SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE TOPICS

This synthesis of information is contained in Table 2 in the form of synoptic points related to particular elements under each of the comparative topics. Topics for the comparative review have been grouped under the following headings within the Tables indicated:

• Legal and Planning Framework (Table 2A)
• Forest Roads and Timber Harvesting (Table 2B)
• Silviculture (Table 2C)
• Soil Conservation and Erosion Control (Table 2D)
• Domestic Water Quality and Riparian Management (Table 2E)
• Range Management, Wildlife and Habitat, and Biodiversity (Table 2F)
• Recreation and Visual Landscapes, Culture and Heritage, and Wildlife (Table 2G)

Each of these tables are presented in three parts to display all of the fifteen jurisdictions being considered. These three parts are as follows:

• The first part contains British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alaska and Washington.
• The second part contains Oregon, California, the U.S. Forest Service (Region 6), United Kingdom and Finland.
• The third part contains Sweden, Germany, Victoria State, Western Australia and Tasmania.

For example, Table 2C.3 contains the comparative topic Silviculture for Sweden, Germany, Victoria State, Western Australia and Tasmania.

Synoptic points have been provided for each comparative topic where information has been provided by the jurisdiction and the topic is applicable to the jurisdiction. Where information has not been provided, this is shown as “information not available”. Where the topic is not relevant to the jurisdiction, this is noted as “not applicable”. Where a topic is not covered by forest practices legislation or is covered by other legislation, this is so noted.

Due to the synoptic nature of this presentation format, the reader is urged to refer to the Background Report for additional detail and background, or context, regarding the items discussed.

Two comparative topics that have received considerable interest over the past few years are clearcut forest harvesting and streamside or riparian zone management and protection. Figure 7 illustrates the maximum clearcut size for those jurisdictions for which information is available. Perhaps the two most obvious questions raised by this information are “Why are clearcuts not allowed on State land in Germany?” and “Why is the maximum clearcut size in Ontario so much larger than the other jurisdictions?”. The answer to the first question is not known since no one in the jurisdiction could provide an answer. Clearcut size in northern Ontario has apparently been chosen so that the size of the opening mimics natural occurrences such as forest fires and insects.

Figure 8 shows the widths of riparian or streamside management areas for selected jurisdictions for both the total width of the management zone and the portion of the management zone that is a “no harvest” zone. While these widths do differ among the jurisdictions selected, the most apparent question is “Why does Western Australia have such a wide zone (100m and up to 200m depending on site conditions)?”. Again, while no direct answer has been provided by the jurisdiction, it would seem that this probably reflects the high value placed on water conservation in this area of Australia. The U.S. Forest Service has also designated a relatively wide “no harvest” zone (90m). This is largely the result of the so-called Presidents Plan (or ROD) and its emphasis on ecosystem management.

Figure 7. Maximum Permitted Clearcut size (HA) for some jurisdictions
Figure 8. Examples of Riparian or streamside Management areas for typical main stem streams