silvicultural effectiveness monitoring manual for ontario which are required to assess the success...

Silvicultural EffectivenessMonitoring Manual forOntario

TECHNICAL SERIES

©2001, Queen’s Printer for OntarioPrinted in Ontario, Canada

Single copies of this publication are available at nocharge from the address noted below. Bulk ordersmay involve charges.

Ministry of Natural ResourcesNatural Resources Information Centre300 Water StreetPeterborough, OntarioK9J 8M5

Current publications of the Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources, and price lists, are also availablefrom this office.

Telephone inquiries about ministry programs andservices should be directed to the Natural ResourcesInformation Centre:

General Inquiry 1-800-667-1940Renseignements en francais 1-800-667-1840FAX (705) 755-1677

Find the Ministry of Natural Resources on-line at:www.mnr.gov.on.ca

Cette publication technique n’est disponsible qu’enanglais.

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – FORWARD

I

FORWARD

A comprehensive and consistent silvicultural effective-ness monitoring program is a critical component toensure the sustainability of Ontario’s forest resources. Itprovides the basis for measuring, collecting, analyzingand reporting information on the renewal and state ofOntario’s public forests whether they have beendepleted by harvest or natural means. This informationis not only needed by the people and companies manag-ing the forest, but also by the owners of the forest – thepublic.

The Environmental Assessment Board, in their decisionon the Class Environmental Assessment for TimberManagement on Crown Lands in Ontario, noted the needto improve the tracking and reporting of silviculturalinformation (Term and Condition 96). The SilviculturalEffectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario has been pre-pared, in part, to address Term and Condition 96.

Silvicultural effectiveness may be viewed from variousperspectives: at the stand level for particular prescrip-tions or treatments, at the forest or management unitlevel for trends on particular forest units, and at theregional and provincial levels to measure program suc-cess. Analysis at each level provides answers to the basicquestions: “What did we intend to accomplish?”, “What didwe actually accomplish?”, and “How well did we do it?”(Robbins 1992). This manual addresses these questionsby describing the objectives, standards and methodolo-gies, compilation and reporting, and analysis andevaluation of silvicultural effectiveness at each level.

Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring systembegins with setting silvicultural objectives. The objec-tives are determined in the forest management planningprocess by establishing the desired outcome of silvicul-ture activities (desired future forest condition) and theplanned method of meeting that outcome (silviculturetreatment package). The objectives must include mini-mum regeneration standards and managementstandards which are required to assess the success andeffectiveness of the silvicultural activities.

An essential component of the silvicultural effectivenessmonitoring system is the ability to store and retrieve therequired information. There are minimum informationrequirements for data collection, reporting and analysisto assess silvicultural effectiveness. The basic informa-tion that satisfies these needs includes: original standnumber and inventory year, Ontario Base Map (OBM)number, actual original forest condition, developmentinformation (e.g., yield curves), desired future forestcondition, 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 tonote that the minimum information requirementsneeded to monitor silvicultural effectiveness shouldalready be collected, recorded and, in some cases,reported for other purposes.

As identified in the Forest Management Planning Manualand the Forest Information Manual, the forest licensee isresponsible for providing the required information to theOntario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). TheMNR does not mandate the use of specific methodolo-gies for silvicultural effectiveness monitoring. However,the Silvicultural Treatment, Assessment and ReportingSystem and the Free Growing Regeneration Assessmentmethodologies will be used by MNR to substantiate theirspot checks and by independent forest auditors to con-duct their field assessments of regeneration.

Reporting the results of silvicultural effectiveness moni-toring serves two main purposes: to ensure that the dataand associated analysis and results are recorded and avail-able to those requiring them (now and in the future); andto fulfil legal requirements to report publicly.

Reporting of ongoing survey and assessment results isrequired as part of the annual report for each manage-ment unit. These reports must be available to the publicupon request. These reports are rolled up to producethe provincial Annual Report on Forest Management,which is tabled in the legislature, published and alsomade available to the public. A summary of the man-agement unit report statistics are also provided annuallyto the federal government for inclusion in TheCompendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics and The Stateof Canada’s Forests.

Longer-term trends for each management unit aresummarized, compared and reported at the end of eachforest management plan term in the Report of PastForest Operations. The results of these reports arerolled up to the provincial level to contribute toOntario’s State of the Forest Report once every five years.Regeneration statistics are also used to report on crite-ria and indicators used to determine forest sustainabilityin provincial and national reports.

Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring systemdata standards, collection and reporting are fundamen-tal for providing analysis and evaluation of silviculturaleffectiveness at various scales. At the stand level, theanalysis must answer site specific questions for the for-est manager, e.g., was a particular treatment successfulon a certain stand. The forest manager will also use thesilvicultural effectiveness monitoring data to evaluatethe success or failure of past management decisions, tocompare the results of alternative management strate-gies, to compare results between forests, and tocompare their results with others. Analysis and evalua-tion at the site region through to the provincial,national and international levels also rely upon thisinformation.

Ontario is committed to ensuring that all areas withinthe forested landbase capable of growing productiveforests are regenerated after disturbance to identifiedmanagement targets within a reasonable period of time.This commitment is reflected from the stand level eval-uation of forest management practices through to thenational and international evaluation of forest sustain-ability.

Future developments in changes to forest strategies andin information technology will result in changes to thetypes of variables that will be monitored as well as mon-itoring techniques, data recording, and analysis andstorage. Ontario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoringsystem will be revised as these changes and revisions tothe forest management planning process are made.

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – FORWARD

II

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Purpose of Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 What is Monitoring? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 Importance of a Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4 Structure of the Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.5 Definitions and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.6 Legislative and Policy Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.7 Consideration of the Statement of Environmental Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.0 SILVICULTURAL OBJECTIVE SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.1 The Forest Management Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Silvicultural Ground Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 Annual Work Schedules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4 Forest Operations Prescriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.5 Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.6 Phase-in Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.0 SILVICULTURAL STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.1 Management Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2 Ecological Basis for Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.3 Regeneration and Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.3.1 Additional Minimum Management Standards for Selection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.4 Forest Resource Inventory Information Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.5 Assessment Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.6 Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.0 COMPILATION AND REPORTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.2 Management Unit Annual Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.3 Management Unit Five Year Reports (Report of Past Forest Operations). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.4 Provincial Annual Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.5 Provincial Five Year Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – TABLE OF CONTENTS

III

4.6 National Annual Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.7 National Five Year Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5.0 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.2 Stand and Forest Unit Analysis and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.3 Management Unit Analysis and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.4 Site Region Analysis and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.5 Provincial, National and International Analysis and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN SILVICULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . 25

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

APPENDIX “A” LEGISLATION AND POLICIES RELATED TO SILVICULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Environmental Assessment Terms and Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendix 18: Annual Report (Forest Management Unit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendix 8: Report of Past Forest Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Crown Forest Sustainability Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Licences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

APPENDIX “B” EXAMPLES OF REPORTING AND ANALYZING SILVICULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Assessment Results from 1999/2000: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Assessment Results from 2000/2001: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Clearcut System Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Shelterwood System Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Selection System Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Report of Past Forest Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Applications of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


IV


V

List of Figures

Figure 1. Changes to a forest occur within forest stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2. Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Components within the Forest Management Planning System:

Stand and Management Unit Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 3. Stand-level regeneration success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure B-1. Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring and Reporting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure B-2. Silvicultural Effectiveness Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

List of Tables

Table 1. Minimum information required to track silvicultural effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

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

acceptable species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table B-1. Summary of Assessment Results: Clearcut System Assessed 1999/2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table B-2. Example of reporting clearcut system assessment results (Table B-1) in

Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table B-3. Summary of Assessment Results: Clearcut System Results Assessed 2000/2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table B-4. Examples of reporting clearcut system assessment results (Table B-3) in

Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table B-5. Summary of Assessment Results: Shelterwood System Assessed 2000/2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table B-6. Example of reporting shelterwood system assessment results (Table B-5) in

Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table B-7. Summary of Assessment Results: Selection System Assessed 2000/2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table B-8. Example of reporting selection system assessment results (Table B-7) in

Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table B-9. Table RPFO-8 for the “Ideal Management Unit”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table B-10. Table RPFO-9 for the “Ideal Management Unit”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table B-11. Summarized assessment results for the “Ideal Management Unit” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table B-12. Summary of original Forest Units and silvicultural treatment packages for the

“Ideal Management Unit”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – INTRODUCTION

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Manual

A comprehensive and consistent silvicultural effective-ness monitoring program is a critical component toensure the sustainability of Ontario’s forest resources. Itprovides the basis for measuring, collecting, analyzingand reporting information on the renewal and state ofOntario’s public forests whether they have beendepleted by harvest or natural means. This informationis needed not only by the people and companies manag-ing the forest, but also by the owners of the forest — thepublic.

The purpose of this manual is to describe Ontario’sSilvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring program, provid-ing consistency in how this necessary information willbe treated and reported. Consistent definitions andstandards ensure that the results from forest manage-ment activities on similar sites and forest conditions arecomparable from stand to stand and management unitto management unit across the province.

For many years, information on the effectiveness of sil-vicultural treatments was retained locally and used byforest managers to improve their forest managementpractices. This information, however, was not alwaysexchanged between management units nor was itreported beyond the forest level. The EnvironmentalAssessment Board, in their decision on the ClassEnvironmental Assessment for Timber Management onCrown Lands in Ontario (Timber EA), identified manyareas of silvicultural information assessment, recordingand reporting that needed improvement (EA Board1994, Term and Condition 96). Many of these needswere resolved during the creation of the ForestManagement Planning Manual (FMPM) (MNR 1996)and are being addressed through the implementation ofthe planning process.

The Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual forOntario highlights those aspects of the current forestmanagement planning process that relate to silviculturaleffectiveness monitoring, explains the link betweenthose individual components. It generally describesOntario’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring pro-gram, comprised of objective setting (Section 2),standards and assessment methodology (Section 3),compilation and reporting (Section 4) and analysis andevaluation (Section 5).

1.2 What is Monitor ing?

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 deter-mine status or trends in some aspect of environmentalquality” (Sutter, 1993).

There are three types of monitoring programs describedin the Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual (FOSM)(MNR 1995a) that are used during normal forestry oper-ations in Ontario, namely compliance monitoring, effectsmonitoring and effectiveness monitoring

1.

Compliance monitoring is used to determine whether anoperator conforms to the approved plan or permit. Forexample, one could check to determine if the harvestoperator is maintaining a 30 metre reserve beside a spe-cific value, as prescribed in the applicable forestmanagement plan (FMP). This monitoring activityinvolves the collection of data through observation andmeasurement as operations progress.

Effects monitoring is used to determine how a particulartreatment, group of treatments or operation interactswith, or affects, other organisms or ecological processes.Road construction and water crossings, for example, areactivities that must be monitored for their effects onother resources, such as water quality and fish habitat.

1. Exception monitoring is not a requirement of normal forest operations, but rather a requirement when operations used differfrom those listed in a forest management guideline or a silvicultural guide. Exception monitoring programs are designed toanswer specific questions and to address specific situations or forest operations. Further details are provided on page A-133 of theForest Management Planning Manual (MNR 1996).

Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if manage-ment activities are producing the expected results. OnOntario’s Crown forests, it must be ensured that thestated desired effects given in an approved FMP areoccurring. For example, effectiveness monitoringenables the forester to determine whether the currentforest units are being changed to the desired forest unitsin the proportion described in the FMP. It also permitsthe foresters (from both the forest industry and theMNR) to examine whether certain treatments are meet-ing expectations and, if they are not, to investigate whythey were not as successful as expected and make appro-priate modifications in the future.

In short, silvicultural effectiveness monitoring entailsdata collection and recording, reporting, trend analysisand the examination of reasons behind the trends.

1.3 Importance of a Silvicultural Effectiveness MonitoringSystem

Information collected consistently throughout theprovince provides the local forest manager with a largerand more reliable database for analytical purposes thanthat which would otherwise be available. Silviculturaleffectiveness data also provide the most elemental infor-mation from which to assess and report on forestsustainability at the management unit and provinciallevel, knowledge that is of continual interest to the pub-lic, forest companies and industry investors.

Silvicultural effectiveness may be viewed from variousperspectives: at the stand level for particular prescrip-tions or treatments, at the forest or management unitlevel for trends on particular forest units, and at theregional and provincial levels to measure program suc-cess. Analysis at each level provides answers to the basicquestions:

“What did we intend to accomplish?”“What did we actually accomplish?”“How well did we do it?” (Robbins 1992)

By contrast, a compliance monitoring system focusesonly on the first two questions, and in a much simplifiedmanner: Did we do what we said we would?

At the management unit (MU) level, the ultimate goal isto fulfill the activities outlined in the FMP and to meetthe desired future forest condition. At the eco-regionaland provincial levels, the goal is to preserve the conti-nuity of healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems. Asilvicultural effectiveness monitoring system can con-tribute to the successful attainment of these goals.

A functional silvicultural effectiveness monitoring systemalso provides opportunities for continual improvement ofother products and activities such as silvicultural pre-scriptions and treatments, guidelines and fiscalcommitments at the various levels. Potential uses of a sil-vicultural 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 treat-

ments;• 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 tothe goals of timber production and the work of forestmanagers, data gathered from this silvicultural effec-tiveness monitoring system may also be used by otherprofessionals to evaluate other aspects of the ecologicalfunction of the forest (such as wildlife habitat).Additional information on stand composition, structureand ecological function can be analyzed based on datacollected from the living and dead overstory (e.g., acount of live and dead cavity trees or diameter distribu-tion of trees).


2

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

1.4 Structure of the Manual

This manual is organized into separate sections that fol-low the various steps involved in any form ofmonitoring 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 AssessmentMethodology

• 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 SilviculturalEffectiveness Monitoring

• future developments in monitoring

Each section will, where appropriate, discuss silvicul-tural effectiveness monitoring at the stand, managementunit, eco-regional and provincial levels. Similarly, spe-cific requirements for the three silvicultural systemscommonly used in Ontario’s three main forest regionswill be highlighted throughout the manual.

1.5 Definitions and Concepts

All users of this manual must have the same under-standing of the various terms and concepts used. Thefollowing definitions and descriptions will assist withthe proper implementation of this manual. Definitionsfor other commonly used forestry terms (e.g., stocking,density) are found in the Forest Management PlanningManual (MNR 1996).

Silvicultural EffectivenessDuring the Timber EA hearings silvicultural effective-ness was defined as “achieving the desired managementobjectives at the lowest possible cost … consistent with soundenvironmental practices”. The EA Board furtherexplained, “It is important to use consistent measures of suc-cess, consistent definitions of silviculture effectiveness todetermine whether objectives are being achieved.” (EABoard 1994).

Since the Timber EA hearings, further refinementshave led to the current definition: “silvicultural effective-ness is the comparison of how the results of a prescription ortreatment compare with: a) the targeted results; b) the resultsand costs of other prescriptions on similar sites; and c) silvi-cultural standards or target measures.” While the aspect ofcost is not analyzed or reported provincially, it will be ofinterest to individual forest companies.

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

The FTG concept is accepted provincially as the criti-cal point in determining regeneration success for theclearcut silvicultural system. Attaining the FTG stan-dard permits the regenerating forest to be re-enteredinto the inventory and used in subsequent allowableharvest calculations. It provides the point at which theforest manager can determine how well the forest isgrowing, how well the silvicultural prescription hasworked and whether the desired future forest conditionwill likely be reached.


3

For stands managed using the uniform shelterwood sys-tem, the new stand description would be given after thefinal removal cut, and the overstory description of a for-est managed under the selection system is updated as itchanges over time. Specific regeneration and manage-ment standards, as defined below, are used to measurethe effectiveness of treatments when using these two sil-vicultural systems.

Regeneration StandardsRegeneration standards are criteria used for determin-ing the status of regenerating stands under the clearcutand shelterwood silvicultural systems. They must beconsistent with the associated desired future forest con-dition and silvicultural treatment package (MNR 1996).The regeneration standards are set to measure whethera stand is regenerating successfully and in a manner tomeet the desired future forest condition.

Management StandardsManagement standards are the criteria used for deter-mining the status of managed forest stands using theclearcut and shelterwood systems, and also the selectionsilvicultural system. As with regeneration standards,management standards must be consistent with theassociated desired future forest condition and treatmentpackage. Management standards include the same crite-ria as regeneration standards, along with additionalcriteria such as a measure of stand structure, wildlifehabitat, etc.

Silvicultural SuccessRegeneration is considered to be a silvicultural successwhen all the standards contained in the silviculturalground rule (SGR) applied to that stand have been met.This information is recorded in Annual Report TableAR-7. Silvicultural ground rules contain standards fortarget species, acceptable species, future forest condi-tion and may contain management standards forwildlife habitat or partial harvest silvicultural systems.

If the standards are not met, and the treatments aredeemed to be a failure, the forest manager will deter-mine whether retreatment is required, analyze why thestand did not respond to the treatment(s) as expected,and use this information to improve future prescriptionsfor, and treatments on, similar stands.

Regeneration SuccessA developing stand may be viewed as a regenerationsuccess when regeneration meets all the standards of anSGR other than the one originally associated with thatstand. This information is recorded in Annual ReportTable AR-9.

If the standards are not met, and the treatments aredeemed to be a failure, the forest manager will deter-mine whether retreatment is required, analyze why thestand did not respond to the treatment(s) as expected,and use this information to improve future prescriptionsfor, and treatments on, similar stands.

Target SpeciesThese are the tree species (and their relative propor-tions) identified in the SGR that are required to bepresent in order to meet the desired future forest con-dition. They are ecologically suited to the stand, theircharacteristics are consistent with the managementobjectives for the stand and management activities areaimed at establishing these species.

Acceptable SpeciesThese are the tree species that can be present for pur-poses of measuring silvicultural effectiveness as long asthey are compatible with the ecosystem, the targetspecies and the attainment of the management objec-tives and the desired future forest condition.


4


1.6 Legislative and Policy Basis

Two of the manuals (the Forest Information Manual(FIM) and the FOSM) that are regulated by the CrownForest Sustainability Act (CFSA) refer to the SilviculturalEffectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario. This manualhas been completed in accordance with the regulatedmanuals and other documents that provide legal direc-tion. These include the EA Board’s decision on theTimber EA; the CFSA itself; and various licences issuedunder the CFSA. In addition, direction is found instrategic policies, such as the Policy Framework forSustainable Forests. Relevant details of these other docu-ments are included in Appendix A. These documentsshould be reviewed for a complete understanding ofhow silvicultural effectiveness monitoring fits within thelarger sustainable forest management context.

1.7 Consideration of the Statement of Environmental Values

The MNR is responsible for managing Ontario’s natu-ral resources in accordance with the statutes itadministers. In 1994, the MNR finalized its Statementof Environmental Values (SEV) under theEnvironmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The MNR’s SEVdescribes how the purposes of the EBR are to be con-sidered whenever decisions that might significantlyaffect the environment are made by the MNR. TheSEV is based on the goals and objectives of the MNR asset out in the strategic documents Direction ’90s andDirection ’90s…Moving Ahead 1995.

During the development of the Silvicultural EffectivenessMonitoring Manual for Ontario, the MNR has consid-ered Direction ’90s, Direction ’90s… Moving Ahead 1995,Beyond 2000 and the SEV. The directions set out inthose documents are reflected in this manual which fur-thers the objectives of managing Ontario’s resources ona sustainable basis.

5

2.0 SILVICULTURAL OBJECTIVE SETTING

2.1 The Forest Management Planning Process2

The forest management planning process provides theopportunity to address the three questions posed byRobbins in 1992. The answers to the first two, “Whatdid we intend to accomplish?” and “What did we actuallyaccomplish?”, 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, theAWSs, and the Annual Reports. In this manual, the firsttwo components are discussed in Sections 2.2 to 2.4;Section 3.0 deals with the third component; and AnnualReports are discussed in Section 4.0.

While silvicultural objectives are set, measured andassessed at the stand-level, it is necessary to considerand analyze the overall effectiveness at the forest-levelas well. The results of these stand- and forest-levelanalyses answer the third question posed by Robbins“How well did we do it?” This is discussed more fully inSection 5.0.

Forest management plans that came into effect prior to1998 may not include all four components, at least notexactly as described above. Further references to forestmanagement planning requirements, tables and reportswill use the current planning terminology (e.g., TableFMP-10); the reader is expected to understand that sim-ilar or equivalent information (e.g., Table 4-11) can also

be found in older-style plans. Direction on how to applythis manual to areas harvested under these older styleplans is provided in Sections 2.6 and 4.0.

The key element for initiating a successful silviculturaleffectiveness monitoring system is the ability to storeand retrieve the four components described in the firstparagraph in order to provide a geo-referenced string ofinformation (i.e. original forest unit and condition,desired forest unit and condition, year of depletion, yearof assessment, planned treatment package, actual treat-ment package, etc.). This element is known as a forestoperations prescription (FOP), and is described in moredetail later in this section. When combined with thereporting of results through Annual Reports and theReport of Past Forest Operations (RPFO), the mini-mum requirements of a silvicultural effectivenessmonitoring system have been met. The list of informa-tion that must be recorded and reported is itemized inSections 2.5 and 4.0 of this manual. The FIM explainswho is responsible for collecting, storing, retrieving andtransferring this information, and provides the require-ments for data transfer.

2.2 Silvicultural Ground Rules

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

Each SGR describes the current forest condition, thedesired future forest condition and the series of harvest,renewal and tending treatments that the forest managerexpects to follow in order to attain the desired outcome.It also includes the standards that must be met for astand to be considered successfully regenerated or man-

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – OBJECTIVE SETTING

6

2. The forest management planning process is described in its entirety in the FMPM. Some explanation of the portions that are rel-evant to silvicultural effectiveness monitoring will be provided in this section and elsewhere in the manual (see Section 4.0). Forfurther details refer to the FMPM.

aged, and developing in a way that will permit it toattain the desired forest condition. These standards aredescribed fully in Section 3.0 of this manual.

2.3 Annual Work Schedules

The AWS describes where and what forest managementoperations will be conducted in any given year. TheAWS documents the activities to be conducted on a spe-cific location, and is the fourth component of thesilvicultural effectiveness monitoring system. The AWScontains a schedule of areas that will be inspected orsurveyed during the year to determine their status inmeeting the regeneration or management standards(i.e., Table AWS-6).

2.4 Forest Operations Prescriptions

As noted earlier, the FOP is the vehicle that tiestogether the objectives, activities and results for a par-ticular location and site. It is the key building block forthe foundation of the silvicultural effectiveness moni-toring system.

An FOP is a site specific, integrated set of harvest,renewal and maintenance activities that is developedbefore any operations can commence in a particularstand. The FOP for a particular stand is the accumula-tion of the original SGR for the stand, the portions ofthe AWSs that relate to the stand (including any in-yearchanges that are appended to the AWS) and the signa-ture of a Registered Professional Forester (R.P.F.)verifying the appropriateness of the treatments.Together, these documents (along with the AnnualReports) describe the desired outcome for the stand, theactivities that were originally planned, what standardsare or were to be met and what was actually imple-mented on the ground. Although these documents maybe stored in different locations and formats, both paperand electronic, to facilitate tracking of this informationthey must be retrievable as a geo-referenced record.

Prior to the implementation of the SGR, the forestmanager must confirm that the actual conditions on theground are the same as those anticipated during thepreparation of the FMP and the SGR. For example, heor she would ensure that the stand is the same ecositeand has the same composition as anticipated, the treat-ment(s) identified for the stand is appropriate for thesite and current stand conditions, there are no previ-ously unidentified non-timber values present, etc. Aspart of the AWS, this confirmation is documented inthe form of a statement signed by an R.P.F. (or, wherethe treatment is outside of the normal purview of aforester, another suitably qualified professional such asa wildlife biologist, if the treatment pertains primarilyto wildlife habitat).

2.5 Silvicultural Effectiveness MonitoringRecords

Table 1 identifies the information that must be collectedas part of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring sys-tem, and indicates the location where it is recorded forfuture reference and retrieval. It is important to notethat the minimum information requirements needed tomonitor silvicultural effectiveness should already be col-lected, recorded and, in some cases, reported for otherpurposes.

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

These items and records represent the basic level ofinformation required to satisfy the MNRs silviculturaleffectiveness monitoring system. More comprehensiveprocedures (such as crop planning and economic analy-ses) and more detailed information or FOPs may bedeemed appropriate by the forest manager, and mayprovide additional background documentation whichwill facilitate the reporting requirements outlined inSection 5.0.


7

2.6 Phase-in Period

The FMPM was regulated in the fall of 1996, and wasimplemented in its entirety for the first time with theFMPs that commenced on April 1, 1998. Partial imple-mentation was required for the 1996 and 1997 plans.The completion of FOPs became a legal requirementon April 1, 1997. Therefore, information has beenrecorded in various forms and formats over recent years.Forest managers must retain and develop linkages forinformation related to SGRs, regeneration stan-dards/management standards, FOPs, silviculturaltreatments, and forest units/working groups from previ-ous FMPs for the purpose of tracking silviculturaleffectiveness. All management units will be able to fullyapply the direction described in this manual to all areasharvested after April 1, 2002 (i.e., with the commence-ment of the 2002 FMPs). By that date, all management

units will be implementing FMPs written following theFMPM.

Even then, silvicultural treatments on areas harvestedunder plans with a commencement date prior to April 1,1998 will be based on SGRs that were written as muchas 15 (and possibly 20) years previously (e.g., a final her-bicide treatment to release crop trees prior to the FTGdeclaration). Such ground rules will relate to workinggroups, rather than forest units, as was the practice atthe time. In other cases, the forest unit descriptions mayhave changed over time, complicating year to year com-parisons. Attempts must be made to accommodate theseanomalies, to approximate equivalencies between work-ing groups and forest units, and to compare and assessthe effectiveness of similar treatments on similar stands. Methods to summarize this information are describedin further detail in Sections 4.3 and 4.5.


8

Table 1: Minimum information required to track silvicultural effectiveness.

Information to be Recorded Other Purpose Location

Original FRI Stand Number & inventory year FOP requirement

OBM Number FOP requirement

Actual Original Forest Condition FOP requirement(including forest unit & FEC site type or ecosite) Annual Reporting

Development Information FOP requirement (e.g. yield curves)

Desired Future Forest Condition FOP requirement(including forest unit) Annual Reporting

Year of Depletion FOP requirementAnnual Reporting

Year of Assessment Annual Reporting

Planned Treatment Package FOP requirement

Actual Treatment Package FOP requirement(including year of treatment) Annual Reporting

Actual Forest Unit Annual Reporting

New FRI Description (including B&S, map) needed for return to inventory

New Stand Number needed for return to inventory

FMP stand listing; stewardship, planning inventories

FMP stand listing; stewardship,planning inventories

SGRAR–7, 8, 9

SGR

SGRAR-8

AWSAR-9

AR-7

SGR

AWSAR-6

AR-9

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT

9

3.0 SILVICULTURAL STANDARDS ANDASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Management Principles

The Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual states: “thekey to good management is common-sense and practical appli-cation of the principles contained in the guidelines”.Therefore, rather than prescribing specific methodolo-gies to assess silvicultural effectiveness, this manualdescribes the minimum requirements for data collec-tion, reporting and analysis. Application of theserequirements ensures that data are adequate to allow theforest manager to:i) specify problems, monitor trends and develop cor-

rective actions;ii) determine whether the standards in the SGRs,

found in Table FMP 10 of an FMP have been met;iii) determine the growth curve on which the stand is

tracking (e.g., intensive, extensive); andiv) identify the stand for re-introduction to the inven-

tory and provide an inventory update.

3.2 Ecological Basis for Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring

Ecosystems are complex and not fully understood. Onesimple way of looking at ecosystems is to assume thatthe structure and composition of an ecosystem reflectssome of the underlying ecological processes and func-tions of that ecosystem.

A system that monitors the changes in stand vegetationand 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 ecosys-tem sustainability, a number of key components of anecosystem, called indicators of sustainability, need to bemeasured on an ongoing basis. Silvicultural effective-ness monitoring is one component of a suite ofindicators that are used to measure forest sustainability.

Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring measures thechanges in important components of forest compositionand structure (Figure 1). It tracks the changes in treecomposition, height, age, and the distribution of regen-eration. Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring alsotracks the changes in the structure and composition ofthe overstory when partial cutting systems are used.

Figure 1: Changes to a forest occur withinforest stands.

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

The composition and structure of individual standsintegrate with other components of a landscape toform the composition and structure of a forest.

Stand 1

Stand 2

Stand 3

Forest

3.3 Regeneration and Management Standards

One objective of silvicultural effectiveness monitoring isto determine whether the objectives that have beenspecified for that area have been met. The minimumobjectives for a particular stand will be described in theSGRs in Table FMP-10 in an FMP. Since there is agreat diversity of stands and values in Ontario, addi-tional objectives may be described. In these casesadditional standards may also have to be described,monitored and reported.

The minimum regeneration standards for clearcut andshelterwood systems and the management standards forthe selection system are determined as part of the SGRsat the time of FMP preparation and must include:• target tree species (desired or crop) and accept-

able tree species based on ecological condition andmanagement objectives;

• minimum height of target and acceptable treespecies;

• time frame, expressed either as the prescribed max-imum number of years to reach FTG for evenagedsystems or the number of growing seasons elapsedsince the last disturbance before the survey was con-ducted for unevenaged systems;

• stocking and/or density per hectare for target andacceptable species free from competing vegetation(define minimum/maximum/target); and

• survey methodologies (e.g. how stocking is deter-mined) as a footnote to Table FMP-10.

3.3.1 Additional Minimum ManagementStandards for the Selection System

These standards encompass the regeneration standardrequirements noted above as well as the following:• stand structure (diameter distribution, i.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 growingstock (UGS)).

Regardless of the silvicultural system used, the appro-priate data must be collected and analyzed in order toassess whether a particular area has met the regenera-tion objectives. The minimum data requirements arereflected in the regeneration and management stan-dards noted above, which ensure the forest manager hasthe ability to assess current stand and site conditionsand also the ability to track stand development overtime toward the desired future forest condition. Someexamples of additional management standards that maybe required are the number of live cavity trees, numberof seed trees, number of veteran trees or amount ofmajor logging damage to residual trees or establishedregeneration on the site.

The data is used to predict long term results by project-ing future stand and forest development throughcomputer modeling. The data from the monitoringprogram allows forest managers to ascertain if thestands or forest are developing as anticipated, andwhether the actual and expected results are the same.The impacts of these differences are assessed in relationto the forest management planning process. The detailsof silviculture effectiveness data reporting and analysisare presented in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.

In circumstances where the standards of the SGR havenot been met, the information collected through silvi-cultural effectiveness monitoring allows the forestmanager to determine follow-up treatments includingre-treatment or vegetation management. The forestmanager may also accept the resultant stand and reclas-sify it to another forest unit, but it is important that thisdecision be recorded and tracked. The impact of thefuture forest condition on the forest must also be ana-lyzed depending on how common, extensive or severethe changes.


10

3.4 Forest Resource Inventory Information Requirements

If the SGR regeneration and management standardshave been met, the stand may be re-entered into theforest resources inventory. The silvicultural effective-ness monitoring data also provides the forest managerwith the information needed to update the forest inven-tory. Updates to FRIs for all silvicultural systems mustinclude, but are not limited to:• species composition and working group• height• age (year of origin)• stocking.

There are additional information requirements forstands managed under the selection and shelterwoodsilvicultural systems. For the selection system, the FRIdescription 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 requirementsinclude the following data for both the overstory andunderstory:• 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 aredescribed 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 theobjective of providing meaningful information on thestate of forest regeneration. Changes in forest manage-ment and planning responsibilities have resulted in allbut the FTG surveys being optional, although manyforest companies continue to include these surveys aspart of their forest management activities.

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

Extensive methodologies are generally used where thereare obvious successes or failures or to “zero-in” onproblem areas requiring more intensive assessment.Intensive methods are intended for stands where thestatus of regeneration is uncertain or specific quantita-tive data is required to determine the silviculturaleffectiveness of operational treatments. Regardless ofthe methodology, intensive or extensive, the minimumdata must be collected and reported in order to providean assessment of whether the area is FTG or not and toforecast stand development. Refinements to models andimprovements to forest management decisions dependon accurate quantifiable information characterizing theregenerating forest.

Mandatory use of specific assessment methodologies isnot required. Two methodologies have been developedand the documentation will be finalized upon the com-pletion of field testing. Brief descriptions of these twomethodologies follow.

The Silviculture Treatment, Assessment and ReportingSystem (STARS) is a computer-based data collectionand analysis system designed to simplify silviculturaleffectiveness monitoring. This system is appropriate foruse in all silvicultural systems, providing both stockingand density data for all forest types found in Ontario.


11


12

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

The assessment methodology must be compatible withthe prescription, the regeneration standards and anyinterpretative tools to forecast stand development (e.g.managed stand yield tables). In particular, if the regen-eration standards are expressed as a percentage stockingthen assessment using the STARS method would bemore appropriate. If the regeneration objectives areexpressed as the number of well-spaced, free-growingstems, 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 Assessmentand Reporting System Program Manual (Pinto 1998) willbe used as the standards for audit purposes.

Audits commissioned by the MNR may be extensive orintensive. Intensive regeneration surveys commissionedby the MNR will be done at an intensity that will ensurea 90% confidence interval equal to +/- 10% of the esti-mated mean. The intensive MNR surveys will ensurethat there is a 90% probability that the minimum stan-dard pertaining to FTG stocking, density orfree-growing trees for acceptable species has been metor 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 min-imum FTG stocking standard of acceptable species forfour different projects is 40%. The MNR conducts fourintensive surveys, one in each new stand. The results areshown in Table 2.

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

The holders of Sustainable Forest Licences (SFL) arerequired to conduct a monitoring program includingthe assessment of regeneration. As detailed in this man-ual and in the FMPM, the licensees are responsible forproviding the required information to MNR.Recognizing the ongoing monitoring program carriedout by the industry, MNR’s responsibilities include con-ducting spot checks of the areas as required. TheSTARS and FGRA methodologies will be used byMNR to substantiate their spot checks and by inde-pendent forest auditors to conduct their fieldassessments of regeneration.

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

Note that even though the black spruce projects have an average stocking equal to or greater than the minimum standard, thereis still a high probability that the true stocking is less than the minimum.

Project Name Estimated Stocking Lower Limit Upper Limit Meet Standard

Jack Pine 2 56% 50% 62% YesMixedwood 4 66% 59% 73% YesBlack Spruce 23 40% 35% 45% NoBlack Spruce 55 44% 38% 48% No

3.6 Dispute Resolution

In circumstances where there are discrepancies betweenthe data reported by the SFL holder and the verificationconducted by MNR through spot checks, the disputeresolution procedure described in the FIM will be usedto resolve the issue(s). The dispute resolution mecha-nism will also be used where a forest resource licenceholder fails to provide the required information.


13

4.0 COMPILATION AND REPORTING

4.1 Introduction

Reporting the results of silvicultural effectiveness mon-itoring serves two main purposes:

• To ensure that the data and associated analysis andresults are recorded and available to those requiringthem, now and in the future; and

• To fulfill legal requirements for public reporting.

4.1.1 Overview

Reporting of ongoing survey and assessment results isrequired as part of the Annual Report for each MU.These reports must be available to the public uponrequest. The MU Annual Reports are rolled up to pro-duce the provincial Annual Report on Forest Managementwhich is tabled in the legislature, published and madeavailable to the public. It must include a summary of sil-vicultural effectiveness in the form of areas assessed forFTG status, areas declared FTG and if available, condi-tion survey (e.g., survival and stocking) results. Asummary of report statistics for the MU on forest regen-eration are also forwarded annually to the federalgovernment for inclusion in The Compendium of CanadianForestry Statistics and The State of Canada’s Forests.

Longer-term trends are summarized and compared topredictions made in the forest management plan onceevery five years at the end of each plan term in theRPFO for each MU. A draft must be available for StageOne of the public consultation process for the prepara-tion of the next FMP for each MU and the final versionmust be completed by Stage Two of the public consul-tation process. Results from these reports will be rolledup provincially to contribute to the “State of the Forest”report once every five years. This report must contain aprovincial overview and summary of silvicultural effec-tiveness drawn from data contained in the AnnualReports. Similarly some of the regeneration statisticswill be used in future reporting on criteria and indica-tors used to determine forest sustainability forprovincial and national reports.

4.2 Management Unit Annual Reports

Annual Reports for each MU are required to containseveral standard tables with associated text that summa-rize the results obtained. Forecasts of targets associatedwith each of these tables can be found in the FMP.Where possible, results are required to be evaluated andconclusions drawn, including progress toward achievingtargets identified in the FMP (see Section 5.0 for moredetail on analysis and evaluation requirements).

The stand level data that is used to generate the tablesand reports is not required to be included with thereports but must be available for inspection and use byMNR staff and auditors. Each MU must maintain ageo-referenced forest stand level database that allowsthe stand attribute information in Section 2.5 (Table 1)and the appropriate SGRs (i.e., Table FMP-10) to betracked from the time of harvest to the time of FTG.Figure 2 illustrates the sequence of events, decisions andassociated flow of assessment results that eventuallyresults in the summarization of the data in the AnnualReport tables.

The text accompanying the Annual Reports must sum-marize significant trends, results and recommendationsresulting from inspecting the Annual Report tables andsupporting data and information. The text must alsosummarize the results of monitoring the effectiveness ofsilvicultural treatments that are exceptions to the rec-ommendations in the silvicultural guides. In particular,trends where stands are consistently not tracking to thepredicted regeneration standard and future forest con-dition must be discussed. In instances wheresilvicultural problems and issues come to light, it isimportant to consider seeking advice or assistance fromother colleagues or subject experts (e.g., MNR special-ists in regional and main offices and MNR scientists andspecialists in the science sections and technology devel-opment units).

The Annual Report tables associated with silviculturaleffectiveness are briefly described on the followingpages.

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – COMPILATION AND REPORTING

14

Silvicu

ltural E

ffectiveness M

on

itorin

g M

anu

al for O

ntario

–C

OM

PIL

AT

ION

AN

D R

EP

OR

TIN

G

Annual Report (AR): tables, text and maps summarize harvest, renewal, tending, pro-tection and monitoring activities, compare with projections in FMP tables

Figure 2: Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Components within the Forest Management Planning System: Stand andManagement Unit Level

Note: The four documented components required for a successful silvicultural effectiveness monitoringsystem discussed in section 2.1 are highlighted in the above diagram:

1. Desired future Forest Condition 2. Planned Method to Reach Future Forest Condition3. Standards Used to Assess Success 4. Actual Treatments Implemented

Forest Management Plan: five-year detailed plans of harvest, regeneration activi-ties and monitoring regeneration success; key components relative to SEM

Forest Unit (FU)Description Table:FMP-8Descriptors include:

Working Group FRI parameterSite Type Forest TypeSilvicultural system

Silvicultural Ground Rules (SGR) Table:FMP-10Descriptors include:

Current FU Silvicultural Treatment Package (STP)Future FU Harvest MethodPreferred Alt. Renewal MethodsRegeneration Standards

Annual Work Schedule (AWS): schedule harvest, renewal and monitoring operationsForest Operations Prescription (FOP): confirm/revise STP in stand listingsSchedule renewal, maintenance and protection : Table AWS-4Schedule regeneration success assessment: Table AWS-6

Report on Past Forest Operations (RPFO): tables, text and map roll-up associatedannual report tables and text for past 5 years, compare with FMP projections, ana-lyze and evaluate results

RPFO-7Renewal,Tend andProtectionArea (sum AR-6)

RPFO-8FU/STPSuccessBy OriginalFUProjected vs.Actual (sum AR-7)

RPFO-9TrackingOriginal FUto Future FUProjected vs.Actual (sum AR-8 andAR-9)

RPFO-11Revenue andExpend dol-lars byrenewal activ-ity (sum AR-11)

RPFO-13 Projected,Actual andDesiredForestCondition(from inventory&FMP-11)

Table AR-6Renewal TendProtectionOperationsarea (compareFMP-25)

Table AR-7SilviculturalSuccess areaby FU/STPandOriginal FU(compare FMP-28)

Table AR-8Project FutureFU of harvestarea by origi-nal FU(compare withFMP-16)

AR-9RegenerationSuccess AreabyOriginal FUand FutureFU (compareFMP-16)

AR-11Revenue andExpend dol-lars byrenewal activ-ity (comparewith FMP-27

Harvest, Renewal, Maintenance and Monitoring Operations Implemented Each YearMonitoring Regeneration Success using intensive /extensive surveysMNR audit Surveys use either Free-Growing Regeneration Assessment (for even-aged)or Silvicultural Treatment Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) (for even oruneven-aged management)

Planning involves modeling scenarios, selecting alternative, projecting 5-years of operations:

Silvicultural Strategies: STP/FU combinations with similar yields and costsStrategic Forest Management Model (SFFM) analyses management alternativesPreferred alternative establishes available harvest area (AHA) & desired future forest condition & silvicultural investment requirements and other 5-year projectionsProjections: FMP-11: Future Forest Condition: FU/age class changes by

20 yr incrementsFMP-12: Sustainability Indicator Objectives: achievements by 20 yr incrementsFMP-14: Projected Harvest vol/area, Regen area, Tend area, Revenue and Expend dollars by FU FMP-16: FU area transitions over 5-yr.FMP-25: Renewal and Tending areaFMP-27: Forecast Revenue and Expend dollars by Activity

Monitoring Program: Regeneration Success componentFMP-28 Forecast areas to be assessed (by original FU/STP)

Rev

ise/

adju

st A

WS

Information used in the preparation of the next FMP.

15

AR-6 ANNUAL REPORT OF RENEWAL, TENDING AND PROTECTION OPERATIONS (FMPM page C-19)

Table AR-6 summarizes, by future forest unit and treat-ment method, the area of renewal, tending andprotection operations that were implemented. Thistable documents the amount and type of silviculturaltreatments implemented (including natural regenera-tion) by the year in which they occurred or wereinitiated (e.g., harvesting initiates natural regeneration).Results of analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.1) ofTable AR-6 and other related stand and managementunit level data must be included in the Annual Reporttext associated with this table.

Table AR-6 allows the plan author to compare thequantity and type of renewal activities implemented tothe quantity and type of renewal activities forecast inthe approved FMP (Table FMP-25, Forecast ofRenewal and Tending Operations). This will assist inensuring that forecast renewal targets are met by theend of the plan term or, conversely, provides justifica-tion for revising current and future plans. In order to beable to track and summarize renewal activities by themanner in which the areas were depleted (e.g., harvest,salvage, fire, insect and other), separate tables arerequired for two major depletion types. One table mustbe prepared for harvested areas and another table fornaturally depleted areas. Additionally, a summary tablethat includes all depletion types must also be prepared.Salvaged areas are included with natural depletions.

AR-7 ANNUAL REPORT OF ASSESSMENT OFREGENERATION SUCCESS (FMPM page C-21)

Table AR-7 provides a summary by original forest unitand silvicultural treatment package of the area assessedand area of silvicultural success. Although the title ofthis table refers to “regeneration success”, the intent isto report on “silvicultural success” as defined in Section1.5. In other words this table records the success of theapplied FOPs in meeting the regeneration standardsand modelling assumptions for the approved FMP ortimber management plan (TMP) that was in effect whenthe renewal treatments were applied.

Table AR-7 tracks progress in meeting the regenerationassessment targets specified in Table FMP-28 (Forecastof Assessment of Regeneration Success) of the approvedFMP. It provides the plan author with critical informa-tion in assessing the success of past silviculturaltreatments and will justify their continued use or theneed for their re-examination or revision in futureschedules and plans.

Information resulting from assessment surveys of areasfound to be unsuccessful is useful because it may lead tocorrections and improvements in the modellingassumptions, silvicultural prescriptions and treatments.Although this table excludes surveyed areas that did notmeet the FTG standards, it is important to summarizeand discuss these areas in the associated Annual Reporttext. For example, stands which are regenerating to thespecified species and respective stocking levels withinthe specified time limit may not be assessed to be FTGbecause of competition from other vegetation at thetime of survey. An initial reaction might be to labelthese stands as “failures”. However, by tending thecompetition these stands can eventually be assessed asFTG. Similarly, results of the analysis and evaluation(see Section 5.0) of this and other related stand andmanagement unit level data must be included in theAnnual Report text associated with this table.

In order to increase operational flexibility, many planauthors have created a multitude of silvicultural treat-ment packages within the SGRs of their approved plans.Differences between some of these packages are mini-mal and discussion of each in the text may be of littlevalue at the management unit or higher levels. Planauthors may group similar silvicultural treatment pack-ages together to reduce the number of treatmentpackages being summarized and discussed in the text.

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


16

AR-8 ANNUAL REPORT OF HARVEST AND PROJECTED REGENERATION(FMPM page C-23)

Table AR-8 summarizes, by original forest unit, the areadepleted during the year and projects the successfulrenewal of these areas by forest unit and the years whensuccess 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 toproject the successful regeneration of all depleted areas,including naturally depleted areas.

Separate tables must be compiled for the harvest andnatural depletion types. Table AR-8 also projectschanges in the distribution of forest units that will occuras a result of renewal efforts. The projected years ofrenewal and future forest units are based upon the SGRsand a knowledge of site types associated with the harvestareas. Comparison with the forest unit transitions pro-jected in Table FMP-16 (Projected Forest UnitTransitions for the Available Harvest Area) of theapproved plan will allow the plan author to verify theassumptions used in the preparation of the current andfuture FMPs. This knowledge will allow for adjustmentsto renewal activities from year to year to help ensureplan targets are met or provide information to revise orcorrect assumptions in future plans and schedules.

AR-9 ANNUAL REPORT OF REGENERATION SUCCESS (FMPM page C-25)

Table AR-9 summarizes areas successfully regeneratedby original forest unit (i.e., the forest unit descriptionjust prior to harvest), the year of depletion, and the for-est unit to which the area has regenerated. The use ofthe word “harvest” in the column title “AreasSuccessfully Regenerated by Year of Harvest” is mis-leading. Table AR-9 is intended to track renewal successon all depleted areas, including natural depletions suchas fire. Separate tables are required for each depletiontype (e.g., harvest, fire, insects and other). At any pointin time progress made in regenerating depleted areascan be readily determined by subtracting the areareported FTG in all AR-9 tables for a particular deple-tion 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 inTable AR-7. Stands that do not meet the ground rulestandard originally prescribed but do meet the regener-ation standards for another acceptable future forestcondition should also be reported in this table. Forexample, areas depleted naturally due to unplanned nat-ural causes (e.g., fire, insects, disease) may not havesilvicultural prescriptions assigned but eventually willregenerate and should be summarized in this table,though separate tables should be used for each of thetwo types. Another example is where a new stand hasregenerated to a forest unit other than the forest unittargeted in the FOP. For various reasons, it may bemore practical to accept the new stand back into theinventory as it is rather than re-treat it. It is very impor-tant that these areas (which are not “silviculturalsuccesses”) be described and rationalized in the textassociated with this table.

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

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

When a stand is successfully regenerated, but does notmeet the SGR regeneration standards originally pre-scribed but does meet the standards for another groundrule, the stand may contribute to the objectives of themanagement unit by meeting the requirements ofanother forest unit. This allows the forest manager acertain amount of flexibility in determining whether astand should be re-treated or allowed to continue todevelop. Where differences are detected between theexpected and actual results, it is important that these aredocumented and reported, so that the necessary alter-ations can be made as early as possible to treatments orassumptions in models used in forest planning.


17

4.3 Management Unit Five Year Reports (Report of Past Forest Operations)

The RPFO (produced once every five years for eachMU) is required to contain several standard tables withassociated text that summarizes the results obtained.These tables are the result of compiling Annual Reporttables described in Section 4.2 for the previous planterm. The reports are also developed through inventoryupdates done at the beginning and end of the plan term.Forecasts of targets for assessments and forest unit tran-sitions are documented in the FMP.

The assessment of the achievement of the managementobjectives that are stated in the FMP is producedthrough examination of each management objective andits associated management strategy(ies) individually, andall objectives collectively.

Since most objectives have long-term strategic compo-nents, and their achievement depends on theimplementation of successive FMPs, the assessmentmust consider as many past plan terms as possible toevaluate long-term trends. For silvicultural objectives, asummary statement of silvicultural effectiveness by for-est unit and preferably working group and silviculturaltreatment package must also be provided in the RPFO.

If targets were not achieved, the assessment must pro-vide reasons for the failure to achieve the targets and adiscussion of the possible implications. In addition,assessments of the effectiveness of silvicultural treat-ment packages, which are exceptions to treatments inthe silvicultural guides, must be provided. Conclusionsrelated to the success of silvicultural treatments, and theaccuracy of predictions of future forest units and the yearof successful regeneration, must be discussed in the text.

The text of the RPFO must summarize significanttrends, results and recommendations arising frominspecting these tables and supporting data and infor-mation. The text must also summarize the results ofmonitoring the effectiveness of silvicultural treatmentsthat are exceptions to the recommendations in the silvi-cultural guides. In particular, trends where stands areconsistently not tracking to the predicted regeneration

standard and future forest condition must be discussed.In instances where silvicultural problems and issuescome to light, it is important to consider seeking adviceor assistance from other colleagues or subject experts(e.g. MNR silvicultural specialists in regional and mainoffices, MNR scientists and specialists in the sciencesections and technology development units).

The RPFO tables associated with silvicultural effective-ness are briefly described below.

RPFO-7 SUMMARY OF RENEWAL, TENDINGAND PROTECTION OPERATIONS(FMPM page C-53)

Table RPFO-7 summarizes the five-year area ofrenewal, tending and protection operations, which wereimplemented by treatment method. The source infor-mation for this table is the Annual Report Table AR-6and the associated text submitted for each year of thepast plan term. The text provides rationalization of thedifferences between planned and actual levels as well asany other anomalies in the tables. Since Table AR-6 iscompleted separately for the two major depletion types(i.e., harvest and natural depletions), a separate TableRPFO-7 is also required for each depletion type.

This information is compared directly with operationsplanned and summarized in the approved FMP (TableFMP-25, Forecast of Renewal and TendingOperations). Explanations of any significant differencesbetween the planned and actual levels of renewal andtending operations must be provided in the text. Resultsof the analysis and evaluation (see Section 5.1) of TableRPFO-7 and other related stand and management unitlevel data must also be provided in the text associatedwith this table. This information should be of assistanceto the plan author when developing the rules used in thetests of sustainability, modelling wood and habitat sup-ply and planning silvicultural operations for the nextplan term.


18

RPFO-8 SUMMARY REPORT OF ASSESSMENT OF REGENERATION SUCCESS (FMPM page C-55)

Table RPFO-8 provides a summary, by forest unit andsilvicultural treatment package, of the five-year areaassessed and approved for regeneration success.Although the title of this table refers to “regenerationsuccess”, the intent is to report on “silvicultural success”as defined in Section 1.5. The source information forthis table is Table FMP-28 (Forecast of Assessment ofRegeneration Success) from the past plan and theAnnual Report Table AR-7 and associated text submit-ted for each year of the past plan term. The textprovides rationalization of the differences betweenplanned and actual levels, as well as any anomalies in thetables. The information in this table will be the basis formaking an assessment of the silvicultural effectivenessof the silvicultural treatment packages. Results of theanalysis and evaluation (see Section 5.2) of TableRPFO-8 and other related stand and management unitlevel data must be provided in the text associated withthis table. This information should be of assistance tothe plan author when developing the rules used in thetests of sustainability, modelling wood and habitat sup-ply and planning silvicultural operations for the nextplan term. Since Table AR-7 table is completed sepa-rately for the two major depletion types (i.e., harvestand natural depletions), a separate Table RPFO-8 is alsorequired for each depletion type.

RPFO-9 SUMMARY REPORT OF HARVESTAND REGENERATION SUCCESS(FMPM page C-57)

Table RPFO-9 is a status report on depleted and regen-erated areas. The purpose of this table is to summarizeharvest, natural depletion and regeneration informationin order to permit an evaluation of regeneration success.The use of the word “harvest” in the title and the firstcolumn heading (i.e. Year of Harvest) is misleading.Table RPFO-9 is intended to track the renewal successof all depletions, including naturally-caused depletions.Due to the nature and purpose of the information pre-sented, this table must apply to a period longer than justthe previous five-year term of operations. Table RPFO-9must 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 isnecessary to make an evaluation. Naturally depletedareas should also be included.

The source information for Table RPFO-9 is a series ofAnnual Report Tables AR-8 (provides “projected”columns) and AR-9 (provides “actual” columns). TablesAR-8 and AR-9 for past plan terms prior to the intro-duction of the new planning manual do not exist. Intheir absence, stand prescriptions and FTG assessmentresults from previous terms will have to be extracted andsummarized in the respective “projected” and “actual”columns. Results of the analysis and evaluation (seeSection 5.2) of Table RPFO-9 and other related standand management unit level data must be provided in thetext associated with this table. As Tables AR-8 and AR-9are completed separately for the two major depletiontypes (i.e., harvest and natural depletions), a separateTable RPFO-9 is also required for each depletion type.


19

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 theactual available managed production forest at two pointsin time with short term and longer term projections. Itshows the actual available production forest at the start ofthe term, at the end of the term and a short-term (20-year) projection made at the start of the term. It alsoshows the desired future forest, as defined by the plansprepared and implemented during the term of theRPFO. Table RPFO-13 is used to determine if majorchanges in the desired future forest have occurredbetween one plan and the next. Table RPFO-13 can helpthe plan author to develop the rules used in the tests ofsustainability, to model wood and habitat supply and toplan silvicultural operations for the next plan term.

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

It will be a number of years before all components of theFMPM can be fully implemented for all MUs across theprovince. This phase-in period will also affect licensee’sability to report on the full requirements for AnnualReport and RPFO tables. More details on this phase-inrequirement with respect to Annual Reports and RPFOsare listed in Appendix VIII of the FMPM. It is recom-mended that the full reporting requirements beimplemented as quickly as possible.

Term and Condition 21 of the Timber EA requires thata summary of areas assessed for FTG status, and areasdeclared FTG, by silvicultural treatment package andsite type (i.e., ecosite or site type), be provided in theRPFO. The FMPM requires SGRs (Table FMP-10) toinclude site type information, as found in the silviculturalguides. As new plans are prepared using the FMPM, thetables described above will be required to include generalstandard site types (i.e., ecosites).

4.4 Provincial Annual Reports

Term and Condition 82 of the Timber EA requiresMNR to produce and table in the Provincial Legislature,a provincial “Annual Report on Timber Management”. Theminimum content requirements of the report are speci-fied in Appendix 20 of the EA Board decision. The scopeof the report has been broadened to address other usesand users of the forest as reflected in the current title ofthe report: “The Annual Report on Forest Management”.

The provincial Annual Reports on forest managementcontain regional and provincial summaries of forestrenewal and maintenance activities that are listed in theAnnual Report Table AR-6 for each MU. Future reportswill also contain regional and provincial summaries ofthe assessments of silvicultural success data reported inAnnual Report Tables AR-7, AR-8 and AR-9. Futurereports may also contain sub-regional (boundaries yet tobe determined) summaries of this data.

4.5 Provincial Five Year Reports

Both the Timber EA Term and Condition 84 and theCFSA require the Crown (MNR) to prepare a provincialreport on the “State of the Forest” at least once every fiveyears and to table the report in the ProvincialLegislature. The information may also be summarized atregional and sub-regional (boundaries yet to be deter-mined) levels. The minimum content requirements ofthe report are specified in Appendix 22 of the EA Boarddecision, the CFSA and the “Forest Resource Assessment onCrown Lands in Ontario Policy”. The first provincial “Stateof the Forest” report is scheduled to be produced in 2001.

The five-year report will contain a provincial overviewand summary of silvicultural effectiveness drawn fromdata contained in the preceding five provincial “AnnualReports on Forest Management”, as well as RPFO’s fromindividual MUs.


20

All of the previously described five-year reports, whetherat an MU, regional or provincial level may have a com-mon problem when attempting to report on silviculturalresults over a time frame greater than five years becausethe basic unit upon which the reports are based is cur-rently the forest unit. Forest units are allowed to beredefined whenever a new FMP is prepared and this isfurther complicated because working groups, as definedby the FRI, were used in the past in place of the currentforest units. Therefore, in cases where the basic report-ing unit has varied, tracking results over the course ofmore than one plan term may require the data to be con-verted to common reporting units.

The FMPM requires forest units to be described in termsof the site type, working group and other parameters(Table FMP-8). This information will be used to assignproxy working groups (i.e., the working group that bestdescribes the forest unit) and general standard site typeswhen summarizing silvicultural effectiveness informationat the regional and provincial levels. Assigning proxyworking groups could also be used at the MU level toconvert data from different planning terms to allow longterm trend analysis.

4.6 National Annual Reporting

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

Natural Resources Canada annually publishes The Stateof Canada’s Forests with information from this com-pendium. The MNR also provides data to supportREGEN, a program that models the progress of regen-erating Crown forests harvested after 1975. Proxy datafrom Ontario Independent Forest Audits and the Surveyof Artificially Regenerated Sites (SOARS) I and II willeventually be replaced by actual data from the AnnualReports for each MU.

4.7 National Five Year Reporting

The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers produced itsfirst report on criteria and indicators of sustainable forestmanagement in the year 2000. The report includesresults compiled from the provinces for one indicatorwhich measures the success of both natural and artificialregeneration. The REGEN computer model was thesource of data for this indicator.

Ontario criteria and indicators will continue to developas better indicators and data becomes available. Futurereports will include data for other indicators related toforest regeneration such as:• percent of forest area classified as not regenerated;

and area, timing and species composition of naturaland artificial regeneration as compared to the man-agement targets/silvicultural prescriptions.

The data obtained from Ontario’s silvicultural effective-ness monitoring system is integral to successfullyreporting the provincial portion of this national report.


21

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

22

5.0 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

5.1 Introduction

The data standards, collection and reporting describedin Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this manual are fundamentalfor providing information for analysis and evaluation ofsilvicultural effectiveness. The standards for data collec-tion ensure that the essential data are collected to allowfor evaluation at the various scales.

At the stand level, the data analysis must provideanswers to site specific questions, e.g., was a particulartreatment successful in a certain stand. These data arethe basis for the analysis and evaluation at the MU (for-est) level, through to the site region, provincial, nationaland international levels.

5.2 Stand and Forest Unit Analysis and Evaluation

The evaluation methodologies differ as the data moveup the information hierarchy. At the stand level, indi-vidual treatments or prescriptions are examined bycollecting the site-specific silvicultural effectivenessmonitoring data listed in Section 3.0. Analysis and eval-uation of this data permit the local manager to declarethe stands FTG and re-introduce them into the forestinventory.

Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring supports standlevel forest management decision-making. For example,using the analysis of silvicultural records and data todetermine whether or not to re-treat an area. The geo-referenced tracking of prescriptions, treatments andresulting forest conditions allows the forest manager tocompare results of many similar stands over time. Theresulting forest unit trends are included in the text ofthe management unit Annual Reports and used duringthe preparation of subsequent forest management plans.For example, the results would be used in developingthe rules used in the tests of sustainability and wood andhabitat supply modelling. As a result of the MU level

analysis, the manager may refer particular problems toothers for further investigation (e.g., to regional tech-nology development units).

The forest manager must first review whether or notthe planned treatments were applied to the stand. If theprescribed treatments were not carried out, the ration-ale as to why and the applied alternative must have beenincluded in the AWS as part of the FOP, prior to thework being done. If a treatment not in the approvedSGR was to be applied, an FMP amendment and AWSrevision were required prior to the work being done.

The treated areas are recorded in the FMPM AnnualReport Table AR-6. This table requires the submission ofa listing of all stands which have been treated and mapswhich identify the treated areas. By ensuring that theserecords are maintained, the forest manager can examinethe effectiveness of specific prescriptions or treatmentsand determine the appropriateness of the applied SGR.Section 3.0 of this manual stipulates the minimum datarecords that will allow accurate assessment of the treat-ments. The regeneration data collected is compared tothe expected results for the stand. If the measures of success(usually stocking or density of specified tree species thatare 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 pro-vide feedback for planning decisions.

Figure 3: Stand-level regeneration success

Part of a sample regeneration standard for an SGR in an FMP.

Results after stand assessment

Minimum total (target & acceptable) stocking: 70%Minimum target tree stocking: 50%

Time after treatment: 10 years, Height: 1m

Acceptable tree species: Jack pine, white spruce

Pj 70 Po 20 Sw 10Age 10 years, Site Class 2, Height 1.3mStocking 85%

5.3 Management Unit Analysis and Evaluation

The silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data for for-est units is further examined for the forest managementunit. Forest managers use the stand and forest unit datato evaluate the success or failure of past managementdecisions, to compare the results of alternative manage-ment strategies, to compare the results between forests,and to compare their results with those of others work-ing in the same forest type.

The renewal objectives for the MU are established inthe FMP. It is extremely important to ascertain howwell the regenerating forest is doing compared to thedesired or expected outcomes. As part of this manage-ment unit evaluation, several questions presented in theFMPM RPFO, Achievement of ManagementObjectives, 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 ofsimilar composition and development that will betreated with the same silvicultural system into forestunits. These forest units are used in computer models tocalculate predicted changes in forest diversity, habitatand timber supply. Forest managers can use the datacollected from individual stands to verify expected andactual changes in forest units. For example, the com-puter models require the manager to specify whatproportion of a forest unit stays as the same forest unitand what proportion changes to other specified forestunits after treatment. A manager can compare theexpected changes and the actual changes for each forestunit in the forest. The information for these compar-isons is provided in Table RPFO-13 (Comparison ofProjected, Actual and Desired Future Forest Conditionfor the Managed Crown Forest Area Available forTimber Production).

Tables AR-7 (Annual Report of Assessment ofRegeneration Success) and AR-9 (Annual Report ofRegeneration Success) provide a basis for forest levelevaluation of silvicultural effectiveness. The reportingrequirements of the tables are detailed in Section 4.0 ofthis manual. The summary of the hectares assessed thatmet the regeneration standards by forest unit and silvi-cultural treatment package allows the forest manager toreview those treatments that resulted in the successfulrenewal of forest units. Table AR-9 summarizes theoriginal forest unit and year of harvest and what the for-est unit has regenerated to over time. Examining thedifference in area between Table AR-7 and Table AR-9allows the forest manager, on an annual basis, to analyzethe changes that are occurring to the forest units andthe impact this may have on the allowable harvest areaand forest sustainability. The forest level analyses pro-vided by Tables AR-7 and AR-9 allow the forestmanager to examine the reasons for discrepanciesbetween expected and actual forest units, as well as toexamine the implications on the desired future forestcondition.

Further forest level evaluation is based upon applicationof the data to models, such as the Strategic ForestManagement Model (SFMM). Input of actual data andlocally constructed growth and yield curves allow theforest manager to more accurately assess the impactsand future implications of their management actions tothe forest and assess whether the forest is tracking to thedesired future forest condition. The differencesbetween expected and actual values may result inchanges to wood supply, habitat supply and other pro-jected outputs.

The silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data con-tributes to the five-year FMPM requirement for theRPFO. The “roll-up” of annual information provides thebasis for Table RPFO-8 (Summary Report of Assessmentof Regeneration Success) and Table RPFO-9 (SummaryReport of Harvest and Regeneration Success). Therequirements for these tables are detailed in Section 4.3of this manual. From the evaluation perspective, the pur-pose of these tables is to “summarize, for the five-yearperiod, harvest and regeneration information in order topermit an evaluation of regeneration success”.


23

Table RPFO-13 (Comparison of Projected, Actual, andDesired Future Forest Condition for the ManagedCrown Forest Area Available for Timber Production) isthe culmination of the evaluation at the MU level. Thistable allows the forest manager to determine if majorchanges have occurred in the desired future forest andalso the progress that is being made toward the desiredfuture forest condition both in the short term of themanagement planning period and the longer term. Aswell as providing key information for the backgroundpreparation of the next FMP, Table RPFO-13 providesfor the discussion of discrepancies by forest unit andtrends that have appeared.

Although long term trends may not be apparent withinthe five-year RPFO period, anomalies may be evident inthe examination of the particular forest units, the silvi-culture treatment packages, and the amount of area thatmeets the regeneration and management standards.This information is critical in determining how the for-est will develop and for updating planning andstewardship inventories; it must also be discussed in thetext of the RPFO.

An additional evaluation that is optional but is impor-tant from the MU perspective and considered a “bestpractice”, is the cost-effectiveness of treatments andmonies invested for the renewal of the forest. Cost eval-uation can be particularly time sensitive, i.e., investingin intensive forestry treatments such as site preparationand planting likely require a greater initial investmentthan more extensive renewal methods but over the longterm the investment may be more cost-effective inachieving the desired results.

The evaluation of cost is also important in determiningwhether the renewal trust fund rates and overall silvi-culture funding levels are adequate for each MU.Silvicultural cost information is not required to bereported in MU Annual Reports. However, MNR musthave access to the cost information by treatment.

5.4 Site Region Analysis andEvaluation

The evaluation of forest sustainability is evolving overtime. The Ontario criteria and indicators will continueto develop as better indicators and data become avail-able, but it is recognized that information collectedthrough silvicultural effectiveness monitoring is, andwill continue to be, elemental to the evaluation.

The FMPM indicators of sustainability directly linkedto 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 manage-ment targets/silvicultural prescriptions; and

• harvest area successfully regenerated.

These data are collected at the stand level and reported atthe forest unit and MU level, but the first level sustain-ability analysis may be done at the site region. The resultswill be further evaluated as part of the provincial, nationaland international evaluations of forest sustainability.

5.5 Provincial, National andInternational Analysis and Evaluation

At the provincial level, Ontario is committed to ensur-ing that all areas within the forested landbase capable ofgrowing productive forests are regenerated after distur-bance (natural and man-made) to identified managementtargets within a reasonable period of time. This com-mitment is reflected from the stand level evaluation offorest management practices through to the nationaland international evaluation of forest sustainability.

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


24

The silvicultural effectiveness monitoring data from theMU annual reporting of the FMPM and FIM is used toevaluate our performance nationally and internationally.Commitments by the Canadian Council of ForestMinisters are reflected in the National Forest Strategyprescribing criteria and indicators as the framework forthe evaluation. This approach is also reflected provin-cially in the CFSA and the Forest Resource Assessment onCrown Lands in Ontario Policy.

The data to support Ontario’s provincial, national, andinternational criteria and indicators reporting are derivedfrom information collected at the field level as part of thesilvicultural effectiveness monitoring system as describedin this report. Contributions from Ontario to theCanadian NFD program further support the federalAnnual Reporting requirements and evaluation of trends.

6.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN SILVICULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Changes in forest strategies and in information technol-ogy will result in changes to the types of variables thatwill be monitored as well as monitoring techniques, datarecording, and analysis and storage. Examples ofchanges in forest strategies are the increased use of pre-commercial thinning and the use of more intensivesilvicultural practices.

As a result of direction from the Timber EA, silvicul-tural results are to be summarized by general site type(see Appendix A). However, the ability to inventory andmap ecosites has not yet been developed. When thisability has been developed and available for operationaluse it will be used to create summaries of silviculturaleffectiveness.

At the time this manual was written, the MNR initiatedthe FMP Improvement Project, with the objective ofrevising the FMPM. The FMP Improvement Projectmay result in changes to the requirements for FMPs andAWSs. This manual will be revised in the future toreflect any changes to the forest management planningand AWS requirements that result from the FMPImprovement Project and revisions to the FMPM.

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

25

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – REFERENCES

26

REFERENCES

EA Board. 1994. Reasons for Decision and Decision.Class Environmental Assessment by the Ministry ofNatural Resources for Timber Management onCrown 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 SilvicultureManual. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 64 pp.

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

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

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

Robbins, D. 1992. Ministry of Natural ResourcesFeasibility Study of a Silviculture TreatmentsEffectiveness Monitoring System (STEMS) FinalReport. Toronto, Ontario. 69 pp.

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

27

APPENDIX “A”

LEGISLATION AND POLICIES RELATED TOSILVICULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Environmental Assessment Terms andConditions

The Environmental Assessment Board recognized theneed for improved silvicultural assessment and the doc-umentation of the effectiveness of silvicultural activities.This led them to include Term and Condition 96 intheir decision (EA Board Decision 1994). It states that:

“MNR shall improve its assessment, recording andreporting of silviculture effectiveness related to bothnatural and artificial renewal methods, through thefollowing subject areas:a) The maintenance of silviculture records of

prescriptions and their results;b) 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, Free-to-Grow Assessments and other conditions survey records, and Forest Resource Inventory updating;

c) The enhancement of methodologies and tools for analysis of silvicultural trend data to assess the effectiveness of prescriptions; and

d) The systematic reporting of results of renewal activities to the general public.”

In part, this silvicultural effectiveness monitoring manualhas been prepared to address Term and Condition 96,specifically to ensure that there is improvement andconsistency in the collection, analysis and reporting ofsilvicultural effectiveness data. This focus is alsoreflected in other documents (e.g. FOSM, FMPM,FIM) which, together, more fully address Term andCondition 96.

The Board also stipulated reporting requirements foreach MU in Appendix 18 (lists MU annual reportrequirements) and Appendix 8 (lists MU five-yearreport requirements) of their decision. Those parts ofAppendices 8 and 18 that pertain to silvicultural effec-tiveness are given below:

Appendix 18: Annual Report (Forest Management Unit)

1. The Annual Report shall contain the following informa-tion concerning implementation of operations on the forestmanagement unit during the preceding year:(i)……. And a summary of the monitoring (compliance,effects and effectiveness) results as determined by ananalysis of the following information, when available:Silvicultural Ground Rules; survival surveys; FTGresults; stocking assessments; SOARs; compliance moni-toring results; area inspection reports; SIS; SAS; andaudit results.

Appendix 8: Report of Past Forest Operations

1. The Report of Past Forest Operations shall contain thefollowing information concerning implementation ofoperations on the forest management unit during thefive-year term of the previous Timber ManagementPlan;

(a) Statistical information comparing planned and actualactivities for the previous five-year term including;(viii)stand listings showing the silvicultural treatmentpackage implemented

(b) A summary of areas assessed for Free to Grow status andareas declared Free to Grow shall be provided by silvicul-tural treatment package and upon completion of therevision of the Silvicultural Guides pursuant toCondition 94(a) by general standard site type;

(l) A statement of silvicultural effectiveness by workinggroup and silvicultural treatment package shall be pro-vided, and upon completion of the revision of theSilvicultural Guides pursuant to Condition 94(a) by gen-eral standard site type.

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – APPENDIX A

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – APPENDIX A

28

Crown Forest Sustainability Act

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

Section 22 requires the Minister to table a report in thelegislature on the state of the province’s forest at leastonce every five years. The information gathered usingthis silvicultural effectiveness monitoring system pro-vides a portion of that report.

The CFSA (Sections 42 and 43) also states that forestoperations must be conducted in accordance with anapplicable FMP, work schedule, FOP and with theFOSM. This latter document describes this manual asproviding direction to forest managers on assessing for-est regeneration.

The FMPM requires that every forest managementplan include objectives related to:• forest diversity;• social and economic matters, including timber har-

vest levels;• the provision of forest cover for those values which

are dependent on forest cover; and • silviculture.

These objectives are achieved by managing forest coverthrough a series of strategies which “principally involvesilviculture methods for forest harvest, renewal andtending” (MNR 1996). The ongoing monitoring andanalysis of the silvicultural prescriptions, treatments andassessments is paramount to ascertaining the effective-ness of these strategies.

This manual outlines the essential elements required toensure that the appropriate data is collected, analyzedand reported, in order to evaluate the silvicultural treat-ments.

In addition to the information requirements of theFMPM, the FIM provides guidance for informationmanagement that supports forest management planningand operations. With respect to silvicultural effective-ness monitoring, the FIM outlines the minimuminformation requirements for data collection described(in Sections 2.0 and 3.0) in this manual, as well as thetechnical requirements for transferring data to MNR.

Licences

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

It is a condition of all SFLs that, “The Company shallassess and report on, in accordance with the Forest Operationsand Silviculture Manual, the Forest Information Manual,and the Forest Management Planning Manual, the achieve-ment of its regeneration efforts to ensure the obligations andstandards outlined in paragraph 17.5* are met”.

The standards and obligations of each licence identifiedin the preceding paragraph are stated such that, “TheCompany will implement the necessary silviculture prescrip-tions on lands described in paragraph 17.2* herein so as tomeet the silvicultural standards described in the ForestManagement Plan for the specific Forest when the silvicul-tural prescriptions are made, or in accordance with anyamendment of that standard”.

On Crown land not managed under an SFL, the MNRis responsible for collecting, analyzing and reporting onsilvicultural effectiveness.

(*Depending on the SFL licence document the actualparagraph number may vary.)

Policies

The Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests, in the sec-tion titled ‘Decision Making’, commits MNR to“develop and adopt an adaptive approach to policydevelopment and ecosystem management…The adap-tive approach involves establishing clear goals andtargets and maintaining a monitoring process thatmeasures how well the goals and targets have beenachieved”.

29

Si lv icultural Effect iveness Monitor ing Manual for Ontar io – APPENDIX B

APPENDIX “B”

EXAMPLES OF REPORTING AND ANALYZING SILVICULTURALEFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Introduction

The application of the Silvicultural EffectivenessMonitoring Manual is demonstrated in the followingexamples. A series of regeneration assessment resultsderived from all three silvicultural systems employed inOntario (i.e., clearcut, shelterwood and selection) aresummarized 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 theresults and the possible implications to future plans andoperations follow each table.

In these examples, the amount of assessment data wasdeliberately kept small to make it easier to display thetracking of the assessment results through the tables. Anoverview of the flow of data and information from thetime of field assessments through to the RPFO andpreparing the FMP for the next term are shown inFigure B-1. The key decision points in the assessmentof forest regeneration that determine effectiveness,future actions and subsequent reporting are shown inFigure 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 werepreviously harvested and were either naturally regener-ated or regenerated with assistance. The additionalassessments of naturally depleted areas would be sum-marized in separate tables.

The current approved plan for the “Ideal ManagementUnit” covers the five-year term April 1996 to March2001. Therefore, the survey results were summarized inthe two Annual Reports for 1999/2000 and 2000/2001as well as the RPFO for the Period 1996/1997 to 2000/2001. For this example there were no assessment resultsfrom the first three years of the planning term.

In the examples, several assumptions were made. It wasassumed that Annual Report Table AR-8 was not gener-ated for the areas assessed because the current FMPMwas not in place at the time of harvest. As well, the for-est units (FU) were derived by sorting the standdescriptions through the current draft standard FUs forthe Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest type. (In an actualsituation, the selection criteria for the FUs from pastplans may differ from the selection criteria for the FUsin the current plan. In this case, the selection criteriafrom the new plan should be used for interpretation ofthe results since the data will be used to prepare the newplan and to set targets in both plans).

30

Silvicu

ltural E

ffectiveness M

on

itorin

g M

anu

al for O

ntario

–A

PP

EN

DIX

BFigure B-1: Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring and Reporting Process

Annual Field Monitoring

Harvest, Renewaland Maintenance

Monitoring

Maps, Stand Listings andText: explain AR tables

AWS comparison

Maps, Stand Listings and Text:explain RPFO tables

AR Tables

AR-6Renew Treatments

Area by FU

AR-11Rev. & Expenditures

($) by Activity

AR-8**Projected Renew

area by orig. and futureFU and yr. of success

AR-9Success area by orig. and future FU and

yr. of depletion

AR-7FU/STP Success

by Original FU area

FTGAssessments

Year 1 of 5FU/STP #1FU/STP #2

Etc.

FGRAFree-GrowingRegenerationAssessment (even aged)

STARSSilviculturalTreatmentsAssessment

(even/uneven-aged)and Reporting System

Forest ResourcesInventory

(FRI) update/revise

Other Surveys and DataGathering

Annual Depletions

Annual Reporting Report on Past Forest Operations (5 years)

RPFO Tables

RPFO-7Sum Renew Treatments Area by FU

RPFO-11Sum Rev. and Expend.

($) by activity

RPFO-9Sum FU Renewal Success

vs. projected Success (sum of AR-8, AR-9) by original and future

FU and yr of Depletion

RPFO-8Sum FU/STP Success

by original FU area

RFPO-13Compares actual FU/age

class to past, projected and desiredFU/age class

Observations, Conclusions,Discussions

Planned renewal undertaken?

Produced anticipated results?

Changes to preferred STP’s: how often?

Forest growth and develop:as forecast?

Best practice: Using most efficient STPs - (i.e. least cost?)

Correct actions required?Assumptions correct?

FMP Preparation

** AR-8 projections for the current term depletions will be used infuture planning term RPFO’s. AR-8’s from previous plan terms willbe used in the RPFO-9 of the current planning term.


31

Figure B-2: Silvicultural Effectiveness Decision Process

Silvicultural Ground Rule (SGR): STPand current/desired FU

Does area meet FOP standards?

Does area meet alternate SGR standards?

Should area be treated?

Amend FMP, or apply for waiver/variation of SGR standards

Annual Work Schedule (AWS):SGR confirmed as Forest Operations

Prescription (FOP)

Silvicultural Success:Report in AR-7, AR-9

Update FRI with new/revised stand

Regeneration Success: Report in AR-9 only

Area treated according to FOP

Area Assessed after prescribed regeneration period in FOP

Retreat Area

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Note: This process applies to areas for which the SFL holder has a legal obligation to maintain the forest.Treatment of naturally depleted areas (e.g. fire, windthrow) is at the discretion of the SFL holder.Responsibility defaults to the Crown for areas that SFL holders do not assume responsibility.


32

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 theactual results from FTG surveys and Table B-2 summa-rizes 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 thesame silvicultural treatment package in this case sitepreparation, planting and one tending treatment (codedas Pj1CC200). These areas were harvested over a num-ber of years from 1982 to 1997, with most of the areasbeing harvested in 1987.

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

In this case, it was assumed that the other four areas thatdid not meet the regeneration standards, were accepted asFTG to another FU specified in the SGR of the approvedFMP and as a result were also listed in Table AR-9 (i.e.,regeneration success). If a new stand does not meet anyregeneration standard specified in an approved plan, thenit should not be summarized in Table AR-7 or AR-9. Areasnot meeting standards may require re-treatment or, ifthere are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the area wasdepleted by a forest fire and is regenerating naturally orthe area is deemed not to be the responsibility of the SFLholder), the plan author may apply to the Crown for anFMP amendment or variation/waiver of the approvedSGR. This process is illustrated in Table B-2.

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

Silvicultural System: ClearcutOriginal Forest Unit: Pj1 CCYear of assessment: 1999-2000

Number Year of Original Stand Original Desired Current Current Current Age/Height Area (ha)

Harvest Composition Stocking (%) FU FU Composition Stocking (%) (yr./m)

1CC 1985 Pj 70Bw20Po10 70 Pj1CC MW1CC Bw53Pj37Po10 85 12/1.5 50

2CC 1987 Pj70Po30 80 Pj1CC Pj1CC Pj52Po48 77 10/1.3 87

3CC 1987 Pj80Bw20 80 Pj1CC Pj1CC Pj90Bw10 80 10/1.3 27

4CC 1987 Pj100 90 Pj1CC Pj1CC Pj90Bw10 90 10/1.2 35

5CC 1987 Pj90Po10 70 Pj1CC MC1CC Pj64Po27Bf09 73 10/1.1 210

6CC 1987 Pj70Sw20Po10 80 Pj1CC MW1CC Bf56Po38Pj06 46 10/1.1 56

7CC 1982 Pj70Po20Ce10 60 Pj1CC IH1CC Po45Bw35Pj14 Sw06 68 15/1.1 44

Total 509

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


33

Assessment Results From 2000/2001:

The assessment results for 2000/2001 are summarized inTables B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7 and B-8. The assessmentresults for 2000/2001 have been summarized in threeseparate sets of Tables AR-7 and AR-9 to clearly showhow the assessment results were collected. However, inan actual Annual Report, all assessment results from thesame year would be summarized in one Table AR-7 andone Table AR-9.

Table B-3 lists FTG results from a clearcut system andTable B-4 summarizes those results in correspondingAnnual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9. Table B-5 listsregeneration survey results from a shelterwood systemand Table B-6 summarizes those results in AnnualReport Tables AR-7 and AR-9. Table B-7 lists regenera-tion and post-harvest survey results from a selectionsystem and Table B-8 summarizes those results in AnnualReport Tables AR-7 and AR-9.

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: IdealPlan Term: Apr/1996 to Mar/2001Annual Report: Apr/1999 to Mar/2000

AR-7 ANNUAL REPORT OF ASSESSMENT OF REGENERATION SUCCESS (i.e. silvicultural success)

Area Assessed (ha) Area which meets Regeneration Standards (ha)

Forest Silvicultural Current To Balance Current ToUnit Treatment Date Date

Package

Pj1CC Pj1CC200(e.g.Clearcut and Plant) 509 509 149 149

Total 509 509 149 149

AR-9 ANNUAL REPORT OF REGENERATION SUCCESS

Original Regenerated Areas successfully regenerated by year of harvest (ha) TotalForest Unit Forest Unit 1982 1985 1987 <year> <year> <year> (ha)

Pj1CC Pj1CC 149 149MW1CC 50 56 106IH1CC 44 44MC1CC 210 210

Subtotal 44 50 415 509

All Forest Units

Total 44 50 415 509

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.


34

Clearcut System Results

The results for the clearcut system are shown in TablesB-3 and B-4. All areas assessed were originally classed asjack pine forest units (Pj1CC) that were clearcut andregenerated using the same silvicultural treatment pack-age (in this case site preparation, planting and onetending treatment (coded as Pj1CC200)). These areaswere harvested over a number of years from 1983 to1998, with most of the areas being harvested in 1988.

Of the seven areas assessed, only three actually met thepreferred regeneration standards that were in place at thetime the areas were harvested. As a result, only the threesuccessful areas were summarized in Annual ReportTable AR-7. In this case, it was assumed that the otherfour areas that did not meet the regeneration standardswere accepted as FTG to another SGR specified in theapproved FMP and as a result were summarized in TableAR-9 along with the three other areas.

Shelterwood System Results

The results for the shelterwood system are shown inTables B-5 and B-6. The first three areas assessed wereoriginally classed as white pine forest units (Pw1US4)and were harvested and regenerated using the same 4-coupe uniform shelterwood system. In this case thesilvicultural treatment package (Pw1US4_300) involvednatural regeneration following the seedcut with twotending treatments. These areas had their seedcut har-vest carried out in three separate years; 1974, 1983 and1985. Only two of the three areas actually met the regen-eration standards and involved both overstory andunderstory assessments. In the case of the third area, theunderstory regeneration did not meet the regenerationstandard or any alternate standard. Therefore only thefirst two areas were summarized in Annual Report TablesAR-7 and AR-9. The third area would likely receiveadditional treatments and be reassessed at an appropriatetime in the future.

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

Silvicultural System: ClearcutOriginal Forest Unit: Pj1CCYear of assessment: 2000-2001

Number Year of Original Stand Original Desired Current Current Current Age/Height Area (ha)

Harvest Composition Stocking (%) FU FU Composition Stocking (%) (yr./m)

1CC 1986 Pj 80Bw20 70 Pj1CC MW1CC Bw43Pj37Po10Bf10 85 12/1.5 342CC 1988 Pj70Po30 80 Pj1CC Pj1CC Pj62Po38 77 10/1.3 993CC 1988 Pj80Bw20 80 Pj1CC Pj1CC Pj80Bw10Po10 80 10/1.3 394CC 1988 Pj100 90 Pj1CC Pj1CC Pj100 90 10/1.2 1205CC 1988 Pj90Po10 70 Pj1CC MC1CC Pj62Po29Bf09 73 10/1.1 1336CC 1988 Pj70Sb20Po10 80 Pj1CC MW1CC Bf56Po38Pj06 46 10/1.1 257CC 1983 Pj70Po20Bf10 60 Pj1CC IH1CC Po55Bw25 Sw12Pj08 68 15/1.1 13

Total 463

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 standsthat did not meet the objectives of the preferred Forest Operation Prescription.

3. The objective of the FOP was to regenerate each stand to the Pj1 CC FU. The standard for this FU was assumed to be >=70% acceptable species com-position (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.


35

The fourth and fifth areas listed in Table B-5 were orig-inally classed as yellow birch forest units (By1US2) andwere harvested and regenerated using a 2-coupe uniformshelterwood system. The silvicultural treatment package(By1US2) was natural regeneration following the seedcutand scarification treatments. Both areas had their seedcutcarried out in 1985. Only the fourth area met the regen-eration standards based on the understory regenerationsurvey and therefore, was summarized in Tables AR-7and AR-9. The fifth area did not meet the regenerationstandards but did meet an alternate regeneration stan-dard specified in the approved FMP. Therefore the fiftharea was summarized only in Table AR-9.

Selection System Results

The results for the selection system are shown in TablesB-7 and B-8. All four areas assessed were originallyclassed as tolerant hardwood forest units (HD1Sel) andwere harvested and regenerated using the selection sys-tem. In this case only the overstory assessment results areshown in keeping with the original management stan-dards that were in place at the time of harvest. Newminimum assessment requirements include overstory,understory and seedling parameters. The same silvicul-tural treatment package was applied in all cases, whichrelied entirely on natural regeneration without any tend-ing. The most recent harvest for all areas took place in1987/88. The first three areas were assessed to be silvi-cultural successes because they had met the minimumrequirement of having at least 9 m2/ha of AGS and there-fore are summarized in Annual Report Tables AR-7 and

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





Package

Pj1CC Pj1CC200(e.g.Clearcut and Plant) 463 972 258 407

Total 463 972 258 407



Pj1CC Pj1CC 258 258MW1CC 34 25 59IH1CC 13 13MC1CC 133 133

Subtotal 13 34 416 463

All Forest Units

Total 13 34 416 463


36

AR-9. The fourth area failed to meet either the FOPstandards or any other approved alternate managementstandard because the AGS was well below the minimumstandard. Therefore the fourth area was excluded fromTables AR-7 and AR-9.

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

Report of Past Forest Operations

The five-year report tables summarize the results fromthe Annual Report tables from the previous plan term.Annual Report Tables AR-7 and AR-9 for the two assess-

ment years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 (Tables B-2, B-4,B-6 and B-8) are summarized in the five-year reporttables RPFO-8 (Table B-9) and RPFO-9 (Table B-10).The “Ideal Management Unit” assessments summarizedin Table RPFO-9 (Table B-10) are further summarizedfor all harvest years combined and forest units combinedin Table B-11. In this case it is assumed that no other sur-veys were done in the other three years of the term andthat the area surveyed was exactly equal to the area thatwas projected to be assessed during the term in TableFMP-28. Therefore, the planned and actual columns inTable RPFO-8 are equal.

All areas that were listed in the AR-7 tables as silvicul-tural successes are summarized in Table RPFO-8 by FUand silvicultural treatment package. Results from theAR-9 tables are used to fill in the “actual” columns inTable RPFO-9. In the near future, results from AnnualReport Table AR-8 will also be available and will be usedto fill-in the “projected” column in Table RPFO-9. In

Table B-5: Summary of Assessment Results: Shelterwood System Assessed 2000-2001

Year of Survey: 2000-2001

Number Year of Original Stand Original Desired Current Current Current Current Understory Area (ha)

Harvest Composition Stocking FU Overstory Overstory Understory Understory Age/Height

(%) Composition Stocking (%) Composition Stocking (%) (yr./m)

Original Forest Unit: Pw1 US4

1SH 1985 Pw60Pr30 Po10 60 Pw1US4 Pw78Pr16 Po06 42 Pw73Pr22 Po05 82 12/1.0 58

2SH 1983 Pw70Po30 70 Pw1US4 Pw82Po12 8 Pw67Or17 75 14/1.0 37

Or06 Po16

3SH 1974 Pw60Po30 Sw10 70 Pw1US4 Pw77Bf09 40 Mr44Po37Bf12 36 23/2.4 39

Mr08Po06 Pw07

Original Forest Unit: By1 US2

4SH 1985 By60Po20 Mr20 70 By1US2 By89Mr05 54 By67Mr23 89 12/1.2 45

Po06 Po10

5SH 1985 By70Mr30 80 By1US2 By50Mr45 55 Mr56Bf35 39 12/2.0 55

Bf05 By09

Total 234

Notes:1. “Silvicultural success” is identified by the bold numbers in the Number column.2. The objective of the FOP was to regenerate stands 1SH, 2SH and 3SH to the Pw1 US4 FU. 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 FU. 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 theFOP.

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 cuts.


37

this case, it has been assumed that no AR-8 tables wereavailable and therefore the “projected” column had to beestimated by summing the area assessed by the desiredFU from the FOP that was in place when each area washarvested.

Table B-9 shows the example assessments done duringthe previous five-year period (1996-2001) that were sum-marized annually in Annual Report Table AR-7 and thensummarized in Table RPFO-8. In this example, only sur-veys from the two years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 havebeen summarized.

Interpretation of Results

Results of assessments are summarized and reported inAnnual Reports and the RPFO. The extent and scope ofthe analysis of individual annual results is somewhat lim-ited because most objectives and targets are set relative toa five-year period. However, use of the annual results canprovide useful information to help guide progress towardthe renewal objectives and targets of the unit, particularlyin the last two to three years of the plan term. Resultsfrom the RPFO are also useful in verifying the assump-tions used in the planning process and the RPFO resultsare intended to be compared directly with the plannedactions and results specified in the management plan.

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





Package

Pw1US4 Pw1US4300(e.g.shelterwood 4-cut) 134 134 95 95

By1US2 BY1US2250(e.g. shelterwood 2-cut) 100 100 45 45

Total 234 234 140 140



Pw1US4 Pw1US4 37 58 95

Subtotal 37 58 95

By1US2 By1US2 45 45Mw1CC 55 55

Subtotal 0 0 100 100

All Forest Units Pw1US4 37 58 95By1US2 45 45Mw1CC 55 55

Total 37 158 195


38

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

Annual Report for 1999/2000This report would include Tables AR-7 and AR-9 listedin Table B-2. Table AR-7 shows that a total of 509 ha ofthe jack pine FU (i.e., at the time of harvest) that wereclearcut and regenerated using silvicultural treatmentpackage Pj1CC-200 (i.e., clearcut and planted) wereplanned to be assessed in 1999/2000. The total 509 hawere assessed and only 149 ha were assessed as silvicul-tural successes. This is equivalent to a success rate of29% and would likely cause the plan author to investigatethe reasons for the failures to ensure that the originalprescription was sound.

In this case the areas that did not meet the standards ofthe original prescription were accepted as regenerationsuccesses because they did meet the standards for anapproved alternate SGR as reflected in Table AR-9.Therefore the rate of regeneration success for the areasassessed in 1999/2000 was 100%. Table AR-9 shows thatthese regeneration successes that were originally jackpine areas are now classified in three other FUs; mixedwood (MW1CC); intolerant hardwoods (IH1CC) andmixed conifers (MC1CC). Again on an annual basis, it isdifficult to assess whether this amount of transition fromone FU to another was within the bounds of the objec-tives and targets of the approved plan but it may providea early warning that things are not proceeding asexpected. This information may assist in making changesto renewal plans for subsequent years that could assist incorrecting or balancing deviations from plan objectivesand targets.

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

Silvicultural System: SelectionYear of Harvest: 1987-88Original Forest Unit: HD1 SelYear of assessment: 2000-2001

Number Original Stand Original Desired Current Current Basal Area by Diameter Class AGS BA UGS BA Area (ha)

Composition Stocking FU Overstory Overstory 10-24 26-36 38-48 50+ (m2/ha) (m2/ha)

(%) Composition Stocking (%)

1SEL Mh70Mr20 70 HD1Sel Mh77Mr15By08 77 7 7 3 2 14 5 45By10

2SEL Mh40Mr20 80 HD1Sel Mh47Mr25 78 6 5 2 4 13 4 56Po30Bd10 Po18Bd10

3SEL He40Mh30 70 HD1Sel Mh43Mr23He22 75 5 8 2 3 14 4 39Mr20Bf10 Po06 Bf06

4SEL Mh50Mr30Sw10 80 HD1Sel Mh40Mr40Bf20 75 5 4 2 4 5 10 67Bf10

Total 207

Notes:1. “Silvicultural success” is identified by the bold number in the number column. 2. The objective of the FOP was to regenerate stands 1SEL to 4SEL to the HD1 Sel FU. The standard for this FU was assumed to be Mh+Bd+By+He com-

position 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 notsuccessful in meeting the objective of the FOP.


39

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

Management Unit Name: IdealPlan Term: Apr/1996 to Mar/2001

RPFO-8 SUMMARY REPORT OF ASSESSMENT OF REGENERATION SUCCESS (i.e. silvicultural success)

Area assessed (ha)

Silvicultural Area which meetsForest Treatment Planned Actual Regeneration Unit Package Standards (ha)

Pj1CC Pj1CC_200 972 972 407Pw1US4 Pw1US4_300 134 134 95By1US2 By1US2_250 100 100 45HD1Sel HD1Sel_200 207 207 140

Total 1413 1413 687

Notes: In this example it is assumed that all scheduled surveys were completed

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





Package

HD1Sel HD1200(e.g.Selection) 207 207 140 140

Total 207 207 140 140


Original Regenerated Areas successfully regenerated by year of harvest (ha) TotalForest Unit Forest Unit 1987 <year> <year> <year> <year> <year> (ha)

HD1Sel HD1Sel 140 140Subtotal 140 140

All Forest Units

Total 140 140


40

Annual Report for 2000/2001This report would include the three sets of Tables AR-7and AR-9 listed in Tables B-4, B-6 and B-8. Table B-4summarizes results from clearcut systems. Table B-6summarizes results from shelterwood systems and TableB-8 summarizes results from selection systems. Anyapparent discrepancies in the progress towards meetingAWS and plan targets and objectives that are detected bythis information should be discussed and acted upon ifnecessary.

Table B-4 Clearcut SystemsResults are very similar to those in Table B-2 except that2000/2001 is the second reporting year and the “ToDate” column also includes the silvicultural successesfrom the previous year. Therefore the rate of silviculturalsuccess for clearcut systems assessed in 2000/2001 is 56%(i.e., 258 ha of 463 ha) and the overall rate of silviculturalsuccess over the two years is 42%. Such low success ratesare just cause for further investigation of the prescrip-tions employed. The rate of regeneration success for theyear and over the two years is 100%.

Table B-10: Table RPFO-9 for the “Ideal Management Unit”

RPFO-9 SUMMARY REPORT OF HARVEST AND REGENERATION SUCCESS

Year of Original Future Projected and actual area regenerated successfully by year of regeneration (ha) Total Area (ha)Harvest Forest Unit Forest Unit 1999/2000 2000/2001

Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual

1974 Pw1US4 Pw1US4 39 0 39 0 Subtotal 39 0 39 0

1982 Pj1CC Pj1CC 44 0 44 0 1982 Pj1CC IH1CC 0 44 0 44


1983 Pj1CC Pj1CC 13 0 13 0 1983 Pw1US4 Pw1Us4 37 37 37 37 1983 Pj1CC IH1CC 0 13 0 13


1985 Pj1CC Pj1CC 50 0 50 0 1985 Pw1US4 Pw1US4 58 58 58 58 1985 By1US2 By1US2 100 45 100 45 1985 By1US2 Mw1CC 0 55 0 55 1985 Pj1CC Mw1CC 0 50 0 50

Subtotal 50 50 158 158 208 208

1986 Pj1CC Pj1CC 34 0 34 0 1986 Pj1CC Mw1CC 0 34 0 34


1987 Pj1CC Pj1CC 415 149 415 149 1987 Pj1CC Mw1CC 0 56 0 56 1987 Pj1CC Mc1CC 0 210 0 210 1987 HD1Sel HD1Sel 207 140 207 140

Subtotal 415 415 207 140 622 555

1988 Pj1CC Pj1CC 416 258 416 258 1988 Pj1CC Mc1CC 0 133 0 133 1988 Pj1CC Mw1CC 0 25 0 25

Subtotal 416 416 416 416

Total 509 509 904 798 1413 1307


41

Table B-6. Shelterwood SystemsTable AR-7 shows that 134 ha of area originally classifiedas white pine FU and 100 ha of area originally classifiedas yellow birch FU were assessed in 2000/2001. Ninety-five ha of the white pine FU and 45 ha of the yellow birchFU were found to be silvicultural successes which isequivalent to 71% and 45%, respectively. Overall therate of silvicultural success for the shelterwood areas was60%. Table AR-9 shows the regeneration success rate forthe white pine FU and yellow birch FU were 71% and100%, respectively. The white pine regeneration successrate was reduced because 39 ha did not meet the stan-dards of either the FOP or an approved alternate SGR.Overall, the rate of regeneration success for the shelter-wood areas was 83%.

Table B-8. Selection SystemsTable AR-7 shows that 207 ha of area originally classifiedas tolerant hardwood FU were assessed in 2000/2001.One hundred and forty ha of the tolerant hardwood FUwere found to be silvicultural successes, which is equiva-lent to 68%. Table AR-9 shows that the regenerationsuccess rate for the tolerant hardwood FU is also 68%.

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

Report of Past Forest Operations for April 1996 toMarch 2001This RPFO would include Tables RPFO-8 and RPFO-9listed in Table B-9 and B-10 respectively. Table RPFO-8shows that over the term the total area (1413 ha) plannedto be assessed was achieved. Of that total, 687 ha wereassessed to be silvicultural successes, which is equivalentto about 49%. Table RPFO-9 shows how the regenerat-ing forest is tracking from one FU to another andcompares these changes with the FU transition predic-tions made in the management plan. If Annual ReportTable AR-8 results were available to provide the pro-jected areas, the differences between actual and projectedwould be less because Table AR-8 projections wouldanticipate some failures and would factor those into thetable. In this case, the FOPs for each area were summedto create the “projected” column, which does not recog-nize that alternate SGR standards are acceptable fordetermining regeneration success.

Table B-11 further summarizes the harvest and regener-ation success detailed in Table B-10. It shows in moregeneral terms the progression to new forest units. This isfurther broken down by the original FUs and silvicul-tural treatment packages for the area and is summarizedbriefly in Table B-12. These results are a direct measureof the effectiveness of each FU and silvicultural treat-ment package combination.

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

RPFO-9 SUMMARY REPORT OF HARVEST AND REGENERATION SUCCESS

Year of Original Future Projected and actual area regenerated successfully by year of regeneration (ha) Total Area (ha)Harvest Forest Unit Forest Unit 1999/2000 2000/2001

Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual

All Years All Forest Pw1US4 134 95 134 95Units

Pj1CC 509 149 463 258 972 407IH1CC 0 44 0 13 0 57By1US2 100 45 100 45Mw1CC 0 106 0 114 0 220HD1Sel 207 140 207 140Mc1CC 0 210 0 133 0 343

Total 509 509 904 798 1413 1307


42

The results of Table B-12 show that the success of eachof the silvicultural treatment packages is relatively low,with an average of 49% success. There should be anexamination of the results to determine, as much as pos-sible, 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 “IdealManagement Unit” there is evidence of anomalies thatshould be investigated. The particularly low success ratesfor the jack pine and yellow birch forest units are of par-ticular concern. Are changes required to the renewalperiods for these FU’s and silvicultural treatment pack-ages and, if so, does this result in changes to the yieldcurves for the various regimes? Since the sample sizefrom the “Ideal Management Unit” is very small, it is dif-ficult to draw conclusions about FU transitions forparticular silvicultural treatment packages or compareinvestment regimes, but this type of analysis would beconducted for actual management units.

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

Original Forest Unit Silvicultural Treatment Total Area Silvicultural Success Success Area as Package Assessed (ha) Area (ha) a percent of

the Total Area Assessed

Jack Pine (Pj1CC) plant 972 407 42White Pine (Pw1US4) shelterwood 134 95 71Yellow Birch(By1US2) shelterwood 100 45 45Tolerant Hardwood (HD1Sel) selection 207 140 68

Totals 1413 687 49

silvicultural effectiveness monitoring manual for ontario which are required to assess the success...

Documents