Appendix B — Workshop Activity Results

This appendix provides detailed results for each workshop activity.

B.1 Activity 1

Unique ID	Workshop Location	Workshop Date	Landscape Guide	Direction Number	Direction Group	Green Dot	Red Dot	Proportion Green	Proportion Red	Rep
1	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	3	Landscape Classes	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
2	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	4	Landscape Classes	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
3	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	5	Old Growth	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
4	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	6	Red & White Pine	0	8	0.000000	1.000000	N
5	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	7	Red & White Pine	0	8	0.000000	1.000000	Y
6	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	8	Conifer	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
7	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	9	Young Forest	1	1	0.500000	0.500000	N
8	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	10	Young Forest	1	1	0.500000	0.500000	Y
9	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	11	Pattern	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
10	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	12	Texture Mature Old Forest	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
11	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	Texture Mature Old Forest	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
12	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	14	Young Forest Patch Size	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
13	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	15	Young Forest Patch Size	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
14	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	16	Woodland Caribou	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
15	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	17	Woodland Caribou	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
16	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	18	Woodland Caribou	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
17	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	19	Woodland Caribou	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
18	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	20	Woodland Caribou	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
19	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	21	Desirable Levels	4	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
20	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	22	Targets	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
21	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	23	Targets	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
22	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	24	Targets	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
23	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	25	Caribou Targets	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
24	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	26	Caribou Targets	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	Y
25	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	27	Identify Large Landscape Patches	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
26	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	28	Identify Large Landscape Patches	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
27	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	29	Document Large Landscape Patches	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
28	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	30	LLPs for Moose/Deer	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
29	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	31	LLPs for Caribou	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
30	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	32	LLPs for Caribou	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
31	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	A	Caribou Silvaculture Standard	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
32	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	B	Caribou Habitat Guidelines	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
33	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	C	Caribou Winter Feeding Habitat	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
34	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	D	Caribou Calving & Nursery Habitat	0	8	0.000000	1.000000	N
35	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	E	Caribou Roads Direction	1	2	0.333333	0.666667	N
36	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	3	Landscape Classes	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
37	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	4	Landscape Classes	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
38	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	5	Old Growth	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
39	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	6	Red & White Pine	2	2	0.500000	0.500000	N
40	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	7	Red & White Pine	2	2	0.500000	0.500000	Y
41	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	8	Conifer	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
42	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	9	Young Forest	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
43	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	10	Young Forest	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	Y
44	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	11	Pattern	4	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
45	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	12	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
46	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	13	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	Y
47	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	14	Young Forest Patch Size	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
48	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	Young Forest Patch Size	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
49	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	16	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
50	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	17	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
51	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	18	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
52	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	19	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
53	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	20	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
54	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	21	Desirable Levels	1	1	0.500000	0.500000	N
55	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	22	Targets	4	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
56	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	23	Targets	4	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
57	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	24	Targets	4	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
58	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	25	Caribou Targets	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
59	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	26	Caribou Targets	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
60	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	27	Identify Large Landscape Patches	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
61	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	28	Identify Large Landscape Patches	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	Y
62	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	29	Document Large Landscape Patches	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
63	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	30	LLPs for Moose/Deer	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
64	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	31	LLPs for Caribou	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
65	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	32	LLPs for Caribou	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
66	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	A	Caribou Silvaculture Standard	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
67	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	B	Caribou Habitat Guidelines	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
68	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	C	Caribou Winter Feeding Habitat	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
69	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	D	Caribou Calving & Nursery Habitat	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	N
70	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	E	Caribou Roads Direction	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
71	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	3	Landscape Classes	6	1	0.857143	0.142857	N
72	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	4	Landscape Classes	6	1	0.857143	0.142857	Y
73	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	5	Old Growth	9	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
74	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	6	Red & White Pine	0	12	0.000000	1.000000	N
75	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	7	Red & White Pine	0	12	0.000000	1.000000	Y
76	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	8	Conifer	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
77	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	9	Young Forest	2	3	0.400000	0.600000	N
78	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	10	Young Forest	2	3	0.400000	0.600000	Y
79	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	11	Pattern	2	1	0.666667	0.333333	N
80	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	12	Texture Mature Old Forest	1	3	0.250000	0.750000	N
81	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	Texture Mature Old Forest	1	3	0.250000	0.750000	Y
82	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	14	Young Forest Patch Size	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
83	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	15	Young Forest Patch Size	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
84	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	16	Woodland Caribou	0	7	0.000000	1.000000	N
85	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	17	Woodland Caribou	0	7	0.000000	1.000000	Y
86	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	18	Woodland Caribou	0	7	0.000000	1.000000	Y
87	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	19	Woodland Caribou	0	7	0.000000	1.000000	Y
88	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	20	Woodland Caribou	0	7	0.000000	1.000000	Y
89	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	21	Desirable Levels	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
90	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	22	Targets	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
91	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	23	Targets	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	Y
92	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	24	Targets	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	Y
93	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	25	Caribou Targets	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
94	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	26	Caribou Targets	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	Y
95	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	27	Identify Large Landscape Patches	8	2	0.800000	0.200000	N
96	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	28	Identify Large Landscape Patches	8	2	0.800000	0.200000	Y
97	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	29	Document Large Landscape Patches	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
98	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	30	LLPs for Moose/Deer	3	6	0.333333	0.666667	N
99	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	31	LLPs for Caribou	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
100	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	32	LLPs for Caribou	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
101	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	A	Caribou Silvaculture Standard	2	2	0.500000	0.500000	N
102	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	B	Caribou Habitat Guidelines	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
103	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	C	Caribou Winter Feeding Habitat	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
104	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	D	Caribou Calving & Nursery Habitat	0	10	0.000000	1.000000	N
105	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	E	Caribou Roads Direction	4	4	0.500000	0.500000	N
106	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	3	Landscape Classes	18	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
107	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	4	Landscape Classes	18	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
108	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	5	Old Growth	0	19	0.000000	1.000000	N
109	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	6	Red & White Pine	1	10	0.090909	0.909091	N
110	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	7	Red & White Pine	1	10	0.090909	0.909091	Y
111	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	8	Conifer	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
112	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	9	Young Forest	7	5	0.583333	0.416667	N
113	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	10	Young Forest	7	5	0.583333	0.416667	Y
114	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	11	Pattern	5	1	0.833333	0.166667	N
115	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	12	Texture Mature Old Forest	2	12	0.142857	0.857143	N
116	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	13	Texture Mature Old Forest	2	12	0.142857	0.857143	Y
117	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	Young Forest Patch Size	2	4	0.333333	0.666667	N
118	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	15	Young Forest Patch Size	2	4	0.333333	0.666667	Y
119	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	16	Woodland Caribou	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
120	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	17	Woodland Caribou	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
121	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	18	Woodland Caribou	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
122	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	19	Woodland Caribou	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
123	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	20	Woodland Caribou	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
124	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	21	Desirable Levels	2	2	0.500000	0.500000	N
125	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	22	Targets	12	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
126	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	23	Targets	12	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
127	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	24	Targets	12	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
128	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	25	Caribou Targets	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	N
129	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	26	Caribou Targets	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	Y
130	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	27	Identify Large Landscape Patches	11	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
131	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	28	Identify Large Landscape Patches	11	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
132	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	29	Document Large Landscape Patches	3	2	0.600000	0.400000	N
133	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	30	LLPs for Moose/Deer	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
134	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	31	LLPs for Caribou	1	2	0.333333	0.666667	N
135	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	32	LLPs for Caribou	1	2	0.333333	0.666667	Y
136	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	A	Caribou Silvaculture Standard	0	6	0.000000	1.000000	N
137	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	B	Caribou Habitat Guidelines	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
138	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	C	Caribou Winter Feeding Habitat	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
139	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	D	Caribou Calving & Nursery Habitat	1	10	0.090909	0.909091	N
140	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	E	Caribou Roads Direction	4	5	0.444444	0.555556	N
141	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	3	Landscape Classes	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
142	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	4	Landscape Classes	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
143	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	5	Old Growth	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
144	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	6	Red & White Pine	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
145	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	7	Red & White Pine	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	Y
146	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	8	Conifer	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
147	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	9	Young Forest	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
148	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	10	Young Forest	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	Y
149	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	11	Pattern	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
150	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	12	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
151	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
152	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	14	Young Forest Patch Size	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
153	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	15	Young Forest Patch Size	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
154	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	16	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
155	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	17	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
156	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	18	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
157	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	19	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
158	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	20	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
159	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	21	Desirable Levels	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
160	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	22	Targets	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
161	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	23	Targets	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
162	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	24	Targets	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
163	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	25	Caribou Targets	2	1	0.666667	0.333333	N
164	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	26	Caribou Targets	2	1	0.666667	0.333333	Y
165	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	27	Identify Large Landscape Patches	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
166	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	28	Identify Large Landscape Patches	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
167	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	29	Document Large Landscape Patches	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
168	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	30	LLPs for Moose/Deer	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
169	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	31	LLPs for Caribou	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
170	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	32	LLPs for Caribou	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
171	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	A	Caribou Silvaculture Standard	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
172	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	B	Caribou Habitat Guidelines	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	N
173	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	C	Caribou Winter Feeding Habitat	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
174	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	D	Caribou Calving & Nursery Habitat	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
175	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	E	Caribou Roads Direction	1	2	0.333333	0.666667	N
176	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	3	Landscape Classes	6	2	0.750000	0.250000	N
177	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	4	Landscape Classes	6	2	0.750000	0.250000	Y
178	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	5	Old Growth	3	8	0.272727	0.727273	N
179	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	6	Red & White Pine	1	10	0.090909	0.909091	N
180	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	7	Red & White Pine	1	10	0.090909	0.909091	Y
181	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	8	Young Forest	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
182	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	9	Pattern	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
183	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	10	Texture Mature Old Forest	2	2	0.500000	0.500000	N
184	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	11	Texture Mature Old Forest	2	2	0.500000	0.500000	Y
185	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	12	Young Forest Patch Size	2	6	0.250000	0.750000	N
186	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	Young Forest Patch Size	2	6	0.250000	0.750000	Y
187	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	14	Young Forest Patch Size	2	6	0.250000	0.750000	Y
188	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	15	Desirable Levels	1	1	0.500000	0.500000	N
189	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	16	Targets	5	3	0.625000	0.375000	N
190	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	17	Targets	5	3	0.625000	0.375000	Y
191	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	18	Identify Large Landscape Patches	1	1	0.500000	0.500000	N
192	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	19	Identify Large Landscape Patches	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
193	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	20	Identify Large Landscape Patches	8	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
194	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	21	Document Large Landscape Patches	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
195	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	3	Landscape Classes	6	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
196	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	4	Landscape Classes	6	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
197	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	5	Old Growth	1	7	0.125000	0.875000	N
198	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	6	Red & White Pine	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
199	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	7	Red & White Pine	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	Y
200	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	8	Young Forest	0	4	0.000000	1.000000	N
201	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	9	Pattern	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
202	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	10	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	7	0.000000	1.000000	N
203	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	11	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	7	0.000000	1.000000	Y
204	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	12	Young Forest Patch Size	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
205	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	13	Young Forest Patch Size	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
206	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	Young Forest Patch Size	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	Y
207	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	15	Desirable Levels	3	3	0.500000	0.500000	N
208	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	16	Targets	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
209	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	17	Targets	5	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
210	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	18	Identify Large Landscape Patches	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
211	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	19	Identify Large Landscape Patches	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
212	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	20	Identify Large Landscape Patches	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
213	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	21	Document Large Landscape Patches	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
214	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	3	Landscape Classes	4	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
215	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	4	Landscape Classes	4	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
216	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	5	Old Growth	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
217	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	6	Red & White Pine	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
218	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	7	Red & White Pine	0	6	0.000000	1.000000	N
219	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	8	Young Forest	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
220	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	9	Pattern	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
221	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	10	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
222	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	11	Texture Mature Old Forest	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
223	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	12	Young Forest Patch Size	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
224	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	Young Forest Patch Size	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	Y
225	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	14	Young Forest Patch Size	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	Y
226	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	15	Desirable Levels	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
227	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	16	Targets	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
228	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	17	Targets	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	Y
229	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	18	Identify Large Landscape Patches	1	1	0.500000	0.500000	N
230	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	19	Identify Large Landscape Patches	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
231	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	20	Identify Large Landscape Patches	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
232	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	21	Document Large Landscape Patches	0	3	0.000000	1.000000	N
233	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	3	Landscape Classes	8	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
234	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	4	Landscape Classes	8	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
235	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	5	Old Growth	1	9	0.100000	0.900000	N
236	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	6	Red & White Pine	0	12	0.000000	1.000000	N
237	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	7	Red & White Pine	0	12	0.000000	1.000000	Y
238	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	8	Conifer	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
239	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	9	Young Forest	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	N
240	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	10	Pattern	0	6	0.000000	1.000000	N
241	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	11	Texture Mature Old Forest	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
242	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	12	Young Forest Patch Size	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	N
243	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	13	Young Forest Patch Size	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	Y
244	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	14	Young Forest Patch Size	0	5	0.000000	1.000000	Y
245	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	15	Desirable Levels	2	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
246	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	16	Targets	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
247	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	17	Targets	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	Y
248	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	18	Identify Large Landscape Patches	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
249	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	19	Identify Large Landscape Patches	1	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
250	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	20	Identify Large Landscape Patches	3	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
251	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	21	Document Large Landscape Patches	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
252	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	22	Caribou	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
253	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	23	Caribou	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
254	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	24	Achievement of Indicators	13	0	1.000000	0.000000	N
255	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	25	Caribou targets	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	N
256	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	26	Caribou targets	0	1	0.000000	1.000000	Y
257	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	27	LLPs for Caribou	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
258	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	28	LLPs for Caribou	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
259	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	29	Woodland Caribou	1	4	0.200000	0.800000	N
260	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	30	Woodland Caribou	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
261	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	31	Woodland Caribou	0	2	0.000000	1.000000	N
262	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	32	Woodland Caribou	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N
263	North Bay	2024-03-07	Both	33	Woodland Caribou	0	0	0.000000	0.000000	N

B.2 Activity 2

B.2.1 Kenora (January 30, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Keep the landscape classes
	•       Good for complaining plan to plan
	•       Keep the desirable levels and milestone
	•       Structure and composition
	•       Document LLP’s
	•       Improve the process part of developing LLPs. Understand that LLP's will be different for different forests because of their unique needs however the standardized process for the determination LLP with consistent application across the regions.
2. Improve	•       3.5.2.1 D Caribou calving sufficient supply direction too vague, needs more direction
	•       Need more background information
	•       3.3 improve messaging around setting desirable levels—trade offs more explicit and allow staying outside IQRs.
	•       3.1.1.3 Red and white pine forest targets, improve target estimate for FMUs (especially boundary waters)
	•       How was targe derived not representative of FMU currently
	•       Would be nice to have a standardized process for planning teams to know how to select a appropriate Target for the a unit since Planning Team will not be provided a simulated range of natural variation.
	•       Operational Ramp up to get to significant numbers
	•       Looked at Ecosites capable of supporting PR and PW and set a target.
	•       Survey lines were not evenly distributed through.
	•       Improve messaging on indicator and objective achievement
	•       Have an indicator more towards the indicator Inter-quartile Range (IQR)
	•       Sime indicators did not have reasonable targets. Some resulted from succession rules
	•       Deer winter habitat extrapolation of southern Ontario habitat to northern Ontario habitat was not very appropriate. No hemlock up here they use poplar. Deer habitat query is not for Northern Ontario.
	•       SRNV succession rules need to be looked at by practitioners
	•       Climate change
	•       Needs to be more messaging on CC in the BLG there is lots of pressure form stakeholder to explain this in FMP’s comes up in every FMP public consultation.
3. Introduce	Climate change
	•       Climate change, add a requirement for carbon accounting.
	•       Have a rationale how climate change is considered in the development of the BLG SRNV’s
	•       Adaptive management cycle
	Roads
	•       Roads consideration within emulating natural disturbance
	•       Cumulative impacts
	•       Other projects contributions
	•       Traffic etc.
	•       Mining, patent land would be hard to consider
	•       Feds are going towards a reginal cumulative impacts
	•       Linear feature density – spatial assessment
	•       Temporal landscape changes to areas of forests that are not succeeding
	•       Spatial distribution of mature and old
	•       Direction re. cumulative impacts (see roads above).
4. Remove	MEA and DEA
	•       Mature conifer and hardwood is overrated
	•       Having species specific direction that spans into strategic and operational planning in both the SSG and the BLG is confusing
	Young forest
	•       Why is it needed if you are meeting all the indications (there can be instances where you are achieving all your indicators but way over your SRNV for this indicator)
	Caribou – remove it from the guide
	•       Push for a condition instead of a habitat
	•       Remove caribou specifics from the guide
	•       i.e., handle in a directional technical note as research provides changes in direction
	•       Caribou – remove it from the guide
	•       Push for a condition instead of a habitat
	•       Remove caribou specifics from the guide
	•       i.e., handle in a directional technical note as research provides changes in direction

B.2.2 Dryden (February 1, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Keep the DCHS
	•       Keep the direction around texture
	•       Keep the landscape guide directions
	•       Keep the Red and White pine direction this was debated as there was discussions about the concentrations of white pine being difficult to achieve due to blister rust and leader Weevil. Perhaps there is some consideration that can be given for mixed bag planting which has historically occurred on many forest units but does not receive recognition in the BLG as it wasn't planted in pure enough concentration to constitute a FU. Little to none of the stands being established artificially have high white pine due to operational constraints such as seed availability.
	•       Time Slice direction (would like to see a clear definition of how to do a time slice analysis the process should be spelled out for planning teams what the target is in where the professional judgment pieces are)
2. Improve	•       Direction around the utility of caribou calving and nursery area (CAN) when are they no longer useful to caribou
	•       Road use management strategies (RUMS) in LLPs cumulative effects/caribou habitat
	•       BMP’s for site specific Caribou habitat direction into standards and Guidelines
	•       Improve definition of sufficient supply how to estimate (consistently) direction for is sufficient supply cannot be determined
	•       Define caribou calving and nursery period consistent with general habitat description (GHD)
	•       Remove “growth” from “old growth” (i.e., just say “old forest”)
	•       Remove texture, replace with concentration of old and mature forest
	•       Ability to meet all ages conifer, improve approach—change threshold for conifer, extend hardwood to 30% (from 20%)
	•       Improve Red and White Pine Direction
	•       there is a need to split red and White pine
	•       white pine is impossible to measure at the landscape level in certain part of the boreal. Impossible to reintroduce the concentrations needed of PW so it makes it into a FU.
	•       Red pine is easy to regeneration however white pine is not. Question if forest removed forestry White pine from the landscape
	•       Texture doesn’t consider spatial connectivity doesn’t consider of spatial distribution of Mature and Old can all be in a park sitting in a corner of MU.
	•       Doesn’t look at the connectivity.
	•       Better integration/consideration between stand and site guide and landscape guide (e.g., moose/deer)
	•       Landscape pattern measurement—more timelines for review (instead of just start/end)
3. Introduce	•       Setting RUS notably in Caribou is extremely difficult some better messaging or information that links the federal policy to the provincial guide requirements would be beneficial.
	•       Need to add direction around access management, cumulative disturbance metric
	•       More specific direction around access and site level direction
	•       There is no linear and cumulative disturbance direction in the guide which is important caribou management
	•       Climate change have a modelling target that can be used to inform the milestones or have a completely different scenario that is used to inform planning team Decisions.
	•       Evaluate the time since fire that would have on the fire cycle on the forest
	•       BFLODS looks a weather data that can be altered to accommodate Climate change scenarios and add those SRNV
	•       Introducing social constraints into Landscape level consideration (some disagreement)—the landscape guide should be the broad targets that we strive to achieve for optimally with recognition that there will be trade-offs with operationalization of the short medium and long-term indicators and objectives. Still within the planning team's purview to determine the appropriate balance of these objective achievements with valid rationalization of course (valid rationalization must be measurable and verifiable)
	•       Creates social objectives that address FMU with small or fragmented areas, indigenous considerations. There is already a framework within the landscape guide and the development of dynamic Caribou habitat schedule for this consideration for example the adaptive management zone around Slate Falls First Nation. the adaptive management zone is effectively a dynamic Caribou habitat schedule block with no timing that allows harvest at anytime essentially upon approval of the community.
	•       Modification of objectives for social impacts
	•       Indigenous landscape level influences
	•       Certification—size of management units/limits of area
	•       Definitions/measure around sufficient supply
	•       Direction around wolverine in the landscape guide very big AOC
	•       Develop Coles notes information or general public to understand (as professionals I think it personally behooves the forest practitioners to understand the monster guide language in a manner that allows them to explain it to the general public as if you cannot explain what you're doing to the general public you truly don't understand it yourself. (e.g., presentation to Ear Falls Trappers Council from 2019)
4. Remove	•       Large patches/size requirement
	•       Texture as only unit of measure
	•       Make caribou priorities balance other species/social priorities
	•       Remove red/white pine stands/modelling reference
	•       Term old growth, replace
	•       Standard for objectives to be hard or flexible

B.2.3 Thunder Bay (February 6, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       LSL
	•       Measure and describe current landscape for determining benchmarks
	•       3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1 (especially)
	•       More time needed to see what’s working
	•       Maintain indicator species when using the SRNV (old growth objectives); ability to have appropriate groupings (3.1.1.2)
	•       Biodiversity objective (3.4)
	•       DCHS—works
	•       Flexibility to allow for planning team decisions
	•       Keeping private land exempt
	•       Silviculture Rx specific to caribou
	•       Consistency of forest units
	•       3.1.1.5 young forest know what the future holds
	•       Texture of mature and old (year 1 and year 10).
2. Improve	•       First Nation and Métis use of land
	•       CLUPA? (stronger connections to land use policies)
	•       desired forest and benefits ≈ LCC (everything is so prescriptive and members of the public have little to no input in this process)
	•       PT decision making; block or ministry habitat area, way overgrown, old growth, do we harvest? What’s the next step, not appropriate caribou habitat, how do we put those patterns on the plan spatially
	•       Improve models and look for opportunities to make equivalent assessment as Ontario landscape tool, very focused on FMU; e.g., planning team only focused on Lakehead forest, is someone going to do more spatial modelling at the ecoregion and at the range level (e.g., Caribou range, Nipigon range;4 different management units but not in the entirety of those mgmt. units)
	•       Spatial modelling, reporting more frequently than 10 years, why are we doing something if we’re going to change it? What is the purpose of the change?
	•       SRNV needs to address climate change, or better, it’s not really reflected in the SRNV directly, use parks/conservation areas in the SRNV; (Jenn clarifies that previously some inventory info was missing but it has been improved)
	•       Improving inventory of SRNV
	•       Improve effectiveness monitoring guidelines
	•       Caribou; how to determine sufficient calving/nursery areas, how much latitude do planning teams have to debate over category 123, is it all up to MECP or does MNRF have a say – some direction is needed; what pieces can we discuss at the planning team level about this?
	•       Improve linear features benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness, improve direction for conflicting direction
	•       Improve direction for spatially connected suitable habitat
	•       SW not well reflected in conifer classes
	•       Reconsider conifer definitions
	•       New standard—if block containing high value harvest deferred to end of planning periods (e.g., 20 years)—provides function as long as it can.
	•       Review regeneration standards in caribou habitats
	•       Develop biodiversity targets for prescribed wildfire
	•       Longer term schedules to long term forest to have longer fire regen schedules to improve targets objectives
3. Introduce	•       Increase direction around roads (e.g., within DCHS)
	•       Increase direction around silviculture level direction (higher level)
	•       2 tier broad level management; strong social desire to manage for moose, how do you apply that in the guide?
	•       Longer planning cycles as they relate to DCHS; indicators, and time frame etc.
	•       When you have public input/ they would like to see mgmt. for mixedwood; we can’t plan for this because there is no flexibility to do so;
	•       Indigenous knowledge direction/inclusion (TEK). Flexible to be able to respond to desires.
	•       Ability to incl. federal land if there is rationale to explore it; at beginning of the guide Crown Land only; considering FMPs for reserves, why can’t it be considered for our FMPs?
	•       Include triad approach or zonal approach for intensive forest management; provides disincentive to intensively manage around a community; forced to be concentrated to one area; again – we do not have the flexibility to make this feasible at this point
	•       Re-align FMU boundaries with ecological boundaries (Wabigoon forest); i.e., Spanish Forest (straddling Boreal and GLSL – right now we just choose one) ecoregional evaluation with different FMUS with diff strategies and avoid looking at the FMU as whole; everyone has different objectives to meet – are we limited because they are administrative units as opposed to ecological units.
	•       Ability to include climate change as an indicator – climate change as a whole should be an entire section of the guide; at this point it is very limited. Lots of changes/how do they influence landscape objectives?
	•       Texture classes – include parks/conservation areas in this tool; currently they are being ignored (correction: parks/conservation reserves are included in these indicators)
	•       DCHS direction for hardwood marketability issues; very little market for hardwood – should be incorporated in strategic level of planning. What is the model? Areas w/ heavy hardwood concentration should be treated independently.
	•       Sw is not conifer landscape class
	•       Increased consideration as mixedwood as a landscape class; local input in FMP process
	•       Caribou values; bring general habitat description (GHD) definitions and connectivity of those landscapes
	•       Considerations for cumulative disturbance;
	•       Integrating LiDAR into guide; using data to contribute to habitat definitions. Finding ways to enable flexibility within the guide
	•       Include deforestation and degradation definitions;
	•       Updated models; make sure models are not stagnant and still relevant
	•       Ensure quality of data that is being put into the model is of a high quality as well
	•       Guide should be more of an enabling guide as opposed to a prescriptive guide; more helpful if it was more similar to forest manuals and technical specifications; ease of changing tables etc. Having separate documents of process of achieving objectives that can be more easily altered as processes change.
	•       Too prescriptive – all flexibility has been removed
4. Remove	•       Hexagons (texture)
	•       Better tools exist (spatial)
	•       Doesn’t account for historical activities on landscape (i.e., changing guidelines)
	•       Requires you to commit to things you’ll never do—harvest small patches==not economical
	•       Milestones (3.4.2.2)
	•       Limited utility in planning process
	•       Parallel modelling process needed for each FMU to determine if they are realistic during development. Tenure in particular
	•       OLT
	•       Replace with spatial models
	•       Guides based on aspatial—how will they work with spatial (correction: landscape guide was piloted with spatial model).
	•       Share government models
	•       Large landscape patches
	•       To meet targets other than moose/deer/caribou
	•       Change “will” to “may” for application of LLP by planning team
	•       Old growth targets—instead use mature and overmature
	•       Remove 1995 Pr/Pw target (improve)
	•       Caribou standard to brining back pure conifer
	•       Fix caribou targets that don’t reflect local conditions\
	•       Remove caribou sufficient supply discussion from planning team (team instead MECP/experts)
	•       Last pt (36 year criteria for “young forest”) – wildlife perspective not applicable; right in the middle of an age class – could be moved younger or older
	•       Overall hesitation to remove things until we have assessed effectiveness of current approach.

B.2.4 Timmins (February 13, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Young forest patch size
	•       #11 provision to ignore fragmented land base
	•       Don’t change LGFU definition/classification
	•       Required link to PlanFU/SFU for science linkages
	•       Tracking change over time
	•       Pattern (3.1.2) and texture of mature and old forest (3.1.2.1)
2. Improve	•       Difficult to implement cutting edge science
	•       OLT: there’s an opportunity to fix the current approach of pulling allocation out of spatial model and inputting it into OLT. OLT is time-consuming to run. Improve OLT.
	•       Texture—better measure, opportunities, higher priority
	•       Indigenous knowledge, esp. when it deviates from current policy/guidelines. Also, improve Indigenous knowledge pertaining to caribou in the guideline.
	•       Improve scale for social layer
	•       Incorporate trap line filter (greater than 5000 but smaller than landscape filter)
	•       Different communities have different buffer requirements—recognize these
	•       LLP direction requires improvement—improve clarity on pattern/texture to/for broad wildlife species (e.g., song birds); water restrictions (buffer restrictions)
	•       Look at roads from a landscape perspective
	•       Old-growth: intent of old-growth unit. Defining old-growth based on the stand’s successional history. Old growth should only come through natural succession (or artificially regen stands)
	•       Longer age of rotation more reflective of natural fire regime
	•       Caribou—rotation ages for DCHS based on disturbance regime, need better definitions for “sufficient and suitable” caribou habitat
3. Introduce	•       Current model is based on historic weather data. Might be better to have SRNVs with weather data with artificial temp increases to have a context to refer to in terms of composition under climate change. Will steel BLG against criticisms that it doesn’t consider climate change explicitly. Helps w public opinion and helps management teams to make better decisions
	•       Can the landscape guide help to reflect the interconnectedness of wildlife populations with management plans?
	•       National guardian networks. Effectiveness monitoring through Indigenous ways of knowing. Can we not find some interactive collaborative approach where we’re all learning, working, and implementing together? It’s good to have these ideas up on the board, but it’s critical that they are implemented well.
4. Remove	•       Not really necessary to outright remove anything, mostly moving around, replacing with something better, improving, clarifying, etc.
	•       Stand & Site Guide (SSG)re: 3.5.2.1 for caribou
	•       Pick a guide for LLP direction
	•       Replace OLT
	•       Direction #30, fine filter could be moved to SSG
	•       3.3 (direction #21) boreal should have flexibility of using whiskers
	•       Indicators that aren’t very helpful, could be improved: conifer all ages, young forests (target is pushing for more disturbance than mill demand requires). Conifer all ages targets are not achievable
	•       Pw & Pr indicator—clarify, remove, improve?
	•       Met mill demand—pushing disturbance when not necessary
	•       3.1.1.3 PRW indicator—overhaul.
	•       Remove/adjust the LG approach is all western based and static approach.
	•       the longer we wait to work meaningfully with Indigenous people and knowledge bases the more of that knowledge disappears. It has to happen now.

B.2.5 Hearst (February 15, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Targets for biodiversity—clarity in terms of targets of management team
	•       Large landscape patches and landscape classes
	•       Biodiversity indicators and milestone/directional statements
	•       Maintain road use strategies in LLPs
	•       LLPs for moose and deer.
	•       Landscape-level approach
	•       Emulate natural processes
	•       3.1.2—pattern assessment to remove fragmentation
	•       Assessment: maintaining those assessments (e.g., 50 and 5000 ha hexagons) to gain a better understanding of what those landscapes look like
	•       Guide allows planning teams to make trade-offs when there’s competing/conflicting objectives (e.g., focus on conifer purity in caribou zone vs. objectives on hardwoods/mixedwood targets, planning teams can provide rationale/context on why they chose to favour the non-landscape guide indicator)
	•       Guide allows for flexibility/clarity
2. Improve	•       Considerations of climate change, specifically adaptation by the planning team, strengthening planning team’s ability to model, set and achieve objectives
	•       Ensure latest science is applied to SRNVs in a climate change context
	•       Use up-to-date science, not old inventories for SRNVs (e.g., in Hearst, new inventory in 2014 but SRNVs didn’t account for that, only now are they talking about it—need to do that faster)
	•       PIC—how are BFOLDS and SRNV calculated? Have BFOLDS limitations been corrected/brought up-to-date?
	•       Pr & Pw – need more realistic desirable levels. Again, re-evaluate SRNVs
	•       Texture should be a consideration beyond 10 years
	•       Ensure DCHS blocks are more connected through corridor-based blocks
	•       More effectiveness monitoring—how do we know what we’re doing is working out there? Ties into science. Make sure it is done at the right time (need to do more)
3. Introduce	•       Latest science should be used
	•       Account for impacts of climate change (i.e., setting PIC (is it still relevant)
	•       Have direction around climate change: assisted migration—transition zones for southern range of 3E and between boreal/GLSL
	•       We often focus on how do we account for changes in the forest under climate change. What about the physiological changes of individual trees (e.g., black spruce’s capacity to be sexually reproductive by 2040, while white spruce and jack pine are considered to be more adaptable/have more physiological plasticity)? Do we not also need some rules around assisted migration, transition zones? If stresses become too intense, how do you even regenerate naturally anymore? What does that mean for practitioners and what can be accomplished?
	•       Indigenous knowledge (both qualifying and quantifying)
	•       Indigenous knowledge. PIC not accounting for quantifiable data that has been shared by FN people. When FN objectives conflict with the guide can be overlooked b/c guide is based on rigorous science. Conflict can be difficult to mediate, especially when the guide doesn’t acknowledge FN existence. PIC is described as if forests were free of human intervention before industrial era. Flawed assumption that the forest before industrial logging was a pristine natural environment, when it wasn’t.
	•       Pests as disturbance (i.e., model for jack pine and spruce budworm)
	•       Road density threshold should have some sort of direction instead of leaving it up to planning team
	•       Flexibility vs prescription (caribou calving)
	•       Climate change (100 years, in different climate regimes); technology driven understanding climate of forest structure—old growth vs simulated old growth
	•       Incorporate climate change variables into modelling (BFOLDS)
	•       Species specific (e.g., Sb--moisture stresses on reproduction)
	•       Changes in composition, could this be done by adjusting Silvicultural Ground Rules (SGRs)
	•       how the guide and science is communicated—it’s not so much the direction but more so the science/conclusions that we think we’ve drawn from the science. How people understand models and how they function and what that implies. If we give people the chance to understand how models work, what science informs the guide, etc., this will help people to not see the guide as dogmatic.
	•       Include hyperlinks in the guide to recent science/rationale
4. Remove	•       Red and white pine
	•       Mimicking the pre-industrial condition
	•       Is the reason for inclusion to address climate change? If so, say so! X PIC
	•       3.1 landscape guide indicators as a proxy for biodiversity
	•       Is there a better approach?
	•       As we move to spatial models, can we get rid of OLT? Are there better tools that we can use? Aspatial vs texture
	•       Caribou—stand conversion only where it makes sense silviculturally (e.g., not Po/Mxd stands)
	•       Stand and site level direction for caribou—put it in the stand and site guide
	•       Young forest (or tweak): if you don’t meet your target for young forest, it incentivizes cutting more
	•       Maybe there’s nothing that needs to be completely removed. Room for improvement but reluctant to remove anything.
	•       we have a history of being reluctant to remove anything even if something better supersedes it (e.g., new science). We shouldn’t be afraid to remove anything.
	•       Landscape indicators as a proxy for biodiversity—is there a better way?
	•       Audience: a comment that he hears a lot is that it’s weird that we’re not looking at specific species, we just say “oh if we maintain this type of forest it’s all good”
	•       Visualization tool (“matrix”?) as communication piece, could make it available online so people better understand the justification behind this approach
	•       It has come up fairly often, how can we message this more clearly? Workshops/training, describing it better in the guide itself, etc.? There is an issue with people not understanding exactly what we do
	•       Audience: “this is what we’re doing for ____ animal”—that is what speaks to people
	•       E.g., people might get stuck on “marten cores don’t exist anymore,” without realizing that the texture piece accounts for marten (?)

B.2.6 Peterborough (February 22, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Old growth standards
	•       LLP
	•       3.3 targets for biodiversity objectives
	•       Using SRNVs
	•       3.1.1 Include all Crown land
	•       Keep landscape indicators (except textures)
	•       Consistent classification system (i.e., landscape classes)
	•       Young forests
	•       3.4(direction #19) large landscape patches (deer yards)
2. Improve	•       Simplify the guide:
	•       Landscape classes, old/young classes, and texture are key variables
	•       Add guidelines to ‘judicial use’ around LLPs (e.g., no more than 10-15% of land base as it becomes impractical to meet and track targets for LLPs if they are too big to ubiquitous on landscape
	•       Add process to involve team members to look at practicality of the LLP
	•       Input data for FRI (better data – better species composition strength, no quality metric in FRI)
	•       More rigor in effectiveness monitoring
	•       Improve clarity of roads (i.e., clustering and density, when does a road cease to be a road)
	•       Organize forest units, and what is silviculturally possible; consider revising forest units and if silviculture should be used in the classification
	•       Direction of LLP needs improvement, especially with retirement of OWHAM
	•       Update the models/science used in modelling
	•       Separate old and old growth (need areas of old growth stands to be identified/mapped – there was a plan to do it but never got done)
	•       Consider all species for old growth
	•       SRNVs need more flexibility as it may not reflect socio-economic considerations or industrial requirement (e.g., First Nation communities may not want to decrease Oak, or industry may not want to increase intolerants with no pulp market)
	•       SRNVs need to consider climate change
	•       Merge direction in LGs and SSG
	•       Need to consider socio-economic effects of management
	•       Improve direction of young forest patches and models
	•       Simplify the landscape guide. Basic direction could be: landscape classes, old, young, texture. Remove redundancies.
	•       Are we looking at LiDAR being used independently to the FRI? – check w/ FRI group and PPI advisory council (?). LiDAR could improve definition of “structure” of forest.
	•       Possibly look into the possibility of neighbouring FMUs talking to each other in a ‘landscape view’ sort of way
	•       More flexibility to have other objectives to be more important than JUST the objectives from the guide (i.e., there are political/socio boundaries within the MU that needs to be taken into account)
	•       Expectations on oak density within different Mus
3. Introduce	•       Need to clarify the hierarchy of the different guides (which one takes higher priority). Issue of conflicting direction, limits application of the coarse filter.
	•       Introduce more prescriptive guideline for the development/implementation of LLP
	•       Landscape context – how are highly fragmented landscapes being implemented. Need more clear goals/objectives
	•       Consideration for climate change, tree insect/pests/disease, and how they interact with climate change. Include in models
	•       Changes due to disturbance regime, how can this be modelled and implemented in plans
	•       Need to update SRNV for GLSL in the future to include climate change impacts; clear direction in integrating climate change on benchmarks/milestones.
	•       Cover more direction for pine filter in the landscape guide (not SSG)
	•       How will the predictive data be introduced to milestones
	•       Try to integrate fine and coarse filters
	•       Fewer guides OR just being more clear of the directions of the guide. Merge the guides into one more comprehensive guide
	•       Direction can be opposite social values of community member perspectives
	•       Acknowledge the guide is science-driven
	•       Explanation of how the socio-economic perspectives are accounted for in the larger planning process
	•       Need to make effectiveness monitoring more clear, more emphasis. Is planning effective at achieving milestones or maintaining biodiversity.
	•       Add carbon storage in the planning process (as indicator related to climate change)
	•       Need a clear process of check and balances and evaluation of the guide direction.
	•       Effectiveness monitoring: how can it be done practically? Challenges – definition of effectiveness monitoring, how effective are the tools (we don’t know), how effective is the overall policy
	•       In MUs with low harvest levels, are the guide targets achievable (i.e., the landscape remains relatively the same as historically and change is slower than other Mus with larger harvests)
	•       Need to make Rumple(?) Document available for all (put in appendix)
	•       Add SQL
4. Remove	•       Most people unsure what to remove. Remove nothing.
	•       LLPs – more replace than remove, makes more sense in S.Ont. as it is extremely fragmented (suggestion to possibly reduce the hexagon size as the landscape is so fragmented, that could possibly help to reach targets)
	•       Biodiversity targets are redundant and are being taken care of in other areas of the guide
	•       All landscape classes as they are not representative or flexible to the needs of the specific MU
	•       Red and white pine targets are redundant as white pine has a whole class and people don’t like adding red with white pine – better mechanisms in the guide that take into account
	•       Difficult to do a fragmented pattern in S.Ont. – not ideal in S.Ont.
	•       Young forests are unachievable in S.Ont. and selection does not create young forests – either redesign or remove altogether
	•       Textures is up on the note but is unfeasible to remove (can forest estate model replace OLT?)

B.2.7 Virtual (February 28, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Maintain landscape guide indicators
	•       Landscape classes and landscape guide indicators in particular
	•       Need for assessment of long-terms trends and evaluating sustainability
	•       Need enhanced annual reports to reflect on changes to indicators and not changes to how indicators are reported on
	•       Maintain the mandatory direction in the guide
	•       Standards provide direction on how the guide should be applied and the non-negotiables that keep planning on track
	•       Maintain direction around Large Landscape Patches
	•       Species specific direction continues to be important for ungulate species
	•       Planning of mature and old habitat areas
	•       Maintain support and development of OLT
	•       Important tool for use in evaluating BLG indicators. Needs to have continued support so it is available to PT members and updated where needed to reflect new inventories, habitat models, etc.
2. Improve	•       FU classification – removal of classification of FU names
	•       More “beefed up” science package to support
	•       Improved monitoring mechanisms (moose – no clear monitoring mechanisms)
	•       Align current habitat definition with Federal definition
	•       Better job of managing large landscape packages
	•       More specific direction at the site level
	•       Lack of strategic direction for climate change
	•       Road density management
	•       Clarify table 3 (different stages of shelter wood), inconsistently applied
	•       Clarity on how to meet young forest class
	•       Improve B folds for all forests
3. Introduce	•       Road direction on the full landscape
	•       Cumulative impact services other than for caribou (i.e. hydro dams, mining)
	•       Climate change
	•       New FMPM on spatial analysis – tie into those indicators. Cleaner introduction into spatial analysis indicators
4. Remove	•       Nothing to remove, rather the option to improve/fix

B.2.8 Sault Ste Marie (March 5, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Overall structure of guide is good (provides quality control)
	•       Developing targets for biodiversity
	•       Landscape classes
	•       Biodiversity indicators/milestones * directional statements
	•       General metrics/old growth
	•       3.1.2-pattern
	•       3.1.1-structure
2. Improve	•       Combining targets across Mus (e.g., Algoma, Northshore so in opposite directions, e.g., increase tolerant on one management unit, decrease on neighbouring management unit)
	•       Administrative boundaries vs broader objectives
	•       Improve consultation/training with First Nation and Métis communicates (especially capacity)
	•       How cumulative effects and climate change are incorporated
	•       Tool to better support spatial models (R support?)
	•       How do we know people are following best practices? Why have best practices with little to no compliance/enforcement
	•       Something to consider in spatial modelling: is there a clear way to link best management practices to the models?
	•       Integrate piece meal stuff from OLT into guides
	•       Direction #8: Improve t-stage and single tree selection
	•       Direction #3: Landscape classes
	•       Represent LGFU units by silviculture system
	•       With tolerant hardwood even ages/all age STS=US
	•       GLSL units with beech bark disease they do not have the quality or basal area
	•       How does beech disease impact old growth
	•       Direction #13: instead of using an age, use devstage as a proxy
	•       Better define young stands (age 36?)
	•       Use texture pattern indicator, explore opportunities with spatial models (patch size indicator); the guide should provide flexibility to innovate (optimize us)
	•       Remove and/or improve rationalizing
	•       application of texture indicators—planning teams need help doing this, clear approaches/examples. Hard to achieve on some forests
	•       MNR does not have capacity to do a deep dive into the indicators
	•       Very large process to maintain tools (uphill battle)
	•       We have red/white pine targets BUT why do we have the targets – what is the justification and what purpose does it serve? How relevant are the 1995 levels? Especially if it so difficult to achieve, seems arbitrary.
3. Introduce	•       Spatial distribution
	•       Stand development stage that reflects modification through harvest (e.g., US 1st/2nd cut)
	•       STS?
	•       Effectiveness monitoring
	•       Indigenous values, knowledge
	•       Measurement of targets across FMUs (e.g., if same company within same guide)
	•       Climate change—variability, flexibility, multiple trajectories; SRNV not compatible with future climate)
	•       Standardized data format for data exchange within GLSL and between boreal and GLSL
	•       Disturbance impacts and patch size
	•       Cumulative impacts, percent disturbed overall (mines etc.)
	•       Managing for old growth characteristics (is there a suitable silviculture system?)
	•       Spread of invasive pests/pathogens (e.g., HWA)
	•       Flexibility to not use OLT (e.g., use ministry approved spatial models)
	•       Road direction, definitions, density, decommissioning
	•       Social aspects (primary, unmanaged forests; internation policy vocabulary)
	•       Irregular shelterwood?
	•       Road direction, definitions, density, decommissioning.
	•       Landscape class labels changes when switching from Boreal to GLSL
	•       Social aspects: global/international forest vocabulary is different from that in Canada
	•       Different companies don’t collaborate but there could be a third party that can help collaboration between them especially when their targets are the same, they can help each other achieve those targets
4. Remove	•       The items written aren’t really remove, its more replace and improve
	•       Texture and old growth—new way to capture this
	•       Nothing—things need updating but not removal
	•       OLT—move to spatial (X3)
	•       Age classes for multistage pass review (canopy closure instead? How to relate to young forest age class)
	•       Remove red pine/white pine (PRW) specialness
	•       Pre-industrial condition (primary forest? How to establish goal).

B.2.9 North Bay (March 7, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       Overall feeling: guide is good, and seems to be working
	•       Maintain premise of the guide and its flexibility
	•       Measuring system (provide consistency)
	•       Option to do large landscape patches
	•       Biodiversity indicators
	•       Milestones
	•       Old growth (qualitative/quantitative measures
	•       Old growth was a bit of hit and miss (perhaps look into improvement more than maintain)
	•       Indigenous knowledge : more for the improve group but it definitely came up in conversation quite a bit. communities would benefit if we were to go to the communities and explain the guide thoroughly, which will give them the opportunity/platform to improve their participation in the guide, right now, the way the industry looks at forests/sustainability and how the community looks at it is defined differently, which can provide misguidance
2. Improve	•       Update table 3 so we aren’t splitting white pine shelterwood into 2 classes
	•       Move milestones table into science package – remove from guide
	•       2017 SRNVs didn’t take into account the vertical structure just overstory condition
	•       Linkages between disturbance levels at caribou range level vs plan management unit level
	•       Improve pattern indicators, e.g., distribution of texture
	•       Assessment of texture—improved incorporated into spatial modelling context (OLT); in absence, here direction on how to incorporate in planning
	•       How implementation fine-scale impacts ability to landscape class targets; how to resolve conflict; direction found in GLG, not GLSL
	•       GLSL guide does not have the wording about what happens when conflicts occur between landscape guide direction and non-landscape guide direction (the wording is in the Boreal guide but not GLSL)
	•       Recalculation GLSL SRNVs before next planning cycle; account for vertical structure
	•       Better definition of old growth needed—currently open-ended (groupings vs no groupings)
	•       Planning teams are “deriving” old growth SRNV—how is that intended to be done?
	•       PRW 1995? How to do better
	•       Definitions for old growth in guide
	•       Language (Indigenous)
	•       Climate change
	•       Pre-industrial condition
	•       Ontario’s landscape tool
	•       Effectiveness monitoring
	•       Impacts of not fully utilizing your plan
	•       Impacts of fine filter application
	•       Roads and roads planning (decommissioning, density, optimizing against texture
	•       For roads: general guidance is needed about decommissioning roads (i.e., how and when); no clear definition of decommissioned roads; should road planning even be in the guide? Abandoned vs blocked roads also causes issues within communities. There might be some direction coming in the upcoming forest planning manual. Another issue: decommissioning vs rehabilitation of the roads (haven’t seen any roads being rehabilitates, just berms being put up and culverts being taken out) “when is a road no longer a road?”
	•       Strategic landscape map—not defined
	•       Age of selective harvest (better quantify “all age”: stands—links to landscape classes.
	•       Age is ambiguous, needs to be better described
	•       Is pre-industrial condition even relevant to today? Does it take into account climate change?
3. Introduce	•       Indigenous Knowledge, language, monitoring
	•       E.g., non traditional forest products (structure/composition)
	•       Indigenous knowledge in the “science” development of direction (alignment)
	•       Climate/fire impacts; young forest fire factor, disease
	•       Other factors (risks): herbicide, utilization, markets
	•       Scale of SRNV/objectives (ecoregion to FMU, caribou range to FMU, FMU to protect/reserve.
	•       AOU/managed forest zone: apply to whole province, federal targets/natural
	•       Non-crown land assessments: cumulative effects assessments, plan around other anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., mining, agriculture, development)
	•       Conflict resolution: stand/site/SAR/LG; GLSL missing this direction
	•       Language enabling innovation (new technology)
	•       Alternatives to age (e.g., basal area); GLSL/selection/target achievement
	•       Young forest patch size in modelling direction
	•       Relate stand & structure guide and landscape guide
	•       What are the natural disturbance factors for young forests, so they (planners) aren’t being at the top of their range
	•       Risk factors: from modelling perspective, there are lots of factors that should be included but aren’t currently (currently there are 5?)
4. Remove	•       A lot of this group aligns with the improve group
	•       Include all land types
	•       Young forest patch size (artefact of NDPEG)
	•       Young forest landscape indicator
	•       Don’t remove anything—review
	•       Milestone (put in tech note)—changes with each FRI
	•       Remove caribou from the landscape guide. Deserves a stand alone guide, is mostly silviculture
	•       Remove and combine guides (1 landscape guide)
	•       1995 requirements for Pr/Pw Old growth. Is this a legacy artefact of obsolete policy?
	•       Remove old growth definition (2003), add definition from old growth guide (2025)
	•       Remove age from GLSL; it’s being used as a proxy for structure—better to use DBH, basal area.
	•       The complexity of GLSL is not in the guide, so we want to remove the way we do it now and improve how it should be done - How we measure pattern, composition, etc. does not due justice of the complexity of the GLSL
	•       Guide should be adaptable
	•       Caribou out of boreal guide and make it a standalone guide
	•       Big discussion on putting both guides together into one document (no consensus on this particular idea)

B.2.10 Bracebridge (March 12, 2024)

Group	Key Points
1. Maintain	•       #9: be able to exclude areas where patent land is significant
	•       #10 texture of old/mature forest
	•       #11: overall statement of current forest being starting place (come concern over old growth definition in direction)
	•       3.3: develop targets for biodiversity objectives
	•       #19: LLPs for wildlife (deer, moose); maintain flexibility
	•       LLPs have a good level of flexibility (#19)
	•       3.12 (#9) Pattern: adjust when you have fragmented landscapes
	•       Some concern in #1) that old growth is mentioned – how is it being measured accurately? – i.e., age is a problematic and weak attribute, the future condition created by the model to determine SRNVs is so different than current conditions – stage of management practices adds to complexity of old growth, age in inventory is not accurate, definition of old growth is different between industry/landscape guide and public (this leads to problems with explaining to public – need to look into a new definition). Hard to address because it’s a stand level assessment. Rely less on age and more on LiDAR for defining old growth. No old growth in uneven-age forest on a strategic level (i.e., leave it out). Use SGR to maintain old growth characteristics
2. Improve	•       Definitions for LG direction—make it consistent with SSG?
	•       Since stand and site guide is moving to different definitions, will they be consistent with the landscape guide (mandatory direction and optional direction vs standard, guideline)
	•       #2: Distinguish/measure separately managed vs protected
	•       Managed vs protected (#2): stronger recognition of protected vs crown land when planning, recognizing the influence protected has on management changes. Identify flexibility in the guide on protected areas.
	•       #5: Introduction of prorated SRNV based on the current forest condition (rather than the theoretical)
	•       Algonquin is only FMU that uses pro-rated approach, since the other ones had enough old growth to meet the objectives
	•       #9: Should not be optional (i.e., change “may” to “should”)
	•       #19: provide more structured guidance for delineating MEAs
	•       Needing more direction/clarity with the LLPs and the MEAs
	•       MEAs seems to have little biological value, it’s planning for the sake of planning
	•       #20: explain better what is meant by “judicious use”
	•       #21: large landscape patches: poorly defined/subjective, is it required for all plans?, forested to address objectives (e.g., harvest, silviculture, etc.) when not applicable
	•       #21: more thought to be given whether the 20 year planning is still valid with spatial planning?
	•       Either use more plain language or add more explanation
3. Introduce	•       Incorporate climate change within the actual policy/ guide (but not sure how – make sure it’s not just a token thought); need to consider whether we need a new methodology (resiliency and adapting might be key)
	•       Extensive review over 10+ years has “seasoned” planners not feeling a new item is needed, just lots of tweaks; however, new science on climate change policy in other provinces/jurisdictions; political and climate reality need for addressing of climate change “emerging properties”.
	•       Climate change shouldn’t be it’s own module but needs to be placed throughout the guide
	•       From the more seasoned planners, there aren’t any glaring issues in the guide, just needs tweaks (i.e., how landscape classes are addressed, SRNVs of jack pine incorporated both protected and un-protected forests, longer range analysis might happen now with LiDAR)
	•       Keep models current
	•       Last sentence of 2.3.1
	•       Where is the climate change science coming from – having no guidance on where to start or who to talk to
4. Remove	•       #6 (3.1.1.3): red and white pine: incorporate into 3.1.1.2 old growth (#6)
	•       #7: Indicator not dropping below 1995 levels; this is based on older coarser information (i.e., outdated)
	•       The 1995 levels was the overwhelming recommendation to remove – completely outdated, subjective
	•       Red and white pine (does the guide need to point to R&W pine specifically i.e., limiting the scope to the one species) – seems to be linked to old policy and analysis (hemlock seems to be moving that way now too)
	•       Use mature/late forest more as opposed to old growth (the term old growth is problematic)

B.3 Activity 3

Table B.1: tcaptions$Caption[6]

Table b3: Activity 3

Unique ID	Workshop Location	Workshop Date	Landscape Guide	Total Topics	Topic Number	Topic	Blue Dot	Rank	Relative Rank
1	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	0	12	0.076923
2	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	2	Caribou	5	3	0.769231
3	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	3	Climate change	4	5	0.615385
4	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	4	Cumulative effects	1	9	0.307692
5	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	5	Effectiveness monitoring	8	1	0.923077
6	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	6	Large Landscape Patches	4	5	0.615385
7	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	7	Milestones (including technical note)	0	12	0.076923
8	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	8	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	5	3	0.769231
9	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	9	Old growth	1	9	0.307692
10	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	10	Red and white pine	3	7	0.461538
11	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	11	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	2	8	0.384615
12	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	6	2	0.846154
13	Kenora	2024-01-30	Boreal	13	13	Texture and pattern indicators	1	9	0.307692
16	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	3	8	0.466667
17	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	2	Caribou	2	10	0.333333
18	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	3	Climate change	0	14	0.066667
19	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	4	Cumulative effects	17	1	0.933333
20	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	5	Effectiveness monitoring	10	2	0.866667
21	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	6	Large Landscape Patches	8	3	0.800000
22	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	7	Milestones (including technical note)	1	11	0.266667
23	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	8	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	1	11	0.266667
24	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	9	Old growth	0	14	0.066667
25	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	10	Red and white pine	6	4	0.733333
26	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	11	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	1	11	0.266667
27	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	4	7	0.533333
28	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	13	Texture and pattern indicators	5	5	0.666667
29	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	14	Roads	5	5	0.666667
30	Dryden	2024-02-01	Boreal	15	15	Socioeconomic considerations	3	8	0.466667
32	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	6	10	0.230769
33	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	2	Caribou	19	2	0.846154
34	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	3	Climate change	18	3	0.769231
35	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	4	Cumulative effects	11	6	0.538462
36	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	5	Effectiveness monitoring	21	1	0.923077
37	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	6	Large Landscape Patches	9	7	0.461538
38	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	7	Milestones (including technical note)	1	13	0.000000
39	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	8	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	9	7	0.461538
40	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	9	Old growth	9	7	0.461538
41	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	10	Red and white pine	3	11	0.153846
42	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	11	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	12	5	0.615385
43	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	17	4	0.692308
44	Thunder Bay	2024-02-06	Boreal	13	13	Texture and pattern indicators	2	12	0.076923
79	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	2	13	0.071429
80	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	2	Caribou	10	8	0.428571
81	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	3	Climate change	20	2	0.857143
82	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	4	Cumulative effects	19	3	0.785714
83	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	5	Effectiveness monitoring	27	1	0.928571
84	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	6	Large Landscape Patches	8	10	0.285714
85	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	7	Milestones (including technical note)	9	9	0.357143
86	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	8	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	14	4	0.714286
87	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	9	Old growth	6	11	0.214286
88	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	10	Red and white pine	2	13	0.071429
89	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	11	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	6	11	0.214286
90	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	13	5	0.642857
91	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	13	Texture and pattern indicators	11	7	0.500000
92	Timmins	2024-02-13	Boreal	14	NA	Biodiversity Indicators	13	5	0.642857
102	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	1	9	0.307692
103	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	2	Caribou	8	1	0.923077
104	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	3	Climate change	7	2	0.846154
105	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	4	Cumulative effects	2	8	0.384615
106	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	5	Effectiveness monitoring	7	2	0.846154
107	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	6	Large Landscape Patches	3	6	0.538462
108	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	7	Milestones (including technical note)	1	9	0.307692
109	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	8	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	1	9	0.307692
110	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	9	Old growth	0	12	0.076923
111	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	10	Red and white pine	0	12	0.076923
112	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	11	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	4	5	0.615385
113	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	3	6	0.538462
114	Hearst	2024-02-15	Boreal	13	13	Texture and pattern indicators	7	2	0.846154
115	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	12	1	0.923077
116	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	2	Climate change	8	5	0.615385
117	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	3	Cumulative effects	9	3	0.769231
118	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	4	Effectiveness monitoring	10	2	0.846154
119	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	5	Large Landscape Patches	5	9	0.307692
120	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	6	Milestones (including technical note)	1	12	0.076923
121	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	7	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	9	3	0.769231
122	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	8	Old growth	8	5	0.615385
123	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	9	Red and white pine	8	5	0.615385
124	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	10	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	5	9	0.307692
125	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	11	Silviculture Systems	6	8	0.384615
126	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	2	11	0.153846
127	Peterborough	2024-02-22	GLSL	13	13	Texture and pattern indicators	1	12	0.076923
128	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	3	10	0.285714
129	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	2	Climate change	4	6	0.571429
130	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	3	Cumulative effects	6	4	0.714286
131	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	4	Effectiveness monitoring	9	1	0.928571
132	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	5	Large Landscape Patches	2	13	0.071429
133	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	6	Milestones (including technical note)	1	14	0.000000
134	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	7	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	7	2	0.857143
135	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	8	Old growth	3	10	0.285714
136	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	9	Red and white pine	4	6	0.571429
137	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	10	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	4	6	0.571429
138	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	11	Silviculture Systems	7	2	0.857143
139	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	4	6	0.571429
140	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	13	Texture and pattern indicators	6	4	0.714286
141	Sault Ste Marie	2024-03-05	GLSL	14	14	Socioeconomic considerations	3	10	0.285714
142	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	6	2	0.846154
143	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	2	Climate change	7	1	0.923077
144	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	3	Cumulative effects	4	6	0.538462
145	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	4	Effectiveness monitoring	6	2	0.846154
146	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	5	Large Landscape Patches	6	2	0.846154
147	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	6	Milestones (including technical note)	0	10	0.230769
148	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	7	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	6	2	0.846154
149	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	8	Old growth	0	10	0.230769
150	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	9	Red and white pine	1	9	0.307692
151	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	10	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	0	10	0.230769
152	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	11	Silviculture Systems	2	8	0.384615
153	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	12	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	3	7	0.461538
154	Bracebridge	2024-03-12	GLSL	13	13	Texture and pattern indicators	0	10	0.230769
155	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	1	Alignment with other direction and land uses	5	7	0.562500
156	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	2	Caribou	4	8	0.500000
157	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	3	Climate change	10	3	0.812500
158	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	4	Cumulative effects	4	8	0.500000
159	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	5	Effectiveness monitoring	11	1	0.937500
160	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	6	Large Landscape Patches	0	14	0.125000
161	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	7	Milestones (including technical note)	1	12	0.250000
162	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	8	Natural disturbances (types, severity, history)	8	5	0.687500
163	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	9	Old growth	9	4	0.750000
164	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	10	Red and white pine	1	12	0.250000
165	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	11	Science and Information Packages and Ontario’s Landscape Tool	4	8	0.500000
166	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	12	Silviculture Systems	0	14	0.125000
167	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	13	Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNVs)	0	14	0.125000
168	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	14	Texture and pattern indicators	3	11	0.312500
169	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	15	Landscape Classes and Forest Units	11	1	0.937500
170	North Bay	2024-03-07	GLSL	16	16	Need/scope for LG revision	7	6	0.625000

B.4 Activity 4

B.4.1 Thunder Bay (February 6, 2024)

• Thank you for hosting the workshop

• I appreciate the break in the routine with the group exercises

• This was awesome! Having forest industry and MNR in the same room is great

• All good exercises: great input and thought in the discussions

• Appreciate the fact that your Director took time out of his schedule to attend.

• Make sure the guide maintains some level of direction and doesn’t become just a shelf document.

• Great collaborative approach, group think

• Less prescriptive—allows for more space to discuss concerns, issues, and values to capture community concerns

• Could there be consideration for conservation within the guide?

  • E.g., Intact Forest Landscapes

  • Primary Forest

  • Other effective conservation measures

• Contributions to Canada’s international commitments

  • Protection

  • Restoration

  • Biodiversity

  • Etc.

• We are still very focused on timber production as our ultimate objective with other indicators as constraints.

• What about healthy, resilient ecosystems as the ultimate objective and timber (wood products) as a constraint?

  • How could we flip the narrative?

• Let’s not make too many changes, or major changes, before we fully analyze how we’ve been doing at meeting objectives—especially for wildlife.

• Boundary Water Forest SRNVs, science and information packages, OLT, BFOLDS

  • BWF largest ecoregion is 4S, not 4W and includes 5S as well. Next iteration of SRNVs and science and information package should recognize this—may result in some adjustments to SRNVs for some LG indicators—e.g., mature and late conifer/commix, mature and late hardwood and hardwood mixed, red and white pine.

• Climate Change

  • Greater consideration of forest shift—perhaps overlap with GLSL forest type and any shift in its distribution.

  • Discussion of invasives might fit here too.

• Continuity with other government policy/direction, as much as possible

• Cumulative Effects

  • Framework or opportunity to quantify/track impact on our landscape, our biodiversity goals, strategic objectives.

• BLG general

  • Ensuring there’s continuity between plans, discussion of intents, objectives from previous plans and how they fit into current objectives/strategy.

• Keep ecosites in inventory please

  • Important for other lines of MNRF business (e.g., environmental assessments, ecoregional criteria schedules; significant wildlife habitat delineation, renewable energy project, aggregates)

• AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act)

  • Format and plain language

  • Building document to be compatible for this while ideally keeping it still field compatible (not just html).

• Provide examples and case studies in the training or topic for those unfamiliar

• Provide public forums to discuss the landscape guide and discuss better ways to improve it from their perspective.

• Inclusion of VR in terms of a method of teaching?

B.4.2 Timmins Session (February 13, 2024)

• No MEA effectiveness monitoring—but moving into next round of plans not knowing if prior MEA worked.

• Thanks for organizing this event!

• I appreciated the open ‘coffee bar’

• Good venue for the event

• It was a good opportunity to discuss problems with guide implementation (and how to find solutions), with colleagues

• Great to have multiple parties involved—gov’t, Industry, LCC & First Nation partners

• Activity #2:

-   Could use more time for summarizing what the tables come up with.

• OLT:

  • Black box, not a good explanation of results

  • Use OLT for better explanation

  • Old technology

    • Too long to run

    • Inputs

  • Appendix explaining results

• Need clarify on which intervals are the targets for non-caribou texture indicators (similar to caribou). Because trying to better 1-1 intervals is easier than all intervals (i.e., improve one=decline in other).

• Want MEA work done in LTMD modelling stage discussed in LGs because often teams don’t want to start till Ops planning stage but first few steps done during strategic planning.

• The colour coding of the Landscape classes table is much easier for people to interpret vs the accessible version (with letter codes). Keep it.

• Make standards, guidelines & BMPs pop more in guide

• Towards climate change preparations, we should focus on renewing the forest to a better, healthier & more resilient forest

• There is a strong relationship between the quality of the stand regen & resiliency to climate change. It’s the best tool. We should crack down on high grading and poor regen.

• LG revisions need to happen ASAP to be in place for the White River Planning (2025?). Try to pick up the pace. Don’t bother asking “if”, it should be revised as there’s a clear need.

B.4.3 Hearst Session (February 15, 2024)

• Great job done by Jenn, Dave & Charlotte to host facilitate & document these sessions!! Look to the GLSL sessions.
  • You guys set the bar for effective workshop approach. Thank you!!
• Activity #4
  • Section 3.1.1.3 Red & White Pine
  • 3E LG milestones “Increase to Pre-Industrial Condition” if this information is not available—i.e., via an SRNV—this indicator should be removed or a choice should be given to either—meet the indicator or do not drop below 1995 amounts. Not both.
• Activity #4
  • Section 3.1.1.2 Old Growth
  • Issues with which definition of Old Growth that were used in OLT. Old Growth should be better defined in the guide to support PTs not using OLT to measure indicators rather, defining indicators in their WS models. Difficulty in reconciling OLT definitions with old growth forest definitions.
  • Also—do we group or not? In NER many (or all) PTs grouped Old Growth. Is this an acceptable approach—can we defend this if challenged to employ finer groupings?
• Activity #4
  • PT must ensure compatibility of forest units with LGFUs         
  • Is this still a requirement if LGFU will be defined as its own attribute in the inventory and in base models?
  • Can set targets based on LGFU and allocate/roll up planned harvest area & silviculture treatments by plan FU…
• Activity #4
  • S. 3.1.1.4 Conifer—all ages conifer grouping
  • Unclear intent—is the SRNV intended for the 3 conifer grouping combined or separately—if the latter, need to provide 3 milestones & directional statements not just one
  • This was not dealt with in the same manner for all PTs in the NER.

B.4.4 Peterborough session (February 22, 2024)

• Great session! Really good mix of perspectives and input. Thought provoking discussion.

• The 2004 habitat matrices that landscape classes were developed from are non-spatial models. Given the movement towards spatial modelling for forest management and the importance of pattern & texture for wildlife should those models be updated or redeveloped to have spatial components.

• Says redundancy (Biodiversity, Pw & Pr)

  • Having redundance built into guide gives effectiveness monitoring

  • Talk about young forest target in selection system—STS based on natural small scale disturbances and should not have target for young forest patches which would be created by fire or large midscale wind/ice storms. But this should be the case that naturally disturbed MH types of forest won’t create a frequent young forest class.

• Biodiversity indicators—provide checks & balances for stand structure, composition & pattern.

  • Using groups of indicators that capture the structure/composition of naturally disturbed forests-landscape classes so broad

  • I.e., if you are setting targets for say mature tolerant hardwood forest is the structure/comp of your stands reflective of the natural structure

    • Does it have adequate regen

    • Midstory structure

    • Overstory

  • 1 species bioindicator doesn’t reflect this but a multiple species system does (i.e. Black-throated Blue—understory regen, Brown Creeper==old/big trees, etc.)

• Separate old growth from old stands

  • Clumping old & OG basically ignores the inherent diff in OGF

  • Creates false impression, lots of OGF on landscape & too much of old/OGF on landscape compared to natural variation

  • Emphasis on only true OGF/or Pw & Pr narrow

  • Doesn’t recognize global/national goals that relate to OGF

  • I understand inherent problems of this WRT other policy but taking opportunity now enables this rare habitat feature gets acknowledged & factored into FMP planning processes.

• Some folks suggested to revise SQL – I don’t’ have enough experience in modeling stage during planning process so not sure how it will impact modeling. But I do see some impacts on plan implementation side. I know it’s been changed for few times in the past and I won’t be the only one that looking at all different SQLs in FMPs and scratching my head when doing analysis on regeneration/FTG survey.

• The result of effectiveness evaluation should be shared with public, at least share with ROD especially district folks. In this case, if the public have any questions the district folks will be able to answer or they know where to direct the public to. An example, I had Local Citizen Committee member that asked with all the effort we invest into Caribou planning does it really help and how effective our Caribou planning is.

• SFL suggested to move landscape target evaluation out of FMP products (FMPs& ARs) -  I don’t agree with them. I think FMP and AR are perfect home for this.

• Some folks think we should evaluate landscape target at a regional level or with a boundary that make sense with the forest ecosystem. (i.e. not FMU level) – in an ideal world we should definitely do that. But it is not practical. From the implementation side it is very difficult to manage the forest when you have patches here and there that run towards different target.

B.4.5 Sault Ste. Marie session (March 5, 2024)

• The workshop was great. You kept us engaged and (impressively!) on topic. The structure was very conducive to input

B.4.6 North Bay session (March 7^th, 2024)

• Excellent work! These sessions were super well thought out and it showed!

• Supporting direction about the DCHS time slice analysis should not apply now that we have spatial planning solutions. Time slide is an old approach from an inability to project texture of caribou

• Please add to GLSL:

  • 24) In cases where the achievement of meeting a lands ape guide milestone conflicts with another management objective and the planning team decides to favour the non-landscape guide objective….