Issuu on Google+

EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST FORÊT MODÈLE DE L’EST DE L’ONTARIO P.O. Bag 2111 Concession Road Kemptville, Ontario KOG 1JO 19 February 1994 EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST ECOLOGICAL WOODLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT 2.1/93 Development of a Strategy for Woodlands Restoration in Eastern Ontario The lands of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest have undergone dramatic transformation during the last few centuries. Disturbances from urban and agricultural developments, transportation and communications corridors, fires and logging have all impacted on the landscape. The following report was prepared by Geomatics International Inc. as part of the Ecological Woodlands Restoration project, funded as part of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest. This report is intended to serve as a "roadmap" towards restoration of our forested ecosystems in eastern Ontario. It addresses many of the concepts of ecological restoration, reviews restoration programs in other jurisdictions, and evaluates the contribution of current management programs to various restoration goals. The overall goal of the Ecological Woodlands Restoration project, is to try to direct the current and future forests of eastern Ontario towards a more "natural" state. The project has already delivered a historical overview of the forests in this area (A Forest History of Eastern Ontario, Keddy, 1993) . It will also establish potential goals and objectives for restoration activities in this area (this report). A method of determining the ecological integrity of forest stands is currently being developed. Ultimately, all these steps will assist in establishing a network of sites requiring restoration measures. This report is intended to act as a discussion paper, and to stimulate debate amongst the Model Forest partners. As such, comments on this report, or on the overall project objectives, will be welcomed, and should be directed to Eric Boysen. Eric Boysen Southern Region Science and Tech Unit Ministry of Natural Resources Phone: 613-258-8240 Fax: 613-258-3920


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.0 EXISTING INITIATIVES FOR WOODLAND RESTORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.0

CONSIDERATIONS FOR A FOREST RESTORATION STRATEGY IN EASTERN ONTARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1 Underlying Values of Ecological Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2 Approach to the Restoration Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3 The Role of Goals and Objectives in Ecological Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4 Limitations of the Proposed Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5.0 A STRATEGY FOR FOREST RESTORATION IN EASTERN ONTARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1 Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Inter-agency Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1 Evaluation of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Woodlands Improvement Act (WIA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Agreement Forest Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Managed Forest Tax Rebate Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Tree Seedlings Over The Counter Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Project Tree Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Private Land Extension Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 South Nation River Conservation Authority Forestry Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Conservation Land Tax Reduction Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Community Wildlife Involvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Community Fisheries Involvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Habitat Development Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Eastern Ontario Forest Development Agreement (Dumptier Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 National Capital Commission Agreement Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.2 Summary of Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX 1: LIST OF CONTACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


1.0 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH There are very few places in the world that have not been affected in some way or another by human activities. Direct effects such as strip mining, water diversion and storage, as well as byproducts of human activity such as acid rain and toxic waste, are widespread (Cains 1989). Apart from these relatively recent influences, many ecosystems have been destroyed or degraded by other factors such as agriculture, urbanisation and deforestation. The 'value' of a forest has traditionally been equated with its commercial value and forest management practices are generally oriented towards maximising timber production. Replanting of forests was undertaken with little regard for provenance of the species planted and the effect that change in forest structure and composition might have on wildlife. Modern forest management practices tend to have greater consideration for the long-term effects of forest practices and increasingly include conservation and restoration aspects. This change stems from the recognition that there are many critical functions of forest communities. They are major terrestrial reservoirs of biotic diversity. Forests serve as critical habitat for many wildlife species. Forest cover affects the local climatic regime and also plays a role in fixing atmospheric carbon. The deciduous forest represents one of the major endpoints of successional development in our climatic zone (Woodwell 1992). The restoration of forests differs in many aspects from the restoration of other vegetation types (Ashby 1987). The most obvious difference is that a greater length of time is often required to re-establish a forest. Forest restoration also requires a relatively large suite of species to be reintroduced. In addition, a host of other factors (both biotic and abiotic) such as agents for seed dispersal, competition, and disturbance must also be re-created. For many years, forest restoration has been limited primarily to replanting trees, with little consideration given to the need to restore species assemblages and ecosystem functions. However, this current initiative recognizes that large, relatively "natural' forests are a necessary and desirable component of eastern Ontario landscape. This recognition of the need to restore native forests, provided much of the impetus for the Ecological Woodlands Restoration Project. This project is being carried out by the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Group in cooperation with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, (OMNR) to show the need to improve and demonstrate our knowledge and commitment towards the sustainable forest resources of the region. The primary goals of the project are to determine what the "natural" forest types of eastern Ontario are (i.e. what was the forest composition before the arrival of European settlers) and to recommend how to adapt current forest management programs to promote the restoration of 'natural' forests. This current study represents one component of the overall project. The purpose of this current study is to develop a strategy for forest restoration through a review of existing restoration initiatives elsewhere. This project also reviews existing forestry programs and indicates how they contribute to, or detract from, the proposed strategy. Information was collected through a review of the pertinent literature and directly contacting agencies and individuals with expertise in restoration and related fields. These include:

3


U.S. Forest Experiment Stations (North Central and North Eastern); U.S. Forest Service; University of Michigan; University of Wisconsin; Wildlands Conservancy (Pennsylvania); Nature Conservancy (Virginia); Natural Lands Trust (Pennsylvania); Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources; US Environmental Protection Agency (Chicago); Ducks Unlimited; Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Resources; Lakehead University; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Sault Ste. Marie, Carleton Place, London, Brockville); Domtar, Cornwall, Ontario; National Capital Commission; World Wildlife Fund; and University of Guelph. A complete list of contacts is provided in Appendix A. In addition, published literature was consulted, ranging from articles dealing with specific projects in periodicals (e.g. Restoration and Management Notes, Restoration Ecology) to broader monographic treatments of restoration issues. 2.0 DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), defines ecological restoration as "the process of intentionally altering a site to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem. The goal of this process is to emulate the structure, function, diversity and dynamics of the specified ecosystem". (SER 1992) Ecological restoration, as defined by SER, may be distinguished from other resource management activities, in that it focuses on whole ecosystems, as opposed to favouring particular species or species-groups. In this respect, restoration differs from forestry, which concentrates on tree growth for wood production or agroforestry, which favours species yielding specific economic products. This does not preclude, however, that component species will not benefit from restoration. Ecological restoration also differs from activities that improve site conditions without emulating historic systems, such as reclamation, rehabilitation or conservation. 3.0 EXISTING INITIATIVES FOR WOODLAND RESTORATION One of the factors that may hamper restoration initiatives is the clash between two philosophies: one preferring a passive approach to nature (‘do-nothing' attitude) and the other accepting the need for management in the form of active intervention. The first approach, although more popular in the scientific community, is advocated by some conservancy agencies (e.g. Wildlands Conservancy in Pennsylvania) which purchases and holds land to let it revegetate through 4


natural mechanisms. Also, land ownership structure is often a major problem, particularly when the issue of forest fragmentation is to be addressed. Despite this, there has been much ecological restoration undertaken in the United States, primarily wetlands, prairie, oak woodland and xeric communities in the southwest. A total of fourteen agencies/universities were contacted to locate broad application restoration strategies in the U.S.A. Although several of these contacts were involved in, or were aware of specific restoration programs, none knew of programs comparable to that being proposed for eastern Ontario. For this reason, the review is of less value than was originally hoped for and an analysis of existing goals and objectives for programs similar to the one proposed for eastern Ontario, was not possible. Only one project, being undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), appears to be developing a broadly based approach to restoration over a large area. Apart from this, it appears that all the restoration is undertaken on a project-by-project basis, without the development of region-wide strategies. The U.S. experience is useful, however, because of the relatively large number of restorations and the diverse ecosystem types and geographic areas in which they are being carried out. These may be of great use in the initiation of specific projects. A few of the more relevant projects are summarised below. Addresses and telephone numbers of contacts are provided in Appendix 1. Mid-west Oak Savannah Restoration Contact: Karen Holland The one exception to the “project-focussed� trend is the oak savannah restoration in the American mid-west. This ecosystem historically occurred at the interface between the western prairies and the eastern deciduous forest, and covered approximately 11 to 13 million ha (Nuzzo, 1986). It was composed mainly of prairie forbs and grasses with widely spaced, opengrown oaks. Although this initiative has been proceeding on a project-by-project basis, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently preparing an ecosystem plan that will coordinate the restoration of oak savannah throughout its historical range in the U.S.A. (Canada was unfortunately excluded from this exercise). At present, documentation has concentrated on methods and techniques for restoration and the overall goals and objectives for the initiative have not been established. Thus, this project in its present state is not of great use for providing guidance in the formulation of a strategy for eastern Ontario. As part of this project, hundreds of hectares of savannah are being actively restored, with the goal of restoring 40,500 ha by the year 2000 (Holland, pers. comm.). Many different organisations are involved in the effort, from federal, state and municipal governments to nongovernment and private organisations. To date, most projects have been locally-oriented and site-specific. There has been no overall co-ordination of the activities, except for informal meetings between different groups, although the higher-priority projects are carried out first. The general goal is evident (restoration of oak-savannah), but objectives vary according to the project and the agency involved. Largely because of the multitude and diversity of sites, restoration methods and monitoring schemes are not standardised. The most common technique 5


used to restore the savannah involves reintroduction of the historical fire regime (Haney, pers. comm.). Huron-Manistee National Forest Project Contact: Dr. Tom Crow, Dr. Burton Barnes The Huron-Magister National Forests ecological diversity project in Michigan is a significant undertaking at the landscape level that goes beyond a site-specific approach (Crow, pers. comm.). The project assesses the ecological diversity of forests at various spatial scales and includes the evaluation of the importance of old-growth forests. Because only few of those forests remain, most of the designated areas would require restoration to an old-growth state. The stated objective is to ensure that these ecosystems represent the full range of regional ecological diversity. However, this project concentrates on the preservation of existing forests and does not articulate a strategy for region-wide restoration. Mississippi Bottomland Forest Restoration Contact: Randy Becknell (see also Allen and Kennedy, 1989)

Another significant initiative is being undertaken in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Newling, 1991) which involves numerous restorations of bottomland hardwood forests. These projects have benefited from extensive baseline information on the composition and functioning of the best remaining examples of original vegetation. Although regeneration of bottomland forests on abandoned farmland has been carried out in the past, their primary objective was timber production. However, during the last ten years, major efforts have been made towards restoring communities that more closely resemble the historic forests. These projects are undertaken by such agencies as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission and the Louisiana Freshwater Fish and Game Commission. The restored parcels range from one-half to 400 hectares. U.S. Nature Conservancy Contact: Martha Orling The organization most active in forest restoration appears to be The U. S. Nature Conservancy in Arlington, Virginia. It is involved in many projects across the country, with the goal to preserve rare wildlife by actively preserving and restoring key habitats and to link forests together to produce large wild areas. However, there is no formal strategy per se that specifically addresses a strategy to restore a particular forest type or region-wide area. 4.0 CONSIDERATIONS FOR A FOREST RESTORATION STRATEGY IN EASTERN ONTARIO

4.1 Underlying Values of Ecological Restoration In order to provide credibility and generate support for an undertaking as major as the one proposed here, it is necessary to clearly articulate the rationale for the program and the values on which it is based. Without this, the restoration initiative is without foundation.

6


In other recent work involving the protection of remnant landscapes in southern Ontario (Geomatics International 1992), a basis for the protection and enhancement of natural landscapes (which includes restoration) was examined. Our findings concluded that there was one root value which supports and motivates conservation initiatives such as the restoration strategy for eastern Ontario forests: "The desire to preserve, maintain, restore the natural environment is a recognition of kinship with other living organisms and an understanding that we are part of our natural environment and are therefore intimately bonded with it." (Geomatics International, 1991) This thesis was explored in a detailed and personal exposition by Edward Wilson (Wilson, 1984) in which he used the phrase "biophilia" to describe our innate and deep-rooted relationship with the environment. Other authors (see Rifkin, 1991) have also recognised the intimate bond between humankind and the environment- and predicted the need for us to reaffirm those bonds. We derived three corollary values from this root value (Geomatics International 1992) that have been refined and are provided below: 1)

the desire to retain examples of the natural environment that are familiar to us and give us a sense of roots or belonging;

2)

respect for future generations and a desire to maintain an environment that will sustain them;

3)

the desire to retain examples of the natural environment that can be used to foster a better understanding of the relationship between ourselves and our environment.

Since much of the natural environment has been highly disturbed in southern Ontario, restoration is an essential component of satisfying these values. Adoption of these values is recommended as a philosophical basis for a restoration strategy in eastern Ontario. 4.2 Approach to the Restoration Strategy The restoration strategy can be formulated in two ways. In one, a narrow view of restoration which only focuses on the ecological re-establishment of natural forest systems. However, this only addresses part of the issue of ecosystem restoration as it ignores societal attitudes toward the environment and the major impact that they have on natural systems. For instance, the ongoing introduction of non-native plants and animals through landscaping, gardening and other horticultural activities has a tremendous impact on natural systems and will, at least in part, undermine attempts to restore natural forest ecosystems on a region-wide scale. The introduction of exotic organisms is one of the most serious threats to indigenous natural systems in North America (SoulĂŠ, 1990; Coblentz, 1990). Instead, a comprehensive and holistic approach to a restoration strategy is recommended. The strategy should address education, co-operation with other agencies and community involvement, as well as forestry and monitoring. 7


Education is a key aspect of the initiative. The proponent (Model Forest Group), the public and resource managers in other land management programs, must agree with the vision of the restoration strategy if it is to be successful. This will require some education about the ecological and heritage value of native forest ecosystems, evidence of their demise, and the impact of the gradual homogenisation of the flora through the consistent use of few (often nonnative) species and the reduction in the diversity of wildlife habitat. Co-operation with other agencies is important for the long term success of the program. The various participants in the program must all "buy in" to the strategy and modify, refine, or rewrite their own policies and program so that they are consistent with the restoration strategy. As this occurs, the restoration initiative will gain momentum and the eventual goal of restoring a significant area of native forest can be realised. Community involvement can contribute to the support of the program not only by supplying an inexpensive labour force to assist with physical aspects of restoration, but by engendering community pride in restoration programs and generating political and fiscal support for restoration projects. Moreover, an essential part of landscape restoration is a change in the way landscapes, including forests are viewed. At present, forests are still primarily viewed as a commodity, and as such, management focused on maximising yield and profit, at the expense of ecological integrity, is perceived acceptable. This view is being challenged with the recent awareness of environmental issues and the attention on long term sustainability. Program and reports such as the World Conservation Strategy (Pollard and McKechnie 1986), Options for a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy (Kanter 1990) and New Planning for Ontario (Sewell, Penfold and Vigod 1993) all recognize the need for a new attitude toward the environment. The education component should include a new way of looking at the environment that involves the community in the restoration of the environment and encourages the recognition of our relationship within it (biophilia). 4.3 The Role of Goals and Objectives in Ecological Restoration The establishment of appropriate goals and objectives is essential for the success of any restoration project. They serve not only to provide focus and direction for a project, but also to provide a means of measuring the success of the project in the future. Bonnicksen (1988, 1989) stresses the importance of establishing qualitative goals and quantitative objectives, to judge the results and success of restoration projects. He notes that Goals are “idealistic, qualitative and timeless�. They may not be fully achieved, but do provide a general direction for actions. Objectives, on the other hand, specify measurable targets that are expected to be achieved in a certain period. Objectives can be used to develop parameters for subsequent monitoring programs that can then be used to evaluate the degree to which objectives are fulfilled. This not only allows accountable reporting of the project, but also identifies where management programs require refining or total rethinking in order to meet project goals. The primary criterion to evaluate restoration projects is the degree of adherence of the restored community to the 'ideal' or 'model' community. In such a case, goals and objectives would be 8


constructed to emulate the historic community. Ewel (1987) criticised such a comparison as too superficial and suggested five more specific criteria for evaluating restored ecosystems. These are: Sustainability - Ability of the reconstructed community to perpetuate itself without human assistance; Invasibility - Relative resistance to invasions by new species, particularly exotics; Productivity - A restored community should be as productive as the original; Nutrient retention - An attribute relating to a closed nutrient circulation system; and Biotic interactions - The presence of multiple interactions between animal and plant species, especially species critical for maintaining community integrity. These criteria provide the basis for defining the health of ecosystems. Healthiness, in this case, becomes equated with the degree to which a forest is restored (i.e., the closer a forest comes to the historic ideal, the healthier it is). The criteria are not discrete in the sense that they are met or not met, rather they can be met to varying degrees. The greater degree to which they are satisfied, the healthier the ecosystem. Thus, a forest which requires some intervention to maintain because a particular ecological process has been lost (for example fire) or owing to an inability to eradicate an invasive rare plant, would not be considered as healthy as a forest that is completely self-sustaining and does not require intervention. Management that is undertaken to achieve specific goals other than creation of the historic condition would also detract from forest health, given the definition of restoration that is used in this report. 4.4

Limitations of the Proposed Strategy

The development of goals and objectives for a major restoration initiative cannot be carried out by any one individual. It is best accomplished through an iterative process that involves participants with expertise in a number of different aspects of restoration. The following vision statement, goals, and objectives constitutes a starting point for the development of a comprehensive strategy. It should serve to generate discussion and lead to refinements that result in a sound strategy to guide the restoration of the forests of eastern Ontario. Many of the component parts of the strategy proposed below can be initiated independently of one another, although all should eventually be addressed to fulfil the vision statement. However, some tasks can be initiated using existing resources and programs and others introduced later as the opportunity arises. The strategy should be viewed as a master plan that will guide the overall direction of the restoration initiative. It is flexible insofar as the different components can be initiated at different times and that there does not have to be commitment to immediate implementation of the entire strategy. 5.0 A STRATEGY FOR FOREST RESTORATION IN EASTERN ONTARIO 5.1 Vision Statement The vision of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Woodland Restoration Project is to protect, enhance and restore the biological diversity and ecological integrity of eastern Ontario forests through: 9


a)

the restoration of indigenous, historic forest ecosystems;

b)

the preservation and management of existing, remnant examples of historic forest types.

5.2

Goals and Objectives

The following seven goals are organised under five general headings. Objectives are provided for each of the seven goals. Education Goals 1.

Foster an understanding of the importance of native forest ecosystems, and the extent of their loss, among the public and within government agencies (including local, regional, provincial and federal government departments and ministries; planning boards, conservation authorities etc.) through the use of a full range of educational initiatives (eg., school programs, summer day care programs, outdoor education programs, flyers, information packages and presentations). Objectives 1.1

Prepare non-technical literature that explains the context for the eastern forest restoration project (i.e. the loss of the indigenous forest) for distribution to the public, educators and public officials (planners, councillors etc.).

1.2

Organize a seminar or workshop to be presented to school boards in eastern Ontario and possibly primary and secondary school teachers to: C inform them of the eastern forest restoration program; C provide guidance on how they can integrate a restoration component into the school curriculum; C suggest ways in which schools could actively contribute to the restoration program.

1.3

Organize a seminar/workshop for upper tier government agencies and municipal staff in eastern Ontario to inform them of the program and discuss means by which they could participate in or co-operate with the project. 1.4

Establish separate working committees with educators, upper tier government agencies and appropriate municipal staff to determine how the various agencies and schools can contribute to the program. Establish individual projects that contribute to the program. Determine implementation procedures for the various levels of government. Determine how restoration initiatives can be embodied in the planning process (e.g. official plan amendments) and review municipal parks initiatives, street planting programs and urban forestry programs to determine how they can contribute to 10


the restoration program. 1.5

Develop an educational framework to increase public awareness of the virtues of the forest restoration initiative (e.g. University of Guelph Stewardship Training Course), and pursue shared stewardship and shared responsibility for the forest. 2.

Promote the cultivation and use of plant species indigenous to eastern Ontario in forestry, landscaping, gardening and horticulture, through education/ information programs directed at nurseries, municipal parks and recreation departments, federal and provincial agencies responsible for park and natural area management (other OMNR departments, Canadian Parks Service etc.) Objectives 2.1

Establish a policy addressing native plant species that will promote their use without placing undue constraints on the appropriate use of non-native ornamentals. The policy should minimise the use of invasive non-native plant species for landscaping, street planting, horticultural displays etc. [Note: the intent of this is not to prevent the use of all non-native plant materials, but only those which have a negative impact on remnant native ecosystems owing to their ability to reproduce, spread and out-compete native flora. Examples include the numerous cultivars of Norway maple, buckthorns, purple loosestrife, and Tartarian honeysuckle.] 2.2 Compile a list of native plants and known exotic plants for the region. This list should include information regarding the habitat requirements of each species, whether or not it is invasive, and its suitability for use in restoration projects. 2.3

Inform and seek cooperation from agencies that have planting programs (e.g., municipal parks departments, Canadian Parks Service, MTO, other OMNR departments).

2.4

Organize presentations for gardening groups and horticultural societies to inform them of the intent of the restoration program and seek their cooperation in its implementation. Encourage these societies to adopt guidelines or a code of ethics for planting non-native species and invite active participation in restoration and sponsoring/organising individual restoration projects.

Inter-agency Cooperation Goals 3.

Seek cooperation and support for the goals and objectives of this program from various agencies that have jurisdiction and development approval powers over lands in eastern Ontario (e.g. conservation authorities, planning boards, OMAF etc.)

11


Objectives 3.1

Develop partnerships and establish working committees to coordinate activities of government, scientific, private agencies and the general public in the restoration of forests.

3.2

Undertake, on an on-going basis, an analysis of other government programs to identify those with the potential to contribute to the overall goal.

3.3

Foster partnerships between different organisations and individuals, using the Model Forest Network, to develop and refuse programs contributing to the overall goal through memoranda, press releases, public consultations when formulating policies and programs, cooperation with industry, setting up informal agreements, etc.

3.4

Cooperate with other agencies to develop a network of experts that can be drawn upon for advice and assistance in the preparation of restoration plans and policies.

3.5

Consider the establishment of model restoration projects, in cooperation with local agencies, to promote restoration goals.

Forestry Goals 4.

Develop an operational plan for the restoration of eastern Ontario forests. Objectives 4.1

Establish a historic baseline of pre-settlement forests in the region. This will involve review of available historic inventories of forests and survey notes in order to establish types of forest cover, species composition, geographic distribution, soil and site characteristics, identification of disturbance factors, disturbance periodicity, etc.

4.2

Document the existing forest conditions. Review data on forest types presently occurring in the region. This includes FRI maps, vegetation maps, conservation agencies reports, consultant reports, scientific publications, etc. The typical information sought pertains to forest type, floristic composition, species dominance relationships, stratification, soil and site characteristics, geographic distribution and degree of patchiness, disturbance factors (natural and anthropogenic), disturbance frequency and intensity, etc.

12


4.3

Determine the extent to which historic forest types are represented in the present forest cover; prioritise the restoration of forest types that are currently poorly represented. This involves comparing the forest types and distributions of historic and modern forests. The modern forests will be assessed as to how well they resemble the historic types in both their biotic and abiotic characteristics and pattern of occurrence. Those historic types with low or no modem representation or those originally widespread but presently limited, will receive restoration priority.

4.4

Identify the best preserved existing stands to serve as model forest types for future reference. Benchmark descriptions of the best quality remnants of natural forests will include their floristic composition, structure, site characteristics, type of soil, etc. For each type, natural disturbance mechanisms and dynamic processes will be assessed. Permanent plots may be established for long-term studies.

4.5

Identify opportunities for restoration projects in eastern Ontario. Through the reviews of the existing regional landscape carried out for 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, identify forests that lend themselves to restoration. These should be prioritised with respect to urgency for restoration or suitability as demonstration and/or experimental projects.

4.6

Develop a generic protocol for forest restoration. The purpose of the protocol is to have a standardised suite of steps to follow in order to carry out forest restoration projects. At a minimum, the protocol should be composed of the following elements: ! development of goals and objectives; ! document baseline conditions (species abundance, composition, structure etc.); ! ecological project design (eg. restoration of ecological process, species selection, propagule provenance, control of non-natives etc.); ! technical project design (e.g. site preparation methods, planting techniques, time flames); and ! monitoring schedules and reporting structures.

4.7

Develop and refine methods and techniques for forest restoration. Ecological restoration is an emerging field and even experienced restorationists acknowledge that we are relatively ignorant of the process that regulate ecosystems on a site basis. Even in systems where there has been practical experience, every project reveals new information. 'The expertise OMNR has in forest management and planting will be of great benefit, however, there is much to be learned regarding appropriate procedures for re-creating natural forest 13


types, especially with respect to understanding historical ecological processes and how they have been altered since settlement. These need to be explored in an experimental format, refined and documented for widespread application. 4.8

Assess the availability of appropriate planting stock, especially in Ministry nurseries. Restoration of indigenous forests will require the use of locally-grown and genetically appropriate planting stock. Ministry nurseries should determine the needs and requirements of the restoration program and initiate the necessary arrangements to provide appropriate planting stock as required.

4.9

Develop a monitoring protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of individual restoration projects. There is general agreement in the restoration community that carrying out restoration projects is still very much a learning process. Restoration projects must. be continuously monitored and refined. Successes and failures should be shared with the larger restoration community to ensure that maximum benefit is gained from each initiative.

5.

Refine existing forest management programs to address the goal of restoring indigenous forest vegetation. Objectives 5.1

Identify forest management programs with potential to contribute to the restoration program. Within each program identify and, where necessary strengthen, elements compatible with restoration objectives. Identify elements that are not consistent with the restoration initiative and refuse or eliminate them where feasible.

5.2

Continue to critically assess the overall contribution of existing forest management programs and assess their adequacy for meeting the objectives of the restoration program.

Community Involvement Goals 6.

Involve the communities of eastern Ontario in the restoration program to foster participation and civic pride in the indigenous landscape. Objectives 6.1

Identify and contact organisations that may participate in the restoration project. 14


These could include naturalists' clubs, community environmental associations ('watchdog' organisations), horticultural and botanical societies (eg., Canadian Wildflower Society) and forestry organization. 6.2

Suggest specific projects or means of contributing to projects (funding and/or labour), provide guidelines for the implementation of forest restoration initiatives and indicate the services that the OMNR can offer to assist in specific projects.

Monitoring Goals 7.

Establish a monitoring and reporting structure that will facilitate periodic assessment of the state-of-the-forests of eastern Ontario with respect to the restoration initiative.

Objectives 7.1

Develop a monitoring program and reporting mechanism that addresses the objectives of the overall program. The effectiveness of the program must be evaluated periodically to assess the cooperation and contribution from all participants that are necessary for an integrated restoration strategy. Reporting of successes and failures will not only educate participants, but will also communicate progress, reinforce the value of contributions from participants, and reinforce commitments. It may also help to sway reluctant participants or non-cooperating agencies/organisations and recruit further assistance in the program.

6.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS There are a number of forest management programs that have relevance to the woodlands restoration initiative in eastern Ontario. These programs, listed below, are evaluated in terms of their potential to contribute to the forest restoration program. The comments under 'cons' relate specifically to the potential to contribute to the restoration of forests and are not criticisms of programs. 6.1 Evaluation of Programs Woodlands Improvement Act (WIA) - The purpose of this program is to provide for financial and technical assistance in tree planting and woodlot improvement. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources provides advice to private landowners, free of charge. In return, the landowner must be willing to dedicate the land to forest use for a period of 15 years. The size of agreement properties in eastern Ontario varies from 2 ha to 810 ha. The technical advice provided by the OMNR consists of developing plans for tree planting and woodlot management, tree marking for harvesting operations, and protecting forests from fire, insects and disease. The 15


applicant pays for the cost of tree seedlings and accepts responsibility for protecting the area from fire, insects, disease and livestock. Pros: Provides an incentive to revegetate non-forested land; provides a potentially excellent vehicle for forest restoration on private lands; management by the OMNR provides opportunity to ensure compatibility with restoration program goals and objectives, and consistent application of restoration methods. It also provides a mechanism for assisting landowners who lack the expertise to undertake restoration work themselves. Cons: Severely curtailed by the recent budgetary cuts; no defined ecological approach to forest restoration that addresses all aspects of woodland ecosystems. Goals contributed to: 1.

2.

This program has the potential to help foster an appreciation of the importance of native forest ecosystems, although a more explicitly ecosystem-centred approach to woodlot management would be more beneficial. Most nursery stock provided through this program is composed of native conifers.

Agreement Forest Program - This program was established in 1922 under the authority of the Forestry Act. Approximately 350,000 ha of land in Ontario are managed as Agreement forests. Agreement forests are owned by conservation authorities, regional, county or township governments and managed by the OMNR. Agreement forests are generally managed in accordance with OMNR policy, although the landowners are involved in determining management strategies. Therefore, in some forests, not all activities (eg. harvesting or hunting) may be permitted. Pros: Provides an incentive to revegetate non-forested land; provides a potential vehicle for forest restoration on public lands; management by the OMNR provides opportunity to ensure compatibility with restoration program goals and objectives. Cons: To date, the program has focused on reforestation as opposed to ecologically-based restoration which considers whole ecosystems. Goals contributed to: 1.

As with the WIA, there is potential for contribution to goal 1 through education of the need for restoration of natural forest systems.

3.

Goal 3 is contributed to through the cooperation and liaison established with other agencies.

Managed Forest Tax Rebate Program - This program provided tax rebates/incentives for woodland owners, but has been cancelled in recent Ontario budget cuts. Although no data on the performance of this program were reviewed, a programme such as this provided incentive for individuals to reforest land. This program should be reinstated with the objectives refined to 16


provide tax rebates for woodland restoration initiatives. Pros: The program, if reintroduced, could significantly contribute to the Model Forest Restoration Strategy by offering incentive for private landowners to get involved. Cons: None. Goals contributed to: 1.

Goal 1 is contributed to through education and contact with private landowners.

2.

If the program specifies rebates only for restoration with indigenous species, there is potential for contribution to goal 2.

5.

If refined, the new program would contribute to goal 5 by virtue of being a refined forest management program.

Tree Seedlings Over The Counter Sales - The purpose of this program, sponsored by the OMNR, is to provide nursery stock to landowners to plant their own properties. Landowners must own a minimum of 2 ha of land, exclusive of buildings. They pay the cost of seedlings, cover the transportation costs and are responsible for planting them. Pros: Provides opportunity to sell indigenous species to provide forest cover on previously non-forested land; Cons: Strength of the incentive is unknown; it suffers from a lack of technical assistance provided to landowner (brochures with simply stated guidelines); at present there is little control exerted over the choice of species planted; no firm commitment from landowner to establish and maintain the land as forest; no ecological approach to forest restoration that addresses all aspects of woodland ecosystems. Goals contributed to: 1. 2.

5.

As it this program involves the public, and will result in some education with respect to using planting native species, it contributes to goal 1. This program potentially contributes to goal 2 through the dissemination of indigenous species in seed form. Elimination of the sale of inappropriate species, especially nonnative stock, and an increased emphasis on native hardwoods would result in increased fulfilment of goal 2. If the program is refined to eliminate sale of non-indigenous species and encourage sale of species that are of the correct provenance for a particular site, then it contributes to goal 5.

Project Tree Cover - Sponsored by Tree Plan Canada (Green Plan) and Trees Ontario (Ontario Forestry Association and OMNR). The purpose of this project is to establish 16 million trees in Ontario on private lands (2-4 ha) that currently lack forest cover. The owner must agree to 17


maintain the planted trees. The project provides technical expertise, subsidizes the cost of the tree seedlings, planting services and quality control over the planting operation. The owner provides the site, prepares it and buys the seedlings. Pros: The project has a good promotional value and may serve to set the stage for a more extensive afforestation effort; OMNR's quality control contributes to technical and ecological soundness and increases planting success. Cons: Short duration (1993-1997); areas to be planted are limited to 4 ha.; currently no attempt to use species of native provenance; no ecological approach to forest restoration that addresses all aspects of woodland ecosystems Goals contributed to. 1.

As this program involves the public, it has an educational element and thus contributes to the fulfilment of goal 1.

2.

This program could contribute to goal 2 if it was refined to encourage woodland restoration as defined in this report (and thus used indigenous species).

3.

Since this program is a cooperative effort between several agencies, it contributes to goal 3.

5.

The potential exists to contribute to goal 5, if the program were refined to better reflect the goals and objectives articulated in this report.

Private Land Extension Services - The purpose of this service, offered by OMNR (Landowner Resource Centre, 1993), is to provide advice and assistance to landowners on all aspects of natural resources management, such as forestry, fisheries and wildlife, land and water services, aggregate resources, planning, education and information. In the area of forestry expertise, the assistance includes preparation of management plans for reforestation/afforestation, woodlot management, forest health issues (insects and disease), timber sales and maple sugar bush management. Pros: Covers many topics important to ecologically-based restoration; promotes more aspects of forested systems than most programs; has great educational potential and provides a mechanism for conveying the restoration program to private landowners; Cons: present limitations on amount of time spent on property (4 days per year) may not be enough to prevent failures and monitor progress of projects. Goals contributed to: 1.

Since a large part of this program is to educate landowners with respect to resource management, it contributes directly to goal 1. The extension service should focus on the restoration initiative and the various ways individuals can contribute to it, to maximize contribution to goal 1. 18


2.

This service could contribute to goal 2 by encouraging the use of indigenous planting material.

South Nation River Conservation Authority Forestry Program- The purpose of this program is to establish tree windbreaks for soil and energy conservation, utilize idle land and reduce erosion along watercourses. This is a comprehensive program involving education, promotion, site visitations, site preparation, tree planting, tending, inspection, and quality control. Costs of planting are borne by the landowner or by another cooperating agency. One of the provisions is to link plantings with the efforts of other agencies. Pros: Provision of comprehensive services; potential starting point for full-scale restoration efforts. Cons: The program focuses on specific functional objectives and is not based on an ecosystem approach that examines all aspects of forests. The program would be enhanced by making its objectives consistent with the goals and objectives of the Woodlands Restoration Initiative.

Goals contributed to: 1.

Wherever this program involves private landowners, it has the potential to contribute to goal 1 through education.

2.

The program can contribute to this goal providing it promotes the use of native planting stock.

3.

This goal is contributed to since the program is administered by another agency (conservation authority). Agreement between OMNR and the Conservation Authority on a set of restoration goals and objectives and subsequent refinement of the SNRCA Forestry Program would further fulfill goal 3.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Services - This program, sponsored by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, aims at improving water quality and preventing soil erosion on private land. Examples of projects include stream bank protection, ditch/stream crossings, woodlot management and tree planting. Technical assistance and advice is provided, including site visits, survey and design work, while the owner covers the cost of labour and equipment. Pros: Useful program that may contribute to full-scale restoration; contains educational elements. Cons: The program's primary purpose is water quality improvement and reforestation appears to be of secondary importance. As in the previous program, it focuses on specific functional objectives with little consideration of an ecosystem approach that examines all aspects of forests. Goals contributed to: As with the previous program, the RVCA services have the potential to contribute significantly to the Woodlands Restoration Initiative through contribution to goals 1, 2 and 3, with the 19


provisos mentioned for the previous program. Conservation Land Tax Reduction Program - Launched in 1986, its purpose is to recognize, encourage and support landowners who agree to protect conservation lands on their property by offering a 100% tax rebate on municipal property taxes paid. Categories of eligible lands include provincially significant wetlands (Class 1,2,3) and other conservation lands owned by non-profit organisations. Minimum conservation land size is 0.2 ha. The owner agrees to 10year-long maintenance of the conservation land in its natural state and to allow access to OMNR to verify that appropriate property management is being done. Pros: Forests on conservation lands are protected; the inclusion of wetlands, ensures that significant (class 1, 2 or 3) forested swamps may also be protected. Cons: The program is restricted to lands presently deemed to be ecologically significant and would not, at present, cover restoration projects; minimum area precludes small forest patches; the 10-year long maintenance period is too short for forest communities; no active tree planting or active restoration. Goals contributed to: 1.

This program has the potential to contribute to goal 1 through recognizing and emphasizing the importance of wetlands, including swamps, to the public.

Community Wildlife Involvement Program - Purpose is to provide individuals or groups with the opportunity to participate in hands-on management and conservation activities. OMNR provides expertise, equipment and materials for approved projects, including hedgerow planting, wildlife surveys and habitat enhancement. Priority is given to projects that enhance wildlife production and habitat. Pros: The planting of hedgerows may be beneficial in that they have the potential to serve as a cores for corridors linking forest fragments. Cons: The emphasis of this program is on wildlife management and individual projects are not necessarily considered in the context of wider, ecosystem-based objectives. At present, this program contains no elements of forest restoration. Goals contributed to. 1.

Of the 7 restoration goals, goal 1 is the only one which may be contributed to at present by this program as it includes, and thus educates, the public in resource management. However, it does not appear to address the ecosystem approach which is fundamental to ecological restoration. This program has the potential to contribute more significantly if it were oriented to a ecosystem perspective and made compatible with the goals and objectives offered in this report.

Community Fisheries Involvement Program - The purpose of this program is to encourage hands-on fisheries management projects by members of the public, who directly benefit the 20


fisheries resource. Priority is given to projects which contribute to natural reproduction and rehabilitation, and which help maintain and rehabilitate Ontario's fisheries resources. Pros: By involving the public (sportsmen's clubs, schools and community associations) the program plays educational role by increasing awareness of natural resource management; projects may include rehabilitation of wet forests along watercourses and the program has potential to integrate with the Woodlands Restoration Initiative. Some ecological function is addressed in the program, although most of it does not relate to woodlands. Cons: Emphasis of the program on fisheries limits its potential to contribute to forest restoration. Goals contributed to: 1.

This goal is contributed in a minor way as the program educates the public on rehabilitation of watercourse vegetation. However, as the focus is a single resource for the purpose of exploitation (sport fishing), it does not support the ecological base of the Woodland Restoration Initiative.

The program has the potential to contribute more significantly to the Model Forest Woodlands Restoration Initiative, if it were made more compatible with some of the goals and objectives expressed in this report (e.g., promotion of native species). Habitat Development Projects - sponsored by Ducks Unlimited. The purpose of this program is to provide waterfowl habitat either through procurement of prime wetland habitat, or by management or creation of wetland habitat. The primary focus of this program is the restoration/enhancement of agricultural areas. Ducks Unlimited is willing to co-operate with other agencies in projects that affect wetlands. The majority of their projects have focussed on the restoration or management of wetlands in and around agricultural areas, but there is some latitude for initiatives that involve forest restoration. Ducks Unlimited have indicated that they would be interested in management programs that affect forested areas adjacent to wetlands as well as forest habitat for waterfowl (e.g. wood ducks and black ducks). Pros: The programmes are intended to create or manage waterfowl habitat. There is a possibility of restoration projects in areas adjacent to wetlands or in wooded swamps (e.g., for wood ducks). Cons. The ultimate management goal is waterfowl production, not restoration of ecosystems, thus there is limited potential for this program to contribute to the Model Forest Woodland Restoration Initiative. Goals contributed to: None Eastern Ontario Forest Development Agreement (Domtar Agreement) This program was established in 1981 between Domtar and the OMNR. There are two components to this program. The first component involves the replanting of "idle" lands 21


(termed the "establishment component") and the second involves management of privatelyowned woodlots ("maintenance component"). The term of the project is twenty years, with a review every five years and the potential for renewal for five year terms. A total of 1300 ha of privately owned woodlots are currently managed through this program. At present the majority of these lands are single-aged stands. Domtar intends to partially cut these woodlots every 15 years, creating woodlots with 3-4 age classes. In addition, 1150 ha of lands have been planted with hybrid poplar (primarily hybrids of European and North American cottonwoods). These lands will be cut on a 12 year rotation. Pros.. This programme is serving to re-establish forest cover on deforested lands. Selective cutting of woodlots will introduce a more diverse age structure. Cons. Makes extensive use of non-native hybrids for fibre production. The extremely short rotation period and extensive use of monocultures is incompatible with forest restoration. The program is not oriented to ecologically-based forest restoration.

Goals contributed to: None National Capital Commission Agreement Forest The NCC entered into a Forestry Act Agreement (Agreement Forest) with the OMNR in the 1960's. The primary intent of this agreement was to reforest abandoned pasture and marginal agricultural land. The secondary intent was to harvest timber from these areas. The NCC has actively co-operated with other agencies in reforestation programmes in the region, for example, with Scouts Canada. Most of these replanting programmes were undertaken for aesthetic reasons. At present the NCC is planning to begin a programme to establish linkages and corridors between forest fragments. Pros: This agreement has the potential to serve as a vehicle for reforestation in the NCC region. Cons: Presently, the program lacks an ecological focus and does not contribute directly to the goals and objectives provided in this study. The new program to establish linkages and corridors appears to be a step in the right direction and further refinement of the program with respect to an ecological approach could significantly increase the role of this program in the Model Forest Woodland Restoration Initiative. Goals contributed to: 1. 2. 6.

Goal 1 is marginally contributed to since the program involves the public and has an education component. Goal 2 may be contribute to depending on the species being used for planting. Goal 6 is contributed to the extent that the NCC program involves community groups such as Scouts Canada.

22


6.2 Summary of Existing Programs All of the existing programs in eastern Ontario are currently peripheral to the initiative to restore the forests of eastern Ontario. However, several of them contribute to some extent to the goals and objectives suggested in this report. Nearly all of them have the potential to contribute significantly to the restoration program to a much greater degree than at present. This is not a criticism, because there is no existing region-wide framework for restoration to provide coordination among the various programs. This current initiative can fill this void. The great advantage is that they are existing programs with allocations of budget and staff and there is an existing rapport with the public and other agencies. With the creation of a set of guidelines for restoring indigenous forests in eastern Ontario, it would be possible to refine the goals and objectives of existing programs such that they could contribute significantly to the restoration initiative. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The existing forests of eastern Ontario represent only a small fraction of the original, indigenous forest cover. This is a result of more than two centuries of human settlement and various impacts, such as clearing for agriculture, urbanisation and poor forestry practices. However, these forests play an important role in improving air and water quality, supplying raw material for the forest industry, and providing habitat for wildlife and recreation opportunities for people. Considering these benefits, it is appropriate to develop a long-term strategy that aims at maintaining and improving the extent and content of forest ecosystems. The current direction of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and its stated goal to "retain, restore and where appropriate, replace forest ecosystems as an integral part of the physical, biological and cultural landscape" (Ministry of Natural Resources, 1993), is commendable and provides a strong rationale for proceeding with this restoration initiative. The extensive literature on ecological restoration reflects the practical and theoretical interest in the subject. However, the analysis of restoration activities both in Canada and elsewhere indicates that there is a general lack of coordination of work, most of which is done on a project-by-project basis. In this respect, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Group's initiative to develop a strategy guiding a region-wide woodland restoration effort is visionary. Program planning, management and implementation for this initiative will necessarily rely on strong landowner stewardship because the majority of the land base is privately owned. Therefore, there is a need to tailor existing forest management programs so that landowners play a greater role in the fulfilling the restoration goals. Although forest restoration is not a clearly expressed goal of many of the existing management programs, they nevertheless are good starting points for full-scale restorations. The areas where programs could be improved include, for example, giving greater incentives to landowners (tax rebates, preferential pricing for planting material), exercising greater control over the choice of species planted, increasing the size and duration of planting projects, and upgrading educational programs. The current lack of an overall planning framework for forest restoration has resulted in an array of programs that do not share a common goal. The creation of a comprehensive, overall strategy would serve to integrate existing programs. 23


8.0 REFERENCES Allen, J.A. and H.E. Kennedy, Jr. 1989. Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Centre, Slidell, LA and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Stoneville, MS. 28pp. Ashby, W.C. 1987. Forests. Pages 89-108. In: Jordan III, W.R., M.E. Gilpin and J.D. Aber. (Eds.). 1987. Restoration Ecology, A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge Univ. Press., Cambridge. 342pp. Bonnicksen, T.M. 1988. Restoration ecology: philosophy, goals and ethics. Environmental Professional 10:25-35. Bonnicksen, T.M. 1989. Goals and standards in the restoration of forest communities. Pages 329-337. In: Hughes, H.G. and T.M. Bonnicksen. 1989. Restoration '89: The New Management Challenge. Proc. of lst Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, January 16-20, 1989, Oakland, California. 593pp. Cairns, J., Jr. 1989. Restoring damaged ecosystems: Is predisturbance condition a viable option? Environmental Professional ll: 152-159. Coblentz, B.E. 1990. Exotic organisms: a dilemma for conservation biology. Conservation Biology 4(3):261-265. Ewel, J.J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. pp. 31-33. In: Jordan III, W.R., M.E. Gilpin and J.D. Aber. (Eds.). 1987. Restoration Ecology, A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge Univ. Press., Cambridge. 342pp.

Geomatics International Inc. 1992. Environmentally Sensitive Area Study - Addendum Report. Volume 1. Unpublished report prepared for the Regional Municipality of Halton. 53pp. Kanter, R. 1990. Options for a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy (overview). 28pp. Landowner Resource Centre. 1993. Agencies and Programs - Private Land Stewardship in Ontario. Draft. Working document published by the Landowner Resource Centre, Manotick, Ontario. 50pp. Newling, C.J. 1991. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Restoration & Management Notes 8(l): 23-28. Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. Extent and status of mid-west oak savanna: presettlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6:6-36. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Vision 2020: A Forest Management 24


Strategy for the Southern Region. draft #5. 36pp. Pollard, D.F.W. and M.R. McKechnic. 1986. World Conservation Strategy - Canada Report on Achievements in Conservation. Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada. 61pp. Rifkin, J. 1991 . Biosphere Politics: a cultural odyssey from the middle ages to the new age. Harper, San Francisco. 388pp. Sewell, J., G. Penfold and T. Vigod. 1993. New Planning for Ontario. Final Report. Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. Queen's Printer for Ontario. 207pp. Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox and D.H. Mehlman. 1992. Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments? Conservation Biology 6(4):493-504. Society for Ecological Restoration. 1992. Draft proposals. Madison, Wisconsin. 6pp. SoulĂŠ, M.E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the coming decades. Conservation Biology 4(3):322-340. Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press. 157pp. Woodwell, G.M. 1992. When succession fails. Pages 27-35. In: Wali, M.K. (Ed.). 1992. Ecosystem Rehabilitation, Vol. 1: Policy Issues. SPB Academic Publishing, lie Hague, The Netherlands. 230pp. APPENDIX 1: LIST OF CONTACTS Contact List for Eastern Ontario Forest Restoration Project Ontario Dave Chapaskie

Unit Forester Ministry of Natural Resources Brockville (613) 342-8524

Alec Denys

Manager - Private Woodlands Policy Ministry of Natural Resources Suite 400, 70 Foster Drive Sault Ste. Marie (705) 945-6618

Dr. Peter Duinker

Lakehead University Thunder Bay (807) 343-8508 also Co-chair, Forest Policy Panel (416) 314-2464 25


John Fingland

Ministry of Natural Resources London (519) 661-2743

Jim Hendry

Unit Forester Ministry of Natural Resources Cornwall

Kevin Kavanagh

World Wildlife Fund Toronto (416) 489-8800

Frank Kennedy

Manager - Environmental Assessment Ministry of Natural Resources Sault Ste. Marie (705) 945-6703

Corrine Nelson

Provincial Silvicultural Specialist 70 Foster Drive, Suite 400 Sault Ste. Marie Ministry of Natural Resources (705) 945-6624

Dell Parker

Environmental Assessment Section Forest Policy Branch Ministry of Natural Resources Sault Ste. Marie (705) 945-6703

Peter Scheichenbaum

Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Resources (705) 754-2198

Owen Steele

Regional Biologist Ducks Unlimited 566 Welham Road Barrie, ON IAM 6E7 (705) 721-4444

Martin Streit

Unit Forester Ministry of Natural Resources Carleton Place (613) 257-5735

Brian Thompson

Incentive and Agreements Co-ordinator Ministry of Natural Resources Sault Ste. Marie (705) 945-6655

Olesia van Dyke

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Manotick (613) 692-3571

George Velema

Domtar 300 2nd Street Cornwall, ON K6J 1A6 26


613-932-6620 Doug Wolthausen

National Capital Commission 161 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1P 6J6 (613) 239-5555

USA

Environmental Conservation Agency Buffalo, NY USA (716) 851-7000

(name not obtained)

Northeast Forest Experimental Station USDA Forest Service Broomall, Pennsylvania USA 10987 (215) 975-4223

Lisa Jury

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources Harrisburg, Pennsylvania USA (717) 783-2300

Dr. Burton Barnes

School of Natural Resources Michigan State University (313) 764-1407

Don Boelter

Ass't Director, Research North USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station 1992 Folwell Ave. St. Paul, Minnesota USA 55108-6148 (612) 649-5281

Randy Becknell

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 2901 Highway 61 Festus, Mo U.S.A. 63028 (314) 937-3697

Dorothy Brett

Wildlands Conservancy Pennsylvania USA (215) 965-4397

Dr. Tom Crow

Forestry Sciences Lab Landscape Ecology University of Wisconsin (715) 362-7474

Dr. Allen Haney

University of Wisconsin (715) 346-4617 27


Karen Holland

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Avenue Chicago, Illinois USA (312) 886-0238

Stanley Krugman

Director, Forest Management Research U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service 14" and Independence, SW P.O. Box 96090 Washington, D.C. USA 20090-6090 (202) 205-1547

Dr. Larry Lieffers

University of Michigan Dept. of Forestry (517) 355-0097

Martha Orling

Nature Conservancy 1815 North Lynn Street Arlington, Virginia USA (703) 841-5300

David Robertson

Penni-Pack Wilderness Association Pennsylvania USA (215) 657-0830

David Steckel

Natural Lands Trust Media, Pennsylvania USA (215) 353-5587

28


http://broome.directrouter.com/~eomf/media/k2/attachments/ir3