Ancient Forest Research Report No. 1
|
| |
PROTECTING ANCIENT FORESTS IN ONTARIO THROUGH TIMBER MANAGEMENT PLANNING
by
Peter A. Quinby
1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is an adapted version of expert testimony originally prepared by Peter Quinby for the Northwatch Intervention Coalition case in the Class Environmental Assessment of Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario which was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Since May 1992, this testimony has been a matter of public record. Assistance from Brennain Lloyd, Kay Chornook and Steve Johnston in the preparation of this testimony was much appreciated.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - DBH Size-Class Distribution for White Pine in Old-Growth White Pine Stands, Temagami Forest, Ontario
Figure 2 - Age-Class Distribution for the White Pine Population in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario
Figure 3 - White Pine Regeneration Density for Major Topographic Positions in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario
Figure 4 - White Pine Regeneration Mean Age for Major Topographic Positions in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario
Figure 5 - Age-Class Distribution for White Pine Regeneration on the Ridgetops in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario
Figure 6 - Age-Class Distribution for White Pine Regeneration on the Lower Slopes in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario
Figure 7 - Age-Class Distribution for White Pine Regeneration in the Shoreline Valleys of the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Characteristics of Old-Growth White and Red Pine Forest Types in the Temagami Forest, Ontario
Table 2 - Preliminary Minimum Standards for Old-Growth White and Red Pine Forests in the Temagami Forest, Ontario
Table 3 - General Definition for Old-Growth White Pine Forest in the Temagami Forest, Ontario
Table 4 - Status of Old-Growth White Pine Forest in Canada and the United States
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As long ago as the early 1970's forestry experts were calling for a shift in forest management to embrace the ecosystem approach. One of the foundations of ecosystem-based forest management is a system of protected natural forests. Experts agree that at least 10 to 12% of the landscape should be protected. Currently, protected areas in Ontario make up only 5.5% of Ontario's total land area.
Ancient forests are the subject of studies required to develop and test ecological principles which provide direction for ecosystem-based forest management. For example, recent studies of old-growth white pine forest in Temagami have shown that white pine forest can successfully regenerate in the absence of catastrophic fire. These results indicate that exclusive application of even-aged management for white pine forests in northeastern Ontario does not accurately reflect the ecology and silvics of the species. In fact, successful regeneration of white pine in response to non-catastrophic disturbance indicates that the selection system of logging may, in many cases, be more appropriate for white pine forest. The use of the selection system also provides a more sustainable supply of fiber over the long term and is less disruptive to the ecosystem.
Recent studies focussing on the variation of white pine regeneration within a diverse landscape have also produced results that will benefit the development of regeneration techniques for white pine forest. Such advancements in knowledge would not be possible without the opportunity to study processes within ancient forests. These forests are also valuable for conducting long-term ecological studies and as a source of baseline ecological data.
Theoretically, through the timber management planning process, the OMNR is required to address ancient forests at a variety of policy and planning levels. At the broadest level, Strategic Land Use Plans and District Land Use Guidelines specify that timber management planning must consider impacts on and influences resulting from all OMNR programs. At least seven forest protection policy directives are explicitly specified in these documents. In order to achieve this protection, a number of land use planning designations are available through the timber management planning process including (a) non-productive forested land, (b) managed forest reserves, (c) protection forest, (d) areas of concern and (e) high value forests. It is also possible to develop specific provincial guidelines for protecting ancient forests. These forests, however, are viewed by the OMNR as possessing constraining, non-timber values, contrary to the OMNR's recognition that the quality and quantity of ancient forests is declining. Thus, in part, because those who apply the timber management process view ancient forests as constraints, logging of these forests ultimately prevails.
There is no technical reason for ignoring the protection of natural forests. In addition to the protection mechanisms available through timber management planning, OMNR parks and natural heritage experts have developed a sophisticated systematic approach to planning for the protection of representative landscapes. Results of their work show that significant gaps exist in forest ecosystem type representation throughout Ontario. Management techniques are available for maintaining small ancient forest reserves.
Recent studies of old-growth white pine forest show that less than .4% of the original old-growth white pine forest of Canada and the United States remains. It is likely that this type of forest ecosystem is "endangered". These studies also provide criteria for identifying old-growth white pine forests in the field which represents the first step towards their protection.
Finally, the following recommendations should be considered: (a) identify the gaps in forest ecosystem type representation within each of Ontario's natural regions, (b) determine the amount of additional forested land to protect in each of Ontario's natural regions to meet a 10 to 15% minimum protection target with full forest ecosystem type representation, (c) produce provincial timber management planning guidelines for the "selection of ancient forest ecosystems for protection", (d) produce provincial forest management planning guidelines for the "management of ancient forest ecosystem reserves", (e) determine the regional status of Ontario's forest ecosystem types and use the information to develop provincial and natural region protection priorities, and (f) work closely and cooperatively with OMNR parks and natural heritage experts, other resource management agencies, universities and NGO's to carry out research and management activities.
The necessity for ecosystem-based forest management in Canada was recognized by Kimmins (1973) almost 20 years ago: "...whether foresters...like it or not, they are applied ecologists. Their professional life is intimately concerned with the components of productivity (i.e. ecological energetics and nutrient cycling) and the temporal dynamics (i.e. ecological succession) of the forest...To attempt to do this (manage the forest) without an adequate knowledge of the basic ecological processes which they are manipulating seems to be totally inappropriate under current social and economic conditions...To continue to manage forests in such ignorance of the basic ecological facts of life as appears frequently to be the case is not in the best interests of any nation, economically or socially" (pg. 30). Kimmins' call for ecosystem-based forest management was repeated 14 years later in his text, Forest Ecology (1987) and has been called for by other researchers such as Perry and Maghembe (1989): "...our basic unit of management - the ideotype for which we strive - must be the ecosystem" (pg. 136).
Since the early 1900's, it has been recognized that one of the foundations of ecosystem-based forest management is a system of protected ancient forests (Ashe 1922, Shanklin 1960, Bormann 1966, Franklin and Trappe 1968, Quinby 1985, Quinby 1987). "Ancient forests" are defined as forests of any age that have been affected by minimal, if any, human disturbance and "old-growth forest" is defined as a type of ancient forest representing the final stage of forest ecosystem development (Maser 1990). Over 20 years ago the Canadian Institute of Forestry (CIF) adopted a policy statement concerning the protection and management of natural areas (Canadian Institute of Forestry 1972). They defined a natural area as "...a naturally occurring physical or biological unit where natural conditions are maintained insofar as possible. An area is preserved to exemplify typical or unique vegetation and its associated biotic, edaphic, geologic and aquatic features in as near-natural condition as possible, usually by allowing the ordinary physical and biological processes to operate without human intervention" (pg. 41). They identified five objectives for protecting ancient forest areas including scientific purposes, benchmark areas, preservation of gene pool resources, education and living museum value. The CIF ecourages and promotes protection of examples of Canada's diverse forest ecosystems through cooperation with other professionals, scientists and private groups, and they provide technical direction for the creation and management of forested natural areas.
The use of land for the creation of protected ancient forested landscapes is, however, often viewed as direct competition to wood fibre production. Thus, one of the most commonly asked questions by land managers is, "how much land must be protected?" Dr. Jerry Franklin, a prominant scientist with the United States Forest Service, estimates that between 10 and 15% of the forest in any given area should be protected from fibre production activities (Gillis 1990). In addition, the World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the World Commission on Environment and Development have stated that at least 10% of each of the world's forest regions should be protected representing the full range of variation among them (Munro and Holdgate 1991).
The need to protect a minimum amount of the landscape (approximately 12% for Canada) by prohibiting extractive activities such as logging, mining and hydroelectric development has also been recognized by the OMNR through their support of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, Endangered Spaces Program (WWF 1991, pg. 23). Currently, however, only 5.5% of Ontario is protected (WWF 1993, pg. 43) - to meet the minimum protection target of the Endangered Spaces Program, approximately 2.7 million ha of additional protected land in Ontario is required. Although forest protection mechanisms are available through the Ontario forest management planning process, the fibre production objectives of this process tend to take priority.
THE VALUE OF ANCIENT FORESTED LANDSCAPES TO TIMBER MANAGEMENT
Ecological Theory and the Practice of Forestry
Ancient forest ecosystems are required to conduct the studies necessary to develop and test ecological principles (Whitney 1987, Likens 1989, Soule and Kohm 1989). Such principles are, or should be, the foundation for sound forest management techniques (Kimmins 1973, 1987). However, "Forest management, preoccupied with timber production, has forgotten how to observe the virgin forest and to follow the hints of nature. For this reason, forest management of many countries is close to the collapse of an artificially created world of 'tree farms' which were born out of thinking in terms of agricultural production...Through virgin forest research and research of similar natural ecosystems proceeds the search for the truth about the nature of forests" (Mlinsek 1990, pg. 107). This view was echoed by Perry and Maghembe (1989) "...where natural forests are reasonably intact they are likely to provide an excellent framework within which to design sustainable silvicultural systems" (pg. 135). Only through continuing research focussing on ancient forest ecosystems can sustainable forestry practices of the highest quality be developed.
Case Study 1
"Non-Catastrophic Disturbance and White Pine Regeneration"
A long-held view among Ontario foresters regarding the ecology of white pine (Pinus strobus L.) forests is that catastrophic wild fire is the primary facilitator of white pine regeneration (Horton and Bedell 1960, Stiell 1978). This view, or ecological theory, has spawned the silvicultural theory that over-mature (also known as "old-growth") white pine forests will simply fall apart in the absence of the catastrophic fires required to initiate the even-aged stands. Thus, the theory follows that without catastrophic disturbance, fibre will be wasted unless the stand is actively managed.
This view is reflected in the Ontario government silvicultural guidelines for white pine forest which state that white pine must be managed using some form of even-aged management (i.e. clearcutting or shelterwood) which is supposed to mimic the effects of catastrophic wildfire (OMNR 1989). As a result, the primary management strategy in most parts of Ontario has been to clearcut old-growth white pine forest and maximize the number of rotations thereafter in order to obtain greatest fibre production (OMNR 1987a).
Recent studies within ancient, old-growth white pine stands, however, have shown that continuous white pine recruitment does occur (Gilbert 1978, Holla and Knowles 1988, Day and Carter 1991, Quinby 1991a, Quinby 1991b). This continuous recruitment of white pine may take place for centuries in response to non-catastrophic disturbance resulting in at least a partial uneven-aged stand structure (Figures 1 and 2). The finding that white pine forest can regenerate within a non-catastrophic disturbance regime implies that the application of some form of uneven-aged silvicultural system may be more suitable for white pine
FIGURE 1 - DBH Size-Class Distribution for White Pine in Old-Growth White Pine Stands, Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991a)
FIGURE 2 - Age-Class Distribution for the White Pine Population in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991b)
fibre production in certain situations (Benson et al. 1989) which would make better use of the variety of mechanisms of natural white pine regeneration. Also, because the selection system is less disruptive to the health of the ecosystem than is clearcutting, its application would provide greater assurance for long-term sustainable forest productivity. It is unlikely, however, that the old-growth condition can be maintained or enhanced under any cutting regime (Society of American Foresters 1984).
Without the study of white pine regeneration within an ancient white pine ecosystem, discovery of the ability of white pine to regenerate in the absence of catastrophic wildfire would most likely not have been possible. This more complete understanding of white pine ecology shows that a wider range of silvicultural techniques may be applied to the management of white pine forest for fibre production. In particular, the use of selection logging for white pine fibre production provides a more continous supply of fibre over the long-term and is less disruptive to the ecosystem than is clearcutting. In essence, white pine regeneration research in ancient forests has provided the scientific foundation for a more ecologically sustainable approach to white pine forest management.
Case Study 2
"Landscape Variation of White Pine Regeneration"
Detailed study of white pine regeneration in Temagami's Obabika Lake old-growth white pine stand (largest left in the world) has also provided additional insights into the ecology of white pine (Quinby 1991b). The main results of this work showed that, generally, white pine regeneration density and survival probability increased along a topographic gradient from valleys to slopes to hilltops and ridges (Figures 3 and 4). White pine regeneration was particularly successful on the ridgetops (Figure 5) and particularly unsuccessful on the lower slopes and in the shoreline valleys (Figures 6 and 7).
These patterns of white pine regeneration can be explained by spatially associated gradients in fire frequency, light intensity at the forest floor and soil moisture, where the first two variables generally increase from valleys to hilltops/ridgetops and the latter variable decreases. In other words, the drier, more open conditions on ridgetops and hilltops, where fire is more frequent, are very condusive to white pine regeneration. These gradients in environmental conditions vary primarily with topography and to a lesser extent by season and stage of forest development.
This new quantitative information on the regeneration characteristics of white pine can provide the scientific foundation for white pine forest regeneration techniques that recognize and address the often drastic site differences within a relatively small area in central Ontario. Such recognition may make the difference between successful and unsuccessful white pine regeneration. Currently, landscape variation in white pine regeneration has not been addressed as part of the OMNR's white pine silvicultural techniques (OMNR 1989). Studies of the Obabika old-growth white pine forest were the key to obtaining this valuable silvicultural knowledge. Such ecological knowledge of Ontario's other forest types is essential if we are to improve forest management and protect the forest environment.
FIGURE 3 - White Pine Regeneration Density for Major Topographic Positions in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991b)
FIGURE 4 - White Pine Regeneration Mean Age for Major Topographic Positions in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991b)
FIGURE 5 - Age-Class Distribution for White Pine Regeneration on the Ridgetops in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991b)
FIGURE 6 - Age-Class Distribution for White Pine Regeneration on the Lower Slopes in the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991b)
FIGURE 7 - Age-Class Distribution for White Pine Regeneration in the Shoreline Valleys of the Obabika Lake Old-Growth Pine Stand, Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991b)
Case Study 3
"Characteristics and Preliminary Definitions of Old-Growth White and Red Pine Forests"
In order for the OMNR to meet its objective of protecting old-growth forest (OOGPAC 1993), it is necessary to identify and describe the charateristics of this final stage of forest development. This information can then be used to develop old-growth definitions that, in turn, can be applied for the protection of these unique forests and to improve forest management practices.
Such research has been conducted for the old-growth white and red pine forests of Temagami (Quinby 1993a). Through this work, five major forest types including white pine-deciduous, white pine-mixed, white pine-conifer, white pine-red pine and red pine conifer were identified. Each of these forest types has been described in terms of the following charateristics: old tree density (white and red pine), snag density, log biomass and log density (Table 1). From this and other information, it was possible to develop specific definitions for these five old-growth white and red pine forest types (Table 2). A general definition for old-growth white pine forest was also developed.
TABLE 1 - Characteristics of Old-Growth White and Red Pine Forest Types in the Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1991c)
TABLE 2 - Preliminary Minimum Standards for Old-Growth White and Red Pine Forests in the Temagami Forest, Ontario (Quinby 1993a)
TABLE 3 - General Definition for Old-Growth White Pine Forest, Temagami Forest, Ontario (adapted from Table 2)
Not only does the knowledge obtained from this work provide the basis for identifying these unique forests in the field, but it also provides targets for old-growth feature retention in managed stands, and increases our general understanding of white and red pine forest ecology. Obviously, research in ancient old-growth forests is necessary to develop a successful conservation strategy for these unique and in some cases, endangered ecosystems.
Long-Term Studies
The use of natural forests to conduct long-term ecological studies is also very valuable. Such studies are ultimately necessary to test our ecological theories most of which have been developed based on short-term studies. Long-term studies are particularly important for learning about slow processes (i.e. forest development), rare events or episodic phenomena (i.e. reproduction of large organisms, natural disturbance, pest outbreaks), processes with high variability (i.e. litterfall in mature deciduous hardwoods), and for subtle or complex phenomena (Strayer et al. 1986, Franklin 1989).
Baseline Conditions
Natural forests are also valuable as a source of baseline ecological data that can be used in short- or long-term studies to evaluate the effects of human activities on forest ecosystems and to serve as a template or blueprint for the restoration of populations, communities and ecosystems (Jenkins and Bedford 1973, Callahan 1984, Strayer et al. 1986, Quinby 1987, Likens 1989, Maser 1988, Risser et al. 1991).
ANCIENT FORESTS AS A COMPONENT OF TIMBER MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Forest Protection Policy
At the broadest level, the OMNR's timber management planning process is directed by the Integrated Resource Management Policy which is implemented through Strategic Land Use Plans and District Land Use Guidelines (OMNR 1987a, pg. 103). Effectively, this means that timber management planning must, as a prerequisite to any timber management decision-making activities, consider and address "...those various programs at all levels of the OMNR organization" (OMNR 1987a, pg. 101). Thus, through a number of OMNR programs including the timber management planning process, the OMNR is required:
Forest Protection Mechanisms
In order to achieve these policy objectives as they relate to protecting ancient forest ecosystems, individuals carrying out timber management planning may apply a number of land use designations that include the following.
Non-Productive Forested Land
This is "...land incapable of growing trees for commercial purposes because of very low productivity, and includes areas of muskeg, brush alder, and barren rock" (OMNR 1987a, pg. 110).
Managed Forest Reserves
These areas are also known as "modified management areas" (OMNR 1983, pg. 14) and are created for one of the following reasons (OMNR 1982, pg. 13): (a) to provide erosion and siltation protection for adjacent water bodies; (b) to provide for the maintenance of aesthetics or the reduction of fire hazard on travel corridors; (c) to provide for the maintenance of suitable fish and wilflife habitat; and (d) to provide for the preservation of certain significant historical, geological, fishery, wildlife or vegetation features. The key to establishing a forest reserve is that it "...must be justifiable in a multiple use concept and the management prescription applied must maintain those values that the reserve was designed to protect...The public will be kept informed on the management of forested reserves" (OMNR 1982, pg. 13).
Protection Forest
These areas "...can be described as productive forest lands on which timber management activities cannot normally be practised without incurring deleterious environmental effects, because of obvious physical limitations such as steep slopes and shallow soils over bedrock" (OMNR 1987a, pg. 111). This type of forest is also known as "production forest reserve" (OMNR 1986, pg. 173). It is usually identified by photointerpreters and is marked as such on Forest Resource Inventory maps.
Areas of Concern
These are "geographically-defined areas of value to other users/uses which could be affected by timber management operations, including roads and which may require modifications to those operations" (OMNR 1987a, pg. 132). They may be identified within the entire area eligible for operations during the 20-year period of the timber management plan. Areas of Concern may be identified by any MNR program group, other Crown land users or any interested external participant. One option is the creation of a "...reserve in which no timber management operations will be permitted" (OMNR 1987a, pg. 147).
High Value Forests
These forests "...include seed production and seed collection areas, [and] research areas" (OMNR 1987a, pg. 143).
Contingency Areas
These can also be an important component in protecting ancient forests. They are defined as "...an area of harvest operations which can serve as a replacement area...[when] unpredictable circumstances may arise during the five-year term of the Timber Management Plan, causing the area selected for harvest operations to no longer be available...[It] is intended to serve as a replacement area for harvest operations during the five-year term, not as an additional area" (OMNR 1987a, pg. 143). Thus, when a forest area that has been allocated for logging is identified for protection status, the logging can be shifted to the contingency area with the hope that both protection and logging can be accomodated.
Provincial Guidelines
Provisions have also been made to develop new provincial guidelines for consideration of specific values that are affected by timber management activities (OMNR 1987a, pg. 187). Thus, it is well within the realm of OMNR timber management planning to develop and/or integrate specific guidelines for the protection of ancient forest ecosystems.
Ancient Forest Values as Constraints
Rather than recognizing the opportunity to protect examples of ancient forest ecosystems through the timber management planning process, the OMNR views protection of ancient forest ecosystems as a constraining, non-timber value (Baskerville 1986, pg. 73). As stated by Payne (1990, pg. 75): "...the approach in which the natural environment acts as a constraint on timber management will not favour the natural environment. A constraints approach will not be able to respond to issues concerning natural processes." Even with OMNR evidence that the number and quality of ancient forest areas is declining due mainly to over-harvesting (OMNR 1983, pg. 19), the OMNR continues to maximize forest fibre exploitation (FIAG 1993).
For example, the 1990-92 Timber Management Plan for the Temagami Forest indicates that approximately 10,000 ha of the area allocated for logging in four of Temagami's most environmentally sensitive townships (Canton, Delhi, Shelburne and Acadia) falls within the "protection forest" category (Gray 1990). Thus, counter to both policy and expert directives to protect ecologically fragile forested areas, this 10,000 ha area which is less than 2% of the productive Temagami Forest is currently slated for logging. This fibre production maximization policy at the expense of ancient forest protection is expressed at a variety of OMNR policy and guideline levels.
Strategic Land Use Plans (OMNR 1982)
"...The Ministry will ensure that...the withdrawal of productive forest land from forest management...[is] kept to an absolute minimum" (pg. 10). "...Once it (timber) becomes mature, the present annual allowable cut usually contains an acceleration factor in order to utilize as much as possible of this mature material" (pg. 21).
District Land Use Guidelines (OMNR 1983)
"Presently, much of the forests growing on Crown land are over-mature and should be harvested...Because of this, an accelerated harvesting rate has been adopted for the 1981-2000 management period" (pg. 25).
Class Environmental Assessment Document (OMNR 1987a)
"...The broad strategy to promote full utilization of the available timber resource may be further refined into more specific strategies such as development of access roads into areas of mature or overmature timber, or application of a higher level, and accelerated rate, of harvest in order to minimize deterioration of overmature timber" (pg 121).
Fiber Production Priority
Despite numerous forest protection policy directives and available planning mechanisms, the OMNR almost exclusively ignores the protection of natural forest ecosystems in favour of fibre production within the timber management planning process. And, recent revisions of the Class Environmental Assessment terms and conditions (OMOE 1991) present no significant advancement on the part of the OMNR to develop specific guidelines and set measureable targets for protecting an adequate amount of ancient forest. The one exception is the commitment to "...develop an environmentally sound conservation strategy, and definitions for old growth specific to Ontario forest conditions" (OMOE 1991). To be effective, however, such a commitment must be accompanied by (1) an acceptable description of an "environmentally sound conservation strategy" including amount of protected area targets, and (2) interim measures to protect old-growth forest while policy is being formulated. Neither of these points has been addressed.
PROTECTING ANCIENT FORESTS THROUGH PARKS PLANNING
Existing Framework
Nearly all of Ontario's protected forest ecosystems have been designated through the OMNR's Parks and Natural Heritage planning process primarily as parks, nature reserves and areas of natural and scientific interest (OMNR 1978, OMNR 1987b). Through this process, a comprehensive, scientifically-based methodology to identify representative forest community site types has been developed and refined through application over many years (OMNR 1978, Beechey 1980). This methodology and the results of its application could be readily integrated into timber management planning to protect ancient forests. The problems of managing protected areas following designation have also been addressed by OMNR's parks and natural heritage experts (OMNR 1978, OMNR 1987b) and could serve as the foundation for developing management strategies for reserves designated through the timber management process.
In addition, a substantial body of knowledge has developed on the subject of protected areas selection and management (i.e. Ovington 1964, Wright 1977, White and Bratton 1980, Game and Peterken 1984, Noss 1987, Saunders et al. 1987, Shafer 1990, Peterson and Peterson 1991) and continues to grow rapidly. Such information is available for the on-going refinement of reserve selection and management techniques. It will also be necessary for the OMNR to carry out research in order to identify protection priorities and to develop specific reserve management strategies.
Case Study 4
"Status of Old-Growth White Pine Forest in Canada and the United States"
The exploitation of ancient forests throughout the world has resulted in their rarity and even in the extinction of certain types (Maser 1988, Norse 1990) - the exploitation of old-growth white pine forest in North America is no exception. In order to assess the remaining old-growth white pine forest, a number of inventories have been conducted (Erdman and Wiegman 1974, Grigal and Ohmann 1975, Conkling 1978, Maine Critical Areas Program 1983, Pinette and Rowe 1988, Pinto 1989, Quinby 1989, Isles 1990, Heinselman 1991). However, because of their local focus, lack of field verification or preliminary nature, none of these inventories address the entire range of white pine. This lack of a comprehensive geographical inventory to determine the regional status of old-growth white pine forest precludes a precise determination of its local status within any one political jurisdiction where it occurs.
A comprehensive inventory for old-growth white pine forest has been recently conducted (Quinby 1993b). Estimates from this inventory have shown that only approximately 0.4% of the original ancient white pine forest in eastern North America remains (Table 4). Even if this estimate is low by a factor of two, it remains that less than 1% of the orignal white pine forest is left suggesting that old-growth white pine forest is an "endangered ecosystem".
Without comprehensive regional inventories it is not possible to determine the status of ancient forest ecosystems which, in turn, provides the foundation for the development of broad management options for any geographical or political unit. In the case of endangered forest ecosystems such as old-growth white pine forest, complete protection of the remaining examples should be the only management option. In addition, because the vast majority of these old-growth pine stands are too small to be self-sustaining, management strategies will be required as soon as possible in order to maintain them (Soule and Wilcox 1980, Sanders et al. 1987, Shafer 1990, Peterson and Peterson 1991).
TABLE 4 - Status of Old-Growth White Pine Forest in Eastern North America (areas in ha; endangered = <1%) (Quinby 1993b)
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
Ashe, W. W. 1922. Reserved areas of principal forest types as a guide in developing an American silviculture. Journal of Forestry 20:276-283.
Baskerville, G. L. 1986. An Audit of Management of the Crown Forests of Ontario. Consulting Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Park, Toronto, Onatrio. 97 pp.
Beechey, T. 1980. A Framework for the Conservation of Ontario's Biological Heritage. Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Branch, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario. 286 pp.
Benson, C. A., H. Cumming, H. Akervall and W. Carmean. 1989. The Need for a Land Stewardship, Holistic Resource Management Plan for N'Daki Menan. School of Forestry, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario. 131 pp.
Bormann, F. H. 1966. The need for a federal system of natural areas for scientific research. BioScience 16:585-586.
Callahan, J. T. 1984. Long-term ecological research. BioScience 34:363-367.
Canadian Institute of Forestry. 1972. Canadian Institute of Forestry policy for selection, protection and management of natural areas. Forestry Chronicle 48:41-43.
Conkling, P. W. 1978. Old-Growth White Pine (Pinus strobus L.) Stands in Maine and their Relevance to the Critical Areas Program. Planning Report No. 61, Maine Critical Areas Program, State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.
Day, R. J. and J. V. Carter. 1991. Stand Structure and Successional Development of the White and Red Pine Communities in the Temagami Forest. Ministry of Natural Resources, Northeastern Region, Sudbury, Ontario. 203 pp.
Erdman, K. S. and P. G. Wiegman. 1974. Preliminary list of Natural Areas in Pennsylvania. Western Pennsylvania Nature Conservancy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Forest Industry Action Group (FIAG). 1993. Ontario Forest Products Industry: Hard Choices, Bright Prospects - A Report and Recommendations from Labour, Industry and Government to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). Published by the OMNR for the Forest Industry Action Group.
Franklin, J. F. 1989. Importance and justification of long-term studies in ecology. In: Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives, Ed. by G. E. Likens. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 3-19.
Franklin, J. F. and J. M. Trappe. 1968. Natural areas: Needs, concepts and criteria. Journal of Forestry 66:456-461.
Game, M. and G. F. Peterken. 1984. Nature reserve selection strategies in the Woodlands of Central Lincolnshire, England. Biological Conservation 29:157-181.
Gilbert, B. 1978. Growth and development of white pine (Pinus strobus L.) at Lake Temagami. M.Sc.F. Thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario. 107 pp.
Gillis, A. M. 1990. The new Forestry: An ecosystem approach to land management. Journal of Forestry 88:558-562.
Gray, T. 1990. Temagami Timber Management Plan Analysis - 1990. Research Report, Temagami Wilderness Society, Toronto, Ontario. 91 pp.
Grigal, D. F. and L. F. Ohmann. 1975. Classification, description and dynamics of upland plant communities within a Minnesota wilderness area. Ecological Monographs 45:389-407.
Heinselman, B. 1991. Personal Communication (letter dated January 13, 1991). Research Scientist, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Holla, T. A. and P. Knowles. 1988. Age structure analysis of a virgin white pine, (Pinus strobus) population. Canadian Field Naturalist 102:221-226.
Horton, K. W. and G. H. D. Bedell. 1960. White and red pine: Ecology, silviculture and management. Dept. Northern Affairs and Natural Resources, Forestry Branch, Bulletin 124. Ottawa, Ontario.
Iles, N. 1990. Reconnaissance Inventory to Locate Old White and/or Red Pine Stands in Site Region 4E of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northeastern Regional Office, Sudbury, Ontario.
Jenkins, R. E. and W. B. Bedford. 1973. The use of natural areas to establish environmental baselines. Biological Conservation 5:168-174.
Kimmins, J. P. 1973. Forest ecology: The biological basis for the management of renewable resources. Forestry Chronicle 49:25-30.
Kimmins, J. P. 1987. Forest Ecology. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY. 531 pp.
Likens, G. E. (Ed.). 1989. Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. Springer-Verlag, New York. 214 pp.
Maine Critical Areas Program. 1983. Natural Old-Growth Forest Stands in Maine and their Relevance to the Critical Areas Program. Planning Report No. 79, Maine Critical Areas Program, State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.
Maser, C. 1988. The Redesigned Forest. R. & E. Miles, San Pedro, California. 234 pp.
Maser, C. 1990. Economically Sustained Yield Versus Ecologically Sustainable Forests, Including Old Growth. Witness Statement No. 6, Filed on Behalf of Forests For Tomorrow in the hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board regarding a Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario. 44 pp.
Mlinsek, D. 1991. The future of forest management based on research results from virgin forests. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, XIX World Congress Proceedings, Montreal, Quebec. pp. 107-115.
Norse, E. A. 1990. Ancient Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Island Press, Covelo, California. 327 pp.
Noss, R. F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at the Nature Conservancy. Biological Conservation 41:11-37.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 1991. Negotiations Report on Terms and Conditions for the Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario. Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1978. Ontario Provincial Parks Planning and Management Policies. Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1982. Northeastern Region Strategic Land Use Plan. Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1983. Temagami District Land Use Guidelines. Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1986. Timber Management Planning Manual. Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario. 218 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1987a. Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1987b. Implementation Strategy: Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Branch, Outdoor Recreation Group, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario. 19 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1989. A Silvicultural Guide for the White Pine and Red Pine Working Groups in Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Resources Group, Science and Technology Series, Volume 6. Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario. 102 pp.
Ontario Old-Growth Policy Advisory Committee (OOGPAC). 1993. Interim Report on Conserving Old-Growth Red and White Pine. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources, Sudbury, Ontario.
Ovington, J. D. 1964. The ecological basis of the management of woodland nature reserves in Great Britain. Journal of Ecology 52:29-37.
Payne, R. J. 1990. Non-Timber Values and Forest Management in Ontario. Witness Statement No. 4, Filed on Behalf of Forests For Tomorrow in the hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board regarding a Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario. 88 pp.
Perry, D. A. and J. Maghembe. 1989. Ecosystem concepts and current trends in forest management: Time for reappraisal. Forest Ecology and Management 26:123-140.
Peterson, E. B. and N. M. Peterson. 1991. A First Approximation of Principles and Criteria to Make Canada's Protected Area Systems Representative of the Nation's Ecological Diversity (report prepared for the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas). Western Ecological Services Ltd., Victoria, B.C. 47 pp.
Pinette, R. J. and J. P. Rowe. 1988. Natural Old-Growth Forests in Northern Maine. Planning Report No. 87, Maine Critical Areas Program, State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.
Pinto, F. 1989. White and Red Pine (121+ Years) Stand Data for Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, Central Ontario Forest Technology Development Unit, North Bay. 250 pp.
Quinby, P. A. 1985. Forest preserves: A silvicultural necessity. Forest Planning Canada 1:14.
Quinby, P. A. 1987. A review of the selection and design of the forested nature reserves in Algonquin Park, Ontario. Natural Areas Journal: 6:3-12.
Quinby, P. A. 1989. Old-Growth Forest Survey in Temagami's Wakimika Triangle. Research Report, Temagami Wilderness Fund, Toronto, Ontario. 72 pp.
Quinby, P. A. 1991a. Self-replacement in old-growth white pine forests of Temagami, Ontario. Forest Ecology and Management 41:95-109.
Quinby, P. A. 1991b. White pine regeneration in the Obabika Lake old-growth pine stand: A landscape perspective. Research Report, Temagami Wilderness Fund, Toronto, Ontario. 44 pp.
Quinby, P. A. 1991c. Preliminary definitions of old-growth white and red pine forest in central Ontario. Research Report, Temagami Wilderness Fund, Toronto, Ontario. 33 pp.
Quinby, P. A. 1993a. Definitions of Old-Growth Eastern White Pine and Red Pine Forests for the Temagami Region of Ontario. Forest Landscape Baselines No. 3, Ancient Forest Exploration & Research, Powassan, Ontario. 4 pp.
Quinby, P. A. 1993b. Old-Growth Eastern White Pine Forest: An Endangered Ecosystem. Forest Landscape Baselines No. 2, Ancient Forest Exploration & Research, Powassan, Ontario. 4 pp.
Risser, P. G., J. Lubchenco and S. A. Levin. 1991. Biological research priorities - a sustainable biosphere. BioScience 41:625-627.
Saunders and Others. 1987. Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. Surrey Beatty and Sons Pty Limited in cooperation with CSIRO and CALM, Western Australia. 392 pp.
Shafer, C. L. 1990. Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 189 pp.
Shanklin, J. F. 1960. Society of American Foresters natural areas. Journal of Forestry 58:905-917.
Smith, D. M. 1986. The Practice of Silviculture. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto. 527 pp.
Society of American Foresters. 1984. Scheduling the Harvest of Old Growth. SAF, Washington, D.C. 44 pp.
Soule, M. E. and K. A. Kohm (Eds.). 1989. Research Priorities for Conservation Biology. Island Press, Covelo, California. 97 pp.
Soule, M. E. and B. A. Wilcox (Eds.). 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. 395 pp.
Stiell, W. M. 1978. Characteristics of eastern white pine and red pine. In: White and Red Pine Symposium, Ed. by D. A. Cameron. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Canadian Forestry Service, Great Lakes Forestry Research Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Symp. Proc. O-P-6. pp. 7-50.
Strayer, D. and Others. 1986. Long-Term Ecological Studies: An Illustrated Account of their Design, Operation, and Importance to Ecology. Occasional Paper of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies No. 2, The New York Botanical Garden, Mary Flagler Cary Arboretum, Millbrook, New York. 38 pp.
White, P. S. and S. P. Bratton. 1980. After preservation: Philosophical and practical problems of change. Biological Conservation 18:241-255.
Whitney, G. G. 1987. Some reflections on the value of old-growth forests, scientific and otherwise. Natural Areas Journal 7:92-99.
World Wildlife Fund Canada. 1991. Endangered Spaces Progress Report Number 2. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Ontario. 40 pp.
World Wildlife Fund Canada. 1993. Endangered Spaces Progress Report Number 4. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Ontario. 48 pp.
Wright, D. F. 1977. A site evaluation scheme for use in the assessment of potential nature reserves. Biological Conservation 11:293-305.
|
