EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FORESTFORÊT MODÈLE DE L’EST DE L’ONTARIO

P.O. Bag 2111Concession RoadKemptville, OntarioKOG 1JO

19 February 1994

EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FORESTECOLOGICAL WOODLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTPROJECT 2.1/93

Development of a Strategy for Woodlands Restoration in EasternOntario

The lands of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest have undergone dramatic transformation during the last few centuries. Disturbances from urban and agricultural developments, transportation and communicationscorridors, fires and logging have all impacted on the landscape.

The following report was prepared by Geomatics International Inc. as part of the Ecological WoodlandsRestoration project, funded as part of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest. This report is intended to serve as a"roadmap" towards restoration of our forested ecosystems in eastern Ontario. It addresses many of the concepts ofecological restoration, reviews restoration programs in other jurisdictions, and evaluates the contribution ofcurrent management programs to various restoration goals.

The overall goal of the Ecological Woodlands Restoration project, is to try to direct the current and future forestsof eastern Ontario towards a more "natural" state. The project has already delivered a historical overview of theforests in this area (A Forest History of Eastern Ontario, Keddy, 1993) . It will also establish potential goals andobjectives for restoration activities in this area (this report). A method of determining the ecological integrity offorest stands is currently being developed. Ultimately, all these steps will assist in establishing a network of sitesrequiring restoration measures.

This report is intended to act as a discussion paper, and to stimulate debate amongst the Model Forest partners.As such, comments on this report, or on the overall project objectives, will be welcomed, and should be directed toEric Boysen.

Eric BoysenSouthern Region Science and Tech UnitMinistry of Natural ResourcesPhone: 613-258-8240Fax: 613-258-3920

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.0 EXISTING INITIATIVES FOR WOODLAND RESTORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.0 CONSIDERATIONS FOR A FOREST RESTORATION STRATEGY IN EASTERNONTARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.1 Underlying Values of Ecological Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.2 Approach to the Restoration Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.3 The Role of Goals and Objectives in Ecological Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.4 Limitations of the Proposed Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5.0 A STRATEGY FOR FOREST RESTORATION IN EASTERN ONTARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.1 Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.2 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Inter-agency Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166.1 Evaluation of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Woodlands Improvement Act (WIA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Agreement Forest Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Managed Forest Tax Rebate Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Tree Seedlings Over The Counter Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Project Tree Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Private Land Extension Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19South Nation River Conservation Authority Forestry Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Conservation Land Tax Reduction Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Community Wildlife Involvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Community Fisheries Involvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Habitat Development Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Eastern Ontario Forest Development Agreement (Dumptier Agreement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23National Capital Commission Agreement Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.2 Summary of Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

7.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

8.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF CONTACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH

There are very few places in the world that have not been affected in some way or another byhuman activities. Direct effects such as strip mining, water diversion and storage, as well as by-products of human activity such as acid rain and toxic waste, are widespread (Cains 1989). Apart from these relatively recent influences, many ecosystems have been destroyed or degradedby other factors such as agriculture, urbanisation and deforestation.

The 'value' of a forest has traditionally been equated with its commercial value and forestmanagement practices are generally oriented towards maximising timber production. Replantingof forests was undertaken with little regard for provenance of the species planted and the effectthat change in forest structure and composition might have on wildlife. Modern forestmanagement practices tend to have greater consideration for the long-term effects of forestpractices and increasingly include conservation and restoration aspects. This change stems fromthe recognition that there are many critical functions of forest communities. They are majorterrestrial reservoirs of biotic diversity. Forests serve as critical habitat for many wildlifespecies. Forest cover affects the local climatic regime and also plays a role in fixing atmosphericcarbon. The deciduous forest represents one of the major endpoints of successionaldevelopment in our climatic zone (Woodwell 1992).

The restoration of forests differs in many aspects from the restoration of other vegetation types(Ashby 1987). The most obvious difference is that a greater length of time is often required tore-establish a forest. Forest restoration also requires a relatively large suite of species to be re-introduced. In addition, a host of other factors (both biotic and abiotic) such as agents for seeddispersal, competition, and disturbance must also be re-created. For many years, forestrestoration has been limited primarily to replanting trees, with little consideration given to theneed to restore species assemblages and ecosystem functions. However, this current initiativerecognizes that large, relatively "natural' forests are a necessary and desirable component ofeastern Ontario landscape.

This recognition of the need to restore native forests, provided much of the impetus for theEcological Woodlands Restoration Project. This project is being carried out by the EasternOntario Model Forest Group in cooperation with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,(OMNR) to show the need to improve and demonstrate our knowledge and commitmenttowards the sustainable forest resources of the region. The primary goals of the project are todetermine what the "natural" forest types of eastern Ontario are (i.e. what was the forestcomposition before the arrival of European settlers) and to recommend how to adapt currentforest management programs to promote the restoration of 'natural' forests.

This current study represents one component of the overall project. The purpose of this currentstudy is to develop a strategy for forest restoration through a review of existing restorationinitiatives elsewhere. This project also reviews existing forestry programs and indicates howthey contribute to, or detract from, the proposed strategy.

Information was collected through a review of the pertinent literature and directly contactingagencies and individuals with expertise in restoration and related fields. These include:

4

U.S. Forest Experiment Stations (North Central and North Eastern);U.S. Forest Service;University of Michigan;

University of Wisconsin;Wildlands Conservancy (Pennsylvania);Nature Conservancy (Virginia);Natural Lands Trust (Pennsylvania);Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources;US Environmental Protection Agency (Chicago);Ducks Unlimited;Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Resources;Lakehead University;Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Sault Ste. Marie, Carleton Place, London,Brockville);Domtar, Cornwall, Ontario;National Capital Commission;World Wildlife Fund; and

University of Guelph.

A complete list of contacts is provided in Appendix A. In addition, published literature wasconsulted, ranging from articles dealing with specific projects in periodicals (e.g. Restorationand Management Notes, Restoration Ecology) to broader monographic treatments ofrestoration issues.

2.0 DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), defines ecological restoration as "the process ofintentionally altering a site to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem. The goal ofthis process is to emulate the structure, function, diversity and dynamics of the specifiedecosystem". (SER 1992)

Ecological restoration, as defined by SER, may be distinguished from other resourcemanagement activities, in that it focuses on whole ecosystems, as opposed to favouringparticular species or species-groups. In this respect, restoration differs from forestry, whichconcentrates on tree growth for wood production or agroforestry, which favours speciesyielding specific economic products. This does not preclude, however, that component specieswill not benefit from restoration. Ecological restoration also differs from activities that improvesite conditions without emulating historic systems, such as reclamation, rehabilitation orconservation.

3.0 EXISTING INITIATIVES FOR WOODLAND RESTORATION

One of the factors that may hamper restoration initiatives is the clash between two philosophies:one preferring a passive approach to nature (‘do-nothing' attitude) and the other accepting theneed for management in the form of active intervention. The first approach, although morepopular in the scientific community, is advocated by some conservancy agencies (e.g. WildlandsConservancy in Pennsylvania) which purchases and holds land to let it revegetate through

5

natural mechanisms. Also, land ownership structure is often a major problem, particularly whenthe issue of forest fragmentation is to be addressed.

Despite this, there has been much ecological restoration undertaken in the United States,primarily wetlands, prairie, oak woodland and xeric communities in the southwest. A total offourteen agencies/universities were contacted to locate broad application restoration strategiesin the U.S.A. Although several of these contacts were involved in, or were aware of specificrestoration programs, none knew of programs comparable to that being proposed for easternOntario. For this reason, the review is of less value than was originally hoped for and ananalysis of existing goals and objectives for programs similar to the one proposed for easternOntario, was not possible.

Only one project, being undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),appears to be developing a broadly based approach to restoration over a large area. Apart fromthis, it appears that all the restoration is undertaken on a project-by-project basis, without thedevelopment of region-wide strategies. The U.S. experience is useful, however, because of therelatively large number of restorations and the diverse ecosystem types and geographic areas inwhich they are being carried out. These may be of great use in the initiation of specific projects. A few of the more relevant projects are summarised below. Addresses and telephone numbersof contacts are provided in Appendix 1.

Mid-west Oak Savannah RestorationContact: Karen Holland

The one exception to the “project-focussed” trend is the oak savannah restoration in theAmerican mid-west. This ecosystem historically occurred at the interface between the westernprairies and the eastern deciduous forest, and covered approximately 11 to 13 million ha(Nuzzo, 1986). It was composed mainly of prairie forbs and grasses with widely spaced, open-grown oaks.

Although this initiative has been proceeding on a project-by-project basis, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency is currently preparing an ecosystem plan that will coordinate the restorationof oak savannah throughout its historical range in the U.S.A. (Canada was unfortunatelyexcluded from this exercise). At present, documentation has concentrated on methods andtechniques for restoration and the overall goals and objectives for the initiative have not beenestablished. Thus, this project in its present state is not of great use for providing guidance inthe formulation of a strategy for eastern Ontario.

As part of this project, hundreds of hectares of savannah are being actively restored, with thegoal of restoring 40,500 ha by the year 2000 (Holland, pers. comm.). Many differentorganisations are involved in the effort, from federal, state and municipal governments to non-government and private organisations. To date, most projects have been locally-oriented andsite-specific. There has been no overall co-ordination of the activities, except for informalmeetings between different groups, although the higher-priority projects are carried out first. The general goal is evident (restoration of oak-savannah), but objectives vary according to theproject and the agency involved. Largely because of the multitude and diversity of sites,restoration methods and monitoring schemes are not standardised. The most common technique

6

used to restore the savannah involves reintroduction of the historical fire regime (Haney, pers.comm.).

Huron-Manistee National Forest ProjectContact: Dr. Tom Crow, Dr. Burton Barnes

The Huron-Magister National Forests ecological diversity project in Michigan is a significantundertaking at the landscape level that goes beyond a site-specific approach (Crow, pers.comm.). The project assesses the ecological diversity of forests at various spatial scales andincludes the evaluation of the importance of old-growth forests. Because only few of thoseforests remain, most of the designated areas would require restoration to an old-growth state. The stated objective is to ensure that these ecosystems represent the full range of regionalecological diversity. However, this project concentrates on the preservation of existing forestsand does not articulate a strategy for region-wide restoration.

Mississippi Bottomland Forest RestorationContact: Randy Becknell (see also Allen and Kennedy, 1989)

Another significant initiative is being undertaken in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Newling,1991) which involves numerous restorations of bottomland hardwood forests. These projectshave benefited from extensive baseline information on the composition and functioning of thebest remaining examples of original vegetation. Although regeneration of bottomland forests onabandoned farmland has been carried out in the past, their primary objective was timberproduction. However, during the last ten years, major efforts have been made towards restoringcommunities that more closely resemble the historic forests. These projects are undertaken bysuch agencies as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Mississippi Game and Fish Commissionand the Louisiana Freshwater Fish and Game Commission. The restored parcels range fromone-half to 400 hectares.

U.S. Nature ConservancyContact: Martha Orling

The organization most active in forest restoration appears to be The U. S. Nature Conservancyin Arlington, Virginia. It is involved in many projects across the country, with the goal topreserve rare wildlife by actively preserving and restoring key habitats and to link foreststogether to produce large wild areas. However, there is no formal strategy per se thatspecifically addresses a strategy to restore a particular forest type or region-wide area.

4.0 CONSIDERATIONS FOR A FOREST RESTORATION STRATEGY IN EASTERNONTARIO

4.1 Underlying Values of Ecological Restoration

In order to provide credibility and generate support for an undertaking as major as the oneproposed here, it is necessary to clearly articulate the rationale for the program and the valueson which it is based. Without this, the restoration initiative is without foundation.

7

In other recent work involving the protection of remnant landscapes in southern Ontario(Geomatics International 1992), a basis for the protection and enhancement of naturallandscapes (which includes restoration) was examined. Our findings concluded that there wasone root value which supports and motivates conservation initiatives such as the restorationstrategy for eastern Ontario forests:

"The desire to preserve, maintain, restore the natural environment is a recognition of kinshipwith other living organisms and an understanding that we are part of our natural environmentand are therefore intimately bonded with it."

(Geomatics International, 1991)

This thesis was explored in a detailed and personal exposition by Edward Wilson (Wilson, 1984)in which he used the phrase "biophilia" to describe our innate and deep-rooted relationship withthe environment. Other authors (see Rifkin, 1991) have also recognised the intimate bondbetween humankind and the environment- and predicted the need for us to reaffirm those bonds.

We derived three corollary values from this root value (Geomatics International 1992) thathave been refined and are provided below:

1) the desire to retain examples of the natural environment that are familiar to us and give us asense of roots or belonging;

2) respect for future generations and a desire to maintain an environment that will sustainthem;

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

Since much of the natural environment has been highly disturbed in southern Ontario, restorationis an essential component of satisfying these values. Adoption of these values is recommendedas a philosophical basis for a restoration strategy in eastern Ontario.

4.2 Approach to the Restoration Strategy

The restoration strategy can be formulated in two ways. In one, a narrow view of restorationwhich only focuses on the ecological re-establishment of natural forest systems. However, thisonly addresses part of the issue of ecosystem restoration as it ignores societal attitudes towardthe environment and the major impact that they have on natural systems. For instance, the on-going introduction of non-native plants and animals through landscaping, gardening and otherhorticultural activities has a tremendous impact on natural systems and will, at least in part,undermine attempts to restore natural forest ecosystems on a region-wide scale. Theintroduction of exotic organisms is one of the most serious threats to indigenous natural systemsin North America (Soulé, 1990; Coblentz, 1990).

Instead, a comprehensive and holistic approach to a restoration strategy is recommended. Thestrategy should address education, co-operation with other agencies and communityinvolvement, as well as forestry and monitoring.

8

Education is a key aspect of the initiative. The proponent (Model Forest Group), the public andresource managers in other land management programs, must agree with the vision of therestoration strategy if it is to be successful. This will require some education about theecological and heritage value of native forest ecosystems, evidence of their demise, and theimpact of the gradual homogenisation of the flora through the consistent use of few (often non-native) species and the reduction in the diversity of wildlife habitat.

Co-operation with other agencies is important for the long term success of the program. Thevarious participants in the program must all "buy in" to the strategy and modify, refine, orrewrite their own policies and program so that they are consistent with the restoration strategy. As this occurs, the restoration initiative will gain momentum and the eventual goal of restoring asignificant area of native forest can be realised.

Community involvement can contribute to the support of the program not only by supplying aninexpensive labour force to assist with physical aspects of restoration, but by engenderingcommunity pride in restoration programs and generating political and fiscal support forrestoration projects. Moreover, an essential part of landscape restoration is a change in the waylandscapes, including forests are viewed. At present, forests are still primarily viewed as acommodity, and as such, management focused on maximising yield and profit, at the expense ofecological integrity, is perceived acceptable. This view is being challenged with the recentawareness of environmental issues and the attention on long term sustainability. Program andreports such as the World Conservation Strategy (Pollard and McKechnie 1986), Options for aGreater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy (Kanter 1990) and New Planning for Ontario(Sewell, Penfold and Vigod 1993) all recognize the need for a new attitude toward theenvironment. The education component should include a new way of looking at theenvironment that involves the community in the restoration of the environment and encouragesthe recognition of our relationship within it (biophilia).

4.3 The Role of Goals and Objectives in Ecological Restoration

The establishment of appropriate goals and objectives is essential for the success of anyrestoration project. They serve not only to provide focus and direction for a project, but also toprovide a means of measuring the success of the project in the future.

Bonnicksen (1988, 1989) stresses the importance of establishing qualitative goals andquantitative objectives, to judge the results and success of restoration projects. He notes thatGoals are “idealistic, qualitative and timeless”. They may not be fully achieved, but do providea general direction for actions. Objectives, on the other hand, specify measurable targets thatare expected to be achieved in a certain period.

Objectives can be used to develop parameters for subsequent monitoring programs that can thenbe used to evaluate the degree to which objectives are fulfilled. This not only allowsaccountable reporting of the project, but also identifies where management programs requirerefining or total rethinking in order to meet project goals.

The primary criterion to evaluate restoration projects is the degree of adherence of the restoredcommunity to the 'ideal' or 'model' community. In such a case, goals and objectives would be

9

constructed to emulate the historic community. Ewel (1987) criticised such a comparison as toosuperficial and suggested five more specific criteria for evaluating restored ecosystems. Theseare:

Sustainability - Ability of the reconstructed community to perpetuate itself without humanassistance;Invasibility - Relative resistance to invasions by new species, particularly exotics;Productivity - A restored community should be as productive as the original;Nutrient retention - An attribute relating to a closed nutrient circulation system; and

Biotic interactions - The presence of multiple interactions between animal and plant species, especially species critical for maintaining community integrity.

These criteria provide the basis for defining the health of ecosystems. Healthiness, in this case,becomes equated with the degree to which a forest is restored (i.e., the closer a forest comes tothe historic ideal, the healthier it is). The criteria are not discrete in the sense that they are metor not met, rather they can be met to varying degrees. The greater degree to which they aresatisfied, the healthier the ecosystem. Thus, a forest which requires some intervention tomaintain because a particular ecological process has been lost (for example fire) or owing to aninability to eradicate an invasive rare plant, would not be considered as healthy as a forest that iscompletely self-sustaining and does not require intervention. Management that is undertaken toachieve specific goals other than creation of the historic condition would also detract from foresthealth, given the definition of restoration that is used in this report.

4.4 Limitations of the Proposed Strategy

The development of goals and objectives for a major restoration initiative cannot be carriedout by any one individual. It is best accomplished through an iterative process that involvesparticipants with expertise in a number of different aspects of restoration. The following visionstatement, goals, and objectives constitutes a starting point for the development of acomprehensive strategy. It should serve to generate discussion and lead to refinements thatresult in a sound strategy to guide the restoration of the forests of eastern Ontario.

Many of the component parts of the strategy proposed below can be initiated independently ofone another, although all should eventually be addressed to fulfil the vision statement. However,some tasks can be initiated using existing resources and programs and others introduced later asthe opportunity arises. The strategy should be viewed as a master plan that will guide theoverall direction of the restoration initiative. It is flexible insofar as the different componentscan be initiated at different times and that there does not have to be commitment to immediateimplementation of the entire strategy.

5.0 A STRATEGY FOR FOREST RESTORATION IN EASTERN ONTARIO

5.1 Vision Statement

The vision of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Woodland Restoration Project is to protect,enhance and restore the biological diversity and ecological integrity of eastern Ontario foreststhrough:

10

a) the restoration of indigenous, historic forest ecosystems;

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

5.2 Goals and Objectives

The following seven goals are organised under five general headings. Objectives are providedfor each of the seven goals.

Education

Goals

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

Objectives

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

1.2 Organize a seminar or workshop to be presented to school boards in eastern Ontario and possibly primary and secondary school teachers to:

C inform them of the eastern forest restoration program;C provide guidance on how they can integrate a restoration component into

the school curriculum;C suggest ways in which schools could actively contribute to the restoration

program.

1.3 Organize a seminar/workshop for upper tier government agencies and municipal staff in eastern Ontario to inform them of the program and discuss means by

which they could participate in or co-operate with the project.

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

11

the restoration program.

1.5 Develop an educational framework to increase public awareness of the virtues of the forest restoration initiative (e.g. University of Guelph Stewardship Training

Course), and pursue shared stewardship and shared responsibility for the forest.

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

Objectives

2.1 Establish a policy addressing native plant species that will promote their use without placing undue constraints on the appropriate use of non-native

ornamentals. The policy should minimise the use of invasive non-native plant species for landscaping, street planting, horticultural displays etc. [Note: the

intent of this is not to prevent the use of all non-native plant materials, but only thosewhich have a negative impact on remnant native ecosystems owing to their abilityto reproduce, spread and out-compete native flora. Examples include the numerous cultivars of Norway maple, buckthorns, purple loosestrife, and Tartarianhoneysuckle.]

2.2 Compile a list of native plants and known exotic plants for the region. This list should include information regarding the habitat requirements of each species, whether or not it is invasive, and its suitability for use in restoration projects.

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

departments).

2.4 Organize presentations for gardening groups and horticultural societies to inform them of the intent of the restoration program and seek their cooperation in its

implementation. Encourage these societies to adopt guidelines or a code of ethics for planting non-native species and invite active participation in restoration and sponsoring/organising individual restoration projects.

Inter-agency Cooperation

Goals

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

12

Objectives

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

restoration of forests.

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

3.3 Foster partnerships between different organisations and individuals, using the Model Forest Network, to develop and refuse programs contributing to the overall goal through memoranda, press releases, public consultations when

formulating policies and programs, cooperation with industry, setting up informal agreements, etc.

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

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

Forestry

Goals

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

Objectives

4.1 Establish a historic baseline of pre-settlement forests in the region.

This will involve review of available historic inventories of forests and survey notesin order to establish types of forest cover, species composition, geographicdistribution, soil and site characteristics, identification of disturbance factors,disturbance periodicity, etc.

4.2 Document the existing forest conditions.

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

13

4.3 Determine the extent to which historic forest types are represented in the present forest cover; prioritise the restoration of forest types that are currently poorly

represented.

This involves comparing the forest types and distributions of historic and modernforests. The modern forests will be assessed as to how well they resemble thehistoric types in both their biotic and abiotic characteristics and pattern ofoccurrence. Those historic types with low or no modem representation or thoseoriginally widespread but presently limited, will receive restoration priority.

4.4 Identify the best preserved existing stands to serve as model forest types for future reference.

Benchmark descriptions of the best quality remnants of natural forests willinclude their floristic composition, structure, site characteristics, type of soil, etc. For each type, natural disturbance mechanisms and dynamic processes will beassessed. Permanent plots may be established for long-term studies.

4.5 Identify opportunities for restoration projects in eastern Ontario.

Through the reviews of the existing regional landscape carried out for 4.2, 4.3and 4.4, identify forests that lend themselves to restoration. These should beprioritised with respect to urgency for restoration or suitability as demonstrationand/or experimental projects.

4.6 Develop a generic protocol for forest restoration.

The purpose of the protocol is to have a standardised suite of steps to follow inorder to carry out forest restoration projects. At a minimum, the protocol shouldbe composed of the following elements:

! development of goals and objectives; ! document baseline conditions (species abundance, composition, structure

etc.); ! ecological project design (eg. restoration of ecological process, species

selection, propagule provenance, control of non-natives etc.);! technical project design (e.g. site preparation methods, planting techniques, time flames); and

! monitoring schedules and reporting structures.

4.7 Develop and refine methods and techniques for forest restoration.

Ecological restoration is an emerging field and even experienced restorationistsacknowledge that we are relatively ignorant of the process that regulateecosystems on a site basis. Even in systems where there has been practicalexperience, every project reveals new information. 'The expertise OMNR has inforest management and planting will be of great benefit, however, there is muchto be learned regarding appropriate procedures for re-creating natural forest

14

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

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

4.9 Develop a monitoring protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of individual restoration projects.

There is general agreement in the restoration community that carrying outrestoration projects is still very much a learning process. Restoration projectsmust. be continuously monitored and refined. Successes and failures should beshared with the larger restoration community to ensure that maximum benefit isgained from each initiative.

5. Refine existing forest management programs to address the goal of restoring indigenousforest vegetation.

Objectives

5.1 Identify forest management programs with potential to contribute to the restoration program.

Within each program identify and, where necessary strengthen, elementscompatible with restoration objectives. Identify elements that are notconsistent with the restoration initiative and refuse or eliminate themwhere feasible.

5.2 Continue to critically assess the overall contribution of existing forest management programs and assess their adequacy for meeting the

objectives of the restoration program.

Community Involvement

Goals

6. Involve the communities of eastern Ontario in the restoration program to fosterparticipation and civic pride in the indigenous landscape.

Objectives

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

15

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

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

Monitoring

Goals

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

Objectives

7.1 Develop a monitoring program and reporting mechanism that addresses the objectives ofthe overall program.

The effectiveness of the program must be evaluated periodically to assess thecooperation and contribution from all participants that are necessary for an integratedrestoration strategy. Reporting of successes and failures will not only educateparticipants, but will also communicate progress, reinforce the value of contributionsfrom participants, and reinforce commitments. It may also help to sway reluctantparticipants or non-cooperating agencies/organisations and recruit further assistance inthe program.

6.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

There are a number of forest management programs that have relevance to the woodlandsrestoration initiative in eastern Ontario. These programs, listed below, are evaluated in terms oftheir potential to contribute to the forest restoration program. The comments under 'cons' relatespecifically to the potential to contribute to the restoration of forests and are not criticisms ofprograms.

6.1 Evaluation of Programs

Woodlands Improvement Act (WIA) - The purpose of this program is to provide for financialand technical assistance in tree planting and woodlot improvement. The Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources provides advice to private landowners, free of charge. In return, thelandowner must be willing to dedicate the land to forest use for a period of 15 years. The sizeof agreement properties in eastern Ontario varies from 2 ha to 810 ha. The technical adviceprovided by the OMNR consists of developing plans for tree planting and woodlot management,tree marking for harvesting operations, and protecting forests from fire, insects and disease. The

16

applicant pays for the cost of tree seedlings and accepts responsibility for protecting the areafrom fire, insects, disease and livestock.

Pros: Provides an incentive to revegetate non-forested land; provides a potentially excellentvehicle for forest restoration on private lands; management by the OMNR provides opportunityto ensure compatibility with restoration program goals and objectives, and consistent applicationof restoration methods. It also provides a mechanism for assisting landowners who lack theexpertise to undertake restoration work themselves.

Cons: Severely curtailed by the recent budgetary cuts; no defined ecological approach to forestrestoration that addresses all aspects of woodland ecosystems.

Goals contributed to:

1. This program has the potential to help foster an appreciation of the importance of nativeforest ecosystems, although a more explicitly ecosystem-centred approach to woodlotmanagement would be more beneficial.

2. Most nursery stock provided through this program is composed of native conifers.

Agreement Forest Program - This program was established in 1922 under the authority of theForestry Act. Approximately 350,000 ha of land in Ontario are managed as Agreement forests. Agreement forests are owned by conservation authorities, regional, county or townshipgovernments and managed by the OMNR. Agreement forests are generally managed inaccordance with OMNR policy, although the landowners are involved in determiningmanagement strategies. Therefore, in some forests, not all activities (eg. harvesting or hunting)may be permitted.

Pros: Provides an incentive to revegetate non-forested land; provides a potential vehicle forforest restoration on public lands; management by the OMNR provides opportunity to ensurecompatibility with restoration program goals and objectives.

Cons: To date, the program has focused on reforestation as opposed to ecologically-basedrestoration which considers whole ecosystems.

Goals contributed to:

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

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

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

17

provide tax rebates for woodland restoration initiatives.

Pros: The program, if reintroduced, could significantly contribute to the Model ForestRestoration Strategy by offering incentive for private landowners to get involved.

Cons: None.

Goals contributed to:

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

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

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

Tree Seedlings Over The Counter Sales - The purpose of this program, sponsored by theOMNR, is to provide nursery stock to landowners to plant their own properties. Landownersmust own a minimum of 2 ha of land, exclusive of buildings. They pay the cost of seedlings,cover the transportation costs and are responsible for planting them.

Pros: Provides opportunity to sell indigenous species to provide forest cover onpreviously non-forested land;

Cons: Strength of the incentive is unknown; it suffers from a lack of technical assistanceprovided to landowner (brochures with simply stated guidelines); at present there is little controlexerted over the choice of species planted; no firm commitment from landowner to establish andmaintain the land as forest; no ecological approach to forest restoration that addresses all aspectsof woodland ecosystems.

Goals contributed to:

1. As it this program involves the public, and will result in some education with respect tousing planting native species, it contributes to goal 1.

2. This program potentially contributes to goal 2 through the dissemination of indigenousspecies in seed form. Elimination of the sale of inappropriate species, especially non-native stock, and an increased emphasis on native hardwoods would result in increasedfulfilment of goal 2.

5. If the program is refined to eliminate sale of non-indigenous species and encourage saleof species that are of the correct provenance for a particular site, then it contributes togoal 5.

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

18

maintain the planted trees. The project provides technical expertise, subsidizes the cost of thetree seedlings, planting services and quality control over the planting operation. The ownerprovides the site, prepares it and buys the seedlings.

Pros: The project has a good promotional value and may serve to set the stage for a moreextensive afforestation effort; OMNR's quality control contributes to technical and ecologicalsoundness and increases planting success.

Cons: Short duration (1993-1997); areas to be planted are limited to 4 ha.; currently no attemptto use species of native provenance; no ecological approach to forest restoration that addressesall aspects of woodland ecosystems

Goals contributed to.

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

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

3. Since this program is a cooperative effort between several agencies, it contributes to goal3.

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

Private Land Extension Services - The purpose of this service, offered by OMNR (LandownerResource Centre, 1993), is to provide advice and assistance to landowners on all aspects ofnatural resources management, such as forestry, fisheries and wildlife, land and water services,aggregate resources, planning, education and information. In the area of forestry expertise, theassistance includes preparation of management plans for reforestation/afforestation, woodlotmanagement, forest health issues (insects and disease), timber sales and maple sugar bushmanagement.

Pros: Covers many topics important to ecologically-based restoration; promotes more aspectsof forested systems than most programs; has great educational potential and provides amechanism for conveying the restoration program to private landowners;

Cons: present limitations on amount of time spent on property (4 days per year) may notbe enough to prevent failures and monitor progress of projects.

Goals contributed to:

1. Since a large part of this program is to educate landowners with respect to resourcemanagement, it contributes directly to goal 1. The extension service should focus on therestoration initiative and the various ways individuals can contribute to it, to maximizecontribution to goal 1.

19

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

South Nation River Conservation Authority Forestry Program- The purpose of thisprogram is to establish tree windbreaks for soil and energy conservation, utilize idle land andreduce erosion along watercourses. This is a comprehensive program involving education,promotion, site visitations, site preparation, tree planting, tending, inspection, and qualitycontrol. Costs of planting are borne by the landowner or by another cooperating agency. Oneof the provisions is to link plantings with the efforts of other agencies.

Pros: Provision of comprehensive services; potential starting point for full-scalerestoration efforts.

Cons: The program focuses on specific functional objectives and is not based on an ecosystemapproach that examines all aspects of forests. The program would be enhanced by making itsobjectives consistent with the goals and objectives of the Woodlands Restoration Initiative.

Goals contributed to:

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

2. The program can contribute to this goal providing it promotes the use of native plantingstock.

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

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Services - This program, sponsored by the RideauValley Conservation Authority, aims at improving water quality and preventing soil erosion onprivate land. Examples of projects include stream bank protection, ditch/stream crossings,woodlot management and tree planting. Technical assistance and advice is provided, includingsite visits, survey and design work, while the owner covers the cost of labour and equipment.

Pros: Useful program that may contribute to full-scale restoration; contains educationalelements.

Cons: The program's primary purpose is water quality improvement and reforestation appearsto be of secondary importance. As in the previous program, it focuses on specific functionalobjectives with little consideration of an ecosystem approach that examines all aspects of forests.

Goals contributed to:

As with the previous program, the RVCA services have the potential to contribute significantlyto the Woodlands Restoration Initiative through contribution to goals 1, 2 and 3, with the

20

provisos mentioned for the previous program.

Conservation Land Tax Reduction Program - Launched in 1986, its purpose is to recognize,encourage and support landowners who agree to protect conservation lands on their property byoffering a 100% tax rebate on municipal property taxes paid. Categories of eligible landsinclude provincially significant wetlands (Class 1,2,3) and other conservation lands owned bynon-profit organisations. Minimum conservation land size is 0.2 ha. The owner agrees to 10-year-long maintenance of the conservation land in its natural state and to allow access to OMNRto verify that appropriate property management is being done.

Pros: Forests on conservation lands are protected; the inclusion of wetlands, ensures thatsignificant (class 1, 2 or 3) forested swamps may also be protected.

Cons: The program is restricted to lands presently deemed to be ecologically significant andwould not, at present, cover restoration projects; minimum area precludes small forest patches;the 10-year long maintenance period is too short for forest communities; no active tree plantingor active restoration.

Goals contributed to:

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

Community Wildlife Involvement Program - Purpose is to provide individuals or groups withthe opportunity to participate in hands-on management and conservation activities. OMNRprovides expertise, equipment and materials for approved projects, including hedgerow planting,wildlife surveys and habitat enhancement. Priority is given to projects that enhance wildlifeproduction and habitat.

Pros: The planting of hedgerows may be beneficial in that they have the potential toserve as a cores for corridors linking forest fragments.

Cons: The emphasis of this program is on wildlife management and individual projects are notnecessarily considered in the context of wider, ecosystem-based objectives. At present, thisprogram contains no elements of forest restoration.

Goals contributed to.

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

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

21

fisheries resource. Priority is given to projects which contribute to natural reproduction andrehabilitation, and which help maintain and rehabilitate Ontario's fisheries resources.

Pros: By involving the public (sportsmen's clubs, schools and community associations) theprogram plays educational role by increasing awareness of natural resource management;projects may include rehabilitation of wet forests along watercourses and the program haspotential to integrate with the Woodlands Restoration Initiative. Some ecological function isaddressed in the program, although most of it does not relate to woodlands.

Cons: Emphasis of the program on fisheries limits its potential to contribute to forestrestoration.

Goals contributed to:

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

The program has the potential to contribute more significantly to the Model Forest WoodlandsRestoration Initiative, if it were made more compatible with some of the goals and objectivesexpressed in this report (e.g., promotion of native species).

Habitat Development Projects - sponsored by Ducks Unlimited. The purpose of this programis to provide waterfowl habitat either through procurement of prime wetland habitat, or bymanagement or creation of wetland habitat. The primary focus of this program is therestoration/enhancement of agricultural areas. Ducks Unlimited is willing to co-operate withother agencies in projects that affect wetlands. The majority of their projects have focussed onthe restoration or management of wetlands in and around agricultural areas, but there is somelatitude for initiatives that involve forest restoration. Ducks Unlimited have indicated that theywould be interested in management programs that affect forested areas adjacent to wetlands aswell as forest habitat for waterfowl (e.g. wood ducks and black ducks).

Pros: The programmes are intended to create or manage waterfowl habitat. There is apossibility of restoration projects in areas adjacent to wetlands or in wooded swamps (e.g., forwood ducks).

Cons. The ultimate management goal is waterfowl production, not restoration of ecosystems,thus there is limited potential for this program to contribute to the Model Forest WoodlandRestoration Initiative.

Goals contributed to: None

Eastern Ontario Forest Development Agreement (Domtar Agreement)

This program was established in 1981 between Domtar and the OMNR. There are twocomponents to this program. The first component involves the replanting of "idle" lands

22

(termed the "establishment component") and the second involves management of privately-owned woodlots ("maintenance component"). The term of the project is twenty years, with areview every five years and the potential for renewal for five year terms.

A total of 1300 ha of privately owned woodlots are currently managed through this program. At present the majority of these lands are single-aged stands. Domtar intends to partially cutthese woodlots every 15 years, creating woodlots with 3-4 age classes. In addition, 1150 ha oflands have been planted with hybrid poplar (primarily hybrids of European and North Americancottonwoods). These lands will be cut on a 12 year rotation.

Pros.. This programme is serving to re-establish forest cover on deforested lands.Selective cutting of woodlots will introduce a more diverse age structure.

Cons. Makes extensive use of non-native hybrids for fibre production. The extremely shortrotation period and extensive use of monocultures is incompatible with forest restoration. Theprogram is not oriented to ecologically-based forest restoration.

Goals contributed to: None

National Capital Commission Agreement Forest

The NCC entered into a Forestry Act Agreement (Agreement Forest) with the OMNR in the1960's. The primary intent of this agreement was to reforest abandoned pasture and marginalagricultural land. The secondary intent was to harvest timber from these areas. The NCC hasactively co-operated with other agencies in reforestation programmes in the region, for example,with Scouts Canada. Most of these replanting programmes were undertaken for aestheticreasons. At present the NCC is planning to begin a programme to establish linkages andcorridors between forest fragments.

Pros: This agreement has the potential to serve as a vehicle for reforestation in the NCCregion.

Cons: Presently, the program lacks an ecological focus and does not contribute directly to thegoals and objectives provided in this study. The new program to establish linkages andcorridors appears to be a step in the right direction and further refinement of the program withrespect to an ecological approach could significantly increase the role of this program in theModel Forest Woodland Restoration Initiative.

Goals contributed to:

1. Goal 1 is marginally contributed to since the program involves the public and has aneducation component.

2. Goal 2 may be contribute to depending on the species being used for planting.

6. Goal 6 is contributed to the extent that the NCC program involves community groupssuch as Scouts Canada.

23

6.2 Summary of Existing Programs

All of the existing programs in eastern Ontario are currently peripheral to the initiative to restorethe forests of eastern Ontario. However, several of them contribute to some extent to the goalsand objectives suggested in this report. Nearly all of them have the potential to contributesignificantly to the restoration program to a much greater degree than at present. This is not acriticism, because there is no existing region-wide framework for restoration to providecoordination among the various programs. This current initiative can fill this void. The greatadvantage is that they are existing programs with allocations of budget and staff and there is anexisting rapport with the public and other agencies. With the creation of a set of guidelines forrestoring indigenous forests in eastern Ontario, it would be possible to refine the goals andobjectives of existing programs such that they could contribute significantly to the restorationinitiative.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

The existing forests of eastern Ontario represent only a small fraction of the original, indigenousforest cover. This is a result of more than two centuries of human settlement and variousimpacts, such as clearing for agriculture, urbanisation and poor forestry practices. However,these forests play an important role in improving air and water quality, supplying raw materialfor the forest industry, and providing habitat for wildlife and recreation opportunities for people.

Considering these benefits, it is appropriate to develop a long-term strategy that aims atmaintaining and improving the extent and content of forest ecosystems. The current direction ofthe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and its stated goal to "retain, restore and whereappropriate, replace forest ecosystems as an integral part of the physical, biological and culturallandscape" (Ministry of Natural Resources, 1993), is commendable and provides a strongrationale for proceeding with this restoration initiative.

The extensive literature on ecological restoration reflects the practical and theoretical interest inthe subject. However, the analysis of restoration activities both in Canada and elsewhereindicates that there is a general lack of coordination of work, most of which is done on aproject-by-project basis. In this respect, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Group's initiative todevelop a strategy guiding a region-wide woodland restoration effort is visionary.

Program planning, management and implementation for this initiative will necessarily rely onstrong landowner stewardship because the majority of the land base is privately owned. Therefore, there is a need to tailor existing forest management programs so that landowners playa greater role in the fulfilling the restoration goals. Although forest restoration is not a clearlyexpressed goal of many of the existing management programs, they nevertheless are goodstarting points for full-scale restorations. The areas where programs could be improved include,for example, giving greater incentives to landowners (tax rebates, preferential pricing for plantingmaterial), exercising greater control over the choice of species planted, increasing the size andduration of planting projects, and upgrading educational programs. The current lack of anoverall planning framework for forest restoration has resulted in an array of programs that do notshare a common goal. The creation of a comprehensive, overall strategy would serve tointegrate existing programs.

24

8.0 REFERENCES

Allen, J.A. and H.E. Kennedy, Jr. 1989. Bottomland Hardwood Reforestation in the LowerMississippi Valley. Publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,National Wetlands Research Centre, Slidell, LA and U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Stoneville, MS. 28pp.

Ashby, W.C. 1987. Forests. Pages 89-108. In: Jordan III, W.R., M.E. Gilpin and J.D. Aber.(Eds.). 1987. Restoration Ecology, A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. CambridgeUniv. Press., Cambridge. 342pp.

Bonnicksen, T.M. 1988. Restoration ecology: philosophy, goals and ethics.Environmental Professional 10:25-35.

Bonnicksen, T.M. 1989. Goals and standards in the restoration of forest communities. Pages329-337. In: Hughes, H.G. and T.M. Bonnicksen. 1989. Restoration '89: The NewManagement Challenge. Proc. of lst Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration,January 16-20, 1989, Oakland, California. 593pp.

Cairns, J., Jr. 1989. Restoring damaged ecosystems: Is predisturbance condition a viableoption? Environmental Professional ll: 152-159.

Coblentz, B.E. 1990. Exotic organisms: a dilemma for conservation biology.Conservation Biology 4(3):261-265.

Ewel, J.J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. pp. 31-33. In: Jordan III,W.R., M.E. Gilpin and J.D. Aber. (Eds.). 1987. Restoration Ecology, A Synthetic Approach toEcological Research. Cambridge Univ. Press., Cambridge. 342pp.

Geomatics International Inc. 1992. Environmentally Sensitive Area Study - Addendum Report.Volume 1. Unpublished report prepared for the Regional Municipality of Halton. 53pp.

Kanter, R. 1990. Options for a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy (overview).28pp.

Landowner Resource Centre. 1993. Agencies and Programs - Private Land Stewardship inOntario. Draft. Working document published by the Landowner Resource Centre,Manotick, Ontario. 50pp.

Newling, C.J. 1991. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in the LowerMississippi Valley. Restoration & Management Notes 8(l): 23-28.

Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. Extent and status of mid-west oak savanna: presettlement and 1985.Natural Areas Journal 6:6-36.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Vision 2020: A Forest Management

25

Strategy for the Southern Region. draft #5. 36pp.

Pollard, D.F.W. and M.R. McKechnic. 1986. World Conservation Strategy - Canada Report onAchievements in Conservation. Conservation and Protection,Environment Canada. 61pp.

Rifkin, J. 1991 . Biosphere Politics: a cultural odyssey from the middle ages to the newage. Harper, San Francisco. 388pp.

Sewell, J., G. Penfold and T. Vigod. 1993. New Planning for Ontario. Final Report. Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. Queen's Printer forOntario. 207pp.

Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox and D.H. Mehlman. 1992. Movement Corridors:Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments? Conservation Biology 6(4):493-504.

Society for Ecological Restoration. 1992. Draft proposals. Madison, Wisconsin. 6pp.

Soulé, M.E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the comingdecades. Conservation Biology 4(3):322-340.

Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press. 157pp.

Woodwell, G.M. 1992. When succession fails. Pages 27-35. In: Wali, M.K. (Ed.). 1992. Ecosystem Rehabilitation, Vol. 1: Policy Issues. SPB Academic Publishing, lie Hague, TheNetherlands. 230pp.

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF CONTACTS

Contact List for Eastern Ontario Forest Restoration Project

Ontario

Dave Chapaskie Unit ForesterMinistry of Natural ResourcesBrockville(613) 342-8524

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

Dr. Peter Duinker Lakehead UniversityThunder Bay(807) 343-8508also Co-chair, Forest Policy Panel(416) 314-2464

26

John Fingland Ministry of Natural Resources London(519) 661-2743

Jim Hendry Unit Forester Ministry of Natural Resources Cornwall

Kevin Kavanagh World Wildlife FundToronto(416) 489-8800

Frank Kennedy Manager - Environmental Assessment Ministry of NaturalResourcesSault Ste. Marie(705) 945-6703

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

Dell Parker Environmental Assessment Section Forest Policy Branch Ministryof Natural Resources Sault Ste. Marie (705) 945-6703

Peter Scheichenbaum Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Resources(705) 754-2198

Owen Steele Regional BiologistDucks Unlimited566 Welham RoadBarrie, ON IAM 6E7(705) 721-4444

Martin Streit Unit ForesterMinistry of Natural ResourcesCarleton Place(613) 257-5735

Brian Thompson Incentive and Agreements Co-ordinator Ministry of NaturalResourcesSault Ste. Marie(705) 945-6655

Olesia van Dyke Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Manotick(613) 692-3571

George Velema Domtar300 2nd StreetCornwall, ON K6J 1A6

27

613-932-6620

Doug Wolthausen National Capital Commission161 Laurier Avenue WestOttawa, ON K1P 6J6(613) 239-5555

USA Environmental Conservation AgencyBuffalo, NY USA(716) 851-7000

(name not obtained) Northeast Forest Experimental Station USDA Forest ServiceBroomall, Pennsylvania USA 10987(215) 975-4223

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

Dr. Burton Barnes School of Natural ResourcesMichigan State University(313) 764-1407

Don Boelter Ass't Director, Research NorthUSDA Forest ServiceNorth Central Forest Experiment Station 1992 Folwell Ave.St. Paul, MinnesotaUSA 55108-6148(612) 649-5281

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

Dorothy Brett Wildlands ConservancyPennsylvania USA(215) 965-4397

Dr. Tom Crow Forestry Sciences LabLandscape EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin(715) 362-7474

Dr. Allen Haney University of Wisconsin (715) 346-4617

28

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

Stanley Krugman Director, Forest Management Research U.S. Dept. of AgricultureForest Service14" and Independence, SW P.O. Box 96090Washington, D.C. USA20090-6090 (202) 205-1547

Dr. Larry Lieffers University of MichiganDept. of Forestry(517) 355-0097

Martha Orling Nature Conservancy1815 North Lynn StreetArlington, Virginia USA(703) 841-5300

David Robertson Penni-Pack Wilderness AssociationPennsylvania USA(215) 657-0830

David Steckel Natural Lands TrustMedia, Pennsylvania USA(215) 353-5587