EBM in Canada CBFA July 2014 PDF

VISIT US ON
CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT.COM
Status Report on Ecosystem-based Management (EBM)
Policy Barriers and Opportunities for EBM in Canada
Prepared for:
The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement
National Working Group 1
Prepared by:
KBM Resources Group
Thunder Bay, ON
Laird Van Damme, MSc, RPF – Managing Partner

Laura Plante, MSc
Rike Burkhardt, MFC, RPF
Karen Saunders, MES, RPF (Ret.)
July 2014
CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM ENTENTE SUR LA FORET BOREALE CANADIENNE. COM
410-99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9 410-99, rue Bank, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9
Tel: 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca Tél. : 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca
Status Report on Ecosystem-based Management (EBM): Policy Barriers and
Opportunities for EBM in Canada
KBM Resources Group

Copyright © 2014, the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement
About the CBFA

The CBFA, which was signed in May 2010, includes seven leading environmental organizations,
the Forest Products Association of Canada, its 18 member companies, and Kruger Inc. It directly
applies to more than 73 million hectares across the country, making it the world’s largest conser-
vation initiative.
The CBFA represents a globally significant precedent that seeks to conserve significant areas of
Canada’s vast boreal forest, protect threatened woodland caribou, and sustain a healthy forest
sector by laying a foundation for the future prosperity of the industry and communities that rely
on it.
Forestry companies currently participating in the Agreement:

Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc., AV Group, Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership, Canfor
Corporation, Cariboo Pulp & Paper Company, Conifex, DMI, Fortress Paper Ltd., Howe Sound Pulp
and Paper Corporation, Kruger Inc., LP Canada, Mercer International, Mill & Timber Products Ltd.,
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd., Resolute Forest Products, Tembec Inc., Tolko Industries, West
Fraser Timber Co., Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.
Environmental organizations participating in the Agreement:

Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation,
ForestEthics, the Nature Conservancy, and the Pew Environmental Group’s International Boreal
Conservation Campaign.
The financial support of the Ivey, Pew and Hewlett Foundations, the Nature Conservancy, the
Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), and Natural Resources Canada were essential to
the negotiation and implementation of the agreement.
For further information on the CBFA, visit www.canadianborealforestagreement.com
Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat

410-99 Bank Street,
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9
Tel: (613) 212-5196
info@borealagreement.ca
i
CONTENTS
GUIDANCE NOTE v
PREAMBLE vi
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS vii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1. Policy Gaps 3
1.2. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Canada 3
1.3. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Canada 3
2. REPORT OBJECTIVES 4
3. METHODOLOGY 5
3.1. Project Team 5
3.2. Contributors 5
3.3. Evaluation Framework 6
4. CANADIAN POLICY CONTEXT 8

4.1. Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada 10
5. KEY FINDINGS 12
5.1. Stage of EBM Integration and Implementation 12
5.2. Landscape Approach (coarse and fine filter) 13
5.3. Emulating Natural Patterns and Processes 15
5.4. Natural Range of Variation/Pre-industrial Forest Condition 16
5.5. Restoration and Representation 17
5.6. Quality of Input Data 18
5.7. Adaptive Management 19
5.8. Use of Models as Decision Support Tools 21
6. JURISDICTIONAL SCAN 23
6.1. British Columbia 23

6.1.1. Policy Context 23
6.1.2. Land Use Planning 23
6.1.3. Alignment with EBM Criteria 25
6.1.4. Science/Policy Gaps 35
6.1.5. Barriers to Implementing EBM in British Columbia 35
6.1.6. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in British Columbia 36
6.2. Alberta 36
6.2.3. Alignment With EBM Criteria 39
ii
6.2.5. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Alberta 55
6.2.6. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Alberta 56
6.3. Saskatchewan 56
6.3.5. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Saskatchewan 64
6.3.6. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Saskatchewan 65
6.4. Manitoba 65
6.4.3. Landscape Planning (Coarse and Fine Filter) 67
6.4.6. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Manitoba 72
6.4.7. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Manitoba 72
6.5. Ontario 73
6.5.5. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Ontario 80
6.5.6. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Ontario 80
6.6. Quebec 81
6.6.5. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Quebec 88
6.6.6. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Quebec 89
6.7. Newfoundland and Labrador 89

6.7.4. Science/policy Gaps 96
6.7.5. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Newfoundland and Labrador 97
6.7.6. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Newfoundland and Labrador 97
7. CONCLUSIONS 99
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Alignment of Provinces with EBM criteria. 2

Table 2. Ecosystem-Based Management Evaluation Framework 7
Table 3: Progressive National Forest Strategy Themes, 1981-2003. 8
Table 4. Framework for Cumulative Effects Assessments. 14
Table 5. BC’s Alignment with EBM Criteria. 25
Table 6. Alberta’s Alignment with EBM Criteria. 39
Table 7. Saskatchewan’s Alignment with EBM Criteria. 58
Table 8. Manitoba’s Alignment with EBM Criteria. 67
Table 9. Ontario’s Alignment with EBM Criteria. 73
Table 10. Quebec’s Alignment with EBM Criteria. 82
Table 11. Newfoundland and Labrador’s Alignment with EBM Criteria. 90
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Ecosystem-based Management 9

Figure 2: Sustainable Forest Management (adopted from Salwasser, H., 1993) 9
Figure 3. Adaptive Management in Ontario. 19
iv
GUIDANCE NOTE
This report, commissioned by the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA) National Working
Group 1, provides a cross Canada scan of progress towards implementing ecosystem-based
management (EBM). It is being used to inform efforts to develop leading forestry practices
based on the principles of EBM, active adaptive management, and third party verification. It also
provides a perspective on existing barriers to implementing EBM, which CBFA signatories are
committed to working on jointly to overcome.
In sharing this document, the CBFA notes that the following considerations should be taken into
account by the reader:
»» The views and opinions expressed in this report are the interpretations of the authors
based on their own expertise and information provided by those interviewed. Input from
industry, governments, and ENGOs has been summarized with the objective of achieving
a balanced perspective for each jurisdiction. The opinions expressed herein do not
necessarily represent the views of the CBFA.
»» There is no single interpretation or understanding of EBM. For the purposes of this

report, the CBFA definition of EBM was used as a basis to develop a list of criteria that
became the framework for evaluating the implementation of EBM in seven boreal
provinces of interest. A core component of the criteria is understanding the natural range
of variation (NRV) in the structure and composition of a forest, and using that knowledge
to guide forest management practices.
»» As noted in section 3 of the report, “The report findings do not represent a

comprehensive analysis but rather a high-level overview as limited by the scope of
the project timelines and resources. The views presented are one perspective on EBM
in Canada based on literature review, interviews and review by practitioners in the
jurisdictions of interest.”
»» The information captured in this report is a snapshot in time. It will change as regulations
and policies in provincial jurisdictions, and our interpretation of EBM, evolve.
The CBFA work for which this report was developed is described in the Preamble that follows.
Please direct questions and clarifications regarding this document to:

»» the CBFA National Working Group 1, through the CBFA Executive Director Aran O’Carroll
(aocarroll@borealagreement.ca), or
»» the senior author of this report, Mr. Laird Van Damme of KBM Resources Group
(vandamme@kbm.on.ca)
The suggested citation for this document is:
Van Damme, L., Burkhardt, R., Plante, L. and Saunders, K. 2014. Status Report on Ecosystem-
based Management (EBM): Policy Barriers and Opportunities for EBM in Canada. Prepared for
the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. KBM Resources Group, Thunder Bay, ON. 99 pp.
v
PREAMBLE
The first of six goals of the CBFA is to achieve world-leading boreal “on-the-ground” sustainable
forest management practices, based on the principles of:
»» ecosystem-based management,
»» active adaptive management, and
»» third-party verification.
Critical policy gaps, barriers and opportunities to implementing the world leading forestry
practices being established under Goal 1 are also to be identified, and a strategy put in place for
addressing them. Work under this goal is carried out by CBFA National Working Group 1, which
consists of representatives of CBFA signatories from across Canada.
CBFA National Working Group 1 commissioned this report, “Status Report on Ecosystem-based
Management (EBM): Policy Barriers and Opportunities for EBM in Canada”, to help inform its
work by looking at the current ecosystem-based management practices in Canada, and the
barriers and opportunities forest companies may encounter when carrying out planning and
operations consistent with the principles of EBM.
An overarching and inalienable principle of the CBFA is to endeavour to concurrently achieve

high degrees of both ecological integrity and socio-economic prosperity, guided by best available
information and other principles (CBFA, s. 10) – the “Twin Pillars.” The practices that are agreed
to under the Goal 1 work need to balance both ecological and economic considerations, and
consider the cumulative impact of additional agreements being negotiated under other CBFA
goals. This report may also help inform the Goal 1 work by providing an indication of the
outcome of social choices that have been made in Canada around EBM, to balance the twin
pillars
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to first and foremost thank the authors of this report and their collaborators, who
researched and reviewed EBM efforts across the seven boreal province of interest:
KBM Resources Group

Karen Saunders, MES, RPF (Ret.)
Laird Van Damme, MSc, RPF – Managing Partner
Laura Plante, MSc
Rike Burkhardt, MFC, RPF
Collaborators
Al Peat, Biologist – Bearfoot Resources, Penticton, BC
Dr. Gary Bull - University of British Columbia
Paul Leblanc - LP Canada Ltd., Manitoba
Pierre Levac - former Chief Forester, Quebec
Twenty-three people from industry, governments, and ENGOs were interviewed by the authors
and collaborators, with the objective of achieving a balanced perspective for each jurisdiction.
Those key contributors are listed in section 3 of the report, by province, so are not repeated here.
We thank them sincerely for their time, and the expertise and insights they shared.
The CBFA signatories themselves also made a significant contribution by reviewing draft versions
of the report. The report was reviewed members byNational Working Group 1 and the Regional
Working Groups operating in the seven boreal provinces that were studied. These reviewers were:
André Arsenault (Newfoundland Regional Working Group)

Alan Thorne (National Working Group 1)
Bruce Byford (Ontario Regional Working Group)
Cassie Phillips (National Working Group 1)
Danielle Fequet (Newfoundland Regional Working Group)
Dave Pearce (National Working Group 1)
David Bryden (National Working Group 1)
Diane Roddy (National Working Group 1)
Éric Forget (Quebec Regional Working Group)
Etienne Bélanger (National Working Group 1)
Florence Daviet (National Working Group 1)
Gord Whitmore (National Working Group 1)
Ian Goudie (Newfoundland Regional Working Group)
Jim Witiw (Alberta/British Columbia Regional Working Group)
John Daisley (Saskatchewan Regional Working Group)
John Dunford (National Working Group 1)
Jonathan Feldgajer (Newfoundland Regional Working Group)
Lorne Johnson (National Working Group 1)
Mark Hubert (National Working Group 1)
Marc Bédard (National Working Group 1)
Mike Maxfield (National Working Group 1)
Peter Baird (National Working Group 1)
Rachel Plotkin (Goals 2-3 National Working Group)
vii
Rob Harder (National Working Group 1)
Stephen Vinnedge (National Working Group 1)
Tim Gray (National Working Group 1)
Wade Cable (National Working Group 1)
Wayne Thorpe (Alberta/British Columbia Regional Working Group)
The following members of the CBFA Science Committee and Secretariat played a central role in
guiding the development and review of this document:
Aran O’Carroll (CBFA Secretariat)

Fiona Schmiegelow (CBFA Science Committee)
Matthew Pyper (CBFA Science Committee)
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is a complex concept – there is no single understanding of what EBM means as
implemented through policy and practice. The working definition of EBM as defined under the Canadian Boreal Forest
Agreement (CBFA) is as follows:
“A management system that attempts to emulate ecological patterns and processes, with the goal of maintaining and/or
restoring natural levels of ecosystem composition, structure and function within stands and across the landscape.”
Some would argue (including some experts interviewed for the purposes of this review) that there is conceptually little
difference between EBM and what has also been described as “sustainable forest management” and defined broadly
through, as examples, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) Criteria & Indicators(C&I) for SFM, provincial policies
and legislation, various certification standards and as practiced by forestry jurisdictions across Canada. Another common
observation was that EBM cannot be achieved in isolation within the forest sector. Planning integration across sectors
is imperative to achieving desired landscape outcomes yet remains elusive in most Canadian jurisdictions. Finally, even
the most robust EBM policy frameworks may fall short in implementation; another area of difficulty observed by many
practitioners across Canada.
Given the different stages of development and progress toward EBM in Canadian jurisdictions and the variations on
the definition, EBM could be seen pragmatically as a set of ‘best practices’. These best practices are based on best
available science, supporting policy, legislation and standards, transparent decision-making processes and feedback/
monitoring cycles that close the adaptive management loop. While there are many commonalities to be found across
Canada, there are also still significant differences both in terms of how provinces have approached EBM and the stage of
implementation they have achieved.
For the purposes of this review, the above CBFA definition of EBM was used as a basis to develop a list of criteria that
provided an evaluation framework for a scan of EBM across Canada. A proposed evaluation framework was put forward
by KBM and revised in consultation with the CBFA Goal 1 National Committee members. The framework was set up
to permit a comparative analysis between the seven provinces of interest: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Table 1 ranks the provinces relative to their level of achievement for specific EBM criteria as defined for the purposes of
this review.
1
TABLE 1. ALIGNMENT OF PROVINCES WITH EBM CRITERIA
(GREEN = YES, WHITE = NO, P = PARTIAL OR IN PROGRESS).
# EBM ELEMENT BC AB SK MB ON QC NL
1 EBM approach is mature P P P P
2 Formal definition of EBM in policy/legislation P P
3 Landscape approach to EBM (coarse and fine filter approaches) P P
4 Forest inventory is linked to ecosites P P P
5 Forest inventory is reliable P P P
6 Cutblock size designed to emulate natural disturbance P P P P
7 Cutblock shape designed to emulate natural disturbance P P P P
8 Tree and residual structure retention standards emulating natural P P P P
disturbance
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime P P P
(including old growth)
10 Prescribed burning is used as a management tool P P P
11 Models used for decision support.
12 Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of P P P
ecosystem types/function
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest P P P
condition)
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work complete P P P
15 Restoration of natural landscape patterns/forest communities P P P P
significantly diminished by past management actions
16 Strategies for linear corridor/road management effectively P P P
implemented
17 Trade-offs communicated clearly through evaluation of multiple P
management scenarios
CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 2

The report findings include a summary of policy gaps, barriers and opportunities specific
to each of the jurisdictions of interest. While each province has achieved a unique stage of
development, there are some common themes that emerged, as summarized below.
1.1. Policy Gaps

1. I n many provinces, the links between EBM at the strategic and operational levels remain
relatively weak.
2. ost provinces are still working to develop clear standards for operationalizing EBM in
M
forest management practices.
3. F ew provinces have integrated land use planning and/or cumulative effects assessment
capacity.
4. oor quality of input data limits meaningful planning outputs for EBM (e.g. forest
P
inventory, roads data).
1.2. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Canada

1. There are limited government resources for foundational science/policy work.
2. T he lack of integration (and significant challenges for achieving it) between the forestry
and e.g. energy sectors in some provinces poses a significant barrier to EBM.
3. E BM is complex, hence expensive – many jurisdictions already face high delivered wood
costs.
4. T here are high costs of implementation associated with aspects of EBM e.g. large-scale
restoration, prescribed burning.
5. “ Planning to extinction” – the best planning framework is not useful if management
decisions are inconsistent with the capacity of ecosystems to support development.
6. E cosystem resilience (capacity, bounds) has largely remained undefined within current
state of knowledge.
7. I n some cases, governments and the private sector are challenged to achieve the
necessary social license to implement specific practices (road closures, burning).
1.3. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Canada

1. T here are opportunities to adapt science or approaches from other jurisdictions where
resources are limited (e.g. Manitoba uses Northwestern Ontario Forest Ecosystem
Classification (FEC)).
2. F orest certification is being used as a means to integrate/advance EBM practices where
guidance is lacking in provincial regulatory structures.
3. urrent planning initiatives may provide point of engagement to support/advance
C
practices (e.g. SK Environment Code linear corridor chapter, MB landscape design initiative
and others described in this document).
The report concludes that the following Best Practices are feasible regardless of which
provincial regulatory regime or certification system companies are operating under:
»» Apply principles of Integrated Land Management (ILM) to forestry planning (to the
extent that it is under forest industry’s control), including efforts to cooperate with all
forest road users to develop integrated road management strategies and effectiveness
3
monitoring protocols.
»» Establish the natural range of variation using empirical data and computer simulation
tools (e.g. LANDIS, ALCES).
»» Report the current forest condition and expected changes in the future against NRV for
broad species composition, age class structure and harvest patterns.
»» Develop natural pattern emulation strategies for stand and forest floor conditions.
»» Co-operate in advancing scientific understanding of cumulative effects from other
sectors and climate change impacts.
»» Develop spatially explicit forecasts and monitor outcomes in an active adaptive
management context.
2. REPORT OBJECTIVES
This report presents the findings of a cross-Canada scan of macro-policy barriers and
opportunities to implementing ecosystem-based management (EBM) in the Boreal forests of
British Columbia (BC), Alberta (AB), Saskatchewan (SK), Manitoba (MB), Ontario (ON), Quebec
(QC) and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).
One of the key deliverables of this scan is to “specifically identify any potential regulatory or
policy barriers (including critical policy gaps) and any opportunities at the provincial level or
federal level, to the implementation by CBFA signatories of world-leading stand and landscape-
level planning and forestry practices in the Boreal forest, based on the principles of EBM,
including:
»» Summarizing where EBM is being used and to what extent;

»» The barriers being encountered;
»» The opportunities that may be available or on the horizon; and,
»» Any actions being taken to remove those barriers or seize those opportunities.”
Note: The report findings do not represent a comprehensive analysis but rather a high-level
overview as limited by the scope of the project timelines and resources. The views presented
are one perspective on EBM in Canada based on literature review, interviews and review by
practitioners in the jurisdictions of interest.
4
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Project Team
KBM Resources Group assembled a team of project collaborators to assist in the evaluation of
EBM in various jurisdictions as available.
The content of this report are the result of a series of collaborative research and review efforts
across the seven provinces of interest, which included the following people and organizations:
KBM Resources Group

▪▪ Laird Van Damme, MSc, RPF – Managing Partner
▪▪ Laura Plante, MSc
▪▪ Rike Burkhardt, MFC, RPF
▪▪ Karen Saunders, MES, RPF (Ret.)
Collaborators
▪▪ Al Peat, Biologist – Bearfoot Resources, Penticton, BC
▪▪ Dr. Gary Bull, University of British Columbia
▪▪ Pierre Levac, - former Chief Forester, Quebec
▪▪ Paul Leblanc, LP Canada Ltd., Manitoba
3.2. Contributors
We also gratefully acknowledge the input of the following people who contributed their time
for interviews:
BRITISH COLUMBIA
▪▪ Bruce Rogers; Ecologist, MFLNRO, Prince George
▪▪ Dr. Dale Seip; Wildlife Ecologist, Ministry of Environment, Prince George
▪▪ Brent Bye; Senior Forest Protection Officer, MFLNRO, Prince George Fire Centre
ALBERTA
▪▪ Rick Bonar, Chief Biologist, Hinton Wood Products, A Division of West Fraser Mills Ltd. 
▪▪ Jim Witiw, Forest Resource Coordinator for Biodiversity Stewardship, Daishowa-Marubeni
International Ltd. (DMI)
▪▪ John Stadt, Provincial Forest Ecologist, Forest Planning Section, Alberta Environment and
Sustainable Resource Development  
SASKATCHEWAN
▪▪ Bob Wynes, Executive Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest Service
▪▪ John Daisley, Weyerhaeuser Canada
▪▪ Gord Vaadeland, Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Saskatchewan)
MANITOBA
▪▪ Phil Keenan, Industrial Operations Forester, Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship
▪▪ Paul Leblanc, Forester, LP Canada Ltd., Swan Valley Forest Resources Division
▪▪ Tom Nudds, University of Guelph, Department of Integrative Biology (consultant to Tolko
Industries, Manitoba)
5
ONTARIO
▪▪ Dr. Robert Rempel, Research Scientist – Spatial Ecology, Centre for Northern Forest
Ecosystem Research
▪▪ Brian Hillier, Manager, Forest Policy Section, Ministry of Natural Resources
▪▪ David Pearce, Forests Conservation Analyst, CPAWS-Wildlands League
QUEBEC
▪▪ Pierre Levac, former Chief Forester, Quebec
▪▪ Nathalie Perron, Biologist, Chief Forester’s Office, MRN
▪▪ Francois Dumoulin, Resolute Forest Products
▪▪ Nicolas Lecomte, Valeur Nature
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

▪▪ Len Moores, former CEO of Forestry and Agrifoods Agency, Department of Natural
Resources
▪▪ Wayne Kelly, Director, Centre for Forest Science and Innovation, Department of Natural
Resources
▪▪ Ian Goudie, Forest Science Coordinator, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society,
Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter
▪▪ Debbie Hearn, Hearn Consulting Incorporated
3.3. Evaluation Framework

With direction from the CBFA Goal 1 National Committee, it was agreed that the following
evaluation framework, in Table 2, would form the basis of a review of EBM criteria representing
some of the current best practices in Canada (the list is not exhaustive).
6
TABLE 2. ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
“A management system that attempts to emulate ecological patterns and processes, with the
goal of maintaining and/or restoring natural levels of ecosystem composition, structure and
function within stands and across the landscape.”
Element Sub-element Specific criteria #

A management Formal definitions of EBM in EBM approach is mature (early 1
system is in place regulations and/or policy. adoption of EBM principles in resource
management regulatory frameworks)
Formal definition of EBM in policy/ 2
legislation
Emulates ecological Meaningful/appropriate Landscape approach to EBM (coarse and 3
patterns and scale of management fine filter approach)
processes. Forest inventory linked to ecosites 4
Quality of input data Forest inventory is reliable 5
Emulation of natural Cutblock size designed to emulate natural 6
disturbance as basis for disturbance
landscape planning Cutblock shape designed to emulate 7
natural disturbance
Tree retention standards emulating 8
natural disturbance
Age class designed to emulate natural 9
disturbance regime (incl. old growth)
rescribed burning used as a management 10
tool
Models/scenario evaluation Models used for decision support 11
Seeks to maintain/ Protected Areas Networks/ Process to ensure adequate 12
restore natural Representation representation of natural range of
levels of ecosystem ecosystem types/function is in place
composition, Use of natural benchmarks Natural benchmarks used in 13
structure and in planning/historic forest planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest
function conditions condition)
Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline 14
work complete
Managing toward natural Restoration of natural landscape patterns 15
forest condition and forest communities significantly
diminished by past management actions
Access road strategies and Strategies for management of linear 16
management of linear corridors (road management/closures)
features/corridors actively implemented
Role of public Explicit communication Trade-offs communicated clearly through 17
participation and of trade-offs between presentation of management options in
societal values management scenarios planning process

7
4. CANADIAN POLICY CONTEXT
EBM was a prominent theme in Canada’s National Forest Strategy 2003-2008. National forest
policy flows from the provinces upward through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
given the control provinces exert over natural resources under Canada’s constitution. Natural
Resources Canada facilitates programs and Canada’s international relationships related to forest
management.
A series of National Forest strategies describe rather than prescribe Canada’s position on forest
management and policy. Over time this position has shifted somewhat from an emphasis on
economic development to ecosystem based management and most recently sustainable forest
management. Table 3 shows this progression over time1.
TABLE 3: PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL FOREST STRATEGY THEMES, 1981-2003.
1981 1987 1992 1998 2003

Wood supply Forest Forest ecosystems Forest ecosystems Ecosystem-based
management management
Forest Forest
management management
Markets Trade and Forest industry Forest industry Forest product
and market investment benefits
opportunities
Global forests Global view
Human resources Employment Forest Forest Sustainable forest
communities communities communities
Research and Research and Forest science Forest science Knowledge and
development development innovation
Public awareness Public Public The urban forest

participation participation and public
engagement
Aboriginal Peoples Aboriginal Peoples Rights and

principles of
Aboriginal peoples
Private woodlots Private woodlots Private woodlots
Reporting and
accountability

The 2003-2008 National Forest Strategy Coalition (NFSC) had the largest membership of any
Strategy to date. In total, there were 66 signatories to the Forest Accord, taking in a diverse
group of actors from government, industry and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). In a
review undertaken by KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. in 2007 that was commissioned by the
NFSC, interview respondents spoke very positively about the breadth of the NFSC membership
and several remarked on the strong participation of NGOs.
1 Rayner, J. and M. Howlett. 2007. The National Forest Strategy in comparative perspective. Forestry Chronicle. 83: 651-657
8
The one major weakness identified in terms of membership was the absence of three important
parties, namely the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and the provincial governments
of Alberta and Quebec. These groups did not sign the National Forest Accord due to concerns
over wording. Interview respondents indicated that the reduced presence of these key players
diminished the implementation prospects for this National Forest Strategy (NFS) from the outset.
Some of the creative tension discovered during the program review at the conclusion of the
2003-2008 NFS revolved around governance and EBM definitions. For example how much weight
should civil society groups (e.g. FPAC and NGOs) have over civil services representing elected
governments? In addition, many considered EBM to be consistent with the accepted definitions
of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) while others felt EBM was a more evolved bio-centric
approach compared to SFM. Figure 1 depicts the ecosystem as the foundation for social and
economic well-being (EBM) and Figure 2 depicts a balance between that which is ecologically
viable, socially acceptable and economically feasible (SFM).
Society Economy
Ecosystem
FIGURE 1: ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT (SOURCE DIRK BRINKMAN, NFSC THEME 1 CHAIR)
Ecological Economic
Sustainable Forest
Management
Economic
FIGURE 2: SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT ADAPTED FROM SALWASSER, H. 1993. IN:

DEFINING SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY, APLET ET AL EDITORS, ISLAND PRESS. 328 PP
The current strategy is presented as A Vision for Canada’s Forests – 2008 and Beyond. The Vision
focuses on two key areas: forest sector transformation and climate change. The Vision continues
Canada’s leadership in sustainable forest management as demonstrated by past national forest
strategies and Canada’s international obligations2.
2 Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2014. A Vision for Canada’s Forests: 2008 and Beyond. http://www.ccfm.org/english/coreprod-
ucts-nextnscf.asp. Accessed March 8, 2013.
9
4.1. Criteria & Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in
Canada
The first international commitment to sustainable development emerged at the Earth Summit
held in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The Earth Summit adopted treaties on climate change and
biodiversity, and a non-binding statement of forest principles. Following the Earth Summit,
Canada, as a signatory to the international commitments made at the Earth Summit, sponsored
a seminar in Montréal on the sustainable development of boreal and temperate forests. At the
meeting, a definition of SFM was developed that would later gain universal acceptance. As well,
it was agreed that future work on the sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests
would focus on defining a series of internationally acceptable Criteria and Indicators (C&I) of
SFM.
This work, known as the Montréal Process, was carried forward by the Canadian Council
of Forest Ministers (CCFM) as part of Canada’s National Forest Strategy development and
culminated in February 1995 in Santiago, Chile, with the Santiago Declaration. Australia,
Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea and the United
States (since joined by Argentina and Uruguay), representing countries responsible for 90%
of the world’s temperate and boreal forests, endorsed a comprehensive set of C&I for the
conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests.
The CCFM initiated a C&I Task Force in 1993 to adapt the Montréal Process C&I for application
in Canada. The CCFM criteria included:
1. Conservation of Biological Diversity;

2. Maintenance and Enhancement of Forest Ecosystem Condition and Productivity;
3. Conservation of Soil and Water Resources;
4. Forest Ecosystem Contributions to Global Ecological Cycles;
5. Multiple Benefits of Forests to Society; and
6. Accepting Society’s Responsibility for Sustainable Development.
Each of the six criteria contains several elements which in turn are supported by indicators for
evaluation of the overarching criteria. Approximately 80% of the CCFM C&I correspond to the
original Montréal Process framework. Canada uses this set to report on the state of its forests
to the international community. During 2001-2003, the CCFM undertook a review of the C&I
to simplify and improve the framework. A set of public and technical working groups refined
indicators to ensure they were relevant, measurable, and understandable, could be forecast,
and had the potential to be calibrated with reference values3
Most provinces under review use CCFM C&I to provide structure in planning and reporting SFM
progress. The C&I framework is compatible with the CBFA definition of EBM and has evolved as
new science has become available.
At a national level, the selected indicators could be used to determine if the CBFA goal “of
maintaining and/or restoring natural levels of ecosystem composition, structure and function
within stands and across the landscape” is being met.
3 Parsons, S. and E. Sherry. 2004. A History of Criteria and Indicators Development. University of Northern British Columbia; and
adapted from OMNR. 2007. State of the Forest Report 2006. Forest Information Series. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 774pp.
10
Canada’s forest policy emerges from provincial policy yet provides international feedback as
evident in the wide spread adaptation of CCFM C&I. There is no national direction on what
constitutes natural levels but there is a monitoring and reporting framework in use by licensees,
provinces and certification programs to various degrees (CSA leads the forest certification arena
in this aspect). This task of describing natural benchmarks has been taken on by the provinces,
with Ontario taking a lead position. However, examples of licensees considering natural levels
benchmarks in their planning and reporting tasks exist in all jurisdictions (FSC leads the forest
certification arena in this aspect).
The current policy environment in Canada poses few barriers to CBFA-defined EBM. Some
opportunities may have been lost with a reaffirmation of SFM over EBM in the recent policy
statements compared to the period 2003-2008, if EBM is seen to be a more highly evolved form
of SFM.
Looking down on Canada in a macro view and from a philosophical bent the debate between
EBM and SFM is not entirely settled. A goal of “maintaining and/or restoring natural levels
of ecosystem composition, structure and function” can be viewed as a destination under
a bio-centric world view (e.g. EBM) or as a navigational beacon under a pragmatic but
anthropocentric view (e.g. SFM). The former represents significantly greater challenges in
implementation through forest practices than the latter for the following reasons:
»» The dominant form of natural disturbance pattern, composition and structural driver
is fire that burns in summer , creates charcoal, exposes some mineral soil and leaves
abundant snags and coarse woody debris.
»» The dominant form of man-made disturbance pattern is from logging that most often
takes place in winter over longer periods of time, creates no charcoal, exposes some
mineral soil and leaves some snags and coarse woody debris.
The two systems cannot produce the same conditions. But can logging produce conditions that
are functionally similar enough to conserve biodiversity? This is the prevailing direction that
EBM (as implemented through forest management) is taking across the country and a question
that can be addressed through active adaptive management; a system of institutionalized
learning accepted by all jurisdictions in Canada. As with EBM, active adaptive management
implementation and effectiveness varies by region. For this reason, the remainder of this
document examines these issues on a regional basis.

11
5. KEY FINDINGS
5.1. Stage of EBM Integration and Implementation
Not surprisingly, a national scan of the state of EBM suggests that the range of EBM policy and
practices varies significantly across Canada. The level of complexity of industrial activity in the
Boreal, political and ecological context, scale of industry and civil service as well as other factors
have influenced what each province has achieved to date in the adoption and implementation
of EBM as a concept as well as in practice.
Most jurisdictions subscribe, at least nominally, to the concept of EBM or an equivalent as a

guiding principle for land management. Four of the seven provinces have partially or wholly
formalized the commitment to EBM in legislation or policy. However, there does not seem
to be a direct linkage between this and the implementation of EBM in practice, which some
jurisdictions have achieved in the absence of formal integration.
Alberta, for example, does not define EBM specifically in key legislation or policy but rather
describes a commitment to ‘sustainable forest management’. It does have the Alberta Forest
Legacy Framework and other non-enforceable policy guidelines, which recommend that forest
managers implement ecosystem based forest management. In practice, however, Alberta’s
forest management approach does align fairly well with the criteria used to define EBM in the
CBFA evaluation framework. The current approach includes, for example, the establishment of
ecological benchmarks and maintaining the abundance of older forest age classes within the
natural range of variability4. In Alberta, there is no alignment within policies such as Land Use
Framework, Water for Life, Energy Strategy, Climate Change Strategy, and the Forest Legacy
Framework. There is a need to develop an overall forest policy to address Alberta’s forest
resources, forest values and fill essential “policy gaps” not addressed by the other policies listed
above.
Ontario, by contrast, has fully embedded the principles of EBM (or SFM equivalent) within
legislation (Crown Forest Sustainability Act), policy (Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests)
and through regulated manuals and guides which direct how EBM will be operationalized at
the landscape, forest management unit, stand and site levels. The implications for management
on the ground and the outcomes will become more apparent as the new approach (Boreal
Landscape Guide and Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and
Site Scale5) is implemented through forest management plans.
Quebec’s new Reference Manual for Ecosystem Based Management takes the view that EBM
is a “vehicle for achieving sustainable forest management”. In essence, EBM is a subset of
practices or management approaches that will help achieve SFM. Quebec is undergoing a
wholescale shift in its forest management system – in April 2013, the provincial government
took over management responsibilities for Crown lands under a new set of regulations (as of
April 2014, the new regulations were still in draft form). Like in Ontario, the outcome of the new
EBM approach remains to be seen as the new regime is implemented in the coming years.
4 Hauer, G., S. Cumming, F. Schmiegelow, W. Adamowicz, M. Weber, R. Jagodzinski. 2007. Tradeoffs Between Forestry Resource and
Conservation Values Under Alternate Forest Policy Regimes: A Spatial Analysis of the Western Canadian Boreal Plains. Staff Paper
07-03. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta. 52 p. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/52086/2/SP-07-03.pdf.
Accessed March 11, 2013.
5 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales
(Stand and Site Guide) and draft Forest Management Guide for Boreal Forest Landscapes (Landscape Guide).
12
Other provinces (Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan) have made
commitments in principle to EBM but are still in the early stages of determining how it would
play out operationally. EBM is a complex concept that encompasses complex issues fraught
with uncertainty. In this respect, the implementation of EBM poses challenges for provinces
with a relatively small civil service and limited resources dedicated to doing the foundational
science and policy work on which implementation and adaptive management heavily rely.
At the same time, forest certification has presented opportunities in these jurisdictions to
move the yardsticks forward in the absence of specific regulations or standards. For example,
under Manitoba’s Green Plan (2012) the province is moving toward mandatory third-party
certification for all licensees operating in the province.
Although references to EBM crept into the management lexicon over a decade ago in Canada,
most provinces are still in early stages of implementation as the science continues to evolve
and mature. Several respondents noted that the distinction between the existence of policy
and standards and their effective implementation must be made in any evaluation of an EBM
approach. Several of the identified barriers to EBM speak to issues of implementation, which
often have a significant political element.
5.2. Landscape Approach (coarse and fine filter)

Most provinces have had experience in landscape planning exercises, from very elaborate
and protracted large scale events in BC to narrowly focused exercises to set up a network of
protected areas like Ontario’s Living Legacy initiative. The province that currently has the most
ambitious program underway is Alberta, because of the competing uses of forestry, coal, oil
and gas with traditional rural uses. The rapid pace of change coupled with new development
pressures provide a catalyst for these types of projects and trigger review processes that
engage the public interest. The other Boreal regions have seen less growth until recently
and hence land use planning initiatives are now underway in Ontario’ s Far North and in
Saskatchewan due to mineral exploration and development. These modern land use planning
exercises enable EBM by building capacity amongst citizens and developing better baseline data
and simulation tools.
All jurisdictions in the boreal forest are sparsely populated and have large forest management
units that enable landscape scale planning featuring coarse and fine filter management.
Most jurisdictions recognize a coarse filter approach of forest habitat type representation
superseding a fine filter approach of key species (traditional game species). The progressive
application of regulations surrounding endangered species in some ways represents a reversal
of this trend, where the endangered species can outweigh landscape representation goals (e.g.
caribou recovery plans superseding the introduction of Ontario’s boreal landscape guides).
Some respondents noted that in fact, the recent focus on endangered species has shifted the
focus and resources to some extent away from the landscape back to the fine filter level of
individual species management just as the landscape work was gaining traction.
Despite some impediments to policy development and articulation, there is little to stop
member companies from advancing EBM in those areas where they can influence outcomes. In
achieving some landscape objectives, companies operating in provinces with an active oil and
gas sector are constrained by the demands of other industrial users. In practice, companies
that move aggressively ahead of provincial policy can get push back from the civil service and
have cutting approval delays and other problems that are more a function of corporate cultures
in collision than public policy barriers. Indeed, the CBFA itself has not been warmly accepted by
all provincial governments.
13
Case Study: Alberta’s Land Use Planning Framework (Cumulative Effects Assessment)
There is a growing body of work that deals with cumulative effects assessments (CEA) under
Environmental Assessment laws. Table 4 below is from a federal guidebook6 on CEAs.
TABLE 4. FRAMEWORK FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENTS.
Basic CEA Steps Tasks to complete for a CEA
»»Identify regional issues of concern

»»Select appropriate regional Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC)
1. Scoping »»Identify spatial and temporal boundaries
»»Identify other actions that may affect the same VECs
»»Identify potential impacts due to actions and possible effects
»»Complete the collection of regional baseline data
2. Analysis of Effects »»Assess effects of proposed action on selected VECs
»»Assess effects of all selected actions on selected VECs
3. Identification of Mitigation »»Recommend mitigation measures
»»Evaluate the significance of residual effects
4. Evaluation of Significance
»»Compare results against thresholds or land use objectives and trends
5. Follow-up »»Recommend regional monitoring and effect management
The structure is similar to forest management planning in Ontario, not the least of which is
related to the Forest Management Class EA Declaration Orders granted by the Ministry of the
Environment7. The general structure is consistent with adaptive management as described by
Walters and Hollings8 and Ontario’s Forest Management Planning Manual9.
There have been advances in land use planning in Alberta that use a CEA framework. This is due
in large measure to the large footprint from oil and gas development that often conflicts with
forestry developments. The government enlisted Dr. Brad Stelfox to develop a simulation tool
to explore various trade-offs in different incarnations of land use planning, the latest being the
Alberta Land Use Framework10. This led to the development of a suite of simulation tools called
A Landscape Cumulative Effects Simulator (ALCES®). ALCES is built primarily around the dynamic
programming model Stella11.
6 Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative Effects
Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian En-
vironmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec. http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=43952694-1. Accessed March
12, 2013.
7 Government of Ontario. 2014. Forest Management Class Environmental Assessment (EA). http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Busi-
ness/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_164531.html. Accessed March 12, 2013.
8 Smith, Court. 2002. Adaptive Management. http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth481/ectop/ecadm.html. Accessed March 12,
2013.
9 Government of Ontario. 2014. Forest Management Planning in Ontario. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/
Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_163511.html. Accessed March 8, 2013.
10 Government of Alberta. 2014. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. https://landuse.alberta.ca/Pages/default.

aspx. Accessed March 11, 2013.
11 isee Systems. 2014. http://www.iseesystems.com/. Accessed March 8, 2013.
14
“ALCES Integrator was the first simulator built by the ALCES Group and remains the core
and most commonly deployed model in the ALCES Toolkit. This spatially stratified simulator
is customized for tracking the overlapping land uses and natural disturbance regimes of
large regional landscapes (100,000 ha to 100 million ha). The major land uses tracked in
Integrator include forestry, agriculture, oil and gas, mining, residential, transportation, tourism,
and recreation. The major natural disturbance regimes tracked in Integrator include fire,
meteorology, climate change, insect outbreaks, storm events, avalanches, erosion, and gap
dynamics of plant communities.“12
A unique forest management case study on cumulative effects in forest management is

also found in Alberta’s Millar Western Forest Products of Whitecourt, 2007 Detailed Forest
Management Plan (DFMP). The company developed the Athabasca Plain Landscape Model
(APLM) to assess cumulative effects of their proposed forest management activities in the
process of developing their forest management plan. The landscape model is designed to
link the stand-level analysis from FORECAST (a stand level, nutrient-based process model) to
larger-scale processes occurring across the FMA using the Spatially Explicit Landscape Event
Simulator (SELes)13 among other tools. Sub-models dealing with timber harvesting, succession,
fire spread, natural regeneration, and oil-and-gas activity are embedded within the landscape
model. A set of initial conditions is provided to the sub-models, which then update the
state of the landscape at each annual time step over the 20-year planning horizon. Various
combinations of sub-models were run to explore the interactions among fire, timber harvesting,
oil-and-gas activities, and climate change. The results suggest that the cumulative impacts will
lead to significant reductions in harvest and biodiversity indicator levels, and could undermine
efforts to achieve forest sustainability.14
While the cumulative effects assessment was not intended to formally influence harvest
scheduling in the final plan, it did provide an opportunity to demonstrate what a
comprehensive CEA approach in forest management planning could look like.
5.3. Emulating Natural Patterns and Processes

Ontario has developed the most comprehensive approach to implementing forest planning
guidelines that emulate natural species compositions, patterns and structures across the
landscape. Most other jurisdictions are satisfied to maintain existing species compositional
diversity and representation. If Ontario were to fully implement a program to emulate natural
species composition as planned, it may require increased investments in forest renewal
programs to meet the goal.
Most provinces have relaxed limits on clear cut sizes that came in the 1970-80s as result of
public concerns over aesthetics and to encourage more edge to favour game species such as
deer. The progressive clear-cutting following wildfire footprints in more exploitive periods
prior to 1970 are now seen as ecologically viable as well as economically feasible under new
guidelines designed to emulate natural patterns. These landscape scale fire emulation practices
are the easiest to implement and are economically attractive. The patterns that feature larger
cut blocks also reduce road densities and their associated negative environmental effects.
12 ALCES Landscape & Land-Use Ltd. 2014. http://www.alces.ca. Accessed March 14, 2013.
13 Gowlland Technologies Ltd. 2014. Spatially Explicit Landscape Event Simulator - website. http://www.gowlland.ca. Accessed
March 14, 2013.
14 Government of Alberta. 2007. Appendix 19. Cumulative Impacts Modeling On the DFA - Report from the Landscape Projection
Group. Millar Western 2007-2016 Detailed Forest Management Plan. http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/forest-management/
forest-management-plans. Accessed March 24, 2014.
15
All jurisdictions have moved from sustained yield paradigms of “normal forest age class goals”
to more natural alternatives that feature a greater representation of older forest conditions
than might exist under sustained yield paradigms. This is the case in all provinces, though in
some the standards for achieving the alternatives remain informal. The short term consequence
has been a drop in the annual allowable cut, a problem mitigated in the short term by the
collapse of forest products markets in 2008. A tendency to underestimate the productivity
of younger forests by foresters may allow for increased harvest levels in the future while still
conserving representation of older forest conditions across the landscape.
Stand structure guidelines have been implemented to varying degrees across all jurisdictions
leaving residual trees and clumps in various patterns to emulate natural conditions and improve
wildlife habitat. These practices feather the contrast between clear cut areas and mature
forests improving the aesthetics of larger clear cut openings. Issues with labour regulatory
agencies have been worked out for the most part through cooperation and by virtue of
mechanized harvesting that protects the loggers from falling snags and trees. Concerns over
risks to silviculture workers seem to have worked themselves out because trees that are not
wind firm tend to blow over or are knocked down during site preparation prior to tree planting
and tending work.
Post-fire salvaging practices are quite advanced enabled by in bush chipping and advanced
debarking technology at saw mills. These operations follow natural patterns and if timed right
allow for advanced natural regeneration. Nutrient cycling from charcoal interactions can occur.
No one is yet advocating burning areas intentionally before harvest, although Saskatchewan has
recognized the need to set aside a proportion of burned areas that are not eligible for salvage
in order to maintain some aspects of natural processes on the landscape. This is happening
through changes to forest management standards under the Saskatchewan Environment Code.
Post-harvest prescribed burning has declined over the years due to cost and liability concerns.
The impacts of fine particulates on public health from extensive burning also present a barrier
to fire as a management tool. Ontario is one of the few provinces that shows some movement
toward gradually re-introducing this practice. This is an area with significant barriers and
hence significant opportunities. Given the salvage capacity described above, escaped fires
are an opportunity and not necessarily a liability under EBM provided life and property can be
protected and if public health concerns can be addressed. In this respect, some provinces have
intentionally shifted their fire suppression strategies (e.g. Ontario, Saskatchewan) to allow fires
to burn where life, property and in some cases silvicultural investments or timber values are
not identified as critical by the forest industry. In contrast, BC has taken the opposite approach.
The northeast portion of the boreal forest in BC was recently re-classified from modified to full
suppression by the Ministry due to concerns about the impact of fire-disturbance on caribou
habitat. Most, if not all of the boreal forest in BC’s northeast is now under full suppression
management for wildfire.
5.4. Natural Range of Variation/Pre-industrial Forest Condition

Several licensees, independent of government, have investigated the Pre-Industrial Forest
Condition (PIC or PIFC) as a natural benchmark against which to measure current and projected
forest conditions. This work has been driven largely by forest certification. Many of these use
survey records and archived aerial photographs. Considerable work has been done in Ontario
and by the Foothills Research Institute in Alberta.
Computer simulation tools are often used to establish the Natural Range of Variation (NRV)
estimates. This has been standard practice in Ontario since 1996 (non-spatially) through the
use of the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM). Ontario has also used a process
16
simulator developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) called the Boreal
Forest Landscape Dynamics Simulator (BFOLDS) to establish the NRV in the to-be-released
Boreal Landscape Guide. Some work has been done in western Canada and Quebec using
the models Spatially Explicit Landscape Event Simulator (SeLES) and LANDscape DIsturbance
and Succession (LANDIS). In jurisdictions outside of Ontario these tools could be used by CBFA
licensees to establish NRVs as part of EBM planning processes. LANDIS is freeware but the cost
of model calibration, simulation and coalition of results could be a barrier to EBM for some
licensees that might be overcome by regional-scale analyses done cooperatively between
government agencies and one or more licenses.
Climate change poses significant challenges to EBM planning based upon NRV and PIC. The
problems are less acute if NRV and PIC analysis are used as navigational beacons. PIC and NRV
as management destinations require greater efforts at restoration work and outcomes may be
uncertain under a changing climate regime.
5.5. Restoration and Representation

Restoration efforts are underway in several provinces in temperate forests but at a relatively
slow place. Most forest renewal programs struggle to maintain forest cover diversity and conifer
representation in particular. In southeastern Ontario where considerable efforts in selection
cutting of hardwoods and white pine restoration are underway, one third generation logger
observed: “I don’t mind paying for the sins of my father, but I can’t afford to pay for them all at
once.” Cost of restoration work represents a considerable barrier. In the United States there
is a significant interest in ecological restoration and projects are being undertaken by a not for
profit ENGO15.
In most of Canada’s boreal forest, restoration efforts do occur as part of routine forest renewal
activities. For example many boreal mixedwoods in Central Canada that were partially cut for
saw timber and converted to balsam fir were damaged by budworm outbreaks. These forests,
when harvested, are usually site prepared and planted to spruce, thus restoring more natural
mixedwood conditions. Restoration work is less of an issue in boreal forests because they
have been more recently exploited, the ecosystems are more resilient to disturbances of all
types and reforestation efforts to maintain conifer growing stock also help to maintain natural
forest compositions. Provided that the rate of restoration is in step with the rates of harvest
and renewal there are no barriers to EBM related to this aspect. Increases in prescribed fire as
described above is an opportunity to enhance the rate of restoration.
A thorny question as regards the issue of conifer renewal and restoration remains the use
of herbicides, which have become an essential management tool for renewal/restoration
work in some boreal regions (e.g. Ontario) and banned in others (e.g. Quebec). Some
jurisdictions require very strict re-establishment of conifer (e.g. Alberta), which requires the
use of herbicides to meet the policy and maintain the Annual Allowable Cut. In this case,
the provincial standards on silvicultural objectives provide a barrier regarding more flexibility
around the use of herbicides.
Any set of best practices will need to address, among other things, the role of herbicides in
the EBM management toolkit. All of the third-party certification standards promote the use of
integrated pest management, to reduce the amount and toxicity of chemicals used, in absolute
or relative terms. The question of the role of herbicides in management is one that must be
addressed in the context of any national EMB framework.
15 The Society for Ecological Restoration. 2014. http://www.ser.org/. Accessed March 25, 2014.
17
5.6. Quality of Input Data
Canada relies on the interpretation of aerial photographs for its forest inventory because the
forests are vast and relatively poorly accessed. Hence an understanding of the location of
various forest values such as timber volume is more important that the accuracy and precision
of these values. The inventories describe species composition, height, age and some measure
of horizontal structure (e.g. stocking, density class). Some inventories give an indication of
vertical structure.
Some provinces also use ecosystem classification schemes that are inferred using computer
algorithms (e.g. BC) or are directly interpreted (e.g. ON). Ecosite classification helps ensure
various plant community and site type combinations are represented across the landscape
by different age classes with some reference to natural benchmarks or estimate for natural
variation. Although this level of detail is inventoried, most decisions support tools, forecasts
and plans tend to aggregate these data into larger more manageable classification schemes. As
computer capacity, decision support tools and monitoring programs evolve the ecosite scale of
information will likely play a larger role in EBM.
The forest stand age is the most difficult variable to assess using aerial photography
interpretation yet it is the key variable used in computer simulation tools that are part for
decision support systems. The quality of most forest inventories in use across Canada could be
classed as reliable enough to make strategic planning choices but insufficient for operational
details and for monitoring the effectiveness of various programs on specific values such as
wildlife habitat or individual species.
Some provinces are acquiring more advanced digital imagery to improve the reliability and
utility of the forest inventory. For example, Ontario now uses ADS-40 multispectral high
resolution imagery and Alberta is acquiring LiDAR data. LiDAR is a laser ‘send and receive’
sensor that provides data that allows for detailed land surface and forest canopy 3D models.
LiDAR sensors produce very accurate terrain models and canopy surface models and ADS 40
can produce canopy surface models. These surface models will improve volume/biomass and
wildlife habitat models in the near future.
Wildlife habitat models use age and species composition to assign habitat indices to individual
forest stands in most provinces. Some forest management units use sophisticated habitat
supply models that take into account forest composition, structure and pattern at multiple
scales. Examples include: Foothills Research Institute& Millar Western in Alberta, LP Canada in
Manitoba and MNR at the Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research (CNFER) in Ontario.
All provinces have additional sampling and monitoring programs in place to supplement the
relatively coarse forest inventory maps with more detailed forest attribute data and to help
forecast and monitor forest growth and change over time. These data are gradually becoming
more widely available and integrated into decision support systems.
Many provinces have significant investments in wildlife monitoring programs using aerial
survey, trapping survey and tracking devices. GPS and electronic miniaturization data is
allowing for more sophisticated applications such as real time video on GPS collars to track
caribou behavior. There are increasing numbers of private/public partnerships in wildlife
monitoring (e.g. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute), especially with song birds. Since
songbird presence can be detected by their mating calls in spring, many agencies are using birds
to monitor change in habitat types and habitat use (e.g. CNFER in Ontario).
18
However, across Canada there has been less attention to monitoring foundational levels in
biodiversity hierarchy that influence ecosystem-productivity (understory primary producers,
invertebrates, soil biotic community). The response of bottom-up trophic systems may be a
more appropriate signal of ecosystem resilience and status as a measure of EBM efficacy.
5.7. Adaptive Management

The basic inventories that are in place help meet provincial commitments to adaptive
management when supplemented by monitoring programs. Holling and several colleagues
developed the ideas of adaptive management at the University of British Columbia’s Institute of
Resource Ecology in the late 1970s.16
Adaptive management begins with the central tenet that management involves a continual
learning process that cannot conveniently be separated into functions like research and ongoing
regulatory activities and probably never converges to a state of blissful equilibrium involving
full knowledge and optimum productivity. Holling characterized adaptive management as the
process of:
»» Bounding management problems and recognizing constraints;

»» Representing existing knowledge in models of dynamic behavior that identify
assumptions and predictions so experience can further learning;
»» Representing uncertainty and identifying alternate hypotheses; and,
»» Designing policies to provide continued resource productivity and opportunities for
learning.17
All provinces subscribe to the principle of adaptive management to varying degrees. Ontario’s
planning system’s relationship to adaptive management is perhaps among the more explicit
and more thoroughly documented among the jurisdictions under review. Ontario’s approach to
adaptive management in forest management planning is represented by Figure 3.
FIGURE 3. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO18.

16 Holling, C.S., editor. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley and Sons, London.
17 Smith, Court. 2002. Adaptive Management. http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth481/ectop/ecadm.html. Accessed March 8,

2013.
18 OMNR. November 2009. Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forests.
Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 447pp. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/286583.html.
Accessed March 7, 2013. 19
There are opportunities to move further toward Active Adaptive Management (AAM) under
EBM. AAM can be understood using a key as follows19:
Key to Types of Adaptive Management
1. Deliberate attempt to evaluate policy?

Yes........…Adaptive management; go to 2.
No........….Reactive management.
2. Alternative policies evaluated/compared?

Yes...........Active adaptive management (AAM; go to 3.
No............Passive adaptive management (PAM).
3. Evaluations/comparisons are designed?

Yes............Manipulative experimental AAM; go to 4.
No.............Mensurative “experimental” AAM.
4. Evaluations use spatial/temporal controls?

Yes............AAM with treatments and controls, baselines, etc.
No..............AAM with modeling, prior probabilities and Bayesian inference/model
selection
The difference between AAM and adaptive management lies in the development of
experiments to test underlying hypotheses rather than “passive monitoring “of the cumulative
effects of implementing a policy. For example, a recent wildfire might be salvaged under a
randomized block design with replications being left un-salvaged within the burn. If terrain and
forest cover conditions allow, an adjacent area could be harvested; ideally with a randomized
block pattern burn using best management practices emulating natural patterns and blocks that
are simply clearcut. This experimental area would be monitored carefully over time. A good
example of this approach is found in Alberta’s Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural
Disturbance EMEND project20.
Another AAM approach is to use zonation or a triad of management intensities (e.g. Alpac in
AB, Mauricie in Quebec) as advocated by some forest ecologists21. The different zones allow for
comparative studies, opportunities to expand protected areas and an opportunity for economic
efficiency. However, other provinces (e.g. Saskatchewan) note that the zonation approach still
in use is outdated and are moving away from this concept toward a landscape management
approach.
Despite the presence of AAM in the forest management literature in Canada, it should be
noted that practically, there is still a rarity of long-range science investigations on ecosystem-
response to EBM hypotheses. The issue with adaptive management that focuses only on
“implementation” or “compliance” monitoring, is that it misses fundamental observations on
the response of the system to EBM implementation, manifesting in ecosystem “function”.
19 Dr. Tom Nudds, University of Guelph. March 2013. Pers. comm.

20 EMEND Project. 2013. http://www.emendproject.org/home. Accessed March 11, 2013.
21 Tittler et al., 2012. Concentrating anthropogenic disturbance to balance ecological and economic values: applications to forest
management. Ecological Applications, 22(4), pp. 1268–1277
20
5.8. Use of Models as Decision Support Tools
All jurisdictions use computer simulation tools or forest estate models to varying degrees as
part of decision support systems. Baselines consist of business as usual (e.g. BC and AB) or
natural benchmarks (e.g. ON). Ontario is at the forefront of using natural benchmarks to frame
the planning inference space and to set thresholds for various biodiversity indicators. Other
provinces are either moving in this direction or examining the merits (e.g. MB, SK) of moving in
this direction22.
A 2007 Australian study found the North American forest estate models to be well developed
and worthy of adoption.
“Optimization forest harvest scheduling models (e.g. SFMM) have become the dominant
computer technology used for strategic level forest planning, as they have enabled forest
managers to:
»» Generate repeatable and timely forest planning solutions (harvest schedules) that
maximize or minimize goals (financial, volume, non-economic values);
»» Evaluate impacts of complex policy and planning issues on wood supply and cash
flow; and,
»» Build in a multitude of temporal wood supply, operational, financial and area
constraints.
However, the strategic model scenarios have often been developed to provide optimistic
solutions that represent the upper level of forest productive capacity. Increasingly it
is recognized that spatial constraints that apply at an operational level need to be
considered to ensure that strategic level wood supply forecasts equate to what can
actually be harvested on the ground. Spatially explicit forest planning systems such the
Remsoft Forest Planning System (Spatial Woodstock and Stanley), Harvest and Habitat
Model (Oregon State University), and Patchworks (Spatial Planning Systems in Ontario) all
address spatial considerations. Remsoft addresses the problem as a two-stage hierarchical
problem using linear programming for the strategic model and heuristics for the tactical
model, while Oregon State University and Spatial Planning Systems have developed fully
integrated models based on heuristic technology. Both approaches provide the ability
to create harvest units (blocking) and address the main suite of spatial and temporal
planning restrictions that forest managers are confronted with today.” 23
Provinces other than Ontario make use of Patchworks and Woodstock Stanley and some (e.g.
Alberta) require spatially explicit maps of current and likely future allocations going forward
many decades. Quebec has also moved toward a spatially explicit approach in its provincial
wood supply analysis. Patchworks and Woodstock Stanley have been used in Ontario but
uptake is limited. Both Woodstock and Patchworks require skilled analysts to calibrate and run
the models. SFMM is a model that is similar in structure to Woodstock developed by OMNR.
SFMM is very easy to calibrate and run, but the range of options and analytical power is
comparatively limited.
22 Van Damme, L. 2012, Landscape Design: Principles and Practices Prepared for the Government of Manitoba; Manitoba Model
Forest and the Forest Practices Committee. 28 pp.
23 Turland, J., 2007. North American Forest Modeling Approaches and Technology and their Potential Application to Australian
Native Forest Management Project PG06-5046: Growth and Yield Modeling and Harvest Scheduling in Uneven-aged Mixed Species
Forests. World Forest Institute, Portland, OR, 118 pp. http://wfi.worldforestry.org/media/publications/specialreports/Modeling_
Turland.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.
21
The Patchworks model creates snapshot maps and attributes tables of future forest conditions
that can drive habitat supply models, forest health vulnerability models and economic models.
The model can also be configured to set constraints for green up, viewshed and watershed
harvest thresholds (e.g. Louisiana Pacific Canada).24 Woodstock Stanley can also be used in an
iterative process to produce similar maps of future forest conditions and model effects of spatial
constraints (e.g. Millar Western 1996 DFMP). Decision support tools are well developed in
Canada and enable EBM within an adaptive management framework.
All of the provinces and the federal government have gone through an exercise to establish
protected areas that are representative of forest ecosystems and associated functions. These
areas are important benchmarks or controls in active adaptive management. How complete
or successful these initiatives have proven varies across provinces and is a matter of ongoing
debate. While the completion of a provincial protected areas system is outside the direct
purview of companies operating on Crown lands, there are opportunities to support this EBM
objective.
Harvest deferrals in candidate sites identified through protected areas gap analyses are one
option and is required under some certification schemes. This is complicated in certain provinces
where the development activities of multiple sectors overlap. There are cases where a harvest
deferral area has subsequently been developed by the mining or energy sector not subject to
the same obligations under provincial regulations or voluntary certification systems. Yet again,
this speaks to the need for an integrated planning approach.
24 Swan Valley Forest Management Plan. 2006. http://www.swanvalleyforest.ca/planning/LongTermPlan.html. Accessed March 14,
2013.
22
6. JURISDICTIONAL SCAN
6.1. British Columbia
6.1.1. POLICY CONTEXT
The forests of BC are more complex than anywhere else in Canada and this is reflected in the
province’s management regime. Given the diversity of forests across the province, there are many
different biodiversity initiatives in play around BC.
British Columbia does not explicitly set out its boreal forest management requirements under a
comprehensive EBM framework. There are aspects of EBM that are applied at the landscape scale
including, for example, government-led land use planning at multiple scales and the designation of
Old Growth Management Areas. In other aspects, BC’s wildlife and biodiversity objective supports
design of harvesting to resemble natural disturbance patterns in a landscape. Forest companies
can incorporate innovative EBM practices, under the results-based Forest Planning and Practices
Regulation, which provides flexibility to do so as long as justification and scientific rationale is
provided. There is also a prevalence of sustainable forest management certification, which sets out
additional requirements.
The province initiated a land and resource management planning process in the 1990’s
to collaborate on strategic, multi-sector development and conservation plans. For forest
management, the focus is on regional and watershed level planning and stand level performance.
Since the majority of tenures are volume-based, the responsibility for long term planning rests
with the Crown. Companies are required to establish five-year Forest Stewardship Plans. Forest
management plans are not required, but some companies prepare them as part of CSA and FSC
certification.
There is increasing cumulative development pressure from multiple sectors (e.g. oil and gas,
mining, wind farms) active in northeast BC that are governed by a different set of regulations
than the forest sector. In the absence of integrated management, it is hard to make EBM efforts
in forestry effective. The Forest Practices Board has identified that tenured users in other sectors
do not have parallel requirements for aspects such as such as old-growth retention that the forest
tenure holders do. At this time in the province, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations has scaled back its aspirations in relation to its Land Based Investment Strategy.
6.1.2. LAND USE PLANNING

BC has a strategic land use planning process based on land and resource management plans
(LRMPs) and landscape-level sustainable resource management plans (SRMPs). Most of BC’s boreal
forest is covered by LRMPs. The landscape units – defined using a combination of ecological,
physical and access criteria - range up to 130,000 ha in the Boreal. LRMPs or other strategic land
use plans cover all but 15% of the province, most completed over a decade ago. The provincial
government has somewhat reduced its earlier focus on strategic planning (Integrated Land
Management Bureau 2006) and resources for public involvement appear more limited now than
previously.
Land Use Plans and LRMPs were intended to give direction to the allocation of public land and
resources and so balance social, environmental and economic goals. As such, they tended to
represent negotiated, community-based compromise over the variety of forest and other natural
resource values. There are varying provisions for biodiversity management at the landscape and
stand levels, some of which were subsequently established as legal requirements (government
objectives); most were left as guidance or consensus-based “agreement” on plan approval.
23
LRMPs were never effectively linked to forest operations, in part due to a lack of specific
management targets. SRMPs are intended to refine LRMP objectives at the small to medium
landscape and watershed level. There are 195 SRMPs province-wide, but few contain legally
established objectives. Many LRMPs were also never put into legal realm; they act as guidance
only. Unless objectives or orders are established in law there is no requirement to apply the
guidance. Some forest licensees have signed onto to consensus-based LRMPs but when tenure-
holders or circumstances (e.g. mountain pine beetle) change, the earlier agreements may or
may not be maintained.
Large area-based tenures, such as tree farm licenses, which make up approximately a fifth
of BC’s annual harvest, require detailed strategic management plans. These plans include
inventories, timber supply analyses, and management objectives, and must be approved by the
Chief Forester. Some companies use their Tree Farm Management Plan for dual purpose as the
sustainable forest management certification plan under CSA Z809 certification.
Strategic management plans are not required for volume-based tenures, which make up roughly
80% of annual harvest25. Guidance is instead taken from the land use planning process and
the AAC set by the Chief Forester. A proposed Defined Forest Area Management initiative,
encouraging volume-based licensees and BC Timber Sales to assume collective responsibility
for timber supply analysis and forest health activities within each Timber Supply Area (TSA)
in exchange for funds, has not been implemented. The government has had a mix of funding
programs on the land base to support collaborative forest planning and management on Crown
land within TSAs. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has now
consolidated its limited funds under the Land Based Investment. Initiatives that fall under the
Land Based Investment Strategy include fire management, Forests for Tomorrow, forest health,
ecosystem restoration, wildlife and fish passage.
With the introduction of the FRPA, forest development plans were replaced by forest
stewardship plans, which have a five-year term. The operational-level plan contains the licensees
proposed strategies and results to meeting government objectives that are set in regulation.
Site-level silviculture plans must be completed but not submitted to government. Unlike some
provinces, BC does not require operational plans to be reviewed and approved annually.
FRPA relies on regulation and professional accountability. The core regulation under the FRPA,
the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR), contains numerous standards for a series of
objectives. Licensees can vary from default standards (e.g. clear cut sizes and streamside buffers)
if decision makers accept that their alternative approaches are consistent with government’s
objectives.
Once a forest stewardship plan is approved, an operator has up to two years to amend it to
comply with new legal objectives that are established (FRPA, s.8(1.1)), unless a different period
is specified or the objective is for a wildlife habitat area, or it is made under the Land Act. FRPA
19(2) exempts the area that is issued a cutting permit, road permit or timber supply license from
mandatory amendment. The Forest Act specifies the term of a cutting permit as no more than 4
years.
Unique within the province, the Fort St. John Pilot Project Regulation 278/2001, last amended
in 2010, gives companies in the pilot project area the option to participate in a different
approach to forest planning. Participants operate under a jointly-submitted single Sustainable
Forest Management Plan for which First Nations are consulted and landscape level strategies
are advised by a public advisory group. Participants include: Canadian Forest Products Ltd.,
Cameron River Logging Ltd., Tembec Inc., Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd., Dunne-Za Ventures LP,
25 Luckert, M.K., D. Haley & G. Hoberg. 2011. Policies for sustainably managing Canada’s forests: tenure, stumpage fees,
and forest practices. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 24
Canfor-LP OSB Limited Partnership and BC Timber Sales-Peace-Liard Business Area Fort St. John
TSA operations. (Canfor and BC Timber Sales manage the license and others are signatories.)
Participants do not provide Forest Stewardship Plans, but rather provide a collective Forest
Operation Schedule with tables and maps that identify a minimum of six years of forest
development for all the participants. This pilot has companies planning at the landscape level
and setting management targets that are landscape rather than stand-based.
6.1.3. ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA
TABLE 5. BC’S ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA.
EBM Criteria Yes/No/Partial

1 EBM approach is mature. Partial
2 EBM is formally defined in policy & legislation. Partial
3 Landscape approach to EBM. Partial
4 Forest inventory linked to ecosites. No
5 Forest inventory is reliable. Partial
6 Cutblock size designed to emulate natural disturbance. Partial
7 Cutblock shape designed to emulate natural disturbance. Partial
8 Tree and residual structure retention standards emulating natural No
disturbance.
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old Partial
growth).
10 Prescribed burning is used as a management tool. No
11 Models are used for decision support. Yes
12 Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of Yes
ecosystem types/function is in place.
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest Partial
condition).
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work complete. Yes
15 Efforts to restore natural landscape patterns and forest No
communities significantly diminished by past management actions.
16 Strategies for managing linear corridors (e.g. road management / Yes
closures) implemented.
17
Trade-offs communicated clearly through presentation of No
management options in planning process.

1. EBM approach is mature.
BC has no explicit approach to EBM in the boreal forest. The government’s assessment of
its legislation on sustainable forest management has been that it is good and improving26.
Sustainable forest management certification, in place of provincial policy, drives some aspects
of EBM in BC. The province has more certified forest land (over 54 million hectares) than any
other jurisdiction in the world, with the exception of Canada as a whole27. Three third-party
certification programs are in use, including: Canadian Standards Association’s Sustainable Forest
Management Standard (CAN/CSA-Z809), Forest Stewardship Council, and Sustainable Forestry
Initiative (SFI 2010-2014).
26 Parliament of Canada, Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Information and Research Service. 2005. Sustainable Forest Manage-
ment in Canada: Clear Policy – Questionable Practice. Prepared by M. Charron, Science and Technology Division. http://www.parl.
gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0513-e.htm. Accessed March 8, 2013.
27 BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013b. Forest Certification. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certifi-
cation/. Accessed March 18, 2013.
25
One EBM aspect of BC’s approach was initially founded in a ‘biodiversity strategy’ made up
of provincial policy documents, the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, the Biodiversity
Guidebook and the Landscape Unit Planning Guide under the Forest Practices Code of British
Columbia Act. The Code was replaced with the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) (S.B.C.
2002, c.69), which was brought into force in 2004, but some aspects of the guides are still
relevant.
The FRPA is designed to hold industry responsible for outcomes and to encourage innovation
within the sector to achieve those outcomes. It is intended to maintain high levels of protection
for forest values including watersheds and wildlife habitat, and to create efficiencies through
streamlined planning processes.
There are a number of provincial and voluntary initiatives that could enhance EBM, including
area-based planning associated with cumulative effects management, implementation of
the Conservation Framework/Recovery Planning process for species and ecosystems at risk,
management plans associated with forest certification, and potentially watershed planning
resulting from the Water Act modernization.
2. Formal definition of EBM in policy/legislation

There is no reference to EBM in the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) or Forest Planning and
Practices Regulation.
BC does not formally define EBM except for the Central and North Coast LRMP areas. The EBM
definition there has greater emphasis on social dimension than the definition being used in
this study. The approach is built on a government-to-government relationship respecting the
rights, title and interests of First Nations. The Coast Info Team’s Ecosystem-Based Management
Planning Handbook (CIT 2004; BC ILMB 2012) provides the basis for EBM in the Central and
North Coast areas28,29 . The handbook defines EBM as:
“An adaptive approach to managing human activities that seeks to ensure the coexistence
of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities. The intent is to maintain
those spatial and temporal characteristics of ecosystems such that component species and
ecological processes can be sustained, and human well-being supported and improved.”
3. Landscape approach to EBM (coarse and fine filter approaches)

BC’s land use planning and practices approach to biodiversity management is hierarchical
from provincial or regional scales to the stand level. Parks and protected areas contribute to
biodiversity protection at each scale.
The former Forest Practices Code applied a coarse filter-fine filter framework to biodiversity
conservation whereby most species and ecosystems would be managed through coarse-filter
landscape-level planning and management outcomes, through riparian reserves, and at the
stand level through required provisions for wildlife tree and woody debris retention. Species
at risk, rare habitats, and other species or features requiring specialized management would be
addressed at the fine-filter level by designation of ungulate winter ranges, wildlife habitat areas,
and other similar provisions.
28 Coast Information Team. 2004. CIT Ecosystem-Based Management Planning Handbook. 2013. http://www.citbc.org/ebmplan.
html. Accessed March 18, 2013.
29 BC Integrated Land Management Branch. 2012. Ecosystem Based Management on B.C.’s Central and North Coast (Great Bear
Rainforest): Implementation Update Report. Prepared by the Nanwakolas Council, Coast First Nations and BC Ministry of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/docs/EBM_Imple-
mentation%20Update_report_July%2031_2012.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2013.
26
Uncertainty about how to apply Code provisions for biodiversity management in light of
anticipated timber supply impacts led the government to defer some aspects of biodiversity
planning such as forest connectivity in favour of implementing priority elements such as wildlife
tree and old-growth retention.
This approach to biodiversity conservation did not change much when the province replaced the
former Code with the FRPA in 2004, although the mechanisms, legislative framework, and some
practice requirements (such as wildlife tree retention) are different. FRPA is results-based, and
leaves considerable discretion to forest licensees about how to conduct forest management and
stand-level biodiversity protection.
4. Forest inventory is linked to ecosites

BC is ecologically diverse, and has sophisticated and complementary systems for ecological
classification. The BC Ecoregion Classification System groups BC’s terrestrial and marine
ecosystems into geographic units at five levels. For over three decades, the BEC system has been
used in BC to classify ecologically similar sites on the basis of climate, soils and vegetation.
BC uses a forest inventory system called Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) that includes
(among other parameters) species composition, age and density. Approximately one-half of the
timber harvesting landbase in the province is inventoried to the VRI standard. To date, it seems
the link between the inventory and BC’s ecosite classifications have been made on a case-by-
case basis and that the provincial VRI standard does not include a requirement for establishing
that link.
5. FRI is reliable
The decision of conducting a VRI is based on a number of factors including age of the inventory,
known problems of the inventory, recent catastrophic events (such as mountain pine beetle)
and other emerging issues that require a new inventory30. There is no re-inventory cycle per
se in British Columbia as there is in other provinces. In the current forest cover inventory,
polygon coverage is lacking for about six per cent of the province. One-quarter of the data in
the inventory is less than 13 years old, but another quarter is over 35 years old, primarily in
large parks and remote areas. A backlog has developed with harvest, silviculture, and other
disturbance updates not yet transferred into the forest cover inventory. It is not known how
much of this applies specifically to the boreal forest in BC.
The current reliability of forest inventory coverage is dependent on its intended purpose. VRI
is more accurate the less complex the landscape. VRI reliability is high for landscape level
applications such as timber supply review and is generally good for stand structure information,
but the reliability (resolution) declines when used as a specific tool for management at the stand
level.
Two decades ago, the province spent on average $22.25 million each year on forest inventories.
In the decade just past, annual expenditures decreased 61 per cent to an average of just $8.76
million. For the fiscal year 2011, the projected inventory budget sat at $7.5 million31. The
province’s own State of British Columbia’s Forests report for 2010 noted that three quarters of
the province had yet to be surveyed to the government’s own VRI standard.
30 British Colombia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2014. Forest Analysis and Inventory. http://www.
for.gov.bc.ca/hts/inventory.htm. Accessed March 11, 2013.
31 Parfitt, B. and Britneff, A. 2011. Inventory of BC’s forests incomplete and underfunded. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publica-
tions/commentary/inventory-bcs-forests-incomplete-and-underfunded. Accessed March 11, 2013.
27
6. Cut block size designed to emulate natural disturbance.
FRPA includes broad objectives that indicate what the government wants to achieve for 11
forest values. The objective set in the FPPR for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape level is,
“without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia’s forests and to the extent
practicable, to design areas on which timber harvesting is to be carried out that resemble, both
spatially and temporally, the patterns of natural disturbance that occur within the landscape.”
Forest licensee “forest stewardship plans” must specify either intended results or strategies that
are consistent with government objectives.
FRPA also contains a practice requirement that limits cutblock size (net area to be reforested) to
either 40 or 60 hectares depending on location within the province, except that those sizes may
be exceeded where timber harvesting is for salvage or sanitation, or is designed to be consistent
with the structural characteristics and the temporal and spatial distribution of an opening that
would result from a natural disturbance. Therefore, it is at the discretion of the forest licensee
to either default to the maximum-allowed size, or to exceed that size for salvage or sanitation
purposes, or to mimic natural disturbance.
The BC Biodiversity Guidebook published in 1995 as part of the former Forest Practices Code,
outlined recommended management targets at the landscape and stand level, including size of
cutblocks. The guidebook was one of the first collections of rules for landscape management
purposes. A study by Andison (1999) concluded that while the guidelines created more natural
levels of patch sizes, interior forest area and seral stages percentages than the two-pass system,
they failed to create more natural rates of disturbance, or ranges of patch sizes and interior
areas in old and mature forest32.
Most forest licensees in the boreal use the discretion that they are permitted under FRPA to
implement practices intended to emulate natural disturbance in their cut block sizes and shapes,
therefore exceeding the former constraints on cutblock size.
7. Cut block shape designed to emulate natural disturbance.

The BC Government’s objective for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape level encourages
timber harvesting that resembles, both spatially and temporally, the patterns of natural
disturbance that occur within the landscape. Under FRPA, the details of cutblock design are left
to the forest licensee; FRPA contains no specific legal requirements for cutblock shape. However,
forest stewardship plans must specify intended results or strategies that are consistent with
visual quality objectives (VQOs) where scenic areas and VQOs are established by government.
Government has established scenic areas with VQOs for some parts of BC’s boreal forest.
Management for visual quality in those areas could influence cutblock design and may lead to
shapes that emulate natural disturbance.
Historically, it was difficult to manually lay out cutblocks with complicated boundaries. Today,
GPS and GIS systems make layout somewhat more efficient. Though there are no legal
requirements or known policy for implementation, some forest licensees may choose to design
cutblocks in shapes that emulate natural disturbance. There is available guidance; DeLong
(1999) provides advice on cutblock design to emulate wildfire in the former Prince George
Forest Region (that covered about the eastern two-thirds of the boreal forest in BC)33.
32 Andison, D.W. and P.L. Marshall. 1999. Simulating the impact of landscape-level biodiversity guidelines: A case study. Forestry
Chronicle 75(4): 655-665. http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~rrempel/ecology/Biodiversity_Papers/PDF0203-Andison.pdf. Accessed March
11, 2013.
33 DeLong, S.C. 1999. Natural disturbance block design workbook. B.C. Min. For., Prince George, B.C. Unpubl. internal report. 6
p. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/stewardship/block%20design%20workbook%20no%20cover%20pic.pdf.
28
8. Tree retention standards emulating natural disturbance.
There is no specific requirement under FRPA to emulate natural disturbance when retained
trees and residual structure in harvested areas. The objective set by government for wildlife
and biodiversity at the stand level is, without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British
Columbia’s forests, to retain wildlife trees. FRPA defines wildlife trees as a tree or group of trees
that provide wildlife habitat, and assist in conservation of stand‐level diversity.
FRPA’s Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR) sets a default amount for total area
covered by wildlife tree retention that relates to cutblocks to be a minimum of 7% of the total
area of the cutblocks. Retention may be in patches, groups or individual stems. The FPPR also
sets a requirement that coarse woody debris be left in harvested areas, except under certain
circumstances (such as an authorized controlled burn). In the interior regions of the province, the
FPPR requirement for coarse woody debris is a minimum of four logs per hectare, each being a
minimum of 2 meters in length and 7.5 centimeters in diameter at one end.
Licensees may voluntarily retain higher amounts of wildlife trees or coarse woody debris. For
example, Canfor reports for TFL 48 that it has retained as wildlife tree patches 14% of the area it
has harvested since 1995.
Under FRPA, forest licensees may propose alternate targets than the defaults set in FPPR, so long
as they provide strong rationale backed by science and research that is approved by government
staff. Most forest licensees have stayed with the default targets because government staff set
expectations very high in terms of justification of any alternate approach. With the reduced
funding under the Forest Investment Account – Land Based Investment program, which would
have facilitated such research, there has been very limited innovation in this area.
Tree (forest) retention at a landscape level is influenced by the presence of established parks
and protected areas, and land use objectives or legal orders (e.g. old growth management areas,
ungulate winter ranges, and wildlife habitat areas) established under BC’s Land Act or FRPA’s
Government Actions Regulation. Other constraining reserves or designations such as Wildlife
Management Areas under the Wildlife Act can also contribute to tree retention at the landscape
level.
FRPA’s practice requirements for riparian areas contribute to tree retention at both the landscape
and stand levels, though do not particularly contribute to mimicking natural disturbance patterns.
9. Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (including old

growth)
Age class management is largely grounded in the emulation of natural disturbances (e.g. the Biodiversity
Guidebook, which included old, mature and old, and early seral targets) but has been
modified or in some cases deferred to mitigate timber supply impacts. For example, the BC
government’s 1999 Landscape Unit Planning Guide described a procedure for delineating old
growth management areas. It allowed the full target for old forest retention in “low biodiversity
emphasis option” landscape units to be drawn down by two-thirds, provided the full target would
be recruited within 240 years34.
34 Province of British Columbia. 1999. Landscape Unit Planning Guide. http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/srmp/Background/docs/

LUGuide.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2013.
29
There is no significant innovation currently occurring among BC boreal forest licensees with
regards to designing age class to emulate the natural disturbance regime. In the past there was
considerable work going into spatially identifying old growth management areas. Licensees and
the provincial government cooperated to establish spatially defined old growth management
areas within the Dawson Creek TSA that were brought into force. Efforts are under way to do the
same in the Fort St. John TSA. In the Fort Nelson TSA the processes came to a halt when Canfor
shut its operations in Fort Nelson.
The extent to which management emulates natural seral distribution varies. In 2012, the Forest
Practices Board found that old forest retention (across the province) ranges from three percent in
some low biodiversity emphasis option landscape units to as much as 70 percent in some coastal
landscape units under EBM and some natural disturbance units in the Prince George timber
supply area.
Orders requiring old-growth retention are in place provincially on almost all Crown forested land,
including areas where land use plans have not been initiated or completed.
Issue: On multi-tenured Crown forested land bases (e.g. oil/gas, mining, wind farms and forestry
in the boreal) some tenured users (e.g. forestry) are required to maintain old-growth and others
are not. The Board believes that old-growth retention requirements, as well as requirements for
management of other values (e.g. ungulate winter ranges and wildlife habitat areas) should apply
regardless of which industrial sector is developing the land.
Issue: It is uncertain whether targets set for old-growth retention in different areas of the
province are ecologically appropriate. The Forest Practices Board identified a compelling need for
government to undertake effectiveness monitoring to determine whether or not efforts to protect
biodiversity are actually effective.
10. Use of prescribed burn as a management tool

The provincial government requires a burning plan in order to authorize prescription burning
projects. Wildlife management and parks agencies, commercial guide outfitters, and possibly
some First Nations undertake prescription burning in BC’s boreal forest for wildlife habitat
maintenance and range/habitat improvement purposes. Most prescription burning in BC’s boreal
forest occurs within the large Muskwa-Kechika management area.
On the boreal plains, there is limited or no history of prescription burning, but wildfires are
common. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has a fire management
plan (not currently available to the public) that outlines areas of full or modified suppression
(where modified means no initial attack). The northeast portion of the boreal forest in BC was
recently re-classified from modified to full suppression by the Ministry due to concerns about the
impact of fire-disturbance on caribou habitat. Most, if not all of the boreal forest in BC’s northeast
is now under full suppression management for wildfire.
11. Models are used as decision support tools

Not a lot of forest companies in BC are currently using forest estate models (i.e. timber supply
analysis) and habitat supply models to plan out current and future activities that predict future
ecosystem and habitat suitability in the boreal. One reason is that under volume-based licensing,
companies do not have assurance that they will get the same block they invest in from a
silviculture perspective ten to twenty years in the future. The situation is somewhat different with
TFLs, which provide more certainty.
30
That said, BC is increasing its use of forest estate models that provide or link directly to
information on habitat supply and desired indicators of resource sustainability other than or in
conjunction with timber supply.
Remsoft’s Woodstock model has been used by a number of companies and the provincial
government for harvest planning and scheduling and habitat modelling. SIMFOR, developed at
the University of British Columbia, is a habitat model used to facilitate the evaluation of harvest
scenarios (projected by the BC forest estate model FSSIM) against landscape and wildlife habitat
indicators. The primary objective of SIMFOR is to project general trends in selected indicators of
forest structure and function through space and time.
Forest Planning Studio (formerly ATLAS) is a forest-level harvest simulation model developed at
the University of British Columbia that is spatially explicit with respect to forest polygons and
road networks. It is designed to schedule harvests according to a range of spatial and temporal
objectives, including harvest flows, opening size, riparian buffers, seral stage distributions and
patch size distributions.
The Spatially Explicit Landscape Event Simulator (SELES) is used to construct and run spatial-
temporal landscape models that integrate natural and anthropogenic processes (e.g. fire,
insect outbreaks, logging, succession) and track indicators (e.g. age class, habitat supply, timber
volumes) over long time-frames and large spatial areas.
Wildlife Habitat Ratings data is a standard-based approach to habitat modeling that uses
plot data and expert knowledge to interpret habitat values from ecosystem inventories. In
terms of ecosite classification, there is some mapping available, particularly for the southeast
and northeast portions of boreal forest in BC, that is based on either Terrestrial Ecosystem
models (TEM) or Predictive Ecosystem models (PEM). TEM and PEM are used by industry
and government as a basis for wildlife habitat suitability, forest productivity, and biodiversity
interpretations. Government also uses PEM to support timber supply reviews and for other VRI
purposes. A forestry example is Canfor’s TFL 48, which used the EcoGen PEM tool developed by
the BC government.
Other non-forest industries active in the boreal (e.g. oil and gas, mining, energy) also conduct
PEM modelling as part of their project footprint/regional impact assessment procedures.
However, these projects do not necessarily meet government’s PEM standards (e.g. to be used
for timber supply purposes). In addition, such products are often considered proprietorial
and do not contribute to a common database, so valuable ecosystem data that could support
alternate or future management activities may exist, but may not be readily available for use by
others.
Issue: There is potential for inconsistency in the application of government standards to PEM
generated products by non-forestry industries. There is no consistently applied data-sharing
agreement for completed PEM products.
The current level of forestry activity operating in Boreal Caribou ranges is low; however, more
than 75% of the Boreal Caribou range is tenured and being developed for petroleum and natural
gas (PNG). Habitat disturbance thresholds are exceeded in 12 of 15 core habitat areas (in six
separate range areas) and caribou populations are thought to be in decline. The government
conducted a modeling exercise that estimated B.C.’s Boreal Caribou population within 50 years
- the current expected development horizon for PNG in the Boreal Caribou range35. The model
35 Wilson, S.F., C. Pasztor, and S. Dickinson. 2010. Projected Boreal Caribou habitat conditions and range populations for future man-
agement in British Columbia. Prepared for Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Ministry of Environment, Victoria,
BC. 11 pp. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/bc/documents/Wilson_et_al_2010.pdf Accessed March 13, 2013.
31
relies on the relationship between industrial footprint, burned areas and caribou population
growth. The results demonstrated that if no management actions were taken to protect Boreal
Caribou and their habitat, the current population would decline and have a greater than 60%
probability of becoming extirpated in all but one range within 50 years. It also determined that even
with a full moratorium on further PNG exploration and development, the caribou population is
likely to decline, but to a lesser extent. BC subsequently produced an implementation plan intended
to decrease the expected rate of caribou decline and significantly reduce the risk of Boreal Caribou
extirpation in four of the six range areas within 50 years.
12. Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem types/

function is in place.
The main instruments used to maintain ecosystem function and connectivity are parks, protected
areas and special management zones. In the early 1990s, the provincial government set out to
double the amount of land in protected area status in BC, from 6% to 12% based on a foundation
of ecological representation. New protected areas were identified through community-based land
use planning processes. Today, about 14% of the province is classified as parks or protected areas.
Parks, protected areas, ecological reserves and other special management zones (such as those
within the Muskwa-Kechika management area and the Dunlevy Creek special management zone)
total 11.4 million hectares (36%) of BC’s boreal forest region.
Issue: In 2010, BC’s Auditor-General found that park and protected areas representation in the
eastern portion of BC’s boreal forest was low, between three and eight percent. The Auditor-
General also commented about a lack of connectivity between parks and whether government
actions were sufficient to ensure ecological integrity in parks and protected areas.
A constraint that is unique to BC is that forest practice regulations may not reduce the allowable
annual cut by more than six percent, and this six percent is subdivided into specific components of
wildlife, riparian, stand-level biodiversity, and so on. Each of the government’s objectives for forest
practices in the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation is explicitly qualified in the regulation by
“without unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia’s forests.”
Those companies that are certified by the Canadian Standards Association Sustainable Forest
Management System standard must identify the representation of ecosystem groups across the
defined forest area, with an objective for functions, interactions and processes that occur naturally
within and between ecosystems to fluctuate within a naturally acceptable range of variation over
time. Companies can utilize TEM and PEM modelling to determine where site series occur on the
landscape, the relative abundance of ecosystem groups in the management unit and adjacent units,
and what rare or uncommon groupings need special management. Canfor and BC Timber Supply,
for example, have conducted an Ecosystem Representation Analysis across their operations in BC.
13. Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition)

BC’s former Forest Practices Code’s Biodiversity Guidebook was grounded on the principle that
the more that managed forests resemble those created by natural disturbance, the more likely
biodiversity would be maintained. However, the recommendations of that guidebook represented
a compromise between biodiversity and timber management objectives36. Consequently, natural
benchmarks (for rates of natural disturbance) have somewhat influenced forest planning and
practices. They still do today, for example through land-use biodiversity objectives and spatial and
non-spatial old-growth orders. Forestry professionals also continue to refer to the Landscape Unit
Planning Guide.
36 DeLong, S.C. 2011. Land units and benchmarks for developing natural disturbance-based forest management guidance for northeast-
ern British Columbia. B.C. Min. For. Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 059. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr059.htm.
32
In 2004, the government established a landscape biodiversity objective for the Prince George
TSA. The order deals with old forest retention, old interior forest, and young forest patch size
distribution. The objectives were developed using scientific information relative to the natural
range of variability within the timber supply area and to balance environmental and economic
sustainability.
The province also has a growth-yield permanent sample plot program, with many plots dating
back to the 1920s. The primary purpose is to develop growth-yield models, but the data is
available to support other research and planning as appropriate. It has been used in calibration of
carbon/climate models and for modelling old-growth dynamics.
14. Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work complete.

Natural disturbance types (NDTs) were defined for all of BC in the mid-1990s, and were a
foundational part of the former Forest Practices Code’s Biodiversity Guidebook recommendations
for patch size and distribution, seral-stage distribution, and wildlife tree patch retention.
A number of studies on ecologically based landscape units and associated characteristics of

natural disturbance and natural range of variability were conducted for the northeast corner of
BC and used as the basis for establishing guidance and policy for two large TSAs there37. Forest
companies have used DeLong and others’ research to design and implement plans for e.g. patch
sizes, interior forest and seral stage objectives.
In 2011, for the former Prince George Forest Region (includes about the eastern two-thirds of the
boreal forest in BC), the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations produced
a report that outlines ten natural disturbance units thought to better reflect important elements
that were not dealt with sufficiently in earlier NDT mapping38. The document provides a baseline
for forest management that would result in the least possible differences between harvesting and
natural disturbance. For each delineated unit, the document provides information on location,
climate, vegetation, natural disturbance dynamics, forest management effects on natural pattern,
and recommended forest practices based on the natural disturbance-based management
paradigm.
15. Restoration of natural landscape patterns and forest communities significantly

diminished by past management actions.
The provincial government has a draft strategic plan for ecological restoration and a program
in place that is currently aimed at fire-maintained ecosystems in the southern interior parts
of the province. Other than the prescribed burns for wildlife habitat maintenance discussed
in section #11, there is no explicit provincial program of ecological restoration in BC’s boreal
forest. However, the Fort Nelson office of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations is currently undertaking an ecosystem restoration project in northeastern BC that is
evaluating the difference between current conditions and the desired state at the landscape level,
and what it might take to get to the desired state.
The forests ministry has a regional fire management plan (not yet available to the public) that
calls for full suppression (initial attack) of wildfires in most, if not all of the boreal forest. If initial
attack is not successful at suppressing a fire, the ministry may consider alternate options (e.g. let
burn) depending on the circumstances.
37 DeLong, S.C. 2007. Implementation of natural disturbance-based management in northern British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle
83(3): 338-346. http://wetbelt.unbc.ca/docs/delong-forestry-chronicle-2007.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2013.
38 DeLong, S.C. 2011. Land units and benchmarks for developing natural disturbance-based forest management guidance for north-
eastern British Columbia. B.C. Min. For. Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 059. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr059.
htm. Accessed March 13, 2013.
33
Some licensees operating in BC’s boreal forest specify sustainable forest management objectives
to conserve or restore ecosystem diversity within the range of variation over time.
16. Strategies for managing linear corridors (road management /closures) are
actively implemented.
LRMPs or other land use plans may contain guidance or strategies for access management. Forest
Stewardship Plans must address new road planning, and provide a map of the geographic areas
in which road construction may occur. There is no requirement for detailed road designs or plans
under FRPA. Approval of the FSP is based on the results and strategies proposed by the licensee
to meet established government objectives.
The forests ministry issues road-related permits under the Forest Act to forest licensees for
construction of and/or industrial use of roads. Through permit requirements, the licensee is
responsible for upkeep of the road until the road is deactivated, or the licensee is relieved of its
deactivation obligation. A person who deactivates a road must do the following:
a. Barricade the road surface width in a clearly visible manner to prevent access by motor
vehicles, other than all-terrain vehicles;
b. Remove bridge and log culvert superstructures and stream pipe culverts;
c. Remove bridge and log culvert substructures, if the failure of these substructures would have
a material adverse effect on downstream property, improvements or forest resources; and,
d. Stabilize the road prism or the clearing width of the road if the stabilization is necessary to
reduce the likelihood of a material adverse effect in relation to one or more of the subjects
listed in section 149 (1) of FRPA.
Deactivated roads are often passable to all-terrain vehicles. In the boreal forest of BC, many
timber access roads are winter roads intended for seasonal use only.
The oil and gas and other non-forestry industries are increasingly active in northeast BC. Access
requirements and road developments for non-forestry activities likely outstrip those required
for forest harvesting. Consequently, even though a forest licensee might seek to relieve its
obligations for road maintenance, a different industrial user might choose to assume that
obligation to keep the forest road available for its use. The result is that deactivation may
be postponed indefinitely (in addition to any other permit requirements, the BC Oil and Gas
Commission (BC OGC) provides best management practices for road deactivation that are
similar to those found in FRPA)39. Few roads in northeastern BC are being totally abandoned or
decommissioned as they are often recommissioned as petroleum development roads.
There was some effort to bring road use under one piece of legislation in BC (the Natural
Resource Roads Act) in order to coordinate road development across multiple sectors, but it has
not been successful to date.
In caribou habitat areas, road density is a concern, even for deactivated roads, because of
potential for human disturbance of caribou, improved predator access to caribou, and habitat
fragmentation40. Caribou tend to avoid roads, corridors and disturbed areas, which means that
to avoid disturbance and predators, they may select poorer quality habitats potentially affecting
their health and survival.
39 BC Oil and Gas Commission. 2013. Road Application and Operation Manual. http://www.bcogc.ca/content/road-applications-and-
operation-manual. Accessed March 18, 2013.
40 Goddard, A. 2009. Boreal Caribou in Northeastern British Columbia. Peace Region Tech. Rpt. Unpublished. http://www.env.gov.
bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/bc/documents/boreal_caribou_biol_rationale_may8_2009.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2013.
34
Issue: Roads and other industrial access developments, even when deactivated, leave linear
corridors on the landscape that may result in impact to caribou habitat use and survival. It is not
clear (from this review) to what extent access development and management is coordinated in the
boreal forest to avoid impact on caribou.
17. Trade-offs communicated clearly through presentation of management options

in planning process.
Most BC LRMPs and other land use planning exercises are now years old but had active public
involvement that entailed discussion of land management options and strategies.
Public consultation requirements for planned forestry activities under FRPA are minimal. Normally,
the public has 60 days to review and provide written comments about a proposed forest stewardship
plan. The forest licensee only has to consider the comments. There are no other legal requirements
for public consultation.
Certified forest licensees typically have public consultation groups involved in the development and
monitoring of, for example, sustainable forest management plans. Some licensees in northeast BC,
such as Canfor and BCTS, are CSA-certified and have active public advisory groups. The degree of
public consultation varies depending upon the certification system.
6.1.4. SCIENCE/POLICY GAPS

a. BC Forest Practices Board has expressed concerns that it is unknown whether the conservation
provisions applied in BC will actually maintain biodiversity. A program of monitoring and
scientific study is necessary to know whether land use provisions for biodiversity in the province
are working, and to guide adaptive change where required.
b. The Board has previously suggested that improved effectiveness monitoring of biodiversity
protection efforts is needed41 .
6.1.5. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EBM IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

a. Uncertainty regarding the future location of a forest company’s blocks under BC’s volume-
based tenure system reduces incentives to invest in future forest planning. Strategic-level forest
management planning is not required for volume-based tenures, which affects the extent to
which forward-looking EBM planning is conducted by either companies or government agencies.
b. BC has an excellent system of ecological classification and an ever-increasing body of scientific
knowledge on which to expand EBM. However, the implications of more fully converting to
EBM and so reflect natural disturbance systems is likely to require some significant trade-offs in
wood supply and may therefore encounter some resistance.
c. Road development under LRMPs, land use plans and Forest Stewardship Plans, occurs in
piecemeal fashion. There is no requirement for detailed road designs or plans under FRPA. The
province could benefit from a coordinated approach to roads management, particularly in light
of increased development pressure from the oil and gas industry where roads may have multiple
users and use pressures.
d. Biodiversity conservation provisions via land use plans, the Code, and subsequent Chief Forester
policy has often been limited by caps on impact to timber supply. For example, the province’s
Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (wildlife habitat areas and associated measures for
at risk and regionally important species) is limited by policy to a timber supply impact of one
percent42.
41 BC Forest Practices Board. 2013. Biodiversity Management in the Revelstoke Timber Supply Area. Compliant Investigation 121010.
http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/IRC187_Biodiversity_Management_in_the_Revelstoke_Timber_Supply_Area.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2013.
42 BC Ministry of Environment. 1999. Indentified Wildlife Management Strategy. (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/strategy_

docs/letter.htm. Accessed March 18, 2013.
35
e. Monitoring efforts to gauge results on the ground, and to guide adaptive responses is lacking;
especially for biodiversity conservation objectives.
f. The lack of an assessment of cumulative effects across all resource development industries
(e.g. oil and gas, mining, wind farms, forestry, potential large-scale hydroelectricity generation)
operating across the landscape in northeastern BC has been noted, particularly by First
Nations, as a concern. The provincial government is implementing pilot projects assessing
ways to deal with the cumulative impacts, including one in the South Peace region.
6.1.6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING EBM IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

a. There have been some efforts to bring road use under one piece of legislation in BC, in order
to improve coordination of road development across multiple sectors. Consider opportunities
to build on previous work to develop improved road management strategies as part of an EBM
approach.
b. Managers could look to the Central and North Coast EBM approaches and evaluate what has
been successful (or not) to apply to the Boreal43.
c. BC has been progressive in facilitating flexibility in reforestation and stocking standards based
on climate change adaptation policy. The Forest Stewardship Action Plan for Climate Change
Adaptation, and associated tools and resources, provide information to forest managers to
assist them in adapting practices so that forests will remain resilient in the face of climate
change, variability and other stressors44.
d. There are a number of provincial and voluntary initiatives that could enhance EBM, including
area-based planning associated with cumulative effects management, implementation of
the Conservation Framework/Recovery Planning process for species and ecosystems at risk,
management plans associated with forest certification, and potentially watershed planning
resulting from the Water Act modernization.
e. Future management of the boreal forest is likely to benefit from full standardization of PEM
modeling products to a level acceptable to government. This would require negotiation of
data-sharing agreements and verification of existing, potentially non-standard products.

6.2. Alberta
The Alberta forest sector is fairly advanced in facilitating and implementing forest management
practices that emulate aspects of natural range of variation and attempt EBM. While not defining
EBM or using prescriptive language about it, Alberta’s adoption of the CCFM Criteria and the
expectations set out in its Performance Standards set an expectation to incorporate EBM
principles into the forest management planning process.
Leading companies, academics and government are collaborating extensively on research in

parallel with actual operations, to learn more about how forest practices affect ecosystem
structure and function. A significant body of science and modelling is being developed to inform
forest companies’ scenario analyses. Alberta’s non-prescriptive approach to forest management
planning has created opportunities for adaptive management and regionally-tailored approaches.
A challenge unique to Alberta is the pressure on the landscape from oil and gas development. The
forest sector’s efforts at EBM are not as effective as intended due to cumulative effects from other
activities on the land that are beyond their influence. The Alberta government is currently trying
to address cumulative impacts by restructuring and adopting an integrated land management
43 BC Integrated Land Management Branch. 2013. Ecosystem Based Management. http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/category/subject-area/
land-management/EBM. Accessed March 18, 2013.
44 BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2013a. Adapting BC’s Natural Resource Management to Climate
Change. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/climate/index.htm. Accessed March 18, 2013.
36
planning approach which at this point is voluntary by companies and lacks a legislative
framework to enable and promote its use. A comprehensive, coordinated approach to land use
planning at all levels is intended, but in the fifth year since the Alberta Land Use Framework’s
introduction, the province has yet to have meaningfully linked multi-sector strategic land use
planning with forest management planning.
Shifts are required as below:
From TO
Sustained Yield ↔ Sustainable Forest Management & EBM
Individual industry land use ↔ Integrated industry land use
Industry Steward ↔ Government Steward
Fiber ↔ Ecosystem Goods and Services, fibre and carbon
High Risk Forests ↔ Healthy Forests

Effective EBM can only be accomplished in Alberta when the cumulative effects of all sectors on
the landscape are taken into account in planning processes. The Alberta Government is currently
working to adopt a broad, integrated approach, but until it is further implemented, forest
management planning will continue to operate in isolation.
At the strategic planning scale, Alberta has developed a Land Use Framework (ALUF) that sets
out regional plans for growth of the economy, balanced with social and environmental goals. The
legal basis for the development of seven regional plans falls under the Alberta Land Stewardship
Act, established in October 2009 and amended in 2011 to provide greater clarification. The ALUF
establishes a landscape design process for planning across many sectors and agencies. It uses a
cumulative-effects approach to looking at the potential impacts of all activities within a region.
A major impetus of this initiative is the extensive resource development pressures within the
province. Natural disturbance regime (NDR) principles are not a driver in the ALUF, but they
could be useful in informing it. The ALUF process is heavily invested in political process, but
informed by the science of ecology45.
Under the ALUF, a Land-use Secretariat Regional Advisory Council will be established for
each of the seven land use regions. The Land Use Secretariat oversees implementation of the
framework and the Regional Advisory Councils provide multi-stakeholder input into the regional
plans. A draft of the first regional plan, the Lower Athabasca Integrated Regional Plan (LARP),
was published in 2011 which at this point highlighted the need to do further work on e.g.
analysis of disturbance thresholds, biodiversity guidelines, cumulative effects management, and
determination of caribou conservation measures. More regional plans will be developed within
the next few years. An information, monitoring and knowledge system will be developed to
contribute to continuous improvement of land-use planning and decision-making.
There is not yet any linkage between regional land use plans and landscape-level forest
management planning and operations. The land use plans take precedent over Forest
Management Plans, but on a practical basis there is no effect while ALUF is in its early stages. The
Alberta Forest Management Planning Standard states:
45 Van Damme, L. 2012. Landscape Design: Principles and Practices. Prepared for the Government of Manitoba on behalf of the
Manitoba Model Forest and the Forest Practices Committee.
37
“From time to time, strategic land use plans (e.g. Integrated Resource Plans, Regional
Sustainable Development Strategies) are developed that address the integration of resource
uses. The land use direction through these plans may come through zoning, which limits
activities in various zones, or by setting values, objectives, indicators or targets to be
implemented. Where strategic land use plans are approved after a FMP has been approved,
Alberta and the Organization shall discuss implementation of the strategic land use plan
and Alberta may require the FMP to be amended.”
However, it was noted that these plans are often undertaken as voluntary initiatives by industry
to date. In addition to establishing the ALUF, Alberta is in the process of restructuring its
environmental and sustainable resource development department to addresses EBM in a more
integrated way. Industry suggests that government was strongly siloed but has been working at
improving. The Integrated Resource Planning Division that is under development will coordinate
planning from the strategic to operational levels for all sectors and all kinds of disturbance. The
division intends to establish a hierarchy of planning, defining what is expected at the strategic,
landscape and operational planning levels (e.g. at which level the desired future landscape is
defined, and at which the seral stage is defined). There will be a strong emphasis on evaluating
cumulative effects. This is a significant policy gap at present, and industry is cautious to express
optimism about whether the effort will be successful.
In Alberta, there is a mix of compulsory planning requirements and specific regulations for
holders of Forest Management Agreements (FMAs). The government has similar responsibility
for non-FMA tenures (e.g. timber quotas and commercial, community or local timber permits),
but largely lags industry progress. An example of a Government of Alberta-completed FMP is
that for E8 (Foothills Forest Products). FMA holders must develop a detailed FMP for the forest
management unit that addresses the required components of the CSA system. There are also
regulations that address, for example: opening size, based on regional characteristics, practice-
based approaches to protecting riparian values, leaving some elements of forest structure behind
during harvest, reforestation requirements, and stocking standards. Most non-FMA tenures do
not have FMPs.
FMPs have 10-year terms, but adopt a 200-year planning horizon. They establish the allowable
annual cuts. The FMPs include a stand-level spatial harvest sequence plan and a map depicting
operational forest stands scheduled for timber harvesting in the next 20 years46. The FMPs must
outline how strategies to achieve biological, economic and social forest management values and
objectives will be implemented, measured and met.
There are voluntary examples of Alberta FMA holders applying defined landscape units for
‘tactical planning’ based on a combination of ecological, physical, practical and administrative
factors. The Southern Rockies landscape planning pilot project is one of those47. DMI has been
assessing how its operational approach of blending ecological and geo-administrative factors (i.e.
taking into account both ecological sub-regions and accessibility) is working on the ground.

46 Luckert, M.K., D. Haley & G. Hoberg. 2011. Policies for sustainably managing Canada’s forests: tenure, stumpage fees, and forest
practices. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
47 Andison, D.W. 2003. Tactical forest planning and landscape design. Chapter 12 in Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal
Forest, edited by P.J. Burton.
38
TABLE 6. ALBERTA’S ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA.
EBM Criteria Yes/No/Partial

2 EBM is formally defined in policy & legislation. No
3 Landscape approach to EBM. Yes
4 Forest inventory linked to ecosites. Partial
5 Forest inventory is reliable. Yes
6 Cutblock size designed to emulate natural disturbance. Yes
8 Tree and residual structure retention standards emulating natural disturbance. Partial
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old growth). Partial
10 Prescribed burning is used as a management tool. Partial
11 Models are used for decision support. Yes
Woodstock/Stanley
12 Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem Partial
types/function is in place.
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition, Yes (NRV)
other).
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work done. Partial
15 Efforts to restore natural landscape patterns and forest communities Partial
significantly diminished by past management actions.
16 Strategies for managing linear corridors (e.g. road management /closures) Partial
implemented.
17 Trade-offs communicated clearly through presentation of management options Yes

Alberta has not formally adopted a definition of EBM along the lines of the CBFA. That said, it
has taken progressive steps to incorporating key principles of sustainable forest management
and responsible stewardship into its Alberta Forest Management Planning Standard values and
objectives48.
Significant policies, such as those related to boreal forest management, are in flux right now
during a fairly major restructuring process within government. Therefore, this account reflects
what has been the status over the last five or so years.
Alberta started emphasizing the sustainable management of its forests in the late 1990’s, with the
Alberta Forest Legacy – Implementation Framework for Sustainable Forest Management. It also
did so with its 2001 publication Management of Alberta’s Forest Resource. In 2006, the Alberta
Forest Management Planning Standard established objectives that companies are expected to
address in their Forest Management Plans (FMPs) that, while not explicitly expressed, are founded
in the principles of emulating natural disturbances and minimizing cumulative impacts.
48 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008. FMU E8 Timber Supply Analysis. Forest Management Branch, Resource Analysis
Section. July 1, 2008. http://srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/ForestManagement/ForestManagementPlans/documents/ForestManagemen-
tUnitE8/Appen1_TSA.pdf. Accessed on March 12, 2013.
39
Alberta’s requirements are quite open-ended in relation to other Canadian provinces, setting
mandatory values, objectives, indicators and targets, but allowing for considerable flexibility in
how forest operators achieve them on a case-by-case basis, as established in the FMPs. That
said, observations have been made that Alberta has moved from an objective-based approach
to a far more prescriptive one, with greater operational rules constraining forest managers49. A
study by Cashore and McDermott (2004), which compared the forest practice requirements of 36
jurisdictions, gave Alberta (and British Columbia) the highest rating on a scale of one to nine for
stringency of substantive restrictions50.
Alberta has adopted the spirit of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) approach to its forest
management planning system and enables certification by third party auditors. Its interpretation
of CAN/CSA-Z809-2002 Sustainable Forest Management: Requirements and Guidance Document
(CSA-Z809-02) sets out how the forest management process is applied in Alberta. The focus is to
ensure a direct connection between the desired future forest condition and a spatially planned
harvest sequence, and predictions of forest growth and yield and actual stand level performance
(Alberta SRD 2006). While forest operations cannot achieve CSA certification simply from
following the Alberta standards (there is some inconsistency in how indicators and targets are
applied and the incorporation of public input), the strength is in the Canadian Council of Forest
Ministers (CCFM) Criteria that are adopted within the CSA-Z809-02.
The system relies to a large extent on industry self-inspection. In 2005, a Library of Parliament
article asserted that while the Alberta government was monitoring components of its
environment such as species at risk, number of protected areas and plant distribution, there
did not appear to be any coordinated measure of forest sustainability or provincial government
assessment of the sustainability of the forests51.
There is considerable activity in Alberta related to boreal forest management. The Alberta/
British Columbia Regional Working Group of the CBFA is composed of members of FPAC and the
ENGO signatories to the agreement. There has been a significant legacy of research produced
by the Sustainable Forest Management Network, a Network for Centres of Excellence non-profit
Canadian research group based out of the University of Alberta. Foothills Research Institute
(fRI) has been developing and sharing innovative science for sustainable land and resource
management, and includes programs on natural disturbance, specific species, ecology and
hydrology. The Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance (EMEND) Project is a 80
to 100-year large-scale variable retention harvest experiment managed by industry, academic
and government partners that looks at forest function (e.g. biodiversity, nutrient cycling and
ground water characteristics) in response to forest structure. (More information on these is
included under topic 17.) The Northern Alberta Institute for Technology (NAIT) Boreal Research
Institute is a partnership of industry, education and the community that develops applied
technologies that fill gaps and builds industry capacity in ecological management. Several forest
operations have voluntarily developed good practices mimicking natural disturbance regimes.
There is research underway in Alberta that is intended to provide land management practitioners
the knowledge required to develop more robust and sustainable management guidelines and
models for managing for historical disturbance patterns at operational scales.
49 Golec, P.J. and M.K. Luckert. 2008. Would Harmonizing Public Land Forest Policies, Criteria and Indicators, and Certification Im-
prove Progress Towards Sustainable Forest Management?: A Case Study in Alberta, Canada. Forestry Chronicle 84(3): 410-419.
50 Cashore, B., and C. L. McDermott. 2004. Global Environmental Forest Policy: Canada as a constant case comparison of select forest
practice regulations. International Forest Resources, VIC.
51 Parliament of Canada, Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Information and Research Service. 2005. Sustainable Forest Manage-
ment in Canada: Clear Policy – Questionable Practice. Prepared by M. Charron, Science and Technology Division. http://www.parl.
gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0513-e.htm. Accessed on March 8, 2013.
40
2. Formal definition of EBM in policy/legislation.
There is not a formal definition of EBM in Alberta legislation or policy. The CSA-Z809-02 standard,
which Alberta has adopted, defines sustainable forest management as follows:
“Management to maintain and enhance the long-term health of forest ecosystems, while
providing ecological, economic, social and cultural opportunities for the benefit of present
and future generations.”
According to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development website on Forest

Harvest Operations (Alberta ESRD 2013),
“Alberta supports a policy of sustainable forest management designed to provide

ecological, economic, social and cultural opportunities for the benefit of present and future
generations. This means that the amount of timber harvesting is controlled to ensure that
it does not exceed the sustainable level represented by the approved Annual Allowable Cut
(AAC)...
Alberta has demonstrated commitment to the principles of sustainable forest management

and responsible stewardship. Alberta is continually monitoring research results and seeking
improved information.”
A significant focus of the Alberta governance framework is on maintaining a sustained yield

over time, as determined by annual allowable cuts that firms must maintain within a narrow
range of annual variation. The Alberta Forest Act states that, “The Minister... may enter into a
forest management agreement with any person to enable that person to enter forest land for
the purpose of establishing, growing, and harvesting timber in a manner designed to provide a
perpetual sustained yield.” An Alberta brochure on Management of Alberta’s Forest Resource
states, “Alberta’s forested lands are managed on a sustainable forest management basis, which
means we will not harvest more than our forests can grow.”52
Alberta’s new government-wide approach to integrated resource management planning will

focus on a ‘cumulative effects management system’ that addresses air and water quality,
biodiversity and other industrial sector effects. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development receives approximately 20,000 – 30,000 individual development applications a
year, and does not have a mechanism to evaluate them in an integrated way. This is a critical
challenge. The cumulative effects management system has evolved from refining management
decisions regarding human developments, so it does not start from the ecosystem perspective,
but it is an important component of EBM.
The cumulative effects management system is intended to apply thresholds based on what
the ecosystem can maintain. Currently, with many operators all receiving individual approvals,
sometimes from different government agencies, there is no mechanism to apply these
thresholds. The entire energy sector tenure and approval system in Alberta is based on “one off”
project approvals (e.g. road by road, pipeline by pipeline, well site by well site etc.), However,
industry has been advocating for landscape level approvals but the Government of Alberta so far
is resisting, according to some practitioners.
In other areas of environmental management, thresholds have been established. For example,
the air management framework has set a cap on emissions based on what the airshed can
absorb. The water management framework has also set thresholds in the Lower Athabasca
52 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2001. Management of Alberta’s Forest Resource. http://srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/
ForestManagement/documents/Forest-Resource-Ftsht.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2013.
41
region and will set others for the other regions. Now work is underway to develop the
biodiversity management framework, with disturbance thresholds to be set for each sub-region
of the province at a level intended to maintain ecosystem integrity. The Government of Alberta is
investigating economic instruments to support this approach. The preferred instrument may be
tradable disturbance rights, which would ensure that the highest value development occurs for
the most limited disturbance. An alternative potential instrument is intensity targets, whereby
the disturbance level for each development would be minimized but the overall density of
disturbances may grow with an overall growth in development.
The Alberta Forest Legacy document and other non-enforceable policy guidelines recommend
that forest managers implement ecosystem based forest management that includes establishing
ecological benchmarks and maintaining the abundance of older forest age classes of within the
natural range of variability53. While not defining EBM, the Alberta Forest Management Planning
Standard and the Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules Framework
for Renewal, or “Ground Rules”, set out many objectives that are in line with best practices in
sustainable forest management54. The Ground Rules are the practices used in planning and
conducting timber harvesting operations, while the Forest Management Planning Standard
addresses broader landscape issues.
3. Landscape approach to EBM (coarse and fine filter approaches).

An FMA holder must submit a Detailed Forest Management Plan that includes a Forest
Management Approach that describes “the general approach being implemented and any
differences between operators (e.g. coarse filter, fine filter, single landbase, natural disturbance
paradigm, organization of FMUs/SYUs, commitment to SFM policy)”55.
The Forest Management Planning Standard sets out how Alberta interprets the CCFM Criteria
such as Conservation of Biological Diversity and establishes minimum performance standards for
how biodiversity values are addressed in FMPs. Quantitative targets must be established by the
FMA holder in consultation with stakeholders and rationalized based on social acceptance, sound
science, credible analysis techniques, and clearly stated value trade-offs. CSA Z809-02 defines
four Elements under Criterion 1 - Conservation of Biological Diversity, which are interpreted by
Alberta as follows:
Element 1.1 - Ecosystem Diversity corresponds to “coarse filter” management; i.e.

maintaining natural patterns at the landscape scale;
Element 1.2 - Species Diversity corresponds to “fine filter” management; i.e. managing
for the needs of individual species;
Element 1.3 - Genetic Diversity focuses on the genetics of tree species. It is assumed that
in meeting the intent of Elements 1.1 and 1.2, the genetic diversity of other organisms
will have been addressed; and
53 Hauer, G., S. Cumming, F. Schmiegelow, W. Adamowicz, M. Weber, R. Jagodzinski. 2007. Tradeoffs Between Forestry Resource and
Conservation Values Under Alternate Forest Policy Regimes: A Spatial Analysis of the Western Canadian Boreal Plains. Staff Paper
07-03. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta. 52 p. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/52086/2/SP-07-03.pdf.
54 Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Forestry Division, Forest Management Branch. 2012. Alberta Timber
Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules Framework for Renewal.
55 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2006. Alberta Forest Management Planning Standard Version 4.1 April 2006. http://
srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/ForestManagement/ForestManagementPlanning/documents/Alberta_Forest_Management_Planning_
Standard_Version_4_1_April_2006_Final_2.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2013.
42
Element 1.4 - Protected Areas and Sites of Special Significance. Alberta has the authority
to establish protected areas and sites of special significance, which is addressed through
other land use planning methods.
The Forest Management Planning Standard requires that the FMA holder be responsible to
ensure that forest biodiversity operational targets are met. It notes, however, that, “Biodiversity
is potentially affected by a complex array of factors. Consequently, best practices may have
limited success in meeting biodiversity objectives, even if they are completely and effectively
implemented.” Biodiversity targets are difficult, if not impossible, for forest companies to achieve
effectively, since there is a separation of responsibility between the sector and government. The
forest sector largely sets targets for habitat (e.g. seral stages, pattern), while the government
retains the authority for species populations (e.g. caribou). The government manages species
populations with little, if any, input from industry (e.g. fish and wildlife regulations and species at
risk recovery plans.)
The Forest Management Planning Standard somewhat acknowledges the requirement for
coordination when it states,
“Organizations are encouraged to participate in long-term, scientifically rigorous biodiversity

monitoring to assess achievement and effectiveness of objectives. Organizations should find
meaningful ways to participate in and support programs such as the Alberta Biodiversity
Monitoring Program. Cooperation and/or coordination with other companies and agencies
in landscape-scale programs could provide a larger context within which to compare
company performance. Biodiversity conservation is to be addressed in the context of adaptive
management; it is important for biodiversity monitoring to be undertaken to obtain results
that can be fed back into the planning process.”
The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI)56 conducts monitoring of more than 2000
species and habitats to support decision making about provincial biodiversity. ABMI conducts an
effectiveness monitoring program to determine whether the targets that are set are successful
in achieving what is intended on the landscape. It is also working towards unifying the indicators,
sampling protocols, data management, analysis and reporting methodologies across companies
and government in Alberta. One weakness of the ABMI is that it does not identify rare elements,
so it is not strong on species at risk.
Alberta’s approach to monitoring biodiversity is different from BC’s, where objectives are set by
legislation and key indicators are tracked. In Alberta an effort is made to monitor as many species
as possible in 16 plots across the province every five years. The approach is therefore less reliant
on assumptions of key indicator species, recognizing that climate change may change that.
ABMI is at arm’s length from government, but receives government funding (currently roughly
$5 to $6 million annually, and may grow) and may be formally recognized in future legislation.
Monitoring is considered a fundamental part of Alberta’s new land use planning framework,
enabling the province to assess whether it is achieving results in its efforts across sectors. The
results of ABMI’s studies will be incorporated as feedback in the integrated land management
planning process, so that any stressors that have not been adequately dealt with in the plans can
be reassessed.
Alberta has recently announced a $50 million per year commitment to overall water, air and
biodiversity monitoring going forward. The activities will go beyond the ABMI’s mandate. Details
are yet to be announced.
56 Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2014. Website: http://abmi.ca/. Accessed March 14, 2013.
43
EMEND is another example where ecosystem results are being fed back into planning processes.
The project is unique in building a bottom-up terrestrial baseline of ecosystem function at
the trophic level. EMEND monitors factors such as soil productivity, primary productivity and
invertebrate diversity. Most others focus their efforts on charismatic species.
At the operational planning level, FMA holders must provide annual operating plans and general
development plans for review and approval by the Alberta government. The requirements are set
out in the Ground Rules. The Annual Operating Plan indicates how harvesting will be carried out
(i.e. how, where and when the operator will develop roads, carry out harvesting and integrate
operations with other forest users, mitigate logging impacts and carry out reforestation). The
General Development Plan, also submitted annually, outlines harvesting and reclamation over a
five-year period, as well as any deviations from the spatial harvest sequence57. The government
may require a ‘compartment assessment’ for any major issues it identifies in specific areas of the
forest management unit that have not been addressed in the FMP.
4. Forest inventory is linked to ecosites.

Alberta has a well-defined classification system. The Ecological Land Classification
(ELC) subdivides the landscape into significant ecological units and organizes complex
interrelationships into identified geographical areas with similar properties. The hierarchical
system includes the following six scales: Ecoprovince; Ecoregion; Ecodistrict; Ecosection; Ecosite;
and Ecoelement. The ELC delineates land units based on their ecological characteristics and
indicates their suitability for various land uses based on wildlife habitat suitability, agricultural
capability, and forest capability assessments. There is not full mapping of all the scales across the
province, but a significant area is mapped by industry, if not government. For example, Hinton
Wood Products has mapped their entire 1 million ha FMA to the ecosite level.
The Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) is not yet completely linked to ecosite classifications. It is
a forestry-biased inventory that was designed to be fairly focused on the growth and yield needs
for annual allowable cut and maintaining the stability of the timber supply (similar to the Forest
Cover Inventory in BC.) While it is not a true ecosystem-based inventory, it is currently the best
inventory of forest ecosystems and informs wildlife habitat mapping.
An enhanced AVI is being developed to get closer to an ecosystem-based inventory, which will
be valuable in the AMBI’s monitoring work. It is considered a big need by industry. There are also
several initiatives looking at remote sensing, including satellite and LiDAR methods, to enhance
inventory without using an AVI-based approach. Where the photo-interpretation approach of
AVI is good for calculating AAC but not sufficient detail for determining where to hang a cut block
ribbon (e.g. planning retention in a wetter area, where there is understory, an area of snags, a
rock outcrop, etc.), LiDAR is more versatile and can be scaled to a variety of purposes.
In the Ground Rules, section 8.0 on Silviculture states that, an acceptable silvicultural process
includes site assessment (pre or post-harvest) based on ecosite classification. Under section
8.1 Planning, the Ground Rules state that, “Reforestation prescriptions shall be based on site
assessments (pre or post-harvest) that include considerations specific to the site (e.g. Ecosite
field guide for Alberta).”
57 Luckert, M.K., D. Haley and G. Hoberg. 2011. Policies for sustainably managing Canada’s forests: tenure, stumpage fees, and forest
44
5. Forest inventory is reliable.
The Alberta Vegetation Inventory is a highly reliable inventory for its intent as a forest inventory.
The Alberta Government set out the Alberta Vegetation Inventory Interpretation Standards
to establish a standardized approach to classification and mapping. The AVI has the same
weaknesses as any other photo-interpretation-based inventory, which is that the understory gets
missed and other ecosystem-based attributes are not captured very well58.
The Alberta Government has invested approximately $22 million to collect medium-scale LiDAR
coverage for most forested lands in the province, which no other province has. Many products
can be developed from the LiDAR data, including wet areas mapping, with depth of water
to one square meter resolution. This data is critical in determining ecosites, as the moisture
regime of a site is one of two key axes. Wetland mapping is used as a proxy for biodiversity. The
forest canopy masks upper watershed hydrology such as ephemeral streams when using photo-
interpretation. The LiDAR data enables the province to map streams at a level of detail that will
contribute to strategic planning (i.e. ecosite classification) as well as to operational planning (i.e.
road and pipeline location).
The AVI is separate, pre-requisite process in the FMP approval process. The AVI includes
vegetation and forest stands including understory vegetation and non-vegetated areas. An
AVI must be updated to reflect changes that occur as a result of anthropogenic (e.g. timber
harvesting or land use activities) or natural disturbance, re-vegetation by planting or natural
means, or the growth and/or succession of stands of trees or other vegetation.
Some companies are looking at replacing the AVI with improved products based on LiDAR and
other methods (e.g. tree species identification using digital colour photography and spectral
identification).
The primary component of a Forest Harvest Plan is a map that shows the approved forest
inventory. Subject to government approval, companies may use new innovative products instead
of the standard AVI. Alberta periodically checks the work and supporting documents to verify
their accuracy.
6. Cut block size designed to emulate natural disturbance.

The Alberta approach to cut block size, shape, distribution, tree and residual structure
retention and age class is that the FMA holder must establish targets in the FMP, but what
those targets are is not prescribed. The targets are supposed to be set based on patterns of
natural disturbance and EBM. The benefits of not prescribing specific targets for patch size and
distribution are that 1) FMPs can be tailored to emulate the varying natural patterns (e.g. fire
regimes) in different ecoregions of the province; 2) the province can evaluate how successful
companies are at innovating different approaches; and, 3) the approach supports innovation.
This approach is a significant improvement on the two-pass system that was in place before,
which set out an average, maximum and minimum cutblock size.
It was noted that cut blocks are not the appropriate measurement unit for EBM; rather,
aggregations of cutblocks more analogous to natural disturbance events are appropriate. Cut
blocks are analogous to burn patches. Alberta has pioneered a spatial language and approach
through the fRI Healthy Landscapes Program.
58 Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development. 2005. Alberta Vegetation Inventory Interpretation Standards.
http://srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/VegetationInventoryStandards.aspx. Accessed on March 8, 2013.
45
Companies would not have the social license to log blocks as large as the area a large wildfire
event could burn in some areas of the province. That said, companies do have the license for
large events, which are combinations of aggregated blocks. Some historical harvest events are
greater than 20,000 hectares. It is easier to approximate natural conditions than events, which
can be achieved with multiple events instead of a few large ones.
The Performance Standards within the Forest Management Planning Standard require FMA
holders to establish “a distribution of harvest area sizes that will result in a patch size pattern
over the 200 year planning horizon approximating patterns created by natural disturbances.”
The objective associated with this target is to maintain biodiversity by avoiding landscape
fragmentation. The target “shall be based on sound science, ecological considerations, wildlife
zones, and disturbance regimes. Target shall ensure representation of natural range of ecosystem
attributes (e.g. cover class and productivity class).”
According to the Ground Rules, “unless otherwise approved by Alberta, the size distribution
of harvest areas within a compartment shall be representative of the natural variation of the
landscape, which for the purposes of harvest planning, is the range of stand polygon sizes prior to
harvest within the compartment boundary.”
The Ground Rules require an FMP holder to abide by a 10-year spatial harvest sequence. There
are spatial constraints on block size in the Ground Rules that do not apply as long as a Spatial
Harvest Sequence (SHS) is in place (which has been 100% of the time since the planning standard
was introduced). The ground rules are a negotiated suite of rules for each FMA and may have
different constraints. An example of such a constraint is that, where pine comprises 40% or
more of the merchantable timber volume, cutblocks may be up to 100 hectares in area unless
otherwise approved by Alberta, but shall average no more than 60 hectares.
There were a number of papers that discussed different sections of the Millar Western FMP, one
being “The use of the natural range of variability for identifying biodiversity values at risk when
implementing a forest management strategy”59 . In the conclusions section of this paper there
was a paragraph that presented some thoughts around patch size distribution as follows:
“We also found that patch size distribution is generally compliant with the NRV, although
we observed more large patches and better connectivity for old growth patches under fire-
driven landscapes. As with many forest management units in Alberta that have undergone
the “Two-pass/Twocut” system that generates its characteristic checkerboard pattern, W13
is spatially constrained by its fragmented footprint.
Such a footprint influence lasts for decades before the harvest scheduler can aggregate
patches together. Letting the forest age will naturally contribute to this goal as it will also
favour patch coalescence and consequently increased mean patch size of mature and over-
mature forest.”
This issue identifies a significant barrier that some companies may experience, at least in
the short/medium term, in achieving EBM. Many landscapes have this pattern and will be
constrained by it. The comment that letting the forest age to favour patch coalescence will have
AAC implications that could be fairly significant.
59 Doyon, F., Yamasaki, S. and Duchesneau, R. 2008. The use of the natural range of variability for identifying biodiversity values at
risk when implementing a forest management strategy. The Forestry Chronicle. 84(3): 316-329.
46
Additional requirements apply to both SHS and preliminary harvest plans, such as minimizing
line of sight from roads to less than 400 meters, and ensuring that distance to wildlife hiding
cover is less than 200 meters60. These are considered holdovers from more traditional wildlife
management approaches that are not grounded in EBM. Some companies have successfully
eliminated such requirements.

As with cut block size, FMA holders are encouraged to design harvest areas to approximate
patterns created by natural disturbance. There is nothing explicitly prescribed in the Performance
Standards; how it is achieved is left up to the FMA holder to set out in its special harvest
sequence. Some companies target a range of cut block shapes from complex to simple. The
Ground Rules state that irregular or natural boundaries shall be employed in harvest area design.
8. Tree and residual structure retention standards emulating natural disturbance.

The goal in Alberta is to emulate aspects of natural disturbance, balancing that with what
economic and social license will allow. That balance is struck in different ways depending upon
where in the province a company is operating.
As described above, companies are required to set targets in their FMPs, and the stand level
objectives should be based on coarse filter management (i.e. maintaining natural patterns). The
specific targets can vary significantly by company and management objectives.
Forest operators are required to set targets for stand structure retention in their FMPs, and
are permitted to leave merchantable volume in harvest areas as set out in the specific stand
structure retention strategies in the FMPs. The plan for implementing, monitoring and reporting
on structure retention must be included in the FMP. The FMP sets out the amount of structure,
size of patches, species, composition and distribution.
The Timber Supply Analysis and Growth & Yield requirements within the Forest Management
Planning Standard state that,
“Retaining significant stand structure characteristics in harvested areas is essential to

maintaining ecosystem functions. The objective is to leave sufficient structure with minimum
impact on timber supplies.”
The forecasting standards dictate that, “the maintenance of forest conditions within the range of
natural variability (NRV) is the primary mechanism to be employed.”
The Performance Standards include an objective to retain stand level structure. The FMP must
set a target of the percentage of harvested area or volume comprised of single stems, clumps
and islands. A wide range in variability in harvest area-level retention within a subunit is desired
as long as the target level is achieved. Indicators are 1) percentage area or volume within a
harvest area representative of the status (live/dead), sizes and species of the overstory trees by
subunit and entire defined forest area, and 2) percentage of the harvested area by subunit with
downed woody debris equivalent to pre-harvest conditions.
The Ground Rules set out specific requirements for structure retention, stating that, “Although
many types of natural disturbance occur within Alberta’s forests, fire is the most common... The
retention of single trees and patches of large live trees in harvest areas makes the harvested
60 Luckert, M.K., D. Haley & G. Hoberg. 2011. Policies for sustainably managing Canada’s forests: tenure, stumpage fees, and forest
47
areas more similar to burned areas... Where larger harvest areas are created, it is important
to retain a number of individual trees, snags and residual tree patches distributed across the
harvest area...” The ground rules describe the average number of patches per hectare of residual
material that must be left within harvested areas of a landscape unit for those where it is not
defined in a FMP. There may be no patches in a particular harvest area as long as the amount
identified in the Timber Supply Analysis is met across the landscape over time.
How companies apply these standards and ground rules is subject to significant variation. Ideally,
retention should reflect the natural range of variation. Few companies have enough foundational
information to know natural range of variation at this scale and set their targets accordingly,
but many are working toward that end. As an example, one company is targeting to leave 15%
at the landscape level (varies from 0 to 30% at the block level), not including wetlands, buffers,
inoperable slopes and other areas in which they do not operate (which itself can be up to 45% of
the landscape in the north.) On the other hand, some companies are leaving 3 to 6%, including
unmerchantable material. Both approaches are considered acceptable under the present
management framework.

growth).
As above, Alberta’s approach is not to be prescriptive, but its forest management planning
system is designed to facilitate companies to design their desired future forest to emulate the
age classes of a natural disturbance regime. The benefit of not having prescriptive targets is that
companies do not encounter barriers to adopting a natural age class design in their landscape
level retention strategies.
The Forest Management Planning Standard allows for selection harvesting – a silvicultural
system used to create or maintain uneven aged stands. It is usually accomplished through the
periodic removal of groups of trees or individual trees, while full residual stand growth rates are
maintained and natural regeneration from overstorey trees is encouraged.
There is significant variation in how Alberta forest companies manage for age class. There may
be some room for improvement in timber supply analysis modelling to shift the landscape closer
to a natural range of variability, and away from the artificially high amount of mature timber that
has resulted from past fire suppression. Also some companies could retain some old growth for
a full planning cycle instead of leaving it for later harvesting or only retaining old growth within
buffers and inoperable portions of the landscape.
One company is aiming to achieve an “inverse j curve”, where a set amount of old growth
(beyond that in buffers) is retained during the 200 year planning horizon. This creates old growth
complexity even within young tree stands, which is not a common practice.
10. Use of prescribed burn as a management tool.

Alberta’s fire management objectives have been developed to enhance the positive attributes
of fire by emulating landscape patterns historically created by natural disturbance61. Prescribed
burns are permitted to accomplish predetermined management goals (e.g. site preparation for
planting, reduction of fire hazards or pest problems, and creation of better quality browse for
wildlife.) The forest industry generally does not use prescribed burns due to concerns about fire
escape and public concern. There may be the opportunity for industry to do more in partnership
with the government in the future.
48
The FireSmart program seeks to mitigate large, high intensity, high severity wildfires and to
identify opportunities to use prescribed burning as a natural disturbance emulation strategy
to meet ecological objectives through ecological restoration. FireSmart planning thus uses a
balanced landscape fire assessment that includes not only a wildfire threat component, but also
a fire regime analysis that handles the positive attributes.
The Forest Management Branch addresses fire in relation to maintaining harvest levels and
achieving the desired future forest. The Wildfire Management Branch addresses fire in relation
to how prescribed burning can help attain the desired future forest. These efforts will be
integrated with other aspects of Alberta’s new integrated land management system.
Alberta provides forest operators with the Wildfire Threat Assessment model and associated
data and the available fire regime information to aid in broad landscape level planning.
Companies refer to the prescribed burning that the Alberta government is proposing in their
FMPs, and are expected to consider how the company’s harvesting coordinates with the
FireSmart activities.
Prescribed burns tend to be used more in the foothills pine stands than in the more northern
mixedwood and aspen stands, though the Alberta Conservation Association has worked with the
Alberta government to test prescribed burns to restore ungulate winter ranges.
11. Models are used for decision support.

The ALUF applies a computer simulation decision support tool called “A Landscape Cumulative
Effects Simulator” (ALCES) extensively in strategic land use planning to model cumulative effects.
ALCES includes toolkits such as “Wildlife Manager”, which tracks major natural disturbance
regimes such as fire (natural and prescribed), meteorology, climate change, water body flow
dynamics, insect outbreak, storm events, avalanches, erosion, and gap dynamics of plant
communities. It also tracks major land uses. ALCES is applied at a higher planning level than
forest management planning.
NEPTUNE, or “Novel Emulation Pattern Tool for Understanding Natural Events” is used to model
human disturbance patterns after the natural range of variation in a specific location62. It is the
first decision-support tool that allows users to evaluate just how “natural” past or proposed
disturbances are. It is currently calibrated for the boreal plains of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It
applies natural pattern thresholds based on extensive research of 129 natural wildfires across
that region. There is currently nothing comparable for other parts of Canada. Forest companies
use NEPTUNE to assess how well they are doing on patch size distribution and retention
compared to the natural disturbance regime, and the Alberta government uses it in planning
prescribed burns.
Many Alberta companies use LANDMINE, which is an empirical disturbance tool that models
the natural range of variation of a range of indicators (e.g. fire regime, fire cycle) to simulate
landscape patterns.
LANDIS is a process-based forest landscape model of succession, disturbance and management.

By inputting forest attributes (e.g. topography, species, volumes), it models disturbance regimes
and the natural range of variation. It does not rely on extensive empirical data as some models
do. LANDIS has been used in one region of Alberta to help guide land use planning, but it has
not yet been used in operational planning in Alberta. LANDIS could be a technical foundation for
cumulative effects planning.
62 Foothills Research Institute. 2014. NEPTUNE. http://foothillsri.ca/resource/neptune. Accessed March 18, 2013.
49
Alberta evaluated the Boreal Forest Landscape Disturbance Simulator (BFOLDS), a GIS-based
software tool designed to model how fire occurs across the boreal forest landscape at regional
and landscape scales, and how boreal forest vegetation patterns change after fire. From the
testing it was determined that it was not the right option for Alberta at the time.
The Foothills Research Institute commissioned a study of how natural disturbance regime
principles could be more broadly applied within the ALUF. The study demonstrated the utility of
applying decision-support tools such as LANDIS, LANDMINE and NEPTUNE at a large scale with
relatively limited baseline data63.
The province has used Remsoft’s Spatial Planning System (RSPS) suite of analysis tools to conduct
timber supply modeling since the early 1990’s. In terms of forest planning models, Remsoft’s
software Woodstock and Stanley are often used for harvest planning and scheduling, habitat
modelling and integrated land management planning – Woodstock to assess what rate of
harvesting can be sustained and Stanley for the spatial aspect.
12. Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem

ALUF is the level at which the protected area regime is planned. For example, the Lower
Athabasca Regional Management Plan designated new protected areas, such that 20% of the
area is now protected.
According to the CCFM Criterion 1 – Conservation of Biological Diversity, Element 1.4 – Protected
Areas and Sites of Special Significance, companies do have to set objectives for protected areas.
In practice, this means that protected areas that are identified through government processes
must be respected in the FMPs. If operating near protected areas, FMA holders must show that
they are communicating with protected area managers. For the most part, coordination with
protected area managers has mostly been for the purpose of dealing with forest health issues
such as mountain pine beetle.
The Forest Management Planning Standard requires that a FMA holder’s timber supply
analysis defines future forest conditions that will meet the CCFM Criterion 2 – Maintenance
and Enhancement of Forest Ecosystem Condition and Productivity. FMPs deal with the forest
land base, with protected areas netted out. One company with Forest Stewardship Council
certification, for which there is an emphasis on increasing protected areas, voluntarily
established set-asides in their FMP. However, the company did not have the authority to prevent
oil and gas development in those set-asides. That issue was addressed directly in the Lower
Athabasca Regional Management Plan.
The Ground Rules set out that landscape planning and harvest area design should be
implemented in a manner that ensures landscapes maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function.
Forest operators are expected to manage the forest cover, in accordance with the spatial harvest
sequence, in a manner that maintains biodiversity and ecological integrity.
The Performance Standards include several objectives that support maintaining a natural range
of ecosystem types and functions. For example:
»» Maintain biodiversity by retaining the full range of cover types and seral stages;
»» Maintain biodiversity by avoiding landscape fragmentation;
»» Maintain plant communities uncommon in the defined forest area or province;
63 Van Damme, L. 2012. Landscape Design: Principles and Practices. Prepared for the Government of Manitoba on behalf of the
Manitoba Model Forest and the Forest Practices Committee.
50
»» Maintain unique habitats provided by wildfire and blowdown events;
»» Retain ecological values and functions associated with riparian zones; and,
»» Maintain integrity of sensitive sites (e.g. mineral licks, major game trails).
For ecosystem resilience and productivity there are objectives to meet reforestation targets and
maintain the forest landbase.
13. Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition).

The Landscape Assessment in the Detailed Forest Management Plan must present information
on forest landscape pattern and structure, including forest species, cover types, age-classes,
seral stages, and the spatial and temporal variability of cover types and seral stages64. Several
companies are also working on presenting information on forest patch amounts and distribution.
While this landscape assessment is not of pre-industrial forest condition, it is a detailed
description of the forest condition at the time of forest management planning.
A significant number of companies and government planning units do incorporate modelling

of the natural range of variation into their planning process, which is essentially a natural
benchmark. Many use the NEPTUNE model to help define their landscape mosaic. They also use
models of natural disturbance regimes to inform the forms of structure retention.

The NRV baseline work to date has been done independently for many areas of the province (on
behalf of companies) and subsequently was approved by the Alberta government. The Foothills
Research Institute has a project just starting to fill in all the gaps and improve the information so
that there is full coverage of forested lands in Alberta (and Saskatchewan and portions of NWT),
which will be accessible to all companies.
The quality of data on natural range of variation and natural disturbance history has greatly
improved in the last five years. Before that forest companies could still try to use fire as a coarse
filter, but there was not the same level of information on patterns, shapes and amount of
retention.
Alberta has benefited from innovative work developing baselines. There have been many
peer-reviewed studies conducted on natural levels of forest age-class variability, natural
disturbance dynamics and the natural fire regime in the Alberta boreal forest, as well as on
boreal mixedwood dynamics more generally. The information is available, but it has not been
formally adopted in Alberta’s forest management guidance material. A general gap is the delay
in getting the latest knowledge into government policy and practices. In this regard industry is
generally more efficient and some companies are well ahead of government. In some cases the
inability of government to keep up has, from an industry perspective, hindered acceptance and
implementation of new EBM approaches and practices. For example, Hinton Wood Products is
developing an EBM approach to riparian management that has been only slowly accepted by the
Government of Alberta.
There are two complementary lines of research underway at different scales, the first looking at
natural variations in structure and the second looking further into forest function in response to
that structure, that are particularly noteworthy:
51
»» The Foothills Research Institute (fRI) (http://www.foothillsri.ca/) healthy landscapes
program identifies and evaluates natural pattern-based attributes of large, landscape-
level disturbances that can be responsible for biodiversity.
»» Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance (EMEND) (http://www.
emendproject.org/) is a large-scale variable retention harvest experiment designed to
test effects of residual forest structure on ecosystem integrity and forest regeneration at
the forest stand-level. It is intended to be an 80-100 year experiment, in its first 10 – 15
years. It covers 7,400 ha within DMI’s FMA.

All FMPs since the Forest Management Planning Standard was introduced in 2006 have spatial
harvest sequences that have attempted to emulate a natural disturbance-based system. Earlier
FMPs going back to the late 1990s did the same but didn’t include a spatial harvest sequence
– the pattern was laid out in the field. New harvest designs in areas previously harvested are
improving natural boundaries. That said, the development of oil and gas activities on the same
landscapes continues to have an impact on the ability to restore natural landscape patterns.
Restoration to improve past management actions is not explicitly mentioned in Alberta’s

regulations and policy, but is expected to be addressed through the FMP process and the setting
of patch size distribution in the spatial harvest sequence. Companies go into detail in their FMPs
about how they have determined their targets, and this is where the objective of restoring
natural landscape patterns tends to be described.
In Forest Industry Competitiveness: Recommendations for Enhancing Alberta’s Business Model,

a recommendation was made that Alberta minimize the amount of forested land that is lost
to conflicting land uses through implementation of the ALUF. A land use zoning system was
recommended to improve integration amongst resource users and reduce environmental
footprint of development. An important step is coordinating linear developments (e.g. roads,
pipelines, seismic lines, and trails) across sectors. While this will not restore past landscape
patterns, it will reduce the negative effects of future activities.
The Foothills Landscape Management Forum (a volunteer group of five forest companies, 11
energy companies, and one Aboriginal community) has worked with the Government of Alberta
to develop a Regional Access Development Plan for the Berland Smoky area. The plan includes
locations of future roads to minimize duplication and is also looking at restoration of existing
footprint that is no longer needed, plus a life cycle approach to all existing and future footprint to
minimize cumulative effects of access.
Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (formerly the Oil Sands Leadership Initiative), with 14
member companies representing nearly 90 percent of oil sands production, is doing similar
things in northeast Alberta.
The Cumulative Environmental Management Association, with more than 50 members from
government, First Nations, industry and non-government organizations, is a multi-stakeholder
group that makes recommendations to manage the cumulative environmental effects of regional
development on air, land, water and biodiversity in the regional municipality of Wood Buffalo.
The NAIT Boreal Research Institute is leading a Conventional Oil and Gas Reclamation applied
research program to position industry and reclamation companies to meet new reclamation
standards and address abandoned well sites in Alberta’s boreal forest.
52
16. Strategies for managing linear corridors (road management/closure) actively
implemented.
Long-term road planning is a particularly challenging issue in Alberta due to the nature of the
oil and gas sector, which requires access to large areas of landscape and often re-enters mature
fields when new technology facilitates redevelopment.
Alberta’s approach to roads will be significantly improved through integrated land management
planning, requiring companies to coordinate in establishing efficient road networks in areas
where there are multiple demands for resources. In some cases, voluntary coordination has led
to a 40% reduction in road density65.
Alberta did not have clear targets for overall road density until recently. Before then roads were
decommissioned or rehabilitated in key areas, but it was operationally more ad hoc. There are
now aspirational targets for road density in officially defined grizzly bear habitat – 0.6 km of
open road per square kilometer in high quality habitat, and 1.2 km of open road per square
kilometer in medium quality habitat. The intent is to create an incentive for companies to close
or deactivate roads so that they can open new ones, perhaps with economic instruments in the
future. The targets have no formal delivery mechanism at present – they can only be delivered
through cooperative planning exercises such as the Berland Smoky Regional Access Development
Plan mentioned in the preceding section.
Forest sector specific road strategies have been in place for longer. The Forest Management
Planning Standard requires that the density of open all-weather forestry roads is tracked by
subunit. The forest operator must develop a strategy that coordinates access with other resource
users, spatial/temporal sequencing of harvest, road closures and decommissioning. The strategy
must be set out in the spatial harvest sequence and long-term corridor access plan. The objective
is to maintain biodiversity by minimizing access.
West Fraser is addressing the prevalence of linear disturbances (e.g. roads, pipelines, utility
corridors and seismic lines) by using soft copy 3D digital aerial photography. It is an efficient way
to assess regeneration along seismic lines over a large footprint.
The Ground Rules require forest operators to identify not only road construction schedules but
closure and reclamation timelines as well. Roads must be constructed, maintained and reclaimed
in a timely manner to minimize environmental impacts. Roads approved under authority of an
Annual Operating Plan that are no longer required must be reclaimed, have crossings removed,
and their condition monitored until they are considered satisfactorily stabilized. (Rules are also
set for seasonal and partial deactivation.) Roads approved under a License of Occupation can be
held indefinitely – there is no requirement to initiate reclamation. Once reclamation commences
it must satisfy the government requirements before a reclamation certificate is issued.
More integrated road planning across all sectors will increase the effectiveness of the forest
sector’s efforts.

At the ALUF’s regional planning process level, for which there has only been one example thus
far, multiple scenarios of possible futures are presented to the public. Stakeholder input on
scenario preferences helps inform decision-making.
65 Bonar, Rick. The Berland Smoky Regional Access Plan: Working Together in the Alberta Foothills. 2010. http://cif-ifc.org/uploads/
Website_Assets/Bonar_-_AGM.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.
53
The Timber Supply Analysis and Growth & Yield section in the Forest Management Planning
Standard requires that various scenarios be tested. Companies often include the baseline
scenario, a timber-maximizing scenario, a wildlife-oriented scenario, a mountain pine beetle
control scenario, and the preferred forest management scenario. A summary of the various
alternatives that are tested leading to the selection of the preferred scenario must be
documented transparently and the analysis must be replicable.
The Forest Management Planning Standard also requires that before an FMP is submitted, a
Public Participation Group (PPG) must be formed with representation from interested parties.
The mechanism for governance of the PPG is variable and depends on the nature of interested
stakeholders. The FMA holder must conduct a meaningful review of the complete FMP with the
PPG, and submit the comments of the PPG as well as its response to those comments to the
Alberta government.

a. The government still lacks a robust planning system to take EBM from strategic to operational
levels incorporating activities of all sectors.
b. Alberta has highly evolved research programs in place that support EBM. In some cases the
lag between research being published and the government incorporating it into its standards
frustrates industry, particularly when it prevents them from implementing new EBM
practices.
c. A concern was raised that the riparian management policy to maintain standard buffers
around water bodies, while applying a precautionary approach, may not reflect natural
variability. It was suggested that the current science on soils, sensitive ecosystems and
biodiversity be reviewed in light of this, since it was last considered in 2005. Hinton Wood
Products is currently working with the government to develop and implement an EBM
riparian management approach, which is two-thirds complete.
d. Some concern was expressed that Alberta’s approach to deadwood structure management
and retention of live green trees are artificially siloed in the forest management planning
standard. Some would like to allow for structural retention to count toward future deadwood
inputs, instead of just measuring pre- and immediate post-harvest dead wood conditions.
e. Alberta does not explicitly require consideration of resilience to climate change in its current
management planning standard. That said, the province is well advised in how to plan
for variability, complexity and connectivity, which are likely to help in adaptation. BC has
adjusted its reforestation standards to address climate change adaptation, but Alberta is still
in more of an evaluation stage. More guidance to the forest sector would be helpful.
f. Alberta’s reforestation policy and standards are more closely aligned to EBM and NRV than
before, with more flexibility in outcomes to reflect the natural range of variability in stand
density, but they still have a ways to go. Reforestation is now done with mixed species
rather than a monoculture plantation approach. However, reforestation is one area that
lags considerably in EBM thinking and implementation. Industry would like to trial longer
regeneration lags to stimulate natural regeneration and allow different species on a site
through time.
54
6.2.5. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EBM IN ALBERTA
a. Alberta implemented some strong policies to facilitate the forest sector in striving for
EBM, but the effectiveness of those policies on the ground is compromised by the lack
of more integrated planning across all sectors. The improvements planned in relation to
the cumulative effects management system are intended to help address this, but the
government is taking longer to put the new processes in place than some in the industry
would like. Also, industry feels that the government will need to bring forest companies,
energy companies and government to the table in order to conduct effective management
planning and application of thresholds.
b. A key piece to EBM that is missing in Alberta is the linkage from strategic to operational
planning.
c. The policies that Alberta has adopted need to be updated and expanded to support and
encourage the adoption of EBM. The government has yet to issue clear and firm support for
the approach, especially beyond forest management.
d. Alberta’s non-prescriptive approach in the Forest Management Planning Standard has many
benefits. Companies can use the flexibility to test innovative new approaches and tailor
their FMPs to local natural conditions. That said, one aspect of Alberta’s approach that could
be considered a weakness is that the targets related to EBM objectives are not required in
regulation. The FMPs are reviewed by government staff and the public, so the companies are
publicly accountable for their proposed targets. The flip side of flexibility is that companies
could use it to set minimum standards for achievement in the absence of defined targets.
e. Some concern was expressed that the Alberta government has not established an incentive
mechanism to encourage companies to adopt innovative, exceptional EBM practices. In
fact, companies that set the bar high in their FMPs tend to incur higher costs to report
those targets, and in some cases there has been government resistance to trying new EBM
approaches (e.g. riparian management). Additionally, some incentive beyond social license
and credibility from international buyers, is sought for those companies contributing to
scientific monitoring and testing that helps the province refine its approach to EBM.
f. The Alberta government has not progressed in its new approach to the stage where it is
communicating provincial biodiversity targets; it has typically managed and tracked species
at risk, not biodiversity of the whole ecosystem (more than 2500 species). Some FMA holders
find it challenging to set CCFM criterion-based biodiversity targets with which there are no
provincial-level targets to coordinate. This impacts both the ability to implement biodiversity
objectives and the effectiveness of biodiversity objectives that are set.
g. The Alberta government has not progressed in its new approach to the stage where it is
communicating and collaborating with FMA holders when setting parks and protected areas
management plans and objectives; something those companies that operate adjacent to
parks would like to know more about in order to align their biodiversity objectives and
landscape connectivity.
h. The level of knowledge, awareness, and support for EBM in Alberta is still relatively low and
needs to be increased to facilitate implementation.
55
i. There is a need for a strong monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system to back up EBM.
These management system aspects often get the short straw and need to be very good to
facilitate adoption of new approaches and show that they are effective. A critical aspect of
EBM that is often under-emphasized or under-funded is that the outcomes must be measured
against the objectives and targets that were set. This must go beyond confirming that what
was planned by a company was acted upon, to an assessment of whether government-
regulated practices are actually achieving their policy intent.
6.2.6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING EBM IN ALBERTA

a. Alberta’s non-prescriptive approach creates a high level of variation and innovation
in approaches to forest management adopted by companies, which enables adaptive
management. Companies that want to be innovative have the license to apply EBM as a risk
management strategy. The research on NRV going on in parallel with this approach further
strength its effectiveness. The diverse approaches that have resulted would not have been
possible under a prescriptive regime.
b. Alberta has a strong body of research compared to many other provinces, which provides a
good foundation of knowledge and tools to apply EBM. Investments such as LiDAR, remote
sensing, research on EBM, the Sustainable Forest Management Network, etc. are leading the
country. That said, Alberta is one of the toughest environments in which to employ EBM given
fractured administration and intensive energy sector activities.
c. The new Cumulative Effects Management System that is proposed will be important in
advancing integrated management to support EBM.
6.3. Saskatchewan
EBM as a concept has been articulated in SK provincial policy since the early 2000s. The province
has been working for several years to standardize practices across the province. Work is ongoing
in many areas and the province’s forest management program is in a positive state of evolution.
The Forest Service and the Landscape Stewardship Branch need to develop a closer relationship in
order to address cumulative effects on the landscape.
Saskatchewan has an evolving framework for forest management that commits the government
and forest users to undertake the essential components of sustainable forest management (e.g.
planning, monitoring, reporting, adapting) while maintaining a focus on results. The recent
move toward a results-based environmental management approach under the Saskatchewan
Environment Code (SEC) signifies a move away from prescriptive standards to a focus on the
achievement of management outcomes.
Forestry is undertaken under the legal mandate of the Forest Resources Management Act, whose
purpose is to: “promote the sustainable use of forest land for the benefit of current and future
generations by balancing the need for economic, social and cultural opportunities with the need to
maintain and enhance the health of forest land.”
The Act is accompanied by four regulated manuals (planning, operations, compliance, scaling)
as well as standards and guidelines specific to each Forest Management Agreement (developed
with industry), which are reviewed annually or biannually66. These standards are currently being
replaced with chapters of the Saskatchewan Environmental Code and will help to address issues of
inconsistency in standards in different areas of the province.
66 Government of Saskatchewan. 2014. Legislated Manuals: Standards for Industry. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.
aspx?DN=903599a5-ccce-47ac-9355-c17650a1e263. Accessed March 15, 2013.
56
In the last decade, change in the forest management approach has been driven by factors
including: government’s commitment in principle to EBM (~2002), the recent review of the
forest management planning approach, changes under SEC and the move toward results-based
management, changes in leadership and more recently woodland caribou conservation at the
federal and provincial level.
The prevailing thinking in Saskatchewan is to set baseline forest management standards under
the ‘results based’ philosophy of the SEC that permit industry an opportunity for flexibility and
innovation in achieving the desired environmental outcomes. As is the case in several other
provinces, the effectiveness of SK’s new management approach will be tested over the coming
years.

The Forest Resource Management Act and Regulations require the government to develop
Integrated Forest Land Use Plans (IFLUP) for any management units within the Provincial
Forest. These plans must recognize all resource values found within the forest and work with
all stakeholders who have an interest in the forest to make consensus-based recommendations
about how the land should be managed. The development of many of the province’s IFLUPs
began in the late 1990s and carried through until approximately 2008. These plans provided
context for forestry operations on licence areas throughout the province.
Land use planning is housed in the Landscape Stewardship Branch of the Ministry of Environment
(MOE), which is a separate branch from the Forest Service, which leads to issues of operational
integration between LUPs and forest management. IFLUPs are/were intended to co-ordinate
policies, programs, and activities to guide and regulate existing and potential uses of land. IFLUPs
do not explicitly use EBM as guiding principle, unlike the clearly stated objective in the province’s
FMP Document. IFLUPs are still relevant in some areas, but province has lost its focus on these
plans and to some extent defaulted to using forest management planning as a main planning
tool. However, this is not consistent across the province.
The former IFLUPs have largely been rolled into broader land use planning. A change of
government in 2007 led to a shift in priorities, and LUP has not been a priority on the provincial
agenda since that time. As a result, staffing has been cut in the Landscape Stewardship Branch
and in Land Use Planning in particular.
According to some respondents, the LUP practice is outdated (e.g. still uses zoning approach).
As one example, the 2008 Nisbet plan uses a zoning framework common to all provincial IFLUPs,
which includes the following three management zones:67
»» Protected – for areas where industrial activity or increased access will affect the
sustainability of ecosystems in the area, or for areas where cultural, spiritual or other
values need maximum protection. Industrial activity is not normally allowed in this zone;
»» Sensitive – for areas where site-specific guidelines for activities are required to protect
identified values;
»» Management – for areas where current legislation and policies are adequate to protect
ecosystem values – activities must follow current guidelines, policies and legislation.
67 Nisbet Integrated Forest Land Use Plan. 2008. Government of Saskatchewan. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/
adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=2265,645,621,247,94,88,Documents&MediaID=1281&Filename=Nisbet+Integrated+Forest+Land+Use+Dra
ft+v4.pdf&l=English. Accessed March 14, 2013.
57
In applying an EBM approach, land use planning in SK should (and may) be moving toward
landscape level, cumulative effects type of analysis that uses available scientific knowledge and
tools to deal with real landscape issues. There are some required organizational changes that
would present opportunities to evolve policy in this area.
Recent developments at the federal and provincial levels of government with respect to caribou
may be the catalyst to drive land use planning approaches. The current LUP process was used in
planning to define management constraints. According to some respondents, the province needs
to evolve to an optimization strategy where landscape thresholds are identified, as is the need to
maintain specific values. This requires refocusing on different questions to be asked, many under
the principles of an EBM approach to management e.g., how to manage linear corridor densities,
old growth, patch size and how better to maintain desired values on the landscape.
TABLE 7. SASKATCHEWAN’S ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA.
Selected EBM Criteria Yes/No/Partial

2 EBM is formally defined in policy & legislation. Partial
3 Landscape approach to EBM. Partial
4 Forest inventory linked to ecosites. Partial
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old growth). Partial
11 Models are used as decision support tools. Yes
Woodstock/Stanley
(Patchworks)
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition, Partial
other)
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work done. Partial (in progress)
16 Strategies for managing linear corridors (e.g, road management /closures) Partial
implemented.
1. EBM approach is mature

Saskatchewan is in the early stages of standardizing an EBM approach. To date, the province
has not formalized a body of policy or standards to direct what EBM means operationally. The
term EBM has been in use for over a decade in the province in that “Saskatchewan Environment
has embraced the concept of EBM, with the goal of maintaining ecosystem health and integrity
by managing human activities”. However according to respondents interpretation of what EBM
means in practice has varied considerably within government.
58
Under the newer Saskatchewan Environment Code (SEC) there are opportunities for defining
EBM more clearly in practice. The SEC is in development and presents an opportunity to
integrate EBM principles as chapters are finalized. The advantage of the SEC is that it crosses
sectors and provides acceptable baseline management solutions/objectives but encourages
innovation by creating opportunity for industry to propose alternatives.

In managing the forest resource, the Forest Service is guided by the principles of EBM,
sustainable forest management, adaptive management, public involvement and accountability.
These principles are more fully articulated in the Forest Management Planning Document
located in the Forest Planning Manual (Ministry of Environment, 2009).
1.9 Guiding Principles (from FMP Document)
The principles are based on the tenets of EBM, adaptive management, public involvement and
accountability.
1.9.1 Principle 1 - Ecosystem-based Management
»» The focus is on whole systems, rather than on individual resources or species

»» The prime management objective is to maintain ecosystem integrity and health
»» The most effective strategy for maintaining forest health and the potential for long-term
forest sustainability is to emulate natural disturbance patterns
There is no current direction or movement toward further formalizing the principles EBM in
legislation or policy, although the Forest Management Planning Manual is currently one of the
draft Saskatchewan Environmental Code chapters under development. According to some,
the term EBM hasn’t been helpful to date in terms of getting action and has almost been
counterproductive because it is too general and does not lend itself to the development of
concrete actions for implementation.
Some principles have been implemented through aspects of the current regulatory framework
(SK Environment Code). It is fair to say that the province is moving more toward ‘landscape
management’ or forest management at a landscape level – the idea of emulating natural
patterns is the Forest Service’s answer for what EBM means and how to implement it. However,
in areas without an IFLUP, FMPs are looking strictly at forest operations. In areas with an IFLUP,
the linkages between FMP and LUPs could be have been made.
The province’s renamed Landscape Stewardship Branch (formerly Lands Branch) will present new
opportunities to co-ordinate landscape planning. A focus on woodland caribou in the next round
of FMPs will also help to advance the implementation of EBM in practice.
3. Landscape approach to EBM (coarse and fine filter approach).

There has been a growing body of research in recent years to understand natural disturbances
(mostly fire) and the patterns they leave on the landscape. Saskatchewan faces some challenges
in that there is little data on historic forest condition to work with in setting benchmarks for
managing toward in a landscape approach. Recent policy initiatives have been targeted at the
development of landscape management standards and guidelines based on results of natural
disturbance research, referred to as natural forest pattern emulation (NFPE)68.
68 Implementation of Natural Disturbance Management. 2008. Weyerhaeuser, Saskatchewan Forestlands. http://www.sfmn.ales.ual-
berta.ca/en/Events/NetworkWorkshops/~/media/sfmn/Events/NetworkWorkshops/Documents/MB_landscape_wksp_Christensen.
ashx. Accessed March 22, 2014.
59
To date, some forest management plans have made efforts to incorporate a landscape
approach (e.g. 1999 Weyerhaeuser Prince Albert 20 year FMP, Weyerhaeuser’s Timex and
Mile 31 operating areas as pilot projects with the Prince Albert Model Forest)69. Mistik Forest
Management has also undertaken landscape analyses to incorporate findings into the Forest
Management Plan. However, SK has not yet developed forest management guidelines to direct
how a landscape approach would be consistently implemented.
4. Forest inventory linked to ecosites.

In practice, industry has been very successful at predicting eco-site classes using the
Saskatchewan Forest Vegetation Inventory. But so far, the Saskatchewan Forest Vegetation
Inventory (SFVI) does not yet integrate formally with ecosites. The Forest Ecosite Classification
manual for the province was just recently published after 10 years of work.
Some in the Forest Service feel that this new information will have tremendous value for
planning, and the province is in the process of trying to predict ecosites using vegetation
information and other parameters through predictive ecosite mapping. Projects to test the
accuracy of the mapping are currently underway. SK government and industry are also working
with Ducks Unlimited to classify wetlands and use the information to inform best management
practices for road construction in the province.

SK is in very good shape with the SFVI. All of the FMAs have inventories created in the last 10
years so they are fairly new and up to the SFVI standard. Approximately 95% of volume harvested
from FMAs is based on new inventory, although there are some areas (e.g. northern supply areas
with little active management) that are still operating on older inventories.
6. Cutblock size designed to emulate natural disturbance.

7. Cutblock shape designed to emulate natural disturbance.
Since 2002, government has encouraged industry to increase their average cutblock size and
leave more residual trees in the interior of the cut blocks in the form of singles, clumps and
islands. This practice has been supported by workshops on emulating natural disturbance with
Dr. David Andison who has carried out research on this in the prairie provinces.
SK is just now in the process of developing provincial standards and guidelines, which will
incorporate the emulation of natural disturbance into forest management planning and
operations. The intent is to manage the forest to maintain landscape patterns resulting from
natural disturbance (primarily fire) and by doing so, maintain the ecological processes and
species within forest ecosystems.
There are currently no formal size guidelines for cutblocks. The Forest Service currently specifies
no limitations on green-up periods and maximum block sizes (Section 3.5.9.11 FMP Document).
The industry has unofficially applied size constraints due to public concern e.g. for moose
management, which have crept into management unofficially over time. Additional constraints
have been driven by concerns of other stakeholders such as trappers, outfitters, cabin owners
and hunters, all of whom are licensed to be on the landbase in some way by Saskatchewan
69 Van Damme, L. and M. Donnelly. 2010. Forest Landscape Design: Fundamentals and Applications. Proceedings of a national
workshop in Winnipeg, Manitoba. April 2008. http://www.manitobamodelforest.net/publications/Landscape%20Design%20Work-
shop%20Summary.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2014.
60
Environment. The province is moving toward eliminating those artificial constraints as much as
possible and going with a science-based rationale. The Forest Service is currently working to try
and formalize standards for natural forest pattern emulation among other things.
The prevailing thinking is to develop a process to calculate targets, rather than prescribe cutblock
size across the boreal. Mistik Management applied a large disturbance approach in their last
forest management plan (approximately 8 years ago). It provides a good case study about how
larger disturbances can be integrated into forest management planning in Saskatchewan.
Federal targets on woodland caribou were presented in a recent SK conference on caribou

but may not make sense for SK. However, these were presented as a blueprint with options
for provinces to propose different approaches based on defensible data. SK will be working on
developing a science rationale for caribou in the coming years.

In SK, a percentage of required retention is worked into wood supply analysis with rules around
how it would look on the ground. Until now, there were FMA-specific standards in place.
However, the province is working with the forest industry to talk about new baseline standards
for retention in order to develop some consistency across the province.
9. Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old growth).
Because limited work has been done to date to assess the history of natural disturbance regimes
in SK, forest management planning does not presently include prescribed age class (including
old growth) objectives. However, regional targets are incorporated in the provincial wood supply
analysis and at the FMA level, age class and residual retention requirements are incorporated
into forest management plans. At this point (e.g. in the absence of work completed on NRV) the
determination of targets is fairly arbitrary but work is in progress to formalize this as discussed in
following sections.

The use of prescribed burning is extremely limited in Saskatchewan. The SK landscape does not
lend itself as well to the use of fire due to the lack of natural barriers and topography. There has
been some parks application in grasslands. In 2004, there was a provincial shift in fire strategy
and the Wildfire Management Branch of the Ministry of Environment has adopted a number of
wildfire management strategies in conjunction with forest fire management strategy zones70.
The management strategies allow fire to play a more natural and beneficial role on the landscape
and avoid costs associated with unnecessary fire suppression. The level of understanding of the
role of fire within government is very good and the Fire Branch has a healthy attitude about fire
suppression. The province has adopted the approach of letting fires burn unless there is a threat
to human life, or critical timber resources (as identified in co-operation with industry), or other
specific values.
The Ministry recognizes that for biodiversity conservation it would be ideal to burn cutblocks
after harvest to better emulate natural processes. However it is highly unlikely that this would
happen in near term. The province has also recognized the need to leave some burned areas
unsalvaged. This approach is currently being written into the SEC Chapter on forest management.
70 Saskatchewan Environment. 2011. Saskatchewan’s 2011 State of the Environment Report. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/
soereport2011. Accessed March 14, 2013.
61
Woodstock/Stanley were the provincial standard in SK, but some companies are moving toward
using Patchworks. The results-based approach in SK leaves room for innovation and some
companies and the government have experimented with Patchworks. Mistik Management got
approval from government to use another model in its planning process, so there is room for
flexibility based on sound rationale.

The province’s Representative Areas Network (RAN) program was established to represent
ecologically important lands and water and to fulfill two major roles as part of Saskatchewan
Environment’s ecosystem based management approach to planning:
»» To conserve samples of the range of biological diversity found in Saskatchewan; and,

»» To serve as benchmarks or long-term reference points that can be used to measure the
impact of management practices being applied outside of the network.
Through the RAN program the province set a target to achieve 12% protected areas, which
were mainly identified through a gap analysis based on enduring features and other landscape
variables. The 12% target was included as part of SK’s Biodiversity Action Plan71.
The program functioned at IFLUP level, which is the scale at which candidate PAs were identified.
Several ecoregions remain underrepresented and the province continues to identify candidate
areas and set these aside (interim) until they are formally regulated. As of 2010, approximately
6.7% of the province’s landbase was designated as protected72. While under interim protection,
industrial uses such as commercial timber harvesting, exploration, or industrial development for
minerals, oil and gas are not allowed. These sites are considered protected and will be treated in a
similar way to designated sites until regulation is complete.

The work done in SK so far has been somewhat piecemeal, though there was good work done by
Andison in 2006, who looked at approximately 29 fires73 . Forest Management Plans are required
to manage at a landscape level and maintain the species mix across the FMA.
However, SK has not yet completed the baseline science work to define pre-industrial forest
condition (PIC or PFIC) and set specific targets for forest management planning. The province is
currently challenged to define what age class distribution should look like, and there is little local
data to work with. As one solution, SK is looking at a larger area of the broader Boreal Plain in
order to set objectives for SK boreal. This work is ongoing through the SK Ministry of Environment
in co-operation with partners through the Foothills Research Institute74.
71 Saskatchewan Environment. 2006. Saskatchewan Representative Areas Network. http://gisweb1.serm.gov.sk.ca/publicweb/Map_

Gallery/Representative_Areas/pdf/RAN_of_SK_sept3_2006.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2013.
72 Environment Canada. 2014. Canada’s Protected Areas. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ap-pa/default.asp?lang=En&n=64068043-1. Accessed

March 8, 2013.
73 Andison, D. 2006. Determining Island Remnants and Meso‐scale Fire Patterns in Saskatchewan. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/
fic/10059b.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2013.
74 Doug Turner, SK MoE. Pers. comm.
62
The immediate goal of the current research is to understand the spatial patterns and the
processes of natural wildfire events across Alberta and Saskatchewan. The ultimate goal of
this project is to provide to land managers in Saskatchewan the basic knowledge required to
develop more robust and sustainable management guidelines/models for managing for historical
disturbance patterns at operational scales. A 2013 publication offers preliminary findings and
data as a starting point for defining natural disturbance patterns for the Western Boreal75.

In SK, there is definitely concern about white spruce at a landscape level. The province is looking
to forest management plans to see a more natural regime of white spruce re-established in some
areas. The broad approach is to use silvicultural strategies that are tied to regeneration standards
in forest management plans. In the Pasquia Porcupine FMA and in the Island Forests, the Forest
Service has invested significant capital in restoring softwood areas harvested in the first half of
the twentieth century.
16. Strategies for management of linear corridors (road management /closure)

The Ministry of Environment is currently leading the linear corridor chapter under the
Saskatchewan Environment Code (SEC), including developing standards for managing linear
corridors. For now, the FMP process provides some level of strategic planning opportunity for
roads. In general the state of roads inventory management is poor in SK, in part due to the lack
of a centralized roads database.
There is an extensively developed network of linear corridors in the province (roads, trails,
exploration lines, etc.) and particularly for older road systems, there is little clarity around what
they are for, who is responsible for them, or the level of use/recovery they are in. The province
is working through these issues jointly with industry and clarifying management responsibilities.
In some cases, the roads that the forest industry is responsible for are benchmarked through
FMA amendments. Upcoming direction on woodland caribou will drive a lot of this work at the
landscape scale and could also represent an opportunity to develop more robust linear corridor
strategies for the province using a coordinated approach. In the 2013 provincial budget the
Boreal Caribou Research Project received $250,000. The research funding will allow the province
to partner with industry, NGOs, Aboriginal groups, academia and the federal government
to design and conduct the studies necessary to determine the status of the boreal caribou
population and their habitat in the province76.
In May 2012, the Ministry of Environment established a “Woodland Caribou Technical

Committee”, which consists of researchers from the ministry, multiple universities, Parks Canada
and Environment Canada who are responsible for the guidance and direction for woodland
caribou research in Saskatchewan.
75 Andison, D. 2013 Wildfire Patterns in Western Boreal Canada. Healthy Landscapes Research Series Report No. 8. Foothills Research
Institute. http://foothillsri.ca/sites/default/files/null/HLP_2013_01_Rpt_WildfirePatternsWesternBorealCanada.pdf. Accessed March
8, 2013.
76 Yeen Ten Hwang, acting manager for the Science and Assessment Unit at the Fish and Wildlife Branch.
63
in planning process
The SK Forest Management Planning Document requires management alternatives to be
presented during the forest management planning process. Section 3.9 of FMP Document
requires the development of different management or alternative scenarios and the choice of the
selected management strategy. This includes development of baselines scenarios and candidate
scenarios, which are developed by the plan proponent and approved through government review.
Candidate scenarios must be presented to the planning team and public advisory group for review
as specified in the licensee’s approved consultation plan. However, there are opportunities for
improving communication in land use and forest management planning regarding the trade-offs
between development and maintaining values on the landscape. Consistent with the preferred
direction, this should be focused on optimizing identified values through management rather than
a constraints-based approach.

a. Saskatchewan is lacking data on pre-industrial/historic forest conditions to inform landscape-
level planning and targets. However, some of this work is currently in progress and includes
consideration of how to integrate fire history at an operational level.
b. The province, like many, is lacking a comprehensive roads inventory. Data is currently
piecemeal and maintained by licence holders. There is no centralized database or clear
responsibility for tracking roads or developing a road management strategy. However, some
work to address this issue is in progress. The MOE is currently leading the “linear corridor”
chapter under the Saskatchewan Environment Code (SEC), and this includes efforts to develop
standards for managing linear corridors.
c. There has been limited work done to date in the province with respect to woodland caribou in
forest management planning. The provincial caribou strategy for SK is still in very early stages
of development.
d. To date, managers have limited access to tools or guidelines for emulating natural disturbance
in operational planning. There is currently work in progress to better define historical
disturbance regimes to integrate into forest management planning.
e. The current LUP zonation approach is considered outdated. However there is limited
foundational information from which to develop a landscape planning approach that improves
integration across sectors.
6.3.5. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EBM IN SASKATCHEWAN

a. EBM has been articulated by government as a guiding principle in SK resource management
but lacks formal definition/guidelines in legislation & policy to date. One exception is the new
FMP document which provides more specific direction at the operational level.
b. The need to develop a landscape-level planning approach for SK has not been identified as
a priority until recently. Therefore, the province lacks any landscape planning framework to
integrate effects of development at regional/provincial scale.
c. The FMA-based approach to the development of management standards has led to

inconsistencies in standards between FMA areas. These are, to some extent, being addressed
through ongoing work under the new Saskatchewan Environment Code and other ongoing 64
initiatives.
d. The state of knowledge and data about linear corridors (roads, trails, exploration lines) is
currently limited and presents a barrier to developing sound management strategies. The
province is currently working with industry to clarify responsibility for roads management.
Future work to develop a provincial woodland caribou strategy may drive more work to develop
approaches for linear corridor management.
6.3.6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING EBM IN SASKATCHEWAN

a. Work is ongoing to operationalize the ‘emulation of natural disturbance’ concept and integrate/
evolve management practices under Saskatchewan Environment Code, specifically in the Forest
Management Planning section of the Code. This may present opportunities to integrate aspects
of EBM as new practices are defined.
b. The “linear corridor” chapter of the SEC is in progress and government is currently working with
industry to define management responsibilities for roads. In the northern part of the province,
caribou management may heighten the need to develop strategic approaches for linear corridor
management.
c. There will likely be increased need to develop landscape planning approaches for caribou
management in future. It is not determined yet how this will play out in SK but may represent an
opportunity to develop a framework that includes aspects of an EBM approach.
d. The recent SEC may present opportunities for flexibility and innovation under the move toward
‘results-based’ approaches (e.g. modeling, integrating new science as available).
6.4. Manitoba
Manitoba is not a major primary forestry jurisdiction compared to other boreal regions in Canada.
A small civil service of approximately 50 Forestry Branch staff administers the forestry program
from a head office in Winnipeg, supported by regional offices. This staff sets the policy and planning
framework for forest management throughout the province and maintains a forest inventory77.
Forestry development in Manitoba is regulated under several key pieces of legislation, including the
Forest Act, Environment Act and more broadly under the province’s Sustainable Development Act.
The Forest Act is primarily administrative in nature, it does not explicitly speak to either the concept
of ecosystem based management, sustainable forest management or equivalent in a preamble
or purpose section. Manitoba’s commitment to sustainable forestry practices is outlined on the
province’s Forest Branch website and is consistent with the principles of sustainable development as
entrenched in the province’s Sustainable Development Act.
Critics suggest that the guidelines set out in Schedules A and B, “Part 2, Section 3: Framework
for Implementing Sustainable Development” under the Act have never been implemented78.
Furthermore, the Principles and Guidelines of Sustainable Development have been incorporated into
the Environmental Impact Statements, and licensing requirements for many projects in Manitoba. In
the absence of completed Environmental Assessment requirements for licensing (e.g. no approvals
to date of 20-year forest management plans) there are fewer venues for public review of whether or
not the province is meeting its commitment to sustainable development in managing the province’s
forests.
77 Government of Manitoba. 2014. Forestry Branch. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/. Accessed March 14, 2013.
78 Manitoba Wildlands. 2013. RC-23: Does Manitoba’s Government abide by its Sustainable Development Act? http://manitobawildlands.
org/gov_rc23.htm. Accessed March 7, 2013.
65
Manitoba recently launched its “Green Plan”79 under which the province will “ensure that
all forest harvesting on public lands in the province meets or exceeds recognized third party
sustainable forest management certification systems.” The Green Plan also commits the province
to requiring long term Forest Management Plans for all forestry operations. In addition, the
Plan states that all new Forest Management License Agreements in Manitoba will require a
certification regime as a condition of licensing.

In 2000, the Government of Manitoba announced its acceptance of the Consultation on
Sustainable Development Implementation (COSDI) Report. The report recommended that the
implementation of sustainable development include the creation of Broad Area Plans (BAP) across
the province. Specifically, it advocated:
»» Wide area planning based on natural boundaries such as watersheds;

»» Improved public participation that includes involving the public at the earliest stages of a
development proposal;
»» Development of a protocol to ensure meaningful inclusion of Aboriginal communities in
land and resource planning and decision-making processes; and,
»» A review of the round table sustainable development strategies to ensure they are
coordinated and ready for implementation.
In 2004, broad area planning was initiated for the East Side of Lake Winnipeg (ESLW) as a pilot for
the rest of the province. The ESLW is not unlike Ontario’s Far North, in that it represents a large
expanse of undeveloped, contiguous, boreal forest containing remote communities and little
industrial development. Several phases of planning had been completed when Tembec closed
its Manitoba Pine Falls operations in 2009, reducing the level of industrial activity in the East
Side Area. A portion of the area is now included in a World Heritage Site proposal that spans the
Manitoba/Ontario border in an application made to UNESCO in 201280. Broad Area Planning in
Manitoba was not carried further than the East Side of Lake Winnipeg planning initiative, so like
most provinces Manitoba is lacking formal processes to integrate development planning across
multiple sectors and assess cumulative effects.
In other areas of the province, land use is subject to the Regulation 184/94 of The Planning Act,
which creates Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUPs) that are legally binding81. The PLUPs cover
nine policy sectors (e.g. agriculture, renewable resources, and recreational resources), as well
as general development and sustainable development. Provincial land use policies express the
provincial interest in the sustainable development of land, resources and infrastructure in the
form of broad land use policy direction82. A development plan or regional strategy must be
generally consistent with the Provincial Land Use Policies.
79 Government of Manitoba. 2014. Manitoba’s Green Plan. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/tomorrownowgreenplan/. Accessed

March 7, 2013.
80 Government of Manitoba. 2012. News Release: NOMINATION BID FOR PIMACHIOWIN AKI WORLD HERATAGE SITE COMPLETE,
READY FOR SUBMISSION TO UNESCO. http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/press/top/2012/01/2012-01-18-112600-13025.html. Accessed
March 11, 2013.
81 Government of Manitoba. 2013. http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/pdf/cap_partner/18_chpt11.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.
82 Government of Manitoba. 2014. Provincial Planning Regulation. http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/faqs.html. Accessed March 11,
2013.
66
6.4.3. LANDSCAPE PLANNING (COARSE AND FINE FILTER)
Manitoba has not yet incorporated the principles of practice of landscape planning into the
provincial requirements. In 2011, the Manitoba government commissioned a ‘white paper’ on
landscape design that was undertaken on behalf of the Manitoba Model Forest and the Forest
Practices Committee (FPC). This report was intended to inform senior managers within the
Government of Manitoba about landscape design principles. It was also developed in order
to help decision-makers determine how a more formal or structured approach to landscape
design could assist the government in achieving its sustainable development goals. To date,
no formal decisions on next steps have been taken but according to interviews, the FPC will be
recommencing discussion on the subject of landscape design in the coming months.
TABLE 8. MANITOBA’S ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA.

1 EBM approach is mature. No
2 EBM is formally defined in policy & legislation. No
3 Landscape approach to EBM. No
6 Cutblock size designed to emulate natural disturbance. No
7 Cutblock shape designed to emulate natural disturbance. No
8 Tree and residual structure retention standards emulating natural Partial
disturbance.
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old growth). No
Woodstock/
Stanley/Patchworks
12 Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem Yes
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition, No
other).
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work done. No
15 Efforts to restore natural landscape patterns and forest communities No
16 Strategies for managing linear corridors (e.g, road management /closures) Yes
implemented.
17 Trade-offs communicated clearly through presentation of management Partial
options in planning process.

Manitoba is in the early stages of development and implementation of an EBM approach to land
management relative to other provinces.
67
The commitment to an EBM approach in forestry in Manitoba originates indirectly from the
Sustainable Development Act, which provides the governing principles under which development,
including forestry, can proceed in Manitoba. The closest definition of an EBM approach is
described in Manitoba’s Sustainable Development Act, which speaks to ecological processes,
biodiversity and maintaining/restoring the productive capacity of natural systems.
The linkages between the legislation, forest policy and standards for EBM are not as strong
in Manitoba as they are in other provinces. The development of the EBM concept and
implementation through forest practices is still in very early stages as the province continues to
consider its options for a landscape approach.
Manitoba has a standing Forest Practices Committee (FPC) operating under the province’s Forest
Practices Initiative (FPI), which is led by the Forestry Branch of Manitoba Conservation. The intent
of the FPI is to promote best practices by presenting guidelines and standards for sustainable
forest management in Manitoba83. In recent years, the province has moved forward with the
development of guides and standards to direct more explicitly how forest operations and planning
shall be carried out in Manitoba.
The province’s guidelines for forest management plans use ecosystem integrity as a planning
principle, more specifically as follows: “Forests will be managed for ecosystem integrity, long-term
forest productivity and biological diversity, while providing an ecologically sustainable flow of
natural resources and ecosystem services.”84 However, the manner in which these principles are
incorporated into any given FMP are at the discretion of the proponent. According to some, this
affords opportunities for flexibility and innovation in the planning approach although the resulting
FMPs remain subject to approval by government. The question of plan approvals was identified
as challenging by some respondents in that there are proponents operating without approved 20-
year management plans.

3. Landscape approach to EBM (coarse and fine filter approach).
In MB, changes to provincial legislation and guidelines are still in the early stages of investigation
with respect to providing formal direction for landscape planning.
Natural disturbance pattern emulation requires an intimate understanding of historic fire

disturbance patterns on the landscape. In MB, a better understanding and additional analysis of
the historical fire regime is required to develop the best approximation of scale, frequency and
size of anthropogenic disturbance events on the landscape.
Additional research is still needed to increase the provincial knowledge base and scientific
understanding of the spatial requirements of Manitoba’s forests, especially related to the spatial
aspects of85:
»» Ecological land classification

»» Natural disturbance (fire regime analysis, etc.)
»» Old forest areas and conservation targets
»» Forest patch size
83 Government of Manitoba, Forestry Branch. 2014. Forest Practice Initiative. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/practices/
index.html. Accessed March 9, 2013.
84 Manitoba’s Submission Guidelines for Twenty Year Forest Management Plans. 2007. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/
pdf/practices/20_year_forest_plan_2007.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2013.
85 Van Damme, L. and M. Donnelly. 2010. Forest Landscape Design: Fundamentals and Applications. Proceedings of a national work-
shop in Winnipeg, Manitoba April 2008. Manitoba Model Forest. http://www.manitobamodelforest.net/publications/Landscape%20
Design%20Workshop%20Summary.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2013.
68
»» Maximum harvest block size
»» Harvest block size and frequency
»» Adjacent / proximal distance
»» Wildlife tree retention
»» Wildlife habitat requirements
»» Road networks
»» Silvicultural practices for landscape planning
Some respondents suggest that informal landscape planning is moving ahead due to moose
management requirements, caribou considerations or forest health issues. In the case of moose
habitat in Louisiana Pacific’s (LP’s) FML, the province has requested LP to revise their draft FMP
by developing harvest proposals following landscape planning principles to address moose
management and access control issues as one example.

The vintage and quality of the Forest Inventory (FI) for the province varies86. There is a base FI
provided by the province for planning purposes, however, interviews suggest that this may be
enhanced through additional funds/resources provided by licence holders for the purposes of
their operational planning. Depending on the work that licence holders have done, there may be
links to an ecosite classification within the FI. In that respect, Manitoba has not yet developed its
own ecosite classification system and uses northwestern Ontario’s “bluebook” for developing site-
specific silvicultural prescriptions.

Because there is no landscape level direction, the implementation of standards for elements
like cut size, shape and distribution are determined through informal policies that have evolved
over time. Regarding cutblock size, it has been limited in the past through the “line of sight”
requirement in the Wildlife Guide (e.g. not greater than 100 ha) but more recently, internal
direction provides that 20% of cutblocks can be up to 250 ha in size87. There may be exceptions for
forest health and/or deviations as approved by government.
Direction for achieving a more natural cutblock shape is prescribed only by the Wildlife Guide as
follows: “Cutblocks should have irregular boundaries to break line of sight and maximize edge
effect to benefit wildlife”.
The distribution of cuts is also addressed in the Wildlife Guide, which provides general direction
on the size and composition of leave blocks for species of concern (moose, caribou, elk, white-
tailed deer) as well as guidance for cutting in riparian zones.
While the province has made progress on new guides in recent years, the 1989 Wildlife Guide
is dated and provides very little scientific rationale for the standards it includes. As a guide, it
provides the basis for both the limited landscape and stand/site level standards that are currently
prescribed. At the same time, this represents an opportunity in that plan proponents in Manitoba
86 Government of Manitoba. The Evolution of Manitoba’s Forest Inventory. 2013. http://cif-ifc.org/uploads/Website_Assets/Boyd_EFI.
pdf. Accessed March 9, 2013.
87 Personal communication. Forestry Branch, March 2013.
69
have great flexibility in designing their own planning approach and some have attempted to do so.
For the company’s last 20 year plan, LP Canada Ltd., for example, enlisted the assistance of external
experts to assist in the development of more detailed biodiversity management strategies.
9. Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old growth).
There are no specific requirements to maintain old growth or late seral stage forest targets in forest
management plans. To date, limited research has been done for Manitoba to help define old growth
targets for the province’s Boreal region. Some work was done in 2004 through the Sustainable Forest
Management Network88, which provided the basis for the development of old-growth targets in
some management plans.

Manitoba does not use prescribed burning as a management tool.

There is no prescribed approach to modeling as a decision-support tool in Manitoba. LP used
Patchworks (spatial) to develop their most recent 20-year forest management plan. The province
subsequently purchased Woodstock (not spatial) and develops modeled “Conservation Wood Supply
Analysis Base Cases”89 for FMPs, defending the outcomes in public fora if required. The presentation
of modeling results allows the public to compare the base case to the preferred management model
developed.

Ecosystem representation is addressed through the Parks Branch of the Manitoba government.
Forest companies are provided with GIS shapefiles from Parks Branch regarding any candidate sites.
This analysis is done annually, and there are maps by year for last 10 years with representation
colour-coded (Manitoba Conservation Parks and Natural Areas).

To date, Manitoba has not undertaken any formal benchmarking initiatives or analysis of pre-
industrial forest condition. There has been some work done around fire history in the province
through the Sustainable Forest Management Network (Dr. Jacques Tardif, 2004 Fire History of Duck
Mountain Forest). This data is not formally integrated in guides or through the planning process,
but rather provides context for planning and has helped some companies set old-growth targets in
FMPs. However, under the requirements of FSC certification Tembec did have a pre-industrial forest
condition analysis (PIC or PIFC) completed for their Pine Falls FML through the Manitoba Model
Forest (using LANDIS). Some licensees have done benchmarking work as part of separate projects.
This work set, for example, old growth retention targets of 15-22% as well as species (strata) and
patch size targets.90 Regarding natural range of variation in the forest landscape, another example
88 Tardif, J. 2004. Fire history in the Duck Mountain Provincial Forest, western Manitoba. Sustainable Forest Management Network Project
Report 2003/2004. http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~jtardif/IMAGES/SFMNreport.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.
89 Manitoba Conservation. 2007. Manitoba’s Submission Guidelines for Twenty Year Forest Management Plans. http://www.gov.mb.ca/
conservation/forestry/pdf/practices/20_year_forest_plan_2007.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.
90 Incorporating Forest Certification and Species at Risk into Forest Management Planning 2008. Tembec Pine Falls FML. http://www.sfmn.
ales.ualberta.ca/en/Events/NetworkWorkshops/~/media/sfmn/Events/NetworkWorkshops/Documents/MB_landscape_wksp_Keenan.
ashx. Accessed March 11, 2013.
70
of data gaps from an energy sector perspective is provided by the Manitoba Hydro Bipole III
project. A key finding in 2012 hearing for the project concluded that the proponent did not
have sufficient data to outline the natural range of variability in order to assess whether effects
on moose were “ ...outside normal range of variation, or exceeded established threshold of
acceptable change”.91

To date, there are no formal requirements to manage toward a particular forest condition in
the FMP guidelines. However, the FMP guidelines do require management to achieve ecological
integrity and as part of setting appropriate plan objectives, proponents include targets for future
forest condition in FMPs that are subject to review as part of plan approval. For example, in the
Pineland Forest Section FMP and the Tolko FMP objectives, strategies and targets will be written
to maintain the softwood strata area over time.
16. Strategies for management of linear corridors (road management /closure)

In recent years, Manitoba has been facing a moose population crisis that has led to a moratorium
on moose hunting in some areas of the province (Duck Mountain, Porcupine Mountain, GHA 26
and GHAs 14 and 14A)92. This has led to a more stringent approach to road management and
closures, including traditional and new forestry roads in the affected parts of the province. In
conjunction with Manitoba Conservation’s Wildlife and Forestry Branches and forestry companies,
selected roads and trails are being closed by removing culverts, digging trenches and berms and
placing barricades at river crossings. This is being done in high moose density areas to restrict
truck travel, reduce off-road vehicle traffic and decrease access to areas where moose reside93.
According to some respondents, primary and secondary roads are also being closed in identified
caribou areas. The application of road closure techniques and the lessons learned could provide a
useful model for other areas of the province.

in planning process
Every 20-year forest management plan includes a requirement for management scenarios
modeling. As part of this process, each scenario is scored for objectives achievement, and
ranked as either 1, 2 or 3 under level of achievement. The preferred management approach is
stated with a rationale provided, with reference to the scoring on objectives achievement. The
planning guidelines also require the proponent and province to engage with Aboriginal groups
and stakeholders through the development of a communication plan at the beginning of the
planning process, which has the following minimum requirements for the provision of information
at various stages of planning:
»» management objectives
»» wood supply/modelling and scenarios
»» summaries of resource information
»» information to assist in an understanding of the FMP
»» access development
»» proposed operating areas
»» monitoring
»» mechanism to identify and collect values in the forest
91 Stewart, Abbie. 2012. Ungulate Information Gaps: Manitoba Hydro’s Bipole III Transmission Project. http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/
resource/hearings/36/MMF-015%20Ungulate%20Information%20Gaps1.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2013.
92 Government of Manitoba, Wildlife Branch. 2014. Moose Conservation Initiatives. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/
moose_initiative.html. Accessed March 9, 2013.
71
93 Ibid.
a. The linkages between EBM commitment in legislation and forest policy, practices and
standards remain weak to date.
b. Little of the foundational science work required to support EBM (particularly in the aspect
of emulating natural disturbance) has been completed in Manitoba, though the province
has integrated some science from adjacent jurisdictions in planning (e.g. Ontario ecosite
classification).
c. Development of landscape approach is in very early stages. The provincial Forest Practices
Committee (FPC) in cooperation with the Model Forest commissioned a ‘white paper’ on
landscape planning in 2011 but to date there has been limited further movement toward a
formalized approach.
d. There are some gaps in consistency of base planning data (e.g. Forest Inventory)
6.4.6. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EBM IN MANITOBA

a. Manitoba has a small civil service with limited resources to develop the science and policy
foundation for EBM in forestry and landscape planning.
b. It was suggested that fractured working relationships between government/industry in

some areas of the province may represent a barrier to advancing the yardsticks on forest
management planning in Manitoba.
c. To date, the province has developed limited regulatory frameworks, guides and standards
through which to advance EBM practice.
d. The professional capacity for advancement of EBM outside of government could be

considered limited compared to other provinces. This has resulted in less opportunities or
incentives for creative partnerships (e.g. academia, ENGOs, consultants) that would advance
EBM concepts.
6.4.7. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING EBM IN MANITOBA

a. Province may be revisiting landscape design initiative through the Forest Practices Committee
b. MB is developing new Woodland Caribou Conservation Strategy. This may drive the need for
landscape planning approach and formalizing aspects of EBM
c. Flexible provincial regulatory framework allows innovation by companies in their planning

approach (if supported by government review processes)
d. There may be opportunities to capitalize on some of the work Ontario has done in the
adjacent Boreal (including science), particularly in East Side Lake Winnipeg Area, and
synergies through the World Heritage Site nomination
e. The moose population crisis has resulted in (successful) implementation of a more stringent
approach to road management/closures
f. Manitoba’s “Green Plan” sets mandate for future work in areas of EBM (endangered species,
forest health, funds for monitoring programs) and may offer points of policy engagement
72
6.5. Ontario
Within the Canadian context, Ontario has developed one of the most comprehensive and
prescriptive forest management planning systems in the country. Over the last two decades,
the province has been integrating an EBM approach (or aspects thereof, also referred to as a
commitment to ‘sustainable forest management’) within the province’s policy and regulatory
framework. The commitments made in the Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests are
entrenched in law through the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA 199494). The goal of the CFSA
is to maintain long-term forest health. Forest health and ecosystem function are determined
by species composition, age-class structure and forest cover pattern. The policy under the CFSA
has been to emulate natural disturbance regimes (NDR) in terms of composition, structure and
pattern.
More recently, Ontario has made significant efforts toward the development of consolidated
forest management guides (e.g. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and Boreal Landscape Guides, Forest
Management Guide for the Conservation of Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales) that provide
direction for implementing EBM as defined in Ontario at the landscape (coarse filter) and stand/
site (fine filter) level.

At a higher level, land use planning in the province has occurred/is occurring in two distinct
regions: 1) The “Area of the Undertaking” (AOU) which describes that part of the province roughly
south of the 51st parallel where forestry operations are covered under an ‘evergreen’ Forest
Management Class EA approval, and 2) the “Far North”, where industrial activities have been
limited to date and land use planning is currently underway. Much of the AOU is extensively
developed, and the most recent active land use planning exercise occurred in 1999 at which time
a suite of new protected areas was created under the Ontario Living Legacy program. Since then,
it could be said that forest management planning has functioned as a proxy for land use planning
in the AOU.
TABLE 9. ONTARIO’S ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA.

1 EBM approach is mature Yes
2 EBM is formally defined in policy & legislation. Yes
4 Forest inventory linked to ecosites Partial
6 Cutblock size designed to emulate natural disturbance. Yes
7 Cutblock shape designed to emulate natural disturbance. Yes
8 Tree and residual structure retention standards emulating natural Yes
disturbance.
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old Yes
growth).
94 Government of Canada. 1994. Crown Forest Sustainability Act. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_

statutes_94c25_e.htm. Accessed March 11, 2013.
73
11 Models used for decision support. Yes
Strategic Forest
Management Model
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition, Yes
other).
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work done. Yes
16 Strategies for managing linear corridors (e.g, road management /closures) Partial
implemented.
17 Trade-offs communicated clearly through presentation of management Yes

1. EBM approach is mature
Ontario’s approach aligns quite closely with the CBFA definition of EBM, and can be described as
a multi-stakeholder, science-based approach that uses analyses such as natural range of variation
(NRV) and benchmarking (historic/pre-industrial forest condition) to set regional landscape targets
for emulating natural disturbance. At a finer scale, the Stand and Site Guide for the Conservation
of Biodiversity, in conjunction with species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and other management guidelines for forest operations are geared toward biodiversity
conservation at the stand and site level.
In the province’s new landscape guides, ‘landscape guide regions’ are groupings of Forest
Management Units that describe an area covering tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands
of square kilometers, roughly equivalent to ecoregions. Most detailed planning is done and
implemented at the forest management unit level. However, context for planning is set by the
development of ecoregional objectives/targets based on work done to establish the Natural
Range of Variation (NRV) for Ontario landscapes.

Ontario’s Crown Forest Sustainability Act principles include the following:
The Forest Management Planning Manual shall provide for determinations of the
sustainability of Crown forests in a manner consistent with the following principles:
1. Large, healthy, diverse and productive Crown forests and their associated ecological
processes and biological diversity should be conserved.
2. The long term health and vigour of Crown forests should be provided for by using
forest practices that, within the limits of silvicultural requirements, emulate natural
disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing adverse effects on plant life,
animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values
and heritage values. 1994, c. 25, s. 2 (3).
74
4. FRI is reliable.
Ontario has had a forest resources inventory (FRI) standard in place since 1961 based upon the
interpretation of aerial photographs. All Canadian provinces use photo interpreted forest inventory
supported by various forms of growth and yield plot data. Other jurisdictions outside of Canada
focus on plot-based systems featuring growth and yield predictions. This is because the forests are
well-accessed and the issues are growth rates, composition, piece size and other quality aspects.
As forest access further matures in Canada, the forest inventory will also mature from being more
concerned about where things are to being more concerned about growth and quality aspects.
The enhanced or eFRI uses high resolution near infrared imagery that is more expensive than the
traditional black and white images although softcopy interpretation is cheaper. Total costs are about
$1.50/ha, which is not significantly higher than the FRI of a decade ago.
The eFRI delivers twice as many polygons per map sheet and is driven strongly by ecosite
interpretation. Traditional FRI had ecosite attributes as well but the polygons were driven more by
species composition than ecosite. All the eFRI data is more accurate than the traditional FRI. But
the production schedule and priorities do not align well with SFL needs (e.g. the first eFRI completed
in 2006 was Quetico Park). The imagery requires significant investments in skills and technology to
be accessible and useful to operations planners.
The eFRI delivered by MNR will be a significant improvement due to the superior image quality
compared to earlier FRIs when fully implemented. The eFRI features consistent base data. This
consistency has some advantages in terms of building analytical systems but comes at a cost to
innovation. In the previous decade when Sustainable Forest Licence holders (SFL) paid for the
FRI, there were multiple strategies that included making do with old inventory updated for known
disturbances, a continuous forest inventory system deployed by one SFL holder, and the first use of
LiDAR95 by another SFL holder.
MNR’s original FRI standard was on par with most jurisdictions in Canada. Alberta had a more
comprehensive certification process and tracked forest stand vertical and horizontal pattern
attributes. Licensees pay for the forest inventory in Alberta and many elect to use leaf on and leaf
off images to better estimate mixed wood conifer composition. New Brunswick has used true colour
at a scale of 1:21500 for some time.
The eFRI will undoubtedly improve the data associated with the boreal forest and improve species
composition estimates of the hardwood-dominated forests of southern and central Ontario. The
eFRI will move Ontario in league with or ahead of Alberta and New Brunswick.

Emulation of Natural Disturbance paradigm (and associated landscape management guides) is a
biodiversity risk management strategy at the coarse filter level. Since we don’t know the specific
habitat and environmental needs of all species (plants and animals), the least risky strategy is to
follow patterns created by nature, and to ensure ecological processes remain intact (i.e. conserve
ecological integrity).
This paradigm has been applied in forest management plans beginning in 1996 for tree species
composition and age class structure. In 2004, the Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guide
(NDPEG) introduced cut block size distributions and tree retention guidelines based upon natural
pattern emulation studies. The stand and site guide released in 2011 further improved upon the
NDPEG. The draft Boreal Landscape Guide is not yet approved but will combine species composition,
age class and cut block size and pattern guidance in one seamless document.
95 LiDAR is a laser send and receive sensor that provides data that allows for detailed land surface and forest canopy 3D models. 75
The Species Recovery Plans now required under the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA
2007) are fine filter risk management approaches meant to rescue specific species in peril. Prior
to this development, guidelines were in place for fine filter approaches using featured species
such as marten.

growth).
See above.
10. Prescribed burning used as a management tool.

The use of prescribed burning as a management tool has been out of favour in Ontario for some
time, in part due to the prohibitive cost of implementation as well as some lack of clarity around
responsibilities between government and the forest industry. In the social context, prescribed
burning also comes with public health concerns to be managed in more populated areas of the
province.
However, there is a renewed interest in the province to use fire as one of a suite of EBM
tools. A less stringent approach to fire suppression in some areas of the province (e.g. large
parks in northern Ontario) has been adopted insofar as human life, health or property are not
endangered. Mechanical site preparation, also used historically as a common forest regeneration
tool, potentially represents another tool for emulating natural disturbance. The use of
mechanical site preparation declined throughout Ontario in recent years. This is partly attributed
to a drive toward reducing silviculture costs, but also a reflection of changes in harvesting
practices (e.g. move to full-tree harvesting and moving slash to roadside) as well as improved
silvicultural technologies and inputs (e.g. better planting stock and higher reliance on chemical
site preparation and tending).
11. Models used for decision support.

All Canadian jurisdictions use computer simulation tools or forest estate models to varying
degrees as part of decision support systems. A 2007 Australian study found the North American
forest estate models to be well developed and worthy of adoption.
“Optimization forest harvest scheduling models (e.g. Strategic Forest Management Model
(SFMM)) have become the dominant computer technology used for strategic level forest
planning, as they have enabled forest managers to:
»» Generate repeatable and timely forest planning solutions (harvest schedules) that
maximize or minimize goals (financial, volume, non-economic values);
»» Evaluate impacts of complex policy and planning issues on wood supply and cash flow;
and,
»» Build in a multitude of temporal wood supply, operational, financial and area
constraints.
76
However, the strategic model scenarios have often been developed to provide optimistic
solutions that represent the upper level of forest productive capacity. Increasingly it is
recognized that spatial constraints that apply at an operational level need to be considered
to ensure that strategic level wood supply forecasts equate to what can actually be
harvested on the ground. Spatially explicit forest planning systems such the Remsoft Forest
Planning System (Spatial Woodstock and Stanley), Harvest and Habitat Model (Oregon
State University), and Patchworks (Spatial Planning Systems in Ontario) all address spatial
considerations. Remsoft addresses the problem as a two-stage hierarchical problem using
linear programming for the strategic model and heuristics for the tactical model, while
Oregon State University and Spatial Planning Systems have developed fully integrated
models based on heuristic technology. Both approaches provide the ability to create harvest
units (blocking) and address the main suite of spatial and temporal planning restrictions
that forest managers are confronted with today.” 96
Ontario relies mainly upon the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM). SFMM is very easy
to calibrate and run, but the range of options and analytical power is relatively limited compared
to Woodstock Stanley. However, SFMM provides rapid diagnostics of future forest conditions
and helps to rationalize silvicultural investments. It provides a common language and has a
large user group in Ontario’s forest management planning community. SFMM’s ability to make
spatially explicit forecasts of future forest conditions is limited. However, SFMM is more capable
of describing expected future forest species composition because the succession pathways
are based upon probabilities rather than deterministic outcomes as is the case in models like
Patchworks. For this reason, SFMM will likely remain an important part of Ontario’s decision
support system.
The Patchworks model creates snapshot maps and attributes tables of future forest conditions
that can drive habitat supply models, forest health vulnerability models and economic models.
The model can also be configured to set constraints for green up, view shed and water shed
harvest thresholds (e.g. LP Canada)97. Woodstock Stanley can also be used in an iterative process
to produce similar maps of future forest conditions and model effects of spatial constraints (e.g.
Millar Western 1996 DFMP).
SFMM could be complemented with more in depth analysis using other tools like Patchworks. In
fact, the 2011 Martel Forest Management Plan (FMP) provides a compelling case study of how
this can be done in Ontario.
12. Process to Ensure Adequate Representation of Natural Range of Ecosystem

Types.
The Lands for Life and Living Legacy Programs98 in the late 1990s were designed to ensure
adequate representation of ecosystem types. The living Legacy Strategy was last amended in
2010. Ecosystem representation is also considered in individual forest management plans.
96 Turland, J. 2007. North American Forest Modeling Approaches and Technology and their Potential Application to Australian Native
Forest Management Project PG06-5046: Growth and Yield Modeling and Harvest Scheduling in Uneven-aged Mixed Species Forests.
World Forest Institute, Portland, OR, 118 pp. http://wfi.worldforestry.org/media/publications/specialreports/Modeling_Turland.pdf.
97 Swan Valley Forest Management Plan Website.: http://www.swanvalleyforest.ca/planning/LongTermPlan.html. Accessed March 7,

2013.
98 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2014. Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/
LUEPS/2ColumnSubPage/STDU_137970.html. Accessed March 7, 2013.
77
Forests within the woodland caribou range devote considerable amounts of time dealing with
this issue formerly through forest management plans and more recently through the application
of the Caribou Recovery Strategy99.
The provincial Woodland Caribou Recovery Strategy has the following goal:
“Maintain self-sustaining, genetically-connected local populations of forest-dwelling

woodland caribou where they currently exist; ensure security for and (reproductive)
connections among currently isolated mainland local populations; and re-establish caribou
in strategically selected landscape units to achieve self-sustaining local populations and
ensure connectivity.”
Some forest certification standards (as well as the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA)) are
also driving current protected areas gap analyses in various parts of the Canadian boreal region
as part of an interest in completing protected areas systems where gaps in representation are
identified. These fall under the heading of voluntary initiatives (generally in the form of harvest
area deferrals on forest management licences) as opposed to formalized government processes
to create new protected areas. The long-term outcome of these initiatives remains unknown.
13. Natural benchmarks used in planning

14. Natural Range of Variation (NRV) baseline work complete.
The strategic model SFMM is calibrated to account for fire return intervals prior to fire
suppression and a simulation run without harvesting is used to forecast expected forest
composition and age class structures. This run sets the NRV values. The planning teams set
harvest levels through a series of SFMM simulation runs to be within 80 % in Northwestern
Ontario and 75% in Northeastern Ontario relative to the NRV values for species composition,
wildlife habitat and age class distribution.
The natural benchmark for patch size distribution and residual patch retention used in the
Natural Pattern Emulation Guide (NDPEG 2004) was based upon examining 42 wildfires that
burned without fire suppression. MNR developed more sophisticated modeling and used survey
records to further improve estimates of natural benchmarks and NRVS. This work is available
online100 and supported the recent development of the Boreal Landscape Guides that are
expected to be approved once the plans supporting the caribou recovery strategy are approved.
15. Restoration of Natural Landscape Patterns and Forest Communities

Much of Ontario’s boreal forests began to be exploited for timber (spruce) in an organized way
in the 1920s along rail lines and river systems. Horses were used to move the logs to river drive
systems in winter. Lowland spruce forests regenerate easily and recover to pre disturbance
functions over a period of time. Upland spruce stands and mixed wood stands regenerated
naturally to mixed woods of aspen, fir and to a lesser extent spruce. Tree planting of spruce
to help correct problems on upland stands began in the 1960s but often failed due to lack
of tending. White pine forests along the southern transition to the boreal forest were fully
exploited and were not regenerated from 1940-1975.
99 Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2008. Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (Forest-dwelling, Boreal Popula-
tion) in Ontario. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 93 pp. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/
stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/document/251755.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2013
100 Ontario’s Landscape Tool and Science and Information Packages 2014 - download page. http://www.olt.tbayteldirectit.com/.
78
Exploitation of jack pine and hardwood upland forests began in the 1970s and these stands
regenerate relatively easily naturally or when assisted by site preparation and aerial seeding on
pine sites. By the 1980s it became clear that the abundant spruce and pine forests common to
natural fire systems were in decline and a concerted effort began through Forest Management
Agreement funding to expand site preparation, tree planting and tending. By the 1990s these
systems were proving to be effective at maintaining existing forest cover composition and to
a limited degree restoring forest composition to natural levels. Various measures to protect
old forest and the harvest scheduling using SFMM with the implementation of the CFSA is
now helping to restore forest structure ( age class distribution and stand level diversity) to
more natural levels. With the introduction of NDPEG in 2004, harvests began to follow natural
patterns.
During this time, natural disturbances helped to restore natural patterns and communities to
some degree but fire suppression reduced this rate of restoration. Once mixedwood forests
are established they are resilient to change even to wildfire. In general the current forest
management programs are very slowly restoring the forest to more natural species compositions
and patterns. This work is being done through forest renewal accounts paid into by the licenses
that harvest the forest. An interesting public policy question is whether or not the current rate
and effectiveness of restoration is adequate and should more aggressive programs be desired
and who should pay for them?
16. Strategy for managing linear corridors (road management/closures) actively

implemented.
All forest management plans have forest access considerations that include road abandonment
most often to protect remote tourism and caribou habitat values. Various road abandonment
techniques have varying degrees of success. Increasingly roads are being gated, bermed and
treated to encourage reforestation and protect resource values. These programs can be costly
and offend others who would prefer greater access (e.g. hunters, trappers and prospectors).
Mineral exploration and development tended to work off of existing road networks. But recent
ore bodies (e.g. Ring of Fire) may lead to new road networks and may have cumulative effects on
the environment with forest access roads. This is of particular concern in areas with woodland
caribou where predators are believed to follow linear features and increase resulting predation
levels.
17. Trade-offs communicated through management scenarios.

Ontario has a highly developed planning and reporting system that communicates trade-offs and
issues to the public and stakeholder groups. The planning manual includes a process to develop
what is referred to as the “Long Term Management Direction (LTMD)”. The planning team, in
consultation with a local citizen’s committee (LCC), identifies desired benefits from the forest
and sets objectives to achieve them. Through the use of long term model projections different
levels of harvest renewal and tending are investigated to predict the short, medium and long-
term economic, social and environmental benefits. These predictions are used to assess objective
achievement and to assess the sustainability of the proposed management strategy.
When developing the management strategy, objectives for both timber and non-timber
values (e.g. wildlife habitat, biodiversity, landscape pattern) are considered. The result is the
establishment of sustainable, long-term management direction for the management unit. There
is an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the proposed long-term direction
prior to regional director endorsement101.
101 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2014. Forest Management Plans - website. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/
Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_163549.html. Accessed March 11, 2013.
79
a. Ontario, like most other provinces, lacks an integrated land use planning framework in the
Area of the Undertaking. It could be said that forest management planning has been used as a
proxy for land use planning since the conclusion of province’s last large-scale land use planning
exercise (Ontario’s Living Legacy circa 1999).
b. The province’s 1994 Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests should be updated to reflect
uptake of EBM principles and approach and the evolution in science and policy since it was first
developed.
c. The province is considering exemption of forest industry from requirements under Endangered
Species Act. According to some respondents, this may create new gaps in biodiversity
conservation policy in the province.
6.5.5. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EBM IN ONTARIO

a. There are few policy barriers to EBM in Ontario – the province has made solid progress with
trying to operationalize EBM concepts through policy, legislation and standards.
b. One of the real limitations to advancing restoration objectives and other EBM management
concepts are economic: Ontario has among the highest delivered wood costs in the world due
to terrain, slow growing conditions and some requirements under the CFSA. Under an already
highly prescriptive planning and management regime, finding the additional funds to advance
EBM in practice (although in many cases the science foundation exists) will be a significant
barrier
c. Other key challenges in Ontario can be characterized as implementation gaps. For example, the
Independent Forest Audit (IFA) process in Ontario repeatedly highlights some of the areas where
the province is falling short on achieving management objectives as defined in approved forest
management plans. Despite this, practices remain unchanged - slash disposal is one example of
this and appears repeatedly as a recommendation in IFAs. This is also seen in recent concerns
about widespread underachievement in meeting renewal standards as defined in forest
management plans, as per 2011 Auditor General`s report
d. Ontario is still working on developing robust feedback loops (better monitoring) for assessing
effectiveness of practices (e.g. recent efforts to improve Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring or
SEM). This is a critical aspect of a responsive adaptive management system and yet it remains
elusive in Ontario and other jurisdictions.
6.5.6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING EBM IN ONTARIO

a. In general, Ontario has developed a highly evolved regulatory system under the CFSA
b. Recent policy changes regarding prescribed burns may allow for the re-introduction of this
important EBM tool
c. Widespread adoption of voluntary third-party certification systems in Ontario provides

additional points of engagement for moving yardsticks on aspects of EBM
d. There are opportunities to capitalize on capacity developed amongst NGOs, industry and
government through established working relationships and creative partnerships across the
province
e. The Far North provides a unique opportunity for piloting innovative and collaborative 80
approaches to land use planning in a largely intact Boreal region
6.6. Quebec
On April 1st, 2010, new legislation (Law 57: Loi sur l’aménagement durable du territoire forestier/
Sustainable Forest Development Act) was introduced in Quebec and will progressively replace
the former Forest Act. The new legislation initiated the implementation of a new management
system with a shift in the responsibilities for forest management in the province of Quebec.
Since April 1st, 2013, forest management is using what is described as an “ecosystem-based
approach”. Other changes include the transfer of all landscape and operational planning
responsibilities on Crown lands back to the provincial government. Third-party forest certification
(certificates) will be maintained by the companies operating on and taking wood from Crown
lands, with collaboration from government.
There have been some delays in obtaining final approval for the suite of new regulations and
guides (RADF) and as of April 2014, the new regulations had not been formally approved. Caribou
Plans and Special Management Directives developed under section 25.3 of the Forest Act will
continue to apply until replaced by new regulations. Most of these management directives move
away from the previous, smaller mosaic approach to larger agglomerations of cut blocks, much
more in line with EBM and caribou conservation objectives.
The province’s policy approach to EBM is now better developed in that stronger linkages between
legislation, policy and standards have been made under the new forest management regime. In
Article 4.2 of the new legislation (Law 57: Loi sur l’aménagement durable du territoire forestier /
Sustainable Forest Development Act, 2010), EBM is established as a guiding principle (explanatory
notes) as follows:
“This Act establishes a forest regime designed, above all, to implement sustainable forest
development, in particular through ecosystem-based development aimed at ensuring the
sustainability of the forest patrimony.”
The Act defines “ecosystem-based development” as development that consists of ensuring the
preservation of the biodiversity and viability of ecosystems by reducing the differences between
developed and natural forests.
Quebec’s new Reference Manual for Ecosystem-based Management 102explicitly defines

ecosystem‐based management as follows:
“Ecosystem-based management is an ecological vision applied to the sustainable

management of forests. Its implementation aims to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity
and ecosystem viability by reducing the differences between managed forests and forests
that are considered natural. At the same time, ecosystem-based management aims to meet
socioeconomic needs, while respecting the social values related to the forest environment.”
It should be noted that there are two distinct planning areas in Quebec, which are subject
to different regulations and standards. The “La Paix des Braves” agreement” area (e.g. an
agreement signed in 2002 between the Government of Quebec, Canada, and the Grand Council
of the Crees) is subject to the “Cree-Québec Adapted Forestry Regime” that is applicable in part
in the Nord-du-Quebec region and in the James Bay Region103.
102 Reference Manual for Ecosystem-based Forest Management in Quebec. Module 1 Foundations and Implementation Approach.
2011. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. Government of Quebec. http://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/
forest/ecosystem-based-management.pdf
103 Gowlings. 2014. Our People: Jean-Sebastien Clement. http://www.gowlings.com/OurPeople/jean-sebastien-clement. Accessed

March 13, 2013. 81

In this region, the old mosaic approach to cutting was preferred as a means for protecting traplines
and other values (e.g. no one trapline was completely cut over at the same time). This regime in
the Nord-du-Quebec and James Bay regions might be at odds with the EBM approach, particularly
with caribou conservation strategies as implemented in the rest of the province104. (The scope of this
report does not permit a separate evaluation of what this separate management regime means for
EBM in Quebec.)

Under the new Act, the Government will be supporting regional governments in preparing Regional
Land Use Plans, called “Plans régionaux de développement intégré des ressources naturelles et du
territoire” (PRDIRT) for the integrated development of natural resources. These higher-level plans
set out general orientations as well as development objectives for each region. They include the
identification of ecological issues for the region (e.g. white pine regeneration issue, old-growth
forests, lack of complexity in forest structure) and may set target levels for restoration. The PRDIRTs
should incorporate regional development objectives as well, as a way to reduce conflicts between
industries (forestry, mining, tourism) using the same territory.
The responsibility for preparing the operational plans (there are three levels: tactical, operational
and annual) consistent with the objectives of the PRDIRT belongs to the Ministère des Forêts, de la
Faune et des Parcs. The Tactical Plan (PAFI-T) describes each ecological issue, explains the strategy
and set the targets for restoration. Lower level plans have to be consistent with the PAFI-T.
TABLE 10. QUEBEC’S ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA.

1 EBM approach is mature. No
4 Forest inventory linked to ecosites. Yes
7 Cutblock shape designed to emulate natural disturbance. Yes
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old growth). Yes
Woodstock/Stanley
12 Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem types/ Yes
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition). No
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work complete. Yes
16 Strategies for managing linear corridors (e.g. road management /closures) No
104 Association Forestiere de L’Abitibi-Temiscamingue. 2009. The New Agreement (Paix des Braves). www.afat.qc.ca/images/
file/1_65080Colloque2.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2013.
82
The forest protection strategy, adopted in 1994, was designed to reduce the frequency of natural
disturbances by maintaining conditions that reduced the likelihood of epidemics, windfall,
forest fires and invasive vegetation, while taking into account the ecological fragility of some
environments. The strategy led, in particular, to the elimination of chemical insecticide and
herbicide spraying in the forest, beginning in 2001. Forest managers were required to:
»» Maintain biodiversity to increase stand resistance to epidemics;

»» Respect forest dynamics to reduce the time needed to return areas to production;
»» Give priority to natural regeneration that is already established in order to maintain
target species;
»» Respect the properties of each forest site that govern stand production; and,
»» Reduce forest vulnerability in order to limit losses from disturbances.
A more focused EBM approach started in 2003 through a broad public consultation process.
In 2005, a series of 11 objectives and indicators for sustainable forest or ecosystem-based

management were approved by the Government (OPMV). All OPMV objectives were integrated
in annual operational plans (forestry) for the period 2008-2013. These included objectives
such as reducing erosion and loss of forest area and maintaining viewscape quality, but also
included some objectives under the umbrella of EBM such as protecting endangered species and
maintaining old-growth forests. However, most of these objectives were lost in the transition
towards the new regime and were not reported upon by the licensees.
In 2002-2003, three pilot projects were also initiated in order to develop and test the approach
in various contexts105. The Sustainable Forest Development Act replaced the Forest Act on April
1, 2013, and the new regime will bring in some major changes, especially with respect to forest
planning.
2. EBM is formally defined in policy/legislation.

In Article 4.2 of the new legislation (Law 57: Loi sur l’aménagement durable du territoire forestier/
Sustainable Forest Development Act, 2010), EBM is established as a guiding principle. From the
explanatory notes:
“This Act establishes a forest regime designed, above all, to implement sustainable forest
development, in particular through ecosystem-based development aimed at ensuring the
sustainability of the forest patrimony.”
The law defines “ecosystem-based development” as development that consists in ensuring the
preservation of the biodiversity and viability of ecosystems by reducing the differences between
developed and natural forests.
As described by Article 11 and 12 of the new legislation (Law 57: Loi sur l’aménagement durable
du territoire forestier/Sustainable Forest Development Act) the government has to develop a new
sustainable forest management strategy (SADF) and a new regulation (RADF) defining the various
operating criteria for achieving the EBM objectives. The implementation date was scheduled to
be April 1st, 2013. The adoption of the new regulation (RADF) has been postponed until 2015.
105 Ressources Naturelles Quebec. 2014. L’aménagement écosystémique : au cœur de la gestion des forêts. http://www.mrn.gouv.
qc.ca/forets/amenagement/amenagement-ecosystemique.jsp#projets. Accessed March 14, 2013.
83
3. Landscape approach to EBM (coarse and fine filter).
In 2010, a reference manual on how to apply EBM on Crown land was made public. It uses the
coarse and fine filter approaches. At this time, it is only a reference manual that has no legal
value, because there is no SADF and RADF (approved regulations) to enforce its implementation
for the 2013-2018 period. However, enforcement was not an issue since government was now
responsible for the implementation.
With the new spatially-explicit yield calculation results for 2013-2018 from the Chief Forester’s
Office and with the associated geographic database results, a landscape approach per FMUs
will be possible (the calculations integrate landscape considerations for caribou habitat, moose
management and other values in wood supply analyses). Using this approach, planning for
the period 2013-2018 and subsequent forest management plans might be able to consider
landscape-level objectives.

The classification by ecosite is available for all 70 forest management units in the province.

The forest resources information reliability is high – the whole province is updated every ten
years. Quebec has nearly completed the 4th inventory cycle and has 12,000 Permanent Sample
Plots (PSP) that have been re-measured every 10 years to support growth and yield information.
The provincial base map gets updated every 2 years.
Significant improvements were achieved in recent years by the Chief Forester’s Office, in order to
improve the reliability and accuracy of the inventory. In future, it is possible that the funding to
maintain the adequacy of the information will become an issue. Also, the lack of reliability of the
forest inventories for the mixed and deciduous forests remains an issue.
6. Cut block size designed to emulate natural disturbance

The former Operational Standard for Crown Land (RNI) did define a size distribution and a
maximum cutblock size (varying from 25 to 150 ha), but will be replaced with the new regulation
(RADF) within a few years.
For the ecosystems dominated by large fires where some species such as caribou require larger
disturbances, a derogation under the RNI has been used since 2008 to allow larger openings.
A document was prepared in 2007 by the MNR explaining agglomeration sizes allowed and
variable retention requirements. The notion of clusters of cut blocks size was introduced with an
emphasis on the distribution of cuts over the Forest Management Unit. A target distribution for
the size of the clusters must be respected. The guide Répartition spatiale des interventions dans
la pessière à mousse : orientations concernant les dérogations à la coupe en mosaïque (2007)
provides the details.

The cut block or clusters of cut blocks must follow the shape of natural stands. This is described
in a guide: Répartition spatiale des interventions dans la pessière à mousse : orientations
concernant les dérogations à la coupe en mosaïque (2007) and is also considered in spatial
calculations for 2013-2018 wood supply analysis.
84
The guide “La coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols avec rétention de bouquets
- Fondements et exécution opérationnelle (2011)“ provides directions on variable retention
requirements.
A series of practices may be applied within each cut block, depending on certain criteria,
including:
»» Islands of old growth or mature trees may be left within the cut block
»» A minimum number of mature trees are left over the cut block
»» Buffers of protected stands are located between cut block within a cluster
»» Buffers of protected stands are located along permanent streams.
Retention standards are also included in the calculations for 2013-2018 wood supply analysis.
The requirements are described in guides and provincial direction as follows:
»» Partie I : intégration aux calculs de la possibilité forestière (2005)

»» Partie II : intégration à la planification forestière (2005)
»» Lignes directrices rattachées à l’objectif sur la conservation du bois mort dans les forêts
aménagées : sélection de lisières boisées riveraines à soustraire de l’aménagement
forestier (2006)
»» La coupe avec protection de la régénération et des sols avec rétention de bouquets -
Fondements et exécution opérationnelle (2011)
»» Structure d’âge intégrée au calcul des possibilités forestières 2013-2018
The MRN requirement for 5% of variable retention within the cutblocks only applied to a fraction
(20%) of cutblocks. However, forest certification has increased the use of variable retention as
standard practice.

growth).
This criteria was introduced in 2005, but was applied for the period 2008-2013 at the operational
level only. For the period 2013-2018, it will be introduced at the planning level because the
Chief Forester’s Office will be able to generate a gap analysis and a plan to respect the minimum
old-growth criteria over time for each FMU. These targets will be integrated in the new forest
management plans for 2013-2018. The level of old-growth generally required is set to about 30%
of the natural levels.
10. Prescribed burning used as a management tool.
The use of prescribed burn is strictly controlled and limited to experimental situations and used
in national parks106 in Quebec. There are no policy barriers per se although permits are required
from the Société de protection des forêts contre le feu (SOPFEU or fire protection agency) and
the agency is quite reluctant to issue permits due to past issues with out-of-control fires.
Prescribed burning had been used in the province mainly to get rid of roadside slash in order to
facilitate reforestation. Due to some past situations where slash fires got out of control, industry
has moved away from using burns in recent years.
106 Parks Canada. 2013. Vegetation in Forillon National Park | Prescribed burn. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/qc/forillon/natcul/
FLORE/chene-rouge/brulage-dirige/gal3.aspx. Accessed March 14, 2013.
85
For the period 2013-2018, for all of Quebec’s 70 forest management units, the Chief Forester’s
Office used a spatially explicit software (Woodstock/Stanley) to conduct the provincial wood
supply analysis.
These models developed by the Chief Forester’s Office can be used as decision support tool for
the local/regional tables (TGIR). However, considering the resources and technical knowledge
required to be able to benefit from these models and the fact that new indicators have to be
added the FEC models, very few regions have done it so far.
12. Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem types/

There is process in place under the leadership of the Ministère du Développement Durable, des
Parcs et de la Faune (Ministry of Sustainable Development, Parks and Wildlife). The process aims
at filling the gaps identified in a previous gap analysis, based mainly on enduring features.
As of March 2014, there was 9.1% protected areas in Quebec. There are many projects under
study and the objective is to reach 12% by 2020 for the continuous boreal forest and 20% by
2035 for the area covered by the Plan Nord. Roughly 42% of the continuous boreal forest is
located north of the northern limit of the timber supply allocations.
At the present time, an average of 27-28% of the territory of the province is under various
levels of protection, in exclusions or under restrictions to forestry (this includes some “Wildlife
Reserves” and other low levels of protection where all industrial development e.g. forestry,
mining is still allowed).

As described in the EBM reference guide, the state of the pre-industrial forest should be defined,
in order to provide a reference point for the development of forest management plans for the
next planning period (2013-2018).
At the present time, there is no database available demonstrating that the analysis of the state
of the pre-industrial forest was completed for the 70 FMUs. However, this work has been
completed by licencees for many areas under the requirements of FSC certification.
At the present time, the Chief Forester’s Office has not introduced any parameters for the pre-
industrial state of the forest as a reference in the yield calculation for 2013-2018.

The natural range of variation by ecosystem has been described by two research documents
produced by the Department of Natural Resources.
a. Mémoire de recherche forestière no 161: “L’intégration des connaissances sur la structure, la

composition et la dynamique des paysages forestiers naturels du Québec méridional.“
b. Avis de recherche forestière no 31: “Le registre des états de référence : portrait des forêts
naturelles pour établir des cibles d’aménagement écosystémique.“
86
The topic is covered in the new EBM reference guide. Ecological issues are identified in the
PRDIRT (e.g. white pine, cedar) and some targets will eventually be set in the PAFI-T. However,
the link between the Higher-Level Plans and the operational plans is weak.
Restoration efforts have been deployed in the last 5-10 years to various degrees across the
province, including for the white pine in the western part of the province of Québec, although
the priority and funding are limited. Many of the most significant situations were identified and
described in the “Sustainable forest management report 2000-2008 for Québec“ published by
the Chief Forester’s Office in 2010. However, public funding will be a significant issue in a period
of fiscal restriction, because it will involve a long period of investment with no immediate impact
on the industrial activity.
16. Strategies for management of linear corridors (road management /closure) are
Within the Forest Act (Loi sur les Forêts), there was no requirement to develop access road
strategy for decommissioning or closure activity for forest roads. However, an amendment to
the Forest Act was introduced a couple of years ago to allow for decommissioning or closure
of forest roads. This requires a special management plan and must have the support of
stakeholders. An issue in the province is the lack of public support for road closures and a history
of open access that would make it very challenging to implement a rigorous road management
program. Currently, natural abandonment is the primary source of road decommissioning in
many areas of the province.
Articles 40 to 44 of the new legislation (Law 57: Loi sur l’aménagement durable du territoire
forestier /Law on sustainable forest land management), which are not yet applicable, introduce a
new concept that will have to be clearly defined related to the question of multiple-use roads (as
opposed to forestry roads). At the present time, the question of how to manage these roads is a
moving target.
The principles in the legislation suggest that any road constructed on Crown land becomes a
Government responsibility once forest management activities are completed. The maintenance
and road repair shall then be the responsibility of the Government. However, there are
definite grey zones to be clarified as implementation moves forward. Currently, there are no
requirements for the development of systemic access control plans and implementation is on a
case by case basis, often guided by certification requirements.
17. Trade-offs are communicated clearly through presentation of management

Over the years, the leadership and supporting actor roles for consulting on forest management
plans for each FMU have been continuously switching between the Government and the
companies. For the period 2008-2013, the process was led by the companies within each FMU.
This was also the case with consultation required under certain forest certification standards.
It became apparent in the last round of planning that there was a need to integrate concerns
of forest stakeholders, the priorities of the region, the beneficiaries of right holders, the crown
corporations and utilities all operating in the same area. Land was being managed by FMU only
and the government concluded that didn’t make sense anymore because there were multiple
sectors involved that also impacted forest and resource management.
87
As a result, a new consultation/planning process was put in place as of 2010 in order to set the
regional priorities and identify trade-offs. This now happens in the form of regional (land use)
planning. There are ten administrative (planning) regions in Quebec and within these there may
be 1-3 subregional agencies that manage the area’s natural resources.
The GIRT (Integrated Management of the Resources and the Territory) process is now supposed
to lead the production of “integrated forest management plans”. This new process should have
the capacity to resolve issues upfront and early in the planning process.

a. The new ecosystem-based regulations for forest management have not been approved to
date and current operations fall under interim direction from old guidelines.
b. At the present time, the Forest Act (Loi sur les Forêts), does not speak to the need for access
road strategies for decommissioning or closure of forest roads. Even under the new system,
there will be grey areas of responsibility to be clarified regarding maintenance and closures of
forest roads in the province.
c. There is a lack of institutional/policy support for the use of fire as a management tool (e.g.
process emulation). It is not a priority in the current policy climate where the entire forest
management system is in flux.
6.6.5. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EBM IN QUEBEC

a. EBM is only one of the core goals being implemented by the Province of Québec for its forest
management system, which is undergoing a major restructuring in 2013. The last major
restructuring was in the 1985-1990 period. Implementation of the new regime will take focus
in the coming months/years as new roles and responsibilities are negotiated.
b. As government just took over the planning process, there might be reluctance to consider any
near-term changes to the government EBM approach;
c. There is little social or political support for implementing rigorous road management and
closure plans; a challenge common to many jurisdictions in Canada.
d. The province has gone through a major reduction in the annual allowable cut levels in recent
years (there has been a 30% cut since 2008). This has resulted in many mills closures and
lost jobs. Forest dependent communities may have low support for new changes that would
result in more cut level reductions.
e. With the changes in responsibilities, the question of who should be maintaining forest
certification is currently under debate. This may slow progress on initiatives that might have
advanced EBM under voluntary certification standards, which in some cases go beyond the
legislated forest management requirements.
f. The existence of two distinct planning areas in Quebec, which are subject to different
regulations and standards (“La Paix des Braves” agreement area versus other provincial forest
lands) creates challenges for harmonizing a landscape approach to managing for certain
forest values, including landscape values and wide-ranging species (e.g. woodland caribou).
88
6.6.6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING EBM IN QUEBEC
The province is in a state of flux with regard to its forest management system, which may present
opportunities in the coming years to direct how practices play out on the ground. The same
issues that present potential barriers to advancing EBM in the province may also represent
opportunities depending on how the transition plays out. Some of the opportunities in Quebec
were characterized as follows:
a. As part of a major restructuring in the forest sector, Quebec is poised to implement improved
forest management regulations at a large scale across the province. This transition period could
represent an opportunity to refine standards and practices as they are rolled out across the
province. Furthermore, increased government control over forest management planning may
provide opportunities to review and shift focus on management objectives, depending on the
degree of political/social support for specific forest management goals.
b. Like in Ontario, widespread adoption of third-party forest certification provides an additional

point of engagement in parts of Quebec. As of spring 2013, it was decided that Licensees will
maintain the certificates. The new Act will make things easier for the certificate holders as
many certification requirements are now (or will be) legally mandated.
c. The new GIRT (Integrated management of the Resources and the Territory) process is intended
to lead to the production of “integrated forest management plans”. This process may offer
the opportunity to integrate landscape goals in FMPs and help to resolve conflicts early in the
planning process.
6.7. Newfoundland and Labrador

In Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), EBM is implemented in large part through forest management
planning. Currently the approach to planning requires a management plan for each of 18 districts
in Newfoundland and six in Labrador, including a management plan report, five-year operating
plan and annual plans. A wood supply analysis is conducted every five years using a description
of the current state of the forest, growth and yield rates associated with the current forest, and
management strategies applied to the forest. The wood supply analysis determines the annual
allowable cut for the province on a district-by-district basis. This AAC forms the basis for the forest
management plan107.
In 1990, with the passing of the Forestry Act, NL began its efforts toward what would eventually
become an EBM approach. The province can be commended for creating a solid framework
for EBM within the province’s existing strategic policy. EBM was driven in large part by market
demand for sustainable forest products and also, in Labrador, initially by conflict and protest with
the Innu Nation. This catalyzed negotiation and resulted in co-management and the first provincial
adoption of EBM for a forest planning district. The forest industry in the province has historically
supported and embraced third party certification programs; starting with ISO 14001, CSA Z809, and
then FSC. These programs have often been the basis for policy change and have ultimately inched
the province closer to a successful EBM approach for the management of its forests.
Change is imminent, with the government poised to release its newest 10-year forest management
strategy – to replace the 2003 Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Strategy. While specific
details of the strategy have yet to be released, it is anticipated that the new strategy will include
a renewed commitment to EBM, clearer policy direction in general, and specifically, concerted
attempts to address past implementation shortcomings.
107 GNL. 2003. Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Strategy. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 89
Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Newfoudland Forest Service. 77 pp.
There has never been a comprehensive land use planning exercise carried out in NL. To date, land
use planning exercises have only occurred under regionally-specific scenarios, e.g. Humber Valley
Regional Land Plan, and the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area land use planning process mandated
under the Labrador Inuit land claim agreement.
TABLE 11. NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR’S ALIGNMENT WITH EBM CRITERIA.

1 EBM approach is mature. Partial (District 19
Plan dates to 2002)
3 Landscape approach to EBM. No
8 Tree and residual structure retention standards emulating natural disturbance. No
9 Age class designed to emulate natural disturbance regime (incl. old growth). No
(Woodstock/Stanley)
12 Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem Yes
13 Natural benchmarks used in planning (e.g. pre-industrial forest condition). Partial
14 Natural range of variation (NRV) baseline work complete. Partial
15 Efforts to restore natural landscape patterns and forest communities No
16 Strategies for managing linear corridors (e.g, road management /closures) No
17 Trade-offs communicated clearly through presentation of management options No

The Forestry Act of 1990 mandates the Forest Service of NL to manage the forest resources of the
province. It defines sustained yield forest management as, “a policy, method or plan of management
to provide for an optimum continuous supply of timber in a manner consistent with other
resource management objectives, sound environmental practices and the principles of sustainable
development.” The move toward EBM was reinforced in 2003 with the Provincial Sustainable Forest
Management Strategy. This document forms the policy basis for EBM in the province. Despite the
focus on forest management suggested by the title of the document, Page 1 of the document clarifies
that,
“References to the latest and best form of forest management keep changing, examples are
sustainable forest management, sustainable forestry, ecosystem-based forest management and
ecosystem management. For the purposes of this document, these concepts are considered
the same, as they all essentially point to assessing ecological, social and economic priorities in
sustainable forest management.”108
108 GNL. 2003. Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Strategy. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Newfoudland Forest Service. 77 pp. 90
Although EBM has been a policy direction of the province for over a decade, it would be difficult
to call the approach mature, given the documented lack of implementation success. For
example, a 2004 report by the Sierra Club of Canada concludes that despite forest managers in
the province expressing an interest in achieving EBM, and in some instances taking significant
steps towards an EBM model, “an EBM framework has not yet been institutionalized in
their policies”109. Although somewhat dated, evidence of the province and industry having
adequately addressed the shortcomings identified in the 2004 report is scarce. In 2010, the
Auditor General of NL reviewed forest planning by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and found multiple issues with planning, monitoring and reporting. These issue include a lack
of measurable targets or reporting on progress towards achieving the commitments to EBM,
a lack of preparation of ecosystem based planning guidelines, or reviewing the environmental
protection guidelines since 1998110.
All signs point to the overarching policy drivers for EBM being a combination of pressure to be
consistent with national and international direction provided within the Canada Forest Accord,
the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, the CCFM framework for sustainable forest management, and
third-party certification systems111.
The province is working toward a new 10-year Forest Management Strategy, with a targeted
release date of 2013. According to respondents, the Strategy will include a renewed commitment
to EBM principles with the development of guidebooks to direct implementation. The DNR has
formed a science committee to support the development of the strategy and its implementation.
Teams have been set up to investigate various aspects of a more ecologically based approach -
such as connectivity, intact landscapes and species at risk. Currently, most advances in EBM in
NL are the result of certification standards and market forces that are demanding an improved
management approach, including the CBFA. The province is also working toward registration
under the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.
The 2003-2023 Forest Ecosystem Strategy Plan for Forest Management District 19 Labrador/
Nitassinan provides an example of an exception to the standard provincial forest management
approach. The plan was the first of its kind, and set a considerably higher bar for EBM relative
to the rest of the province 112 The scale and extent of planning at this has yet to be replicated
in other forest management districts in the province. The District 19 Plan set out the following
vision for management over a decade ago:
“To create an ecosystem-based forest management plan for District 19 that protects
ecological and cultural integrity, productive capacity, resiliency and biodiversity while
advancing economic opportunities for the sustainable development of forest-based
industries.”
The plan incorporated EBM management principles starting with a literature review of EBM
principles and addressing key elements through management objectives and strategies for
implementation, ranging from the landscape (coarse) to the site (fine) scale. With regard to
wildlife species and their habitats, the implementation plan looks as follows:
109 Ecosystem-based Management – Reality or Rhetoric? An Assessment Template and Case Study. Sierra Club of Canada. 2004.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/biodiversity/forests/nfs/ebm-reality-or-rhetoric.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2013.
110 Report of the Auditor General to the House of Assembly. For the Year Ended March 31, 2010.Newfoundland and Labrador. http://
www.ag.gov.nl.ca/ag/annualReports/2010AnnualReport/AR2010.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2013.
111 Kelly, Erin. 2012. Pathways and Challenges to reinventing forestry in Newfoundland. Environmental Policy Institute. Grenfell
Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland. 81 pp.
112 Ducks Unlimited, 2013 EBM report review.
91
Actions:
»» Protection of key landscape level wildlife habitats in the District Ecological Protected Area
Network;
»» Protection of stand level wildlife habitats through the Stand Level Ecological Protected
Area Networks;
»» Protection of identified wildlife dwellings and nests through the application of the District
19 Environmental Protection Guidelines;
»» Coordination with Government agencies such as Inland Fish and Wildlife Division to
assess wildlife conditions and concerns;
»» Coordination with Aboriginal elders and hunters to assess wildlife conditions and
concerns
Management areas slated for timber harvesting were set within the remaining land area. The
network of reserves was the broadest scale of conservation, but further conservation constraints
are planned at the watershed and stand spatial scales. Despite the 5-year effort devoted to the
development of the plan, planners recognized several key areas where modeling could assist with
decision making. These included a formal timber supply analysis, exploration of novel silvicultural
systems, evaluation of alternative scenarios with different harvest rates or spatial patterning of
cuts, more concrete projections of timber harvest impacts on caribou and other key stakeholder
interests, and evaluation of how these different scenarios and their tradeoffs would be accepted
by the local communities.
A pilot project was undertaken through the Sustainable Forest Management Network of Canada
that incorporated a “meta-modeling” approach into a collaborative modeling framework that
focused on local planning needs. These efforts are indicative of the region’s interest in moving
toward a more robust EBM planning approach113.

See number 1 (above).

EBM principles would be implemented in NL via forest management planning. Currently the
approach to planning requires a management plan for each of 18 districts in Newfoundland and
six in Labrador, including a management plan report, five-year operating plan and annual plans.
A wood supply analysis is conducted every five years using a description of the current state of
the forest, growth and yield rates associated with the current forest, and management strategies
applied to the forest. The wood supply analysis determines the annual allowable cut for the
province on a district-by-district basis. This AAC forms the basis for the forest management
plan114.
Coarse filter or landscape management standards are currently limited in NL. Landscape
principles are predominantly applied in the province through the use of eco-regional
representation targets. Efforts to work with wildlife managers to create wildlife corridors on the
landscape have also been made in the context of wood supply analysis. Fine filter is achieved
through inputs to provincial wood supply analysis (e.g. two times growing stock, 15% old growth
target). Management requirements for species at risk as well as critical habitat for pine marten
and caribou core areas also address the fine filter scale in the province. Critics suggest that the
province is lacking management for a suite of indicator species to be addressed through forest
management planning.
113 Sturtevant, B. R., A. Fall, D. D. Kneeshaw, N. P. P. Simon, M. J. Papaik, K. Berninger, F. Doyon, D. G. Morgan, and C. Messier. 2007. A
toolkit modeling approach for sustainable forest management planning: achieving balance between science and local needs. Ecology
and Society 12(2): 7. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art7/. Accessed March 24, 2014.
114 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2003. 92
NL has two levels of forest ecosystem classification: ecoregions and forest types. An ecoregion
has a distinctive pattern of recurring vegetation and soil development, controlled by regional
climate. Within ecoregions, forest types represent local variations in soil moisture and
nutrients due to changes in topography. These differences are reflected in the vegetation which
distinguishes forest types. The inventory forest types depend on the forest types described by
Meades and Moores 1989 Forest Site Classification Manual, which was based on Damman’s site
classification system. The current inventory is done by forest type (essentially working group /
stand-type (height, age, species, density). There is no link to ecosites at this time.

The forest inventory is said to be reliable and has been a priority in government funding in
recent years. The FI is updated every 10 years (rotating through districts, meaning some areas
have more recent inventories than others) and verified by ground plots. It is not designed as an
operational inventory but provides solid base data for calculating wood supply. Plot information
gathered includes ground vegetation, down woody debris, song birds and other features,
although some critics suggest the linkages to ecological information about the province’s forests
are weak. An inventory update is conducted annually to account for all disturbances (human and
natural), as well as silviculture activities. Each forest stand is updated to reflect changes that may
have occurred since the previous inventory update115.

The Island of Newfoundland (NF) has a very complicated post-industrial forest. It is difficult to
characterize pre-industrial forest conditions and many assumptions are required, as stated in
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited’s PIC report. There is no existing documentation of forest
conditions during pre-industrial period. In addition, many introduced species (insects, mammals,
etc.) have impacted the present forest condition116. There has been some work done through
certification to assist in developing direction for cutblock size. This work addressed five of the
province’s ecoregions within Corner Brook Pulp and Paper’s licence limits, which encompass
a large portion of the Island. It was suggested that cutblock size is achieved informally due to
terrain and the practice of following natural boundaries (i.e. currently achieved by default, not
design). Brown and Wells 2011 (p. 55-56) indicate stand shapes and sizes were determined by
past disturbances, which influences current cutblock shapes and sizes117.

On the island of Newfoundland, this criteria is mainly being addressed through the FSC process
in which companies work toward translating results of a PIC report into operational practices on
the ground. In the western part of the province, natural shape is achieved by default as a result
of topography and the nature of the landscape. In central NF, the topography is flatter land with
less natural fragmentation and so achieving a natural cutblock shape requires more planning. The
province has not developed standards to date to direct cutblock shape.
115 Ibid.
116 Brown, W.A. and E.D. Wells. 2011. The Pre-Industrial Condition of the Forest Limits of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited. p.
14-18. http://www.cbppl.com/Reporting/CBPPL-PIFC-V2.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2014.
117 Brown, Wayne and Doyle Wells. 2011. The Pre-Industrial Condition of the Forest Limits of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited.
127 pp.
93
8. Tree retention standards emulate natural disturbance.
The provincial guidelines currently include a threshold to retain a minimum of 10 snags per
hectare. There is no further direction provided as to the types of trees, their configuration on the
landscape, or their health118. Some respondents thought that this may be addressed in the new
strategy. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited (CBPPL) has been certified under both the FSC
and CAN/CSA Z809-2008 standards and as a result, the company developed a standard operating
procedure for retention of residual stands in 2013.

growth).
NL makes use of an even-flow harvest constraint that ensures predictable AACs through time.
Management strategies are typically geared toward “correcting” gaps in age class structure
(intermediate age classes) to produce a regulated forest (Kelly 2012). This is not necessarily
compatible with the emulation of a natural disturbance regime. The province does include an old
forest target in their wood supply calculations that requires 15% of the productive forest within
each district to be 80 years or older (GNL 2003). This approach, however, does not provide any
further landscape or stand level guidance, and thus risks conserving only those stands that are
inaccessible or unmerchantable119. There is no clear process on how the 15% target is allocated
between forest management units and there is remaining uncertainty about whether the 15%
target is appropriate, given the lack of information on natural range of variation for the province.
10. Prescribed burning is used as a management tool.

Prescribed burning is used infrequently in NL and where it is used, it is generally implemented by
the Crown. The last burn was carried out in 2010, and was used as a means of site preparation
and also for pest control (balsam wooly adelgid). There were experiments to use burning in Terra
Nova National Park in an effort to emulate natural disturbance but it was unsuccessful, as they
could not achieve a hot enough burn.

Woodstock (aspatial) and Stanley (spatial) are used for wood supply calculations. These models
are designed to optimize planning by maximizing forest harvest, given a number of non-timber
requirements. It begins with an aspatial “optimum” that is then restricted through multiple
rounds:
»» Even-flow harvesting – predictable and consistent AACs for every five-year period in the
160 year planning horizon
»» Spatial limitations based on Stanley and district managers who “block” harvests over
their districts.
»» Limited through the deduction of “other values”, including operational constraints (e.g.
steep slopes, stand isolation), disturbance constraints (e.g. insect, disease or fire), and
environmental requirements (e.g. protected areas, wildlife habitat, etc.), with each round
decreasing the flexibility of the model to optimize harvest120.
118 Ecosystem-based Management – Reality or Rhetoric? An Assessment Template and Case Study. Sierra Club of Canada. 2004.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/biodiversity/forests/nfs/ebm-reality-or-rhetoric.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2013.
119 Ibid.
Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland. 81 pp.
94
12. Process to ensure adequate representation of natural range of ecosystem types
/function is in place.
Approximately 7.7% of the land base of the island of Newfoundland is legislatively protected
(5.7% provincially, and 2% federally)121. A gap analysis has been conducted, resulting in the
identification of ecological representation and protection targets for which only 30% of the
former and 4.3% of the latter had been achieved by 2004. There was a process in place to
augment the existing protected area network, but this is no longer active.
The Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council (WERAC) is authorized by the
Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act to report to the Minister of Environment and
Conservation regarding the creation and maintenance of wilderness and ecological reserves.
The majority of recommendations made by WERAC were not implemented by government and
the Committee is now dormant. In addition, the Ministry of Environment and Conservation
has been attempting to establish a Natural Areas Systems Plan (NASP) since 1995. As of 2010,
NASP was “currently undergoing conflict resolution among the various Provincial Government
Departments”122.
According to industry, proposed/candidate protected areas exist under the NASP and are
deferred from harvesting during the 5-year planning process and in wood supply analysis.
However these candidate areas and boundaries are not established, public or subject to formal
management protocols, therefore current operational procedures without proper consultation
or establishment procedures may jeopardize ecological integrity until formal management
structures are put in place.
Some companies (e.g. Kruger) are working with government to see which ecoregions are
underrepresented and will help attempt to meet these targets. However, they have not reached
an agreement on how this may work in practice – this is also under consideration through the
CBFA and is highly political. There is some opinion that the Department of Mines and Energy are
slowing the Cabinet approvals process for protected areas, due to concerns over foreclosing on
future opportunities in the mining and energy sectors. The lack of formal regulation of protected
areas in the province has been identified as a concern by the ENGO community.

There has been no provincial analysis of pre-industrial forest condition (PIC) conducted, and
it is therefore difficult to manage forests according to the principle of maintaining natural
distributions of age classes and species compositions. That said, Newfoundland is unique in that
over half of the mammals on the island has been introduced, and some of those species have
played a role in altering natural forest conditions123.
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is working toward incorporating results of the company’s PIC
report, which covers most of the island124. PIC may be addressed in the province’s new forest
strategy but so far it is not certain how the information will be incorporated.
121 GNL. 2003. Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Strategy. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of
Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Newfoudland Forest Service. 77 pp.
Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland. 81 pp. http://www.curra.ca/documents/Pathways-and-challenges-to-reinventing-
forestry-in-Newfoundland.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2014.
123 Ibid.
124 Brown, W.A. and E.D. Wells. 2011. The Pre-Industrial Condition of the Forest Limits of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited. p.
14-18. http://www.cbppl.com/Reporting/CBPPL-PIFC-V2.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2014.
95
To date, this work has not been undertaken by the provincial government and will likely be
addressed in the near future through either forest certification requirements and/or by the CBFA.

There is a lack of baseline data to use as benchmarks for restoration of natural landscape
patterns125. To date, the government has not identified restoration as a management priority.
Extensive areas of the province have been impacted by moose browse and until this problem
is rectified, there is a lack of clarity on how to target restoration efforts. An ecologically-based
management system is challenging in the extremely altered forests that Newfoundland contends
with.
16. Strategies for management of linear corridors (road management/closure) are

The province does not have a comprehensive access management strategy. Rather, approaches
to minimizing access, decommissioning roads, etc. are done at an operational level on a unit-
by-unit basis, thus reducing the ability to address coordinated use, cumulative impacts, and
fragmentation126.

Public participation has been failing in NL for several reasons. Although a framework and process
for public involvement exist within the bounds of forest management planning, all plans are
subject to an environmental assessment (EA) process after they are complete. Rather than
participating in the process, many stakeholders withhold comment until the EA.
Members of the public state their sources of frustration with the process being:
»» Plans are already substantively finished when the public is brought in for consultation
(proposed harvest areas are already outlined on maps)
»» Public expectations exceed the mandates of the Department of Natural Resources –
Forestry
»» Non-timber concerns are treated as constraints as opposed to being integrated into
plans127.

a. Limited science foundation work to define standards for ‘natural disturbance emulation’ has
been completed in NL and the province has limited capacity to undertake this work either in
house or through research partnerships.
b. The province is lacking formal standards for EBM, in particular for operationalizing natural
disturbance emulation in forest management planning and for setting regional/provincial
targets (such as for old growth).
125 Ecosystem-based Management – Reality or Rhetoric? An Assessment Template and Case Study. Sierra Club of Canada. http://
www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/biodiversity/forests/nfs/ebm-reality-or-rhetoric.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2013.
126 Ibid.
127 Kelly, E. 2012. Pathways and challenges to reinventing forestry in Newfoundland. Environmental Policy Institute. Memorial Uni-
versity of Newfoundland. http://www.curra.ca/documents/Pathways-and-challenges-to-reinventing-forestry-in-Newfoundland.pdf.
96
6.7.5. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EBM IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
There are several factors affecting successful EBM implementation that will remain constant in
the province regardless of the contents of the new strategy. None of these factors are new and
none have simple solutions.
These factors include:
a. A relatively small civil service, unique forest management history, and decentralized
governance structure as it pertains to the various components of EBM.
b. The province’s timber-centric forest management framework that has attempted to evolve
over time to meet the needs of other forest users but was not fundamentally designed to
address multiple values.
c. The environmental assessment process (under which forest management plans are approved)
acts as the default mechanism for addressing all land use issues in the province, something
for which it was never intended or designed to do.
d. Public participation process associated with forest management planning has been effectively
derailed by the separate and subsequent environmental assessment process to which
plans are subjected; and the consideration of values other than timber within the forest
management planning framework diminishes accordingly.
e. Research and dialogue about the pre-industrial forest condition, what the natural disturbance
pattern was, and how it may have impacted/resulted in the “natural” forest condition, is still
in early stages.
f. Newfoundland has a high number of introduced/invasive species that complicate the

question of what forest condition to manage toward.
6.7.6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCING EBM IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

With the downturn of the forest industry comes the opportunity to address some of the barriers
to effective EBM, including:
a. The fourth strategic plan for the province is the first to be released in a climate that does not
include a wood supply shortage.
b. Prior to re-building the industry, there is an opportunity to provide greater consideration for
other ecosystem values within the overall framework for forest management in the province.
c. Similarly, this might be the time to experiment further with co-management frameworks,
such as the one that was successfully implemented in District 19 in Labrador.
d. The solution as of now is that the province has continued to form strategic partnerships
within government at the provincial level in an attempt to provide higher level policy
direction to those responsible for forest management planning.
e. In addition, new research partnerships are starting to create more certainty and common
understanding. The soon-to-be-released provincial strategy will likely elaborate on these
approaches and provide further direction in this regard.
97
f. While EBM management principles were adopted over a decade ago in Labrador, much of
the recent progress to date with EBM on the Island has been catalyzed by the forest industry
and their adoption of forest certification. FSC, for example, requires an analysis of the pre-
industrial forest condition, the use of natural benchmarks, and attempts to manage forests in
accordance with natural disturbance patterns (among other things).
g. In the new strategy, it is anticipated that government commitments will line up with the
requirements of FSC certification, thus helping to reinforce some of the key concepts of EBM.
h. The province has a new research group that can tackle some of the missing science pieces
required to advance EBM knowledge and practices.
98
7. CONCLUSIONS
All of the Canadian jurisdictions are at different stages of development in land use and forest
management planning with reference to EBM. Ontario has the most robust legislative framework
that most closely aligns with EBM. However, there are examples across provinces of innovative
pilot projects and/or licensee-led initiatives that go above and beyond regulatory requirements
and align with EBM. Forest certification has demanded, in some cases, that companies make
additional efforts to meet defined forest management standards. Although there are instances
where a licensee might encounter some resistance from provincial authorities, this tends to be a
cultural or relationship issue rather than a question of regulatory constraints.
For these reasons, it is suggested the following Best Practices are feasible regardless of which
provincial regulatory regime or certification system companies are operating under:
»» Establish the natural range of variation using empirical data and computer simulation
tools (e.g. LANDIS, ALCES).
»» Report the current forest condition and expected changes in the future against NRV for
broad species composition, age class structure and harvest patterns.
»» Develop natural pattern emulation strategies for stand and forest floor conditions.
»» Develop road management strategies and monitoring protocols.
»» Co-operate in advancing understanding of cumulative effects from other sectors and
climate change impacts.
»» Develop spatially explicit forecasts and monitor outcomes in an active adaptive
management context.
The challenge facing licensees, the CBFA and FPAC is how to finance implementation of best
practices in an equitable fashion. The CBFA must also determine if natural pattern emulation is a
navigational beacon or a destination. The latter choice will be the most challenging.
99
CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM
410-99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9
Tel: 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca

EBM in Canada CBFA July 2014 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EBM in Canada CBFA July 2014 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

VISIT US ON

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT.COM

Status Report on Ecosystem-based Management (EBM)

Policy Barriers and Opportunities for EBM in Canada

Laird Van Damme, MSc, RPF – Managing Partner

KBM Resources Group

About the CBFA

Forestry companies currently participating in the Agreement:

Environmental organizations participating in the Agreement:

For further information on the CBFA, visit www.canadianborealforestagreement.com

Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat

4. CANADIAN POLICY CONTEXT 8

6.1. British Columbia 23

6.7. Newfoundland and Labrador 89

Table 1. Alignment of Provinces with EBM criteria. 2

Figure 1: Ecosystem-based Management 9

»» There is no single interpretation or understanding of EBM. For the purposes of this

»» As noted in section 3 of the report, “The report findings do not represent a

Please direct questions and clarifications regarding this document to:

The suggested citation for this document is:

An overarching and inalienable principle of the CBFA is to endeavour to concurrently achieve

KBM Resources Group

André Arsenault (Newfoundland Regional Working Group)

Aran O’Carroll (CBFA Secretariat)

(GREEN = YES, WHITE = NO, P = PARTIAL OR IN PROGRESS).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 2

1.1. Policy Gaps

1.2. Barriers to Implementing EBM in Canada

1.3. Opportunities for Advancing EBM in Canada

»» Summarizing where EBM is being used and to what extent;

KBM Resources Group

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

3.3. Evaluation Framework

Element Sub-element Specific criteria #

TABLE 3: PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL FOREST STRATEGY THEMES, 1981-2003.

1981 1987 1992 1998 2003

Public awareness Public Public The urban forest

Aboriginal Peoples Aboriginal Peoples Rights and

Private woodlots Private woodlots Private woodlots

FIGURE 1: ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT (SOURCE DIRK BRINKMAN, NFSC THEME 1 CHAIR)

FIGURE 2: SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT ADAPTED FROM SALWASSER, H. 1993. IN:

1. Conservation of Biological Diversity;

Most jurisdictions subscribe, at least nominally, to the concept of EBM or an equivalent as a

5.2. Landscape Approach (coarse and fine filter)

TABLE 4. FRAMEWORK FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENTS.

Basic CEA Steps Tasks to complete for a CEA

»»Identify regional issues of concern

10 Government of Alberta. 2014. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. https://landuse.alberta.ca/Pages/default.

11 isee Systems. 2014. http://www.iseesystems.com/. Accessed March 8, 2013.

A unique forest management case study on cumulative effects in forest management is

5.3. Emulating Natural Patterns and Processes

5.4. Natural Range of Variation/Pre-industrial Forest Condition

5.5. Restoration and Representation

5.7. Adaptive Management

»» Bounding management problems and recognizing constraints;

FIGURE 3. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO18.

17 Smith, Court. 2002. Adaptive Management. http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth481/ectop/ecadm.html. Accessed March 8,

Key to Types of Adaptive Management

1. Deliberate attempt to evaluate policy?

2. Alternative policies evaluated/compared?

3. Evaluations/comparisons are designed?

4. Evaluations use spatial/temporal controls?

19 Dr. Tom Nudds, University of Guelph. March 2013. Pers. comm.