| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2.1: Stand and site level direction for caribou habitat - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| Sufficient Supply of Caribou Calving/Nursery Areas |
There is no formal direction written to assist with the determination of sufficient supply of caribou calving/nursery areas. The interim direction seen in some FMPs in the NWR is highly subjective and does not allow this determination to be made consistently from one biologist/PT to the next. Given the difference in caribou habitat ecology in the NE, is the determination of sufficient supply for caribou calving and nursery areas even feasible? After applying the interim criteria in the determination of sufficient supply, one does not come out the other end having an objective answer to the question of sufficient supply on a specific FMU. |
Develop formal/scientifically based guidance to assist in the consistent determination of caribou sufficient supply of calving/nursery areas in FMPs. Incorporate this into the BLG. |
Planning teams have considered the following information in the determination of sufficient supply of calving/nursery areas: 1) The range level habitat tract map, 2) Caribou habitat composition (refuge & winter) at the management unit and range level, 3) Caribou habitat pattern (winter) at the management unit and range level, 4) Time to achievement (milestones) of caribou habitat indicators by management unit, 5) Estimates and trends of habitat loss at the range level, 6) Estimates of range level population states (Integrated Range Assessment Reports). |
The lack of formal direction to aid in the determination of sufficient supply is causing implementation issues of the BLG and this determination appears to be subjective from one FMP to the next or from one biologist to the next. It is possible that even two equally experienced biologists could make two completely separate calls on sufficient supply of calving/nursery areas on the same FMU. |
| Allocation & Harvest of Habitat Tracts with Nursery Area |
More guidance is needed regarding the characteristics that suggest a habitat tract and associated caribou nursery area are in an unsuitable condition as it relates to making an allocation and harvest decision. The lack of detailed guidance can cause subjectivity in these decisions and potential for an error in judgement to occur. |
Develop detailed guidance to assist with identification of habitat tracts/caribou nursery areas that are in unsuitable condition. Incorporate this into the BLG. |
When the BLG refers to unsuitable condition, is it pointing to DCHS blocks with caribou nursery areas in them being overmature and falling down (i.e., it is time to harvest the DCHS block). |
The lack of formal direction to aid in this judgement call is causing implementation issues of the BLG and this too appears to be subjective from one FMP to the next. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2.1: Stand and site level direction for caribou habitat - Refine Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| Stand & Site Level Direction for Woodland Caribou Habitat in the NER vs. NWR |
Acknowledge the differences in caribou nursery habitat ecology between the northwest and northeast regions of Ontario and account for these differences in the text of the fine filter direction that is provided in the BLG. It is possible that there needs to be region-specific guidance developed for each of the regions within continuous caribou distribution. |
Seek input from northeast district and region Biologists with expert knowledge about caribou nursery use in the NE Region. Work with them to write direction for caribou nursery areas that is applicable specifically to the NE Region circumstances. |
NA |
The lack of region-specific guidance for caribou nursery habitat is causing implementation issues in the Northeast Region given the differences in caribou nursery habitat ecology. |
| Stand & Site Level Direction for Woodland Caribou Habitat in the NER |
The Stand and Site Level direction for calving and nursery areas is confusing and does not consider/is not reflective of what is known about caribou calving and nursery habitat ecology in the NER. Direction on allocation/harvest/retention of calving/nursery areas is highly needed and should be reflective of the experience and opinions of seasoned NER District Biologists. |
Review guidance for caribou calving and nursery areas in the BLG and develop additional modified guidance that reflects the NER condition and variances in caribou ecology and habitat needs/use. |
NA |
The lack of region-specific guidance for caribou nursery habitat is causing implementation issues in the Northeast Region given the differences in caribou nursery habitat ecology. |
| Stand & Site Level Direction for Woodland Caribou Habitat in the NER |
Application of the current caribou calving AOC approach may be creating small islands of calving forest surrounded by swaths of clear cut (especially in NER). There are concerns that cows will not cross the clear cut and find the calving areas, thus rendering them useless. Do we have any new monitoring information/science to incorporate into the BLG that provides evidence that caribou will continue to return to previous nursery areas even following adjacent logging around the AOC. |
Further dialogue should happen with biologists and corridors of suitable habitat should be a requirement to ensure connectivity to calving AOCs. Direction should be revised to not create donuts. |
NA |
Possibly |
| Stand & Site Level Direction for Woodland Caribou Habitat as it Pertains to Emphasizing Winter Caribou Habitat |
Currently, in the BLG, the only mention of caribou winter feeding habitat occurs in the Stand and Site Level Direction for Woodland Caribou Habitat, where it exists simply as a guideline (as opposed to a standard) and only provides guidance as it relates to the renewal of areas having been used by caribou as winter feeding habitat or that have the potential to develop into winter feeding habitat. There is no discussion about the protection (through deferral) of existing caribou winter feeding areas similar to the direction for caribou nursery areas. There are two issues with this. The first issue is there is no formal procedure in place that requires a PT to complete a check that silvicultural practices to maintain or enhance the forest stands that favour the growth of the lichen rich ground cover condition or the growth of arboreal lichens are indeed being considered, utilized, and applied in candidate areas (as above) as the guideline is intended. Without a formalized procedure/checkpoint for this, there is a likelihood that this level of planning for future caribou winter feeding habitat may go unchecked. The second issue is that there is no "sufficient supply" or scrutiny exercise for existing caribou winter feeding areas in the guidelines when it comes to scheduling DCHS blocks for harvest or deferral similar to the consideration that is given to nursery areas during DCHS block scheduling. Caribou winter feeding areas are equally considered Category 1 Caribou High Use Areas under the Endangered Species Act (2007) yet they are not given the same level of consideration or scrutiny during the decision making process for the scheduling of harvest or deferral for DCHS blocks. |
Develop a similar "sufficient supply" exercise as that for caribou nursery areas that requires Planning Teams to give a higher level of scrutiny/consideration to the scheduling of DCHS blocks containing known/existing Category 1 (or other) high use winter caribou feeding areas on FMUs in continuous caribou distribution. If an FMU contains only one known caribou winter feeding area that to the best of our knowledge is still being used by caribou for winter feeding, then it might be wise to schedule the DCHS block that it occurs in for continued deferral until other DCHS blocks can be confirmed as providing quality winter feeding areas for caribou. As well, develop a formal procedure/or check that requires planning teams to ensure the appropriate silvicultural practices needed to maintain or enhance the forest stands that favour the growth of lichen rich ground cover conditions or the growth of arboreal lichens are being applied in areas known to have been used by caribou for winter feeding or that have the potential to develop into winter feeding habitat . |
NA |
The lack of a formal procedure to checking silvicultural practices as well as the lack of a "sufficient supply" of caribou winter feeding areas is causing issues in the full implementation of the BLG as both of these are required to ensure that suitable quality caribou habitat is not only being maintained now but also into the future. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2: Using large landscape patches for applying fine filter direction for woodland caribou - Develop and refine guidance and include in the BLG. Re-evaluation of the concept of 'online' caribou habitat in the time slice versus provision of quality caribou habitat. |
| Spatial planning and arrangement of DCHS (blocks) for connectivity and temporal availability, time-slice analysis/'online' caribou habitat/link to quality caribou habitat. |
There is a lack of direction and standardized methodology as it relates to the spatial planning & arrangement of caribou habitat/DCHS blocks through time, across intervals, and across the FMU geography – much of the spatial arrangement aspect of caribou habitat planning is ‘eyeballed’ for connectivity. Aspects of spatially arranging caribou habitat dependent upon the time-slice exercise alone carries potentially disastrous assumptions about the likelihood of caribou use when DCHS blocks reach an ‘online’ status. To the inexperienced PT member, the time slice exercise may result in a perception that online DCHS blocks are all equally providing quality ‘online’ caribou habitat in a given interval. The reality is that many of these ‘online’ blocks may contain only very small proportions of preferred/quality caribou habitat and that preferred caribou habitat may be concentrated in only a handful of DCHS blocks. The time-slice exercise results in a certain proportion of DCHS blocks being ‘online’ at any given time in the planning horizon which is misleading given many of these DCHS blocks may be composed of very little high quality caribou habitat. There is a need to clarify 'online' availability of caribou habitat versus expectation of use by caribou given the quality of habitat in DCHS blocks. Consider including a quality control procedure for the assessment of this and written requirements to support the transparency of this in FMP. |
Develop guidance related to the spatial planning and arrangement of DCHS blocks for connectivity and temporal availability of DCHS blocks that contain quality caribou habitat. Develop a procedure for ranking/measuring DCHS blocks for their quality of habitat and future value and expectation for caribou use. Make it a requirement for transparency of this in the BLG. |
NA |
This is causing BLG implementation issues as there is currently no system to identify differences in caribou habitat quality from one DCHS block to the next in the final presentation of the DCHS in the FMP (unless the distribution of preferred/used caribou habitat is specifically shown which may not be fully understood by the general public. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2: Using large landscape patches for applying fine filter direction for woodland caribou - Develop and refine guidance to address the implications of not harvesting scheduled DCHS blocks in the manner planned/intended and include in the BLG. |
| Spatial planning and arrangement of DCHS (blocks) for connectivity and temporal availability, not following through with the scheduling for harvest component into blocks with no road access |
There have been regular instances where an SFL (for various reasons) has been unable to harvest a scheduled DCHS block which results in it being deferred to the next 20-year time interval which may cause the economic value of the wood to decline and interest in harvesting these DCHS blocks into the future declines as well. Oftentimes these tend to be DCHS blocks that currently have no road access and the SFL claims that it is not economically feasible to build road into them. There is a tendency for these deferrals to cause issues in the spatial arrangement of online caribou habitat (online habitat top heavy in non-accessible portions of an FMU, and less available online habitat in road accessible portions of the FMU). There have been questions regarding whether some of these non-accessible areas in a DCHS should even be included in the DCHS if there is no possibility of them ever being harvested. There are related questions regarding why the wood volume in these DCHS blocks is contributing to the overall allowable harvest area for the FMU, as it could lead to overharvest in the road-accessible portions of an FMU, which has already been witnessed on some FMUs (e.g., Lac Seul Forest). |
Discuss the consequences of not harvesting DCHS blocks as scheduled from a caribou habitat and connectivity perspective. If there is never any intention to harvest these blocks, then perhaps wood volume should be removed from the allowable harvest area. |
NA |
This is causing BLG implementation issues as the allowable harvest area is based partially on the contribution of the wood volume contained in the DCHS blocks that will never realistically be harvested. Given the overall lack of caribou monitoring, we have no guarantee that these DCHS blocks are still suitable for caribou in subsequent time intervals they are re-entered into. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2: Using large landscape patches for applying fine filter direction for woodland caribou - Develop way to balance area by interval |
| Spatial planning and arrangement of DCHS (blocks) for connectivity and temporal availability, time-slice analysis/'online' caribou habitat/link to quality caribou habitat. |
Currently there is no direction to ensure even allocation of area by each DCHS interval. The time slice analysis doesn’t do this, and allocation of area can be muffled by split blocks. On some forests, once the split blocks are in their ultimate interval there is not a good balance of area in the early terms. |
A metric is required to ensure a more even distribution of total area by DCHS interval so as to not prevent a dip in habitat (and wood supply) in the very long term. This metric also needs to factor in the fact that not all areas assigned to an interval will be harvested in which case select DHCS blocks should be left untouched to promote even aged stands. |
NA |
Yes causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide (and the portion of the GLSL that overlaps coastal caribou range (Algoma Forest)). - Section 3.4.1: Develop targets for forest dwelling woodland caribou habitat objectives - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| Planning direction, habitat models, methods, and targets for caribou. |
Currently there is no direction for FMPs in the Landscape Guides related to habitat planning, habitat models, methods, and targets for caribou discontinuous and coastal range caribou. The Caribou Conservation Plan committed to looking for opportunities through forest management planning to improve future connectivity between local and isolated populations. Without formalized direction in the BLG, there is no mechanism for requiring FMP teams to consider this during the FMP process, and the opportunities are missed. |
Develop Landscape Guide direction that provides opportunities through forest management planning to improve future connectivity for caribou in the discontinuous zone through the use of suitable habitat planning tools, models, methods, and targets. At a minimum develop a formal set of caribou habitat management principles to be considered in FMPs that overlap discontinuous or coastal caribou range. Set habitat models for discontinuous and coastal area. |
NA |
This is causing implementation issues because there is no mechanism to require FMP teams to consider the habitat needs or the benefits from planning for caribou in the discontinuous or coastal ranges. There is belief that strategies developed through the FMP process have the potential to improve future connectivity between local and isolated populations. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2: Using large landscape patches for applying fine filter direction for woodland caribou - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| Temporal availability of DCHS blocks once deemed online. |
The BLG does not include a stipulation regarding the length of time that DCHS blocks are intended to provide caribou habitat for once they are deemed online. Once a DCHS block comes online as suitable for caribou (according to the caribou habitat models), it should remain a deferral for a minimum of two terms (20 years) but ideally longer (4 terms or 40 years) to allow time for caribou use and maximum habitat benefit to caribou. The harvest of DCHS blocks should be more closely aligned with the rotation age of the specific forest it is composed of. There should be fewer instances of allocating DCHS blocks for harvest earlier than the ecological rotation age of a forest. Does not seem to align with sound wildlife habitat management and is too industrially driven. If caribou are still utilizing a DCHS block and the likelihood for continued use is high into the following twenty year interval, why should the block necessarily be allocated for harvest? The rotation and assigned timing of DCHS blocks need to carefully consider the type of forest they are composed of (e.g., PJ Dom versus Sb Dom or Sb Low) and the typical fire cycle of each of those types of forest. The rotation and assigned timing of DCHS blocks should be reflective of the fire cycle length known to be associated with the specific forest types they are composed of. |
Develop Landscape Guide direction that standardizes the timeframe for which DCHS blocks provide online caribou habitat in accordance with ecological rotation ages. The target should be a minimum of one full twenty-year interval with consideration for a minimum of two full twenty-year intervals. Link this direction to a set of guiding principles for best practices associated with DCHS development and implementation. |
Example: duration of online caribou habitat should be 101 years (i.e. 40-60yrs) where spruce (SbLow/SB1) is the dominant FU, rather than using the PJ condition. |
This is causing BLG implementation issues because without temporally appropriate rotation of DCHS blocks that is tied to the ecology of the forest types they are composed of, it is likely that caribou are being lowballed on the duration of time they would normally be able to use DCHS blocks under a natural disturbance regime only (i.e., no harvest disturbance). |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - 3.4.1: Develop targets for forest dwelling woodland caribou habitat objectives - Develop specific guidance for practitioners regarding DCHS rotation and how this is determined. |
| Rotation interval for DCHS. |
It's unclear how to set the duration of the DCHS intervals and how to consider the natural rotational schedule of the forest as well as sufficient time for caribou usage. Calculations are a bit ambiguous. This is the first step in DCHS development. Some DCHS's are too short in duration. |
Provide the process for determining the DCHS duration that factors in natural forest rotation, fire cycle and sufficient time to use blocks before harvest. Revisit DCHS duration on forests to ensure they are sound |
(I'm talking about the mechanical calculation process here). Not sure how much different this comment is from the one above, however please consider them both. |
This is causing BLG implementation issues because without temporally appropriate rotation of DCHS blocks that is tied to the ecology of the forest types they are composed of, it is likely that caribou are being lowballed on the duration of time they would normally be able to use DCHS blocks under a natural disturbance regime only (i.e., no harvest disturbance). |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2.1: Stand and site level direction for caribou habitat - Refine Guidance and include in the BLG. Address changes resulting from prohibitions against herbicide use. |
| Silvicultural prescriptions to be consistent with caribou habitat management objectives and management of caribou winter feeding habitat and the use of silvicultural practices to maintain forest stands that favour a lichen rich ground cover condition. |
How will losing the ability to use herbicide to accomplish forest renewal affect the ability to utilize silvicultural prescriptions consistent with caribou habitat management objectives or to maintain or enhance forest stands that favour the lichen rich ground cover condition that characterize high quality winter feeding areas? We suggest the existing direction be modified during this review to reflect that prohibiting herbicide use in the renewal of forests may lead to an inability for the FMP to meet the fine filter direction associated with using silvicultural practices to maintain or enhance lichen-producing forest stands. Perhaps there needs to be an acknowledgement in the introductory portion of the direction for caribou that states this could be an issue into the future. |
Develop LG direction that provides for alternative silvicultural techniques to be utilized to maintain or enhance the prevalence of forest stands that favour the lichen rich ground cover condition that characterize high quality winter feeding areas. Or maintain the existing direction however strengthen it and be upfront in the LG that depending upon the silvicultural tools available, it may not be possible to meet/execute some standards/guidelines. |
NA |
The prohibition or decrease in herbicide use to attain conifer purity could result in issues when implementing the BLG to maintain suitable mature coniferous caribou habitat now and into the future. This should be acknowledged in the BLG, and possibly new direction developed that speaks to additional tools that can be used to meet caribou habitat objectives related to coniferous forest. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2.1: Stand and site level direction for caribou habitat - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. Strengthen existing guidance (e.g., change from guideline to standard). |
| Maintaining and providing a long-term supply of suitable caribou habitat in an environment where guidelines are not followed. |
In the Stand and Site Level Direction for Woodland Caribou Habitat of the Boreal Landscape Guide (pgs. 51 to 53), planning teams are provided standards, guidelines, and best management practices that are to be applied to areas where caribou habitat is to be emphasized (i.e., DCHS) that will aid in maintaining and providing a long-term supply of suitable woodland caribou habitat. This direction is not regularly or consistently being followed or practiced, as evidenced in Caribou A-block Closure reports. DCHS A-blocks are being closed out with low depletion percentages and unclear road decommissioning and silvicultural strategies planned to aid in the regeneration of DCHS blocks to even-aged mature coniferous forest. It seems as though every DCHS block has its shortcomings in the manner in which it will track to future quality caribou habitat based on the lack of commitment by industry to apply this direction. There is no ability to enforce this caribou habitat-related direction which is causing caribou habitat management to be misaligned with the intent and policy direction of the Caribou Conservation Plan and also causing DCHS blocks to not track towards future quality caribou habitat but rather degrading their quality over time. |
Develop formal standards/guidance related to fully closing out caribou A-blocks in accordance with the existing BLG guidance to do so; develop direction on when A-blocks should be accepted as sufficiently closed and meeting requirements to proceed with opening B-blocks. Set standards, goals, planning approach, and methods to evaluate. Similarly for strengthening the guidance for ensuring harvested complete DCHS blocks are more closely tracking to future quality caribou habitat. |
NER suggested taking a look at ARFs Caribou Exit Strategy for an example of one approach and build upon that. |
There is no doubt that DCHS blocks not on track to providing future quality caribou habitat as a result of low forest depletion percentages and little road decommissioning will cause BLG implementation issues in that it will result in higher levels of habitat fragmentation on FMUs which will trigger a need to re-delineate habitat tracts and DCHS blocks in subsequent FMPs to map out areas that currently exist as contiguous tracts of caribou habitat or that will become guaranteed contiguous tracts of caribou habitat. This also has the potential to reduce the "quality" of caribou habitat in DCHS blocks as DCHS blocks will be intersected with non-decommissioned roads or forested areas that were bypassed during the last harvest rotation. Will result in uneven aged DCHS blocks that contain a road legacy whose decommissioning was never completed. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Editorial/For consideration - Editorial & Summarize |
| Provide practitioners with an overview of this review, key changes (or planned changes) and reasons for them, and external factors resulting in challenges associated with application and implementation. |
Given the Landscape Guides are undergoing a review, the authors should take this opportunity to add a few new sections to the Guides for benefit of practitioners: 1) A Summary of the key challenges that have been experienced during application and implementation of the existing LG during FMP, 2) A summary of external factors not in the control of MNRF that may cause the direction in the LG to change during this review or that cause challenges in the intended application/implementation of the direction (e.g., limited ability to apply herbicide treatment to renew the forest to conifer likely translates into limited ability to maintain silvicultural prescriptions consistent with woodland caribou habitat objectives), and 3) A summary of key changes completed or planned to be completed as a result of this review and the reasons for undertaking those changes. |
Develop a preface to the new versions of Landscape Guides that provide an overview of the review, key changes (or planned changes) and reasons for them, and external factors resulting in challenges associated with application and implementation. |
NA |
No |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.4.1: Develop targets for forest dwelling woodland caribou habitat objectives - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| How to address transitioning Z- and X- blocks into an existing DCHS |
Develop and incorporate standards and considerations into the BLG that relate to caribou habitat (harvest pattern, movement towards the creation of large landscape patches of mature conifer caribou habitat) that must be considered/achieved in Z-DCHS blocks (open for harvest at all times) along with split blocks and X-blocks (permanent deferrals). |
Develop formal guidance related to the short- and long-term intent of Z- and X- DCHS blocks and how they will be considered in DCHS development and implementation. |
Additional comment from NER: Set a requirement that Z-blocks (open for harvest at all times) cannot be applied where they provide the only points of connection within caribou range and will bisect habitat along the only connection point (i.e. area where ARF & GC connect to southern patch of caribou range). Intent to maintain sufficient caribou habitat and thus connectivity is not met. |
If this is not completed, there is potential to cause BLG implementation issues as it never becomes clear how these Z- and X-DCHS blocks are considered in DCHS development and implementation and why they are included in the DCHS to begin with. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide (and the portion of the GLSL that overlaps coastal caribou range (Algoma Forest)). - Section 3.5.2.1: Stand and site level direction for caribou habitat - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| Provide detailed and useful direction (standards and guidance) related to minimizing the potential negative impacts associated with forest roads and road networks. |
Practitioners require guidance regarding when a road is no longer considered a disturbance in caribou range/DCHS and when it can be accepted back by the Crown. Also develop direction on how to document in the FMP the agreed-upon intent to decommission roads in a manner that is binding and conspicuous if FMP-18 is not the place. |
Develop a procedure for requiring and documenting detailed intentions for road decommissioning that supports DCHS intention and implementation as direction is that FMP-18 is not the place. Direction for road decommissioning is too weak in continuous caribou distribution when it is allowed to be considered "guidance" or a best management practice. This leaves too much wiggle room for companies to wiggle their way out of truly having to commit to a comprehensive road decommissioning plan/strategy. |
Burying this important direction and agreement in the RUMS or Caribou Supplementary Documentation is not sufficient nor is it a responsible location for these important commitments. |
This will inevitably cause issues in BLG implementation when it comes to ensuring that quality caribou habitat is maintained now and into the future in DCHS blocks. DCHS blocks that carry a legacy of non-decommissioned roads are not considered high-quality caribou habitat. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - 3.5 Identify Large Landscape Patches to Meet Targets - 3.5.1 Using LLPs for Applying Fine Filter Direction for Moose - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| Provide detailed and useful direction (standards and guidance) related to minimizing the potential negative impacts associated with forest roads and road networks. |
Practitioners require guidance regarding when a road is no longer considered a disturbance for moose and when it can be accepted back by the Crown. Also develop direction on how to document in the FMP the agreed-upon intent to decommission roads in a manner that is binding and conspicuous if FMP-18 is not the place. |
Develop a procedure for requiring and documenting detailed intentions for road decommissioning that supports a return to moose habitat as direction is that FMP-18 is not the place. Direction for road decommissioning is too weak in MEAs when it is allowed to be considered "guidance" or a best management practice. This leaves too much wiggle room for companies to wiggle their way out of truly having to commit to a comprehensive road decommissioning plan. Should be a requirement to document MEA road decommissioning planning in FMP-18 and Roads supp doc for primary, branch and operational roads. Need effectiveness monitoring and research to test the roads issues, get data to support our direction. |
The roads aspect of all wildlife habitat planning that is facilitated through the Landscape Guides needs more grounding in science & effectiveness monitoring. As this is an enormous impact on the landscape & wildlife & this is going to be particularly troublesome when roads get added to an area that historically was unfragmented. Is the decommissioning of roads successful? Does it enable the habitat to function as a roadless state in terms of wildlife perspective. Do these MEA or whatever areas we are protecting or setting aside need to be evaluated from road density perspective as a first cut? Do we need to reconsider how we plan roads to reduce fragmentation ---even if this means more $$$ for industry. The protection of resource should come as priority goal, in my opinion! |
100% causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.5.2: Using large landscape patches for applying fine filter direction for woodland caribou - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG; review old guidance and remove weak portions that no one is following anyways. |
| The best management practices related to roads from page 49 through to 53 of the BLG are not being practiced and need to be elevated/strengthened in their priority for application and supported by science. |
The best management practices related to roads from page 49 through to 53 of the BLG are not being practiced to the extent possible nor are being seriously considered one by one during FMP/DCHS development/implementation. Requirements and methods to reduce road density/linear disturbance are too weak. Much more robust targets, methods, and standards need to be developed and articulated. |
Develop more scientifically based robust and strong direction for managing road density (including decommissioning roads) in continuous caribou distribution overlapped by FMUs and include this in the BLG. Require consideration of these road guidelines and request movement towards improving their existing position. |
NA |
100% causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - New Section included in direction for Caribou - Develop Guidance and include in the BLG. |
| Adding a new section that addresses how Ontario intends to manage cumulative impacts through application of the BLG. |
A cumulative impacts section is required to address requirements outlined in the Caribou Conservation Plan and consistent with the disturbance calculations done for each caribou range. We try to address cumulative impacts in the Caribou Supp Doc but it's weak due to lack of direction. |
Methods to evaluate cumulative impacts to caribou and level of disturbance are needed. Objectives should include metrics to evaluate level of disturbance and cumulative impacts to caribou as well as targets to reduce those levels. The impacts should be tied both to harvest, regeneration and roads renewal. This could support companies achieving FSC requirements, if applicable. |
NER suggested taking a look at ARFs Caribou Exit Strategy for an example of one approach and build upon that. |
100% causing application issues. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Editorial/For consideration - Editorial/Restructure/ Reorganize |
| Restructuring/reorganizing comment for overall direction and layout in the BLG. |
Reformat structure of BLG to make stand and site level direction for caribou more distinct. Existing heading levels in LG guides make it challenging to know where you are in relationships to topics and planning stages. For instance, the time slice analysis section should not fall after the stand and site level direction for caribou section since it is considered landscape level and not fine filter direction. |
Develop a more intuitive layout of BLG direction with proper flow and clear connections to phase in FMP planning. |
NA |
The unorganized/non-intuitive current layout of some of the direction in the BLG could cause application and implementation issues especially to practitioners who are new in their positions of having to apply and implement the direction. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - 3.5: Identify large landscape patches to meet targets - Refine and develop specific and detailed guidance in the LGs. |
| Documentation requirements for each Large Landscape Patch included in FMP. |
Detailed documentation requirements for all types of LLPs and the location of documentation in the FMP is needed. Luckily , biologists/planning teams have been responsible in their approach to ensuring reasonably comprehensive documentation is developed and available for reference and background on the development of LLPs. However, it is possible into the future that not all teams will be as diligent or see the value in being comprehensive. |
Develop detailed guidance on the documentation requirements for all types of LLPs and the location component in the FMP is also needed. Has there been any thought to developing standardized templates to write the LLP reports (e.g., Moose Emphasis Area, Deer Emphasis Areas, Dynamic Caribou Habitat Schedule). There are many good examples already being used that could form excellent templates for this documentation. |
NA |
If documentation of large landscape patches is not being completed comprehensively, this could result in Landscape Guide implementation issues if there ends up being gaps in the information to draw upon to understand what the original intent and direction associated with each LLP was/is in applying it. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Section 3.4: Develop targets for biodiversity objectives - Refine and develop specific and detailed guidance in the LGs. |
| Clarify the direction regarding how red and white pine as indicators is to be addressed. |
Refined direction on how the red and white pine indicators are to be addressed is needed, including methods, data sources, target setting, etc. Currently the approach is confusing, is largely debated, and SFLs frequently perceive the target to be a false representation of historic conditions. |
Develop refined direction regarding red and white pine indicators and how these are to be addressed. Suggestion to show examples of how considered using different scenarios. Also suggestion to provide more background on historic condition in Science and Information Package as rationale to address the doubters. |
NA |
Confusion related to the approach of applying this indicator is causing LG implementation issues for PT. |
| Clarify the direction regarding how the "all ages conifer" indicator is to be addressed. |
Confusion over the application of this indicator given the vague direction and how the text in the LG body, milestone table and OLT isn't the same. |
Refine the direction related to the 'all ages conifer' indicator in the LG body text, milestone tables, and OLT to clarify how this indicator should be addressed. Expand upon the 3 indicators in the milestone table and provide clarification on the regional differences regarding this indicator. |
NA |
Confusion related to the approach of applying this indicator is causing LG implementation issues for PT. |
| Clarify the direction regarding how the "old growth forest" indicator is to be addressed. |
Confusion over the application of this indicator given the vague direction and how many options there are in OLT. Some PT want to evaluate OG by FU and unclear on whether it should be done and whether targets are valid. |
Refine the direction related to the 'old growth forest' indicator in the LG body text, milestone tables, and OLT to clarify how this indicator should be addressed. Expand upon the indicator in the milestone table and provide clarification on the regional differences regarding this indicator. |
NA |
Confusion related to the approach of applying this indicator is causing LG implementation issues for PT. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Section 3.1.1.1 Landscape Classes - Clarity and transparency |
| Biodiversity indicators |
Need a better explanation on how wildlife species are represented by landscape classes and indicators. Confusion among Planning Team members on how LG indicators address habitats of wildlife of interest. Wildlife habitat matrix is outdated and doesn't correspond to current Forest Units. |
Could include a description of the habitat type expected to be provided by each landscape class and indicator and provide a few key examples of species whose habitat needs are addressed by each landscape class and indicator. Update wildlife matrix and provide better cross walks between LG indicators, Forest Units, and wildlife habitats. |
SRB is helping to refine the histogram representations of Guide Indicator usage. Also investigating and verifying species by species representations. |
LG implementation issues not necessarily being caused by the lack of explanation however would translate into more transparency in and reassurance that there are direct linkages between landscape classes and key groups of wildlife species' habitats being provided for through landscape class objectives and indicators. Provides a clearer biological/ecological linkage/relationship. |
| Both Guides - In Boreal Guide, 2.2.3 - Move away from featured wildlife, bioindicators |
| *Talks about comparison of featured wildlife species guidelines and coarse filter direction |
Although this makes sense from a logistics point of view, for simplicity, the approach within these guides hinges on assumptions that may or may not be true. Given the nature of variability, the error imbedded within these models, and poor effectiveness monitoring, it would take much longer and much more effort to determine whether these approaches to managing forests are creating patterns, processes, and structures that are emulating natural patterns/processes and maintaining biodiversity. By having wildlife indicators embedded into the system, this serves as effectiveness monitoring & checks and balances. Just because you have a stand of a particular landscape class, does not guarantee the wildlife species indicative of that class will be present. If the species is present that provides greater assurance the stands and structures that are created are sufficient to maintain or create habitat. |
Sometimes simple isn't always the best approach. We have to be critical of the risks of certain approaches and try to embed checks and balances into these approaches to ensure sustainability of our resources. I would suggest adding bioindicators that are scientifically sound and strong indicators for the habitat type you are examining. This might be a combination of species. It would be valuable to get a group of wildlife/plant experts together to discuss. |
NA |
Uncertain |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Editorial/For consideration - Editorial for transparency sake |
| Add direction pertaining to the methods and direction for reevaluating and recalculating milestones. |
Add direction into the Landscape Guides that outlines the thinking behind the re-evaluation of milestones and the process, methodology, and standards for completing this assessment. |
Suggest an introductory section that outlines why milestones were reevaluated and the process, methodology, and standards associated with that review and evaluation. Suggest a short summary highlighting the key changes in milestones for each FMU and the rationale for those changes. |
NA |
No |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Technical guidance on milestones and modeling - Develop specific guidance for practitioners in an area where written guidance has been previously lacking |
| Comment pertains to overall development of long-term management direction for FMPs |
In terms of achieving milestone indicators, there is a lack of guidance regarding the nature and extent of modeling that should be undertaken in trying to achieve milestone indicators in FMPs. This exercise is done in an ad hoc fashion (some of which cannot be avoided) and is highly subjective from one FMP to another. Oftentimes, some PT members feel there is not enough transparency during this process, and uncertainty can remain regarding whether sufficient modeling has taken place, the correct inputs were considered, and whether the most sustainable scenarios have been selected. The process is complex and could benefit from some level of guidance to help PT feel more knowledgeable and comfortable with the process. There are situations where some key PT members feel they are having to accept specific scenarios without fully understanding what the alternatives are |
Suggest outlining a very basic scenario in the LG that provides an example of the considerations that feed into whether milestones can be achieved or not and that includes a few model scenarios and the circumstances surrounding modeling for this scenario including knowing when sufficient modeling was completed. At a minimum, it would be beneficial to include a section in the LG that provides context around achieving milestone indicators and the challenges that can be associated with that. As well, providing a set of guiding principles could assist with comfort and knowledge levels when it comes to the modeling component used to balance objectives. |
Suggest reviewing the list developed by NER RIAU & RPU of minimum scenarios required and expand to include more biological scenarios. |
100% causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Editorial/For consideration - In-depth review to ensure consistency |
| Ensure consistency in terminology and process between LG and OLT |
Caribou habitat model terminology in OLT & LGs not consistent and creates confusion. |
It would be helpful to ensure that the terminology used in the Landscape Guides is consistent with that used in Ontario's Landscape Tool. Some of the wording for the Clay belt and conventional caribou models is overlapping and not same as in LGs. |
NA |
Likely to be causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Section 3.5.1: Using large landscape patches for applying fine filter direction for moose or deer - The use of LLPs to meet habitat objectives for moose or deer in Emphasis Areas. |
| The use of LLPs to meet habitat objectives for moose or deer in Emphasis Areas. |
Clarify in the LG that the use of large landscape patches to create Moose and Deer Emphasis Areas contributes to the strategic direction that is developed in Long Term Management Direction and is actually tied to FMP indicators for moose and deer habitat. Consider moving some of the selection criteria from the Stand and Site Guide over to the Landscape Guides to highlight the important role of these large landscape patches in determining some of the strategic direction in FMPs. The way the LG direction is written for this minimizes the contribution of these large landscape patches to strategic planning for the FMP. PT's don't realize there's work to be done on MEAs & DEAs during strategic planning and with new modelling approach they should inform the models. |
Improve the overall direction in the LG regarding the use of large landscape patches to create Emphasis Areas for moose or deer that contribute to the achievement of habitat objectives for the two species. Clarify the important contribution this makes to strategic planning. Consider if any information currently housed within the Stand and Site Guide for MEA and DEA selection/development is better housed in the LG. Ensure it's clear that MEAs and DEAs should inform models and that work on these is required during strategic planning. |
NA |
This lack of emphasis of the importance of using LLP for habitat planning for deer and moose in strategic planning results in LG implementation issues and a lack of overall acceptance that this work is important to address during strategic planning and cannot simply be glazed over or underemphasized. |
| The use of LLPs to meet habitat objectives for moose or deer in Emphasis Areas. |
Need language to ensure LLPs for moose are enduring features on the landscape to ensure the implementation/achievement of long-term habitat requirements and road use planning objectives. |
Ensure MEAs are maintained in the original strategic location. Only move or change the location/configuration when new information is provided to the planning team (i.e. new MEA habitat requirement categories going from 3 to 5 indicators). |
NA |
The lack of language indicating the intent of MEAs to be a enduring feature on the landscape is causing LG implementation. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - 3.1.2.1 Texture of the Mature and Old Forest - Refine and develop specific and detailed guidance in the LGs. |
| Appendix 1 |
Ensure texture indicators are not an afterthought in terms of both evaluating those indicators and attempting to achieve the targets, and the effort to improve on the condition between LTMD and final operations planning. Too often texture work is an afterthought or deemed low priority despite the priority ranking. There is not enough requirements to try to move towards these targets. |
1)Move texture indicator to top priority on Landscape Guide Indicator list. 2) Build in better enforcement of 40+ year strategic landscape map - use the map as a check-in for achieving mature and old texture throughout planning process (strategic and operational planning). 3) Need a procedure to address texture indicator application. 4) use 'deferral' planning to try to maintain good texture now and into the future. 5) all of these suggestions could and should be incorporated into the 'new' spatial modelling process. |
NA |
Likely to be causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - None - Guidance needed |
| Bridging Blocks |
Bridging blocks - need language to ensure the use of current guidelines/prescriptions, if possible. Example - road decommissioning in MEAs |
Currently it is a planning team decision regarding the prescriptive nature of the bridging blocks. It is sometimes forgotten about until the end of the harvest allocation process. Currently only a line in the FMPM (1.3.4.1) - need to be added to the landscape guide as a requirement to identify and discuss adopting new prescriptions rather than the previous prescriptions in previous FMP. |
NA |
Likely to be causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - 3.1.1 Structure and Composition - Further investigation required for a potential landscape class |
| Forest Succession |
Poplar succession from pure aspen to boreal mixedwoods to Spruce/Fir represents a long timeframe covering up to 150 years. During this period, the habitat succeeds as well with a whole dynamic of coarse woody debris and cavity trees, for example. By basing landscape targets on age that reflects primarily an even-aged condition succeeding from fire, means we are missing critical stand dynamics as a stand transitions from aspen to a spruce-fir condition. |
The SRNV group should be investigating a new indicator based on succession stage. We are unsure what wildlife habitat/species use/niche this indicator would represent but needs further investigation. |
It is my understanding that succession models that underpin the guides are based on jumping plant communities, and do not consider within ecosite changes that occur within a stand through succession. This is especially problematic in GLSL where uneven-aged stands that undergo small scale disturbance retain the same ecosite classifications for years--maybe thousands before that stand is knocked back to primary succession. |
Likely to be causing implementation issues. |
| Boreal Landscape Guide & GLSL Guide - Models & Base Information - Update models & rerun based on latest science. Is there a way to integrate our own results to finetune models. |
| Packages, models, new science, Lidar |
These models & the current forest condition drive everything. In particular, in the GLSL the FRI data is not very accurate, particularly at aging stands. The FRI inventory can provide dramatically different results for "the current" condition of a stand depending on what inventory you are using... and often this information is poorly correlated with what is on the ground. In particular, if you are using age-based landscape classes as the foundation, but cannot generate data that provides accurate age-based estimates there is a big problem. |
Reconsider how the landscape is classified. Why not use ELC as a basis to capture biodiversity of habitats more accurately. Use Lidar to derive models that create signatures for target landscape classes. As well, I think we need to analyse the data we have to test the effectiveness of our models--- is our G&Y models proving accurate? Are stands progressing through the stages in a way that reflects the models. Same with wildlife. Do the MEAs actually improve moose densities, moose survival? Does our wildlife data uncover good biodiversity indicators that can be used as a check & balance? Does the imagery accurately reflect with is on the ground. |
We need to plan for the future, and take steps to improve what we do with the direction of this guide from how it currently exists. Some of these ideas, like Lidar, may be incremental. We need to be rigorous and diligent at testing the assumptions that these guides are based on. |
Uncertain |
| Both guides--- particularly GLSL - 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2 Old growth Forest - By clumping old/mature/old growth or whatever terms are used, this assumes there is no difference between these stands & 100's of scientific papers on old growth exist across stand types that state otherwise. |
| Clumping of landscape classes [i.e. 3.1.1.1 mature & late] |
Based on my understanding, in the GLSL, old growth is only considered for Pw & Pr stands. This is partly because of the links to our policy, which pay special attention to these stands. I am unsure why this is the case--perhaps the misperceptions that OGF is the big super canopy coniferous trees... but OG stage should be unique and not clumped. The problem with clumping as well, is that the SFLs create this misperception that they have created all this OGF & that we have way too much OGF on the landscape...which is clearly not the case. I know in the session I attended lots of issues raised about our OG policy & I hope that this policy can be updated & revamped & reflect social values & "natural conditions". Even if these stands, which get called OG, receive no protection or consideration in the FMP, at least there is an effort to identify them. |
Put OG into its own unique category. Push these concerns with the policy up the ladder so that ON can catch up with the rest of the world in terms of OGF. Even though we are unaware of any species that require OGF in our landscape [i.e. Marbled Murrelet]-- this doesn't dismiss it's ecological relevance. Work on BBWO-- shows that this species is very sensitive. It may occur elsewhere but it is population sinks. What about Boreal Owl, Brown-creeper? As well.... just because a species is present, doesn't mean that habitat is sustainable, or optimal. |
Evidence from Quebec studies that Black-backed woodpecker is a valuable indicator of OGF,.dependent on OG Jack Pine as a population source. |
Uncertain |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - 3.5.2.1 Stand and Site Level Direction for Woodland Caribou Habitat - Strategic |
| Caribou Stand and Site Guide Direction - where it is currently housed/sitting in the Boreal Landscape Guide |
Either move the Stand and Site Guide Direction for Caribou Habitat to the Stand and Site Guide or position it more strategically in the Boreal Landscape Guide. If it is moved to the Stand and Site Guide, there will need to be a cross reference in the Boreal Landscape Guide. |
Either move the Stand and Site Guide Direction for Caribou Habitat to the Stand and Site Guide or position it more strategically in the Boreal Landscape Guide. If it is moved to the Stand and Site Guide, there will need to be a cross reference in the Boreal Landscape Guide. |
NA |
No |
| Boreal Landscape Guide - Appendix 1 of the Boreal Landscape Guide - Suggestion |
| Appendix 1 |
Remove Appendix 1 tables from guide. |
Remove Appendix 1 tables from guide. Only provide direction, using examples on how to populate the cells. A comparison should be made to previous plan to ensure direction has not deviated from the original targets. |
NA |
No |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Applies in particular to the LG direction for Caribou and Caribou Habitat. - Refine and develop specific and detailed guidance in the LGs. |
| Road Density objectives |
Need direction/guidance/procedures for determining road density thresholds/cumulative effects. |
Road Density Objectives vary amongst FMPS. Need a consistent approach. |
Some FMUs are trying to put in too many primary roads and upgrade roads to secure more funding. Result is road densities in caribou range are unduly high. |
Yes, the lack of direction in determining road density thresholds and cumulative effects/impacts is causing LG implementation issues since a lack of commitment to road decommissioning translates into more and more roads being enduring features on the landscape which is contrary to the direction and science as it relates to caribou habitat. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - 3.1.2 Pattern - Old references that leave the impression fragmentation is not a problem in the boreal landscape |
| This refers to the section in the Boreal Landscape Guide related to pattern, but pattern is relevant in both landscapes. |
I do not disagree with everything that is written about pattern, but this needs to be updated to reflect new science and focus on these fragmentation impacts in continuously forested landscapes. The pattern that logging creates is not the same as natural disturbance and special attention needs to be used to guide LLP, because these are critical on the landscape. Fires would be expected to remove very large patches & hence create very big patches of uniform habitat as they succeeded. This needs to be considered in terms of wildlife species needs. |
Need to manage to maintain LLP that are reflective of the species that use them. Need science to support direction re: influence of different effects as contributing to fragmentation -- notably roads & patch size/shape. |
Conserving woodland caribou habitat while maintaining timber yield: a graph theory approach…....................................... Lots more references that indicate their dependency on old growth |
Yes there are likely implementation issues resulting from this. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Broad Direction in Strategic Planning - For LG Review Team Consideration. |
| Support, refinement, and improvement of OLT as used to support forest management planning and specifically strategic planning in FMP. |
Support and refinement of OLT in FMP is important - spatial modelling looks to be an expensive proposition for PTs and if some of this can be offset through an MNRF application this would be a positive and allow for greater independence and timeliness in decision-making. |
NA |
NA |
Uncertain. |
| Strategic Planning as exercised in the Landscape Guides. |
There should be the potential for modelling and consideration of areas considered through alternate resource management regimes in determining the potential for changes over the landscape and simulated changes to wildlife populations. |
NA |
NA |
Uncertain. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Landscape Guide - Suggestion |
| General to entire LG. |
Look up tables for all indicators need to be available to reduce confusion on the scripts/composition of indicators especially the texture indicators. |
Provide look up tables for all indicators in supporting materials |
NA |
Uncertain. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Landscape Guide - Editorial for clarity |
| Specific to sections where these terms are used. |
Terminology of late forest versus old growth forest. |
Terms need to be used consistently & defined clearly. The inherent problem with OGF is that lack of a standardized definition, or a global definition, and a lot of effort has been undertaken to define what OGF is and what it isn't & how we ID it on the ground. |
NA |
Possibly |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Overall Landscape Guides - Suggestion: need to integrate knowledge from climate change research into LG if it is available or publishable at this time. |
| Impacts of Climate Change and Relationship with Application of the LG |
Seems like issues in the boreal forest related to climate change impact natural disturbance regimes & fire regimes, for example are changing. If climate change is expected to increase the intensity & heat of fires on the landscape & this is a cumulative effect -- how is this being addressed. If intense fires are causing issues with seed regeneration by killing the seeds.... |
Use this as an opportunity to build in new knowledge & gain better understanding of cumulative effects & experts & knowledge. Need critical analyses of direction & ensure it is based on science and researcher's expertise & understanding of the systems. Expert knowledge is ahead of significant scientific results often & should be integrated into the guide and used as fact-checking. |
NA |
Unlikely |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Clarify approach for FMU that overlaps both LG Regions. - Clarity in approach for Landscape Guide Application |
| Spanish Forest - which LG to apply? |
Clarify approach for Spanish forest being that it’s in two LG regions really. |
NA |
NA |
Possibly |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Clarify distinctions between Landscape Guides - Suggested |
| NA |
Highlight the distinctions further between the two LGs… namely the different targets (box vs whiskers) and the mandatory requirement to move towards all the targets in GLSL vs BLG is attempt to. |
NA |
NA |
Not certain |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Any LG Direction that has a Texture Component to it - Clarity needed. |
| Any Direction that has a Texture Component to it |
Some FMUs unsure if they should have medium and long term targets for texture indicators |
Clarify and set medium & long term targets for texture indicator if possible with new spatial modelling approach. Ensure details in milestone tables are accurate. |
NA |
Possibly |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - 3.1.2.1 Texture of the Mature and Old Forest - Clarity needed. |
| Identify which Intervals are the Target |
For texture of mature and old forest, clarify which intervals are the target. |
For texture of mature and old forest, clarify which intervals are the target. |
NA |
Possibly |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Any LG Direction that has a Texture Component to it - NA |
| Texture indicators |
Texture indicators don't identify distribution across the forest - e.g. can meet targets by having all old growth concentrated in one small part of your plan - not resistant in the face of climate change (e.g. if a fire runs through that area) |
Consider including a texture distribution indicator |
NA |
Yes causing implementation issues as indicator is not meeting the intent of the Landscape Guides. |
| Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Landscape Guides - Applicable to all Direction Contained in the Landscape Guides, prioritized by the need for effectiveness monitoring. - Suggestion but very much lacking and needed |
| Effectiveness monitoring |
Need to a) make the current effectiveness monitoring projects open and transparent, and be honest about their value and limitations, and b) sit down and make a true plan for effectiveness monitoring for the next 10 years. This needs to consider how effective the wording in the LGs (is it clear enough that planning teams were able to implement it according to intent?), how effective the guidance is in maintaining and improving the structure (are plans moving towards their targets compared to what they were when the LGs were implemented?), and how effective the indicators are in creating or preserving habitat for species (e.g. is old growth texture providing forest for species dependent on large swathes of old growth forest?) |
NA |
NA |
The lack of effectiveness monitoring and potential results from effectiveness monitoring is causing LG implementation issues as new information gathered through effectiveness monitoring may elevate certain guidelines or best management practices to standards that MUST be followed and it would likely reduce the amount of wiggle room that Industry feels they have with many of the guidelines contained in the Landscape Guides. |