debruyne and rempel 2011 cnfer ip-007 007 centre for ...woody material to support wildlife...

1

Debruyne and Rempel 2011 CNFER IP-007

Guide Effectiveness Monitoring WorkshopKey Implementation Issues, Monitoring Gaps, and Integration of Existing Programs

Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research Information Paper 007

Thunder Bay, OntarioDec 8th-9th 2009

2

Debruyne and Rempel 2011CNFER IP-007

3


Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research Information Paper 007

Guide Effectiveness Monitoring WorkshopKey Implementation Issues, Monitoring Gaps, and Inte-gration of Existing Programs

Christine A. Debruyne and Robert S. RempelCentre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources955 Oliver Road

Thunder Bay, ONCanada P7B 5E1

January 2011

4


(Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research Information Paper 007)Guide Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop: Key Implementation Issues, Monitoring Gaps, and Integration of Existing Programs

Available in print: ISBN 978-1-4435-5770-2Available also on the Internet (PDF): ISBN 978-1-4435-5771-9

Cette publication spécialisée n’est disponible qu’en anglais.

© 2011, Queen’s Printer for OntarioPrinted in Ontario, Canada

Single copies of this publication are available from:

Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem ResearchMinistry of Natural Resources955 Oliver RoadThunder Bay, ONCanada P7B 5E1Phone: (807) 343-4000Fax: (807) 343-4001

Please cite as:

Debruyne, C. A. and R. S. Rempel. 2011. Guide Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop: Key Implementation Issues, Monitoring Gaps, and Integration of Existing Programs. Information Paper CNFER IP-007. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. 20pp.

i


SUMMARY

The principal goal of the Guide Effectiveness Monitoring (GEM) program is to evaluate whether the forest management guides are effective in meeting their stated goals and objectives. Implementing the GEM program does not necessarily mean starting and funding new monitoring programs. The GEM strategy is to first identify and evaluate what existing monitoring programs (within and outside of MNR) could contribute to meeting GEM objectives, and if such programs exist, evaluate how good the fit is with specific GEM analysis needs. This integration of research, science, and monitoring is taken from the perspective of the GEM program being a client to other initiatives. It is not being suggested that other monitoring programs must modify their design to satisfy GEM requirements, but where possible, design adjustments or supplementary sampling should be explored to evaluate whether needs can be meshed. With monitoring issues and gaps on the table, we can then begin thinking about approaches to resolving these gaps from the GEM perspective. New GEM programs are proposed only when this seems the most reasonable and/or cost-effective approach.

As a result, a one and a half day GEM workshop was held in Thunder Bay December 8 & 9, 2009 where the main objectives were to (1) communicate the GEM strategic direction to a broad audience; (2) identify existing programs that could contribute to GEM needs; (3) identify issues, gaps and opportunities associated with existing or proposed monitoring; and (4) discuss the current status of the GEM program and its future direction. Project funding was also discussed and focused on those GEM initiatives conducted in 2009 with financial details provided, however, responsibility for funding for existing research monitoring initiatives outside the GEM program were not discussed.

RÉSUMÉ

L’objectif principal du programme Guide Effectiveness Monitoring (GEM) (« surveillance de l’efficacité des guides ») consiste à évaluer si les guides de gestion forestière réussissent à atteindre leurs objectifs. La mise en œuvre du programme GEM ne signifie pas nécessairement que de nouveaux programmes de surveillance seront lancés et financés. La stratégie du GEM consiste d’abord à découvrir et à évaluer les programmes de surveillance existants (au sein du MRN ou à l’extérieur de celui-ci) qui pourraient contribuer à l’atteinte des objectifs du GEM; si de tels programmes existent, elle consiste ensuite à évaluer à quel point ceux-ci correspondent aux besoins précis en analyse du GEM. Le programme GEM, programme-client d’autres initiatives, pousse à cette intégration de la recherche, de la science et de la surveillance. On ne laisse pas entendre que d’autres programmes de surveillance devraient modifier leur nature pour répondre aux exigences du GEM, mais, dans la mesure du possible, des ajustements à la conception de ces programmes ou un échantillonnage supplémentaire pourraient être explorés pour évaluer si les besoins peuvent être intégrés. En mettant les problèmes et les écarts de surveillance sur la table, nous pouvons commencer à réfléchir à des approches qui permettraient, dans la perspective du GEM, de résoudre ces écarts. De nouveaux programmes GEM ne sont proposés que lorsque cette approche semble être la plus raisonnable ou la plus économique.

Par conséquent, un atelier GEM d’un jour et demi a eu lieu à Thunder Bay, les 8 et 9 décembre 2009, lequel avait pour principaux objectifs 1) communiquer l’orientation stratégique du GEM à un auditoire élargi; 2) découvrir les programmes existants qui pourraient répondre aux besoins du GEM; 3) déterminer les problèmes et les écarts avec les programmes de

ii


surveillance existants ou proposés et découvrir les occasions; et 4) analyser l’état actuel du programme GEM et son orientation future. Le financement du projet a aussi été abordé, tout particulièrement les initiatives GEM réalisées en 2009 et les détails financiers les concernant. Toutefois, la responsabilité du financement des initiatives de surveillance existantes et ne faisant pas partie du programme GEM n’a pas été abordée.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank everyone who attended the workshop. Thanks to Ed Iwachewski and Pat Furlong for their managerial support and guidance, and to Janet Jackson and Jeff Robinson for their technical support during the workshop. A special thanks to Neil Dawson, Glen Brown, Rob Mackereth, Bruce Ranta, Jim Baker, Joe Churcher, Art Rodgers, Brian Naylor, Phil Elkie, Michael Gluck and Tom Nudds for giving presentations and/or providing summaries of GEM uncertainties and monitoring strategies. Additional thanks to the strategic guide team for their editorial support; and to Brooke Pilley (CNFER Information Officer) for desktop publishing of this report.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. i

RÉSUMÉ ..................................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ iii

GEM PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 1

GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARIES ........................................................................................................ 3

KEY MONITORING ISSUES, GAPS AND NEXT STEPS ......................................................................... 5

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 8

1


GEM PRESENTATIONS

The first day of the workshop consisted of presentations from various experts in the field of GEM and of current monitoring research projects. Phil Elkie spoke about the new Landscape Guide (LG) and how it directs the amount and pattern of simulated natural variation based on estimates of actual natural variation. The status of the Stand & Site Guide (SSG) was presented by Brian Naylor. He mentioned that although finalization of the guide is currently awaiting completion of habitat regulations and associated policies for a number of species at risk, the draft is being used by 2011 FMP teams across the province.

Joe Churcher spoke about the GEM strategic direction, the past, present, and future guide to GEM, and relayed the importance of looking ahead to identify costs and plan projects based on existing work which could also provide short-term deliverables. The linkage of GEM policy to hypothesis was presented by Rob Rempel. GEM workplans have been separated from the strategic direction and the primary focus is that direction on effectiveness is an output of GEM. Jim Baker ended the presentations on GEM direction by discussing the 5-year workplans and associated critical uncertainties.

The last part of the agenda on the first day consisted of summary presentations of the various programs and projects that are occurring under the GEM direction and ones that could have potential linkages to it. Rob Mackereth spoke about his current work in aquatic systems in the boreal forest. Glen Brown and Neil Dawson provided an update on the status the Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring (MSIM) program. Christine Debruyne presented the protocols, methodologies, and financial budget for the pilot field season of the songbird community response GEM program. Lastly, Tom Nudds from the University of Guelph spoke about the Wetlands and Waterbirds project they are conducting using existing data collected throughout Ontario.

Name AffiliationRob Rempel ARDBChristine Debruyne ARDBEd Iwachewski ARDBRob Mackereth ARDBDoug Reid ARDBArt Rodgers ARDBPat Furlong ARDBDave Morris ARDBDan Duckert ARDBJanet Jackson ARDBJeff Robinson ARDBLen Hunt ARDBBrian Kolman ARDBAjith Perera ARDBJim Baker ARDBBruce Pond ARDBDave Kreutzweiser CFSJoe Churcher FBDan Pyke FBBrian Naylor FBPhil Elkie FBBruce Ranta Northwest RegionTed Armstrong Northwest RegionSteve Kingston Ontario ParksMichael Gluck SARMerilyn Twiss SIBGlen Brown SIBPaul Vieira SIBDean Phoenix SIBStephen Mills SIBTricia Greer SIBGeorge Holborn SIBNeil Dawson SIBShelagh Duckett SIBTom Nudds University of Guelph

Table 1. List of workshop attendees. ARDB = Applied Research and Development Branch; CFS = Canadian Forest Service; FB = Forest Branch; SAR = Species at Risk Branch; SIB = Science and Information Branch.

2


GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARIES

The second day of the workshop began with morning breakout group discussions of the key GEM uncertainties. Summaries of these discussions are provided below, but also include comments provided by email after the meeting. The main focus and questions posed during the discussions were:

A summary of current ongoing ▪▪monitoring and associated research that is contributing to GEM.

How is this monitoring contributing to ▪▪the testing of the effectiveness of the LG and SSG?

Research and monitoring gaps? ▪▪ Where is/should funding come from?▪▪

Ten critical uncertainties were presented for discussion, and as a result most were accepted as is, but some were revised. The following is the revised list of uncertainties based on comments and suggestions given at the workshop.

Wildlife Community Structure1. : Will (a) emulation of natural disturbance patterns and processes result in species assemblage of forest songbirds similar to those found in forests arising from natural disturbances, and (b) will the harvest pattern direction in the LG conserve biodiversity better than the dispersed block-cut approach?

Wildlife Population Trends2. : Will wildlife population trends in LG Regions be similar between areas arising from natural disturbance versus areas where LG and SSG have been implemented?

Habitat Element Processes3. : Will the

direction in the SSG ensure retention of a sufficient number of small residual patches, wildlife trees, and downed woody material to support wildlife communities and ecological processes (e.g., nutrient cycling) similar to those found in habitats arising from natural events?

Aquatic Ecosystem Processes4. : Will the direction from the LG and SSG retain sufficient residual forest and minimize physical disturbance within catchments to ensure that hydrological, chemical, and biological effects resulting from forest management activities: i) do not exceed those observed in naturally disturbed catchments and ii) do not exceed acceptable levels for specific parameters (e.g., methyl mercury)?

Moose Habitat Quality5. : Will the fine filter direction for moose in the SSG create habitat that sustains a higher density of moose (or a higher harvest of moose) than that produced by general coarse filter direction in the LG and SSG?

Caribou Habitat Quality6. : Will the direction for caribou in the LG create habitat that contributes to sustaining viable populations of woodland caribou in the area of undertaking?

Stick Nest Restrictions7. : Will seasonal restrictions on forest management activities around occupied bald eagle, osprey, and great blue heron nests result in nest site productivity comparable to nests in undisturbed situations?

Rutting Restrictions8. : Will restrictions on rutting and skid trail coverage in the SSG result in acceptable growth of residual trees (partial harvests) and regeneration success (all harvests)?

3


Road Network Effects9. : What is the effect of Guides on road networks (distribution, density, and access to resources)?

Harvest Area and Wildlife Habitat 10. Supply Effects: What is the effect of Guides on available harvest area and wildlife habitat supply?

Rob Rempel’s ongoing songbird community response project was the main contributor to the Wildlife Community Structure critical uncertainty. The group decided that the hypothesis needed to be re-phrased, replacing the word conservation with species assemblage. For 2010 sampling, it was suggested to expand the focus to include broad-scale, landscape level sampling. The group concluded that this could done by looking at existing data, using some of the plots from the current songbird community response project, and either expanding the existing Breeding Bird Survey (BBS and LLT), or creating a new route-based survey technique to include the thirteen focal songbird species.

The upcoming MSIM program under the Provincial Wildlife Assessment Program (PWAP) was identified as the most likely contributor to the Wildlife Population Trends question. However, since MSIM is not stratified according to GEM requirements, supplemental sampling would be required. Work needs to be done to determine if or how PWAP and GEM sampling needs can be mutually supportive, or whether a separate sampling program is required. The PWAP has a mandate to monitor a large suite of wildlife at the Provincial level, whereas the GEM program is currently focused on monitoring a small focal group of songbirds stratified by managed harvest versus natural reference conditions, and this difference in mandate leads to difficulties in reconciling the two programs. Tom Nudds’ ongoing wetlands and waterbirds project will also help address the Wildlife Population Trends uncertainty

by examining riparian biodiversity using pre-existing datasets.

The group dealing with Habitat Element Processes discussed the retention of trees under direction of the SSG to support cavity nesting wildlife. Current projects (e.g., I. Thompson’s enhanced FM bird monitoring study in Kapuskasing) mainly involve cavity nesting birds, however, other wildlife (e.g., marten) and longer-term trends may also need to be considered. The lack of compliance monitoring of existing wildlife tree direction, and monitoring at the landscape scale to examine the net effect on populations were identified as monitoring gaps. Linking GEM with compliance monitoring was identified as a potential way to address the question of response thresholds. A study is needed to determine the importance of tree type, number of trees, and to assess the relative importance of scattered and clumped wildlife trees to cavity-nesting wildlife in harvested areas.

Rob Mackereth’s work in the Mackenzie watershed ecosystem and Dave Kreutzweiser’s work in the White River area are the main contributors to the Aquatic Ecosystem Processes question. The White River study is examining catchment and stream characteristics, aquatic invertebrate communities, and community function (organic matter breakdown) across catchments that are fire-disturbed (about 12 years ago), logging-disturbed (about 5-15 years ago), and not recently disturbed (about 60+ year old stands). The shortcoming of this project is that it is does not directly address the effectiveness of the new guide because the logging was conducted under the old guide. As a result, it was agreed that current work is not sufficient to address Aquatic Ecosystem Processes uncertainties; with monitoring gaps being insufficient fire treatments in their study design and little understanding of the impact of temporal scale disturbances.

The Moose Habitat Quality question could be addressed with modification of current moose

4


research being conducted by Art Rodgers at CNFER. This could include modifications or enhancement to the current analysis of the existing collar data. The need to consider the habitat component and the use of MAI to allow better evaluation of fine-filter vs. coarse-filter direction was identified as a potential monitoring gap.

Several caribou initiatives, including the broad-scale aerial population and demographic survey, habitat silvicultural research, and population dynamics and modeling research will contribute to addressing Caribou Habitat Quality uncertainties. The group decided to delete fine-filter from the hypothesis since all direction for woodland caribou is in the LG. The LG directs managing and recovering current caribou populations by maintaining habitat. Moreover, habitat renewal will be achieved through Silviculture Effectiveness Monitoring. Confusion between coarse and fine-filter approaches was clarified – direction is the same for both, except for taking into account present caribou locations (i.e., calving lakes, etc.) when planning patch layouts.

Brian Naylor is the lead for the proposed project to address the Stick Nest Restrictions question. Seasonal timing buffers in the SSG are based on the relationship between flushing distance and body size that were compiled from meta-analysis of scientific literature. Proposed research involves aerial surveys of 50 occupied nests in harvested sites (treatment) and 50 in non-harvested sites (control) for each species of interest. Although there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of the new buffer areas around stick-nests, they concluded that due to current limited forestry practices, there might be a need to rethink the feasibility of the design.

A project work plan for the Rutting Restrictions question that addresses the effectiveness of site disturbance and skid trail coverage direction has been developed. The project plan suggests that comparisons between compliant and non-compliant operational areas

be utilized to evaluate silviculture success and productivity of the site. It is important that this project be set up in a way where the initial assessments can be efficiently rolled into the evolving Silviculture Effectiveness Monitoring program. The scale of the site disturbance monitoring (compliance and effectiveness) is based on a 20 ha block, thereby representing a stand scale disturbance rather than and individual rut or skid trail impact.

Len Hunt is the proposed project lead for the monitoring to deal with the Road Network Effects question. Len’s current research involves examining the use of roads by recreationists and assessing the effectiveness of different ways to close roads to public travel. Some GEM monitoring gaps identified included developing an accurate inventory of existing roads and identifying standards from which to make evaluations from monitoring efforts. A key question posed during discussion was the evaluation of efficiency vs. effectiveness. Currently, the critical uncertainty only addresses how roads are affected by the guides. Given that many factors affect roads and road use, Len suggested that simulations might represent a more effective way than empirical evaluations to assess this critical uncertainty. The “effectiveness” uncertainty relates to ways to manage roads and road use. The hypothesis is “what approaches to manage roads and road use are most cost-effective at achieving the objectives of the guides?” This hypothesis should be addressed by assessing the cost-effectiveness of closing roads to vehicle use and removing roads (or sections of roads). Monitoring could involve both the evaluation of existing cases of road closures and removals and the use of field trials.

The Harvest Area and Wildlife Habitat Supply Effects uncertainty was not discussed at the workshop since this uncertainty will likely be addressed through modelling exercises done through the State of the Forest reporting (SOFR).

5


The workshop ended with a wrap-up session of the discussion breakout groups. This revealed that some existing programs have design requirements that are not fully compatible with GEM requirements, and this reality must be considered as we identify monitoring gaps. For example, the question of whether the MSIM/NFI sampling routine proposed by the PWAP would meet the analysis needs of the GEM program, and if not, what additional sampling could GEM provide to meet any gaps, emerged as a critical question that needs addressing this summer. Related to this is the question of whether the sample design for the Songbird Community project on its own could be adjusted or enhanced to satisfy the Wildlife Population Trends question. For the aquatic ecosystem project, a missing component of the existing design is burn-areas to serve as natural reference conditions. Following the conference, some of the facilitators provided write-ups of key questions and decisions arising from the break-out groups, and are provided here as Appendices.

KEY MONITORING ISSUES, GAPS, AND NEXT STEPS

For each critical uncertainty, this section outlines key methodological issues that still need to be addressed, monitoring information gaps, and next steps that should be taken.

Wildlife Community Structure: Will (a) emulation of natural disturbance patterns and processes result in species assemblage of forest songbirds similar to those found in forests arising from natural disturbances, and (b) will the harvest pattern direction in the LG conserve biodiversity better than the dispersed block-cut approach?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ Need both fine and broad scale evaluation. Monitoring Gaps: ▪ Fine scale monitoring is in place, but need to include broader scale evaluation.

Next Steps: ▪ Explore alternative monitoring in 2010 to provide a cost-effective approach to broad scale monitoring that can separate trends in natural reference areas from trends in managed harvest areas.

Wildlife Population Trends: Will wildlife population trends in LG Regions be similar between areas arising from natural disturbance versus areas where LG and SSG have been implemented?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ MSIM could probably evaluate this critical uncertainty, but it is not stratified in the right way as it exists now. Songbird community research (Wildlife Community Structure), should be able to provide the necessary information on songbird population trends.

Monitoring Gaps: ▪ To meet GEM needs, the songbird community response project (Wildlife Community Structure) must be expanded (or rotated) to include other LG regions. Currently, no monitoring programs are funded to address small mammals and amphibians.

Next Steps: ▪ A comparative evaluation of the preferred PWAP monitoring protocol (NFI/MSIM) with an alternative GEM sampling protocol to:

compare NFI/MSIM statistical ▫power to an alternative GEM sample technique in terms of both population trend and community composition analysis

determine if GEM technique ▫can contribute to PWAP analysis needs and vice versa

evaluate if both ▫ Wildlife Community Structure and

6


Wildlife Population Trends questions can be answered with the same sample protocol

Habitat Element Processes: Will the direction in the SSG ensure retention of a sufficient number of small residual patches, wildlife trees, and downed woody material to support wildlife communities and ecological processes (e.g., nutrient cycling) similar to those found in habitats arising from natural events?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ Application of the wildlife tree direction in the SSG may greatly exceed what is prescribed – there is a difference between monitoring the effectiveness of the guide/direction and what is actually applied.

Monitoring Gaps: ▪ No existing monitoring at the landscape scale to examine the net effect on populations; also need to consider non-avian wildlife.

Next Steps: ▪ The proposed study should be expanded to determine the importance of tree type and/or variety of trees retained. The current proposed GEM project will be pursued with the focus on identifying response thresholds.

Aquatic Ecosystem Processes: Will the direction from the LG and SSG retain sufficient residual forest and minimize physical disturbance within catchments to ensure that hydrological, chemical, and biological effects resulting from forest management activities: i) do not exceed those observed in naturally disturbed catchments and ii) do not exceed acceptable levels for specific parameters (e.g., methyl mercury)?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ Few studies have compared natural disturbance as a treatment effect.

Monitoring Gaps: ▪ Finding fire treatments and identifying the temporal scale of impact of catchment-scale effects.

Next Steps: ▪ Find out resulting cumulative effects from various projects, other industries, and forestry practices.

Moose Habitat Quality: Will the fine filter direction for moose in the SSG create habitat that sustains a higher density of moose (or a higher harvest of moose) than that produced by general coarse filter direction in the LG and SSG?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ Finding areas of equal capability outside the moose emphasis areas to test guide effectiveness; or attempt to use a BACI design to control for pre-treatment differences.

Monitoring Gaps: ▪ Geographic location – The use of Moose Aerial Inventory to allow better evaluation of coarse-filter direction.

Next Steps: ▪ A comprehensive field study for caribou will also obtain empirical data on moose and caribou distribution and abundance. This will begin in 2010, with preliminary results in 2014 (incorporating with previous work on moose guideline effectiveness monitoring from Art Rodgers).

Caribou Habitat Quality: Will the direction for caribou in the LG create habitat that contributes to sustaining viable populations of woodland caribou in the area of undertaking?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ Are we managing for habitat or persistence?Monitoring Gaps: ▪ Geography; Far North caribou survey does not deal with implementation of guides in AOU.

7


Next Steps: ▪ Write a document identifying how integration of existing monitoring and research initiatives will meet the needs of GEM.

Stick Nest Restrictions: Will seasonal restrictions on forest management activities around occupied bald eagle, osprey, and great blue heron nests result in nest site productivity comparable to nests in undisturbed situations?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ Need to test effectiveness of new direction in the SSG for seasonal timing buffers.

Monitoring Gaps: ▪ Logistics, costs, and sample sizes are primary concerns as sample size and the number of treatments may be limited by the amount of harvesting occurring.

Next Steps: ▪ May need to rethink feasibility of the design and consider possible alternatives (e.g., regression rather than ANOVA type design).

Rutting Restrictions: Will restrictions on rutting and skid trail coverage in the SSG result in acceptable growth of residual trees (partial harvests) and regeneration success (all harvests)?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ No natural analog for rutting, but this is not likely a problem because the key issue is determining both the magnitude and mechanism of the effect of rutting on tree growth. However, one could possibly consider fire and blowdown events as natural soil disturbances.

Monitoring Gaps: ▪ Linking compliance monitoring to GEM.

Next Steps: ▪ Clarifying and incorporating Forest Management GEM questions into the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring strategy.

Road Network Effects: What is the effect of Guides on road networks (distribution, density, and access to resources)?

Key monitoring issues: ▪ Need to account for not only road infrastructure but use of this infrastructure.

Monitoring Gaps: ▪ The inventory for roads and classification of roads, road closures, and decommissioning is poor. Standards are lacking to draw any conclusions from monitoring effort.

Next Steps: ▪ Need to consider not only the effects of the guides on roads and road use but also the cost-effectiveness of ways to manage roads to address the objectives of the guides.

8


APPENDICES

Below, is additional information provided by project team leads on some of the GEM critical uncertainties discussed during the workshop.

Wildlife Community Structure: Effectiveness of direction in Stand and Site Guides (SSG) and Landscape Guide (LG) to conserve natural assemblages of forest songbirds ............................ 9

Wildlife Population Trends: Comparative Evaluation of MSIM Sample Method with Alternative Point Count Methods ................................................................................................................ 12

Aquatic Ecosystem Processes: Effectiveness of Guide Direction in Maintaining Stream Ecosystem Integrity by Mitigating Catchment Scale Effects on Water Yield, Water Chemistry and Aquatic Biota ....................................................................................................................... 14

Moose Habitat Quality: Effectiveness of Moose Habitat Direction in the SSG .......................... 17

Caribou Habitat Quality: Effectiveness of Caribou Habitat Direction in the LG ......................... 19

Stick Nest Restrictions: Effectiveness of direction in the Stand & Site Guide in mitigating effects of forest management operations on productivity at nests of bald eagles, ospreys, and great blue herons ................................................................................................................................ 20

9


Wildlife Community Structure: Effectiveness of direction in Stand and Site Guides (SSG) and Landscape Guide (LG) to conserve natural assemblages of forest songbirds

Rob Rempel, Christine Debruyne, and Janet Jackson: A principal objective of both the Stand and Site Guides (SSG) and Landscape Guide (LG) is to conserve natural assemblages of wildlife species by emulating natural disturbance forest patterns. These species assemblages should be similar to those expected under a natural disturbance regime. Within the forest songbird community many different habitat niches are occupied, including birds that occupy old versus young forest, conifer versus deciduous forest, and a homogeneous versus fragmented forest matrix. During development of the Landscape Guide, habitat associations and models were developed for a large number of species, and from these 13 species were selected that had habitat associations spanning a large variation in forest conditions. Landscape Guide options were evaluated in terms of how well different options would maintain habitat for the full complement of the 13 species, and the habitat models for these species were termed “evaluative indicators”. Simulation models were then used to estimate the “simulated range of natural variation” that would be required to maintain the songbird community. As a result of this quantitative analysis of simulated management options, an expectation developed that the direction provided in the new guides would better conserve biodiversity (e.g., songbird species assemblages) than the direction provided in the current (or older) guides. Also, for each of the 13 species the simulated range of natural variation (SRNV) in habitat occupancy rates was estimated, and is available to forest management planning (FMP) teams through the Ontario Landscape Tool (OLT).

The habitat models revealed that songbird communities respond to forest conditions at both the landscape and local levels, so the response of birds to forest management is affected by both the LG and SSG. Consequently, evaluation of songbird communities should be seen as an evaluation of the management direction provided in both the guides. The expectation is that application of the direction provided in the guides will result in species assemblages of birds similar to those found in comparable natural areas.

The songbird community analysis GEM project has two main objectives:

To monitor the 13 evaluative indicator species at the population level to determine if 1. individual species are responding to forest management in the manner predicted by habitat models used in developing the LG.

To monitor the species assemblages to determine if community structure metrics are 2. similar between areas of harvest origin versus natural disturbance origin.

It is critical that the hypothesis be stated correctly, and at the workshop participants revised the initial wording to focus on “assemblages”:

Will emulation of natural disturbance patterns and processes result in species assemblage of forest songbirds similar to those found in forests arising from natural disturbances, and will the direction in the SSG and LG conserve biodiversity better than the direction than the dispersed block-cut approach prescribed in the old guides?

The scale at which the hypothesis should be tested, and the set of stand-level conditions were most critical, was discussed by the participants. This discussion occurred in the context of

10


what was affordable, and what were the critical uncertainties associated with the hypothesis. Participants agreed that two scales of monitoring were required: a local scale that was based on a mensurative experimental design to tease out cause and effect relationships, and a broader landscape scale monitoring to track cumulative responses at a regional scale.

At the stand-level (mensurative experiment), it was noted that in 2009 sampling was focused on mature boreal forest, but sampling will be extended into younger forest in 2010. Also, if a secondary objective is to contribute to an estimate of population trends for the ecoregion as a whole, then sampling should be extended to included younger age-classes. Concerns are somewhat different for more southern GLSL forests where partial cutting is a dominant harvest technique, and where uncertainty is higher over the ability of this timber harvest technique to emulate natural patterns and maintain natural songbird community assemblages.

Participants discussed whether sampling effort for 2010 should focus on intensifying the local-level sampling that occurred in 2009, or should be directed to the landscape (or regional) level to begin assessment of cumulative effects. Sampling at the regional scale would essentially be more inclusive, and would work towards sampling the full diversity of habitat conditions in the ecoregion, including young, old, edge, wetlands, etc. Its purpose would be to address whether population levels for the 13 evaluative indicator species are increasing or decreasing over time in natural reference areas versus managed harvest areas, and if their occupancy rates differ from what is expected from the estimates provided using the SRNV. Participants agreed that 2010 sampling should focus on the broader scale, and should estimate population trends for the focal species for the entire Landscape Guide Region 3W (LGR3W) Study area (Fig. 1). This study area includes much (but not all) of ecoregion 3W, and also includes Wabakimi Park on the northern side.

The regional-scale monitoring is really long-term trend monitoring, and participants felt it was important to evaluate how this monitoring could benefit from, and contribute to other existing long-term monitoring projects. For example, in LGR3W Study area, data has been collected under both the continental Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and the Ontario Bird Atlas (OBA, which includes data collected by the MNR Wildlife Assessment Units and the Living Legacy Trust study in 2003). New data collection is planned by MNR using the NFI/MSIM approach, but funding for the protocol is expensive, and funding has not yet been secured. Ontario Parks will also collect songbird data using the OPIAM sampling protocol. The Canadian Migration Monitoring Network Station data could inform songbird trends for very broad spatial scales, and the Forest Bird Monitoring Program (FBMP) could contribute data to supplement analysis of songbird trends in mature forest. Analysis will be required to determine how best new data and sampling methods could integrate with and supplement long-term trend estimates for the 13 evaluative indicator species.

Key conclusions and action items were:

In 2010, focus new sampling effort at the regional scale to monitor cumulative effects 1. and long-term trends. At the local scale, fill remaining gaps in mature deciduous sample sites and younger age-classes. This may include digitizing historic FRI to determine stand origin on the west side of Lake Nipigon.

Explore and implement new sample techniques for assessing broad scale cumulative 2. effects. Explore ways to utilize and integrate existing monitoring program data for

11


the regional scale analysis. Conduct power analyses to determine what magnitude of effects can be detected using existing data, and how that power increases with supplemental sampling.

Keep working in LGR3W Study Area in 2010, but begin thinking about moving to the 3. GLSL Study area in 2011. Reassess critical uncertainties and sample priorities (e.g., perhaps focus on younger forests) in this study area.

Although not discussed during the break-out session, it was clear after the presentation by Tom Nudds that more work needs to be done to address the response of wetland and other water birds to forest management. The presentation by Nudds focused on assessing whether existing, broader scale data such as BBS, OBBA, and BDJV data would be sufficient to test effectiveness of the guides with respect to waterbirds. A clear gap was the absence of finer scale data needed to evaluate effectiveness of guides at a local scale, which may be required to assess specific riparian management options in maintaining natural assemblages of wetland birds. Integration of the wetland songbird community research at CNFER into the GEM program may be one option to help address this gap.

Figure 1. Location of 5 study areas nested within Landscape Guide ecoregions (blue lines) and Hill’s Site Regions (brown lines). Each study area has a pairing of large park with FMUs, and the northern sites include large areas of natural disturbance.

12


Wildlife Population Trends: Comparative Evaluation of MSIM Sample Method with Alternative Point Count Methods

Rob Rempel, Neil Dawson, and Glen Brown: Workshop participants identified that in terms of broad-scale population trend monitoring, the sample design requirements for the GEM program do not line up exactly with the needs of the Provincial Wildlife Assessment Program (PWAP). The GEM strategy is based on comparisons of natural reference areas to managed harvest areas, whereas the PWAP is based on long-term trend monitoring aggregated to either ecoregion or Provincial scales. At this point, GEM is focused primarily on the 13 focal songbird species, whereas PWAP has a much broader suite of animals to monitor.

The degree to which the PWAP (NFI/MSIM) design can contribute to GEM objectives needs to be assessed in the 2010 field season. This assessment is of value to both groups, and the assessment should occur in a collaborative manner. From the GEM perspective, this will mean focussing on broad-scale monitoring this summer. From the PWAP perspective, this will mean sampling in areas with high spatial overlap with GEM sampling (i.e., LGR3W Study Area).

Neil and Rob met following the workshop to discuss knowledge gaps that had emerged, including the role MSIM/NFI can play in meeting GEM analysis objectives. They decided that two techniques will be compared in terms of their ability to support GEM analysis needs: Multi-Species Inventory & Monitoring (MSIM) and an alternative point count method, which for this document we temporarily term APCM. The objective is to assess the statistical power and cost-effectiveness of the two approaches. This assessment will also help us evaluate whether GEM sampling is required in addition to the PWAP sampling, and if GEM sampling can contribute to the PWAP database.

Sample Methods:

Sampling will occur within the LG3W GEM Study Site (GEM and PWAP). GEM and ▪PWAP will coordinate to maximize coverage and to minimize overlap.

MSIM (PWAP): Sample all target species, including birds, amphibians, and mammals. ▪Seven MSIM plots within a hexagon. Plot centre located 30 m from NFI plot centre.

APCM (GEM): Target only the 13 focal species (but recordings will sample all songbirds). ▪The sample method will attempt to balance the dispersion of plots across the study area, while stratifying point placement into reference burn origin and managed harvest origin sites, e.g., sampling in gaps west of Lake Nipigon (Armstrong area), the south and south-east side of Lake Nipigon, and the Wabakimi Park area (Fig. 2).

This would (i) maximize overlap with the LLT 2003 dataset, (ii) facilitate comparison ▪between the 2001-2005 data and the 2006-2010 data, and (iii) minimize duplication of 2010 sampling by the PWAP program. Samples would not be constrained to NFI photo plots, so drawback is that the method would not be consistent with the NFI/MSIM method, but would be more affordable for GEM requirements.

The method could contribute to PWAP objectives of trend monitoring, and is consistent ▪with GEM monitoring questions (i.e., are songbird trends over time in Ecoregion 3W similar in natural reference areas versus managed harvest areas). Both methods would give estimates of population status in Ecoregion 3W (assuming study area is representative of the whole ecoregion).

13


Analysis Objectives:

Population Level:1. Compare APCM versus MSIM to:Estimate relative density of focal songbird species across the study area (with a. 95% CL).Estimate both relative and absolute density in reference natural areas versus b. managed harvest areas (with 95% CL).Estimate effect of sample size on CL and statistical power.c. Estimate difference in both relative and absolute density between 2001-2005 d. estimate (combined OBA, LLT, PWAP, and CNFER data) and 2006-2010 estimate (combined PWAP and GEM), with p-values, 95% CL, and power analysis.Assess ability to estimate detection factors.e. Assess ability to create probability of occurrence and species distribution maps.f. Basic comparison between number of bird (& other) species detected by point g. counts using MSIM vs. APCM.

Community Level:2. Compare forest songbird community composition in reference natural area versus managed harvest area (using both data sets) to estimate:

Community ordination patterns.a. Species similarity and Sorensen index of community composition.b.

Figure 2. Sample design for comparison study. Samples for (A) 2002-2003 and (B) 2009-2010. Proposed samples for 2010 are placed to maximize overlap with OBA 2003 sample points, maximize dispersion of samples across study area, provide balanced coverage of natural reference areas and managed harvest areas, and to minimize overlap between WAP and GEM sample locations.

2002-2003 Data 2009-2010 Data

14


Aquatic Ecosystem Processes: Effectiveness of Guide Direction in Maintaining Stream Ecosystem Integrity by Mitigating Catchment Scale Effects on Water Yield, Water Chemistry and Aquatic Biota

Rob Mackereth: Forest management activities have the potential to adversely affect stream ecosystems, either directly through physical disturbance or indirectly through alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of a watershed. The SSG provides direction to mitigate physical disturbance, primarily through modifications to harvest practices within shoreline areas of concern (AOCs). Unlike physical disturbance, hydrologic alteration resulting from temporary changes in vegetation (i.e., the harvest of mature trees followed by regeneration) is part of the natural dynamics of boreal forests. It is hypothesized that the combined direction in the Landscape guide and the SSG will result in vegetation disturbance patterns and catchment scale hydrologic responses that do not differ from natural disturbances. This hypothesis requires evaluation through a monitoring program designed to address the critical uncertainty:

Within the context provided by direction in the Landscape Guides, the cumulative effect of the coarse and fine filter direction in the Stand & Site Guide retains sufficient residual forest within catchments and minimizes physical disturbance to the extent that hydrological, chemical and biological effects resulting from forest management activities i) do not exceed those observed in naturally disturbed catchments and ii) do not exceed acceptable levels for specific parameters (e.g., methyl mercury).

Participants at the December GEM workshop discussed the critical uncertainties associated with the influence of guide direction on catchment scale processes. The discussion included 3 major topics:

1. Identifying ongoing research that may contribute to addressing the uncertainty around forest management impacts on catchment scale hydrologic processes.

2. Design of an effectiveness monitoring program to address the uncertainty.

3. Challenges and knowledge gaps.

Ongoing Research:

A number of ongoing research projects are addressing issues of uncertainty around catchment scale disturbance impacts (Table 2). Most projects are focused on research into harvest impacts on stream and lake systems and focus on biological, chemical and hydrologic responses. Most projects are focused on specific research questions as opposed to monitoring the effectiveness of management actions at mitigating impacts.

15


The studies identified as having the strongest potential to contribute to the development of an effectiveness monitoring program for hydrologic impacts were the Comparative Aquatic Effects program at CNFER/OMNR and the White River program run by CFS. The work at CNFER focuses on the evaluation hydrologic linkages between terrestrial and aquatic systems and how disturbance of these linkages may influence stream ecosystem function. The studies will provide a series of biological, chemical and physical indicators of stream ecosystem condition as well as GIS based predictive models of hydrologically sensitive areas. The CFS program at White River includes the “BioIndicators of Forest Stream Health” project which examines catchment characteristics, stream characteristics, aquatic invertebrate communities and community function (organic matter breakdown) across catchments that are fire-disturbed (about 12 years ago), logging-disturbed (about 5-15 years ago), and not recently disturbed (about 60+ year old stands). The study explicitly includes natural (fire) disturbance in the suite of treatments that will be compared. The project is just getting underway with site selection, partial site characterization, and one year of invertebrate community sampling completed. The study forms the basis of a PhD student’s project at Laurentian University so the target is to have some data analysis completed and information available by early 2012.

Effectiveness Monitoring of Guide direction to mitigate hydrologic impacts:

Although a number of past and ongoing research programs may contribute to an effectiveness monitoring program, it was agreed that current work is not sufficient to address Aquatic Ecosystem Processes uncertainties. A comprehensive monitoring program, conducted across a broad spatial and temporal scale is required to evaluate guide effectiveness. The proposed program will incorporate indicators developed by previous studies to characterize stream ecosystems, including aquatic habitat, biota, hydrology water quality and riparian condition. The monitoring program should be long-term and cover all ecosite types within the area of the undertaking. The proposed program will utilize a standardized site survey to collect information and an ongoing research program to analyze survey data and continue to develop, refine and validate indicators.

Challenges and knowledge gaps:

The workshop group identified three main challenges that must be addressed in developing an effectiveness monitoring program:

Study Group Streams/Lakes

Harvest/Fire

Process Communities Research/Monitoring

Esker Lakes Guelph lakes harvest B C H Y researchWhite River 1 CFS streams harvest B C H Y researchWhite River 2 Laurentian streams both B C H Y researchHelp Trent/UWO landscape n/a H n/a researchOBBN MOE streams n/a B Y monitoringComparative Aquatic CNFER/MNR streams harvest B C H Y researchELA DFO lakes fire B C H Y researchFORWARD Lakehead streams harvest H n/a researchTurkey Lakes CFS streams harvest B C H Y research

Table 2. Ongoing research projects addressing issues of uncertainty around catchment scale disturbance impacts. Process B = biological; C = chemical; H = hydrological.

16


The greatest challenge in evaluating how forest management activities compare to 1. natural (fire) disturbance is the lack of research that has been conducted on fire impacts on aquatic systems. Almost all previous research on forest management impacts on aquatic systems has compared harvest (or a variety of types of harvest) to un-harvested areas. Incorporating fire disturbance into the design is a big challenge because we cannot experimentally control the timing or distribution of fire effectively.

We have a poor understanding of the temporal scale of disturbance impacts on 2. aquatic systems: how long do they take to manifest and how long until recovery? This uncertainty is further complicated by a lack of understanding of the time scale over which harvesting may emulate natural disturbance. Studies of logging and fire impacts in forest catchments have demonstrated that logging disturbance is not the same as fire disturbance in the short-term (several years at least). However, over a longer time scale differences may converge and the overall impacts may be similar. This area of uncertainty requires more research but also requires the development of a strategic direction on the acceptable level of difference between natural and harvest disturbance and the time frame over which to evaluate the difference.

Although the development of a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of guide 3. direction at mitigating catchment scale hydrologic impacts is underway, implementing the program is a long term undertaking. The actual monitoring work cannot begin until forest management activities incorporate the direction of the new guides (2012?) and will take time to refine and evaluate. Information on the effectiveness of guide direction or adaptive modification of guidance should not be expected for several years after guide implementation.

17


Moose Habitat Quality: Effectiveness of Moose Habitat Direction in the SSG

Bruce Ranta, Jim Baker, Joe Churcher, Art Rodgers, and Brian Naylor: Moose habitat management has long been a focus of forest management and guideline effectiveness monitoring efforts. The management of moose habitat as a proxy for providing the habitat needs of the majority of wildlife species in the forests of Ontario is in the process of being replaced by adoption of a newer, more holistic, coarse and fine filter approach to habitat management, embedded within the ‘Landscape Guide’ and the ‘Stand and Site Guide’. However, these two forest management guides continue to provide for the management of moose habitat on specific pieces of geography, where the management of moose habitat will be ‘emphasized’.

It would seem there are two main issues to be addressed with the present (new) approach to moose habitat management:

Will managing (emphasizing) moose habitat management in specific areas conflict with 1. the direction proposed regarding pattern and composition by the Landscape Guide (i.e., is there a conflict between the coarse and fine filters)?

Will the approach of emphasizing moose habitat provide better moose habitat than 2. simply using the coarse filter direction in the Landscape Guide and Stand and Site Guide and thus help in the achievement of societal moose population objectives?

To address these issues, it was proposed that the moose habitat effectiveness monitoring program have both short and longer term components. Research or monitoring responsibilities will in general lie with CNFER. Suggestions for how the program(s) investigate research and monitoring gaps were identified as follows:

Short Term (within 5 years)

Monitor whether the moose habitat management direction is implemented in the 1. manner in which it was intended. This could be done by an analysis of approved forest management plans, possibly remote sensing methods (e.g., eFRI, LiDAR). It is suggested that perhaps this could be accomplished through the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring program.

In the Area of the Undertaking (AOU) where moose habitat will be emphasized during 2. forest management planning (consistent with the intent of the Cervid Ecological Framework), use modeling of landscape patterns and composition in approved FMP’s to investigate and compare use and non-use of the moose guideline component of the Stand and Site Guide (i.e., determine whether application of the fine filter direction for moose habitat actually produces a meso-landscape with a different pattern and composition than would have been created by applying the coarse filter direction alone).

Further investigate information/data available from previous moose guideline 3. effectiveness monitoring (i.e., Dr. Art Rodgers work) for insight on moose use of forest habitats. Analysis of these data are part of a collaborative study with Dr. Art Rodgers and others, with Dr. John Fryxell (U of Guelph) funded by a strategic NSERC grant to use historical data on moose, caribou and wolves. A comprehensive field study for

18


caribou will also obtain empirical data on moose and caribou distribution and abundance. This research will begin in 2010 as a collaborative undertaking with CNFER, Wildlife Research and Development Section (Peterborough), Canadian Forest Service, U of Guelph, the Forest Ecosystem Science Co-op, with the aid of an NSERC industrial collaboration and partnership grant (see also # 3 below in ‘Longer Term’ studies). Presently, Dr. Brent Patterson (MNR) is conducting moose research in the Algonquin Park area that may have relevance to the moose effectiveness monitoring program; no other ongoing studies are known of at this time.

Longer Term (within 10 years)

Investigate whether integration of the Moose Aerial Inventory (MAI) can help assess 1. the response of moose populations to application of the fine filter direction for moose. Consider implementation of strategically placed permanent MAI plots, particularly within the core moose range and identified by the Cervid Ecological Framework.

Investigate whether other programs (e.g., moose hunter postcard questionnaire) 2. could be used or modified to help monitor moose population response to guideline implementation.

Integrate research proposals on the biology and ecology of forest dwelling woodland 3. caribou with moose effectiveness monitoring objectives. Moose/caribou/wolf interspecific interactions, allocation of resources and habitat use are fundamental in application of forest management guidelines and understanding of forest ecology.

Funding

Workshop participants believed both the short and long term monitoring/research approaches identified could, for the most part, be met through present funding commitments in existing programs or by linkages with new funding proposals and mechanisms associated with other programs (e.g., Species at Risk program and forest dwelling woodland caribou research proposal).

19


Caribou Habitat Quality: Effectiveness of Caribou Habitat Direction in the LG

Glen Brown and Michael Gluck: Caribou Habitat Quality uncertainties pertain to sustaining viable populations of woodland caribou and will be addressed through a comprehensive research and monitoring program administered under the MNR’s Caribou Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP identified research and monitoring requirements to assess success in meeting recovery objectives, evaluate the mechanisms and effects of anthropogenic disturbance on caribou persistence, and to inform policy development and management decision-making (e.g., landscape guide revision). MNR will establish a standard provincial caribou monitoring program to provide baseline data on populations, range occupancy, southern edge of continuous distribution, and population health data (e.g., birth and death rates) for Woodland Caribou across the province. This will include the development of standards and protocols for caribou monitoring surveys. MNR is currently initiating a population range monitoring program at the local population range level to support a range management approach to caribou recovery at a scale relevant to assessing variation in population dynamics and viability. This scale of assessment will be suitable to evaluate the cumulative effects of forest management planning and other anthropogenic disturbances as implemented at a Landscape Guide-Ecoregional scale. The broad-scale population range assessments will provide data on vital rates (e.g., recruitment), distribution and movements of caribou as needed to refine preliminary delineated ranges and assess population status in relation to existing habitat conditions. Monitoring activities on each population range will include telemetry tracking of individual caribou and population aerial surveys. A minimum of two population ranges will be surveyed per year starting in the winter of 2010.

The monitoring strategy and other technical documents will establish the necessary monitoring cycles needed to assess population sustainability through time. Assessments will include characterization of the amount and distribution of suitable habitat and disturbance using available land cover databases (e.g., FRI with updates from forest management planning) maintained by the Ministry. The population and habitat data will be used to complete range assessments characterizing the status and risks associated with each population range, set population objectives for each range, and support planning decisions and reporting. The combined assessment of population health and habitat outcomes following Landscape Guide implementation will be used to identify viable management response alternatives in relation to existing caribou-habitat models employed in the Landscape Guide, and as refined through the research program.

The applied research program of MNR will be used to assess critical uncertainties of caribou population viability in relation to habitat requirements and demographic response to anthropogenic habitat and/or landscape disturbance. The series of studies will use empirically-based demographic modelling to evaluate alternative management policies available to OMNR in support of caribou recovery. A silvicultural research program will use historical silvicultural records and intensive ground-based stand vegetation sampling to assess the effects of silvicultural activities on stand suitability for caribou and to inform potential for silvicultural remediation of commercial forestry disturbance. Research findings will support refinement of existing habitat models used in the Landscape Guide by enabling the identification of the most influential population drivers and most sensitive indicators of population viability, including potential thresholds in population response that can aid in setting management targets. Ultimately this work will improve identification of the suite of viable management tools available to MNR under different range conditions and as needed to support caribou sustainability in relation to forest management.

20


Stick Nest Restrictions: Effectiveness of direction in the Stand & Site Guide in mitigating effects of forest management operations on productivity at nests of bald eagles, ospreys, and great blue herons

Brian Naylor: Forest management operations in the vicinity of occupied bird nests may result in nest site abandonment or reduced chick survival. Seasonal restrictions on forest management operations around occupied stick nests in the Stand & Site Guide are based largely on a model relating body size to response to non-forestry related human disturbance. Empirical evidence from other jurisdictions for a few species suggests that direction should be effective. However, the direction needs to be tested in Ontario, especially for those species for which the direction has changed substantially such as bald eagles, ospreys, and great blue herons.

The following hypothesis is to be tested in this project:

Seasonal restrictions on forest management operations around occupied bald eagle, osprey, and great blue heron nests in the Stand & Site Guide (Section 4.2.2) will result in nest site productivity that is comparable between nests in harvested and undisturbed situations.

In the proposed project, spring surveys of known nest sites (from NRVIS) using rotary-wing aircraft and following standard protocols will identify 50 occupied nest sites of each species that occur in areas allocated for harvest that summer (treatment sites). An additional 50 occupied nest sites of each species will be identified in areas unallocated for harvest (control sites). All 100 sites will be resurveyed using rotary-wing aircraft later the same summer to assess productivity. Effectiveness of direction will be assessed by comparing productivity (% successful nests, mean number of chicks per successful nest) at treatment and control sites using standard univariate analyses.

Discussion at December’s Guide Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop in Thunder Bay identified the following two key design issues.

It may be difficult to find a sufficient sample of treatment nests given the limited amount ▪▪of harvesting currently being conducted. This needs to be investigated. If a sufficient sample of nests is unlikely to be available, the project might be postponed, or an alternative approach might be considered. For example:

Response to simulated disturbances might be investigated, or ▫

Other indicators of reproductive activity (e.g., incubation constancy, chick ▫provisioning rate etc.) could be monitored at a smaller number of treatment and control nests.

The proposed design will only evaluate the effectiveness of the buffer size prescribed in the Stand & Site Guide (e.g., 400 m for eagles). The design could be broadened to evaluate alternative buffer sizes. For example, for eagles, buffers of 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 m could be prescribed. This would permit a more complete evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency. However, sample size and power implications of this design need to be investigated (especially in light of the first point noted above).

debruyne and rempel 2011 cnfer ip-007 007 centre for ...woody material to support wildlife...

Documents