Old-growth forests in Algonquin Park

This unprotected forest is over 400 years-old

Algonquin Park is well known for canoeing and moose, but it’s also one of the most important reserves of old-growth forest in eastern North America. Many popular canoe routes, particularly on the west side of the Park, lead through old-growth forests dominated by sugar maple, hemlock and yellow birch. Trees in these forests often reach 200-400 years old.

One of the best places to see very old undisturbed is Nadine Lake Nature Reserve, deep in the heart of the Park. However old growth can be found around Big Trout Lake, Cache and surrounding lakes, as well as along The Hardwood Lookout Trail, Bat Lake Trail, Track and Tower Trail, and many other places. Read the Ontario’s old-growth forests, a guidebook, for a lot more detail on where to see old growth in Algonquin Park.

Large areas of old-growth also remain unprotected from logging in the park. In 2018 Mike Henry and Nate Torenvliet explored an unprotected old-growth forest near Cayuga Lake and found many trees over 300 years old, the oldest a 408-year-old hemlock. This discovery was written up in the Toronto Star. Further research confirmed that a large area of pristine old growth forest is found west of Cayuga Lake in an area that is available for logging, which was again covered by the Toronto Star.

My interview on CBC As it Happens is worth listening to.

The discussion about forest conservation in Algonquin Park is very polarized, it tends to devolve into a discussion of protecting the entire park, or adding no additional protection, even when invaluable tracts of pristine old-growth forest and large roadless areas are available for logging. What I would like to see is a thoughtful discussion about increasing protection, including finding and protecting the remaining old-growth forests and roadless areas, which would likely bring the total protected area of Algonquin Park from about 35% to 41%.

In 2022 I started the Algonquin Park old-growth forest project (in collaboration with the Wilderness Committee). Watch for reports from our field work in coming months. To support this project you can contribute to the GoFundMe campaign to Save Ontario’s old-growth forests. Even small donations make a difference.

Forest conservation policy in Algonquin Park: history and future

Algonquin Park was created in 1893 with the primary purpose of protecting the headwaters of rivers draining into the Ottawa River and Georgian Bay. The Royal Commission that recommended the creation of the Park intended that white and red pine continue to be logged, and allowed that mature hardwood forest might be harvested. However the report also enumerated one of the goals of the Park as “the maintenance of the Park in a state of nature as far as possible, having regard to existing interests; and the preservation of native forests therein and of their indigenous woods as nearly as practicable” (Ontario Royal Commission on Forest Reservation and National park 1893).

For the first twenty years of the Park’s existence only logging of white and red pine was permitted. Logging of all species in the Park was allowed after 1913. Over time this caused increasing tension between logging, recreational use of the Park, and conservation. In 1968 the Algonquin Wildlands League was formed, a citizen’s group that sought the end of logging, in the western half of the Park initially, and later for the entire Park.

On October 22 1974 the Algonquin Provincial Park Master Plan was released, which created new Park zoning that would protect approximately 22% of the Park, while leaving 78% available for logging in the Recreation / Utilization zone of the Park. This compromise was immediately rejected by the Algonquin Wildlands League, who felt it gave inadequate weight to the protection of natural values, nevertheless this zoning would endure for almost 40 years (Killan & OMNR 1993).

In 2005, when the Provincial Parks Act was under review the Minister of Natural Resources asked the Ontario Parks Board to provide advice on how to lighten the ecological footprint of logging in Algonquin Park. In December 2006 the Ontario Parks Board submitted a proposal to the Minister that included an increase of protection from 22% to 54%. This proposal was rejected by the Minister and a joint proposal of the Ontario Parks Board and the Algonquin Forestry Authority that increased protection to 35% of the Park was accepted, and incorporated into the Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment of 2013 (OMNR 2013).

This joint proposal emphasized protection of recreational canoe routes, primarily creating a network of waterway parks within Algonquin Park, but added very little to the Nature Reserve and Wilderness zones of the Park. Even the 200 meter buffer around high use canoe routes was narrowed to 120 meters in many areas as a concession to the forest industry. The joint proposal also failed to identify and protect large tracts of pristine old-growth forest. While the joint proposal reduced the impact of logging on recreation in Algonquin Park, it failed to adequately reduce the ecological footprint of logging in the Park.

The amendment will be formally incorporated into the park management plan after a review of the current management plan, which was due to occur in 2018 but has not yet taken place. As the first initiative to review and expand protection in the Park in over 40 years, a detailed study of the ecological features in the recreation / utilization zone, including identification and protection of the remaining largely-pristine tracts of old-growth forest, is needed. This process should begin immediately and must include a field work component to provide adequate information for the review of the management plan.

Status of old-growth forests in Algonquin Park

Significant tracts of old-growth forest remain unprotected in Algonquin Park, including approximately 24,000 hectares of forest over 140 year old remaining in recreation / utilization zone of the park (Henry et al. 2018; Henry & Quinby 2018). A 2006 mapping analysis by Henry & Quinby identified the problem of significant tracts of old-growth forest remaining in the recreation / utilization zone of the Park, and limited field work at the time confirmed that very old trees occurred in these forests and at least a portion of the mapped forests were entirely pristine old-growth forest. Henry and Quinby (2007) also identified some of the large tracts of old-growth forest. At the time it was not known how much of the old-growth forest area was pristine, and whether the Forest Resource Inventory ages were accurate.

Recent field work has confirmed that large tracts of pristine old-growth forest remain available for logging in Algonquin Park – a finding which, given the rarity of such forests, should be troubling for both forest managers and conservationists. A contiguous old-growth forest area of 377 hectares was identified near Hurdman Creek / Stretch Lake, and confirmed by a field survey to be largely pristine forest with tree ages approaching 300 years (Henry & Quinby 2018). The Hurdman Creek forest is particularly significant because it is part of the largest unprotected roadless area remaining in Algonquin Park, as mapped by Ted Elliott and Peter Quinby.

Another unprotected old-growth forest area west of Cayuga Lake was 176 hectares in size, One quarter of the trees cored at Cayuga Lake West in 2022 were over 400 years old, while another tree cored in 2018 was also over 400, for a total of six trees more than 400-years-old found in Cayuga Lake West to date (Henry & Torenvliet, 2023).

Areas that are far from access roads and rail lines and/or are isolated by steep terrain or water bodies are unlikely to have historical logging of hardwood trees, since they could not be floated to mills. These are the areas that should be prioritized in future surveys. Some areas with a high probability of containing pristine old-growth forest include Pishnecka Lake, Craig Lake, Lost Dog Lake (currently allocated), Whatnot Lakes, Maple Lake, Hogan Lake, and Three Mile Lake.

Forest management conflicts with old-growth forest conservation

Roadless areas continue to be allocated in Algonquin, which could include old pristine forests, and many more are available for management (Henry & Quinby 2006; Henry et al. 2018; Henry 2023). The Algonquin Forestry Authority is tasked with facilitating forest management in the Park, and allocation of old-growth forests within the recreation / utilization zone is a natural consequence of this obligation. Because the Ontario old-growth forest policy allows old-growth in the protected zones in the Park to be counted in old-growth planning, the policy will be very weak in the recreation-utilization zone of the Park. Therefore permanent protection of old-growth forest stands is the only way to ensure their conservation.

As long as the old-growth forests remain in the recreation / utilization zone some specific conflicts with forest management need to be addressed, as follows:

1) Age class distribution

The Algonquin Forestry Authority has identified a shortage of younger age classes in the Park as an issue (Cumming, personal communication Dec. 18, 2018), but, there is in fact a shortage of the oldest age-classes of forest when compared to historical norms. 

Forests dominated by sugar maple, yellow birch, hemlock, and other shade tolerant species are relatively stable ecosystems that are not prone to frequent catastrophic disturbance, particularly by fire (Ziegler 2002; Frelich & Lorimer 1991; Bormann & Likens 1979). Wind is typically a far more important agent of disturbance, and operates within these forests at various temporal and spatial scales. However wind events are not subject to human intervention and presumably the disturbance regime is operating more or less at natural levels (with minor modification due to fire suppression). However logging does significantly reduce the average stand age, including selective which reduces the average age. Since logging takes place in the majority of the Park, older age classes are almost certainly far below historical norms, particularly in the western portion of the Park. Large pristine landscapes dominated by old-growth forests are extremely rare in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Forest region, and those that remain must be protected. In the interim they should be excluded from harvesting and road building in the next management plan.

2) Carbon sequestration

The Algonquin Forestry Authority cites carbon sequestration as a justification for logging older age classes of forests (Cumming, personal communication Dec. 18, 2018), however this does not reflect the current scientific consensus.

The current scientific literature suggests that leaving old-growth forests unlogged is actually the best way to maximize carbon sequestration. The expectation that old forests experience a decline in carbon accumulation was derived largely from computer models rather than experimental data (Lichstein et al. 2009). Over the past decade numerous scientific studies using newly available data have made it clear that old growth forests store a large bank of carbon, and that ageing forests continue to fix significant quantities of carbon for centuries, well after entering the old-growth stage (Luyssaert et al. 2008; Lichstein et al. 2009; Gough et al. 2016; Curtis & Gough 2018).

Curtis and Gough (2018) conclude that “new observations, ecological theory and our emerging biological understanding of temperate forest ecosystems point to sustained NEP in aging temperate deciduous forests.” In an analysis of carbon sequestration forestry in the boreal region, Pukkala (2018) concluded that low rates of cutting or no cutting were the optimal strategies to sequester carbon, and that it was not optimal to commence cutting in older forests, even after the carbon biomass stopped increasing. Luyssaert et al. (2008) report that

“The currently available data consistently indicate that carbon accumulation continues in forests that are centuries old. In fact, young forests rather than old-growth forests are very often conspicuous sources of CO2 because the creation of new forests (whether naturally or by humans) frequently follows disturbance to soil and the previous vegetation, resulting in a decomposition rate of coarse woody debris, litter and soil organic matter (measured as heterotrophic respiration) that exceeds the NPP of the regrowth.” (Luyssaert et al. 2008)

Stephenson et al. (2014) noted that “large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees; at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree.” The scientific consensus indicates that the best way to mitigate climate change is to leave old-growth forests undisturbed.

3) Hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) management

The AFA states that “It is felt that the current hemlock management practices in the RU zone of Algonquin Park will actually help prevent the spread of this invasive pest [HWA] throughout the Park.” (Cumming, personal communication Dec. 18, 2018). However Algonquin Park is likely to remain a climatic refuge from HWA for decades at least, and therefore has an important international role in eastern hemlock conservation.

Many parts of Algonquin Park experience minimum winter temperatures of -35 to -40 degrees Celsius, which are sufficiently extreme to limit establishment, survival and spread of HWA (Paradis et al. 2008). Climate change and evolution of cold tolerance could at some point in the future make colonization of Algonquin Park by HWA possible, however at the moment the Park is a rare climatic refuge from HWA and it may remain so for some time. Algonquin Park therefore has tremendous significance for the persistence of eastern hemlock on the landscape. Cutting now in anticipation of the hypothetical arrival of HWA is inappropriate, given its status as a climatic refuge, the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of silvicultural treatments, and the possibility of effective biological control before HWA nears the Park boundary.

There is very limited evidence, primarily from a single nursery experiment (Brantley et al. 2017), that silvicultural management could reduce mortality caused by HWA. Experimental thinning of stands appears to stimulate a small increase in live crown ratio, which may be beneficial while increased moose browse of hemlock regeneration is a potential risk (Fajvan 2017). The latter effect is a concern in Algonquin Park, where hemlock regeneration is low primarily due to moose browse (Vasiliauskas 1995).

Even if silvicultural management for HWA were proven effective, for which there is a lack of evidence, negative ecological impacts of management must be balanced against any potential benefits. Foster & Orwig (2006) state that “From an ecosystem perspective there are strong arguments against preemptive and salvage logging or the attempt through silvicultural means to improve the resistance or resilience of forests to disturbance and stress. There are often valid motivations for salvage or preemptive logging including financial considerations, human safety, and a desire to shape the long-term composition and resource-production characteristics of forests. Nonetheless, there are many ecological benefits derived from leaving forests alone when they are affected or threatened by disturbances and pest and pathogen outbreaks.”

Old-growth hemlock forests in Algonquin Park have high ecological value, and Algonquin Park bears a disproportionate responsibility for their conservation in Ontario. Although Algonquin Park makes up only 1.8% of the productive forest area of the Province, it contains 60% of Ontario’s hemlock working group over the age of 140 (Henry & Quinby 2006). Hemlock has declined by almost 75% in the landscape adjacent to and west of the Park (Leadbitter et al. 2002) and has been virtually eliminated in many parts of southern Ontario where it was once a dominant tree and a common forest type (Suffling et al. 2003). Changes in forest composition may extend beyond the decline of hemlock to other species that use hemlock forests as habitat. For example, in the northeastern United States, 96 bird species and 47 mammal species are associated with hemlock forests (Yamasaki et al. 1999).

Recommendations

  • The remaining pristine old-growth forest tracts in the recreation / utilization should be identified and added to the protected zones. These areas include Hurdman Creek (confirmed), Cayuga Lake (confirmed), Pishnecka Lake, Craig Lake, Lost Dog Lake (currently allocated), Whatnot Lakes, Hogan Lake, and Three Mile Lake, among others.
  • The remaining pristine old-growth forest tracts in the recreation / utilization should be identified and added to the protected zones. These areas include Hurdman Creek (confirmed), Cayuga Lake (confirmed), Pishnecka Lake, Craig Lake, Lost Dog Lake (currently allocated), Whatnot Lakes, Hogan Lake, and Three Mile Lake, among others.
  • Remaining large roadless areas within the park should be protected.
  • 120 meter buffers around canoe routes should be re-examined to determine if resource extraction is being prioritized over ecological integrity, and these buffers should be expanded to the full 200 meters, particularly if the buffer includes pristine or old-growth forest.
  • Algonquin Park should seek to maintain a high representation of older age classes within the recreation / utilization zone.
  • Carbon accounting should consider old-growth forests as important carbon banks that are continuously accumulating carbon.
  • Old-growth hemlock dominated forests should not be allocated for logging even if they remain in the recreation / utilization zone of the Park.
  • Hemlock harvest in the park should be dramatically reduced due to the significance of Algonquin Park as a climatic refuge from hemlock woolly adelgid.
  • Roads have an outsized impact on the ecology of the park. Remaining large roadless areas within the park should be protected.
  • 120 meter buffers around canoe routes should be re-examined to determine if resource extraction is being prioritized over ecological integrity, and these buffers should be expanded to the full 200 meters, particularly if the buffer includes pristine or old-growth forest.
  • Algonquin Park should seek to maintain a high representation of older age classes within the recreation / utilization zone.
  • Carbon accounting should consider old-growth forests as important carbon banks that are continuously accumulating carbon.
  • Old-growth hemlock dominated forests should not be allocated for logging even if they remain in the recreation / utilization zone of the Park.
  • Hemlock harvest in the park should be dramatically reduced due to the significance of Algonquin Park as a climatic refuge from hemlock woolly adelgid.

References

Bormann, F.H. & Likens, G.E., 1979. Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem : Disturbance, Development and the Steady State Based on the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study, Springer New York.

Brantley, S.T. et al., 2017. Elevated light levels reduce hemlock woolly adelgid infestation and improve carbon balance of infested eastern hemlock seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management, 385, pp.150–160. Available at: https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2017/ja_2017_mayfield_001.pdf [Accessed June 12, 2018].

Cumming, G., 2018. Personal communication. Algonquin Forestry Authority letter dated Dec. 18, 2018

Curtis, P.S. & Gough, C.M., 2018. Forest aging, disturbance and the carbon cycle. New Phytologist, 219(4), pp.1188–1193. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/nph.15227 [Accessed January 14, 2019].

Fajvan, M.A., 2017. Management Strategies for Eastern North American Forests Threatened by Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae). CIF/IFC Electronic Lectures_225_Aug 9, 2017 HWA Fajvan. Available at: https://cif-ifc.adobeconnect.com/_a1112870713/p3n64kepxidu/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal.

Foster, D.R. & Orwig, D.A., 2006. Preemptive and salvage harvesting of New England forests: when doing nothing is a viable alternative. Conservation Biology, 20(4), pp.959–970.

Frelich, L.E. & Lorimer, C.G., 1991. Natural Disturbance Regimes in Hemlock-Hardwood Forests of the Upper Great Lakes Region. Ecological Monographs, 61(2), pp.145–164. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.2307/1943005 [Accessed January 16, 2019].

Gough, C.M. et al., 2016. Disturbance, complexity, and succession of net ecosystem production in North America’s temperate deciduous forests. Ecosphere. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304576911_Disturbance_complexity_and_succession_of_net_ecosystem_production_in_North_America’s_temperate_deciduous_forests.

Henry, M. & Quinby, P., 2006. A Preliminary Survey of Old-Growth Forest Landscapes on the West Side of Algonquin Provincial Park , Ontario. Ancient Forest Exploration & Research, (32), pp.1–28. Available at: http://www.ancientforest.org/wp-content/uploads/rr32.pdf.

Henry, M. & Quinby, P., 2007. Mapping Threatened Old-Growth Forests of Algonquin Park: The First Step-A Summary Report, Available at: http://www.ancientforest.org/wp-content/uploads/flb27.pdf [Accessed January 21, 2019].

Henry, M. & Quinby, P.A., 2018. The Hurdman Creek Old-Growth Forest. Preliminary Results Bulletin, (2). Available at: www.oldgrowth.ca.

Henry, M., Torenvliet, N. & Quinby, P.A., 2018. The Cayuga Lake Old-Growth Forest Landscape: An Unprotected Endangered Ecosystem in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Preliminary Results Bulletin, (6). Available at: www.oldgrowth.ca.

Henry, M, & N. Torenvliet. 2023. Old-growth forest survey of Cayuga Lake west, Algonquin Park. Algonquin Park Old-Growth Forest Project, 3.

Henry, M. 2023. What we found: Algonquin Park Old-Growth Forest Project 2022 summary. Algonquin Park Old-Growth Forest Project, 4.

Killan, G. & Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources., 1993. Protected places : a history of Ontario’s provincial parks system, Dundurn Press in association with Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Protected_Places.html?id=BEI5aXZhM1QC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=algonquin park master plan&f=false [Accessed January 17, 2019].

Leadbitter, P., Euler, D. & Naylor, B., 2002. A comparison of historical and current forest cover in selected areas of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest of central Ontario. Forestry Chronicle, 78(4), pp.522–529. Available at: http://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdfplus/10.5558/tfc78522-4 [Accessed January 16, 2019].

Lichstein, J.W.W. et al., 2009. Biomass chronosequences of United States forests: implications for carbon storage and forest management. In Old-Growth Forests. pp. 301–341. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7bc/6b7b207372cb3b2f4dd57ff0c69fefafe215.pdf [Accessed January 19, 2019].

Luyssaert, S. et al., 2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature, 455(7210), pp.213–215. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/ [Accessed August 21, 2018].

Mary Byrd Davis, 1993. TERRA: Ancient Forests in New York. Available at: http://www.ancientforests.us/OldGrowthNY.htm [Accessed January 18, 2019].

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2013. Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment, Available at: www.OntarioParks.com/planning [Accessed January 19, 2019].

Ontario Royal Commission on Forest Reservation and National park, 1893. Report of the Royal Commission on Forest Reservation and National Park. Available at: https://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/thomson/landscapes/creation/5157en.html [Accessed January 17, 2019].

Paradis, A. et al., 2008. Role of winter temperature and climate change on the survival and future range expansion of the hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) in eastern North America. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(5–6), pp.541–554.

Pukkala, T., 2018. Carbon forestry is surprising. Forest Ecosystems, 5(1), p.11. Available at: https://forestecosyst.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40663-018-0131-5 [Accessed January 7, 2019].

Stephenson, N.L. et al., 2014. Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature, 507(7490), pp.90–93. Available at: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914 [Accessed January 16, 2019].

Suffling, R., Evans, M. & Perera, A., 2003. Presettlement forest in southern Ontario: Ecosystems measured through a cultural prism. In Forestry Chronicle. pp. 485–501.

Vasiliauskas, S.A., 1995. Interpretation of age-structure gaps in hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) populations of Algonquin Park. Queen’s University. Available at: http://www.algonquin-eco-watch.com/reference-material/Vasiliauskas Study.pdf [Accessed November 7, 2017].

Yamasaki, M., DeGraaf, R.M. & Lanier, J.W., 1999. Wildlife habitat associations in eastern hemlock-birds, smaller mammals, and forest carnivores. In Proceedings: Symposium on Sustainable Management of Hemlock Ecosystems in Eastern North America. Edited by KA McManus, KS Shields, and DR Souto. USDA Forest Service, Newtown Square, Pa. pp. 135–143. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Wildlife+habitat+associations+in+eastern+hemlock+birds,+smaller+mammals,+and+forest+carnivores#0%5Cnhttp://ww.savegeorgiashemlocks.org/Downloads/Resources_page/Archives/Wildlife_Habitat_Associa [Accessed November 24, 2016].

Ziegler, S.S., 2002. Disturbance regimes of hemlock-dominated old-growth forests in northern New York, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32(12), pp.2106–2115.