Boreal Landscape Guide –…

Boreal Landscape Guide – Comments

3.1.1.1 Landscape classes (6) For clarity, make LG class descriptions mutually exclusive: mature and older lowland conifer (MOLC) vs mature and older upland conifer (MOUC). – As written in 3.1.1.3 “mature and older upland conifer landscape class.”
………….
For clarity’s sake, include all FRI Polytype “FOR” in the Landscape Classes. Currently, Sb Siteclass 4 SBOG is omitted. (SBOG was an original version of OLT). SBOG is habitat for some species, including Caribou. Including all “FOR” in Landscape Classes makes model output documentation consistent i.e. Sum of Landscape Classes = Sum of all Forest Units = Sum of Polytype “FOR”
……………
3.1.1.4. (10) Clean up inconsistent terminology
The 3.1.1.4 paragraph needs to correspond to the Standard and Guideline (10) that follows it.
3.1.1.4
The conifer indicators was were selected by the science team based on differences between current landscape conditions, pre-industrial condition, and the SRNV. This These indicators is are used to direct the total area in all development stages of forest units. with a species composition dominated by upland black and white spruce and jack pine.(obsolete: excludes one group)
(10) Forest management plans will represent conifer indicators in forest estate models as the total amount of area (i.e., all ages combined) in the following forest unit groupings:
a) For landscape guide regions 3S/4S, 3W and 4W: i. Upland conifer (PjDom, PjMx1, SbDom, and SbMx1).
b) For landscape guide region 3E, three groupings: i. Pine conifer (PJ1 and PJ2), ii. iii. Upland conifer (SF1 and SP1), and Lowland conifer (SB1 and LC1).
……………….
Be precise. Don't write "coniferous" or “pure conifer” unless all coniferous species are meant. Where balsam fir is excluded, say "All conifer except balsam fir." Only write "jack pine and black spruce" if no other species are included.
(37) “where the objective includes a future forest condition that is pure conifer jack pine and/or black spruce and/or white spruce only,…”
…………………….
3. fix grammar – missing nouns:
(30) “Where objectives exist for moose or deer, forest management planning teams should evaluate [noun ], using models, when available, to understand how application of the coarse filter provides habitat for these species. “
Evaluate what? ‘habitat’, ‘forest condition’, ‘the adequacy of habitat provided by the coarse filter’?
(37) “regenerate contiguous harvest tracts to a conifer dominated condition, of similar age class distribution (i.e., creating even-aged class structure)”
……………….
3.4.2.2 The text doesn’t state whether larch and cedar are acceptable to caribou or not. It must. Given larch and cedar are a significant proportion of some forests, the habitat value of larch and cedar needs to be explicit. Note that the Nagagami Caribou live in an area rich in cedar, as per the Study Report to MNR. Determine the habitat value of larch and cedar to caribou, and include it.
…………………
Write about the desired habitat feature first, then, second, write about any proxy being used. Do not assume the proxy holds everywhere. If it holds in one ecoregion but not another, say so. e.g:
In 3.1.3.1, Instead of:
“Typical winter habitat include mature upland conifer forest (e.g., jack pine and black spruce dominated stands, usually with less than 10% hardwoods), especially open stands with relatively low stocking on poorer site classes (i.e., lower productivity) which are often abundant in ground lichen cover. Mature, pure jack pine and black spruce sites on deeper soils may also be suitable, especially when combined and adjacent to exposed lichen-covered bedrock patches. Mature and young forest conditions may be suitable in pure lowland conifer, treed and open bogs and fens, and on shallow soils with low productivity and exposed bedrock.”
If ground lichen cover is the target habitat feature, say so first! Don’t assume the stand condition that ‘often’ creates it.
The bedrock by itself is not food or habitat. Do you mean bedrock with ground lichen? Then say so! The entire paragraph of forest – lichen relationships does NOT hold true throughout the entire Caribou zone.
Instead. write something like:
"Typical winter caribou habitat includes.... abundant lichen cover. Abundant lichen cover often occurs on rock or sandy soils. These rock/sand/lichen sites often have low stocking and poor site class; however, low stocking and poor site class also occur with organic soils without lichen, so stocking & site class are not everywhere a reliable indicator of soil type nor of lichen abundance.”
Note that “Typical winter caribou habitat” can mean 2 entirely different things:
1. Land that caribou have actually used in winter (which likely has sufficient ground lichen);
2. Land of the forest types and ages which meet the LG criteria for ‘winter habitat.’ (which in the Northwest may often have ground lichen, and in the Claybelt may rarely have ground lichen)
………………..
(38) i. This direction statement contains wrong assumptions and ambiguous grammar. It’s led to improper silviculture requirements in an FMP.
"On dry upland conifer sites conducive to lichen rich ground cover, use silvicultural practices to maintain or enhance jack pine or black spruce stands that favour the lichen rich ground cover condition"

- what is a black spruce stand that favours ground lichen? Is "that" restrictive or non-restrictive? It’s ambiguous. Does the writer assume all black spruce stands on dry uplands favor lichen-rich condition? or just certain ones, if so, what types? Re-word to eliminate "that" ambiguity.

- 'stands' do not favour lichen rich ground cover. Misunderstanding of ecological causation. Ground lichen is dependent on substrate, not on ‘stands’. Deciduous leaf litter affects ground lichen. But as long as it is not deciduous, tree species is irrelevant to ground lichen.
- White spruce is no different from black spruce regarding caribou and lichen, but FMPs had to ban white spruce planting in winter use areas. MNR's rationale was that white spruce would cause the stand to be classified as SF1, and SF1 contains balsam fir, and balsam fir is bad for caribou, therefore, white spruce may not be planted in winter use areas. This was an error of logic and generalization.
………………………….
(38) ii. Flawed use of science, and ambiguous grammar, in over-generalized direction:
"in lowlands and shoreline forests, where feasible and consistent with site conditions,
use silvicultural practices to maintain or enhance black spruce stands that favour the growth of arboreal lichens ."

- what is a black spruce stand that favours arboreal lichen? is "that" restrictive or non-restrictive,? It’s ambiguous. Does the writer assume all black spruce stands on lowlands favor arboreal lichen (not true)? or just certain stands, if so, what types? Re-word to eliminate "that" ambiguity.

- is this required where arboreal lichen is already abundant and is not in any way limiting? Teams need to consider whether a given habitat feature is limiting.
Arboreal lichen require dead substrate, light, and moisture. Arboreal lichen can’t grow well in a vigorously growing black spruce stand; open stunted spruce is better substrate. If arboreal lichen is desired, why stipulate black spruce, when white spruce and cedar are equally good hosts?
Arboreal lichen requires dead substrate, i.e. dead branches. In winter, caribou can access dense arboreal lichen on dead trees in beaver ponds and on cedar branches over waterways.
More scientific wording: "Where arboreal lichen is limiting, use silvicultural practices to enhance it".
Then, in a separate paragraph, write what is known about arboreal lichen. (e.g. It requires dead substrate, moisture, and light. Hosts are...)