Logging of Algonquin Provincial Park

Authors: Sayna Sadeghi, Amanda Bulmer, Kiana Bridges, Mengjia Ding

Created: 2015

Introduction

Algonquin Park, Ontario’s oldest Provincial Park, is located in central Ontario. Established in 1893, Algonquin Provincial Park is a popular site for an abundance of outdoor activities and biodiversity (Wilson, 2014). The total area of the park is 7,635 km2.  The park is a source of ecological and economic wealth. Since 1830, more than a half century before the Park was established, the Park has been commercially logged (Wilson, 2014). As of today, about 45% of the park is open to logging (AFA, 2012). Many of the stakeholders have opposing opinions on this activity and community members find this concerning because they believe that, “if the Park is treated the same as areas outside its boundaries, then the boundaries are meaningless” (Algonquin Eco Watch, 2010). This case study will gather information to provide evidence as to why the controversial activity is taking place in the park is considered a wicked problem. Figure 2 shows our approach to this problem.

Framing the Problem

Why is it a hard problem to solve?

A wicked problem is defined as a problem in which “scientific uncertainty coexists with value, uncertainty, and conflict” (Balint et al., 2012). According to this definition, the problem surrounding the activity within Algonquin Provincial Park is considered a wicked problem. The three main problems include: the multiple stakeholders involved and their opposing values, the difficulty in finding a balance between protecting the forest and benefiting from the economic benefits it provides, and finally that there is scientific evidence that logging in diverse forests can be as beneficial to the environment as they are detrimental (Creasey, 2013).

The stakeholders involved are the government agencies (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ottawa Parks Board), officials (e.g., environmental commissioner), logging companies and their employees, the Algonquin Park itself, Non-Profit Organizations (e.g., The Friends of Algonquin Park), and the community. All of the stakeholders have contradicting values. For instance, the logging companies may only see economic value from the park, while First Nation’s community members may see a larger cultural value. A difference in values plays a large role in finding a balance between protecting the forests and utilizing it for economic benefits. How much of the park can be utilized economically without overstepping the line of cultural and environmental protection? The uncertainty pertaining to the effects of logging, along with the issues mentioned above, cause difficulties when dealing with sustainable forest regulations. Experts have stated that forestry practices, when not used properly, can cause damage. On the contrary, experts have also stated that forestry practices, when used properly, can be beneficial to the environment (Creasey, 2013). An example of the benefits of forestry on the biodiversity of the Park can be seen in the case of the Yellow Bellied Sapsuckers. Mancuso states that even though their environments have been disturbed, the birds have adapted to their new environment and are flourishing (2014).

What are the key issues/dimensions?

The key issue at this time is not confined to the outcome of deforestation because the park is, for the most part, conforming to practices of sustainable forestry. The two main issues are the repercussions of the by-products associated with forestry practices in the Park, and the exclusion of the voices of the First Nations communities. Due to logging in the Park, roads must be built, which destroy soil properties and act as physical barriers to species within the Algonquin ecosystem (OPB & AFA, 2009). Over the long-term, this can cause loss of species due to unusable land.  The land is also important for the First Nation communities, who have been present long before the establishment of the Park, utilizing it for cultural practices and to sustain their livelihood (Euler, 2009). The Algonquin First Nation territory once covered 90% of what is now known as Algonquin Provincial Park (Euler, 2009). Since European contact with the land, the Algonquin First Nations have seen their cultural practices such as hunting and fishing and economic control over the area, constrained by endless treaties and policies.

Governance Framework

The forest laws in Canada have given governments of provinces and territories the right to develop and enforce laws, regulations, and policies related to local forests (Natural Resources Canada, 2015). In this case, the key decision makers of Algonquin Provincial Park are the government, and agencies and organizations within the province of Ontario. The Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) is the key local decision-maker for forest planning in the Park. However, it is the Ontario Crown Agency that is responsible for sustainable forest management in Algonquin Provincial Park (Algonquin Provincial Park, 2015). The AFA set up the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) policy and Forest Management Planning for Algonquin Provincial Park, and explain the harvesting operations to the public.

Because Algonquin Park is a provincial park, no international agreements exist in accordance to commercial logging in the Park area. However, the AFA highlighted on their website that the SFM policy for Algonquin Provincial Park has followed the ISO 14001 standard, the international standard for environmental management systems. The standard helps enhance environmental performance, fulfill compliance obligations, and achieve environmental objectives (International Organization for Standardization, 2015).

Similar to ISO 14001, Canada also has a national standard for sustainable forest management – CSA-Z809. This standard is recognized by Standards Council of Canada (SCC), and is designed to address the need of forest environment, policy structure and stakeholder communities specific to Canada (CSA Group, 2015).

With reference to both ISO 14001 and CSA-Z809 standards, the AFA formulates its SFM policy, which is available from their website. The policy aims at maintaining park values for future generations, maintaining the long-term health of the forest, as well as producing a sustainable supply of timber products (Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014). The policy seeks sustainable development in biodiversity, ecosystem condition and productivity, soil, water, contribution to global ecological cycles, benefits to local society, and fulfilling the social responsibility of sustainable development. The SFM policy of Algonquin Provincial Park values the health and security of its employees, the public, and the contractors. The policy pays special attention to the Algonquin First Nations by highlighting Aboriginal rights and participation, and also states the need to organize training programs and prepare emergency response plans, and provide practices for continual improvements (Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014).

Since Algonquin Provincial Park is a regional park monitored by government agencies, there are not many non-statutory institutions (for instance, Non-Government Organizations) involved in the decision making processes of the Forest Management Plan. However, the AFA communicated with the Local Citizens Committee (LCC) during a public consultation section to hear voices outside the major decision-makers. Therefore, opinions from outside the government are also used in developing policies regarding logging in Algonquin Provincial Park (Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014).

Moreover, logging activities took place within what is now Algonquin Provincial Park long before the area was established as a park (Wilson, 2014). In other words, the tradition of logging has existed before any policies regarding logging in the provincial park were made. The AFA’s decision to continue sustainable logging in the Park, with increased vigilance towards the ecosystem and the needs of the Algonquin First Nations, shows a basic level of respect towards the biodiversity and cultural traditions practiced in the area by the Algonquin.

The Forest Management Planning (FMP) documents provided by AFA explained in detail about decision-making process with both textual and graphic data. However, the SFM policy only provides a brief framework for regulations of forest management in the park without providing actual methods and practices. Although the AFA consulted LCC for opinions from local communities, there was only one member of LCC that participated in the process. Secondly, in the management plan, the AFA uses abbreviation for forest units in its FMP reports, making it hard for the public who does not have professional knowledge in this field to understand the planning documents. These problems decrease the participation of involved groups during forest management planning. Moreover, the implementation of FMP is reflected in the certification annual reports, but the reports are generated approximately one year later (the 2013/2014 report was published on Sept 11, 2015). In other words, AFA fails to provide the public with up-to-date information about forest management implementation in the park. Furthermore, it is not clear if the process is accountable. The management plan for this particular case is fully executed by 2020 (FMP, 2010) and we have to be patient to find out whether the decision makers are trustworthy.

Moving Forward

New Forest Practices Model

As concerned members of the conservationist community, we suggest putting forward a New Forest Practices Model (NFPM). The goal of the NFPM is to help lower the ecological footprint caused by the effects of forest harvesting on Algonquin Provincial Park’s biodiversity, which in turn would protect the traditional lands of the Algonquin First Nations. In an effort to make our proposed model reasonable and realistic, we have carefully taken into consideration the values and needs of the many stakeholders in a collaborative effort to lower the ecological footprint of Algonquin Park in the future. The effects of forestry in the Park are followed by a combination of scientific uncertainty and a conflict in values, making it a wicked problem. Our proposed model attempts to balance the integrity of the Park while maintaining economic stability. It focuses on difficult issues such as constantly changing policies, forestry practices, and the byproducts of forest harvesting such as its accompanying logging roads and hydrological impacts. The New Forest Practices Model suggests the destruction and rehabilitation of abandoned logging roads, more sustainable forestry practices, a minimization of hydrological impacts, and various policy amendments all in an amalgamated effort attempting to lower the ecological footprint of Algonquin Provincial Park.

In an effort to save jobs and maintain Ontario’s GDP, our proposed NFPM has chosen to allow for sustainable logging to continue in the park. The techniques used in Algonquin Park’s forest harvesting are some of the most closely researched, cutting-edge, and sustainable methods that have been observed in the forestry industry up-to-date. The procedures used are said to mimic nature’s natural cycle of survival of the fittest (Algonquin Eco Watch, 2010). The AFA claims that they only harvest those trees that pose an immediate risk to humans, or those that would naturally be subjected to natural effects such as windstorms or lightning (2010). This implies that the direct impacts of forestry in the Park are not the immediate cause for the destruction of the ecosystem’s biodiversity; rather, that the indirect negative effects of logging such as roads are to blame.

Road Impacts

Algonquin Park contains more than 2000 km of road purely designated for logging (Zanussi, 2009). After an area has been logged, the roads are abandoned and are left as the destructive symbols of human impact. The damage caused by these abandoned logging roads includes an unstable and thinning soil, and also the depletion of nutrient-dense topsoil that allows for the growth of flora, including the newly planted tree seedlings.

Our proposed NFPM suggests the permanent biotransformation of abandoned logging roads. It is a quick and simple solution to improve the current situation and hopefully undo some of the damage. The biotransformation includes placing hog-fuel from the forest floor (bark and wood chips) onto the logging roads in combination with decomposition-aiding agents such as fungi, to help stimulate the new growth of forest flora. Abandoned logging roads also cause a break in the hydrological cycle, which creates excess runoff water that leads to soil erosion, removal of life-sustaining topsoils, and downstream water sedimentation and siltation (Ruby, 2006). The wood chips placed on the logging roads would not only accelerate decomposition but they would also serve as a filter helping to reduce sedimentation of watersheds downstream. One disadvantage to this suggestion include the possible adaptation of the surrounding ecology to the current situation. By covering up the roads with wood chips, we might be destroying preexisting new-growth. Not only would cleaning up the forest floor benefit the rehabilitation of the abandoned logging roads, but also it may prevent forest fires from the accumulation of hog-fuel in the future.

Forestry Practices

The NFPM also recommends minimal construction of new logging roads by implementing more sustainable forestry practices. This includes the enforcement of designated boundaries for timber production, including the expansion of protected areas and the banning of old growth forest deforestation. A settlement would have to be made with the AFA because they are planning an expansion of the current logging roads and the addition of new ones (Algonquin Provincial Park, 2015). The goal of the NFPM would be to prevent logging in new areas to maintain the biodiversity and wellbeing of the forest. Currently the AFA is planting a selection of trees that are homogenous and cater to what sells best on the market (Algonquin Eco Watch, 2010). A more diverse selection of native trees would be beneficial to species at risk and should be planted to help boost the forest’s biodiversity. With today’s modern technology, tools such as GIS can be used to assist in the planning of these decisions. Setbacks of decreasing the area in which tree harvesting takes place might be the adaptation of species who could potentially suffer because the Park forest is now able to grow in a natural way.

Old Growth Forest

We recommend expansion of protected zones, while taking into consideration the impact on current and future wood supply for the forest industry (OP & AFA, 2009). These expansion zones would be chosen based on their contribution to the park’s values, some of which include ecological representation, connectivity between core areas, and protecting cultural heritage in addition to impacts on wood supply to mills (OP & AFA, 2009). It is important to add old growth forests in the selection of these protection zones (OP & AFA, 2009). Figure 3 shows that, a significant portion of old growth forests have already been logged in the past and are not protected today. These forests offer unique ecosystem services; in their absence we would lose species of flora and fauna (Frank et al., 2011). Additionally, old growth forests provide an important reference point for ecological research (Frank et al., 2011).

What differentiates old growth forest from those in the earlier stages of succession is the high diversity of environmental conditions such as microclimates as well as structural elements. The spatiotemporal stability of the microclimates over long time-scales also differentiates old growth forests from young forests (Frank et al., 2011). The complex structure of old growth forests is significant mainly because it provides a wider range of niches available to various species (Frank et al., 2011). The heterogeneity of environmental conditions (or microclimates) nourishes different species with different levels of temperature, light and humidity (Frank et al., 2011). Furthermore, temporal stability, which allows healthy speciation, often disappears when forest is destroyed or heavily altered as a result of human disturbances (Frank et al., 2011). Human impact is not completely reversible (Frank et al., 2011). This is because succession of forests and recolonization of habitat is an extremely slow process dependent on stable environmental conditions (Frank et al., 2011). Although clear-cut logging is extremely harmful to the ecosystems, logging methods that mimic natural disturbances would not damage the environment (Frank et al., 2011).

Hydrological Impacts:

Aquatic ecosystems, in addition to terrestrial, partake in shaping the environment. One of most important ecological services of forests is a sustainable and high quality water supply (Jones et al., 2009). The combination of roads and unsystematic logging can degrade water quality and increase the probability of flooding (Jones et al., 2009). Therefore, protection zones in Algonquin Park should expand to preserve lakes, waterways as well as canoe routes of the park (OP & AFA, 2009). All the water bodies contribute to value of the park in many ways such as enhancing the ecosystems, protecting cultural heritage values, protecting species at risk as well as ecological integrity (OP & AFA, 2009). Specifically, waterways to Lake Opeongo and other canoe routes provide recreational and fisheries values (OP & AFA, 2009). In terms of ecological integrity, one particularly significant species at risk in waters of Algonquin Park is Brook Trout, which should be protected by expansion of protection zones and education of visitors (OP & AFA, 2009).

Algonquin Park provides habitat to a high concentration of self-sustaining Brook Trout (OP & AFA, 2009). Brook Trout is on the verge of being listed as an endangered species. It is placed in the higher levels of the food chain in its ecosystem; therefore, its disappearance would harm more species in lower levels than the disappearance of a lower level species would (Cheever & Simon, 2009). Our NFPM suggest implementing “Areas of Concern” or “AOC” around all Brook Trout lakes in the park (OP & AFA, 2009). The AOC’s restrict construction or reconstruction of roads as well as banning new aggregate pits in the area (OP & AFA, 2009). Moreover, logging in these areas have restrictions to ensure a healthy water ecosystem (OP & AFA, 2009). 

References

Peer Reviewed Articles

Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., Desal, A. & Walters, L. C. (2012). Wicked Environmental Problems:   Managing uncertainty and Conflict. Retrieved from: https://books.google.ca/books?id=H_6XyO9rQqgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wicked+environmental+problems&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMI0tKt0qWRyAIV1SmICh2PFwFV#v=onepage&q&f=false

Cheever, B. M., & Simon, K. S. (2009). Seasonal influence of brook trout and mottled sculpin on lower trophic levels in an Appalachian stream. Freshwater Biology, 54, 524-535.

Creasey, M. L. (2013). Black-throated blue warbler (setophaga caerulescens ) nesting success and nest site selection in the single-tree selection harvested forests of algonquin provincial park, canada (Order No. MR93875). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1399560762). Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1399560762?accountid=14656

Frank, D., Finckh, M., & With, C. (2009). Impacts of land use in habitat functions of old-growth forests and their biodiversity. In Wirth, C., Gerd, G, & Martin, H (Eds.), Old-Growth Forests: Function, Fate and Value (429 – 450). DEU: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Jones, J. A., Achterman, G. L., Augustine, L. A., Creed, I. F., Ffolliott, P. F. MacDonald, L. & Wemple B. C. (2009). Hydrologic effects of a changing forested landscape: challenges for the hydrological sciences. Wiley InterScience, 23, 2699-2704.

Mancuso, K., Nol, E., Burke, D. & Elliot, K. (2014). Effects of selection logging on Yellow-bellied Sapsucker sap-feeding habits in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44:10, pp.1236-1243. Retrieved from:http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0498#.VgTaE2TBzGd

This is a scholarly article with a relatively narrow subject. The focus of the paper is the behavior change in a woodpecker species, the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, after selection logging in Algonquin Park. The method used for this study includes examining three components, 1) the average distance travelled from their nest to sapwell tree, 2) characteristics of active sapwell trees compared to the rest, and, 3) the reuse f sapwell trees after 1 or 2 years. The results show that all three components did not vary as a result of selection logging. This article provides an example clashes with Nol et al. article and gives a completely different perspective. This article is evidence for scientific uncertainty and conflict in this subject. Aside from a few scientific terms, this article is easy to follow and structured well. This article is published in the Canadian Journal of Forest Research in 2014. It also provides a long list of references at the end. This means that the article is reliable and up-to-date. The limitations to study are mentioned.

Government Documents

Algonquin Forestry Authority. (2014). Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Policy. Retrieved from http://algonquinforestry.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/AFA-SFM-Policy-March-2014.pdf

This government document is created by Algonquin Forestry Authority, explains the vision and mission of sustainable forest management in Algonquin Park. The policy describes AFA’s commitments and strategies on compliance, public participation, aboriginal rights, health & safety, and improvement. It is useful to our research because it covers all the aspects that SFM policy regulates. It is published in 2014 by AFA, the local government responsible for the forestry in Algonquin Park, therefore it is a reliable source for our research.

Algonquin Forestry Authority. (2015). Forest Management Planning (FMP). Retrieved from http://algonquinforestry.on.ca/policy-planning-sustainable-forest-management-policy/policy-planning-forest-management-planning/

Algonquin Forestry Authority. (2015). Summary of the 2010-2020 Forest Management Plan (FMP) for the Algonquin Park Forest. Retrieved from http://algonquinforestry.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/6.1.20-FMP-Summary-w-Map1.pdf

This government document is published on AFA’s website and provides information about the management plans for Algonquin Park forest for 2010-2020. It contains includes a number of detailed information, graphs, tables and numbers to present the knowledge based on which they made the management plan. The document also provides details about Local Citizen’s Committee (LCC) participation, allowing us to look at the implementation of public participation during decision making process for Algonquin forest management plan. The methodology of how AFA collected these data is not mentioned in the report. However, because it is published by AFA, the local government responsible for the forestry in Algonquin Park, it can still be considered as a reliable source and can be used in our research.

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2006). Regulating Logging in Algonquin Park, Neglecting our Obligations, ECO Annual Report, 2005-06. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Eco Issues. Retrieved from http://www.ecoissues.ca/Regulating_Logging_in_Algonquin_Park

Government of Ontario. (2015). Class EA for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (MNR-71). Retrieved from http://www.ontario.ca/page/class-ea-forest-management-crown-lands-ontario-mnr-71

Government of Ontario. (2012). Proposed Algonquin Provincial Park Management Plan. Retrieved from http://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/pdf/lighteningthefootprint_2012_amendment.pdf

Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. (2014). Ontario’s Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Retrieved from http://www.mlfi.org/index.php/planning/ontario-crown-forest-sustainability-act

Natural Resources Canada. (2015). Canada Forest Laws. Retrieved from http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/laws/17497

The Ontario Parks (OP) Board of Directors and the Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) Board of Directors (2009). Joint Proposal for Lightening the Ecological Footprint of Logging in Algonquin Park. Retrieved from http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/planning_pdf/algo/algo_joint_proposal.pdf

This document, developed by Ontario Parks Board and Algonquin Forestry Authority Board, provides all the basic information about Algonquin Park as well as the issues and conflicts associated with logging of the park followed by recommendations to address these issues. The section specifically related to our research focuses on significance of Algonquin Park as an ecosystem. This park is home to several species at risk and should be protected to maintain these species as well as protecting ecological integrity. This document is thorough and easy to read; it comes with a 6-page appendix that helps better understand the concepts and issues. It doesn’t have specific author(s), however, it’s written by reliable sources, Ontario Parks and AFA but there are no references included. It’s an unbiased source since it contains different perspectives of environmentalists and forest industry.

Popular Media

Ferguson, B. (2014). Algonquin Park logging, bee-killing pesticides targeted by environment watchdog. The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/10/07/time_to_end_logging_in_algonquin_park_environment_watchdog_says.html

This is an article written for the Toronto Star by Will Ferguson who examines the effects of both pesticide use and logging on honeybee population in and around Algonquin Provincial Park. There has been a sharp decline in honeybee populations around the park, and he argues that quick measures must be taken to reverse these effects, mainly by stopping the use of harmful pesticides but also by stopping logging in the park. This reference is useful towards our research as it provides me with evidence that logging is killing honeybees, an absolutely essential part of a functioning ecosystem. Weaknesses of the article include failure to say exactly how pesticides and logging are killing honeybee populations, he just repeatedly states it without any ability to scientifically back it up – all he has are quotes from politicians. Tom Ferguson is the president of the Ontario Legislative Press Gallery and has been covering Ontario’s provincial politics since 2004. He has built a good reputation for himself therefore this source is reliable.

Koven, A., John, C., & Huff, D. (n.d.) Timber Management Class EA. Environmental Beginnings. Retrieved from http://environmentalbeginnings.ca/mnrs-timber-management-class-ea/

Wilson, H. (2014, December 3). Environmental Commissioner Decries Logging in Algonquin. Canadian Geographic. Retrieved from http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/blog/posting.asp?ID=1388

Zanussi, R. (2014, November 10). Environmental Commissioner Recommends Banning Algonquin Park Logging. North Bay Nipssing News. Retrieved from http://www.northbaynipissing.com/news-story/4989697-environmental-commissioner-recommends-banning-algonquin-park-logging/

This online newspaper article is based on the opinions of Gordon Miller, Ontario’s environmental commissioner. It points out the changes in the environment and biodiversity of Algonquin Park as a result of logging. The article ends with suggestions by Miller to address the problems of logging. According to Miller, not only logging affects biodiversity directly but also indirectly. More than 2000 kilometers of roads constructed in the park for transportation of the logs damage habitats and wildlife as well as serving as a pathway for invasive species. This article was retrieved from the North Bay Nipssing News website. This paper is a part of a parent company called Metroland Media and is the most northern community paper in the company. Being a part of a larger company makes this source more reliable but it’s still a little questionable. Nonetheless, one advantage of newspaper sources is that they’re the most up-to-date sources available.

Grey Literature

Algonquin Eco Watch. (2010) What Makes Algonquin Park Special?. Retrieved from http://www.algonquin-eco-watch.com/forest-management/Annex%201%20What%20Makes%20Algonquin%20Park%20Special.pdf

This paper, prepared by Algonquin Eco Watch goes over the negative effects that logging of all sorts has on different parts of Algonquin Provincial Park’s ecosystem. What we have specifically focused on is the subtopic “Loss in Species Diversity”, where they write about the loss in important tree species such as the mature White Pine, mature Hemlock, and mature Red Spruce which are key players in supporting a healthy ecosystem. This paper is especially insightful because it has gathered lots of scientific evidence with research from various field experts to back up all of its claims. This is useful for our research of the effects of logging in the park because it writes about the direct effects of logging on the tree populations and their wellbeing.

Algonquin Forestry Authority. (2014). Is Logging in Algonquin Sustainable?. Retrieved from http://algonquinforestry.on.ca/is-logging-in-algonquin-park-sustainable/

CSA Groups (2013). CAN/CSA-Z809-08 (R2013). Retrieved from http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/sustainable-forest-management/cancsa-z809-08-r2013/invt/27017442008

Euler, D. (2009). Algonquin Eco Watch: Algonquin Park. Retrieved from: http://www.algonquin-eco-watch.com/Human%20Impact/Algonquin_Park_the_human_impact_web.pdf  

Euler creates a text that encompasses the view of Algonquin Provincial park from an aboriginal perspective, with examples of how the First Nation groups used the land before it was a provincial park, while also giving a detailed history of the land including the entrance of settlers and creation of the park. This text does include some information on the management of forestry on page 74, and ideas of reducing the human footprint in the park on page 358. This text relevant because it gives us examples of how the area was used before the park was created. This text is up to date and contains many usable resources for our case study.

International Organization for Standardization (2015). ISO 14001:2015. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=60857

Ruby, E. (2006). How Urbanization Affects the Water Cycle. California WALUB Partners. Retrieved from http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/watercyclefacts.pdf

Multimedia

Easto, H. (2014). Areas Where Logging Is Permitted and Prohibited in Algonquin park. Eco Issues. N.p. Retrieved from http://ecoissues.ca/File:Algonquin_Figure.jpg

This is a raw data map that clearly states which areas in Algonquin Provincial Park are protected and unprotected from logging. We chose this map because we can compare it to the other map that we have used in this annotated bibliography to see which areas are critical for protection because they contain old growth forests, and therefore important den-sites and other crucial life support systems for other species. This is useful to us because we can contrast this map to other maps to see the areas that have large quantities of tree species that are important to other mammal, amphibian, insect, and plant species in the area. What we find most interesting when comparing the two maps is that most of the areas containing the old growth forests are unprotected, and therefore are open to potential logging which will further damage the delicate ecosystem of Algonquin park.

Overview of old growth, logging, and protected zones in Algonquin Park. (2015, October 10). Ancient Forests. Retrieved from http://www.ancientforest.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/algonquin.jpg

This is a raw data map that provides the viewer with information about the areas of Algonquin Provincial Park that legally are allowed to be logged, and those that are prohibited. What we are particularly interested in this map is the old growth forests because they are becoming more rare, and yet are a critical part to the ecosystem’s wellbeing. This is useful to me because we can contrast this map to other maps to see the areas that have large quantities of tree species that are important to other mammal, amphibian, insect, and plant species in the area.

Appendix

 

image1

Fig. 1 Areas where Logging is Permitted and Prohibited in Algonquin Park (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2014)

 

Fig 2. Mind map by authors

Fig 2. Mind map by authors

 

image4

Fig. 3 Overview of old growth, logging, and protected zones in Algonquin Park (2015)