Document

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Review of on-going science-related projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Review of all unfunded program-related proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Review of Section 6 of the EOMF original proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

to Forestry Canada and the recommendations of the1993 meeting of the EOMF Research PriorityWorkshop

Discussions with EOMF partners in science and their . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12perceptions of program gaps

1. Overview comments on the EOMF program and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12potential activities

2. Sustainable Forestry Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133. Gaps in the research program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Inventory and related activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Forest management practices and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Monitoring sustainability - indicators/ forest health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Forest fragmentation and biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Forest products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Research management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

International criteria and indicators and the EOMF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Adequacy of forest descriptions and classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Appendix #A - Strategic Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Appendix #B - Identification of Program Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Appendix #C - List of People Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Appendix #D - Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Appendix #E - EOMF 1993 Science Committee Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2

EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST

FILLING IN THE GAPS

INTRODUCTION

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) was developed as one of the 12 nodes in the Canadian ForestService Green Plan Program on Model Forests. The vision of the EOMF is exemplified in it’s statement:"To champion the concept and practice of sustainable forestry for all its values in eastern Ontario throughthe cooperative efforts of its residents and supporters". Of the five strategic goals (Appendix A)developed for the operation of the Model Forest, Goal Four dealing with the research and scienceactivities has an objective "To undertake or support research activities which are focussed on specificEOMF goals and objectives".

The scope of the science goal of the EOMF is found in Section 6, Research, of the EOMFproposal and includes the following requirements for research:

A. Resource inventory information needs for resource managers.1. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario2. Non-timber values and new survey methods for the EOMF3. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry4. Geographical information systems for land management5. Understanding of forest fragmentation and biodiversity in the EOMF

B. Forest Management Techniques.1. Monitoring methods for environmental impacts of forest management

practices.2. Secessional patterns and vegetation management strategies with the

use of alternatives such as mulch, grazing, cover crops, etc.3. Understanding weeds and seedling survival.4. Nursery production and establishment of lesser known native forest

cover species of the EOMF region (hardwoods and shrubs).5. Biological pest control methods that are effective, economical and

environmentally sound.6. Integrated pest management for mixed forests that includes the

previous issue of biological control (i.e for white pine blister rust).7. Genecology of tree species found in the EOMF; this is directed toward

gene conservation for a particular species.8. Estimates of resistance of indigenous species to forest pests.9. Management techniques to maintain and enhance rare species

populations.

At the onset of the EOMF program the above program had several linkages that wereconsidered established and on-going. These included activities in the areas of bioenergy withREAP (Resource Efficient Agricultural Production)that promotes sustainable agriculture andENFOR (Canadian Forest Service program on ENergy from the FORests) that was looking atshort rotation forestry feasibility and environmental impact monitoring of this type of activity. Another area was shoreline restoration with particular emphasis on plantings along stream and

3

river banks. The study was also to consider effects of restoration on the water quality in thestreams. The third area of linkage was the study of windbreaks at the Kemptville nursery. The final established linkage was with Domtar and the study on the use of pulp and mill sludge forincreasing productivity in poplar plantations.

The EOMF proposed another set of linkages through various programs. These included avariety of activities. The development and use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) forforest management activities was to be done in cooperation with the Petawawa NationalForestry Institute at Chalk River. The development of an integrated pest management programwith the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) was aimed at vegetation control in thenursery and at outplanting sites.

Several other linkages were proposed under the topic of forest practices. These included:Assessment of the effect of forest practices with the particular emphasis on statistical design ofthe methodology; the development of stand density guides for commercial species with theassistance of the United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USDA-FS),Northeast Experimental Station and; the development, with the Ontario Forest Researchinstitute(OFRI), of a forest renewal program for non-traditional forest species of the EOMFregion.

The linkage with the National Forest Database was envisioned to assist in the assessment of non-timber values for the regions forests and to look at indicators of sustainable forest resourcemanagement. This linkage was to be extended to the research facilities at Lakehead University.

Further linkages noted in the original EOMF proposal to Forestry Canada included initiatives inecological land classification as a cooperative effort between the CFS and the OMNR; thefurther development of the Gene Bank and Seed Bank at PNFI and incorporation with theOMNR at Brockville, - to ensure that species from the region were properly represented (someof the research here was to be related to preservation of seed) and; the continued biomonitoringwith the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) - Acid Rain National Early Warning System(ARNEWS) program to determine the health of the forests in the region.

The management of the research linkages was to be through identifying new technology andpressing model forest needs and finding the right researchers to carry out the related projects. Since most of the science expertise was in regional research organizations, there was a need toassess opportunities for cooperation and develop partnerships with them. Finally, to oversee thescience activities, the EOMF was to establish a science advisory group to review researchproposals. The present Science Committee of the EOMF was established in response to thisneed.

Since the start of operations in 1992 the EOMF has funded or approved funding for over 45projects. In addition it has received 60 other proposals that have been, for one reason oranother, not funded and are on a deferred list. Most of those proposals fit within the 5 goals ofthe EOMF.

There are 37, of the 45 funded projects, that will continue to be active in the 1995/96 fiscal year. The Forest Science Committee has identified the following 14 projects as either research or

4

science related:

1.1/93 IRM Planning Framework1.2/93 Relative Density Guidelines2.1/93 Ecological Woodlands Restoration2.2/93 Industrial Wood Production2.4/93 Alterative Vegetation Management Practices2.10/93 Songbird Population Monitoring2.11/93 Forest Meadow Habitat2.13/93 Wildlife Habitat Matrices4.1/93 Natural Genetic Heritage4.2/93 Nut Tree Culture4.3/93 Agroforestry Windbreaks4.4/93 Recycled Soil Amendments4.6/93 Maple Sugar Industry4.MCA.93 Akwesasne Partnership

A brief description of these projects and the accomplishments for the 1994/95 year can befound in the document on the 1995 project list.

The Forest Science Committee has requested an analysis to determine whether currently fundedprojects are aimed at meeting the science goal of the EOMF and whether there are criticalscience issues that are not being investigated. With this in mind it was felt that an effort be madeto review of the existing science program was needed and to identify existing gaps and potentialgaps in research within the EOMF program. In late summer, 1994, the Forest ScienceCommittee developed the scope for a review (Appendix B) and decided to have an outsideconsultant prepare the appropriate report.

The scope of this report is to review on-going science projects, unfunded proposals, andrecommendations of the 1993 EOMF Research Priority Workshop. In the context of the overallresearch goals for the EOMF, it indicates where there are gaps in the research program. Inaddition, selected research partners have been interviewed to ascertain their opinions on whatgaps in the science program needs attention. Another part of the report deals with theidentification of the science needed to back up the search for criteria and indicators ofsustainable forestry. Finally, the report includes a section on whether the existing forestdescriptions and classifications are adequate and if there is adequate knowledge of the ecologyand silviculture of the lesser used forest flora in the EOMF region.

METHODS

The approach to the first five tasks of the review was straight forward and required an analysisof the project proposals and their progress reports and the solicitation of partners opinions ontheir understanding of what gaps exist in the research program (Appendix C list of thoseinterviewed). The data obtained from the files and the on-going projects were compared withthe strategic goals for the EOMF and the research requirements in the original EOMF proposalfor consistency and relevance. Interviews with partners regarding the gaps in research and theimportance of criteria and indicators were designed to answer the basic questions of where the

5

gaps exist and what it will take to understand sustainable forestry in the EOMF. The threequestions (Appendix D) used in the interviews were designed to look at overall EOMF programgaps, to indicate those areas that will require further research, and to obtain some basic idea ofthe level of understanding of the issue of criteria and indicators. The latter is important if theEOMF is to know what types of activities will lead to sustainable forestry and how to realizewhen they get close to or attain a program that supports sustainable forestry. Interviews were made with science people involved in the development of sustainable forestry criteria andindicators on an international level.

There is not a statistical dimension to this report as it was impossible to canvas every projectleader, or every member of the EOMF to ascertain their inputs to the review process.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A review of the science related projects and the non-funded proposals shows that most arerelevant to the strategic goals of the EOMF and the original research goals as set out in theoriginal EOMF proposal to Forestry Canada. It is realized that on-going projects have beenrevised since they first started due to reductions in funding from the Forestry Canada Green Plansince 1992. This results section will look at each of the on-going science-related projects andindicate where they are relevant to the EOMF goals. In the following sections the EOMFstrategic goals will be referred to by number only and these can be verified with the EOMFAgreement with Forestry Canada. The second set of numbers refer to the goals from Section 6,and Research of the original proposal as listed in the Introduction to this report. While a listingof strategic goals and the relevant projects are found in the 1994-1995 Annual Report of theEOMF, the following statements reflect the authors understanding of the relevant goals.

Review of on-going science-related projects:

1.1/93 - IRM Planning Framework - This is the largest of the active projects and isconsidered in the science program because of its potential impact on the conduct of all theEOMF projects. It seeks to identify the major resources within the model forest, but focusseson the development of a planning approach for regional municipalities to carry out sustainableforestry and manage those resources. In addition to being relevant to EOMF Research Goal 4.1,4.2, and 4.3 this project is also relevant to the Integrated Resource Management Goal 1.1, 1.2,1.3, 1.4 and possibly 1.6. The project is also relevant to all Section 6 goals related to resourceinventory information needs for resource managers.

1.2/93 - Relative Density Guidelines - The project is mainly research oriented in the testing ofthe SILVAH model and the collection of basic measurements on a wide variety of stands. Theinformation gathered is well suited for use in managing forest ecosystems. It is relevant to goals4.1, 4.2, 1.1, 1.5, 1.4, 1.6 and to the Sustainable Forest Practices Goal 2.1. In addition it isrelevant goal A4 of the proposal.

2.1/93 - Ecological Woodlands Restoration - The activity in this project is more related totechnology transfer and demonstrations rather than research per se. The science activity is indata collection on old growth sites in Darling Township and interfacing with the Project

6

2.10193. The project is relevant to goals, 4.1, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2 and the Public Information andEducation Goal 3.3 and 3.5. It is also helping meet original proposals forest managementtechniques goals Al, A5, B2 and B9.

2.2/93 - Industrial Wood Production - This project includes forestry activity that touches onfarm workers directly. It includes farm-tractor based forestry machinery trials.. The researchapproach is similar to that used by FERIC in its equipment testing trials under actual workingconditions. The project is relevant to EOMF goals 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, and Section 6 goals A2, Bl and B9.

2.4/93 - Alternative Vegetation Management Practices - The activities in this project arebasic to sustainable forestry through the promotion of non-chemical means for vegetationcontrol at the nursery level. It has a direct research and technology transfer orientation. Theproject is relevant to goals 2.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 4.1 and Section 6 goals Bl, B2, B3 and B5 .

2.10/93 - Songbird Population Monitoring - Research activity is through the studies onsongbirds of the EOMF, in particular studies on the Cerulean Warblers. All three studies in thisproject support students working for their MSc or BSc degrees at Queens. The project isrelevant to goals 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3 and 4.1. In addition Section 6 goals Bl and B9 arereflected in this project.

2.11/93 - Forest Meadow Habitat - Activities include brushing, scarification and seeding ofgrass/clover mixtures in transmission corridors. It relates to a form of vegetation managementthat hopefully will not need chemical treatments. The project is relevant to EOMF goals 2.2, 3.3and 4.1.

2.13/93 - Wildlife Habitat Matrices - This project is comprehensive as it deals with variousaspects of wildlife and habitats including inventory of special forest stands for animals and thedevelopment of silvicultural prescriptions to enhance wildlife habitats in private woodlots. It isrelevant to EOMF goals 1.2, 2.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 4.1 and to the original proposal goals A2, A5, Bland B9.

4.1/93 - Natural Genetic Heritage - The well balanced research in this project is primarilyinvolved with genecology studies with several conifer species (white spruce, pitch pine andwhite pine. Another important part of the project is the study butternut in the region and problems with butternut canker. In addition to EOMF goal 4.1 this project is relevant to goals2.2 and 3.5. It is also meeting Section 6 goals Al, A5, B7, B8 and B9.

4.2/93 - Nut Tree Culture - Activities in the project blend with those of 4.1/93 in that thebutternut canker problem has become of serious concern regarding the conservation of thespecies in the region. There is also some linkage with the windbreak project. Therefore it isrelevant to goals 3.4, 3.5 and 4.1 and to Section 6 goals B7, B8 and B9.

4.3/93 - Agroforestry Windbreaks - The project activities include establishing demonstrationsof living snow fences at the G. H. Ferguson nursery; studies on the effects of natural fencerowson microclimate near them; and studies on the characteristics of fencerows in eastern Ontario. Itis relevant to EOMF goals 2.2, 3.3 and 4.1, and goals A5, B2 and B4 of the original proposal.

7

4.4/93 - Recycled Soil Amendments - This research project fills a void in the understanding ofthe disposal of forest products wastes. The products from the Domtar mill are used to improvesoils in both agricultural and forested areas. The project is relevant to goals 2.2, 3.3 and 4.1,and Section 6 goal Bl.

4.6/93 - Maple Syrup Industry - The project has a research element that deals with sapproduction in various sugar bushes in the region. It is relevant to goals 1.5, 2.2 and 4.1, and toSection 6 goal Bl.

4.MCA.93 - Akwesasne Partnership - This project represents a continuum of activities thattouch each of the major goals and is referred to as 1.MCA - 5.MCA Akwesasne Partnership. Research aspects include studies on the history, culture and spiritual significance of black ash;propagation studies on cherry, butternut and other nuts species; and studies on food andmedicinal plants on the Council lands. This project is relevant to EOMF goals 1.2, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2,3.1, 3.3, 3.5, and 4.1. It is also relevant to the original proposals Section 6 goals Al, A5, Bl, B4and B9.

Review of all unfunded program related proposals.

While 60 other proposals were reviewed, it was not possible to indicate those that were notapproved because of lack of funding or whether they did not fit the EOMF program priorities. Those proposals that are felt to have relevance to the goals of the model forest, are discussed inthis section of the report. In reviewing these proposals only the apparent science content andthe value to the EOMF were evaluated. Costing aspects were not considered. The followingare those proposals that seem to have merit:

Beaver and Water Flow Management (1992) - In an area where the beaver has only a fewenemies, they can become a nuisance to local woodlot owners. Discussions with CanadianWildlife Service may help clarify the extent of the problem and answer the need for information. The EOMF should be able to supply the information needed to understand the management ofbeavers in the region.

Continuing Education for Resource Managers (1992) - While this proposal is not directly aresearch activity it does discuss how the results of research from the EOMF and scienceinstitutions are conveyed to land/forest managers. New forest management technologies that areenvironmentally sound and well understood by the land managers of the EOMF will be a majorstep toward sustainable forestry.

Forest Drainage (1992) - Guidelines for drainage already exist. However, a good drainageproject could test the feasibility of such activity in the Model Forest region. Therefore this couldbe a viable project if undertaken on municipal lands or if several land owners were willing tohave a demonstration area in the region. There could be a linkage to a project on beavermanagement.

Non-Consumptive Forest Use (1992) - The proposal was too broad in scope, but there is aneed to explore and understand the extent of land use conflicts in the Model Forest. Resolution

8

of those conflicts where possible also puts the EOMF on the road to understanding sustainableforestry.

Forest Health Proposal (1993) - In this proposal there was an element of public education withthe production of fact sheets on forest pests of the Model Forest. These would be helpful tomanagers in making decisions on pest control. As such, there needs to be some search of theCanadian Forest Service and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources files for existing brochureson the local pests. It is suspected that many already exist. For those that don't exist, furtherhelp from those two agencies might be solicited. What this proposal does point out, is thatforest health will be a continuing issue for the sustainable management of the Model Forest.

Paper from Grass (1993) - In an area where farm lands have replaced the forestsover the past hundred years it is unlikely that those lands will be restored to the original forests. Alternative crops that may actually replace the forest fibre could be of interest to local landowners. One of the down sides of the proposal is that alternative crops tend to extract excessnutrients from the soil through annual cropping. However this proposal should not bediscounted as it could, in special areas, offer a product that would be of value to the region andit could be brought into the scope of sustainable agriculture as a companion to sustainableforestry.

Urban Forest (1993) - Urban forestry is important to more than the citizens of the large urbancommunities such as Ottawa. Smaller towns and municipalities in the region need to understandthe value of trees in their communities. There is need for research to select the appropriatespecies for each community. The research aspect comes with the testing and review of whatspecies are best suited for a particular community. Some years ago the Canadian Forest Servicehad begun to look at this issues in the prairie provinces with a program called "Trees in theAgricultural Zone". Also the prairies had a program under Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act(PFRA) that supplied trees to farms subjected to wind erosion and to homesteads to reduce theeffect of wind on the cost of heating during the winter. A review of these activities could behelpful to a study on urban or community forests. This project has been followed-up in a waythrough the creation of an EOMF committee on community forests.

DSS for Silvicultural Planning (1993) - Decision support systems for management activitieshave become a buzz word in the field of forest management. Much of the activity is based onthe use of geographical information systems (GIS). It is assumed that much of this activity willbe available from the province and will fit into the Integrated Resource Management project. This area of science needs to be watched to ensure the technology is understood by the landmanagers and where feasible, is used to streamline management planning.

PNFI White Pine Ecosystems (1993) - The first criteria agreed to in recent meeting inMontreal by Canadian and international forest scientist and managers, was on biodiversity of theforest ecosystems. This proposal dealt directly with that issue. The EOMF has to maintain it'sawareness of the issue and where possible, create an atmosphere of understanding ofbiodiversity in all its projects. Research in the region will help to understand the full diversity ofthe forests. Any research in this area will be long term, as will be the understanding ofsustainable forestry. Any ecosystem study will be difficult and results are likely to be slow incoming. However, this information has to be obtained if one is to achieve sustainable forestry.

9

Septoria Screening "Technology" for Hybrid Poplar (1993) - This proposal was a straightforward research proposal. It was proposed by the University of Toronto and would have beenhelpful in training a new scientist. The kind of methods used would be the state of the art inforest pathology. This was an opportunity to produce a first rate science product from theEOMF. Sometimes it may be prudent to support an activity like this to keep interest in theModel Forest up in the deep academic community. The type of science that could have beendeveloped here would be of value in the studies on butternut canker.

Hybrid Poplar Nutrients (1993) - There has been considerable work done by the province andthe ENFOR program of the federal government in this area of work. The proposal doesn'tevoke the need for a major research project, but does bring back the need for area landmanagers to know how to use soils data and the related land classification. There are few, ifany, EOMF projects that have really looked at the problem of soils and land classification. This is important, as the area has been cleared for agriculture in the past, and that agriculture togreat extent has failed because of diminished soil and land capacity. A competence in this area isnecessary if the EOMF is to understand sustainable forestry.

Natural Fence Rows (1993) - The on-going windbreak project does a very good job dealingwith wind shelter for nursery crops, but there is a greater dimension to be studied. These are theeffects of natural fence rows (which may be artificial through the extraction of the originalforests) in the farm areas have a role to play in providing shelter for agricultural crops and in themovement of forest animals from one forest to another and to some extent the movement ofvarious plant species from one area to another.

McGill Forest Ecology and Management Research (1994) - This proposal relates back to the previousone on forest health. Understanding the overall health of the forest communities is important if theEOMF is to attain sustainable forestry. Monitoring programs in the forest will provide information onhow well the criteria of sustainable forest are being met. They will take a hard look at the indicators. Each model forest will be different and the need will be there for the EOMF to be active in defining andmonitoring the indicators of sustainable forestry for their region.

Sustainable Indicators (1994) - The level of proposed activity in this project would demandconsiderable amount of time. A lot of good work has already been done outside the ModelForest and in other government and international agencies. Recently a special committee of theCanadian Council of Forest Ministers have come up with a list of criteria in a meeting inMontreal. These parallel those developed by the international community. Indicators areanother thing and will in many cases have to be customized for different regions of the country. Therefore the EOMF region needs to be aware and participate in the understanding of whatindicators are needed for the region. This will require specific research for the Model Forest.

Aerial Photography Initiative (1994) - This proposal dealt with large scale photography forthe region. Much of the information is available, but in many cases needs to be digitized tomake it useful in the development of appropriate GIS. This information should also beincorporated into the IRM project.

Conservation Reserve (1994) - A study area developed in conjunction with the QueensUniversity could have considerable benefit to the Model Forest. As a science project the

10

development of a conservation reserve would offer a place to carry out research in the future. In itself the proposal would only have been an investment, not a research project.

Habitat Supply Objectives (1994) - While this proposal seems to have only been looking formoral support it has some relevance to the previous proposals relating to the ecology of theregion and points up the importance of soils management. Again the IRM project should beaware of the use of soils and land capability data for the development of regions or municipalforest management plans.

Ecological Land Classification (1994) - This proposal and another one dealing with a similarsubject (Ecological Lands Classification (1994)) re-emphasize the need to understand thecapabilities of the forest lands in the region. Such projects have been carried out in the past forareas in northern Ontario and is in some way under way for the EOMF region. Any detailswould have to be obtained from the OMNR. The subject is brought up here as a means offlagging its importance to sustainable forestry.

Bio-physical mapping for the EOMF (1994) - This proposal is relevant to the last one, butdiffers in that it offers a research look at how to understand landscape ecology to better definethe boundaries of forest ecosystems. This type of research has value to the overall planningprocess used for forest management decisions in the Model Forest. This work couldcomplement the major IRM project and as such is relevant to EOMF Goal 1.

Waste Management Master Plan Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry (1995) - The proposal wasnot well defined, but it does present a series of research opportunities to review the potentialpollution sources in the Model Forest. The question is what to do with local and regionalpollution to water, soils and the air. Studies on the extent of pollution would help direct futureland management decisions.

Review of Section 6 of the EOMF original proposal to Forestry Canada and therecommendations of the 1993 meeting of the EOMF Research Priority Working Group

A review of the two documents, indicates that some of the program areas suggested in theEOMF proposal to Forestry Canada, are being followed up in the present projects, however, notto the extent envisioned in the original objectives of the proposal. This was alluded to in theprevious section on on-going projects and should be expected, considering some of theobjectives are long-term in nature. Areas that have little or no follow-up and that are critical tothe development of an EOMF program for sustainable forestry, include studies on the ecologicalland classification of the region; non-timber values in the Model Forest; coordinated studies onforest fragmentation in the region; and only limited effort being put into forest health projects. The on-going projects have already been evaluated as to their relevance to the EOMF Goals(above) and re-iterating the relevance to the original proposal would be redundant at this time. The gaps that are related to the objectives will be further explored in the summary andrecommendations sections.

In July of 1993, the Research Priority Working Group held a workshop to establish roles andtasks for a Forest Science Committee or Working Group, and also to generate ideas for researchin the model forest.

11

The report of that meeting (Appendix E) listed criteria for the present Forest Science Committeeand gave a fairly comprehensive list of research activities that were put into 5 topic areas to beprioritized. The itemized activities in that document tend to be all inclusive, and by nature aresubjects for very long term studies.

The first section on attitudes/people research would require expertise at the Masters or PhDlevel to evaluate the results. The information would be useful, but would have to be carefullythought out. Despite that, one suggested study on the demographics of small woodlot owners,could be very useful in the development of targeted technology transfer programs.

The second set of activities on economics/marketing/products, includes research on problemsalready being addressed, (i.e. windbreak studies, and use of wood wastes). Again, the scope ofthe suggested research was broad and would entail long-term projects. There is nothing wrongwith this type of activity, as the attainment of sustainable forestry is a long road.

The third set of activities on management techniques/approaches, is reflected in some of thepresently active research projects. Some of the areas are related to inventories, decision supportsystems, improved hardwood management techniques (maple), the use of mill wastes andalternatives to herbicides for vegetation management. More of the suggested priorities could belooked at and projects developed at various levels.

The fourth set of research activities on conservation/history gets down to the basics ofunderstanding biodiversity in the Model Forest, but are highly academic in nature. Ongoingstudies on genetic diversity offer some practical approaches to the butternut canker problem,and the inventory of the islands at Akwesasne provides a basis for the inclusion of the region asan ecological reserve. For the most part, priorities given in this set are easily defined althoughcarrying out the research may be more difficult.

The fifth set of activities on process, is one of management, not utilizing particularscience disciplines to solve forest management problems.

The report of the workshop listed criteria for the establishment of a Forest Science Committeeas well as providing a fairly comprehensive list of research activities that were listed by 5 topicareas. The list was not prioritized for effective use by EOMF managers. While they do presenta broad range of opportunities, they do not provide appropriate focus for a research program forthe Model Forest.

Discussion with EOMF partners in science and their perception of program gaps 1.

Overview comments on the EOMF program and potential activities.

The most re-occurring general comment in all of the interviews, was that communication withthe land owners/managers was paramount and putting best practices as well as existing sciencerelated forest management in their hands, was of the highest priority. Failure to do so isconsidered to be a major gap. It is acknowledged that the technology for the deliver of themessage is there and examples relating to harvesting, planting and tending could be readilyidentified. The up-take of the information that would be delivered assumes that land owners

12

have an understanding of the value of forests in the first place, and second, that there issomething to be delivered. The latter comment may be cynical, but as such it is worth noting inthe development of an effective technology transfer program.

Associated with this gap, is another general one that needs to be filled. The level ofunderstanding of the Model Forest and forestry activity in the region needs to be elevated in theurban community. How many of the city dwellers in the EOMF actually know they are living ina designated Model Forest? This is not a science issue per se, but affects the support for scienceoriented projects in the EOMF.

Landowners in the region have many interests, of which forestry might be one of them. Themanagement of the land requires understanding of forestry, agriculture and wildlife, in additionto the social values that come with living on land. The first two are extremely important as bothcould supply a source for income for the land manager. So a model forest program in easternOntario has to have full consideration for sustainable agriculture as well as sustainable forestry. How well these two are integrated in the region needs to be understood by the EOMF members.

Agriculture and forestry are business oriented and any sponsored EOMF project should alsohave relevance to the other small businesses of the region. Sustainability comes in bothenvironmental and economic forms and there should be no shame in talking about profit fromland management, just as there is no shame in discussing the social and environmental issuesrelated to land. This begs a commitment to sustainability and there has been concern that thiscommitment needs to be elevated and broadened within the EOMF.

Science projects, social projects and business projects in the EOMF will have to provide the vitalinformation needed for managing the land base of the region. For this reason, the EOMF forestinventory and land resources are necessary, as they will help to bring about enlightened landmanagement. It will serve as the building block for an future management and research activitiescarried-out in the Model Forest.

The involvement of the EOMF in the International Model Forest Program is seen as a positiveactivity that will bring credit and new information to the organization. The association with theother Model Forests in Canada are also a source of information and direction. Care must betaken to ensure the main focus, though, on the Eastern Ontario Model Forest and its goals.

The fifth goal in the agreement with Forestry Canada dealt with the evaluation of the overallprogram. This should be an on-going activity. The Board of Directors for the EOMF approvedan Evaluation Framework for the Model Forest. The evaluation process should be madeapparent to all members and supporters of the EOMF.

In this same vein, it is time to re-evaluate the goals and objectives of the Agreement and theoriginal proposal and prepare for any redirection that may be needed to make the EOMFsuccessful.

A final general comment is that there should be some sort of anecdotal history of thedevelopment of the EOMF. There have been trials, tribulations, exaltations, happy and sadmoments over the past few years. Such a history needs to be personalized for the present and

13

future members of the EOMF to enjoy.

2. Sustainable Forestry Indicators

The most important indicator of sustainable forestry in the EOMF as mentioned by thoseinterviewed would be a change in the landowners philosophy regarding the use of modem,effective land management techniques. If they were following recommendations developedwithin the Model Forest or from other science and management sources, there would be anexcellent chance their activities would be sustainable. A program of continuing education forthe members and managers in the EOMF will be necessary to attain this level of commitment tosustainable forestry. To aid in the understanding effort needs to be made in the development ofcodes of practice for forestry and standards for Silvicultural operations in the region.

To many of the people in the EOMF, the use of words, like criteria and indicators, do notconger up the same ideas as are being expressed in the national and international forestcommunities. Education on and the description of these concepts will be very important inhelping people to understand the concepts of sustainable forestry.

There will have to be considerable effort in defining the indicators. Some will be borrowed fromsister model forests, but others will have to be developed within the EOMF. Their developmentand eventual monitoring will be critical to understanding the success of sustainability in theEOMF.

In this day and age one cannot bypass the catch phrases that are becoming synonymous withsustainable development, such as biodiversity and forest health. If the management practiceschange as mentioned above certainly there should be an indication that the biodiversity of forests are not being unduly endangered. The resultant forests and managed lands will have toprovide the habitats that protect both endangered plant and animal species. However they willhave to ensure the economic sustainability of the EOMF.

Healthy forests, happy people and continued profits from the forest will be a good indicator ofsustainability in the EOMF. All of this will take considerable time to achieve as there is no suchthing as instant sustainability of forests.

3. Gaps in the research program. The following are comments from those interviewedon gaps in the program, and some possible approaches for future research in theEOMF.

Inventory and related activities

A complete inventory of the EOMF would be desirable if integrated resource managementplanning methods are to be fully exploited.

The forest ecosystem classification needs to be completed for the EOMF region toallow for the proper development of land management plans.

In order to have a sustainable forest there is the need to know the value of the

14

products from the forest, in particular the non-timber values.

Forest inventory for the EOMF needs to be finished as soon as possible.

Several people interviewed expressed the need to include landscape analysis and GIS technologyin the Model Forest, but first there is a need for a complete forest cover inventory of the regionfor data to be used in these analyses.

Any information that exists in the files of land managers or with managementagencies, that can be digitized for use in GIS , should be made available.

Integrated resource management requires special attention to landscape ecology and needs tocombine existing soils information with GIS technology and inventory data for both industrialand environmental uses.

The landscape analysis activities have not been done and are needed before other projects can gotoo far. This means that GIS technology has to be brought to bare on the problems. Issues suchas wildlife habitat, forest fragmentation and forest cover are examples of the immediate need.

Forest management practices and education

A good program of vegetation management is needed to ensure the rapid development of newlyforested lands. Such management must include alternatives to the use of chemicals.

New cultural practices in the forest be evaluated for their effects on the quality of the woodproduct harvested.( i.e. effects of thinning, fertilizers or tending on wood structure andstrength).

Ecosystem management presents a unique problem for private land management. Relevantmethods and techniques for land managers are needed. This problem has a direct impact on howto maintain biodiversity on private lands.

The MCA has been addressing perceived gaps in research through their policy of shifting projectpriorities as the gaps become apparent. Naturalized knowledge systems (native technology)need to be linked with other EOMF projects.

Red pine is becoming more important in the region as many of the plantations are reaching thestage of thinning or maturity. There is an opportunity to exploit the use of the smaller diameter(5" DBH) material for a variety of products.

There is a continued need to follow-up on small farm equipment testing for use in woodlotmanagement. At the present time a farmer could put up as little as $20,000 for grapples, atrailer loader and winches that could fit existing farm equipment to assist in the harvest of woodfrom small lots.

The environmental impacts of farm/forestry practices on local wildlife need to beunderstood.

15

Silvicultural guidelines need to be developed along with the codes and standardsfor forest practices for the Model Forest region. This includes the development of plans formanagement for non-fibre values in the forests.

The EOMF should reconsider the project on shoreline and river bank restoration in those areassubjected to serious erosion, or that have a potential for serious erosion due to poor landmanagement practices. Hazard slump areas along the Nation River, which are not due to poorland management, need not be included in any revived shoreline project.

Further research on riparian forestry is important to understand the interfacebetween river systems and forests and water quality.

Monitoring sustainability - indicators and forest health

There is a need to study the types of indicators for sustainable forestry and the studies shouldinclude both animal and plant species. There needs to be a particular reference to the stability orfluctuations of their populations.

Monitoring the stability of the species and their habitats is essential tounderstanding biodiversity in the region.

Butternut canker is a concern in the region, not so much that butternut is a significant forestproduct species, but that it is unique to the regions forest and may very well be an indicatorspecies. More research should be done in this area on the problem.

Forest health monitoring and back-up research are needed to help protect the biodiversityof the forest regions of the EOMF.

Increased monitoring of forest health and for indicators of sustainable forestry will be requiredover the life of the Model Forest. This is crucial to the understanding of how well the EOMF ismeeting its goal of sustainability.

Landscape ecology and understanding changes in the landscape are also important to developingindicators. Research is needed to help understand the full extent of any perturbations on thesustainability of the forests.

More emphasis should be placed on integrated pest management.

Forest fragmentation and biodiversity

Studies on forest fragmentation relating to both plant and animals need to be undertaken. Thestudies on fencerows is relevant to this priority. This area of research is also a basic objective ofthe EOMF original proposal. A project of this type should include the coordination of relatedwork on fragmentation as some of the existing projects are relevant to the issue.

There is a need for long-term studies on indicator species such as the Cerulean Warbler andother sensitive birds or animals.

16

The wildlife/forests matrices study needs to be expanded to cover the entire region. A goodliterature review is needed to ensure the present approach will be applicable to all of the EOMF.

Forest products

A directory on the markets for regional forest products needs to be developed. This will requireresearch on the full forest activities of the region. This type of study could be combined witheconomic studies on woodlot operations.

A directory of all companies in the EOMF region that either produce wood products, or usewood in their products, would help the people of the region understand the value of their localforests, and would be useful in directing further research projects. This should include basketmakers to mill operations.

Information should be obtained on the volume of wood used, the number of those employed andthe species used. Gaps in this information could be used in selecting areas of research.

Research management

Linkages between the research projects need to be brought to attention more than at annualmeetings or notes in project reports. Active contact between the project leaders is needed tointegrate information for use by managers.

All science proposals need a "good" literature review before they are assessed in order to reduceduplication of previous research. i.e. the answer to the problem may already exist.

Academics of the EOMF region are missing in the partnerships research. At present, only a fewof the EOMF colleges or universities are involved. There is a need to encourage the academiccommunity to take a greater interest in the EOMF.

International criteria and indicators and the EOMF

A national working group on criteria and indicators of sustainable forestry, under the aegis ofthe Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) met in mid- January, 1995 and filed a report. While there were seven criteria first considered the CCFM suggested that only six be developedand the broad social concerns of the seventh be incorporated with thesixth criteria

In parallel with the CCFM process, a meeting in Montreal of like minded people from Australia,Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, the RussianFederation and the United States of America, developed a set of criteria and indicators forinternational boreal and temperate forests. This was followed by a meeting of an internationalgroup in Santiago, Chile that ratified the criteria and indicators put forward in the "MontrealProcess". It is worth noting that Canada has been a leader in the process. The Canadian ForestService has published a 27 page document on these criteria and indicators.

The Canadian process seems to have developed criteria and indicators that are

17

compatible with those developed in the "Montreal Process".

The overall criteria and indicators framework has a problem of implementation. It will requirethe review of provincial and federal policies relating to forestry and the outcomes will be morethan the implementation of a set of codes or standards. The provincial governments areresponsible for the implementation with help of the other agencies involved in forestry. Thiscould possibly include forest industry and individual land owners, although neither have beendirectly involved in the process.

The criteria and indicators will have to be built into the Canadian Standards Associationstandards for forestry practices. Registration of the country or an industry will be necessary asinternational trade in the future will require forest products be produced from sustainablymanaged forests. The lowest level of forest product producers, such as the private land owner,sells to next level of industry and that part of the industry sells products on the internationalmarket. Therefore, small forestry operators have to cope with a registration and certificationprocess based on sustainable forest management. This aspect of the criteria and indicators needsconsiderable attention by all levels of forest managers. This means that woodlot owners, if theyare not informed, could create a major problem in the implementation of the standards forforestry practices.

A set of criteria and indicators will provide many other options down the road. For instanceaboriginals will need to continue involvement in the process. At the present time, the NationalAboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA) is involved. The social aspects of the seventh criteriaincluded those supported by the aboriginal groups. As mentioned above, these issues have beencombined in the sixth criteria.

For the Model Forest, major questions relate to how the land owner cope with the criteria.They need a good definition of the criteria and indicators as a guide for sustainable forestry in 16the EOMF. What do they look for and what forestry practices do they use? The EOMF needsto take a lead role in responding to these concerns, as will the provincial forestry agency.

One should remember there is no such thing as instant sustainable forestry. The basic level ofsustainability could take more than a 100 years. At this time we don't even know all of thebiological aspects of sustainable forestry. Considerable effort is needed to explain the conceptsof sustainable forest management as well as an understanding of the actions that lead tosustainability. to the landowner.

Finally a report on the criteria and indicators for Canada's forests will be published shortly by theCanadian Forest Service. The EOMF should receive copies as soon as it has been released fordistribution.

Adequacy of forest descriptions and classifications

The question brought forward in this section is not one of how to manage the major foreststypes of the MF region, but to understand the minor forest ecosystems of the region, how touse them and integrate them into the plans for the overall Model Forest.

18

It is evident this topic needs further development. A thorough review of the minor forestecosystems of the EOMF carried out at the academic level, would prove very useful to theEOMF before developing any further science programs in this area.

There are several references that give good descriptions of the forests of the region. The first isthe book on the "Forest Regions of Canada" by J.S. Rowe. The area covered is included in thelarger description of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest region. Within that description theEOMF covers portions of three sub-descriptions of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence region. Theseinclude the L.2 Upper St. Lawrence section, the L.4c - Middle Ottawa section, and parts of theL. 1 Huron-Ontario section. The latter only touches the very south west part of the EOMF.

The descriptions in the "Forest Regions Of Canada" for the region are fairly cryptic, butform a basis for the overall description of the Model Forest.

A general text regarding the forests of the region that is of help in describing the silvicultureoptions for the forest of the EOMF, can be found in the USDA-FS publication on "SilviculturalSystem for the Major Forest Types of the United States". Of particular importance to theEOMF, are the sections of the publication that deal with northern hardwoods, the northern whitecedar forests and the eastern white pine silvicultural system.

Another and considerably more detailed text of interest that describes the silvics of variousforest tree species, is the 1965 version of "Silvics of Forest Trees of the United States". Thispublication is in the process of being revised and up-dated and should soon be available. Whilethis has been produced for the United States, it describes species found in eastern Ontario.

A review of the "Native Trees of Canada" will show that the EOMF region has a multitude oftree species that are not well known and that do not have specific information on their silvics. Tree species of the region that are not well known are: pitch pine, red spruce, eastern hemlock,eastern red cedar, largetooth aspen, butternut, ironwood, the hickories, the birches, beech, oaks,witch-hazel, mountain ash, hawthorns, serviceberry, cherry species, sumac, basswood, dogwoods, ashes and nannyberry.

Special projects could be developed to exploit these species and understand their silvics. Research projects with the local universities or with special consultants, could help the ModelForest understand the extent to which these species could be exploited or to what level theyneed to be protected.

In addition to tree species of the region, there is a need to understand the undergrowth (groundcover) species in the region's forests. The opportunity for research in this region is considerableand the EOMF should develop a plan to assist studies that will help clarify the roles of theselesser species in the regional forests.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The first five year phase of activity for the EOMF (June 25, 1992 - March 31, 1997) will be overin 2 years. It is now time to develop a plan for the science related activities for the second fiveyears of the EOMF. The following recommendations are directed at future activities in the

19

Model Forest and are designed to bring regional forest management into line with the principlesof sustainable forestry.

The first five recommendations contained in this section are listed according to priority asrecognized from the authors review of the existing science program and the future science needsfor the EOMF. The sixth recommendation deals with an overview of sustainable forestry and itsimpact on the entire EOMF science program. The seventh recommendation deals with themanagement of science within the Model Forest. While there may be some give in the order ofthe priorities regarding the availability of expertise, it is felt that a systematic approach should betaken to fill in the gaps in the program.

Recommendation # 1 - Inventory and related activities

Different levels of inventories of the EOMF region are underway. Some have looked abasic forest cover as in the work by the RMOC, while others are being developed asbasic forest management inventories. The Model Forest and the province are active inassisting the development of an effective inventory.

The inventory of the forests and of forest cover for the EOMF should be completed as soon aspossible and the EOMF should actively assist in conducting that inventory.

Almost all of the other high priority science activities in the Model Forest depend on the basedata that will come from the inventory. And where possible the inventory should include keyaspects of the ecosystems in the region, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, and recreationpotentials (i.e. ecological land classification). The inventory must be tied in, where possible,with agricultural land classification and municipal political divisions. The Forest ScienceCommittee needs to ensure that the inventory supplies appropriate information to future scienceprojects.

Recommendation # 2 - Forest management practices and education

A survey of the existing forest management practices is needed to determine the level of knowledge and use of those practices by the forest land owners of the EOMF. Theninformation on other new or existing forest management practices in planting, tendingand harvesting should be made available for all forest land owners (such as being done bythe Landowners Resource Centre, which should be expanded to cover the entireEOMF). This recommendation also covers an increased effort in continuing education ofland owners in novel techniques and concepts in forestry. The logical outcome of thisrecommendation should be a set of forestry codes and silvicultural standards as part of astrategy to achieving sustainable forestry.

Recommendation # 3 - Monitoring sustainability - indicators and forest health

Relevant to the previous recommendation, it is particularly important to define forlandowners, what criteria and indicators will be used in determining the sustainablemanagement of forests in the region. This will include developing indicators ofsustainability and forest health, which can be monitored on an annual or special surveys

20

basis. Increased monitoring forest health is seen as extremely important in identifyingmajor insect or disease problems. Results of the surveys should be included in anyregional or national reports on forest health.

Recommendation # 4 - Forest fragmentation and biodiversity

The main feature of the EOMF is that its forests are fragmented, and in many casesisolated. Both wildlife and plants need corridors in which to move in safety. Researchon the effects of fragmentation on the dynamics of these species is needed to helpmanagement understand what practices will best protect the biodiversity of the region,yet allow for economic sustainability. In addition to ongoing projects, Wildlife HabitatMatrices should be expanded to the entire Model Forest, and Agroforestry Windbreaksneed to return to the original goals related to natural windbreaks. The focus of the lattershould be on the windbreaks as corridors for wildlife and plants. A broader aspect ofthis recommendation includes understanding the forest landscape ecology of the EOMF.

Recommendation # 5 - Forest products

An inventory of forest products industries and the products available in the EOMF region wouldhelp the general public and non-forest land owners understand the value of forestry to EasternOntario. The latter may find opportunities in managing their lands for forestry. It will also helpto prioritize and focus future research in forest products. A relevant communications effort inthis area would help raise the profile forestry in the region

Recommendation # 6 - Sustainable Forestry

This report has dealt with gaps in research and the previous recommendation aredirected at filling those gaps. The resultant research will assist in our understanding ofsustainable forestry. However, the EOMF will have to carry out specific studies on theimplications of attaining a level of sustainable forestry that can be understood andfollowed by EOMF forest land owners. These studies will have to be carried outconcurrently with the present and future science program to help shape the direction ofthe overall EOMF program. Also these studies need to be economic, social andenvironmental in nature with a scientific backing.

Recommendation # 7 - Research management

The management of research in the EOMF should be given a high priority with theBoard of Directors through the Science Committee.

The Science Committee should approve of a list of priority research areas and then call forresearch proposals in those areas. Unsolicited proposals should be reviewed for their fit in thepriority listing.

There are several principles in selecting, approving and managing new researchprojects.

21

No research proposal should be reviewed or accepted if it is not accompanied with anappropriate review of the literature pertaining to the subject. This should ensure unnecessaryduplication of research.

The Science Committee should have each proposal reviewed and evaluated by a science peergroup.

Either each member of the Science Committee or of the Board of Directors should take theresponsibility for liaison with particular projects and be able to report on progress andCommittee or Director’s meetings.

The Model Forest management should ensure that linkages between projects is more than apaper exercise. This could be aided through liaison activities of the Board mentioned above.

Reports of research should be published, either in science and technology journals or inappropriate EOMF publications. Where possible these reports will also need peer review.

The Science Committee should encourage increased involvement of EOMF region academicinstitutions such as Queens, University of Ottawa, Carleton University and other small collegesand technical groups in the region.

SUMMARY

The report reviews relationships between on-going programs and original goals of the EOMF asset out in the proposal to Forestry Canada and the Agreement between the EOMF and ForestryCanada. While all of the active projects have some connection to the goals of the ModelForests, there could have been a more orderly development of projects to answer the questionsthat the goals proposed. This is exemplified by the lack of priority setting in the selection of theoriginal projects. More recently the Board of Directors has been much more concerned with thedirection of the program.

The meeting of the 1993 the Research Priority Working Group developed a detailed list ofresearch activities that was also compared to the goals of the original proposal. While the listingis complementary, it doesn't add to the overall direction that science activities should take as the scope of their report was too broad and all encompassing. The group report did,however, give a wide selection of activities for future projects.

Interviews with partners resulted in a long list of potential research activities for the EOMF. These interviews also made it clear that the continuing education of the land owners is a key tothe development of a Model Forest that will be able to answer to a commitment for sustainableforestry. The single most important information set needed is the inventory of the EOMF. Thisforms the base from which other projects can develop, and from which proper managementplans for the regions forest can be developed. Without this information, critical studies on forestfragmentation, a major feature of the Model Forest, can not be effectively mounted. For someof the science oriented projects only a simple forest cover map may be sufficient, but for in-depth studies will require a complete inventory of the land uses of the EOMF.

22

International and national criteria and indicators will become available shortly from the CFS andshould be of considerable help in the development of studies to look for specific indicators in theEOMF.

The adequacy of forest descriptions and classifications for the lesser known species is notdetermined in this study, as it is felt that a thorough review of the literature is needed. Such areview could be the subject of a fourth year university special project or if tied to research on afew specific lesser known species a masters level program. This issue needs to be discussed theacademic community.

A series of seven general recommendations provides both direction and priority for futureresearch studies in the EOMF. As noted previously the recommendations are strong onproviding an good inventory and on the development of continuing education programs for theEOMF land owners that stress principles of sustainable forestry. There is also a series ofrecommendations that deals with specific activities, which can be completed in parallel with thedevelopment of the inventory.

REFERENCES

Bums, Russell M., Technical Compiler. 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the Major ForestTypes of the United States. USDA-FS Agriculture Handbook No. 445. 191 p.

Canadian Forestry Service - Ste. Foy Quebec. 1988. Successful Forestry - A guide to privateforest management. ISBN 0-660-12893-4. Minister of Supply and Services Catalogue no. Fo29-1711988E.

Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. 1995. Criteria and indicators for theconservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests - The MontrealProcess. 27 pp.

Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and borealforests - The Montreal Process (Draft). 1995. Text agreed at Santiago, Chile February 2-4,1995. Personal communication from Lorne Riley, Canadian Forest Service, 10p.

Elliott, Barbara and Beverly Shiels. 1994. The application of geographic information systemsfor the interpretation of historical land surveys. EOMF Information Report No. 8, 74p.

EOMF Agreement with Forestry Canada. December 7, 1992. 21p.

EOMF Annual Report 1993-1994. l9p.

EOMF Annual Report 1994-1995. 22p.

EOMF Evaluation Framework. 1995. Draft. Personal communication from EOMF, 9p.

EOMF Proposal to Forestry Canada. 1992. 77p.

23

Fowalls, H. A. 1965. Silvics of Forest Trees of the United States. USDA-FS AgricultureHandbook 271. 762p.

Geomatics International Inc. 1994. Development of a strategy for woodlands restoration ineastern Ontario. EOMF Information Report No. 3, 33p.

Hosie, R. C. 1979. Native Trees of Canada. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Ltd. publishers.380p.

Houston, David, Douglas Alien and Denis Lachance. 1990. Sugarbush Management: AGuide to Maintaining Tree Health. USDA-FS General Technical Report NE-129, 55p.

Jarvis, P. G., Editor. 1991. Agroforestry: Principles and Practice. Reprint from Forest Ecologyand Management Vol. 45(1991), 1991 Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., New York,N. Y.

Keddy, Cathy. 1993. Forest History of Eastern Ontario. Eastern Ontario Model ForestInformation Report No. 1, 53p.

Keddy, Cathy. 1994. Forest structure in eastern North America. EOMF InformationReport No. 9, 68p.

Keddy, Paul and Chris Drummond. 1995. Ecological properties for the evaluation ofeastern Ontario forest ecosystems. EOMF Information Report No. 13, 27p.

Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Dept. of Environment, Canadian ForestryService Publication No. 1300.

Sajan, R. J., S. Melbourne and E. J. Czerwinski. 1993. Results of forest insect and diseasesurveys in the southern region of Ontario, 1992. Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Forestry Canada,Information Report 0-X-429, 43p.

Sims, Richard, Compiler. 1992. Forest Site Classification in Canada: A Current Perspective.1992. Forestry Chronicle 68(l):21-120. also Supply and Services Canada catalogue no. Fo42-17411992E, available from Forestry Canada.

Specific indicators of sustainable forestry. 1995. Draft. Personal communication fromLome Riley, Canadian Forest Service, 9p.

Summary of Approved EOMF Projects, 1995-1996. Prepared by Patti Story. 33p.

EOMF Work Plans 1995-1996. Prepared by Patti Story.25 June 1995

24

APPENDIX # A

STRATEGIC GOALS

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) has five strategic goals. Each is listed below withcorresponding objectives. All are derived from the original proposal. Actual activities will beoutlined in annual work plans.

Goal 1 The development of an integrated resource management IRM planning processsuitable for the achievement of sustainable forestry (SF) within the EOMF.

Objectives:

1.1 to determine, in two pilot areas, resource values through pro-active consultation withstakeholders;

1.2 to define the values identified in 1.1 with quantifiable parameters using the best availableknowledge;

1.3 to define an initial framework for landscape based planning, suitable for application to thepilot studies

1.4 to incorporate a sensitivity to the political reality of the pilot areas into the IRM planningprocess;

1.5 to develop, for selected areas and sites, forest practice standards which take intoconsideration stakeholder objectives, natural systems carrying capacity and sustainability;

1.6 to design and implement an information system for the two pilot areas, as well as for theMohawk Council of Akwesasne, which includes appropriate technology and techniquesfor the collection, compilation and analysis of data in order to meet the specific IRM tasksand requirements derived from the activities undertaken to meet previous objectives; and,

1.7 to develop IRM plans for Akwesasne and the two pilot areas utilizing the results ofactivities undertaken to meet previous objectives.

GOAL 2 The conduct of sustainable forestry activities within an IRMframework, targeting specific EOMF objectives. This goal is aimed ataddressing SF with actions and results versus philosophies. Implied for allactions is a streamlined process for stating intent, justifying the chosenapproach from available alternatives, monitoring the evaluation andmodifications as appropriate.

Objectives:

2.1 to implement the IRM plans developed for Goal 1. These will include activities which

25

address specific environmental, spiritual and/or socioeconomic values of stakeholders inthe EOMF;

2.2 to undertake activities which address specific environmental, spiritual and/orsocioeconomic values stakeholders in the EOMF but which are not part of the IRM plansdeveloped for Goal 1.

GOAL 3 To increase the awareness of SF concepts and practices by EOMF stakeholders.Implied is the measurement of current levels and the evaluation of programactivities against this benchmark.

Objectives:

3.1 to enhance native forestry awareness programs with Akwesasne, including a nature trailsystem and a Heritage Food Forest;

3.2 to develop and initiate a framework for the incorporation of SF concepts into public andprofessional education programs;

3.3 to develop a plan for assisting individual property owners in developing SF action plans;

3.4 to encourage special interest groups, resource management agencies and others toparticipate in, and benefit from, EOMF activities;

3.5 to undertake programs designated to increase general levels of awareness of stakeholderswho are not included in specific categories above, including the establishment of areaswhich demonstrate SF activities;

3.6 to actively participate in the National Model Forest Program in order to, among otherthings, increase EOMF stakeholder awareness of activities being undertaken in otherModel Forest areas, especially those more typical of Canadian industrial forestry

activity.

GOAL 4 The incorporation of the best available knowledge into EOMFactivities. A key component of this goat is the expansion of traditionalknowledge sources t include groups/individuals/projects who/which wouldtraditionally be only a minor component of similar forestry undertakings.

Objectives:

4.1 to undertake or support research activities which are focussed in specific EOMF goalsand objectives;

4.2 to train native and non-native resource managers in the use of appropriate tools;

4.3 to seek participation from the broad range of disciplines, organizations and individualswhich exist in the EOMF area.

26

GOAL 5 The development of innovative management tools which assist in meeting theunique challenge of applied SF, within the EOMF.

Objectives:

5.1 to establish a dynamic evaluation procedure which allows; the assessment, in quantitativemeasures, of the success of the EOMF;

5.2 to design and implement a management level (versus project level) information systemwhich facilitates not only routine administrative tasks but which includes a cartographicinterface and addresses awareness and education needs of the EOMF.

APPENDIX # B

Identification of Program Gaps

The vision of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) has been identified as follows: "Tochampion the concept and practice of sustainable forestry for all its values in eastern Ontariothrough the cooperative efforts of its residents and supporters". Additionally, five strategicgoals have been delineated; one dealing with research states as an objective, "To undertake orsupport research activities which are focussed on specific EOMF goals and objectives". In turn,these goals relate (1) to the development of an integrated resource management (IRM) planningprocess suitable for the achievement of sustainable forestry, (2) to conduct sustainable forestryactivities within the IRM framework, and (3) to increasing the awareness of sustainable forestryconcepts and practices by EOMF stakeholders.

One of the responsibilities of the Forest Science Committee is to determine whether there aregaps in the ongoing science program which will provide impediments to the achievement of theforegoing goals. It is proposed that a consultant be hired to perform this analysis.

The consultant will be expected to identity program gaps that will impede the attainment of thevision of the EOMF in relation to its guiding principles and strategic goals. In particular, theconsultant will be expected to undertake the following tasks:

(1) Review all ongoing EOMF projects and determine their relevance towards meeting thegoals of the EOMF;

(2) Review the original proposal submission to Forestry Canada and the report of the 1993meeting of the first EOMF Science Committee to determine whether project proposals arecontained in these documents which should be pursued;

(3) Review all project proposals which are unfunded because of inadequate funds and makerecommendations concerning their possible importance and value;

27

(4) Review all project/program related submissions that have been received by the EOMFoffice to ascertain their possible importance and value;

(5) Canvas project partners to ascertain their views concerning project gaps;

(6) Make recommendations concerning research required in sustainable forestry in easternOntario and determine what criteria and indicators are required in order to know whetheror when sustainable forestry is being practiced, and;

(7) Prepare a report indicating what additional knowledge is required if eastern Ontarioforests are to be sustainability managed. The consultant should consider whether forestdescriptions and classifications are adequate, whether knowledge of the ecology andsilviculture of eastern Ontario tree species is adequate, and what other values should bederived from sustainably managed forests.

A summary of activities describing preliminary findings will be prepared no later than March 31,1995. The gap analysis which will address the above mentioned items, will be completed anddelivered to the EOMF office no later than April 30, 1995.

APPENDIX # C

LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED

Eric BoysenForesterP.O. Box 2002Concession RoadKemptville, ONKOG 1JOTel: 613-258-8240Fax: 613-258-3920

Jacques Bouvier

La Cité collégiale750 Laurier St.Hawkesbury, ONK6A 3N9Tel: 613-632-1248Fax: 613-632-1458

Dave ChapeskieAgroforestry AdvisorOMAFRABox 2004, Prov. BldgKemptville, ON

28

KOG 1JOTel: 613-258-8302Fax: 613-258-8392

Steve DominyCanadian Forest ServiceOntario RegionP. 0. Box 4901219 Queen St. EastSault Ste. Marie, ONTel: 705-949-9461Fax: 705-759-5700

Jamie FortuneBox 599Dickenson StreetManotick, ONK4M 1A5Tel: 613-692-2390Fax: 613-692-0831

Mike FolkemaFERICPte. Claire, QuebecTel: 514-694-1140Fax: 514-694-4351

Paul KeddyDepartment of BiologyUniversity of OttawaHome AddressRR # 1Carleton Place, ONK7C 3P1Tel: 613-253-4234Fax: 613-253-4214

Henry LickersDirector,Dept of EnvironmentMohawk Council ofAkwesasneTel: 613-575-2377Fax: 613-936-7201

29

Sue MacIntyreP.O. Box 2002Concession RoadKemptville, ONKOG 1JOTel: 613-258-8240Fax: 613-258-3920

Cathy NielsonOntario Ministry ofNatural ResourcesP.O. Box 605Oxford Ave.Brockville, OntarioK6V 5Y8Tel: 1-613-342-8524Fax: 1-613-342-7544

Lorne RileyCanadian Forest ServicePlace Vincent MasseyOttawa, K1A 1G5Tel: 613-997-1107Fax: 613-994-3389

Raleigh RobertsonProfessorQueen's UniversityDepartment of BiologyKingston, OntarioK7L 3N6Tel: 1-613-545-6140Fax: 1-613-545-6617

George VelemaManager of LandApplication &AgroforestryDomtar Speciality FinePapersP. 0. Box 40810 - 2nd St. W.Cornwall, OntarioK6H 5S3Tel: 613-932-6620Fax: 613-938-4684

30

Andy WelchDendron ResourceSurveys Inc.880 Lady Ellen PlaceOttawa, ONK1Z 5L9Tel: 613-725-2971Fax: 613-725-1716

APPENDIX # D

Interview Questions

1 . The EOMF has been operating since 1992 and during that time has funded or approvedfunding for over 45 projects. In addition, it has received 60 other proposals that havebeen, for one reason or another, not funded and are on a deferred list. Most proposals fitwithin the 5 goals of the EOMF. Given your expertise and opinion do you feel that thereare gaps in the overall program? If so, which do you feel are the most critical to makingthe EOMF a model of sustainable forestry?

2. We all look at a successful program in different ways. What indicators do you feel will tellus if the EOMF program has succeeded in the area of sustainable forestry?

3. Of the approved projects the Science Committee has identified the following as eitherresearch or science related:

4.1/93 Natural Genetic Heritage4.2/93 Nut Tree Culture4.3/93 Agroforestry Windbreaks4.4/93 Recycled Soil Amendments4.MCA.93 Akwesasne Partnership1.1/93 IRM Planning Framework1.2/93 Relative Density Guidelines2.1/93 Ecological Woodlands Restoration2.2/93 Industrial Wood Production2.4/93 Alternative Vegetation Management Practices2.10/93 Songbird Population Monitoring2.11/93 Forest Meadow Habitat2.13/93 Wildlife Habitat MatricesAnd there may be others.

From your science perspective can you identify any gaps in the science programthat will require research to assist the EOMF practice sustainable forestry?

31

APPENDIX # E

EOMF SCIENCE Committee MEETINGJULY 22, 1993

Distribution List:

Frank Phelan - QUBSPeter White - SGEDCBrian Barkley - EOMFJohn Kerr-Wilson - EOMFPaul Addison - For. Can. (Natural Resources Canada)- SSMAndy Welch - EOMF/Dendron - IRMPaul Aird - U of TGordon Murray - PNFISteve Dominy- For. Can (NRC) - SSMOlaf Loken - EOMF MembershipChris Eckert ~ Queen's U. Dept of BiologySilvia Strobl - OMNR BrockvilleKerry Coleman - OMNR BrockvilleEd White - SUN Y School of Forestry- Syracuse, N. Y.Ross Cholmondeley- OMNR Brockville

TASK: To establish a Forest Science Working Group

ROLE/TASKS OF COMMITTEE/WORKING GROUP:

1. Overview of model forest science needs2. Ensuring coordination of science activities3. Decisions/recommendations on funding of projects4. Creation of technical committees5. Advocate for science in model forest6. Identification of new opportunities

Composition of Committee:

a) Nature of Members:- innovative ideas- experience- committed to the ideals of the model forest- has practical knowledge of basic MF science issues- research background- a "doer' not a "talker'- has a network of contacts- has a perspective on how science can contribute to EOMF

32

- good track record of COMPLETING tasks, committees- objective (can maintain vision of EOMF: ideals in spite of vested interests)- respected in field of science- good communication skills- can put in time necessary

b) Institute Involvement:- ideal to have involvement from many institutes - but personal characteristics are most

important for this committee

c) size of committee:- approx. 5- power to add as necessary to deal with special issues- one member must be a director on the EOMF board

d) Membership Term:- length to be negotiated, terms may be rotational- must be willing to participate for a couple of years

e) Chair/Secretariat:- chair to be elected from within committee- strong secretariat required from MF office to cover information flow and budget

f) Time Commitment- expect 2 days per month for the first 6 months- 2-3 meetings per year for the remainder

Membership Recommendations:

1. Jamie Fortune LRC / LDMSPA / MNR

2. Caroline Caza Wild. Hab. Can.3. Ole Hendrickson For. Can. - Ottawa4. Vic Timmer U of T (prof.)5. Paul Addison For. Can. - SSM6. Rod Carrow U of T (dean)7. Neil Foster For. Can. - SSM8. Paul Aird/Prof. Nautial - joint U of T9. Silvia Strobl OMNR- Brockv.10. Barrie French U of T - (aerospace)11. Ed White SUNY - Syracuse12. Ofav Loken Member at large - EOMF13. Don Cuddy OMNR- Brockv.14. Raleigh Robertson Queen's U15. Kerry Coleman OMNR - Brockv.16. Frank Phelan QUBS17. George Velema Domtar

33

18. Martin Streit OMNR- Carleton Place19. Grey Merriam Carleton U20. Paul Keddy Ottawa U21. Scott Finlay Ottawa U22. Denis Voigt OMNR - Maple23. Alan Moseler PNFI24. Louis Zsuffa U of T25. Peter White SGEDC26. Dave DeYoe OMNR- SSM

Other Comments:

1. Coordination needed with other MFs other science programs, government andacademic institutions;

2. Communications needed to get science messages out - possibly through an annualscience report;

3. Project managers need to meet with this committee to inform the group on the nature ofthe MF program and the nature of the individual projects;

4. Keep bureaucracy to a minimum - and approval processes as fast as possible!

34

Forestry CanadaOntario Region26 July 1993

Mr. Brian BarkleyGeneral ManagerEastern Ontario Model ForestOntario Ministry of Natural ResourcesP. 0. Bag 21 11Concession RoadKEMPTVILLE, OntarioK0G 1G0

Dear Mr. Barkley:

Research Priorities

Attached please find the list of the topics that were developed at our workshop last week. I hopethat they are accurate and I tried to add a few words where I could to ensure that the folkswould get the idea accurately. I have also taken the liberty of having a first go at organizing theminto a few topics.

I would suggest that by adding this memo and the list to the package going out to theparticipants that we ask for the following:

1 . Are there questions/corrections to the list?

2. Do you have any better ideas of how to organize the issues raised into topics - mysuggestions are just that; a first attempt?

3. What 5 topics do you see as the highest priority?

I think will do it and should help you to make a list for consideration by either the board or betteryet the "new" research advisory committee. Obviously, if I can be of assistance further, pleasedo not hesitate to ask.

Best Wishes

Paul A. AddisonDirectorForest Resources and Environment DivisionDepartment of Natural Resources CanadaOntario RegionGreat Lakes Forestry Centre

35

EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FORESTSRESEARCH PRIORITY WORKSHOP

1. ATTITUDES/PEOPLE

- Social Psychology and Forest Use- Attitudes/values - woodlot owners- Incentives/Disincentives for integrated forest management- Barriers- Government to effective/efficient economic uses of forest - Demography ofsmall woodlot owners- Attitudes of First Nations toward forest- Consensus building techniques- Attitudes on stewardship on private land - survey and influence

2. ECONOMICS/MARKING/PRODUCTS

-Economics of forest product development and production-Potential of windbreaks for timber-Development of an "ecologically-friendly" stamp for EOMF Products -Economics ofForest development for non-timber use-Innovative products (Honey) from forests-Maximize returns from Agroforestry-Commercial operations in urban forests -- Machine cooperatives among small owners- Saleable product production from thinnings- Update of International markets and trends- Forest Product Innovation and appropriate technology for Eastern Ontario- New products from wood waste

3. MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES/APPROACHES

-Data Inventory - Plot-Land Use - Decision Support System-Alternative Forestry Practices environmental Effects-Sustainable Productivity-Restoration of Forest Ecosystems on Abandoned Farmland-Biodiversity effects of forestry practices-Soft/hard values evaluation of forest use-Forest management - wetlands-Improved hardwood management techniques-Imposition of Forestry Practices; Impediments to sound management -Predicting Valuesfor forest values-Methods of obtaining hard and soft values in the forest-Loosestrife control technology-Decreasing waste of wood fibre in processing-Tree use and how to optimize on farms-Erosion control post harvest, etc..

36

-Practical Tending Methods to Obtain Forest Values- Pest control - friendly ways- Herbicide use - friendly ways- Increasing value while decreasing damage- Small woodlot sustainability Decision Support System- Effects of forest residue removal

4. CONSERVATION/HISTORY

- Landscape ecology - Fragmentation- Genetic Diversity- Preservation of unique areas- Integration of Genetics and Ecology (landscape)- Forest Genetic Heritage - non-conifer- Fire - History of Pre-white culture

- Monitoring of forest health (indicators)- History of wetland locations E. Ontario - Influence of People - Changes in soil and waterby land use - are they reversible - Understand habitat requirements/loggerhead strike- Colonization of Lilac- Windbreaks as connections for forest fragments- Windbreaks as habitats for Wildlife and Plants- Importance of forest for rare wildlife species

Research into increasing Heritage values - identification and conservation of species inwindbreaks and doing it (Diversity) - Exotics "do they belong?

5. PROCESS

- Research Facilitator/Manager - Integration of projects (program view)

FOREST SCIENCE WORKING GROUP

Conference Call - September 17, 1993

Present: John Kerr-Wilson Bill Fullerton Andy Welch Brian Barkley

Roles and Functions of the Working Group:

The report produced as a result of the July 22 meeting has been accepted in principle with thefollowing points noted:

- need to minimize conflict of interest- want good. broad-based, science perspective- power to add by the group is important eg. currently no local academicinstitutions reflected in the group - directors role on the group needs discussion-may be

37

an observer or perhaps the chair- favour a chair elected by the group itself from within- expectation that there will be sub-groups needed to carry out the work

Working group Members:

Jim CayfordEd WhiteJamie FortuneOlav LokenPaul Addison

Budget:

Bill Fullerton will develop a budget for the proper functioning of the group .This report to be discussed at the September 20 board meeting .

Brian BarkleyGeneral Manager17/9/93