears.
3. ForestmanagementinCanadaisrecognizedascontributingtothemanagementofwildlifespecies,initiallyfirstasgamespeciesthenmorerecentlyaddressingtheconservationof
biodiversity.
a. Whenwasthefirstactiveforestmanagementobjectiveforgamespeciesinitiatedon
yourlandbase?
b. Whendidyourforestmanagementbegintomoreactivelyaddressbiodiversity
managementmorebroadly?
4. Whatisthemostsignificantchallengeassociatedwithachievingvertebratebiodiversitygoalsonyourmanagedlands?
5. Whatindicatorsdoyouusetomeasurebiologicaldiversity?
6. Ingeneral,doyouhaveadequatetools(e.g.provincialandotherguidelines,expertsystems,
BMPs)toenableyoutomanageyourlandsfor:
a. Biodiversity?
b. Hydrology?
c. Carbonsequestration?
7. Scientificliteraturesuggeststhattherearesignificantdifferencesbetweennaturalandharvestdisturbanceswhichmayresultinlong-termchangesinlandscapes.Doyoubelievethisistrue?
Whyorwhynot?
a. Howwilltheselong-termchangesimpactbiodiversity?Pleaseprovideexamples.
b. Howwilltheselong-termchangesimpacthydrology?Pleaseprovideexamples.
c. Howwilltheselong-termchangesimpactcarbonsequestration?Pleaseprovide
examples.
40
Part 2a - Questions Associated with Values in Management Strategies:
Biodiversity:1. Doyouusepestmanagementtoolsforvertebratespeciestolimitpestdamage(i.e.deer
browsing,beaverdambuilding,rodentdamagetoseedlings,etc.)?
a. Forwhatvertebratespecies?
b. Whatmanagementstrategiesdoyouuse?
2. Whateffortsdoyoumaketomaintainwildlifediversityatalandscapelevelonyourmanaged
lands?
a. Howdoyoumeasuresuccessoflandscape-scalemanagement?
3. Howdoyoudesignroadnetworkstoreduceimpactstobiodiversity?
a. Doyoufindthatsomevertebratesbenefitfromtheseroadnetworks?Ifso,please
identifythesespecificvertebratespecies.
4. Howdoyouaddressconcernsofedgeeffectsimpactingbiodiversity?
a. Doyoufindthatsomevertebratesbenefitfromedgeeffects?Ifso,pleaseidentifythese
specificvertebratespecies.
5. Howdoyouidentifyecologicallyimportantsites?
a. Howdoyouincorporatethesesitesintoyourmanagementplans(i.e.wetlands,forest
corridors,endangeredspecieshabitat,etc.)?
b. Hastheidentificationandmanagementofthesesiteshelpedinpromotingbiodiversity?
Ifso,whatspecieshavebenefitedthemost?
6. Doesyourmanagementplancallforsupressnaturaldisturbanceevents(i.e.fire,insects,disease,andwindthrow)?Whyorwhynot?
a. Howhasthisbenefittedvertebratediversityonyourmanagementsite?Pleaseprovide
examples.
7. Whateffortsdoyoumaketomaintainwildlifediversityatastandlevelonyourmanagedlands?
a. Howdoyoumeasuresuccessofstandlevelmanagement?
41
8. Howdoyoumakeanefforttomaintainhabitatdiversityonyourmanagedlands?
a. Doyoufindthatsomevertebratesbenefitfromstand-levelchangesresultingfrom
forestryoperationsinregardsto:
i. Recentlyharvestedareas?Ifso,whatspecies?
ii. Earlysuccessionalforest?Ifso,whatspecies?
b. Howdoyouaddressconcernsformaintainingoldgrowthforestsonyourmanaged
lands?
c. Howdoyoudetermineappropriaterotationageswhichincorporateconcernsforbiologicaldiversity?
9. Whateffortsaremadetoincreasehabitatswithdowned-woodydebris?
a. Whichvertebratespeciesbenefitmostfromthis?
10. Whateffortsaremadetoincreasehabitatswithwildlifetrees(alsocommonlyreferredtoas
snags)?
a. Whichvertebratespeciesbenefitmostfromthis?
11. Whateffortsaremadetopromotetreediversityonyourmanagedland?Howareyou
addressingtheconcernsof‘un-mixing’ofthemixedwoodforests?a. Whichvertebratespeciesbenefitmostfromthis?
Water:12. Whatdoyouseeasthebiggestissueaffectingwaterqualityinyourforest?
a. Whataresomeofthewaysinwhichyourforestmanagementcontributestowater
quality?
b. Inyourexperience,haschangesinwatertemperaturebeenanissueforyourmanaged
forests?Yesorno?Explain.
c. Inyourexperience,hassedimentationbeenanissueinyourmanagedforest?Yesor
no?Explain.
d. Inyourexperience,hasnutrientleachingortoxicsubstancesbeenanissueinyourmanagedforest?Yesorno?Explain.
42
13. Whatdoyouseeasthebiggestissueaffectingwaterquantityinyourforest?
a. Whataresomeofthewaysinwhichyourforestmanagementcontributestowater
quantity?
14. Whataresomeofthewaysinwhichyourforestmanagementcontributestothemaintenanceof
diversefishpopulations?
15. Whateffortshavebeenmadetoensureharvestedareasforloggingroadsarenotsusceptibleto
severeerosion?
Carbon:16. Whateffortshavebeenmadetoaddresscarbonmanagement(i.e.sequestration,protectionof
highcarbonsoilsandsites)onyourlandbase?
43
Part 2b – Ranking of Values in Land Management Strategy
Thefollowingchartlistsvaluesassociatedwithbiodiversity,waterandcarbonmanagement.Please
rankthevaluesfromlowestpriority(1)tohighestpriority(5)whendevelopingstrategiesforland
managementinforestry.Ifavalueisnotdeemedimportantforyourlandmanagementstrategy,thenit
isadvisedthatthevalueisidentifiedas‘N/A’.Followingthissection,therewillalsobeadditional
questionswhichexpandonthesevalues(seepart2b):Pleasenote:Inordertoproducemeaningfulresults,itisadvisedthatnotallvaluesberankedas
higherpriority(4-5).Itisassumedthatallofthesevaluesarealreadyincorporatedintomanagement
strategies;therefore,thepurposeofthissectionistocategorizewhichvaluesaredeemedmost
importantinrelationtoothers.RankingOfValuesInLandManagementStrategy Nota
Priority
LowerPriority
Moderate
PriorityHigher
Priority
Biodiversity1. Managementofvertebratepestspecies?(i.e.
deerbrowsing,beaverdamconstruction,etc.)N/A12345
2. Promotingbiodiversityatalandscapelevel? N/A123453. Impactsofroadnetworkstobiodiversity? N/A123454. Impactsofedgeeffects/fragmentationto
biodiversity?N/A12345
5. Identifyinghabitatsimportantforbiodiversity?
(i.e.corridors,wetlands,nestingsites)N/A12345
6. Resiliencetonaturaldisturbances?(i.e.fire,insects,disease,andwindthrow)
N/A12345
7. Promotingbiodiversityatastandlevel? N/A12345
8. Maintaininghabitatdiversity? N/A12345
9. Promotionoftreediversity? N/A1234510. Managementofwildlifetrees? N/A1234511. Managementofdowned-woodydebris? N/A12345
Water12. Preventingnegativeimpactstowaterquality? N/A1234513. Preventingnegativeimpactstowaterquantity? N/A1234514. Maintenanceofdiversefishhabitatand
populations?N/A12345
15. Minimizingsevereerosioninharvestareas? N/A12345Carbon
16. Addressingcarbonmanagement?(i.e.sequestration,protectionofhighcarbon
soilsandsites)
N/A12345
44
Part 3 - Additional Questions:
1. Ithasbeensuggestedinscientificliterature,thattherelationshipsbetweenbiologicaldiversity
andtheenvironmentareimpactedbymanyfactors(i.e.changesinclimate,habitat,population,
etc.).Howdoyouthinkthismulti-causalrelationshipshouldbeaddressedinforestmanagementtodeterminewhetherforestmanagementisimpedingorpromotingbiological
diversity?
2. Doyouhavespecificliteratureonthecontributionofmanagedforeststobiodiversitymanagementthatyoucansharewithme?
a. Doyouhaveaspeciesinventoryyouwouldbewillingtosharewithustofurtherdevelopourunderstandingoftheissuesconcerningbiodiversityonyourmanagement
site?(i.e.anexcelsheetsummarizingspeciescomposition)
3. Doyouhavespecificliteratureonthecontributionofmanagedforeststowatermanagementthatyoucansharewithme?
4. Doyouhavespecificliteratureonthecontributionofmanagedforeststocarbonmanagementthatyoucansharewithme?
5. Isthereanythingyouwouldliketoaddconcerningconservationimpactonyourforest
management?
45
Appendix B
Consent Information Form
1. Do I have your permission to use the information gathered from this survey towards research with SFI Inc. to better understand the challenges associated with achieving desired benefits of biodiversity, water, and carbon storage on well-managed forests?
If yes, please specify below whether what information can be utilized into our report with SFI Inc.? (i.e. no information can be used, information allowed in aggregate, full disclosure with company name only, full disclose with interviewee name only, and full disclosure with company and interviewee name)
Confidentiality level: ____________________
Interviewee’s Signature: _____________________________
2. Do I have your permission to use the information gathered from this survey towards a capstone project with the University of Toronto which will focus on vertebrate interactions on managed forest landscapes?
If yes, please specify below whether what information can be utilized into our report with the University of Toronto? (i.e. no information can be used, information allowed in aggregate, full disclosure with company name only, full disclose with interviewee name only, and full disclosure with company and interviewee name)
Confidentiality level: ____________________
Interviewee’s Signature: _____________________________
Please note: The research study you are participating in may be reviewed for quality assurance to make sure that the required laws and guidelines are followed. If chosen, (a) representative(s) of the Human Research Ethics Program (HREP) may access study-related data and/or consent materials as part of the review. All information accessed by the HREP will be upheld to the same level of confidentiality that has been stated by the research team
46
47
Appendix C Management Values
Key Terms
SFI NB ON BC
Pest Management
“pest management”
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Landscape Level
“landscape level”, “landscape scale”
1.1.1d Forest management planning at a level appropriate to the size and scale of the operation, including: biodiversity at landscape scales; 1.1.2b Would not convert native forest types that are rare and ecologically significant at the landscape level or put any native forest types at risk of becoming rare; 1.2.2c Ecological impacts of the conversion including a review at the site and landscape scale as well as consideration for any appropriate mitigation measures. 4.1.1 Program to incorporate the conservation of native biological diversity, including species, wildlife habitats and ecological community types at stand and landscape levels. 4.1.3 Document diversity of forest cover types and age or size classes at the individual ownership or forest tenure level, and where credible data are available, at the landscape scale. Working individually or
Addressed indirectly in other performance measures
3.3.3 FMP description of other parameters of current forest condition (The FMPM requires area of managed Crown forest available for timber production, landscape pattern or forest diversity indices, habitat for selected wildlife species, landscape processes and a description of fish and wildlife resources, land uses.) 1. Review the description of other parameters of current forest condition in the FMP by considering implications on the development of management strategies/LTMD and decisions in the plan. 3.9.4 Phase II planned operations harvest and natural depletions 1. Assess the planning of harvest areas for the second five-year term to determine whether the requirements of the applicable FMPM were met and consider: • whether any changes to the planned harvest area are likely to have implications on landscape pattern objectives and indicators 7.1 Year Ten Annual Report (AR)/Trend Analysis Report 2. Analysis of forest disturbances • examine the tables and text related to the analysis of forest disturbances to determine whether it accurately quantifies the size and frequency of disturbances and if it describes progress towards completion of planned forest disturbances, assesses the implications on the achievement of desired landscape pattern and provides any recommendations for consideration in future disturbance planning. Assess whether this analysis is reasonable.
Objectives Set by Government for Water, Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity within Riparian Areas 8. The objective set by government for water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas is, without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia's forests, to conserve, at the landscape level, the water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat and biodiversity associated with those riparian areas. Objectives Set by Government for Wildlife and Biodiversity — Landscape Level 9. The objective set by government for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape level is, without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia's forests and to the extent practicable, to design areas on which timber harvesting is to be carried out that resemble, both spatially and temporally, the patterns of natural disturbance that occur within the landscape. Objectives Set by Government for Visual Quality 9.2 (2) The objective set by government in relation to visual quality for a scenic area, that: (a) was established on or before October 24, 2002, and (b) for which there is no visual quality objective is to ensure that the altered forest landscape for the scenic area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Factors Relating to Objectives Set by Government for Wildlife and Biodiversity 3. (1) The following factors apply to a result or strategy for the objective set out in section 9 [objectives set by government for wildlife and biodiversity — landscape level]: (a) the size, distribution and salient characteristics of the area being designed for harvesting; (b) the size, distribution and salient characteristics of other areas within the landscape that have been shaped by, or affected by, natural disturbance; (c) the extent to which wildlife habitat areas, ungulate winter ranges, riparian management areas, scenic areas and other areas established to manage forest resources complement efforts to resemble natural disturbance patterns in a landscape, including old growth
48
collaboratively to support diversity of native forest cover types and age or size classes that enhance biological diversity at the landscape scale.
Road Networks
“road” 1.3.1 Forestlands converted to other land uses shall not be certified to this SFI 2015-2019 Forest Management Standard. This does not apply to forestlands used for forest and wildlife management such as wildlife food plots or infrastructure such as forest roads, log processing areas, trails etc. 2.2.8c. Use of management practices appropriate to the situation, for example: control of public road access during and immediately after applications; 2.3.6 Road construction and skidding layout to minimize impacts to soil productivity. 3.2.1 Program addressing management and protection of rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, other water bodies and riparian areas during all phases of management, including the layout and construction of roads and skid trails to maintain water reach, flow and quality. 5.1.2 Incorporation of aesthetic considerations in harvesting, road, landing design and management, and other management activities where visual
4.1.1 Proper road location, construction and maintenance provides for safe access to crown land while minimizing the risks to the environment and other resource values. 4.1.2 The road is constructed to standard. 4.1.3 Road is maintained to standard
3.4.1.2 FMP achievement of the Checkpoint ‘Support for Base Model’ (2004 FMPM) or ‘Support for Base Model Inventory and Base Model’ (2009 FMPM) 1. Assess and report on whether the FMP modeling assumptions used are reasonable and whether they are based on the best available information. Examine: all modeling assumptions including land base, growth and yield, fire cycle, operability, forest succession, unplanned losses, thinning, loss to roads and landings, silviculture, revenue, biological limits, wildlife 3.4.1.5 FMP achievement of the Checkpoint ‘Preliminary 1. Endorsement of the LTMD’ (2004 FMPM) or ‘Support for the Proposed Long-Term Management Direction, Determination of Sustainability and Primary Road • Corridors’ and ‘Preliminary Endorsement of Long-Term Management Direction’ Checkpoints (2009 FMPM) 4. Assess the effectiveness of primary road planning. Include the following: • whether the rationale provided for each road is reasonable • confirm whether alternatives were considered and assess the environmental analysis of alternatives, proposed road corridor use management strategy and rationale• whether public comments were summarized and considered• whether 20-year primary road planning was required on the MU• examine the preferred and optional harvest areas maps to determine if the confirmed and alternative corridors have been identified 3.5.1 FMP areas selected for operations 2. For contingency areas assess whether the FMP meets applicable FMPM requirements including indicating how contingency area will be used (i.e. amount of area, to be used as replacement area, identified separately, readily accessible, any AOC and roads
Restrictions in a riparian management area 50 (1) A person must not construct a road in a riparian management area, unless one of the following applies: (a) locating the road outside the riparian management area would create a higher risk of sediment delivery to the stream, wetland or lake to which the riparian management area applies; (b) there is no other practicable option for locating the road; (c) the road is required as part of a stream crossing. (2) If a road is constructed within a riparian management area, a person must not carry out road maintenance activities beyond the clearing width of the road, except as necessary to maintain a stream crossing. (3) A person who is authorized in respect of a road must not remove gravel or other fill from within a riparian management area in the process of constructing, maintaining or deactivating a road, unless (a) the gravel or fill is within a road prism, (b) the gravel or fill is at a stream crossing, or (c) there is no other practicable option. Stream crossings 55 (1) An authorized person who builds a stream crossing as part of a road, a temporary access structure or permanent access structure must locate, build and use the crossing in a manner that (a) protects the stream channel and stream bank immediately above and below the stream crossing, and (b) mitigates disturbance to the stream channel and stream bank at the crossing. (2) An authorized person who builds a stream crossing as part of a temporary access structure must remove the crossing when it is no longer required by the person. Licensed waterworks 60 (1) An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity must ensure that the primary forest activity does not damage a licensed waterworks. (2) An authorized person must not harvest timber or construct a road in a community watershed if the timber harvesting or road construction is within a 100 m radius upslope of a licensed waterworks where the water is diverted for human consumption, unless the timber harvesting or road construction will not increase sediment delivery to the intake. Roads in a community watershed 62 (1) To prevent interference with the subsurface flow path of a drainage area that contributes to a spring that is a source of water for a licensed waterworks, the minister may (a) identify a spring in a community watershed, (b) specify a distance from the spring within which a person who constructs a road must not locate the road, and (c) permit a person who constructs a road to locate the road closer to the
49
impacts are a concern. 11.2.1 Participation in or support of SFI Implementation Committees to establish criteria and identify delivery mechanisms for wood producer training courses and periodic continuing education that address: best management practices, including streamside management and road construction, maintenance and retirement;
planning completed) 3.5.9 FMP road planning 1. Assess the effectiveness of roads planning including whether: • adequate information was available for planning all roads• planned road access in consistent with the proposed management strategy (2004 FMPM)/ LTMD (2009 FMPM) • planned road access supports development of the unit over time and that all roads planned are required • plan documentation meets the applicable FMPM road planning requirements including:• whether the rationale provided for each road is reasonable• environmental analysis of alternative locations, corridor widths• whether public comments were summarized and considered • AOC planning considered the specific values of the site, including a reasonable range of alternative/acceptable variations to 100m locations in the AOC • use management strategy requirements were completed and reflect the proposed management strategy where appropriate• road locations including alternatives/acceptable variations were mapped as required • conditions on existing roads and/or landings planned to be used for forest management purposes during the FMP period are documented in the FMP• operational standards for the extraction of aggregate resources for Forestry Aggregate Pits, aggregate extraction areas and appropriate conditions on operations for Forestry Aggregate Pits are documented in the FMP 3.5.11 FMP monitoring programs (includes road and water crossing monitoring) 1. Review the plan text to determine how MNRF will conduct the district program for auditing forest operations and forest operations inspections. 2. Assess whether the monitoring programs
spring than the distance specified under paragraph (b). (2) If the minister does not specify a distance under subsection (1) (b), a person who constructs a road must not locate the road closer than a 100 m radius upslope of the spring identified under subsection (1) (a), unless the construction does not interfere with the subsurface flow path of a drainage area that contributes to the spring. Authority to Construct, Maintain or Deactivate a Road 70.1 Only a person who is authorized in respect of a road may construct, maintain or deactivate the road if the road is a road described in section 22 (2) of the Act. Application of Sections in this Part 71 Sections 72 to 78 and sections 82 to 84 apply only to persons authorized in respect of a road. Roads and Associated Structures 72 A person who constructs or maintains a road must ensure that the road and the bridges, culverts, fords and other structures associated with the road are structurally sound and safe for use by industrial users. Design of Bridges 73 A person who builds a bridge for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a road must ensure that the design and fabrication of the bridge (a) meets or exceeds standards applicable to roads at the time the design or fabrication is done, in respect of (i) bridge design, as established by the Canadian Standards Association, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CAN/CSA-S6, and (ii) soil properties, as they apply to bridge piers and abutments, as established by the Canadian Foundation of Engineering Manual, and (b) takes into account the effect of logging trucks with unbalanced loads and off-centre driving. Peak flow 74 (1) A person who builds a bridge across a stream or installs a culvert in a stream for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a road must ensure that the bridge or culvert is designed to pass the highest peak flow of the stream that can reasonably be expected within the return periods specified below for the length of time it is anticipated the bridge or culvert will remain on the site. (2) A person may build a bridge that will not conform to the requirements of subsection (1) if (a) the bridge will pass the flow that will occur during the period the bridge remains on the site, (b) the construction of the bridge occurs during a period of low flow, and (c) the bridge, or a component of the bridge that is vulnerable to damage by high flow, is removed before any period of high flow begins. (3) A person may install a culvert that will not conform to the requirements of subsection (1) if (a) the installation is temporary and the person does not expect to subsequently install a replacement culvert at that location, (b) the stream in which the culvert is being installed is not a fish stream, (c) the culvert will pass the flow that will occur during the period the
50
to be implemented, including forecast level of assessment, are sufficient to assess the compliance and program effectiveness on the management unit. 3.9.7 Phase II planned operations road planning 1. Assess the effectiveness of roads planning including whether: • plan documentation meets the applicable FMPM road planning requirements including: • whether the rationale provided for each road is reasonable • environmental analysis of alternative locations, corridor widths • whether public comments were summarized and considered • AOC planning considered the specific values/conditions of the site, including a reasonable range of alternative/acceptable variations to 100m locations in the AOC • use management strategy requirements were completed and reflect the proposed management strategy where appropriate • road locations including alternatives/acceptable variations were mapped as required • conditions on existing roads and/or landings planned to be used for forest management purposes during the second five-year term are documented in the Phase II planned operations operational standards for the extraction of aggregate resources for Forestry Aggregate Pits, aggregate extraction areas and appropriate conditions on • operations for Forestry Aggregate Pits are documented in the Phase II planned operations 3.9.9 Phase II planned operations monitoring programs 1. Where changes were made to the monitoring and assessment program for the second five-year term: • review the Phase II planned operations text to determine how MNRF will conduct the district program for auditing forest operations and forest operations inspections • assess whether the monitoring programs to be implemented, including forecast level of assessment, are sufficient to assess the compliance and
culvert remains on the site, (d) the installation of the culvert occurs during a period of low flow, and (e) the culvert is removed before any period of high flow begins. Structural Defects 75 A person who maintains a road must do one or more of the following if a structural defect or deficiency occurs on a bridge that is part of that road: (a) correct the defect or deficiency to the extent necessary to protect (i) industrial users of the bridge, and (ii) downstream property, improvements or forest resources that could be affected if the bridge fails; (b) close, remove or replace the bridge; (c) restrict traffic loads to a safe level; (d) place a sign, on each bridge approach, stating the maximum load capacity of the bridge. Culvert Fabrication 76 A person who builds a culvert for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a road must fabricate all permanent culvert materials according to (a) culvert fabrication standards, as established by the Canadian Standards Association, Corrugated Steel Pipe Products, CSA G401 and Plastic Nonpressure Pipe Compendium, section B182.8 of the B1800 Series, that are applicable to roads at the time of the fabrication, or (b) standards that ensure at least the same strength and durability as the standards referred to in paragraph (a). Retaining Information 77 (1) A person who builds a bridge or major culvert for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a road must do all of the following: (a) prepare or obtain (i) pile driving records, (ii) for new materials used to build the bridge or major culvert, mill test certificates, in-plant steel fabrication drawings, and concrete test results, (iii) soil compaction results, and (iv) other relevant field and construction data; (b) prepare as-built drawings of the bridge or major culvert; (c) retain the information referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) until the earlier of the date that (i) the bridge or major culvert is removed, and (ii) the person is no longer required to maintain the road. (2) Subject to subsection (3), a person responsible for maintaining a road must retain a copy of inspection records for a bridge or major culvert associated with the road for at least one year after the bridge or major culvert is removed from the site. (3) Unless the road has been deactivated, a person must submit to the district manager or the timber sales manager, as applicable, the documents, drawings and records described in subsections (1) and (2) in respect of a road if the person is no longer required to maintain the road because the district manager or timber sales manager (a) cancelled the road permit, road use permit or special use permit for the road, and (b) does not require the road to be deactivated.
51
program effectiveness on the management unit. (includes road and water crossing monitoring) 3.13.2 Amendments and changes to values 1. Review changes during AWS implementation and assess whether an amendment was processed as required of the FMPM. Include review of whether: • new or changed conditions related to road crossings of AOCs were developed as appropriate 3.14 Annual Work Schedules 1. Assess the AWS for consistency with:• the FMP• the planning requirements of the applicable FMPM including AOCs (prescriptions, conditions on roads), harvest (including bridging and second-pass operations), wood utilization, renewal, maintenance (tending and protection), renewal support, roads (including water crossings, aggregates), fire prevention and preparedness, revenues and expenditures, monitoring and assessment, prescribed burns, aerial herbicide projects, insect pest management programs, submission, review and approval 4.7 Access 1. Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved access activities. Include the following:• select a representative sample of each type of access activity (road construction, various types of water crossings - winter, culverts, bridges, road maintenance, decommissioning, and reclamation) from primary, secondary/branch and tertiary/operational roads constructed during the five-year period of the audit; include category 14/forestry aggregate pits for new roads and existing roads • an examination of aerial photographs, FOIP reports, annual report information, including maps, for these operations determine whether the operations implemented were consistent with • locations in the approved FMP, AWS, • conditions on construction including the approved water crossings structure, Fisheries Act review, and conditions on crossings of
Clearing Widths 78 A person who constructs or maintains a road must ensure clearing widths are at least the minimum width necessary to accommodate the road, having regard to all of the following: (a) the safety of industrial users; (b) the topography of the area; (c) the drainage of water in the area; (d) the stability of terrain in the area; (e) operational requirements, including (i) the placement of pits, quarries, landings or waste areas, (ii) the storage of bridge or culvert material, (iii) the amount of area required to operate equipment within the clearing width, including equipment turnaround sites, (iv) snow removal, and (v) fencing and other ancillary structures. Road Maintenance 79 (1) A person may maintain a road only if authorized or required to do so under the Act or this regulation. (2) A person who is authorized in respect of a road must maintain the road, including bridges, culverts, fords and other structures associated with the road, until (a) the road is deactivated, (b) the district manager notifies the person that the road should not be deactivated due to use or potential use of the road by others, (c) a road permit or special use permit for the road is issued to another person, or (d) the road is declared a forest service road under the Forest Act. (3) Subject to subsection (4), the government must maintain a forest service road, including bridges, culverts, fords and other structures associated with the road, until the road is deactivated. (4) The district manager may order the holder of a road use permit that authorizes the use of a forest service road to assume all or part of the responsibility to maintain the road, including bridges, culverts, fords and other structures associated with the road. (5) Repealed. (6) A person required to maintain a road must ensure all of the following: (a) the structural integrity of the road prism and clearing width are protected; (b) the drainage systems of the road are functional; (c) the road can be used safely by industrial users. (7) A holder of a road use permit required to maintain a forest service road under subsection (4), on giving the district manager at least 30 days notice, may do one or more of the following in respect of the forest service road: (a) build a bridge; (b) install a major culvert; (c) install a culvert in a fish stream. (8) Within 30 days of receiving a notice referred to in subsection (7), the district manager may impose requirements respecting a bridge or culvert referred to in that subsection, and the holder of the road use permit must comply with those requirements. (9) If the district manager does not impose requirements under subsection (8), the holder of the road use permit may proceed in accordance with the notice given under subsection (7).
52
other AOCs • use management (maintenance, access control, any decommissioning or reclamation provisions) • assess whether roads have been constructed, maintained, decommissioned, and reclaimed to minimize environmental impacts and provide for public and operator safety • assess whether the planned monitoring program for roads and water crossings was implemented as planned and whether it was effective in determining any environmental or public safety concerns 2. Select a representative 10% sample of the range of eligible construction and maintenance activities (excluding activities like grading and ploughing that cannot be confirmed in the field), seasons of operations and variety of operators for roads (primary or branch) constructed or maintained with funding under the Road Construction & Maintenance Agreement. Examine whether there is Ontario evidence that the work was performed as described in the invoice. 3. Assess whether the Algonquin Forest Authority maintained the public access roads as required of condition 13.1 and Appendix E of APFA the Agreement. 6.5 Annual Report 1. Examine the annual reports for the term of the audit and assess whether the text, tables and maps including digital information is accurate, complete and in accordance with the applicable requirements, including the associated deadlines. Include: • review the roads related text of annual reports, consider observations during field audits and assess whether the discussion of effectiveness of road use management strategies is reasonable. Assess whether the annual reports appropriately summarized the monitoring of roads and water crossings completed during the year including any observations related to erosion, washouts, access controls
Road use Under a Forestry Licence to Cut 79.2 (1) In this section, "holder" means the holder of a forestry licence to cut. (2) Section 22.1 (1) of the Act does not apply to a holder in respect of a road if (a) the road is located within the area covered by the holder's forestry licence to cut, (b) the forestry licence to cut authorizes the holder to use the road, and (c) the circumstances set out in section 22.1 (1) (c) to (e) of the Act do not apply. (3) If a holder's forestry licence to cut authorizes the holder to use a road, other than a road that was constructed under authorization of the forestry licence to cut, the holder, as soon as practicable after completion of use of the road but before the forestry licence to cut expires or is surrendered or cancelled, must ensure that (a) the structural integrity of the road prism is safe for use by industrial users, and (b) the drainage systems for the road are functional. (4) If a holder constructs a road under authorization of a forestry licence to cut, the holder must deactivate the road before the forestry licence to cut expires or is surrendered or cancelled, unless (a) the district manager notifies the holder that the road should not be deactivated because of use, or potential use, of the road by others, (b) a road permit or special use permit for the road is issued to another person, or (c) the road is declared a forest service road under the Forest Act. Fibre Recovery Tenure Holders — Exemption from Section 22.1 of the Act 79.21 (1) Subject to subsection (3), section 22.1 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act does not apply to a fibre recovery tenure holder in respect of using a road, other than a road described in section 22.1 (1) (d) or (e) of the Act, on condition that, (a) while using the road, the fibre recovery tenure holder, maintains the road in accordance with the provisions of this regulation respecting maintenance of a road, including those provisions that refer to carrying out a primary forest activity, to the extent that those provisions relate to road maintenance, (b) as soon as practicable after completion of use of the road, the fibre recovery tenure holder ensures that (i) the structural integrity of the road prism is safe for use by industrial users, and (ii) the drainage systems for the road are functional, and (c) the fibre recovery tenure holder does not carry out in a stream, or on, in or near a stream bank, maintenance to the road other than to the road surface. (2) Section 22.1 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act does not apply to a fibre recovery tenure holder using a forest service road for the purposes of the tenure. (3) A fibre recovery tenure holder who uses a road under section 22.1 (1) (e) of the Act must maintain the road in accordance with subsection (1) if the only person referred to in section 22.1 (1) (e) of the Act in respect of that road holds a cutting permit for the road.
53
(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), if the minister is satisfied that the use of a road as described in those subsections by a fibre recovery tenure holder will (a) materially affect the use of the road by others, or (b) adversely impact forest resources, the minister may, by written notice, require the fibre recovery tenure holder to comply with section 22.1 (1) of the Act, or a provision of it, in respect of the fibre recovery tenure holder's use of a particular road. (5) A fibre recovery tenure holder proposing to use a forest service road under subsection (2.1) must give the minister 5 clear days' notice of the date on which the fibre recovery tenure holder will begin to use the road. Restricting Road Access to Protect a Community from Wildfire 79.3 (1) The holder of a forestry licence to cut that authorizes the construction or use of a road may close the road or restrict its use if (a) the forestry licence to cut was issued for the purpose of protecting a community from wildfire, and (b) the holder has approval from the minister under subsection (2). (2) The minister may give approval for the purposes of subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the minister, use of the road would likely (a) cause significant damage to the road, (b) cause significant sediment delivery to a stream, wetland or lake, or (c) endanger other forest resources. Wilderness Roads 81 Despite section 22.2 [non-industrial use of a road] of the Act and section 79 [road maintenance], if a forest service road, or a road authorized under a road permit, a cutting permit, a timber sale licence that does not provide for cutting permits, a special use permit or a woodlot licence is not being used by industrial users, (a) section 79 (6) (a) and (b) apply to that road only to the extent necessary to ensure there is no material adverse effect on a forest resource, and (b) section 79 (6) (c) does not apply to that road. Road Deactivation 82 (1) A person who deactivates a road must do the following: (a) barricade the road surface width in a clearly visible manner to prevent access by motor vehicles, other than all-terrain vehicles; (b) remove bridge and log culvert superstructures and stream pipe culverts; (c) remove bridge and log culvert substructures, if the failure of these substructures would have a material adverse effect on downstream property, improvements or forest resources; (d) stabilize the road prism or the clearing width of the road if the stabilization is necessary to reduce the likelihood of a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act. (2) A person may submit to the district manager, in writing, a request for an exemption from the requirements of subsection (1) (a) if (a) the person has not begun deactivating the road, and (b) the road does not contain any bridges or major culverts. (3) The minister, in a notice given to a person who submits a request under subsection (2), may exempt the person if the minister is satisfied that the effectiveness of the works described in subsection (1) will not be negatively impacted by motor vehicle use.
54
(4) If a road deactivated under this section is a road that was used under the authority of a road permit associated with, or a cutting permit issued under, a tree farm licence, the holder of the tree farm licence must maintain the stability of each part of the road that was deactivated. Hazard Warning 83 At all times while a road is being deactivated, a person must have a sign posted that warns users of the deactivation. Notice — Road in Community Watershed 84 At least 48 hours before commencement of road construction or deactivation in a community watershed, a person must notify affected water licensees or affected water purveyors.
Edge Effects “edge”, “clearcut”
5.2.1. Average size of clearcut harvest areas does not exceed 120 acres (50 hectares), except when necessary to meet regulatory requirements, achieve ecological objectives, or respond to forest health emergencies or other natural catastrophes.
5.2.2. Documentation through internal records of clearcut size and the process for c alculating average size.
5.3.3.Trees in clearcut harvest areas are at least 3 years old or 5 feet (1.5 meters) high at the desired level of stocking before adjacent areas are clearcut, or as appropriate to address operational and economic considerations, alternative methods to reach the performance measure are utilized by the Program Participant.
N/A 3.5.6 FMP harvest 2. Review the applicable FMPM requirements related to planned clearcuts, including planned clearcuts that exceed 260 ha, and assess whether: • there is appropriate silvicultural or biological rationale for planned clearcuts that exceed 260 ha • other planning requirements have been met 3.9.4 Phase II planned operations harvest and natural 1. depletions (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value) + 2. Review the applicable FMPM requirements related to planned clearcuts that exceed 260 ha, and assess whether there is appropriate silvicultural or biological rationale for planned clearcuts that exceed 260 ha
Free Growing Stand — Forestry Licence to Cut 46(3) The minister, or the holder of a forestry licence to cut entered into by the minister responsible for the Resort Timber Administration Act, is not required to establish a free growing stand under subsection (1) if the silvicultural system used on the area (a) is clearcutting and the harvested area, if taken together with adjoining clearcut areas that are not occupied by free growing stands, does not exceed 1 ha, or (b) is other than clearcutting and, at the completion of harvest, the trees retained on the harvested area conform to the specifications (i) of the minister, if any, or (ii) for the applicable silvicultural system and biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in the Ministry of Forests and Range's publication, Reference Guide for Forest Development Plan Stocking Standards, as amended from time to time.
Important Sites
“important sites”, “AOCs”, “wildlife habitat feature”,
1.2.1c Does not create significant long-term adverse impacts on Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value, old-growth forests, forests
5.1.1. Performance Indicator: The buffer width is appropriate for the wetland, watercourse, and/or special feature.
3.5.1 FMP areas selected for operations (Refer to “Road Networks” management value) 3.5.2 FMP area of concern (AOC) prescriptions
Objectives Set by Government for Wildlife 7 (1) The objective set by government for wildlife is, without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia's forests, to conserve sufficient wildlife habitat in terms of amount of area, distribution of areas and attributes of those areas, for (a) the survival of species at risk,
55
“regionally important wildlife”
critical to threatened and endangered species, and special sites. 4.3.2 Appropriate mapping, cataloging and management of identified ecologically important sites. 11.2.1c Participation in or support of SFI Implementation Committees to establish criteria and identify delivery mechanisms for wood producer training courses and periodic continuing education that address: reforestation, invasive exotic plants and animals, forest resource conservation, aesthetics and special sites;
6.1. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Minimize impact on sensitive wildlife habitat 6.1.1. Performance Indicator: OFWH harvest is to standard. 6.1.2. Performance Indicator: Deer Wintering Area (DWA) harvest is to standard. 6.1.3. Performance Indicator: Harvesting in and around raptor and heron nesting sites is to standard. 6.2. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Ensure old forest communities are maintained. 6.2.1. Performance Indicator: Old Forest Communities harvest is to standard.
1. Review the AOC prescriptions and assess whether:• adequate information was available for AOC planning • documentation of AOCs and any related issues meets the applicable FMPM requirements including whether: • planning of AOCs followed approved forest management guides planning of AOCs included environmental analysis of alternatives that would support protection of the values (where specific prescriptions for planned harvest, renewal and tending activities are appropriate to protect the values • public comments were summarized and considered • specific prescriptions for planned harvest, renewal and tending • activities are appropriate to protect the values• any exceptions to forest management guides were approved, appropriate in the circumstances and accompanied by an appropriate effectiveness monitoring program • AOCs were identified on maps including the selected prescription where practical 3.5.9 FMP road planning (refer to ‘Road Network’ management value) 3.5.11 FMP monitoring programs - includes forest operations inspection program, including provisions for monitoring in AOCs 3.9.1 Phase II planned operations area of concern (AOC) prescriptions Review whether any AOC prescriptions were added, modified, or deleted for the second five-year term and assess whether: • adequate information was available for AOC planning • documentation of AOCs and any related issues meets the applicable FMPM requirements including whether: • planning of AOCs followed approved forest management guides • planning of AOCs included environmental analysis of alternatives that would support protection of the values (where alternatives
(b) the survival of regionally important wildlife, and (c) the winter survival of specified ungulate species. (3) If satisfied that the objective set out in subsection (1) is addressed, in whole or in part, by an objective in relation to a wildlife habitat area or an ungulate winter range, a general wildlife measure, or a wildlife habitat feature, the minister responsible for the Wildlife Act must exempt a person from the obligation to specify a result or strategy in relation to the objective set out in subsection (1) to the extent that the objective is already addressed. Resource Features and Wildlife Habitat Features 70 (1) An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity must ensure that the primary forest activity does not damage or render ineffective a resource feature. (2) An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity must ensure that the primary forest activity does not damage or render ineffective a wildlife habitat feature. Annual Reports 86 (3) Before June 1 of each year, an agreement holder must report to the district manager … (b) the location of any resource feature or wildlife habitat feature in or contiguous to a cutblock or road of which feature the holder is aware during the reporting period if (i) the holder has not, in a previous reporting period, reported the resource feature or wildlife habitat feature, and (ii) the order establishing the resource feature or wildlife habitat feature requires the location of the resource feature or wildlife habitat feature to be reported under this section,
56
are required of the applicable FMPM) • public comments were summarized and considered • specific prescriptions for planned harvest, renewal and tending activities are appropriate to protect the values • any exceptions to forest management guides were approved, appropriate in the circumstances and accompanied by an appropriate effectiveness monitoring program • AOCs were identified on maps including the selected prescription where practical 3.9.7 Phase II planned operations road planning (refer to ‘Road Network’ management value) 3.9.9 Phase II planned operations monitoring programs - includes forest operations inspection program, including provisions for monitoring in AOCs 3.13.2 Amendments and changes to values (refer to “Road Network” management value) 3.14 Annual Work Schedules (refer to ‘Road Network’ management value) 4.2 Areas of Concern 1. Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved AOC operational prescriptions. Include the following:• select a representative sample from the areas where operations have been conducted during the five-year period of the audit that includes each of the various types of AOCs within the FMP, the various types of prescriptions for those AOCs, including any forest management guide exception prescriptions implemented • an examination of aerial photographs, FOIP reports, annual report information, including maps, for these operations FOIP reports Field audit • determine whether the prescriptions implemented and results of the operations are consistent with the location and operational prescription for the AOC in the FMP, AWS and the actual site conditions • assess the effectiveness of implementation
57
of the approved effectiveness monitoring program for any AOC prescriptions used during operations that are exceptions to guides • determine whether the values identified in the AOC were consistent with those viewed in the field • provide an assessment as to whether the AOC prescription was appropriate in the circumstances 4.7 Access (refer to ‘Road Network’ management value) 6.5 Annual Report (refer to “Road Network” management value)
Natural Disturbance
“natural disturbance”, “forest disturbance”
4.1.8. Consider the role of natural disturbances, including the use of prescribed or natural re where appropriate, and forest health threats in relation to biological diversity when developing forest management plans.
N/A 3.3.1 FMP description of the geology, soils and sites and the historic forest condition (For plans prepared under the 2004 FMPM 2. Assess the description of the historic forest condition considering forest type, natural processes, and fire and disturbance history as it impacts the plan and silvicultural ground rules. (For plans prepared under the 2009 FMPM)3. Assess the description of the historic forest condition considering forest type, natural processes, and fire and disturbance history as it impacts the plan. 3.4.1.5 FMP achievement of the Checkpoint ‘Preliminary 1. Endorsement of the LTMD’ (2004 FMPM) or ‘Support for the Proposed Long-Term Management Direction, Determination of Sustainability and Primary Road • Corridors’ and ‘Preliminary Endorsement of Long-Term Management Direction’ Checkpoints (2009 FMPM) (Refer to “Road Networks” management value) 7.1 Year Ten Annual Report (AR)/Trend Analysis Report (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value) 8.1.6 Natural disturbance and salvage SFL conditions must be followed Refer to Criterion 4.3 and related procedures (including associated SFL direction, direction, evidence and risk).
Objectives Set by Government for Wildlife and Biodiversity — Landscape Level 9 (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value) Maximum Cutblock Size 64(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an agreement holder where (a) timber harvesting (i) is being carried out on the cutblock (A) to recover timber damaged by fire, insect infestation, wind or other similar events, or (B) for sanitation treatments, or (ii) is designed to be consistent with the structural characteristics and the temporal and spatial distribution of an opening that would result from a natural disturbance, and (b) the holder ensures, to the extent practicable, that the structural characteristics of the cutblock after timber harvesting has been substantially completed resemble an opening that would result from a natural disturbance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Factors Relating to Objectives Set by Government for Wildlife and Biodiversity 3 (refer to “Landscape Level” management value)
58
Stand Level “stand-level” 4.1.1. (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value)
4.1.2. Development of criteria and implementation of practices, as guided by regionally based best scientific information, to retain stand-level wildlife habitat elements such as snags, stumps, mast trees, down woody debris, den trees and nest trees.
Not addressed directly 3.9.4 Phase II planned operations harvest and natural depletions (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value) 4.1 Plan assessment In the conduct of the field audit examine areas of the FMP that can be assessed in the field and assess whether the FMP was appropriate in the circumstances. Include consideration of: • FRI e.g. stand descriptions, FEC types 4.3 Harvest 1. Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved harvest operations. Include the following: • assess whether: the harvest and logging methods implemented were consistent with the FOP; the FOP was consistent with the SGRs; the FOP was certified by an R.P.F. or other qualified individual, and actual operations, were appropriate and effective for the actual site conditions encountered including: • residual stand structure required of the FMP including individual residual tree retention and downed woody material
Objectives Set by Government for Wildlife and Biodiversity — Stand Level 9.1 The objective set by government for wildlife and biodiversity at the stand level is, without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia's forests, to retain wildlife trees. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Factors Relating to Objectives Set by government for Wildlife and Biodiversity 3 (2) The following factors apply to a result or strategy for the objective set out in section 9.1 [objectives set by government for wildlife and biodiversity — stand level]: (a) the size, structure, amount, location and other characteristics of trees that (i) make the trees suitable for wildlife habitat, and (ii) have ecological attributes that contribute to stand level biodiversity; (b) the extent to which wildlife habitat areas, ungulate winter ranges, riparian management areas, old growth management areas, scenic areas and other areas established to manage forest resources (i) provide suitable wildlife habitat, and (ii) assist in the conservation of stand level biodiversity, including old growth.
Habitat Diversity
“old growth”, “old forest”, “wildlife habitat”, “habitat diversity”
1.2.1c (Refer to “Important Sites” management value) 4.1.1 (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value) 4.1.2 Development of criteria and implementation of practices, as guided by regionally based best scientific information, to retain stand-level wildlife habitat elements such as snags, stumps, mast trees, down woody debris, den trees and nest trees. 4.1.3 (Refer to “Landscape
6.1. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Minimize impact on sensitive wildlife habitat 6.2. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Ensure old forest communities are maintained. 6.2.1. Performance Indicator: Old Forest Communities harvest is to standard.
3.3.3 FMP description of other parameters of current forest condition (refer to Landscape Level management value) 3.3.4 FMP description of other forest resources dependent on forest cover. (The FMPM refers to special concern, threatened and endangered flora (refer to criterion 3.3.3 for fish & wildlife); other uncommon or notable natural resource features e.g. significant old growth stands, large wetland complexes). 1. Review the description of other forest resources dependent on forest cover by considering: • whether the required description of the applicable FMPM has been integrated into the FMP and whether all available inventories and information has been incorporated • how forest management operations have, or could, affect the quality or quantity of these
Identifying forest development units 14 (3) The things that under subsection (2) are to be identified in a forest stewardship plan referred to in that subsection are each (h) old growth management area, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Factors relating to objectives set by government for wildlife and biodiversity 3 (refer to “Landscape Level” and “Stand Level” management values)
59
Level” management value)
resources • implications of other forest resources to development of the FMP • how the FMP has addressed protection measures for threatened or endangered species/species at risk 3.4.1 Proposed Long-Term Management Direction 2. For FMPs prepared under the 2004 FMPM, assess achievement of the checkpoint for portions of the FMP relevant to habitat classifications including: • habitat classifications actually used in the FMP• identification of selected wildlife species and description of the current status of the habitat for use in determining the desired forest benefits • any conclusions about distribution and abundance of habitat types that would t would influence the LTMD
DWD “woody” 2.3.3. Post-harvest conditions conducive to maintaining site productivity (e.g., limited rutting, retained down woody debris, minimized skid trails). 4.1.2 (Refer to “Habitat Diversity” management value)
N/A 4.3 Harvest (refer to “Stand Level” management value)
Soil Disturbance Limits 35 (6) An agreement holder who rehabilitates an area under subsection (4) or (5) must (a) remove or redistribute woody materials that are exposed on the surface of the area and are concentrating subsurface moisture, to the extent necessary to limit the concentration of subsurface moisture on the area, (7) If an agreement holder rehabilitates an area under subsection (4) or (5) and erosion of exposed soil from the area would cause sediment to enter a stream, wetland or lake, or a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act, the agreement holder, unless placing debris or revegetation would not materially reduce the likelihood of erosion, must (a) place woody debris on the exposed soils, or (b) revegetate the exposed mineral soils. Permanent Access Structure Limits 36 (3) An agreement holder may rehabilitate an area occupied by permanent access structures in accordance with the results or strategies specified in the forest stewardship plan or by (a) removing or redistributing woody materials that are exposed on the surface of the area and are concentrating subsurface moisture, as necessary to limit the concentration of subsurface moisture on the area, (4) If an agreement holder rehabilitates an area under subsection (3) (a) and erosion of exposed soil from the area would cause sediment to enter a stream, wetland or lake, or a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act, the agreement holder, unless placing debris or revegetation would not materially reduce the likelihood of erosion, must (a) place woody debris on the exposed soils, or
60
(b) revegetate the exposed mineral soils. Coarse Woody Debris 68 (1) An agreement holder who carries out timber harvesting must retain at least the following logs on a cutblock: (a) if the area is on the Coast, a minimum of 4 logs per hectare, each being a minimum of 5 m in length and 30 cm in diameter at one end; (b) if the area is in the Interior, a minimum of 4 logs per hectare, each being a minimum of 2 m in length and 7.5 cm in diameter at one end. (2) An agreement holder is exempt from subsection (1) if (a) the holder's agreement or an enactment requires the holder to act in a manner contrary to that set out in subsection (1), (b) the holder carries out on the cutblock a controlled burn that is authorized under an enactment, or (c) the holder is a fibre recovery tenure holder.
Wildlife Trees
“snags”, “residual”, “wildlife tree”
4.1.2 (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value)
6.1.1. Performance Indicator: OFWH harvest is to standard. 6.1.2. Performance Indicator: Deer Wintering Area (DWA) harvest is to standard. à no harvesting of large trees, snags, or cavity trees
3.5.6 FMP harvest 1. Assess planned implementation of the management strategy (2004 FMPM)/LTMD (2009 FMPM) by reviewing: • the projected, forecast and planned harvest (including fuelwood) in relation to the applicable FMP planning requirements including residual stand structure and comparison to the management strategy 3.9.4 Phase II planned operations harvest and natural (Refer to “Landscape Level” management value) 4.3 Harvest Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved harvest operations. Include the following: • assess whether: the harvest and logging methods implemented were consistent with the FOP; the FOP was consistent with the SGRs; the FOP was certified by an R.P.F. or other qualified individual, and actual operations, were appropriate and effective for the actual site conditions encountered including: • residual stand structure required of the FMP including individual residual tree retention and downed woody material • for selection silviculture system harvest and thinning projects assess and report on the percentage of residual damage and comment on the impact on future forest conditions and sustainability
Objectives Set by Government for Wildlife and Biodiversity — Stand Level 9.1 The objective set by government for wildlife and biodiversity at the stand level is, without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia's forests, to retain wildlife trees. Wildlife Tree Retention 66 (1) If an agreement holder completes harvesting in one or more cutblocks during any 12 month period beginning on April 1 of any calendar year, the holder must ensure that, at the end of that 12 month period, the total area covered by wildlife tree retention areas that relate to the cutblocks is a minimum of 7% of the total area of the cutblocks. (2) An agreement holder who harvests timber in a cutblock must ensure that, at the completion of harvesting, the total amount of wildlife tree retention areas that relates to the cutblock is a minimum of 3.5% of the cutblock. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2), a wildlife tree retention area may relate to more than one cutblock if all of the cutblocks that relate to the wildlife tree retention area collectively meet the applicable requirements of this section. (4) A fibre recovery tenure holder is exempt from this section. Restriction on Harvesting 67 An agreement holder must not harvest timber from a wildlife tree retention area unless the trees on the net area to be reforested of the cutblock to which the wildlife tree retention area relates have developed attributes that are consistent with a mature seral condition. Annual Reports 86 (3) Before June 1 of each year, an agreement holder must report to the district manager (a) for each area in which timber harvesting was completed during the reporting period and to which section 29 of the Act applies or to which section 44 (4) of this regulation applies, the following information: (iv) the location and approximate size of all associated wildlife tree retention areas,
Tree “conversion”, “tree”,
1.2.1. Program Participants shall not
N/A 3.5.4 FMP silviculture ground rules (SGRs)
Annual Reports 86 (3) Before June 1 of each year, an agreement holder must report to the
61
Diversity “regeneration” convert one forest cover type to another forest cover type, unless the conversion: a. Is in compliance with relevant national and regional policy and legislation related to land use and forest management; and b. Would not convert native forest types that are rare and ecologically significant at the landscape level or put any native forest types at risk of becoming rare; and c. Does not create significant long-term adverse impacts on Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value, old-growth forests, forests critical to threatened and endangered species, and special sites.
1.2.2. Where a Program Participant intends to convert to another forest cover type, an assessment considers: a. Productivity and stand quality conditions and impacts which may include social and economic values; b. Specific ecosystem issues related to the site such as invasive species, insect or disease issues, riparian protection needs and others as appropriate to the site including regeneration challenges; and; c. Ecological impacts of the conversion including a review at the site and landscape scale as well as consideration for any appropriate mitigation
Review the SGRs and preliminary prescription documentation of silviculture prescriptions and assess whether: • treatments for harvest, renewal and tending activities and regeneration standards appropriately reflect the management strategy (2004 FMPM)/LTMD (2009 FMPM) for the FMP Consider the identified SGR: silvicultural treatments • renewal treatments (site preparation, regeneration, with alternatives where appropriate) • regeneration standards 3.5.11 FMP monitoring programs 3.9.9 Phase II planned operations monitoring programs - description of the program for carrying out assessments of regeneration success for both naturally and artificially regenerated areas or other similar assessments used in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence forest region - forecast of assessment of regeneration success 3.9.2 Phase II planned operations silviculture ground rules 1. Review whether any SGRs were added or revised for the second five-year term and assess whether: • treatments for harvest, renewal and tending activities and regeneration standards appropriately reflect the management strategy (2004 FMPM)/LTMD (2009 FMPM) for the FMP silvicultural treatments • renewal treatments (site preparation, regeneration, with alternatives where appropriate) • regeneration standards 4.4 Renewal 1. Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved renewal operations. Include the following: • select a representative sample of each type of regeneration and site preparation operation from those areas where operations have been conducted during the five-year period of the audit and from each of the five years being audited (to provide for assessing the effectiveness of renewal prescriptions),
district manager (d) an update of the forest cover inventory for each area in which during the reporting period (i) the requirements for the regeneration date have been met, (ii) the requirements for the regeneration date have not been met but the regeneration date has passed, (iii) a free growing stand has been declared under section 97 or 97.1 of this regulation or the requirements of section 46.11 (2) (b) of this regulation have been met, or (iv) a free growing stand has not been established, but the free growing date has passed, and (e) a summary of any silviculture treatments that were carried out during the reporting period.
62
measures.
2.1.2. Clear criteria to judge adequate regeneration and appropriate actions to correct understocked areas and achieve acceptable species composition and stocking rates for planting, direct seeding and natural regeneration.
2.1.3 Plantings of exotic tree species should minimize risk to native ecosystems.
2.1.4 .Protection of desirable or planned advanced natural regeneration during harvest.
2.1.5 Afforestation programs that consider potential ecological impacts of the selection and planting of tree species in non- forested landscapes.
2.3.4. Retention of vigorous trees during partial harvesting, consistent with scientific silvicultural standards for the area.
including any exception prescriptions implemented • assess whether site preparation and regeneration treatments were consistent with the FOP; the FOP was consistent with the SGRs; the FOP certified by an R.P.F. or other qualified individual, and actual operations, were appropriate and effective for the actual site conditions encountered including: • whether site preparation operations were conducted to minimize site disturbance taking soil and weather conditions into account • assess the effectiveness of operations to reduce the areas of slash piles and chipping debris and treatments to regenerate these areas 6.3 Silviculture Standards and Assessment Program 1. Review and assess, including in the field, achievement and reporting of the silviculture standards for the specific SFL/management unit. • select and assess a representative sample from the areas declared successfully regenerated during the period of the audit that includes each of the various types of prescriptions implemented 2. Assess whether the management unit assessment program (SFL and District) is sufficient and is being used to provide the required silviculture effectiveness monitoring information including whether it: • assesses overall effectiveness of treatments, including those that are exceptions to silvicultural guides i.e. documented program, survey methodology such as survival, stocking, free –t-grow surveys, records, use and evaluation of results e.g. appropriateness of treatment for actual site conditions, area regenerated to the projected forest unit (silvicultural success) or to another forest unit (regeneration success) • determines the need for the type of remedial action required if an area is not successfully regenerated (e.g. in fill plant, tending) • assess reasons where eligibke area are not determined to be successfully regenerated to the projected forest unit (silvicultural success) 7.1 Year Ten Annual Report (AR)/Trend Analysis Report
63
3. Renewal success • determine whether the tables and text include an analysis of renewal and tending activities conducted during the plan term and whether it includes a discussion of the amount of operations to date, expenditures, silvicultural effectiveness (silviculture success – desired forest unit and regeneration success – another forest unit) and harvest/regeneration trends. Assess whether the review includes recommended changes that may affect future effectiveness and expenditures. The effectiveness of silvicultural treatment packages that are exceptions to the forest management guides should also be assessed in the text. 7.4 Year Ten AR/Trend Analysis Report 2. Review and assess the Report and under the above heading in the audit report include the following: • harvested area successfully regenerated including completion of free-to-grow surveys as required of the management unit and assess reasons for significant differences between current and previous plan periods • compare depletion area (harvest and natural) and regeneration statistics from the tables and assess reasons for significant imbalances 8.1.14 Silviculture standards and assessment program - SFLs include requirements related to Category 2 lands or Class X, Y, Z lands. The SFL company is to assess and report on, in accordance with the FOSM, FIM, and the FMPM, the achievement of regeneration efforts to ensure obligations and standards are met.
Water Quality & Quantity
“water” 2.2.8g Use of management practices appropriate to the situation, for example: monitoring of water quality or safeguards to ensure proper equipment use and protection of streams, lakes and other water bodies;
5.1. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Establish and appropriately manage riparian and wetland buffers. 5.1.1. Performance Indicator: The buffer width is appropriate for the wetland, watercourse, and/or special feature.
3.5.11 FMP monitoring programs(refer to ‘Road Network’ management value) 3.9.9 Phase II planned operations monitoring programs (refer to ‘Road Network’ management value) 4.7 Access (refer to ‘Road Network’ management value)
Objectives set by government for water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas 8 (refer to “Landscape Level” management value) Objectives set by government for water in community watersheds 8.2 (1) In this section, "community watershed" means a community watershed (a) that is continued under section 180 (e) of the Act, and (b) for which a water quality objective has not been (i) continued under section 181 of the Act, or (ii) established under the Government Actions Regulation.
64
3.1. Program Participants shall meet or exceed all applicable federal, provincial, state and local water quality laws, and meet or exceed best management practices developed under Canadian or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–approved water quality programs.
Indicators: 1. Program to implement federal, state or provincial water quality best management practices during all phases of management activities. 2. Contract provisions that specify conformance to best management practices. 3. Monitoring of overall best management practices implementation.
3.2. Program Participants shall implement water, wetland and riparian protection measures based on soil type, terrain, vegetation, ecological function, harvesting system, state best management practices (BMPs), provincial guidelines and other applicable factors.
Indicators: 1. Program addressing management and protection of rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, other water bodies and riparian areas during all phases of management, including the layout and construction of roads and skid trails to maintain
5.1.2. Performance Indicator: The buffer zone harvest is to standard. 5.2. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Watercourse crossing installation procedures minimize erosion, sedimentation and siltation. 5.2.1. Performance Indicator: A no-grub zone has been left on both sides of the watercourse crossing. 5.2.2. Performance Indicator: The watercourse crossing location is to standard. 5.2.3. Performance Indicator: The watercourse crossing structure in a natural watercourse has been installed “in-the-dry”. 5.2.4. Performance Indicator: The appropriate watercourse crossing structure has been installed while maintaining the integrity of the watercourse and stability of the watercourse banks. 5.3 PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Watercourse crossing structures are maintained to diminish site and/or watercourse degradation.
5.3.1. Performance Indicator: Existing watercourse crossing structures with identified
(2) The objective set by government for water being diverted for human consumption through a licensed waterworks in a community watershed is to prevent to the extent described in subsection (3) the cumulative hydrological effects of primary forest activities within the community watershed from resulting in (a) a material adverse impact on the quantity of water or the timing of the flow of the water to the waterworks, or (b) the water from the waterworks having a material adverse impact on human health that cannot be addressed by water treatment required under (i) an enactment, or (ii) the licence pertaining to the waterworks. (3) The objective set by government under subsection (2) applies only to the extent that it does not unduly reduce the supply of timber from British Columbia's forests. (4) If satisfied that the objective set out in subsection (2) is not required to provide special management the minister responsible for the Wildlife Act must exempt a person from the requirement to specify a result or strategy in relation to the objective. (5) If satisfied that the objective set out in subsection (2) is addressed, in whole or in part, by an enactment, the minister responsible for the Wildlife Act must exempt a person from the requirement to specify a result or strategy in relation to the objective set out in subsection (2) to the extent that the objective is already addressed. Identifying Forest Development Units 14 (3) The things that under subsection (2) are to be identified in a forest stewardship plan referred to in that subsection are each (g) community watershed Natural surface drainage patterns 39 (1) If an authorized person constructs a road, a temporary access structure or a permanent access structure on an area, the person must maintain natural surface drainage patterns on the area both during and after construction. (2) Despite subsection (1), if it is not practicable for an authorized person to maintain natural surface drainage patterns during the construction of a road, a temporary access structure or permanent access structure, the person must ensure that the altered surface drainage pattern is compatible with the original natural surface drainage pattern by the earlier of (a) the end of the construction, and (b) the next freshet. Stream riparian classes 47 (1) In this section, "active flood plain" means the level area with alluvial soils, adjacent to streams, that is flooded by stream water on a periodic basis and is at the same elevation as areas showing evidence of (a) flood channels free of terrestrial vegetation, (b) rafted debris or fluvial sediments, recently deposited on the surface of the forest floor or suspended on trees or vegetation, or (c) recent scarring of trees by material moved by flood waters. (2) A stream that is a fish stream or is located in a community watershed has the following riparian class: (a) S1A, if the stream averages, over a one km length, either a stream width or an active flood plain width of 100 m or greater;
65
water reach, ow and quality.
2. Mapping of rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands and other water bodies as specified in state or provincial best management practices and, where appropriate, identification on the ground.
3. Documentation and implementation of plans to manage and protect rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, other water bodies and riparian areas.
4. Plans that address wet-weather events in order to maintain water quality (e.g., forest inventory systems, wet-weather tracts, definitions of acceptable operating conditions).
environmental or liability issues are dealt with in an appropriate manner. 5.4. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Watercourse crossing removal procedures minimize erosion, sedimentation and siltation. 5.4.1. Performance Indicator: Watercourse crossing structures requiring removal have been removed in a timely manner and the site has been decommissioned to standard. 7.1. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Minimize damage to forest soils caused by harvest operations. 7.1.1. Performance indicator: Exposed mineral soil has been stabilized. (Exposed mineral soil poses the risk of water contamination. While a site may be dry during a forest operation, it may quickly become otherwise when the weather changes. The more exposed soil there is, the higher the risk of sediments ending up in a watercourse causing harm to water quality and aquatic habitat) 7.1.2. Performance indicator: Reasonable efforts have been made to minimize rutting. 8.1.2. Performance indicator: Forestry
(b) S1B, if the stream width is greater than 20 m but the stream does not have a riparian class of S1A; (c) S2, if the stream width is not less than 5 m but not more than 20 m; (d) S3, if the stream width is not less than 1.5 m but is less than 5 m; (e) S4, if the stream width is less than 1.5 m. (3) A stream that is not a fish stream and is located outside of a community watershed has the following riparian class: (a) S5, if the stream width is greater than 3 m; (b) S6, if the stream width is 3 m or less. (4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), for each riparian class of stream, the minimum riparian management area width, riparian reserve zone width and riparian management zone width, on each side of the stream, are as follows: (5) If the width of the active flood plain of a stream exceeds the specified width for the riparian management zone, the width of the riparian management zone extends to the outer edge of the active flood plain. (6) The minister may specify a riparian reserve zone for a stream with a riparian class of S1-A if the minister considers that a riparian reserve zone is required. (7) The riparian reserve zone for a stream begins at the edge of the stream channel bank and extends to the width described in subsection (4) or (6). (8) The riparian management zone for a stream begins at (a) the outer edge of the riparian reserve zone, or (b) if there is no riparian reserve zone, the edge of the stream channel bank, and extends to the width described in subsection (4) or (5). Wetland riparian classes 48 (1) Wetlands have the following riparian classes: (a) W1, if the wetland is greater than 5 ha in size; (b) W2, if the wetland is not less than 1 ha and not more than 5 ha in size and is in one of the following biogeoclimatic zones or subzones: (i) Ponderosa Pine; (ii) Bunch Grass; (iii) Interior Douglas-fir, very dry hot, very dry warm or very dry mild; (iv) Coastal Douglas-fir; (v) Coastal Western Hemlock, very dry maritime, dry maritime or dry submaritime; (c) W3, if the wetland is not less than 1 ha and not more than 5 ha in size and is in a biogeoclimatic zone or subzone other than one referred to in paragraph (b); (d) W4, if the wetland is (i) not less than 0.25 ha and less than 1 ha in size and is in a biogeoclimatic zone or subzone referred to in paragraph (b) (i), (ii) or (iii), or (ii) not less than 0.5 ha and less than 1 ha in size and is in a biogeoclimatic zone or subzone referred to in paragraph (b) (iv) or (v). (2) Despite subsection (1), an area is to be treated as a single wetland with a riparian class of W5 if (a) the area contains (i) two or more W1 wetlands located within 100 m of each other, (ii) a W1 wetland and one or more non-W1 wetlands, all of which are within 80 m of each other, or (iii) two or more non-W1 wetlands located within 60 m of each other, and (b) the combined size of the wetlands, excluding the upland areas, is 5 ha or larger.
66
activities in Designated Watersheds conform to standards. 8.1.3. Performance indicator: The forest operation is free of environmental contaminants.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), for each riparian class of wetland, the minimum riparian management area width, riparian reserve zone width and riparian management zone width for the wetland are as follows: (4) No riparian reserve zone or riparian management zone extends onto any enclosed upland areas in a W1 wetland if the wetland is (a) located in a boreal, subboreal or hyper-maritime climate, and (b) greater than 1 000 ha in size. (5) If the minister considers it necessary for a riparian reserve zone or riparian management zone to extend onto an enclosed upland area, the minister may require either or both of the following: (a) a riparian reserve zone of a width of 10 m or less; (b) a riparian management zone of a width of 40 m or less. (6) The riparian reserve zone for a wetland begins at the edge of the wetland and extends to the width described in subsection (3) or (5). (7) The riparian management zone for a wetland begins at (a) the outer edge of the riparian reserve zone, or (b) if there is no riparian reserve zone, the edge of the wetland, and extends to the width described in subsection (3) or (5). Lake riparian classes 49 (1) Lakes have the following riparian classes: (a) L1-A, if the lake is 1 000 ha or greater in size; (b) L1-B, if (i) the lake is greater than 5 ha but less than 1 000 ha in size, or (ii) the minister designates the lake as L1-B; (c) L2, if the lake is not less than 1 ha and not more than 5 ha in size and is located in a biogeoclimatic zones or subzone that is (i) Ponderosa Pine, (ii) Bunch Grass, (iii) Interior Douglas-fir, very dry hot, very dry warm or very dry mild, (iv) Coastal Douglas-fir, or (v) Coastal Western Hemlock, very dry maritime, dry maritime or dry submaritime; (d) L3, if the lake is not less than 1 ha and not more than 5 ha in size and is in a biogeoclimatic zone or subzone other than one referred to in paragraph (c); (e) L4, if the lake is (i) not less than 0.25 ha and not more than 1 ha in size and is in a biogeoclimatic zone or subzone referred to in paragraph (c) (i), (ii) or (iii), or (ii) not less than 0.5 ha and not more than 1 ha in size and is in a biogeoclimatic zone or subzone referred to in paragraph (c) (iv) or (v). (2) Subject to subsection (3), for each riparian class of lake, the minimum riparian management area width, riparian reserve zone width and riparian management zone width are as follows: (3) If the minister considers it necessary, the minister may specify a riparian management area and a riparian reserve zone for a lake with a riparian class of L1-A. (4) The riparian reserve zone for a lake begins at the edge of the lake and extends to the width described in subsection (2) or (3). (5) The riparian management zone for a lake begins at (a) the outer edge of the riparian reserve zone, or (b) if there is no riparian reserve zone, the edge of the lake, and extends to the width described in subsection (2) or (3).
67
Restrictions in a riparian management area 50 (refer to “Road Networks” management value) Restrictions in a riparian reserve zone 51 (1) An agreement holder must not cut, modify or remove trees in a riparian reserve zone, except for the following purposes: (a) felling or modifying a tree that is a safety hazard, if there is no other practicable option for addressing the safety hazard; (b) topping or pruning a tree that is not wind firm; (c) constructing a stream crossing; (d) creating a corridor for full suspension yarding; (e) creating guyline tiebacks; (f) carrying out a sanitation treatment; (g) felling or modifying a tree that has been windthrown or has been damaged by fire, insects, disease or other causes, if the felling or modifying will not have a material adverse impact on the riparian reserve zone; (h) felling or modifying a tree under an occupant licence to cut, master licence to cut or free use permit issued in respect of an area that is subject to a licence, permit, or other form of tenure issued under the Land Act, Coal Act, Geothermal Resources Act, Mines Act, Mineral Tenure Act, Mining Right of Way Act, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act or Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, if the felling or modification is for a purpose expressly authorized under that licence, permit or tenure; (i) felling or modifying a tree for the purpose of establishing or maintaining an interpretive forest site, recreation site, recreation facility or recreation trail. (2) An agreement holder who fells, tops, prunes or modifies a tree under subsection (1) may remove the tree only if the removal will not have a material adverse effect on the riparian reserve zone. (3) An agreement holder must not carry out the following silviculture treatments in a riparian reserve zone: (a) grazing or broadcast herbicide applications for the purpose of brushing; (b) mechanized site preparation or broadcast burning for the purpose of site preparation; (c) spacing or thinning. Restrictions in a riparian management zone 52 (1) A holder of a minor tenure who fells trees in a cutblock within a riparian management zone of a class described in Column 1 must ensure that (a) the percentage of the total basal area within the riparian management zone specified in Column 2 is left as standing trees, and (b) the standing trees are reasonably representative of the physical structure of the riparian management zone, as it was before harvesting (2) An authorized person who cuts, modifies or removes trees in a riparian management zone for an S4, S5 or S6 stream that has trees that contribute significantly to the maintenance of stream bank or channel stability must retain enough trees adjacent to the stream to maintain the stream bank or channel stability, if the stream (a) is a direct tributary to an S1, S2 or S3 stream, (b) flows directly into the ocean, at a point near to or where one or more of the following is located:
68
(i) a herring spawning area; (ii) a shellfish bed; (iii) a saltwater marsh area; (iv) an aquaculture site; (v) a juvenile salmonid rearing area or an adult salmon holding area, or (c) flows directly into the ocean at a point near to the location of an area referred to in paragraph (b) and failure to maintain stream bank or channel stability will have a material adverse impact on that area. Temperature sensitive streams 53 An authorized person who fells, modifies or removes trees in a riparian management area adjacent to a temperature sensitive stream, or a stream that is a direct tributary to a temperature sensitive stream, must retain either or both of the following in an amount sufficient to prevent the temperature of the temperature sensitive stream from increasing to an extent that would have a material adverse impact on fish: (a) streamside trees whose crowns provide shade to the stream; (b) understory vegetation that provides shade to the stream. Fan destabilization 54 An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity on the Coast must ensure that the primary forest activity does not cause fan destabilization that has a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act. Stream crossings 55 (refer to “Road Networks” management value) Protecting water quality 59 An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity must ensure that the primary forest activity does not cause material that is harmful to human health to be deposited in, or transported to, water that is diverted for human consumption by a licensed waterworks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Factors relating to objective set by government for water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity in riparian areas 2 The following factors apply to a result or strategy for the objective set out in section 8 [objectives set by government for water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas]: (a) the type of management regime that is required for a riparian area, having regard to (i) the need to buffer the aquatic ecosystem of a stream, wetland or lake from the introduction of materials that are deleterious to water quality or fish habitat, (ii) the role played by trees and understory vegetation in conserving water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat and biodiversity, (iii) the need to maintain stream bank and stream channel integrity, and (iv) the relative importance and sensitivity of different riparian classes of streams, wetlands and lakes in conserving water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat and biodiversity;
Fish Populations
“fish” N/A 8.1. PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Road and
3.3.3 FMP description of other parameters of current forest condition (refer to Landscape Level management
Objectives set by government for water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas 8 (refer to “Landscape Level” management value)
69
harvest operations minimize damage to fish and wildlife habitat.
value) 3.3.4 FMP description of other forest resources dependent on forest cover. (refer to Habitat Diversity management value) 4.7 Access (refer to ‘Road Network’ management value)
Objectives set by government for fish habitat in fisheries sensitive watersheds 8.1 (1) In this section, "fisheries sensitive watershed" means an area identified in Schedule 2 of this regulation (a) with significant downstream fisheries values continued under section 180 (f) of the Act and significant watershed sensitivity continued under section 180 (g) of the Act, and (b) for which there is no fisheries sensitive watershed objective. (2) Until December 31, 2005 the objective set by government for fish habitat in fisheries sensitive watersheds is to prevent to the extent described in subsection (3) the cumulative hydrological effects of primary forest activities in the fisheries sensitive watershed from resulting in a material adverse impact on the habitat of the fish species for which the fisheries sensitive watershed was established. (3) The objective set by government under subsection (2) applies only to the extent that it does not unduly reduce the supply of timber from British Columbia's forests. (4) If satisfied that the objective set out in subsection (2) is not required to provide special management, the minister responsible for the Wildlife Act must exempt a person from the requirement to specify a result or strategy in relation to the objective. (5) If satisfied that the objective set out in subsection (2) is addressed, in whole or in part, by an enactment, the minister responsible for the Wildlife Act must exempt a person from the requirement to specify a result or strategy in relation to the objective set out in subsection (2) to the extent that the objective is already addressed. Identifying Forest Development Units 14 (3) The things that under subsection (2) are to be identified in a forest stewardship plan referred to in that subsection are each (c) fisheries sensitive watershed, Fish passage 56 (1) An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity must ensure that the primary forest activity does not have a material adverse effect on fish passage in a fish stream. (2) An authorized person who maintains a fish stream crossing built after June 15, 1995, must ensure that the crossing does not have a material adverse effect on fish passage. (3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), an authorized person may temporarily allow a material adverse effect on fish passage to construct, maintain or deactivate a road, including a stream crossing, if (a) fish are not migrating or spawning, and (b) the source of the material adverse effect is removed immediately on completion of the construction, maintenance or deactivation. Protection of fish and fish habitat 57 An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity must conduct the primary forest activity at a time and in a manner that is unlikely to harm fish or destroy, damage or harmfully alter fish habitat.
Erosion “erosion” 2.3.2 Use of erosion control measures to
8.1.1. Performance Indicator: Forestry
6.5 Annual Reports (refer to “Road Network” management value)
Soil disturbance limits 35 (7) If an agreement holder rehabilitates an area under subsection (4) or
70
minimize the loss of soil and site productivity.
activities on steep slopes conform to standards.
(5) and erosion of exposed soil from the area would cause sediment to enter a stream, wetland or lake, or a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act, the agreement holder, unless placing debris or revegetation would not materially reduce the likelihood of erosion, must (a) place woody debris on the exposed soils, or (b) revegetate the exposed mineral soils. Landslides 37 An authorized person who carries out a primary forest activity must ensure that the primary forest activity does not cause a landslide that has a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act. Permanent access structure limits 36 (4) If an agreement holder rehabilitates an area under subsection (3) (a) and erosion of exposed soil from the area would cause sediment to enter a stream, wetland or lake, or a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act, the agreement holder, unless placing debris or revegetation would not materially reduce the likelihood of erosion, must (a) place woody debris on the exposed soils, or (b) revegetate the exposed mineral soils. Revegetation 40 An authorized person who constructs or deactivates a road must ensure that soil exposed by the construction or deactivation is revegetated within two years after the construction or deactivation is completed if it is reasonably foreseeable that (a) the erosion of the soil would cause (i) sediment to enter a stream, wetland or lake, or (ii) a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects listed in section 149 (1) of the Act, and (b) revegetation would materially reduce the likelihood of erosion.
Carbon Management
“carbon” N/A N/A N/A N/A
Additional Notes
1.1.1i Forest management planning at a level appropriate to the size and scale of the operation, including: a review of non-timber issues (e.g., recreation, tourism, pilot projects and economic incentive programs to promote water protection, carbon storage, bioenergy feedstock production, or biological diversity conservation, or to address climate-induced
(Source: New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, 2014)
1.1. Policy Statements (Direction: If the management unit being audited is currently certified according to CSA, FSC or SFI standards, all commitment procedures, for either the company or the MNRF, are not required to be completed unless an issue arises in relation to the company or MNRF that causes the auditor to question whether this criteria is in fact being met (Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2014)
Exemptions not included* (Source: Province of British Columbia, 2016)
71
ecosystem change). 1.2.1.a Compliance with relevant national and regional policy and legislation related to land use and forest management (Source: Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 2015)
![Ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves across broad ... · Introduction Mangroves provide many ecosystem services that directly benefit biodiversity and human soci-ety [1–3]. Mangroves](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5fcb7a9d68debf2fd338ae6c/ecosystem-carbon-stocks-of-mangroves-across-broad-introduction-mangroves-provide.jpg)
