http://www.eomf.on.ca/media/k2/attachments/ir23

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Review of on-going science-related projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Review of all unfunded program-related proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Review of Section 6 of the EOMF original proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 to Forestry Canada and the recommendations of the 1993 meeting of the EOMF Research Priority Workshop Discussions with EOMF partners in science and their . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 perceptions of program gaps 1. Overview comments on the EOMF program and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . potential activities 2. Sustainable Forestry Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Gaps in the research program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inventory and related activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest management practices and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Monitoring sustainability - indicators/ forest health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest fragmentation and biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

International criteria and indicators and the EOMF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Adequacy of forest descriptions and classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 17 19

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Appendix #A - Strategic Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix #B - Identification of Program Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix #C - List of People Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix #D - Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix #E - EOMF 1993 Science Committee Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 29 30 31 32

2 EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST FILLING IN THE GAPS

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

The scope of the science goal of the EOMF is found in Section 6, Research, of the EOMF proposal and includes the following requirements for research: A. Resource inventory information needs for resource managers.

1. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario 2. Non-timber values and new survey methods for the EOMF 3. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry 4. Geographical information systems for land management 5. Understanding of forest fragmentation and biodiversity in the EOMF B. Forest Management Techniques.

1.

Monitoring methods for environmental impacts of forest management practices.

2. Secessional patterns and vegetation management strategies with the use of alternatives such as mulch, grazing, cover crops, etc.

3. Understanding weeds and seedling survival.

4. Nursery production and establishment of lesser known native forest cover species of the EOMF region (hardwoods and shrubs).

5. Biological pest control methods that are effective, economical and environmentally sound.

6. Integrated pest management for mixed forests that includes the previous issue of biological control (i.e for white pine blister rust).

7. Genecology of tree species found in the EOMF; this is directed toward gene conservation for a particular species.

8. Estimates of resistance of indigenous species to forest pests.

9. Management techniques to maintain and enhance rare species populations.

At the onset of the EOMF program the above program had several linkages that were considered established and on-going. These included activities in the areas of bioenergy with REAP (Resource Efficient Agricultural Production)that promotes sustainable agriculture and ENFOR (Canadian Forest Service program on ENergy from the FORests) that was looking at short rotation forestry feasibility and environmental impact monitoring of this type of activity.

Another area was shoreline restoration with particular emphasis on plantings along stream and

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

The EOMF proposed another set of linkages through various programs. These included a variety of activities. The development and use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for forest management activities was to be done in cooperation with the Petawawa National Forestry Institute at Chalk River. The development of an integrated pest management program with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) was aimed at vegetation control in the nursery and at outplanting sites.

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

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

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

The management of the research linkages was to be through identifying new technology and pressing model forest needs and finding the right researchers to carry out the related projects.

Since most of the science expertise was in regional research organizations, there was a need to assess opportunities for cooperation and develop partnerships with them. Finally, to oversee the science activities, the EOMF was to establish a science advisory group to review research proposals. The present Science Committee of the EOMF was established in response to this need.

Since the start of operations in 1992 the EOMF has funded or approved funding for over 45 projects. In addition it has received 60 other proposals that have been, for one reason or another, not funded and are on a deferred list. Most of those proposals fit within the 5 goals of the EOMF. There are 37, of the 45 funded projects, that will continue to be active in the 1995/96 fiscal year.

The Forest Science Committee has identified the following 14 projects as either research or

4 science related: 1.1/93 1.2/93 2.1/93 2.2/93 2.4/93 2.10/93 2.11/93 2.13/93 4.1/93 4.2/93 4.3/93 4.4/93 4.6/93 4.MCA.93

IRM Planning Framework Relative Density Guidelines Ecological Woodlands Restoration Industrial Wood Production Alterative Vegetation Management Practices Songbird Population Monitoring Forest Meadow Habitat Wildlife Habitat Matrices Natural Genetic Heritage Nut Tree Culture Agroforestry Windbreaks Recycled Soil Amendments Maple Sugar Industry Akwesasne Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2/93 - Relative Density Guidelines - The project is mainly research oriented in the testing of the SILVAH model and the collection of basic measurements on a wide variety of stands. The information gathered is well suited for use in managing forest ecosystems. It is relevant to goals 4.1, 4.2, 1.1, 1.5, 1.4, 1.6 and to the Sustainable Forest Practices Goal 2.1. In addition it is relevant goal A4 of the proposal.

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

6 2.10193. The project is relevant to goals, 4.1, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2 and the Public Information and Education Goal 3.3 and 3.5. It is also helping meet original proposals forest management techniques goals Al, A5, B2 and B9.

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

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

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

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

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

4.1/93 - Natural Genetic Heritage - The well balanced research in this project is primarily involved with genecology studies with several conifer species (white spruce, pitch pine and white pine. Another important part of the project is the study butternut in the region and problems with butternut canker. In addition to EOMF goal 4.1 this project is relevant to goals 2.2 and 3.5. It is also meeting Section 6 goals Al, A5, B7, B8 and B9.

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

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

7

4.4/93 - Recycled Soil Amendments - This research project fills a void in the understanding of the disposal of forest products wastes. The products from the Domtar mill are used to improve soils in both agricultural and forested areas. The project is relevant to goals 2.2, 3.3 and 4.1, and Section 6 goal Bl. 4.6/93 - Maple Syrup Industry - The project has a research element that deals with sap production in various sugar bushes in the region. It is relevant to goals 1.5, 2.2 and 4.1, and to Section 6 goal Bl. 4.MCA.93 - Akwesasne Partnership - This project represents a continuum of activities that touch each of the major goals and is referred to as 1.MCA - 5.MCA Akwesasne Partnership.

Research aspects include studies on the history, culture and spiritual significance of black ash; propagation studies on cherry, butternut and other nuts species; and studies on food and medicinal plants on the Council lands. This project is relevant to EOMF goals 1.2, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, and 4.1. It is also relevant to the original proposals Section 6 goals Al, A5, Bl, B4 and B9.

Review of all unfunded program related proposals.

While 60 other proposals were reviewed, it was not possible to indicate those that were not approved because of lack of funding or whether they did not fit the EOMF program priorities.

Those proposals that are felt to have relevance to the goals of the model forest, are discussed in this section of the report. In reviewing these proposals only the apparent science content and the value to the EOMF were evaluated. Costing aspects were not considered. The following are those proposals that seem to have merit: Beaver and Water Flow Management (1992) - In an area where the beaver has only a few enemies, they can become a nuisance to local woodlot owners. Discussions with Canadian Wildlife Service may help clarify the extent of the problem and answer the need for information.

The EOMF should be able to supply the information needed to understand the management of beavers in the region.

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

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

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

8 of those conflicts where possible also puts the EOMF on the road to understanding sustainable forestry.

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

Paper from Grass (1993) - In an area where farm lands have replaced the forests over the past hundred years it is unlikely that those lands will be restored to the original forests.

Alternative crops that may actually replace the forest fibre could be of interest to local land owners. One of the down sides of the proposal is that alternative crops tend to extract excess nutrients from the soil through annual cropping. However this proposal should not be discounted as it could, in special areas, offer a product that would be of value to the region and it could be brought into the scope of sustainable agriculture as a companion to sustainable forestry.

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

DSS for Silvicultural Planning (1993) - Decision support systems for management activities have become a buzz word in the field of forest management. Much of the activity is based on the use of geographical information systems (GIS). It is assumed that much of this activity will be available from the province and will fit into the Integrated Resource Management project.

This area of science needs to be watched to ensure the technology is understood by the land managers and where feasible, is used to streamline management planning.

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

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

Hybrid Poplar Nutrients (1993) - There has been considerable work done by the province and the ENFOR program of the federal government in this area of work. The proposal doesn't evoke the need for a major research project, but does bring back the need for area land managers to know how to use soils data and the related land classification. There are few, if any, EOMF projects that have really looked at the problem of soils and land classification.

This is important, as the area has been cleared for agriculture in the past, and that agriculture to great extent has failed because of diminished soil and land capacity. A competence in this area is necessary if the EOMF is to understand sustainable forestry.

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

McGill Forest Ecology and Management Research (1994) - This proposal relates back to the previous one on forest health. Understanding the overall health of the forest communities is important if the EOMF is to attain sustainable forestry. Monitoring programs in the forest will provide information on how well the criteria of sustainable forest are being met. They will take a hard look at the indicators.

Each model forest will be different and the need will be there for the EOMF to be active in defining and monitoring the indicators of sustainable forestry for their region.

Sustainable Indicators (1994) - The level of proposed activity in this project would demand considerable amount of time. A lot of good work has already been done outside the Model Forest and in other government and international agencies. Recently a special committee of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers have come up with a list of criteria in a meeting in Montreal. These parallel those developed by the international community. Indicators are another thing and will in many cases have to be customized for different regions of the country.

Therefore the EOMF region needs to be aware and participate in the understanding of what indicators are needed for the region. This will require specific research for the Model Forest.

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

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

10 development of a conservation reserve would offer a place to carry out research in the future.

In itself the proposal would only have been an investment, not a research project.

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

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

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

Waste Management Master Plan Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry (1995) - The proposal was not well defined, but it does present a series of research opportunities to review the potential pollution sources in the Model Forest. The question is what to do with local and regional pollution to water, soils and the air. Studies on the extent of pollution would help direct future land management decisions.

Review of Section 6 of the EOMF original proposal to Forestry Canada and the recommendations of the 1993 meeting of the EOMF Research Priority Working Group A review of the two documents, indicates that some of the program areas suggested in the EOMF proposal to Forestry Canada, are being followed up in the present projects, however, not to the extent envisioned in the original objectives of the proposal. This was alluded to in the previous section on on-going projects and should be expected, considering some of the objectives are long-term in nature. Areas that have little or no follow-up and that are critical to the development of an EOMF program for sustainable forestry, include studies on the ecological land classification of the region; non-timber values in the Model Forest; coordinated studies on forest fragmentation in the region; and only limited effort being put into forest health projects.

The on-going projects have already been evaluated as to their relevance to the EOMF Goals (above) and re-iterating the relevance to the original proposal would be redundant at this time.

The gaps that are related to the objectives will be further explored in the summary and recommendations sections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview comments on the EOMF program and potential activities.

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

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

Associated with this gap, is another general one that needs to be filled. The level of understanding of the Model Forest and forestry activity in the region needs to be elevated in the urban community. How many of the city dwellers in the EOMF actually know they are living in a designated Model Forest? This is not a science issue per se, but affects the support for science oriented projects in the EOMF. Landowners in the region have many interests, of which forestry might be one of them. The management of the land requires understanding of forestry, agriculture and wildlife, in addition to the social values that come with living on land. The first two are extremely important as both could supply a source for income for the land manager. So a model forest program in eastern Ontario has to have full consideration for sustainable agriculture as well as sustainable forestry.

How well these two are integrated in the region needs to be understood by the EOMF members.

Agriculture and forestry are business oriented and any sponsored EOMF project should also have relevance to the other small businesses of the region. Sustainability comes in both environmental and economic forms and there should be no shame in talking about profit from land management, just as there is no shame in discussing the social and environmental issues related to land. This begs a commitment to sustainability and there has been concern that this commitment needs to be elevated and broadened within the EOMF. Science projects, social projects and business projects in the EOMF will have to provide the vital information needed for managing the land base of the region. For this reason, the EOMF forest inventory and land resources are necessary, as they will help to bring about enlightened land management. It will serve as the building block for an future management and research activities carried-out in the Model Forest.

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

The fifth goal in the agreement with Forestry Canada dealt with the evaluation of the overall program. This should be an on-going activity. The Board of Directors for the EOMF approved an Evaluation Framework for the Model Forest. The evaluation process should be made apparent to all members and supporters of the EOMF. In this same vein, it is time to re-evaluate the goals and objectives of the Agreement and the original proposal and prepare for any redirection that may be needed to make the EOMF successful.

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

13 future members of the EOMF to enjoy.

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

To many of the people in the EOMF, the use of words, like criteria and indicators, do not conger up the same ideas as are being expressed in the national and international forest communities. Education on and the description of these concepts will be very important in helping people to understand the concepts of sustainable forestry.

There will have to be considerable effort in defining the indicators. Some will be borrowed from sister model forests, but others will have to be developed within the EOMF. Their development and eventual monitoring will be critical to understanding the success of sustainability in the EOMF. In this day and age one cannot bypass the catch phrases that are becoming synonymous with sustainable development, such as biodiversity and forest health. If the management practices change as mentioned above certainly there should be an indication that the biodiversity of forests are not being unduly endangered. The resultant forests and managed lands will have to provide the habitats that protect both endangered plant and animal species. However they will have to ensure the economic sustainability of the EOMF. Healthy forests, happy people and continued profits from the forest will be a good indicator of sustainability in the EOMF. All of this will take considerable time to achieve as there is no such thing as instant sustainability of forests.

3. Gaps in the research program. The following are comments from those interviewed on gaps in the program, and some possible approaches for future research in the EOMF. Inventory and related activities A complete inventory of the EOMF would be desirable if integrated resource management planning methods are to be fully exploited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forest management practices and education A good program of vegetation management is needed to ensure the rapid development of newly forested lands. Such management must include alternatives to the use of chemicals.

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

Ecosystem management presents a unique problem for private land management. Relevant methods and techniques for land managers are needed. This problem has a direct impact on how to maintain biodiversity on private lands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring sustainability - indicators and forest health There is a need to study the types of indicators for sustainable forestry and the studies should include both animal and plant species. There needs to be a particular reference to the stability or fluctuations of their populations.

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

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

Forest health monitoring and back-up research are needed to help protect the biodiversity of the forest regions of the EOMF. Increased monitoring of forest health and for indicators of sustainable forestry will be required over the life of the Model Forest. This is crucial to the understanding of how well the EOMF is meeting its goal of sustainability.

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

More emphasis should be placed on integrated pest management.

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

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

16 The wildlife/forests matrices study needs to be expanded to cover the entire region. A good literature review is needed to ensure the present approach will be applicable to all of the EOMF. Forest products A directory on the markets for regional forest products needs to be developed. This will require research on the full forest activities of the region. This type of study could be combined with economic studies on woodlot operations.

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

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

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

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

Academics of the EOMF region are missing in the partnerships research. At present, only a few of the EOMF colleges or universities are involved. There is a need to encourage the academic community to take a greater interest in the EOMF. International criteria and indicators and the EOMF A national working group on criteria and indicators of sustainable forestry, under the aegis of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) met in mid- January, 1995 and filed a report.

While there were seven criteria first considered the CCFM suggested that only six be developed and the broad social concerns of the seventh be incorporated with the sixth criteria In parallel with the CCFM process, a meeting in Montreal of like minded people from Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, developed a set of criteria and indicators for international boreal and temperate forests. This was followed by a meeting of an international group in Santiago, Chile that ratified the criteria and indicators put forward in the "Montreal Process". It is worth noting that Canada has been a leader in the process. The Canadian Forest Service has published a 27 page document on these criteria and indicators.

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

17 compatible with those developed in the "Montreal Process".

The overall criteria and indicators framework has a problem of implementation. It will require the review of provincial and federal policies relating to forestry and the outcomes will be more than the implementation of a set of codes or standards. The provincial governments are responsible for the implementation with help of the other agencies involved in forestry. This could possibly include forest industry and individual land owners, although neither have been directly involved in the process.

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

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

For the Model Forest, major questions relate to how the land owner cope with the criteria.

They need a good definition of the criteria and indicators as a guide for sustainable forestry in 16 the EOMF. What do they look for and what forestry practices do they use? The EOMF needs to take a lead role in responding to these concerns, as will the provincial forestry agency.

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

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

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

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

There are several references that give good descriptions of the forests of the region. The first is the book on the "Forest Regions of Canada" by J.S. Rowe. The area covered is included in the larger description of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest region. Within that description the EOMF covers portions of three sub-descriptions of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence region. These include the L.2 Upper St. Lawrence section, the L.4c - Middle Ottawa section, and parts of the L. 1 Huron-Ontario section. The latter only touches the very south west part of the EOMF. The descriptions in the "Forest Regions Of Canada" for the region are fairly cryptic, but form a basis for the overall description of the Model Forest.

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

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

A review of the "Native Trees of Canada" will show that the EOMF region has a multitude of tree species that are not well known and that do not have specific information on their silvics.

Tree species of the region that are not well known are: pitch pine, red spruce, eastern hemlock, eastern red cedar, largetooth aspen, butternut, ironwood, the hickories, the birches, beech, oaks, witch-hazel, mountain ash, hawthorns, serviceberry, cherry species, sumac, basswood, dogwoods, ashes and nannyberry.

Special projects could be developed to exploit these species and understand their silvics.

Research projects with the local universities or with special consultants, could help the Model Forest understand the extent to which these species could be exploited or to what level they need to be protected.

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

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

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

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

Recommendation # 1 - Inventory and related activities Different levels of inventories of the EOMF region are underway. Some have looked a basic forest cover as in the work by the RMOC, while others are being developed as basic forest management inventories. The Model Forest and the province are active in assisting the development of an effective inventory.

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

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

Recommendation # 2 - Forest management practices and education A survey of the existing forest management practices is needed to determine the level of knowledge and use of those practices by the forest land owners of the EOMF. Then information on other new or existing forest management practices in planting, tending and harvesting should be made available for all forest land owners (such as being done by the Landowners Resource Centre, which should be expanded to cover the entire EOMF). This recommendation also covers an increased effort in continuing education of land owners in novel techniques and concepts in forestry. The logical outcome of this recommendation should be a set of forestry codes and silvicultural standards as part of a strategy to achieving sustainable forestry.

Recommendation # 3 - Monitoring sustainability - indicators and forest health Relevant to the previous recommendation, it is particularly important to define for landowners, what criteria and indicators will be used in determining the sustainable management of forests in the region. This will include developing indicators of sustainability and forest health, which can be monitored on an annual or special surveys

20 basis. Increased monitoring forest health is seen as extremely important in identifying major insect or disease problems. Results of the surveys should be included in any regional or national reports on forest health.

Recommendation # 4 - Forest fragmentation and biodiversity The main feature of the EOMF is that its forests are fragmented, and in many cases isolated. Both wildlife and plants need corridors in which to move in safety. Research on the effects of fragmentation on the dynamics of these species is needed to help management understand what practices will best protect the biodiversity of the region, yet allow for economic sustainability. In addition to ongoing projects, Wildlife Habitat Matrices should be expanded to the entire Model Forest, and Agroforestry Windbreaks need to return to the original goals related to natural windbreaks. The focus of the latter should be on the windbreaks as corridors for wildlife and plants. A broader aspect of this recommendation includes understanding the forest landscape ecology of the EOMF. Recommendation # 5 - Forest products An inventory of forest products industries and the products available in the EOMF region would help the general public and non-forest land owners understand the value of forestry to Eastern Ontario. The latter may find opportunities in managing their lands for forestry. It will also help to prioritize and focus future research in forest products. A relevant communications effort in this area would help raise the profile forestry in the region

Recommendation # 6 - Sustainable Forestry This report has dealt with gaps in research and the previous recommendation are directed at filling those gaps. The resultant research will assist in our understanding of sustainable forestry. However, the EOMF will have to carry out specific studies on the implications of attaining a level of sustainable forestry that can be understood and followed by EOMF forest land owners. These studies will have to be carried out concurrently with the present and future science program to help shape the direction of the overall EOMF program. Also these studies need to be economic, social and environmental in nature with a scientific backing.

Recommendation # 7 - Research management The management of research in the EOMF should be given a high priority with the Board of Directors through the Science Committee.

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

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

21 No research proposal should be reviewed or accepted if it is not accompanied with an appropriate review of the literature pertaining to the subject. This should ensure unnecessary duplication of research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 International and national criteria and indicators will become available shortly from the CFS and should be of considerable help in the development of studies to look for specific indicators in the EOMF. The adequacy of forest descriptions and classifications for the lesser known species is not determined in this study, as it is felt that a thorough review of the literature is needed. Such a review could be the subject of a fourth year university special project or if tied to research on a few specific lesser known species a masters level program. This issue needs to be discussed the academic community.

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

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

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

Fo29-1711988E. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests - The Montreal Process. 27 pp.

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

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

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

EOMF Annual Report 1993-1994. l9p.

EOMF Annual Report 1994-1995. 22p.

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

EOMF Proposal to Forestry Canada. 1992. 77p.

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

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

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

380p.

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

Jarvis, P. G., Editor. 1991. Agroforestry: Principles and Practice. Reprint from Forest Ecology and Management Vol. 45(1991), 1991 Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., New York, N. Y. Keddy, Cathy. 1993. Forest History of Eastern Ontario. Eastern Ontario Model Forest Information Report No. 1, 53p.

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

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

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

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

Sims, Richard, Compiler. 1992. Forest Site Classification in Canada: A Current Perspective.

1992. Forestry Chronicle 68(l):21-120. also Supply and Services Canada catalogue no. Fo4217411992E, available from Forestry Canada.

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

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

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

25 June 1995

24 APPENDIX # A STRATEGIC GOALS The Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) has five strategic goals. Each is listed below with corresponding objectives. All are derived from the original proposal. Actual activities will be outlined in annual work plans.

Goal 1

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

Objectives: 1.1

to determine, in two pilot areas, resource values through pro-active consultation with stakeholders;

1.2

to define the values identified in 1.1 with quantifiable parameters using the best available knowledge;

1.3

to define an initial framework for landscape based planning, suitable for application to the pilot studies

1.4

to incorporate a sensitivity to the political reality of the pilot areas into the IRM planning process;

1.5

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

1.6

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

1.7

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

GOAL 2

The conduct of sustainable forestry activities within an IRM framework, targeting specific EOMF objectives. This goal is aimed at addressing SF with actions and results versus philosophies. Implied for all actions is a streamlined process for stating intent, justifying the chosen approach from available alternatives, monitoring the evaluation and modifications as appropriate.

Objectives: 2.1

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

25

2.2

address specific environmental, spiritual and/or socioeconomic values of stakeholders in the EOMF; to undertake activities which address specific environmental, spiritual and/or socioeconomic values stakeholders in the EOMF but which are not part of the IRM plans developed for Goal 1.

GOAL 3

To increase the awareness of SF concepts and practices by EOMF stakeholders.

Implied is the measurement of current levels and the evaluation of program activities against this benchmark.

Objectives: 3.1

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

3.2

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

3.3

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

3.4

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

3.5

to undertake programs designated to increase general levels of awareness of stakeholders who are not included in specific categories above, including the establishment of areas which demonstrate SF activities;

3.6

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

activity.

GOAL 4

The incorporation of the best available knowledge into EOMF activities. A key component of this goat is the expansion of traditional knowledge sources t include groups/individuals/projects who/which would traditionally be only a minor component of similar forestry undertakings.

Objectives: 4.1

to undertake or support research activities which are focussed in specific EOMF goals and objectives;

4.2

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

4.3

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

26

GOAL 5

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

Objectives: 5.1

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

5.2

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

APPENDIX # B Identification of Program Gaps The vision of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) has been identified as follows: "To champion the concept and practice of sustainable forestry for all its values in eastern Ontario through the cooperative efforts of its residents and supporters". Additionally, five strategic goals have been delineated; one dealing with research states as an objective, "To undertake or support research activities which are focussed on specific EOMF goals and objectives". In turn, these goals relate (1) to the development of an integrated resource management (IRM) planning process suitable for the achievement of sustainable forestry, (2) to conduct sustainable forestry activities within the IRM framework, and (3) to increasing the awareness of sustainable forestry concepts and practices by EOMF stakeholders.

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

The consultant will be expected to identity program gaps that will impede the attainment of the vision of the EOMF in relation to its guiding principles and strategic goals. In particular, the consultant will be expected to undertake the following tasks: (1)

Review all ongoing EOMF projects and determine their relevance towards meeting the goals of the EOMF;

(2)

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

(3)

Review all project proposals which are unfunded because of inadequate funds and make recommendations concerning their possible importance and value;

27 (4)

Review all project/program related submissions that have been received by the EOMF office to ascertain their possible importance and value;

(5)

Canvas project partners to ascertain their views concerning project gaps;

(6)

Make recommendations concerning research required in sustainable forestry in eastern Ontario and determine what criteria and indicators are required in order to know whether or when sustainable forestry is being practiced, and;

(7)

Prepare a report indicating what additional knowledge is required if eastern Ontario forests are to be sustainability managed. The consultant should consider whether forest descriptions and classifications are adequate, whether knowledge of the ecology and silviculture of eastern Ontario tree species is adequate, and what other values should be derived from sustainably managed forests.

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

APPENDIX # C LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED Eric Boysen Forester P.O. Box 2002 Concession Road Kemptville, ON KOG 1JO Tel: 613-258-8240 Fax: 613-258-3920 Jacques Bouvier La CitĂŠ collĂŠgiale 750 Laurier St. Hawkesbury, ON K6A 3N9 Tel: 613-632-1248 Fax: 613-632-1458 Dave Chapeskie Agroforestry Advisor OMAFRA Box 2004, Prov. Bldg Kemptville, ON

28 KOG 1JO Tel: 613-258-8302 Fax: 613-258-8392 Steve Dominy Canadian Forest Service Ontario Region P. 0. Box 490 1219 Queen St. East Sault Ste. Marie, ON Tel: 705-949-9461 Fax: 705-759-5700 Jamie Fortune Box 599 Dickenson Street Manotick, ON K4M 1A5 Tel: 613-692-2390 Fax: 613-692-0831 Mike Folkema FERIC Pte. Claire, Quebec Tel: 514-694-1140 Fax: 514-694-4351 Paul Keddy Department of Biology University of Ottawa Home Address RR # 1 Carleton Place, ON K7C 3P1 Tel: 613-253-4234 Fax: 613-253-4214 Henry Lickers Director, Dept of Environment Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Tel: 613-575-2377 Fax: 613-936-7201

29 Sue MacIntyre P.O. Box 2002 Concession Road Kemptville, ON KOG 1JO Tel: 613-258-8240 Fax: 613-258-3920 Cathy Nielson Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P.O. Box 605 Oxford Ave. Brockville, Ontario K6V 5Y8 Tel: 1-613-342-8524 Fax: 1-613-342-7544 Lorne Riley Canadian Forest Service Place Vincent Massey Ottawa, K1A 1G5 Tel: 613-997-1107 Fax: 613-994-3389 Raleigh Robertson Professor Queen's University Department of Biology Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 Tel: 1-613-545-6140 Fax: 1-613-545-6617 George Velema Manager of Land Application & Agroforestry Domtar Speciality Fine Papers P. 0. Box 40 810 - 2nd St. W. Cornwall, Ontario K6H 5S3 Tel: 613-932-6620 Fax: 613-938-4684

30 Andy Welch Dendron Resource Surveys Inc. 880 Lady Ellen Place Ottawa, ON K1Z 5L9 Tel: 613-725-2971 Fax: 613-725-1716 APPENDIX # D Interview Questions 1.

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

2.

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

3.

Of the approved projects the Science Committee has identified the following as either research or science related: 4.1/93 Natural Genetic Heritage 4.2/93 Nut Tree Culture 4.3/93 Agroforestry Windbreaks 4.4/93 Recycled Soil Amendments 4.MCA.93 Akwesasne Partnership 1.1/93 IRM Planning Framework 1.2/93 Relative Density Guidelines 2.1/93 Ecological Woodlands Restoration 2.2/93 Industrial Wood Production 2.4/93 Alternative Vegetation Management Practices 2.10/93 Songbird Population Monitoring 2.11/93 Forest Meadow Habitat 2.13/93 Wildlife Habitat Matrices And there may be others.

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

31

APPENDIX # E EOMF SCIENCE Committee MEETING JULY 22, 1993 Distribution List: Frank Phelan - QUBS Peter White - SGEDC Brian Barkley - EOMF John Kerr-Wilson - EOMF Paul Addison - For. Can. (Natural Resources Canada)- SSM Andy Welch - EOMF/Dendron - IRM Paul Aird - U of T Gordon Murray - PNFI Steve Dominy- For. Can (NRC) - SSM Olaf Loken - EOMF Membership Chris Eckert ~ Queen's U. Dept of Biology Silvia Strobl - OMNR Brockville Kerry Coleman - OMNR Brockville Ed White - SUN Y School of Forestry- Syracuse, N. Y. Ross Cholmondeley- OMNR Brockville TASK: To establish a Forest Science Working Group ROLE/TASKS OF COMMITTEE/WORKING GROUP: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Overview of model forest science needs Ensuring coordination of science activities Decisions/recommendations on funding of projects Creation of technical committees Advocate for science in model forest Identification of new opportunities

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

32 -

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

b) Institute Involvement: - ideal to have involvement from many institutes - but personal characteristics are most important for this committee c)

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

d)

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

e)

f)

Chair/Secretariat: - chair to be elected from within committee - strong secretariat required from MF office to cover information flow and budget Time Commitment - expect 2 days per month for the first 6 months - 2-3 meetings per year for the remainder

Membership Recommendations: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Jamie Fortune Caroline Caza Ole Hendrickson Vic Timmer Paul Addison Rod Carrow Neil Foster Paul Aird/Prof. Nautial - joint Silvia Strobl Barrie French Ed White Ofav Loken Don Cuddy Raleigh Robertson Kerry Coleman Frank Phelan George Velema

LRC / LDMSPA / MNR Wild. Hab. Can. For. Can. - Ottawa U of T (prof.)

For. Can. - SSM U of T (dean) For. Can. - SSM U of T OMNR- Brockv.

U of T - (aerospace) SUNY - Syracuse Member at large - EOMF OMNR- Brockv.

Queen's U OMNR - Brockv.

QUBS Domtar

33 18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Martin Streit Grey Merriam Paul Keddy Scott Finlay Denis Voigt Alan Moseler Louis Zsuffa Peter White Dave DeYoe

OMNR- Carleton Place Carleton U Ottawa U Ottawa U OMNR - Maple PNFI U of T SGEDC OMNR- SSM

Other Comments: 1. Coordination needed with other MFs other science programs, government and academic institutions; 2. Communications needed to get science messages out - possibly through an annual science report; 3. Project managers need to meet with this committee to inform the group on the nature of the MF program and the nature of the individual projects; 4. Keep bureaucracy to a minimum - and approval processes as fast as possible!

34 Forestry Canada Ontario Region 26 July 1993 Mr. Brian Barkley General Manager Eastern Ontario Model Forest Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P. 0. Bag 21 11 Concession Road KEMPTVILLE, Ontario K0G 1G0 Dear Mr. Barkley: Research Priorities Attached please find the list of the topics that were developed at our workshop last week. I hope that they are accurate and I tried to add a few words where I could to ensure that the folks would get the idea accurately. I have also taken the liberty of having a first go at organizing them into a few topics.

I would suggest that by adding this memo and the list to the package going out to the participants that we ask for the following: 1.

Are there questions/corrections to the list?

2.

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

3.

What 5 topics do you see as the highest priority?

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

Best Wishes

Paul A. Addison Director Forest Resources and Environment Division Department of Natural Resources Canada Ontario Region Great Lakes Forestry Centre

35 EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FORESTS RESEARCH PRIORITY WORKSHOP 1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

36

4.

-Practical Tending Methods to Obtain Forest Values Pest control - friendly ways Herbicide use - friendly ways Increasing value while decreasing damage Small woodlot sustainability Decision Support System Effects of forest residue removal CONSERVATION/HISTORY - Landscape ecology - Fragmentation - Genetic Diversity - Preservation of unique areas - Integration of Genetics and Ecology (landscape) - Forest Genetic Heritage - non-conifer - Fire - History of Pre-white culture - Monitoring of forest health (indicators) - History of wetland locations E. Ontario - Influence of People - Changes in soil and water by land use - are they reversible - Understand habitat requirements/loggerhead strike - Colonization of Lilac - Windbreaks as connections for forest fragments - Windbreaks as habitats for Wildlife and Plants - Importance of forest for rare wildlife species Research into increasing Heritage values - identification and conservation of species in windbreaks and doing it (Diversity) - Exotics "do they belong?

5.

PROCESS - Research Facilitator/Manager - Integration of projects (program view) FOREST SCIENCE WORKING GROUP

Conference Call - September 17, 1993 Present:

John Kerr-Wilson Bill Fullerton Andy Welch Brian Barkley

Roles and Functions of the Working Group: The report produced as a result of the July 22 meeting has been accepted in principle with the following points noted: - need to minimize conflict of interest - want good. broad-based, science perspective - power to add by the group is important eg. currently no local academic institutions reflected in the group - directors role on the group needs discussion-may be

37 an observer or perhaps the chair - favour a chair elected by the group itself from within - expectation that there will be sub-groups needed to carry out the work Working group Members: Jim Cayford Ed White Jamie Fortune Olav Loken Paul Addison Budget: Bill Fullerton will develop a budget for the proper functioning of the group .

This report to be discussed at the September 20 board meeting .

Brian Barkley General Manager 17/9/93