Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring

Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario ©2001, Queen’s Printer for Ontario Printed in Ontario, Canada Single copies of this publication are available at no charge from the address noted below. Bulk orders may involve charges.

Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Resources Information Centre 300 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5

Current publications of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and price lists, are also available from this office.

Telephone inquiries about ministry programs and services should be directed to the Natural Resources Information Centre:

General Inquiry 1-800-387-7011
Renseignements en francais 1-800-667-1840
Fax 705-755-1677

Find the Ministry of Natural Resources on-line at: www.ontario.ca/mnrf

Cette publication technique n’est disponsible qu’en anglais.

Forward

A comprehensive and consistent silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program is a critical component to ensure the sustainability of Ontario’s forest resources. It provides the basis for measuring, collecting, analyzing and reporting information on the renewal and state of Ontario’s public forests whether they have been depleted by harvest or natural means. This information is not only needed by the people and companies managing the forest, but also by the owners of the forest – the public.

The Environmental Assessment Board, in their decision on the Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario, noted the need to improve the tracking and reporting of silvicultural information (Term and Condition 96). The Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario has been prepared, in part, to address Term and Condition 96.

Silvicultural effectiveness may be viewed from various perspectives: at the stand level for particular prescriptions or treatments, at the forest or management unit level for trends on particular forest units, and at the regional and provincial levels to measure program success. Analysis at each level provides answers to the basic questions: “What did we intend to accomplish?”, “What did we actually accomplish?”, and “How well did we do it?” (Robbins 1992). This manual addresses these questions by describing the objectives, standards and methodologies, compilation and reporting, and analysis and evaluation of silvicultural effectiveness at each level.

Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system begins with setting silvicultural objectives. The objectives are determined in the forest management planning process by establishing the desired outcome of silviculture activities (desired future forest condition) and the planned method of meeting that outcome (silviculture treatment package). The objectives must include minimum regeneration standards and management standards which are required to assess the success and effectiveness of the silvicultural activities.

An essential component of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system is the ability to store and retrieve the required information. There are minimum information requirements for data collection, reporting and analysis to assess silvicultural effectiveness. The basic information that satisfies these needs includes: original stand number and inventory year, Ontario Base Map (OBM) number, actual original forest condition, development information (e.g., yield curves), desired future forest condition, year of depletion, year of assessment, planned treatment package, actual treatment package, actual forest unit, new forest resources inventory (FRI) description, and new stand number. It is important to note that the minimum information requirements needed to monitor silvicultural effectiveness should already be collected, recorded and, in some cases, reported for other purposes.

As identified in the Forest Management Planning Manual and the Forest Information Manual, the forest licensee is responsible for providing the required information to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). The MNR does not mandate the use of specific methodologies for silvicultural effectiveness monitoring. However, the Silvicultural Treatment, Assessment and Reporting System and the Free Growing Regeneration Assessment methodologies will be used by MNR to substantiate their spot checks and by independent forest auditors to conduct their field assessments of regeneration.

Reporting the results of silvicultural effectiveness monitoring serves two main purposes: to ensure that the data and associated analysis and results are recorded and available to those requiring them (now and in the future); and to fulfil legal requirements to report publicly.

Reporting of ongoing survey and assessment results is required as part of the annual report for each management unit. These reports must be available to the public upon request. These reports are rolled up to produce the provincial Annual Report on Forest Management, which is tabled in the legislature, published and also made available to the public. A summary of the management unit report statistics are also provided annually to the federal government for inclusion in The Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics and The State of Canada’s Forests.

Longer-term trends for each management unit are summarized, compared and reported at the end of each forest management plan term in the Report of Past Forest Operations. The results of these reports are rolled up to the provincial level to contribute to Ontario’s State of the Forest Report once every five years. Regeneration statistics are also used to report on criteria and indicators used to determine forest sustainability in provincial and national reports.

Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system data standards, collection and reporting are fundamental for providing analysis and evaluation of silvicultural effectiveness at various scales. At the stand level, the analysis must answer site specific questions for the forest manager, e.g., was a particular treatment successful on a certain stand. The forest manager will also use the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data to evaluate the success or failure of past management decisions, to compare the results of alternative management strategies, to compare results between forests, and to compare their results with others. Analysis and evaluation at the site region through to the provincial, national and international levels also rely upon this information.

Ontario is committed to ensuring that all areas within the forested landbase capable of growing productive forests are regenerated after disturbance to identified management targets within a reasonable period of time. This commitment is reflected from the stand level evaluation of forest management practices through to the national and international evaluation of forest sustainability.

Future developments in changes to forest strategies and in information technology will result in changes to the types of variables that will be monitored as well as monitoring techniques, data recording, and analysis and storage. Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system will be revised as these changes and revisions to the forest management planning process are made.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of manual

A comprehensive and consistent silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program is a critical component to ensure the sustainability of Ontario’s forest resources. It provides the basis for measuring, collecting, analyzing and reporting information on the renewal and state of Ontario’s public forests whether they have been depleted by harvest or natural means. This information is needed not only by the people and companies managing the forest, but also by the owners of the forest — the public.

The purpose of this manual is to describe Ontario’s Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring program, providing consistency in how this necessary information will be treated and reported. Consistent definitions and standards ensure that the results from forest management activities on similar sites and forest conditions are comparable from stand to stand and management unit to management unit across the province.

For many years, information on the effectiveness of silvicultural treatments was retained locally and used by forest managers to improve their forest management practices. This information, however, was not always exchanged between management units nor was it reported beyond the forest level. The Environmental Assessment Board, in their decision on the Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (Timber EA), identified many areas of silvicultural information assessment, recording and reporting that needed improvement (EA Board 1994, Term and Condition 96). Many of these needs were resolved during the creation of the Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM) (MNR 1996) and are being addressed through the implementation of the planning process.

The Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario highlights those aspects of the current forest management planning process that relate to silvicultural effectiveness monitoring, explains the link between those individual components. It generally describes Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program, comprised of objective setting (Section 2), standards and assessment methodology (Section 3), compilation and reporting (Section 4) and analysis and evaluation (Section 5).

1.2 What is monitoring?

Monitoring can generally be described as observing, recording or detecting an operation or condition. Environmental monitoring is the “measurement of … characteristics over an extended period of time to determine status or trends in some aspect of environmental quality” (Sutter, 1993).

There are three types of monitoring programs described in the Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual (FOSM) (MNR 1995a) that are used during normal forestry operations in Ontario, namely compliance monitoring, effects monitoring and effectiveness monitoring.^{footnote 1[1]}

Compliance monitoring is used to determine whether an operator conforms to the approved plan or permit. For example, one could check to determine if the harvest operator is maintaining a 30 metre reserve beside a specific value, as prescribed in the applicable forest management plan (FMP). This monitoring activity involves the collection of data through observation and measurement as operations progress.

Effects monitoring is used to determine how a particular treatment, group of treatments or operation interacts with, or affects, other organisms or ecological processes. Road construction and water crossings, for example, are activities that must be monitored for their effects on other resources, such as water quality and fish habitat.

Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if management activities are producing the expected results. On Ontario’s Crown forests, it must be ensured that the stated desired effects given in an approved FMP are occurring. For example, effectiveness monitoring enables the forester to determine whether the current forest units are being changed to the desired forest units in the proportion described in the FMP. It also permits the foresters (from both the forest industry and the MNR) to examine whether certain treatments are meeting expectations and, if they are not, to investigate why they were not as successful as expected and make appropriate modifications in the future.

In short, silvicultural effectiveness monitoring entails data collection and recording, reporting, trend analysis and the examination of reasons behind the trends.

1.3 Importance of a silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system

Information collected consistently throughout the province provides the local forest manager with a larger and more reliable database for analytical purposes than that which would otherwise be available. Silvicultural effectiveness data also provide the most elemental information from which to assess and report on forest sustainability at the management unit and provincial level, knowledge that is of continual interest to the public, forest companies and industry investors.

Silvicultural effectiveness may be viewed from various perspectives: at the stand level for particular prescriptions or treatments, at the forest or management unit level for trends on particular forest units, and at the regional and provincial levels to measure program success. Analysis at each level provides answers to the basic questions:

By contrast, a compliance monitoring system focuses only on the first two questions, and in a much simplified manner: Did we do what we said we would?

At the management unit (MU) level, the ultimate goal is to fulfill the activities outlined in the FMP and to meet the desired future forest condition. At the eco-regional and provincial levels, the goal is to preserve the continuity of healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems. A silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system can contribute to the successful attainment of these goals.

A functional silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system also provides opportunities for continual improvement of other products and activities such as silvicultural prescriptions and treatments, guidelines and fiscal commitments at the various levels. Potential uses of a silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system include:

• setting or revising silvicultural targets;
• strategic and operational planning;
• work planning and implementation;
• reviewing and evaluating prescriptions and techniques;
• updating forest inventories;
• modeling;
• evaluating effectiveness of actions;
• determining the economics of silvicultural treatments;
• identifying areas or treatments requiring further research or development;
• revising forest management guidelines, including silvicultural guides;
• monitoring activities in relation to targets including budgets;
• monitoring changes in stand compositions;
• monitoring sustainability;
• historical reporting and trend analysis.

While the purpose of this manual relates primarily to the goals of timber production and the work of forest managers, data gathered from this silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system may also be used by other professionals to evaluate other aspects of the ecological function of the forest (such as wildlife habitat). Additional information on stand composition, structure and ecological function can be analyzed based on data collected from the living and dead overstory (e.g., a count of live and dead cavity trees or diameter distribution of trees).

Further discussion of how the results obtained from silvicultural effectiveness monitoring are used as part of the forest management planning process at the stand, management unit, eco-regional and provincial levels is provided in Section 5.0.

1.4 Structure of the manual

This manual is organized into separate sections that follow the various steps involved in any form of monitoring system:

Section 2 – silvicultural objective setting

• identification of desired outcome
• identification of proposed activities
• documentation of actual activities
• phase-in of report

Section 3 – silvicultural standards and assessment methodology

• standards for determining success
• assessment methodologies

Section 4 – compilation and reporting

• reporting of results

Section 5 – analysis and evaluation

• analysis and evaluation of results

Section 6 – future developments in silvicultural effectiveness monitoring

• future developments in monitoring

Each section will, where appropriate, discuss silvicultural effectiveness monitoring at the stand, management unit, eco-regional and provincial levels. Similarly, specific requirements for the three silvicultural systems commonly used in Ontario’s three main forest regions will be highlighted throughout the manual.

1.5 definitions and concepts

All users of this manual must have the same understanding of the various terms and concepts used. The following definitions and descriptions will assist with the proper implementation of this manual. Definitions for other commonly used forestry terms (e.g., stocking, density) are found in the Forest Management Planning Manual (MNR 1996).

Silvicultural effectiveness

During the Timber EA hearings silvicultural effectiveness was defined as “achieving the desired management objectives at the lowest possible cost … consistent with sound environmental practices”. The EA Board further explained, “It is important to use consistent measures of success, consistent definitions of silviculture effectiveness to determine whether objectives are being achieved.” (EA Board 1994).

Since the Timber EA hearings, further refinements have led to the current definition: “silvicultural effectiveness is the comparison of how the results of a prescription or treatment compare with: a) the targeted results; b) the results and costs of other prescriptions on similar sites; and c) silvicultural standards or target measures.” While the aspect of cost is not analyzed or reported provincially, it will be of interest to individual forest companies.

Free-to-grow

The FMPM defines free-to-grow (FTG) or free-growing as: “stands that meet stocking, height, and/or height growth rate as specified in the ground rules and are judged to be [healthy and] essentially free from competing vegetation” (MNR 1996). The terms FTG and free-growing are hereafter both encompassed by the term FTG.

The FTG concept is accepted provincially as the critical point in determining regeneration success for the clearcut silvicultural system. Attaining the FTG standard permits the regenerating forest to be re-entered into the inventory and used in subsequent allowable harvest calculations. It provides the point at which the forest manager can determine how well the forest is growing, how well the silvicultural prescription has worked and whether the desired future forest condition will likely be reached.

For stands managed using the uniform shelterwood system, the new stand description would be given after the final removal cut, and the overstory description of a forest managed under the selection system is updated as it changes over time. Specific regeneration and management standards, as defined below, are used to measure the effectiveness of treatments when using these two silvicultural systems.

Regeneration standards

Regeneration standards are criteria used for determining the status of regenerating stands under the clearcut and shelterwood silvicultural systems. They must be consistent with the associated desired future forest condition and silvicultural treatment package (MNR 1996). The regeneration standards are set to measure whether a stand is regenerating successfully and in a manner to meet the desired future forest condition.

Management standards

Management standards are the criteria used for determining the status of managed forest stands using the clearcut and shelterwood systems, and also the selection silvicultural system. As with regeneration standards, management standards must be consistent with the associated desired future forest condition and treatment package. Management standards include the same criteria as regeneration standards, along with additional criteria such as a measure of stand structure, wildlife habitat, etc.

Silvicultural success

Regeneration is considered to be a silvicultural success when all the standards contained in the silvicultural ground rule (SGR) applied to that stand have been met. This information is recorded in Annual Report Table AR-7. Silvicultural ground rules contain standards for target species, acceptable species, future forest condition and may contain management standards for wildlife habitat or partial harvest silvicultural systems.

If the standards are not met, and the treatments are deemed to be a failure, the forest manager will determine whether retreatment is required, analyze why the stand did not respond to the treatment(s) as expected, and use this information to improve future prescriptions for, and treatments on, similar stands.

Regeneration success

A developing stand may be viewed as a regeneration success when regeneration meets all the standards of an SGR other than the one originally associated with that stand. This information is recorded in Annual Report Table AR-9.

If the standards are not met, and the treatments are deemed to be a failure, the forest manager will determine whether retreatment is required, analyze why the stand did not respond to the treatment(s) as expected, and use this information to improve future prescriptions for, and treatments on, similar stands.

Target species

These are the tree species (and their relative proportions) identified in the SGR that are required to be present in order to meet the desired future forest condition. They are ecologically suited to the stand, their characteristics are consistent with the management objectives for the stand and management activities are aimed at establishing these species.

Acceptable species

These are the tree species that can be present for purposes of measuring silvicultural effectiveness as long as they are compatible with the ecosystem, the target species and the attainment of the management objectives and the desired future forest condition.

1.6 Legislative and policy basis

Two of the manuals (the Forest Information Manual (FIM) and the FOSM) that are regulated by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) refer to the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario. This manual has been completed in accordance with the regulated manuals and other documents that provide legal direction. These include the EA Board’s decision on the Timber EA; the CFSA itself; and various licences issued under the CFSA. In addition, direction is found in strategic policies, such as the Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests. Relevant details of these other documents are included in Appendix A. These documents should be reviewed for a complete understanding of how silvicultural effectiveness monitoring fits within the larger sustainable forest management context.

1.7 Consideration of the statement of environmental values

The MNR is responsible for managing Ontario’s natural resources in accordance with the statutes it administers. In 1994, the MNR finalized its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The MNR’s SEV describes how the purposes of the EBR are to be considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made by the MNR. The SEV is based on the goals and objectives of the MNR as set out in the strategic documents Direction ’90s and Direction ’90s…Moving Ahead 1995.

During the development of the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario, the MNR has considered Direction ’90s, Direction ’90s… Moving Ahead 1995, Beyond 2000 and the SEV. The directions set out in those documents are reflected in this manual which furthers the objectives of managing Ontario’s resources on a sustainable basis.

2.0 Silvicultural

Objective setting

2.1 The forest management planning processasdf.^{footnote 2[2]}

The forest management planning process provides the opportunity to address the three questions posed by Robbins in 1992. The answers to the first two, “What did we intend to accomplish?” and “What did we actually accomplish?”, are documented in:

• the desired outcome of silvicultural activities (i.e. the desired future forest condition);
• the planned method of reaching that outcome (i.e. the silvicultural treatment package);
• the standards that will be used to assess success (i.e. regeneration or management standards); and
• the actual treatments that are conducted (i.e. the annual work schedule (AWS) and Annual Report).

These four components are located in the SGRs, the AWSs, and the Annual Reports. In this manual, the first two components are discussed in Sections 2.2 to 2.4; Section 3.0 deals with the third component; and Annual Reports are discussed in Section 4.0.

While silvicultural objectives are set, measured and assessed at the stand-level, it is necessary to consider and analyze the overall effectiveness at the forest-level as well. The results of these standand forest-level analyses answer the third question posed by Robbins “How well did we do it?” This is discussed more fully in Section 5.0.

Forest management plans that came into effect prior to 1998 may not include all four components, at least not exactly as described above. Further references to forest management planning requirements, tables and reports will use the current planning terminology (e.g., Table FMP-10); the reader is expected to understand that similar or equivalent information (e.g., Table 4-11) can also be found in older-style plans. Direction on how to apply this manual to areas harvested under these older style plans is provided in Sections 2.6 and 4.0.

The key element for initiating a successful silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system is the ability to store and retrieve the four components described in the first paragraph in order to provide a geo-referenced string of information (i.e. original forest unit and condition, desired forest unit and condition, year of depletion, year of assessment, planned treatment package, actual treatment package, etc.). This element is known as a forest operations prescription (FOP), and is described in more detail later in this section. When combined with the reporting of results through Annual Reports and the Report of Past Forest Operations (RPFO), the minimum requirements of a silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system have been met. The list of information that must be recorded and reported is itemized in Sections 2.5 and 4.0 of this manual. The FIM explains who is responsible for collecting, storing, retrieving and transferring this information, and provides the requirements for data transfer.

2.2 Silvicultural ground rules

The SGRs are found in Table FMP-10 of an FMP. They are organized by forest unit (a grouping of stands with similar composition, development pattern and silvicultural system) and ecosite (site type) and describe what is planned to occur for that forest unit. They provide the opportunity for documenting the first three portions of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system, i.e. the desired outcome, the planned activities and the standards.

Each SGR describes the current forest condition, the desired future forest condition and the series of harvest, renewal and tending treatments that the forest manager expects to follow in order to attain the desired outcome. It also includes the standards that must be met for a stand to be considered successfully regenerated or managed, and developing in a way that will permit it to attain the desired forest condition. These standards are described fully in Section 3.0 of this manual.

2.3 Annual work schedules

The AWS describes where and what forest management operations will be conducted in any given year. The AWS documents the activities to be conducted on a specific location, and is the fourth component of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system. The AWS contains a schedule of areas that will be inspected or surveyed during the year to determine their status in meeting the regeneration or management standards (i.e., Table AWS-6).

2.4 Forest operations prescriptions

As noted earlier, the FOP is the vehicle that ties together the objectives, activities and results for a particular location and site. It is the key building block for the foundation of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system.

An FOP is a site specific, integrated set of harvest, renewal and maintenance activities that is developed before any operations can commence in a particular stand. The FOP for a particular stand is the accumulation of the original SGR for the stand, the portions of the AWSs that relate to the stand (including any in-year changes that are appended to the AWS) and the signature of a Registered Professional Forester (R.P.F.) verifying the appropriateness of the treatments. Together, these documents (along with the Annual Reports) describe the desired outcome for the stand, the activities that were originally planned, what standards are or were to be met and what was actually implemented on the ground. Although these documents may be stored in different locations and formats, both paper and electronic, to facilitate tracking of this information they must be retrievable as a geo-referenced record.

Prior to the implementation of the SGR, the forest manager must confirm that the actual conditions on the ground are the same as those anticipated during the preparation of the FMP and the SGR. For example, he or she would ensure that the stand is the same ecosite and has the same composition as anticipated, the treatment(s) identified for the stand is appropriate for the site and current stand conditions, there are no previously unidentified non-timber values present, etc. As part of the AWS, this confirmation is documented in the form of a statement signed by an R.P.F. (or, where the treatment is outside of the normal purview of a forester, another suitably qualified professional such as a wildlife biologist, if the treatment pertains primarily to wildlife habitat).

2.5 Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring records

Table 1 identifies the information that must be collected as part of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system, and indicates the location where it is recorded for future reference and retrieval. It is important to note that the minimum information requirements needed to monitor silvicultural effectiveness should already be collected, recorded and, in some cases, reported for other purposes.

The exact format and level of detail for which each of these must be recorded are described in the FMPM and in the FIM.

These items and records represent the basic level of information required to satisfy the MNRs silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system. More comprehensive procedures (such as crop planning and economic analyses) and more detailed information or FOPs may be deemed appropriate by the forest manager, and may provide additional background documentation which will facilitate the reporting requirements outlined in Section 5.0.

Table 1: Minimum information required to track silvicultural effectiveness.

2.6 Phase-in period

The FMPM was regulated in the fall of 1996, and was implemented in its entirety for the first time with the FMPs that commenced on April 1, 1998. Partial implementation was required for the 1996 and 1997 plans. The completion of FOPs became a legal requirement on April 1, 1997. Therefore, information has been recorded in various forms and formats over recent years. Forest managers must retain and develop linkages for information related to SGRs, regeneration standards/management standards, FOPs, silvicultural treatments, and forest units/working groups from previous FMPs for the purpose of tracking silvicultural effectiveness. All management units will be able to fully apply the direction described in this manual to all areas harvested after April 1, 2002 (i.e., with the commencement of the 2002 FMPs). By that date, all management units will be implementing FMPs written following the FMPM.

Even then, silvicultural treatments on areas harvested under plans with a commencement date prior to April 1, 1998 will be based on SGRs that were written as much as 15 (and possibly 20) years previously (e.g., a final herbicide treatment to release crop trees prior to the FTG declaration). Such ground rules will relate to working groups, rather than forest units, as was the practice at the time. In other cases, the forest unit descriptions may have changed over time, complicating year to year comparisons. Attempts must be made to accommodate these anomalies, to approximate equivalencies between working groups and forest units, and to compare and assess the effectiveness of similar treatments on similar stands. Methods to summarize this information are described in further detail in Sections 4.3 and 4.5.

3.0 Silvicultural

3.1 Management principles

The Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual states: “the key to good management is common-sense and practical application of the principles contained in the guidelines”. Therefore, rather than prescribing specific methodologies to assess silvicultural effectiveness, this manual describes the minimum requirements for data collection, reporting and analysis. Application of these requirements ensures that data are adequate to allow the forest manager to:

1. specify problems, monitor trends and develop corrective actions;
2. determine whether the standards in the SGRs, found in Table FMP 10 of an FMP have been met;
3. determine the growth curve on which the stand is tracking (e.g., intensive, extensive); and
4. identify the stand for re-introduction to the inventory and provide an inventory update.

3.2 Ecological basis for silvicultural effectiveness monitoring

Ecosystems are complex and not fully understood. One simple way of looking at ecosystems is to assume that the structure and composition of an ecosystem reflects some of the underlying ecological processes and functions of that ecosystem.

A system that monitors the changes in stand vegetation and structure can be used to:

• complement and update forest inventories
• monitor changes in wildlife habitat
• measure changes in landscape diversity
• verify predictive models used in planning timber supply, habitat supply and landscape diversity.

To monitor the impacts of forestry practices on ecosystem sustainability, a number of key components of an ecosystem, called indicators of sustainability, need to be measured on an ongoing basis. Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring is one component of a suite of indicators that are used to measure forest sustainability.

Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring measures the changes in important components of forest composition and structure (Figure 1). It tracks the changes in tree composition, height, age, and the distribution of regeneration. Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring also tracks the changes in the structure and composition of the overstory when partial cutting systems are used.

Figure 1: Changes to a forest occur within forest stands.

Changes in composition and structure are used to predict and monitor changes in forest processes and function such as habitat.

• Forest
  • Stand 1
  • Stand 2
  • Stand 3

The composition and structure of individual stands integrate with other components of a landscape to form the composition and structure of a forest.

3.3 Regeneration and management standards

One objective of silvicultural effectiveness monitoring is to determine whether the objectives that have been specified for that area have been met. The minimum objectives for a particular stand will be described in the SGRs in Table FMP-10 in an FMP. Since there is a great diversity of stands and values in Ontario, additional objectives may be described. In these cases additional standards may also have to be described, monitored and reported.

The minimum regeneration standards for clearcut and shelterwood systems and the management standards for the selection system are determined as part of the SGRs at the time of FMP preparation and must include:

• target tree species (desired or crop) and acceptable tree species based on ecological condition and management objectives;
• minimum height of target and acceptable tree species;
• time frame, expressed either as the prescribed maximum number of years to reach FTG for evenaged systems or the number of growing seasons elapsed since the last disturbance before the survey was conducted for unevenaged systems;
• stocking and/or density per hectare for target and acceptable species free from competing vegetation (define minimum/maximum/target); and
• survey methodologies (e.g. how stocking is determined) as a footnote to Table FMP-10.

3.3.1 Additional minimum management standards for the selection system

These standards encompass the regeneration standard requirements noted above as well as the following:

• stand structure (diameter distribution, e., basal area by diameter class; see Appendix B for an example)
• quality of residuals (basal area/hectare of acceptable growing stock (AGS) and unacceptable growing stock (UGS).

Regardless of the silvicultural system used, the appropriate data must be collected and analyzed in order to assess whether a particular area has met the regeneration objectives. The minimum data requirements are reflected in the regeneration and management standards noted above, which ensure the forest manager has the ability to assess current stand and site conditions and also the ability to track stand development over time toward the desired future forest condition. Some examples of additional management standards that may be required are the number of live cavity trees, number of seed trees, number of veteran trees or amount of major logging damage to residual trees or established regeneration on the site.

The data is used to predict long term results by projecting future stand and forest development through computer modeling. The data from the monitoring program allows forest managers to ascertain if the stands or forest are developing as anticipated, and whether the actual and expected results are the same. The impacts of these differences are assessed in relation to the forest management planning process. The details of silviculture effectiveness data reporting and analysis are presented in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.

In circumstances where the standards of the SGR have not been met, the information collected through silvicultural effectiveness monitoring allows the forest manager to determine follow-up treatments including re-treatment or vegetation management. The forest manager may also accept the resultant stand and reclassify it to another forest unit, but it is important that this decision be recorded and tracked. The impact of the future forest condition on the forest must also be analyzed depending on how common, extensive or severe the changes.

3.4 Forest resource inventory information

Requirements

If the SGR regeneration and management standards have been met, the stand may be re-entered into the forest resources inventory. The silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data also provides the forest manager with the information needed to update the forest inventory. Updates to FRIs for all silvicultural systems must include, but are not limited to:

• species composition and working group
• height
• age (year of origin)
• stocking.

There are additional information requirements for stands managed under the selection and shelterwood silvicultural systems. For the selection system, the FRI description requires additional information on:

• stand structure(AGS and UGS basal area and basal area distribution by diameter size class).

For the shelterwood system the additional requirements include the following data for both the overstory and understory:

• stocking
• age (year of origin)
• height
• species composition and working group.

All the requirements of the FRI are detailed in the FIM.

3.5 Assessment methodologies

Three categories of surveys to assess regeneration are described in the Regeneration Survey Manual for Ontario (MNR 1981): stocking assessment (fifth year and FTG), plantation survival assessment, and seeding assessment. All of these were required to be conducted with the objective of providing meaningful information on the state of forest regeneration. Changes in forest management and planning responsibilities have resulted in all but the FTG surveys being optional, although many forest companies continue to include these surveys as part of their forest management activities.

Free-to-grow is the term used to describe stands that meet the regeneration or management standards. Assessment methodologies that are used to determine FTG are referred to as either intensive or extensive.

Extensive methodologies are generally used where there are obvious successes or failures or to “zero-in” on problem areas requiring more intensive assessment. Intensive methods are intended for stands where the status of regeneration is uncertain or specific quantitative data is required to determine the silvicultural effectiveness of operational treatments. Regardless of the methodology, intensive or extensive, the minimum data must be collected and reported in order to provide an assessment of whether the area is FTG or not and to forecast stand development. Refinements to models and improvements to forest management decisions depend on accurate quantifiable information characterizing the regenerating forest.

Mandatory use of specific assessment methodologies is not required. Two methodologies have been developed and the documentation will be finalized upon the completion of field testing. Brief descriptions of these two methodologies follow.

The Silviculture Treatment, Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) is a computer-based data collection and analysis system designed to simplify silvicultural effectiveness monitoring. This system is appropriate for use in all silvicultural systems, providing both stocking and density data for all forest types found in Ontario.

The Free-Growing Regeneration Assessment (FGRA) is a regeneration assessment system intended for application to all species and stands managed under the clearcut silvicultural system, primarily in the boreal forest. The FGRA provides a measure of the density of the regeneration.

The assessment methodology must be compatible with the prescription, the regeneration standards and any interpretative tools to forecast stand development (e.g. managed stand yield tables). In particular, if the regeneration standards are expressed as a percentage stocking then assessment using the STARS method would be more appropriate. If the regeneration objectives are expressed as the number of well-spaced, free-growing stems, then the FGRA should be used.

The intensive methodologies described in the Free-Growing Regeneration Assessment Manual for Ontario (MNR 1995b) and the Silviculture Treatment Assessment and Reporting System Program Manual (Pinto 1998) will be used as the standards for audit purposes.

Audits commissioned by the MNR may be extensive or intensive. Intensive regeneration surveys commissioned by the MNR will be done at an intensity that will ensure a 90% confidence interval equal to +/- 10% of the estimated mean. The intensive MNR surveys will ensure that there is a 90% probability that the minimum standard pertaining to FTG stocking, density or free-growing trees for acceptable species has been met or exceeded. This means that the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval must be equal to or greater than the minimum standard. For example, assume that the minimum FTG stocking standard of acceptable species for four different projects is 40%. The MNR conducts four intensive surveys, one in each new stand. The results are shown in Table 2.

The results in Table 2 indicate that the stocking of acceptable trees in the jack pine and mixedwood stands have met or exceeded the standard. However, the estimated stocking of acceptable stems is below the minimum standard of 40% for black spruce stand 23. Table 2 also shows that the estimated stocking of acceptable trees in black spruce stand 55 is less precise than +/- 10% of the mean. Based on the existing survey, stand 55 would not meet the minimum standard of 40% stocking of acceptable stems. In this case it may be necessary to establish more plots to obtain a more precise estimate. The new estimate would provide more certainty on the success or failure of this stand to meet the minimum standard.

The holders of Sustainable Forest Licences (SFL) are required to conduct a monitoring program including the assessment of regeneration. As detailed in this manual and in the FMPM, the licensees are responsible for providing the required information to MNR. Recognizing the ongoing monitoring program carried out by the industry, MNR’s responsibilities include conducting spot checks of the areas as required. The STARS and FGRA methodologies will be used by MNR to substantiate their spot checks and by independent forest auditors to conduct their field assessments of regeneration.

Table 2: Comparison of survey results to the 40% minimum standard for acceptable species.

3.6 Dispute resolution

In circumstances where there are discrepancies between the data reported by the SFL holder and the verification conducted by MNR through spot checks, the dispute resolution procedure described in the FIM will be used to resolve the issue(s). The dispute resolution mechanism will also be used where a forest resource licence holder fails to provide the required information.

4.0 Compilation and reporting

4.1 Introduction

Reporting the results of silvicultural effectiveness monitoring serves two main purposes:

• To ensure that the data and associated analysis and results are recorded and available to those requiring them, now and in the future; and
• To fulfill legal requirements for public reporting.

4.1.1 Overview

Reporting of ongoing survey and assessment results is required as part of the Annual Report for each MU. These reports must be available to the public upon request. The MU Annual Reports are rolled up to produce the provincial Annual Report on Forest Management which is tabled in the legislature, published and made available to the public. It must include a summary of silvicultural effectiveness in the form of areas assessed for FTG status, areas declared FTG and if available, condition survey (e.g., survival and stocking) results. A summary of report statistics for the MU on forest regeneration are also forwarded annually to the federal government for inclusion in The Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics and The State of Canada’s Forests.

Longer-term trends are summarized and compared to predictions made in the forest management plan once every five years at the end of each plan term in the RPFO for each MU. A draft must be available for Stage One of the public consultation process for the preparation of the next FMP for each MU and the final version must be completed by Stage Two of the public consultation process. Results from these reports will be rolled up provincially to contribute to the “State of the Forest” report once every five years. This report must contain a provincial overview and summary of silvicultural effectiveness drawn from data contained in the Annual Reports. Similarly some of the regeneration statistics will be used in future reporting on criteria and indicators used to determine forest sustainability for provincial and national reports.

4.2 Management unit annual reports

Annual Reports for each MU are required to contain several standard tables with associated text that summarize the results obtained. Forecasts of targets associated with each of these tables can be found in the FMP. Where possible, results are required to be evaluated and conclusions drawn, including progress toward achieving targets identified in the FMP (see Section 5.0 for more detail on analysis and evaluation requirements).

The stand level data that is used to generate the tables and reports is not required to be included with the reports but must be available for inspection and use by MNR staff and auditors. Each MU must maintain a geo-referenced forest stand level database that allows the stand attribute information in Section 2.5 (Table 1) and the appropriate SGRs (i.e., Table FMP-10) to be tracked from the time of harvest to the time of FTG. Figure 2 illustrates the sequence of events, decisions and associated flow of assessment results that eventually results in the summarization of the data in the Annual Report tables.

The text accompanying the Annual Reports must summarize significant trends, results and recommendations resulting from inspecting the Annual Report tables and supporting data and information. The text must also summarize the results of monitoring the effectiveness of silvicultural treatments that are exceptions to the recommendations in the silvicultural guides. In particular, trends where stands are consistently not tracking to the predicted regeneration standard and future forest condition must be discussed. In instances where silvicultural problems and issues come to light, it is important to consider seeking advice or assistance from other colleagues or subject experts (e.g., MNR specialists in regional and main offices and MNR scientists and specialists in the science sections and technology development units).

The Annual Report tables associated with silvicultural effectiveness are briefly described on the following pages.

Figure 2: silvicultural effectiveness monitoring components within the forest management planning system: stand and management unit level

AR-6 Annual report of renewal, tending and protection operations (FMPM page C-19)

Table AR-6 summarizes, by future forest unit and treatment method, the area of renewal, tending and protection operations that were implemented. This table documents the amount and type of silvicultural treatments implemented (including natural regeneration) by the year in which they occurred or were initiated (e.g., harvesting initiates natural regeneration). Results of analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.1) of Table AR-6 and other related stand and management unit level data must be included in the Annual Report text associated with this table.

Table AR-6 allows the plan author to compare the quantity and type of renewal activities implemented to the quantity and type of renewal activities forecast in the approved FMP (Table FMP-25, Forecast of Renewal and Tending Operations). This will assist in ensuring that forecast renewal targets are met by the end of the plan term or, conversely, provides justification for revising current and future plans. In order to be able to track and summarize renewal activities by the manner in which the areas were depleted (e.g., harvest, salvage, fire, insect and other), separate tables are required for two major depletion types. One table must be prepared for harvested areas and another table for naturally depleted areas. Additionally, a summary table that includes all depletion types must also be prepared. Salvaged areas are included with natural depletions.

AR-7 Annual report of assessment of regeneration success (FMPM page C-21)

Table AR-7 provides a summary by original forest unit and silvicultural treatment package of the area assessed and area of silvicultural success. Although the title of this table refers to “regeneration success”, the intent is to report on “silvicultural success” as defined in Section 1.5. In other words this table records the success of the applied FOPs in meeting the regeneration standards and modelling assumptions for the approved FMP or timber management plan (TMP) that was in effect when the renewal treatments were applied.

Table AR-7 tracks progress in meeting the regeneration assessment targets specified in Table FMP-28 (Forecast of Assessment of Regeneration Success) of the approved FMP. It provides the plan author with critical information in assessing the success of past silvicultural treatments and will justify their continued use or the need for their re-examination or revision in future schedules and plans.

Information resulting from assessment surveys of areas found to be unsuccessful is useful because it may lead to corrections and improvements in the modelling assumptions, silvicultural prescriptions and treatments. Although this table excludes surveyed areas that did not meet the FTG standards, it is important to summarize and discuss these areas in the associated Annual Report text. For example, stands which are regenerating to the specified species and respective stocking levels within the specified time limit may not be assessed to be FTG because of competition from other vegetation at the time of survey. An initial reaction might be to label these stands as “failures”. However, by tending the competition these stands can eventually be assessed as FTG. Similarly, results of the analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.0) of this and other related stand and management unit level data must be included in the Annual Report text associated with this table.

In order to increase operational flexibility, many plan authors have created a multitude of silvicultural treatment packages within the SGRs of their approved plans. Differences between some of these packages are minimal and discussion of each in the text may be of little value at the management unit or higher levels. Plan authors may group similar silvicultural treatment packages together to reduce the number of treatment packages being summarized and discussed in the text.

Similar to AR-6, separate tables are required for the harvest and natural depletion types.

AR-8 Annual report of harvest and projected regeneration (FMPM page C-23)

Table AR-8 summarizes, by original forest unit, the area depleted during the year and projects the successful renewal of these areas by forest unit and the years when success will be reached. The use of the word “harvest” in the table title and second column heading (i.e., Harvest Area) is misleading. Table AR-8 is intended to project the successful regeneration of all depleted areas, including naturally depleted areas.

Separate tables must be compiled for the harvest and natural depletion types. Table AR-8 also projects changes in the distribution of forest units that will occur as a result of renewal efforts. The projected years of renewal and future forest units are based upon the SGRs and a knowledge of site types associated with the harvest areas. Comparison with the forest unit transitions projected in Table FMP-16 (Projected Forest Unit Transitions for the Available Harvest Area) of the approved plan will allow the plan author to verify the assumptions used in the preparation of the current and future FMPs. This knowledge will allow for adjustments to renewal activities from year to year to help ensure plan targets are met or provide information to revise or correct assumptions in future plans and schedules.

AR-9 Annual report of regeneration success (FMPM page C-25)

Table AR-9 summarizes areas successfully regenerated by original forest unit (i.e., the forest unit description just prior to harvest), the year of depletion, and the forest unit to which the area has regenerated. The use of the word “harvest” in the column title “Areas Successfully Regenerated by Year of Harvest” is misleading. Table AR-9 is intended to track renewal success on all depleted areas, including natural depletions such as fire. Separate tables are required for each depletion type (e.g., harvest, fire, insects and other). At any point in time progress made in regenerating depleted areas can be readily determined by subtracting the area reported FTG in all AR-9 tables for a particular depletion year from the area depleted in that year. “Regeneration Success” is defined in Section 1.5. It will potentially include additional area to that reported in Table AR-7. Stands that do not meet the ground rule standard originally prescribed but do meet the regeneration standards for another acceptable future forest condition should also be reported in this table. For example, areas depleted naturally due to unplanned natural causes (e.g., fire, insects, disease) may not have silvicultural prescriptions assigned but eventually will regenerate and should be summarized in this table, though separate tables should be used for each of the two types. Another example is where a new stand has regenerated to a forest unit other than the forest unit targeted in the FOP. For various reasons, it may be more practical to accept the new stand back into the inventory as it is rather than re-treat it. It is very important that these areas (which are not “silvicultural successes”) be described and rationalized in the text associated with this table.

Table AR-9 tracks changes in forest unit area and progress towards the desired future forest condition. Anticipated progress towards the desired future forest condition is documented in Table FMP-16 of the approved plan.

Results of the analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.2) of Table AR-9 and other related stand and management unit level data must be discussed in the Annual Report text associated with this table.

When a stand is successfully regenerated, but does not meet the SGR regeneration standards originally prescribed but does meet the standards for another ground rule, the stand may contribute to the objectives of the management unit by meeting the requirements of another forest unit. This allows the forest manager a certain amount of flexibility in determining whether a stand should be re-treated or allowed to continue to develop. Where differences are detected between the expected and actual results, it is important that these are documented and reported, so that the necessary alterations can be made as early as possible to treatments or assumptions in models used in forest planning.

4.3 Management unit five year reports (report of past forest operations)

The RPFO (produced once every five years for each MU) is required to contain several standard tables with associated text that summarizes the results obtained. These tables are the result of compiling Annual Report tables described in Section 4.2 for the previous plan term. The reports are also developed through inventory updates done at the beginning and end of the plan term. Forecasts of targets for assessments and forest unit transitions are documented in the FMP.

The assessment of the achievement of the management objectives that are stated in the FMP is produced through examination of each management objective and its associated management strategy(ies) individually, and all objectives collectively.

Since most objectives have long-term strategic components, and their achievement depends on the implementation of successive FMPs, the assessment must consider as many past plan terms as possible to evaluate long-term trends. For silvicultural objectives, a summary statement of silvicultural effectiveness by forest unit and preferably working group and silvicultural treatment package must also be provided in the RPFO.

If targets were not achieved, the assessment must provide reasons for the failure to achieve the targets and a discussion of the possible implications. In addition, assessments of the effectiveness of silvicultural treatment packages, which are exceptions to treatments in the silvicultural guides, must be provided. Conclusions related to the success of silvicultural treatments, and the accuracy of predictions of future forest units and the year of successful regeneration, must be discussed in the text.

The text of the RPFO must summarize significant trends, results and recommendations arising from inspecting these tables and supporting data and information. The text must also summarize the results of monitoring the effectiveness of silvicultural treatments that are exceptions to the recommendations in the silvicultural guides. In particular, trends where stands are consistently not tracking to the predicted regeneration standard and future forest condition must be discussed. In instances where silvicultural problems and issues come to light, it is important to consider seeking advice or assistance from other colleagues or subject experts (e.g. MNR silvicultural specialists in regional and main offices, MNR scientists and specialists in the science sections and technology development units).

The RPFO tables associated with silvicultural effectiveness are briefly described below.

RPFO-7 Summary of renewal, tending and protection operations (FMPM page C-53)

Table RPFO-7 summarizes the five-year area of renewal, tending and protection operations, which were implemented by treatment method. The source information for this table is the Annual Report Table AR-6 and the associated text submitted for each year of the past plan term. The text provides rationalization of the differences between planned and actual levels as well as any other anomalies in the tables. Since Table AR-6 is completed separately for the two major depletion types (i.e., harvest and natural depletions), a separate Table RPFO-7 is also required for each depletion type.

This information is compared directly with operations planned and summarized in the approved FMP (Table FMP-25, Forecast of Renewal and Tending Operations). Explanations of any significant differences between the planned and actual levels of renewal and tending operations must be provided in the text. Results of the analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.1) of Table RPFO-7 and other related stand and management unit level data must also be provided in the text associated with this table. This information should be of assistance to the plan author when developing the rules used in the tests of sustainability, modelling wood and habitat supply and planning silvicultural operations for the next plan term.

RPFO-8 Summary report of assessment of regeneration success (FMPM page C-55)

Table RPFO-8 provides a summary, by forest unit and silvicultural treatment package, of the five-year area assessed and approved for regeneration success. Although the title of this table refers to “regeneration success”, the intent is to report on “silvicultural success” as defined in Section 1.5. The source information for this table is Table FMP-28 (Forecast of Assessment of Regeneration Success) from the past plan and the Annual Report Table AR-7 and associated text submitted for each year of the past plan term. The text provides rationalization of the differences between planned and actual levels, as well as any anomalies in the tables. The information in this table will be the basis for making an assessment of the silvicultural effectiveness of the silvicultural treatment packages. Results of the analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.2) of Table RPFO-8 and other related stand and management unit level data must be provided in the text associated with this table. This information should be of assistance to the plan author when developing the rules used in the tests of sustainability, modelling wood and habitat supply and planning silvicultural operations for the next plan term. Since Table AR-7 table is completed separately for the two major depletion types (i.e., harvest and natural depletions), a separate Table RPFO-8 is also required for each depletion type.

RPFO-9 Summary report of harvest and regeneration success (FMPM page C-57)

Table RPFO-9 is a status report on depleted and regenerated areas. The purpose of this table is to summarize harvest, natural depletion and regeneration information in order to permit an evaluation of regeneration success. The use of the word “harvest” in the title and the first column heading (i.e. Year of Harvest) is misleading. Table RPFO-9 is intended to track the renewal success of all depletions, including naturally-caused depletions. Due to the nature and purpose of the information presented, this table must apply to a period longer than just the previous five-year term of operations. Table RPFO-9 must include:

• All areas that have been harvested but have not yet been successfully regenerated; and,
• As much historical information on areas that have been depleted and successfully regenerated as is necessary to make an evaluation. Naturally depleted areas should also be included.

The source information for Table RPFO-9 is a series of Annual Report Tables AR-8 (provides “projected” columns) and AR-9 (provides “actual” columns). Tables AR-8 and AR-9 for past plan terms prior to the introduction of the new planning manual do not exist. In their absence, stand prescriptions and FTG assessment results from previous terms will have to be extracted and summarized in the respective “projected” and “actual” columns. Results of the analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.2) of Table RPFO-9 and other related stand and management unit level data must be provided in the text associated with this table. As Tables AR-8 and AR-9 are completed separately for the two major depletion types (i.e., harvest and natural depletions), a separate Table RPFO-9 is also required for each depletion type.

RPFO-13 comparison of projected, actual and desired future forest condition for the managed crown forest area available for timber production (FMPM page C-73)

Table RPFO-13 provides the means to compare the actual available managed production forest at two points in time with short term and longer term projections. It shows the actual available production forest at the start of the term, at the end of the term and a short-term (20- year) projection made at the start of the term. It also shows the desired future forest, as defined by the plans prepared and implemented during the term of the RPFO. Table RPFO-13 is used to determine if major changes in the desired future forest have occurred between one plan and the next. Table RPFO-13 can help the plan author to develop the rules used in the tests of sustainability, to model wood and habitat supply and to plan silvicultural operations for the next plan term.

The sources of information for this table are the inventory updated to the start of the past plan, the inventory updated to the end of the past term, and projections of the forest condition from the past and current plans.

It will be a number of years before all components of the FMPM can be fully implemented for all MUs across the province. This phase-in period will also affect licensee’s ability to report on the full requirements for Annual Report and RPFO tables. More details on this phase-in requirement with respect to Annual Reports and RPFOs are listed in Appendix VIII of the FMPM. It is recommended that the full reporting requirements be implemented as quickly as possible.

Term and Condition 21 of the Timber EA requires that a summary of areas assessed for FTG status, and areas declared FTG, by silvicultural treatment package and site type (i.e., ecosite or site type), be provided in the RPFO. The FMPM requires SGRs (Table FMP-10) to include site type information, as found in the silvicultural guides. As new plans are prepared using the FMPM, the tables described above will be required to include general standard site types (i.e., ecosites).

4.4 Provincial annual reports

Term and Condition 82 of the Timber EA requires MNR to produce and table in the Provincial Legislature, a provincial “Annual Report on Timber Management”. The minimum content requirements of the report are specified in Appendix 20 of the EA Board decision. The scope of the report has been broadened to address other uses and users of the forest as reflected in the current title of the report: “The Annual Report on Forest Management”.

The provincial Annual Reports on forest management contain regional and provincial summaries of forest renewal and maintenance activities that are listed in the Annual Report Table AR-6 for each MU. Future reports will also contain regional and provincial summaries of the assessments of silvicultural success data reported in Annual Report Tables AR-7, AR-8 and AR-9. Future reports may also contain sub-regional (boundaries yet to be determined) summaries of this data.

4.5 Provincial five year reports

Both the Timber EA Term and Condition 84 and the CFSA require the Crown (MNR) to prepare a provincial report on the “State of the Forest” at least once every five years and to table the report in the Provincial Legislature. The information may also be summarized at regional and sub-regional (boundaries yet to be determined) levels. The minimum content requirements of the report are specified in Appendix 22 of the EA Board decision, the CFSA and the “Forest Resource Assessment on Crown Lands in Ontario Policy”. The first provincial “State of the Forest” report is scheduled to be produced in 2001.

The five-year report will contain a provincial overview and summary of silvicultural effectiveness drawn from data contained in the preceding five provincial “Annual Reports on Forest Management”, as well as RPFO’s from individual MUs.

All of the previously described five-year reports, whether at an MU, regional or provincial level may have a common problem when attempting to report on silvicultural results over a time frame greater than five years because the basic unit upon which the reports are based is currently the forest unit. Forest units are allowed to be redefined whenever a new FMP is prepared and this is further complicated because working groups, as defined by the FRI, were used in the past in place of the current forest units. Therefore, in cases where the basic reporting unit has varied, tracking results over the course of more than one plan term may require the data to be converted to common reporting units.

The FMPM requires forest units to be described in terms of the site type, working group and other parameters (Table FMP-8). This information will be used to assign proxy working groups (i.e., the working group that best describes the forest unit) and general standard site types when summarizing silvicultural effectiveness information at the regional and provincial levels. Assigning proxy working groups could also be used at the MU level to convert data from different planning terms to allow long term trend analysis.

4.6 National annual reporting

Ontario is a member of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, which manages the National Forest Database (NFD). The NFD is used to compile the national forestry statistics that are published annually in the Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics. The MNR compiles renewal and maintenance statistics from the Annual Reports for each MU and forwards the complied results to the NFD annually for inclusion in the compendium.

Natural Resources Canada annually publishes The State of Canada’s Forests with information from this compendium. The MNR also provides data to support Regen, a program that models the progress of regenerating Crown forests harvested after 1975. Proxy data from Ontario Independent Forest Audits and the Survey of Artificially Regenerated Sites (SOARS) I and II will eventually be replaced by actual data from the Annual Reports for each MU.

4.7 National five year reporting

The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers produced its first report on criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in the year 2000. The report includes results compiled from the provinces for one indicator which measures the success of both natural and artificial regeneration. The Regen computer model was the source of data for this indicator.

Ontario criteria and indicators will continue to develop as better indicators and data becomes available. Future reports will include data for other indicators related to forest regeneration such as:

• percent of forest area classified as not regenerated; and area, timing and species composition of natural and artificial regeneration as compared to the management targets/silvicultural prescriptions.

The data obtained from Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system is integral to successfully reporting the provincial portion of this national report.

5.0 Analysis and evaluation

5.1 Introduction

The data standards, collection and reporting described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this manual are fundamental for providing information for analysis and evaluation of silvicultural effectiveness. The standards for data collection ensure that the essential data are collected to allow for evaluation at the various scales.

At the stand level, the data analysis must provide answers to site specific questions, e.g., was a particular treatment successful in a certain stand. These data are the basis for the analysis and evaluation at the MU (forest) level, through to the site region, provincial, national and international levels.

5.2 Stand and forest unit analysis and evaluation

The evaluation methodologies differ as the data move up the information hierarchy. At the stand level, individual treatments or prescriptions are examined by collecting the site-specific silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data listed in Section 3.0. Analysis and evaluation of this data permit the local manager to declare the stands FTG and re-introduce them into the forest inventory.

Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring supports stand level forest management decision-making. For example, using the analysis of silvicultural records and data to determine whether or not to re-treat an area. The georeferenced tracking of prescriptions, treatments and resulting forest conditions allows the forest manager to compare results of many similar stands over time. The resulting forest unit trends are included in the text of the management unit Annual Reports and used during the preparation of subsequent forest management plans. For example, the results would be used in developing the rules used in the tests of sustainability and wood and habitat supply modelling. As a result of the MU level analysis, the manager may refer particular problems to others for further investigation (e.g., to regional technology development units).

The forest manager must first review whether or not the planned treatments were applied to the stand. If the prescribed treatments were not carried out, the rationale as to why and the applied alternative must have been included in the AWS as part of the FOP, prior to the work being done. If a treatment not in the approved SGR was to be applied, an FMP amendment and AWS revision were required prior to the work being done.

The treated areas are recorded in the FMPM Annual Report Table AR-6. This table requires the submission of a listing of all stands which have been treated and maps which identify the treated areas. By ensuring that these records are maintained, the forest manager can examine the effectiveness of specific prescriptions or treatments and determine the appropriateness of the applied SGR. Section 3.0 of this manual stipulates the minimum data records that will allow accurate assessment of the treatments. The regeneration data collected is compared to the expected results for the stand. If the measures of success (usually stocking or density of specified tree species that are healthy and free of competing vegetation) are met, the stand is considered to be successfully regenerated (Figure 3). The data are used to update the FRI and provide feedback for planning decisions.

Figure 3: Stand-level regeneration success Part of a sample regeneration standard for an SGR in an FMP.

5.3 Management unit analysis and evaluation

The silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data for forest units is further examined for the forest management unit. Forest managers use the stand and forest unit data to evaluate the success or failure of past management decisions, to compare the results of alternative management strategies, to compare the results between forests, and to compare their results with those of others working in the same forest type.

The renewal objectives for the MU are established in the FMP. It is extremely important to ascertain how well the regenerating forest is doing compared to the desired or expected outcomes. As part of this management unit evaluation, several questions presented in the FMPM RPFO, Achievement of Management Objectives, must be answered:

• Were the planned renewals undertaken?
• Did renewal treatments produce the anticipated results?
• How often did FOPs result in changes to the preferred silviculture treatment packages in the SGRs?
• Did the forest grow and develop as forecasted?

Forest management plans group individual stands of similar composition and development that will be treated with the same silvicultural system into forest units. These forest units are used in computer models to calculate predicted changes in forest diversity, habitat and timber supply. Forest managers can use the data collected from individual stands to verify expected and actual changes in forest units. For example, the computer models require the manager to specify what proportion of a forest unit stays as the same forest unit and what proportion changes to other specified forest units after treatment. A manager can compare the expected changes and the actual changes for each forest unit in the forest. The information for these comparisons is provided in Table RPFO-13 (Comparison of Projected, Actual and Desired Future Forest Condition for the Managed Crown Forest Area Available for Timber Production).

Tables AR-7 (Annual Report of Assessment of Regeneration Success) and AR-9 (Annual Report of Regeneration Success) provide a basis for forest level evaluation of silvicultural effectiveness. The reporting requirements of the tables are detailed in Section 4.0 of this manual. The summary of the hectares assessed that met the regeneration standards by forest unit and silvicultural treatment package allows the forest manager to review those treatments that resulted in the successful renewal of forest units. Table AR-9 summarizes the original forest unit and year of harvest and what the forest unit has regenerated to over time. Examining the difference in area between Table AR-7 and Table AR-9 allows the forest manager, on an annual basis, to analyze the changes that are occurring to the forest units and the impact this may have on the allowable harvest area and forest sustainability. The forest level analyses provided by Tables AR-7 and AR-9 allow the forest manager to examine the reasons for discrepancies between expected and actual forest units, as well as to examine the implications on the desired future forest condition.

Further forest level evaluation is based upon application of the data to models, such as the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM). Input of actual data and locally constructed growth and yield curves allow the forest manager to more accurately assess the impacts and future implications of their management actions to the forest and assess whether the forest is tracking to the desired future forest condition. The differences between expected and actual values may result in changes to wood supply, habitat supply and other projected outputs.

The silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data contributes to the five-year FMPM requirement for the RPFO. The “roll-up” of annual information provides the basis for Table RPFO-8 (Summary Report of Assessment of Regeneration Success) and Table RPFO-9 (Summary Report of Harvest and Regeneration Success). The requirements for these tables are detailed in Section 4.3 of this manual. From the evaluation perspective, the purpose of these tables is to “summarize, for the five-year period, harvest and regeneration information in order to permit an evaluation of regeneration success”.

Table RPFO-13 (Comparison of Projected, Actual, and Desired Future Forest Condition for the Managed Crown Forest Area Available for Timber Production) is the culmination of the evaluation at the MU level. This table allows the forest manager to determine if major changes have occurred in the desired future forest and also the progress that is being made toward the desired future forest condition both in the short term of the management planning period and the longer term. As well as providing key information for the background preparation of the next FMP, Table RPFO-13 provides for the discussion of discrepancies by forest unit and trends that have appeared.

Although long term trends may not be apparent within the five-year RPFO period, anomalies may be evident in the examination of the particular forest units, the silviculture treatment packages, and the amount of area that meets the regeneration and management standards. This information is critical in determining how the forest will develop and for updating planning and stewardship inventories; it must also be discussed in the text of the RPFO.

An additional evaluation that is optional but is important from the MU perspective and considered a “best practice”, is the cost-effectiveness of treatments and monies invested for the renewal of the forest. Cost evaluation can be particularly time sensitive, i.e., investing in intensive forestry treatments such as site preparation and planting likely require a greater initial investment than more extensive renewal methods but over the long term the investment may be more cost-effective in achieving the desired results.

The evaluation of cost is also important in determining whether the renewal trust fund rates and overall silviculture funding levels are adequate for each MU. Silvicultural cost information is not required to be reported in MU Annual Reports. However, MNR must have access to the cost information by treatment.

5.4 Site region analysis and evaluation

The evaluation of forest sustainability is evolving over time. The Ontario criteria and indicators will continue to develop as better indicators and data become available, but it is recognized that information collected through silvicultural effectiveness monitoring is, and will continue to be, elemental to the evaluation.

The FMPM indicators of sustainability directly linked to silvicultural effectiveness monitoring include:

• percent of forest area classified as not sufficiently regenerated;
• area, timing and species composition of natural and artificial regeneration as compared to the management targets/silvicultural prescriptions; and
• harvest area successfully regenerated.

These data are collected at the stand level and reported at the forest unit and MU level, but the first level sustainability analysis may be done at the site region. The results will be further evaluated as part of the provincial, national and international evaluations of forest sustainability.

5.5 Provincial, national and international analysis and evaluation

At the provincial level, Ontario is committed to ensuring that all areas within the forested landbase capable of growing productive forests are regenerated after disturbance (natural and man-made) to identified management targets within a reasonable period of time. This commitment is reflected from the stand level evaluation of forest management practices through to the national and international evaluation of forest sustainability.

Ontario will use the data to report provincially on the state of forest growth and regeneration, and to analyze trends between forest units, MUs and site regions. Future forest conditions and wood supply trends guide decisions on wood allocation and mill location.

The silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data from the MU annual reporting of the FMPM and FIM is used to evaluate our performance nationally and internationally. Commitments by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers are reflected in the National Forest Strategy prescribing criteria and indicators as the framework for the evaluation. This approach is also reflected provincially in the CFSA and the Forest Resource Assessment on Crown Lands in Ontario Policy.

The data to support Ontario’s provincial, national, and international criteria and indicators reporting are derived from information collected at the field level as part of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system as described in this report. Contributions from Ontario to the Canadian NFD program further support the federal Annual Reporting requirements and evaluation of trends.

6.0 Future developments in silvicultural effectiveness monitoring

Changes in forest strategies and in information technology will result in changes to the types of variables that will be monitored as well as monitoring techniques, data recording, and analysis and storage. Examples of changes in forest strategies are the increased use of precommercial thinning and the use of more intensive silvicultural practices.

As a result of direction from the Timber EA, silvicultural results are to be summarized by general site type (see Appendix A). However, the ability to inventory and map ecosites has not yet been developed. When this ability has been developed and available for operational use it will be used to create summaries of silvicultural effectiveness.

At the time this manual was written, the MNR initiated the FMP Improvement Project, with the objective of revising the FMPM. The FMP Improvement Project may result in changes to the requirements for FMPs and AWSs. This manual will be revised in the future to reflect any changes to the forest management planning and AWS requirements that result from the FMP Improvement Project and revisions to the FMPM.

References

EA Board. 1994. Reasons for Decision and Decision. Class Environmental Assessment by the Ministry of Natural Resources for Timber Management on Crown lands in Ontario Min. Environ. Toronto, Ontario. EA-87-02. 561 pp.

MNR. 1981. Regeneration Survey Manual. Toronto: Ministry of Natural Resources. 76 pp.

MNR. 1995a. Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 64 pp.

MNR. 1995b. Free-Growing Regeneration Assessment Manual for Ontario, Draft. 57 pp.

MNR. 1996. Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forests. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 452 pp.

Pinto, F. 1998. Silviculture Treatment Assessment and Reporting System, Draft. 52 pp.

Robbins, D. 1992. Ministry of Natural Resources Feasibility Study of a Silviculture Treatments Effectiveness Monitoring System (STEMS) Final Report. Toronto, Ontario. 69 pp.

Sutter, G W. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. 560 pp.

Appendix “A”

Legislation and policies related to silvicultural effectiveness monitoring

Environmental assessment terms and conditions

The Environmental Assessment Board recognized the need for improved silvicultural assessment and the documentation of the effectiveness of silvicultural activities. This led them to include Term and Condition 96 in their decision (EA Board Decision 1994). It states that:

“MNR shall improve its assessment, recording and reporting of silviculture effectiveness related to both natural and artificial renewal methods, through the following subject areas:

1. The maintenance of silviculture records of prescriptions and their results;
2. The enhancement of record keeping methodologies in order to provide for improved tracking of the linkages among the silviculture guides, Silvicultural Ground Rules, project records, Freeto-Grow Assessments and other conditions survey records, and Forest Resource Inventory updating;
3. The enhancement of methodologies and tools for analysis of silvicultural trend data to assess the effectiveness of prescriptions; and
4. The systematic reporting of results of renewal activities to the general ”

In part, this silvicultural effectiveness monitoring manual has been prepared to address Term and Condition 96, specifically to ensure that there is improvement and consistency in the collection, analysis and reporting of silvicultural effectiveness data. This focus is also reflected in other documents (e.g. FOSM, FMPM, FIM) which, together, more fully address Term and Condition 96.

The Board also stipulated reporting requirements for each MU in Appendix 18 (lists MU annual report requirements) and Appendix 8 (lists MU five-year report requirements) of their decision. Those parts of Appendices 8 and 18 that pertain to silvicultural effectiveness are given below:

Appendix 18: Annual report (Forest Management Unit)

1. The Annual Report shall contain the following information concerning implementation of operations on the forest management unit during the preceding year:
   1. ……. And a summary of the monitoring (compliance, effects and effectiveness) results as determined by an analysis of the following information, when available: Silvicultural Ground Rules; survival surveys; FTG results; stocking assessments; SOARs; compliance monitoring results; area inspection reports; SIS; SAS; and audit results.

Appendix 8: Report of past forest operations

1. The Report of Past Forest Operations shall contain the following information concerning implementation of operations on the forest management unit during the five-year term of the previous Timber Management Plan;
   1. Statistical information comparing planned and actual activities for the previous five-year term including; (viii)stand listings showing the silvicultural treatment package implemented
   2. A summary of areas assessed for Free to Grow status and areas declared Free to Grow shall be provided by silvicultural treatment package and upon completion of the revision of the Silvicultural Guides pursuant to Condition 94(a) by general standard site type;

   (l) A statement of silvicultural effectiveness by working group and silvicultural treatment package shall be provided, and upon completion of the revision of the Silvicultural Guides pursuant to Condition 94(a) by general standard site

Crown Forest Sustainability Act

This manual has also been prepared to meet the intent of the CFSA and its directives.

Section 22 requires the Minister to table a report in the legislature on the state of the province’s forest at least once every five years. The information gathered using this silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system provides a portion of that report.

The CFSA (Sections 42 and 43) also states that forest operations must be conducted in accordance with an applicable FMP, work schedule, FOP and with the FOSM. This latter document describes this manual as providing direction to forest managers on assessing forest regeneration.

The FMPM requires that every forest management plan include objectives related to:

• forest diversity;
• social and economic matters, including timber harvest levels;
• the provision of forest cover for those values which are dependent on forest cover; and
• silviculture.

These objectives are achieved by managing forest cover through a series of strategies which “principally involve silviculture methods for forest harvest, renewal and tending” (MNR 1996). The ongoing monitoring and analysis of the silvicultural prescriptions, treatments and assessments is paramount to ascertaining the effectiveness of these strategies.

This manual outlines the essential elements required to ensure that the appropriate data is collected, analyzed and reported, in order to evaluate the silvicultural treatments.

In addition to the information requirements of the FMPM, the FIM provides guidance for information management that supports forest management planning and operations. With respect to silvicultural effectiveness monitoring, the FIM outlines the minimum information requirements for data collection described (in Sections 2.0 and 3.0) in this manual, as well as the technical requirements for transferring data to MNR.

Licences

The responsibility to measure silvicultural effectiveness rests with the organization that is managing the MU.

It is a condition of all SFLs that, “The Company shall assess and report on, in accordance with the Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual, the Forest Information Manual, and the Forest Management Planning Manual, the achievement of its regeneration efforts to ensure the obligations and standards outlined in paragraph 17.5^* are met”.

The standards and obligations of each licence identified in the preceding paragraph are stated such that, “The Company will implement the necessary silviculture prescriptions on lands described in paragraph 17.2^* herein so as to meet the silvicultural standards described in the Forest Management Plan for the specific Forest when the silvicultural prescriptions are made, or in accordance with any amendment of that standard”.

On Crown land not managed under an SFL, the MNR is responsible for collecting, analyzing and reporting on silvicultural effectiveness.

^*Depending on the SFL licence document the actual paragraph number may vary.

Policies

The Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests, in the section titled ‘Decision Making’, commits MNR to “develop and adopt an adaptive approach to policy development and ecosystem management…The adaptive approach involves establishing clear goals and targets and maintaining a monitoring process that measures how well the goals and targets have been achieved”.

Appendix “B”

Examples of reporting and analyzing silvicultural effectiveness monitoring

Introduction

The application of the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual is demonstrated in the following examples. A series of regeneration assessment results derived from all three silvicultural systems employed in Ontario (i.e., clearcut, shelterwood and selection) are summarized using the required Annual Report Tables (i.e., Tables AR-7 and AR-9) and the RPFO Tables (i.e., Tables RPFO-8 and RPFO-9). A discussion of the results and the possible implications to future plans and operations follow each table.

In these examples, the amount of assessment data was deliberately kept small to make it easier to display the tracking of the assessment results through the tables. An overview of the flow of data and information from the time of field assessments through to the RPFO and preparing the FMP for the next term are shown in Figure B-1. The key decision points in the assessment of forest regeneration that determine effectiveness, future actions and subsequent reporting are shown in Figure B-2.

The example assessment surveys were carried out on the “Ideal Management Unit” over two fiscal years: 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. All assessment areas were previously harvested and were either naturally regenerated or regenerated with assistance. The additional assessments of naturally depleted areas would be summarized in separate tables.

The current approved plan for the “Ideal Management Unit” covers the five-year term April 1996 to March 2001. Therefore, the survey results were summarized in the two Annual Reports for 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 as well as the RPFO for the Period 1996/1997 to 2000/2001. For this example there were no assessment results from the first three years of the planning term.

In the examples, several assumptions were made. It was assumed that Annual Report Table AR-8 was not generated for the areas assessed because the current FMPM was not in place at the time of harvest. As well, the forest units (FU) were derived by sorting the stand descriptions through the current draft standard FUs for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest type. (In an actual situation, the selection criteria for the FUs from past plans may differ from the selection criteria for the FUs in the current plan. In this case, the selection criteria from the new plan should be used for interpretation of the results since the data will be used to prepare the new plan and to set targets in both plans).

Figure B-1: Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring and Reporting Process

Figure B-2: Silvicultural Effectiveness Decision Process

Assessment results from 1999/2000:

The assessment results for the “Ideal Management Unit” are summarized in Tables B-1 and B-2. Table B-1 lists the actual results from FTG surveys and Table B-2 summarizes the results in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9. All areas assessed were originally jack pine forest units (Pj1CC) that were clearcut and regenerated using the same silvicultural treatment package in this case site preparation, planting and one tending treatment (coded as Pj1CC200). These areas were harvested over a number of years from 1982 to 1997, with most of the areas being harvested in 1987.

Of the seven areas assessed, only three actually met the regeneration standards that were in place at the time the areas were harvested (silvicultural success is identified in Table B-1 by a “bold” number in the Number column). Therefore, only the three successful areas were summarized in Annual Report Table AR-7.

In this case, it was assumed that the other four areas that did not meet the regeneration standards, were accepted as FTG to another FU specified in the SGR of the approved FMP and as a result were also listed in Table AR-9 (i.e., regeneration success). If a new stand does not meet any regeneration standard specified in an approved plan, then it should not be summarized in Table AR-7 or AR-9. Areas not meeting standards may require re-treatment or, if there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the area was depleted by a forest fire and is regenerating naturally or the area is deemed not to be the responsibility of the SFL holder), the plan author may apply to the Crown for an FMP amendment or variation/waiver of the approved SGR. This process is illustrated in Table B-2.

Table B-1: Summary of Assessment Results: Clearcut System Assessed 1999-2000

Silvicultural System: Clearcut
Original Forest Unit: Pj1CC
Year of assessment: 1999-2000

Note: “Silvicultural success” is identified by the bold numbers in the Number column.

Table B-2: Example of reporting clearcut system assessment results (Table B-1) in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9

Management Unit Name: Ideal
Plan Term: Apr/1996 to Mar/2001
Annual Report: Apr/1999 to Mar/2000

AR-7 Annual report of assessment of regeneration success (i.e. silvicultural success)

AR-9 Annual report of regeneration success: Areas successfully regenerated by year of harvest (ha)

Note: It is not necessary to fill in the “All Forest Units”at the bottom of AR-9 in this case because there is only one “Original Forest Unit” to summarize.

Assessment results from 2000/2001:

The assessment results for 2000/2001 are summarized in Tables B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7 and B-8. The assessment results for 2000/2001 have been summarized in three separate sets of Tables AR-7 and AR-9 to clearly show how the assessment results were collected. However, in an actual Annual Report, all assessment results from the same year would be summarized in one Table AR-7 and one Table AR-9.

Table B-3 lists FTG results from a clearcut system and Table B-4 summarizes those results in corresponding Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9. Table B-5 lists regeneration survey results from a shelterwood system and Table B-6 summarizes those results in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9. Table B-7 lists regeneration and post-harvest survey results from a selection system and Table B-8 summarizes those results in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9.

Clearcut system results

The results for the clearcut system are shown in Tables B-3 and B-4. All areas assessed were originally classed as jack pine forest units (Pj1CC) that were clearcut and regenerated using the same silvicultural treatment package (in this case site preparation, planting and one tending treatment (coded as Pj1CC200)). These areas were harvested over a number of years from 1983 to 1998, with most of the areas being harvested in 1988.

Of the seven areas assessed, only three actually met the preferred regeneration standards that were in place at the time the areas were harvested. As a result, only the three successful areas were summarized in Annual Report Table AR-7. In this case, it was assumed that the other four areas that did not meet the regeneration standards were accepted as FTG to another SGR specified in the approved FMP and as a result were summarized in Table AR-9 along with the three other areas.

Shelterwood system results

The results for the shelterwood system are shown in Tables B-5 and B-6. The first three areas assessed were originally classed as white pine forest units (Pw1US4) and were harvested and regenerated using the same 4- coupe uniform shelterwood system. In this case the silvicultural treatment package (Pw1US4_300) involved natural regeneration following the seedcut with two tending treatments. These areas had their seedcut harvest carried out in three separate years; 1974, 1983 and 1985. Only two of the three areas actually met the regeneration standards and involved both overstory and understory assessments. In the case of the third area, the understory regeneration did not meet the regeneration standard or any alternate standard. Therefore only the first two areas were summarized in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9. The third area would likely receive additional treatments and be reassessed at an appropriate time in the future.

Table B-3: Summary of Assessment Results: Clearcut System Results Assessed 2000/2001

Silvicultural System: Clearcut
Original Forest Unit: Pj1CC
Year of assessment: 2000-2001

Notes:

1. “Silvicultural success” is identified by the bold numbers in the Number column.
2. Original Stand Composition: refers to the composition of the stand before treatment.The composition described here refers to the composition of the stand on which the prescription was based. Stand numbers in bold represent stands that met the regeneration standards; non-bold numbers represent stands that did not meet the objectives of the preferred Forest Operation Prescription.
3. The objective of the FOP was to regenerate each stand to the Pj 1CC FU. The standard for this FU was assumed to be >=70% acceptable species composition (i.e. Pj + others) and >=50% stocking of Pj (target species). Based on these criteria, stands 2CC, 3CC and 4CC are successful and 1CC, 5CC, 6CC and 7CC are not successful in meeting the objective of the FOP.

Table B-4: Examples of reporting clearcut system assessment results (Table B-3) in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9

Management Unit Name: Ideal
Plan Term: Apr/1996 to Mar/2001
Annual Report: Apr/2000 to Mar/2001

AR-7 Annual report of assessment of regeneration success (i.e. silvicultural success)

AR-9 Annual report of regeneration success: Areas successfully regenerated by year of harvest (ha) Total

The fourth and fifth areas listed in Table B-5 were originally classed as yellow birch forest units (By1US2) and were harvested and regenerated using a 2-coupe uniform shelterwood system. The silvicultural treatment package (By1US2) was natural regeneration following the seedcut and scarification treatments. Both areas had their seedcut carried out in 1985. Only the fourth area met the regeneration standards based on the understory regeneration survey and therefore, was summarized in Tables AR-7 and AR-9. The fifth area did not meet the regeneration standards but did meet an alternate regeneration standard specified in the approved FMP. Therefore the fifth area was summarized only in Table AR-9.

Selection system results

The results for the selection system are shown in Tables B-7 and B-8. All four areas assessed were originally classed as tolerant hardwood forest units (HD1Sel) and were harvested and regenerated using the selection system. In this case only the overstory assessment results are shown in keeping with the original management standards that were in place at the time of harvest. New minimum assessment requirements include overstory, understory and seedling parameters. The same silvicultural treatment package was applied in all cases, which relied entirely on natural regeneration without any tending. The most recent harvest for all areas took place in 1987/88. The first three areas were assessed to be silvicultural successes because they had met the minimum requirement of having at least 9 m²/ha of AGS and therefore are summarized in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and Table B-5: Summary of Assessment Results: Shelterwood System Assessed 2000-2001

1. “Silvicultural success” is identified by the bold numbers in the Number
2. The objective of the FOP was to regenerate stands 1SH, 2SH and 3SH to the Pw1 US4 The standard for this FU was assumed to be Pw +Pr composition is >=50% and stocking of Pw+Pr (target species) is>=50%. Based on these criteria, stands 1SH and 2SH are successful and 3SH is not successful in meeting the objective of the FOP.
3. The objective of the FOP was to regenerate stands 4SH and 5SH to the BY1 US2 The standard for this FU was assumed to be By composition is >=40% and stocking of By (target species) is>=50%. Based on these criteria, stand 4SH is successful and stand 5SH is not successful in meeting the objective of the FOP.
4. The new stand (understory) is reported in Table AR-9. This understory will form the new stand while the overstory will be depleted by the removal

AR-9. The fourth area failed to meet either the FOP standards or any other approved alternate management standard because the AGS was well below the minimum standard. Therefore the fourth area was excluded from Tables AR-7 and AR-9.

Areas not meeting standards may require re-treatment or, if there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the area was depleted by insects or disease and is regenerating naturally, or the area is deemed not to be the responsibility of the SFL holder), the plan author may apply to the Crown for an FMP amendment or variation/waiver of the SGR standards. This process is illustrated in Figure B-2.

Report of past forest operations

The five-year report tables summarize the results from the Annual Report tables from the previous plan term. Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9 for the two assessment years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 (Tables B-2, B-4, B-6 and B-8) are summarized in the five-year report tables RPFO-8 (Table B-9) and RPFO-9 (Table B-10). The “Ideal Management Unit” assessments summarized in Table RPFO-9 (Table B-10) are further summarized for all harvest years combined and forest units combined in Table B-11. In this case it is assumed that no other surveys were done in the other three years of the term and that the area surveyed was exactly equal to the area that was projected to be assessed during the term in Table FMP-28. Therefore, the planned and actual columns in Table RPFO-8 are equal.

All areas that were listed in the AR-7 tables as silvicultural successes are summarized in Table RPFO-8 by FU and silvicultural treatment package. Results from the AR-9 tables are used to fill in the “actual” columns in Table RPFO-9. In the near future, results from Annual Report Table AR-8 will also be available and will be used to fill-in the “projected” column in Table RPFO-9. In this case, it has been assumed that no AR-8 tables were available and therefore the “projected” column had to be estimated by summing the area assessed by the desired FU from the FOP that was in place when each area was harvested.

Table B-6: Example of reporting shelterwood system assessment results (Table B-5) in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9

Management Unit Name: Ideal
Plan Term: Apr/1996 to Mar/2001
Annual Report: Apr/2000 to Mar/2001

AR-7 Annual report of assessment of regeneration success (i.e. silvicultural success)

AR-9 Annual Report of Regeneration Success - Areas successfully regenerated by year of harvest (ha)

Table B-9 shows the example assessments done during the previous five-year period (1996-2001) that were summarized annually in Annual Report Table AR-7 and then summarized in Table RPFO-8. In this example, only surveys from the two years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 have been summarized.

Interpretation of results

Results of assessments are summarized and reported in Annual Reports and the RPFO. The extent and scope of the analysis of individual annual results is somewhat limited because most objectives and targets are set relative to a five-year period. However, use of the annual results can provide useful information to help guide progress toward the renewal objectives and targets of the unit, particularly in the last two to three years of the plan term. Results from the RPFO are also useful in verifying the assumptions used in the planning process and the RPFO results are intended to be compared directly with the planned actions and results specified in the management plan.

Table B-7: Summary of Assessment Results: Selection System Assessed 2000-2001

Silvicultural System: Selection
Year of Harvest: 1987-88
Original Forest Unit: HD1 Sel
Year of assessment: 2000-2001

Notes:

1. “Silvicultural success” is identified by the bold number in the number
2. The objective of the FOP was to regenerate stands 1SEL to 4SEL to the HD1 Sel The standard for this FU was assumed to be Mh+Bd+By+He composition is >=50% and have a basal area of more than 9 m²/ha of AGS. Based on these criteria, stands 1SEL to 3SEL are successful and stand 4SEL is not successful in meeting the objective of the FOP.

A discussion of the results from the examples provided for the “Ideal Management Unit” is given below.

Annual report for 1999/2000

This report would include Tables AR-7 and AR-9 listed in Table B-2. Table AR-7 shows that a total of 509 ha of the jack pine FU (i.e., at the time of harvest) that were clearcut and regenerated using silvicultural treatment package Pj1CC-200 (i.e., clearcut and planted) were planned to be assessed in 1999/2000. The total 509 ha were assessed and only 149 ha were assessed as silvicultural successes. This is equivalent to a success rate of 29% and would likely cause the plan author to investigate the reasons for the failures to ensure that the original prescription was sound.

In this case the areas that did not meet the standards of the original prescription were accepted as regeneration successes because they did meet the standards for an approved alternate SGR as reflected in Table AR-9. Therefore the rate of regeneration success for the areas assessed in 1999/2000 was 100%. Table AR-9 shows that these regeneration successes that were originally jack pine areas are now classified in three other FUs; mixed wood (MW1CC); intolerant hardwoods (IH1CC) and mixed conifers (Mc1CC). Again on an annual basis, it is difficult to assess whether this amount of transition from one FU to another was within the bounds of the objectives and targets of the approved plan but it may provide a early warning that things are not proceeding as expected. This information may assist in making changes to renewal plans for subsequent years that could assist in correcting or balancing deviations from plan objectives and targets.

Table B-8: Example of reporting selection system assessment results (Table B-7) in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9

Management Unit Name: Ideal
Plan Term: Apr/1996 to Mar/2001
Annual Report: Apr/2000 to Mar/2001

AR-7 Annual report of assessment of regeneration success (i.e. silvicultural success)

AR-9 Annual report of regeneration success

Table B-9: Table RPFO-8 for the “Ideal Management Unit”

Management Unit Name: Ideal
Plan Term: Apr/1996 to Mar/2001

RPFO-8 Summary report of assessment of regeneration success (i.e. silvicultural success)

Notes: In this example it is assumed that all scheduled surveys were completed Table B-10: Table RPFO-9 for the “Ideal Management Unit”

RPFO-9 Summary report of harvest and regeneration success: Projected and actual area regenerated successfully by year of regeneration (ha)

Annual report for 2000/2001

This report would include the three sets of Tables AR-7 and AR-9 listed in Tables B-4, B-6 and B-8. Table B-4 summarizes results from clearcut systems. Table B-6 summarizes results from shelterwood systems and Table B-8 summarizes results from selection systems. Any apparent discrepancies in the progress towards meeting AWS and plan targets and objectives that are detected by this information should be discussed and acted upon if necessary.

Table b-4 clearcut systems

Results are very similar to those in Table B-2 except that 2000/2001 is the second reporting year and the “To Date” column also includes the silvicultural successes from the previous year. Therefore the rate of silvicultural success for clearcut systems assessed in 2000/2001 is 56% (i.e., 258 ha of 463 ha) and the overall rate of silvicultural success over the two years is 42%. Such low success rates are just cause for further investigation of the prescriptions employed. The rate of regeneration success for the year and over the two years is 100%.

Table B-11: Summarized assessment results for the “Ideal Management Unit”

RPFO-9 Summary report of harvest and regeneration success

Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual

Table B-6. Shelterwood Systems

Table AR-7 shows that 134 ha of area originally classified as white pine FU and 100 ha of area originally classified as yellow birch FU were assessed in 2000/2001. Ninetyfive ha of the white pine FU and 45 ha of the yellow birch FU were found to be silvicultural successes which is equivalent to 71% and 45%, respectively. Overall the rate of silvicultural success for the shelterwood areas was 60%. Table AR-9 shows the regeneration success rate for the white pine FU and yellow birch FU were 71% and 100%, respectively. The white pine regeneration success rate was reduced because 39 ha did not meet the standards of either the FOP or an approved alternate SGR. Overall, the rate of regeneration success for the shelterwood areas was 83%.

Table B-8. Selection Systems

Table AR-7 shows that 207 ha of area originally classified as tolerant hardwood FU were assessed in 2000/2001. One hundred and forty ha of the tolerant hardwood FU were found to be silvicultural successes, which is equivalent to 68%. Table AR-9 shows that the regeneration success rate for the tolerant hardwood FU is also 68%.

Results from the examples that may be expressed in the RPFO are discussed in the following section:

Report of Past Forest Operations for April 1996 to March 2001

This RPFO would include Tables RPFO-8 and RPFO-9 listed in Table B-9 and B-10 respectively. Table RPFO-8 shows that over the term the total area (1413 ha) planned to be assessed was achieved. Of that total, 687 ha were assessed to be silvicultural successes, which is equivalent to about 49%. Table RPFO-9 shows how the regenerating forest is tracking from one FU to another and compares these changes with the FU transition predictions made in the management plan. If Annual Report Table AR-8 results were available to provide the projected areas, the differences between actual and projected would be less because Table AR-8 projections would anticipate some failures and would factor those into the table. In this case, the FOPs for each area were summed to create the “projected” column, which does not recognize that alternate SGR standards are acceptable for determining regeneration success.

Table B-11 further summarizes the harvest and regeneration success detailed in Table B-10. It shows in more general terms the progression to new forest units. This is further broken down by the original FUs and silvicultural treatment packages for the area and is summarized briefly in Table B-12. These results are a direct measure of the effectiveness of each FU and silvicultural treatment package combination.

Table B-12: Summary of original Forest Units and silvicultural treatment packages for the Ideal Management Unit

The results of Table B-12 show that the success of each of the silvicultural treatment packages is relatively low, with an average of 49% success. There should be an examination of the results to determine, as much as possible, the reasons for the lower than desired success.

Applications of results

The long-term trends may not be apparent with the five year RPFO period but as shown for the “Ideal Management Unit” there is evidence of anomalies that should be investigated. The particularly low success rates for the jack pine and yellow birch forest units are of particular concern. Are changes required to the renewal periods for these FU’s and silvicultural treatment packages and, if so, does this result in changes to the yield curves for the various regimes? Since the sample size from the “Ideal Management Unit” is very small, it is difficult to draw conclusions about FU transitions for particular silvicultural treatment packages or compare investment regimes, but this type of analysis would be conducted for actual management units.