Dryden Forest Independent Forest Audit Report 2008 – 2013 · Corporate OMNR should review its...

Dryden Forest

Independent Forest Audit Report

2008 – 2013

Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd.

Oxford Mills, Ontario

December, 2013

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario 2013

Cover Photo: Forest Resource Managers J. Harrison and M. Benson with Area Technician I. Schneider. Photo Credit: Arbex Audit Team

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. I

2.0. TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. III

3.0. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................1

3.1. AUDIT PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................................1 3.2. MANAGEMENT UNIT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................................1 3.3. CURRENT ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................6 3.4. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND INPUT TO THE AUDIT...................................................................................6

4.0. AUDIT FINDINGS...............................................................................................................................................7

4.1. COMMITMENT .....................................................................................................................................................7 4.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................7 4.3 FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING ....................................................................................................................10 4.4. PLAN ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................14 4.5. SYSTEM SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................20 4.6. MONITORING ....................................................................................................................................................21 4.7. ACHIEVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES & SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................25 4.8. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS...........................................................................................................................27 4.9. CONCLUSIONS AND LICENCE EXTENSION RECOMMENDATION .........................................................................28

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX 2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES TABLE APPENDIX 3 COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS APPENDIX 4 AUDIT PROCESS APPENDIX 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS USED APPENDIX 6 AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS

List of Tables

TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... III TABLE 2. AREA SUMMARY OF MANAGED CROWN LAND BY LAND TYPE .....................................................................2 TABLE 3. PLANNED VS. ACTUAL SILVICULTURE TREATMENTS DURING THE AUDIT TERM (2008-2013). ......................15 TABLE 4. SILVICULTURAL AND REGENERATION SUCCESS BY FOREST UNIT – HARVEST DEPLETION AREAS ...............22 TABLE 5. SILVICULTURAL AND REGENERATION SUCCESS BY FOREST UNIT – NATURAL DISTURBANCE AREAS..........23

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE DRYDEN FOREST (SOURCE: OMNR) ................................................................................3 FIGURE 2. AREA OF MANAGED CROWN PRODUCTIVE FOREST BY FOREST UNIT ...........................................................4 FIGURE 3. AGE CLASS AREA DISTRIBUTION (CROWN MANAGED LAND). ......................................................................5

1.0. Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Dryden Forest (DF) (SFL # 542444) conducted by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd. for the period of April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013.

This audit addressed the forest management activities of the Dryden Forest Management Company Ltd. (DFMC), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Dryden District and all Overlapping Licencees (OLs) during the audit term. The Forest is certified as sustainably managed by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

Procedures and criteria for the IFA are specified in the 2013 Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP). The Forest Management Plans (FMPs) within the audit scope included the 2006-2011 FMP (last three years of implementation) and the 20112021 FMP (first two years of implementation and the planning process). The FMPs were reviewed in relation to relevant provincial legislation, policy guidelines and Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM) requirements including required monitoring and reporting functions. Field site inspections (97 sites) were completed by helicopter and truck over a three day period to determine whether actual results in the field were comparable with planned results, if silvicultural strategies had been effective for the achievement of management objectives and if the results of field activities had been accurately reported. Public input to the audit was solicited through a notice in the local Dryden paper and a mail out survey to 25% of the individuals on the 2011 FMP mailing list. Individuals, businesses and organizations involved with or impacted by forest management activities on the Forest were also interviewed.

The delivery of the forest management program is complicated by the presence of numerous values, the relatively small size of the Forest and interspersion of patent land with Crown land. The significant area of patent land reduces opportunities for the application of strategic landscape level guidelines in the planning process. The extent of patent land also poses logistical problems with respect to access, the delivery of silvicultural treatments and the scheduling of harvest operations. The prevalence of rich clay and silt soils also creates significant competition control challenges.

The 2011 FMP Proposed Management Strategy (PMS) and Long Term Management Direction (LTMD) did not meet wood supply commitments for all terms in order that acceptable levels of wildlife habitat could be retained. We note that this balancing of objectives required extended discussions among forest managers and we accept their judgement. The resultant wood supply reduction was distributed over two 10-year management terms in order to offset its economic impact. This scheduling also allowed for DFMC to make any necessary adjustments to its business operations to remain viable.

2013 Independent Forest Audit –Dryden Forest i

We found the Forest to be well managed. Planned forest management targets were largely achieved and plan objectives were largely being met. There were very few compliance issues associated with forestry operations and the contractual obligations of the SFL holder and OMNR obligations as the Forest administrator were met. Our assessment is that the relatively long tenure of DFMC and OMNR staff on the Forest offered a high level of local knowledge and on-the-ground experience that resulted in well informed forest management decisions and the delivery of a successful forest management program.

We provide five recommendations to address issues identified during the audit. These include a recommendation directed at DFMC to implement early multiple vegetation control interventions on competitive sites scheduled for renewal by seeding and four recommendations directed at Corporate OMNR to:

• Review the current protocol for the submission, approval, and posting of Environmental Registry (ER) Information Notices and make improvements to the process.

• Complete a review to extend the SFL licence as DFMC has met the tending requirements on which the 2008 IFA conditional licence extension was based.

• Work to ensure that the delivery of Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) products is better synchronized with forest management planning schedules.

• Review its direction for Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring (SEM) free-to-grow (FTG) assessments including the sequencing of FTG reporting in Annual Reports.

A Best Practice was also recognized for the use of First Nation Community Representatives Meetings in the FMP planning process by DFMC and the District OMNR. This approach was adopted to encourage and more fully engage First Nation planning team members in the forest management planning process.

Based on our document review, interviews and site inspections the audit team concluded that forest sustainability as assessed through IFAPP is being achieved and that the Dryden Forest was generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit. We recommend that the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence # 542444 for a further five years.

2013 Independent Forest Audit –Dryden Forest ii

2.0. Table of Recommendations

TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion and Recommendation on Licence Extension

The audit team concludes that the management of the Dryden Forest was generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and that the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sustainable Forest Licence held by Dryden Forest Management Company. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence # 542444 for a further five years.

Recommendations Directed to the SFL Holder/OMNR District

Recommendation # 3:

DFMC should consider multiple vegetation control interventions on competitive sites scheduled for renewal by seeding.

Recommendations Directed to Corporate or Regional OMNR

Recommendation # 1:

Corporate OMNR should review the current protocol for the submission, approval, and posting of Environmental Registry Information Notices and make improvements as necessary to avoid delays in approval and posting of Notices.

Recommendation # 2:

Corporate OMNR should work to ensure that the delivery of FRI products is better synchronized with forest management planning schedules.

Recommendation # 4:

Corporate OMNR should review its direction for SEM FTG assessments including the sequencing of FTG reporting in Annual Reports.

Recommendation # 5:

Based on the satisfactory completion of the conditional licence extension requirement imposed by the 2008 Independent Forest Audit Corporate OMNR should promptly complete a review as to whether to extend the SFL for a further five year term per Section 26 (3) of the CFSA.

2013 Independent Forest Audit –Dryden Forest iii

Best Practice

Best Practice # 1:

The use of First Nation Community Representatives Meetings in the FMP planning process was an innovative and effective approach to encourage and more fully engage First Nation planning team members in the forest management planning process.

2013 Independent Forest Audit –Dryden Forest iv

3.0. Introduction

This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Dryden Forest (Sustainable Forest Licence # 542444) conducted by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd.1 for the period of April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013.

The Dryden Forest (DF) is managed by the Dryden Forest Management Company Ltd. The OMNR Dryden District has administrative responsibility for the Forest.

3.1. Audit Process

The Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) requires that all Sustainable Forest Licences (SFL) and Crown Management Units be audited every five years by an independent auditor.

The audit reviews the applicable Forest Management Plans (FMP) in relation to relevant provincial legislation, policy guidelines and Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM) requirements, including a review of field operations and required monitoring and reporting functions. The audit reviews whether actual results in the field are comparable with planned results and determines if the results were accurately reported. The results of each audit procedure are not reported on separately but collectively provide the basis for reporting the outcome of the audit. Recommendations within the report “set out a high level directional approach to address a finding of non-conformance”. In some instances the audit team may develop recommendations to address situations where “a critical lack of effectiveness in forest management activities is perceived even though no non-conformance with the law or policy has been observed”. A Best Practice is reported when the audit team finds the forest manager has implemented a highly effective novel approach to forest management or when established forest management practices achieve remarkable success. A further discussion of the audit process is provided in Appendix 4.

The procedures and criteria for the IFA are specified in the 2013 Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP). The FMPs within the audit scope include the 2006-2011 FMP (last 3 years of implementation) and the 2011-2021 FMP (first two years of implementation and the planning and development process).

This audit addresses the forest management activities of the Dryden Forest Management Company Ltd., the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Dryden District and all Overlapping Licencees (OLs) who conducted forest management operations during the audit term.

3.2. Management Unit Description

Dryden Forest Management Company Ltd. manages the SFL on behalf of its shareholder companies. DFMC has responsibilities for planning, implementing and reporting on all forest management operations. Forest operations are conducted

1 A list of the audit team members and their qualifications is presented in Appendix 6.

2013 Independent Forest Audit – Dryden Forest 1

primarily by DFMC shareholders. In addition, two Aboriginal communities and one Aboriginal corporation have Overlapping Licences for harvest operations on the unit.

The Forest is certified as sustainably managed by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

The DF is located entirely within the administrative boundaries of the Northwest Region of the OMNR and the OMNR Dryden District. The total area of Crown Managed Land is 203,784 ha of which 67 % (136,013 hectares) is forested (Table 2). The area of patent land is significant occupying 28% of the production forest area. The presence of patent land adjacent to planned harvest allocations often poses planning and operational challenges2.

TABLE 2. AREA SUMMARY OF MANAGED CROWN LAND BY LAND TYPE SOURCE: TABLE 1 2011 FMP

Managed Crown Land Type Area (Ha)

Non-Forested 67,770.7

Non-Productive Forest 17,853.2

Protection Forest3 1,233.4

Production Forest4

Forest Stands 100,185.6

Recent Disturbance 1,005.0

Below Regeneration Standards (Older Low Stocked Stands) 243.2

Below Regeneration Standards5 (Recent Not Yet FTG) 15,492.7

Total Forested: 136,013.1

Total Crown Managed: 203,783.8

2 For example, access for forest management activities and the implementation of landscape level guidelines.3 Protection forest land is land on which forest management activities cannot normally be practiced without incurring deleterious environmental effects because of obvious physical limitations such as steep slopes and shallow soils over bedrock.4 Production forest is land at various stages of growth, with no obvious physical limitations on the ability to practice forest management.5 Areas where regeneration treatments have been applied but the new forest stands have yet to meet free-to-grow standards.


The Forest is bordered on the south, north and east by the Wabigoon Forest and on the northwest by the Whiskey Jack Forest. It is transected east to west by Highway # 17 with the City of Dryden located approximately in its centre (Figure 1). Other communities encompassed within the Forest boundaries include Vermillion Bay, Eagle River, Waldolf, Oxdrift, Wabigoon, Dinorwic and Dyment. As a result of its long forest management history the Forest is extensively accessed.

FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE DRYDEN FOREST (SOURCE: OMNR)

The DF lies predominately within the Boreal Forest Region. A small portion in the south of the unit is classified as a transition zone between the Boreal Forest and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Regions. Forest cover is predominately conifer forest types (jack pine and black spruce) which occupy 53% of the production forest area, with a slightly lesser representation of mixed conifer and hardwood forest types (42% of the production forest area). Pure hardwood stands comprise approximately 5% of the production forest area. The area of forest units for managed Crown land production forest is shown in Figure 2.


25000

Area by Forest Unit

20000

15000

ares

10000 Hect

5000

0 BF1 CE1 CMX IHM OCL OH1 PJ1 PJM PO1 PR1 PRW SBL SBM SPU

FIGURE 2. AREA OF MANAGED CROWN PRODUCTION FOREST BY FOREST UNIT6

Source: FMP-3, 2011 FMP

The age class area distribution of forest units is shown in Figure 3. An age class area imbalance occurs in the 41-60 age class. This age class area imbalance has implications with respect to the provision of a balanced wood supply and habitat for some wildlife species over subsequent planning terms (See Section 4.3).

Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) information utilized in the preparation of the 2011 FMP was based on 1997 inventory information updated for harvest depletions and natural disturbances to 2011. A new Enhanced FRI is tentatively scheduled for delivery in 2017 based on photo acquisition in 2009 and photo interpretation and validation field work beginning in 2015. We discuss the issue of the timing of the FRI products in Section 4.3 and provide a recommendation (Recommendation # 2, Appendix 1).

6 Forest Units are as follows: PJ1=Jack pine dominated stands, PO1=Poplar dominated stands, PR1=Red pine dominated stands, BF1=Balsam fir dominated stands, SPU=Upland black or white spruce dominated stands, OCL = larch and cedar dominated lowland stands, SBL= Lowland black spruce stands, CMX = mixed conifer dominated stands, CE1= Cedar upland mixedwood stands, OH1= other hardwood mixedwood stands, IHM= mixed hardwood dominated stands, PJM = jack pine dominated mixedwood stands, SBM = black spruce dominated mixedwood stands, PRW = white pine and red pine dominated mixedwood stands.


Hect

ares

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 81-100 101-120 121-140 141+

Age Class Area Distribution

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80

FIGURE 3. AGE CLASS AREA DISTRIBUTION (CROWN MANAGED LAND). Source: 2011 FMP.

There are several Aboriginal communities with identified interests on the DF; Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (Waabigoniiw Saaga’Iganiiw Anishinaabeg), Wabauskang First Nation, Naotkamegwanning First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Grassy Narrows First Nation (Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek)7, Mitaanjigamiing First Nation, Eagle Lake First Nation (Migisi Sahgaigan) and the Aboriginal Community of Wabigoon. Some of the Aboriginal communities are very active in forestry operations, with the Aboriginal Peoples of Wabigoon (Aboriginal Corporation) and the Wabigoon Ojibway and Eagle Lake First Nations conducting logging operations through Overlapping Licence Agreements (13% of FMP planned operations). Approximately 40% of the trees planted on the Forest are purchased from the Wabigoon Ojibway tree nursery. Aboriginal people are also employed in a wide variety of forest related activities such as stand thinning, release activities, tree planting, etc.

Forest operations are conducted primarily by shareholders of the DFMC (87% of FMP planned operations). Communities which receive significant volumes of timber from the DF include Dryden, Kenora, Ignace, Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Sioux Lookout and Ear Falls.8

The Forest supports a diversity of wildlife species associated with the Boreal Forest Region. Commonly occurring species include white tailed deer, moose, black bear, and marten. Small game species include ruffed grouse, hare and a variety of waterfowl. The whip-poor-will is the only threatened species on the Forest with the bald eagle, black tern, olive-sided flycatcher, short-eared owl, yellow rail, Canada warbler, common nighthawk and the snapping turtle listed as species of special concern.

7 The Grassy Narrows Community is situated significantly west of the Dryden Forest but does have interest in federally-owned land on the DF which is scheduled for transfer to the GN First Nation.8 During the audit period, sawmills in Atikokan, Ignace and Ear Falls did not operate.


There are six provincial parks, six conservation reserves and three forest reserves on or adjacent to the Forest.

3.3. Current Issues

Very few issues were identified in our document review and initial consultations with the auditees. High priority aspects for the audit included;

• The 2008 auditors believed that the level of tending achieved in the last audit period was insufficient to maintain the level of conifer projected in the 2006 FMP. As a result the extension of the SFL was conditional on the requirement that all stands requiring tending were treated.

• Issues identified in the 2011 FMP development included the implementation of the Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales (OMNR 2010). Land use issues included the protection of remote tourism areas. There were also issues associated with funding levels for planned silviculture and shifts in market utilization of forest products.

• The DF contains a significant area of patent land which fragments the landscape providing few opportunities for the application of strategic landscape level guidelines (e.g. marten core habitat area management).

• The vintage of the FRI has resulted in operational issues related to the allocation of low quality and low volume hardwood stands in harvest schedules.

3.4. Summary of Consultation and Input to the Audit

Details on public consultation and input during the audit are provided in Appendix 4. A public notice and an invitation to provide comment and/or complete a questionnaire on the Arbex website were placed in the Dryden Observer (September 4, 2013).

A random sample of 25% of the individuals and organizations listed in the 2011 FMP mailing list were sent a letter and questionnaire requesting input to the audit process. An additional sample of stakeholders was contacted directly by telephone. Individuals interviewed included those associated with the tourism industry, trapping, Bear Management Areas, naturalists, anglers and hunters and trail users.

All First Nations (FNs) with an interest on the Forest were contacted by mail with an invitation to participate and/or express their views on the forest management during the audit term. Follow-up contacts were made with all FNs and interviews were held with interested respondents.

OMNR District and Regional staff participated in the field audit and/or were interviewed by the audit team. DFMC staff participated in the field audit and were interviewed by the audit team. Representatives of the Eagle Lake First Nation participated as observers during the first two days of the field audit.


4.0. Audit Findings

4.1. Commitment

The IFAPP commitment principle is deemed to be met since DFMC is certified by the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) certification program (CERT-0040220).

OMNR has updated policy and mission statements that are prominently displayed on office bulletin boards and the OMNR website. All interviewed staff were aware of OMNR direction, sustainable forestry commitments and Codes of Practice. Our assessment is that all commitment requirements were met.

Our assessment is that the high degree of local knowledge arising from the relatively long tenure of DFMC and some OMNR staff effectively informed the forest management decision-making process and resulted in the delivery of a successful forest management program. A positive working relationship amongst OMNR, DFMC and the OLs also facilitated the on-the-ground delivery of the forest management program.

4.2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

FMPM public consultation requirements for the development of the 2011 FMP and amendments to the 2006 and 2011 FMPs were met. All the constituencies contacted during the audit (tourism, trapping, LCAC members, forest industry, other interest groups) indicated that they had been made aware of the FMP process and that they were provided with opportunities to become involved and to identify values. Information centres were well attended and included participation by planning team members.

Our 10% detailed review of FMP correspondence records (including those with First Nations) indicated that correspondence was well documented, responses were timely and comments were considered in the approved FMP. In this review and during our subsequent interviews, we found indications that the efficiency and sensitivity with which DFMC and OMNR dealt with concerns contributed to the absence of any requests for the use of the formal dispute resolution process.

Planned forest management activities on the Farabout peninsula[2] became an issue of contention. Approximately two years into the implementation of the 2006 FMP a group of local residents formally expressed their concerns about planned harvest allocations for the area. They formed the ‘Farabout Peninsula Coalition’ and petitioned the OMNR to designate the area as a protected area fully exempt from harvest.

In order to provide a forum to discuss these concerns, OMNR initiated the formation of a “Focus Group” which included representatives of the Coalition, the Municipality, Eagle Lake First Nation and DFMC. In addition, the Coalition and the OMNR both undertook values surveys for the area. OMNR surveys identified an active eagle nest on the

[2] The Peninsula is a mixture of patent and Crown land that extends out into Eagle Lake.


narrow isthmus connecting the peninsula to the mainland with the result that no road building would be allowed within 200 m of the nest. This effectively removed the peninsula from forestry operations and the 2011 planning team made a decision to defer harvesting on the peninsula for a ten-year period. The Coalition has continued to pursue the possibility of protected area status for the peninsula and to that end has had discussions with the OMNR Regional office in Thunder Bay.

We agree with the consultative approach that DFMC and OMNR have taken regarding the Farabout peninsula issues. They have been in continuous contact with members of the Coalition. The creation of the Focus Group, while no longer very active, served as an additional forum to discuss the concerns. While the discovery of the bald eagle nest has resulted in the deferral of forest operations for 10 years, the issue remains, and appears to have migrated from a forest management focus toward one of broader land use. While the amount of potential harvest area involved is small (less than 5% of the Dryden Forest), the precedent of taking an area out of production has potential long term implications for the Forest, particularly with its interspersion of Crown and private land and the potential for similar land use issues to arise.

It is important that DFMC and OMNR continue dialogue with members of the Coalition to achieve closure on their request for protected area status prior to planning for the 2021 FMP.

Public consultation for the 2011 FMP was delayed. Dates that were significantly modified included the notice to review the proposed Long Term Management Direction, and the information centre to review proposed operations for which public notices in newspapers had to be rescinded and re-issued. Our assessment is that these delays were reasonable to ensure that a complete product was presented for public review. Enough flexibility had been built into the initial planning schedule that the changes did not affect the timing of the Regional Director’s approval of the Plan, the final public inspection of the approved plan and the commencement of operations on April 1 2011. For these reasons, we provide no recommendation.

We note that there were delays in receiving corporate approval for the posting of Information Notices (Review of Proposed Long term Management Direction, Review of Draft Plan) on the Environmental Registry (ER). The delayed approvals resulted in significant “last minute” adjustments to the consultation process including the need for extensions to the period of public review.

Approval of ER Information Notices is an internal OMNR and OMOE matter. Delays result in inconvenience and /or confusion to the public. It should be possible to develop/refine a protocol that would minimise such delays. We recommend that the current protocol for the submission, approval, and posting of ER Information Notices be reviewed and that improvements be made to avoid unnecessary delays (Recommendation # 1, Appendix 1).


Issue Resolution and Individual Environmental Assessment

Opportunities to make a request for Issue Resolution or an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) were clearly identified in the planning process and no requests related to either process were made.

Local Citizens Committee

The Dryden Local Citizens Advisory Committee (LCAC), representing both the Dryden and Wabigoon Forests, is a standing committee whose members are appointed by the OMNR District Manager. Committee members provide a range and balance of local stakeholder and business interests; however, members are not specific representatives of those groups.

The Committee was actively involved in all aspects of the implementation of the 2006 FMP. Minutes of the committee meetings show on-going involvement with the committee providing advice and comment on the full range of plan implementation activities (e.g. Annual Work Schedules, Compliance activities, road construction, etc.). For the development of the 2011 FMP the LCAC had representation on the planning team, and there were regular updates to the full committee, as well as joint meetings with the planning team.

LCAC members were very satisfied with the proactive and sustained efforts by the OMNR and DFMC to keep them informed. Our interviews and an LCAC self-evaluation survey indicated the members felt their time on the LCAC was well spent, and that they provided value to the forest management planning and implementation processes. This assessment was shared by the MNR and DFMC. The LCAC statement in the 2011 FMP states "...the LCAC is in Agreement with the Dryden Forest 2011 FMP as presented.”.

Our assessment is that the LCAC was effective, well managed and productive.

Aboriginal Involvement in Forest Management Planning

Aboriginal communities located within or adjacent to the Dryden Forest include Wabigoon Lake Ojibway FN, Eagle Lake FN, Grassy Narrows FN, Lac Seul FN, Mitaanjigamiing FN, Naotkamegwanning FN, Wabauskang FN and the Aboriginal People of Wabigoon (a self-identified Métis Community).

For the development of the 2011 FMP, Wabigoon Lake Ojibway FN, Eagle Lake FN and the Aboriginal People of Wabigoon participated on the Planning Team. All FMPM requirements associated with Aboriginal communities were met and the required reports were prepared. The OMNR, as per direction in the FMPM, kept the Aboriginal Background Information Report, the Report on Protection of Identified Aboriginal Values and the Summary of Aboriginal Involvement confidential (with community concurrence). Aboriginal values maps were prepared based on the available information. That information was utilized in the development of the FMP.


The OMNR produced Condition 34 Reports9 during each year of the audit term. Report format and content met all FMPM requirements.

4.3 Forest Management Planning

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the 2011 FMP met all FMPM requirements. It was thorough and included excellent documentation of schedules, procedures and any changes to the TOR during the planning process. Planning team membership and advisors included people with the necessary skills and experience. Stakeholders were directly involved and had access to professional and technical expertise.

The FMP planning team was one of the most involved and effective that we have encountered. There was a strong working relationship among planning team members. A Steering Committee was established but no formal meeting was required to deal with resourcing issues or disagreements among planning team members. The team met monthly over the approximately 30 month planning period; meeting minutes were clear and included a precise recording of action items and follow-up. The attendance record of most of the members was excellent and although there was considerable turnover in OMNR staff, other Ministry members were able to provide a consistency and depth of knowledge that eased staffing transitions.

Planning team meetings included an innovative approach to encourage the input of First Nation planning team members. Immediately following most meetings, an additional session involving First Nation, OMNR and DFMC representatives occurred. Discussion focussed on planning aspects of particular interest to First Nation members and provided an opportunity to discuss these aspects in more detail. In our interviews with planning team members, they indicated that they found these sessions to be very useful. We consider this approach to be a Best Practice (see Appendix 1).

As referenced in Section 4.2, some of the planning schedule timelines (including public consultation and some internal planning checkpoints) were delayed. However enough flexibility had been built into the initial planning schedule that the plan targets were achieved and forest operations could commence on April 1 2011.

The FMP social and economic description was based on the 2006 Canada Census. Demographic and economic profiles were prepared for all First Nations and all communities affected by operations on the Forest. Data on First Nation communities was less reliable due to lower participation rates by FNs people in the Canada Census and smaller sample sizes. All industrial and non-industrial uses were described. A comprehensive account was given of the history, current products and employment in forest dependent industries as well as past wood volumes and Crown revenues.

The degree of activity and financial implications of other resource values (tourism, mining, hydro generation, cottaging, hunting and fishing, trapping, the baitfish industry and commercial fishing) were described in sufficient detail to allow those uses to be

9 Condition 34 from the 2003 Class Environmental Assessment requires OMNR District Managers to conduct negotiations with Aboriginal peoples to identify and implement ways of achieving a more equal participation in the benefits provided through forest management planning.


considered in the resource management planning processes. It was encouraging to see that the planning team made an effort to assess available reports (including several reports by OMNR’s Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, a graduate study and a consultant’s report) on the value of resource based tourism in Ontario. Information on the true value of the Ontario tourism industry has been very difficult to find, and several of our past audits have made recommendations to correct this information shortfall. Although some of the information may be somewhat dated, and the low return rate of some of the study surveys doubtless affects the accuracy of the data, the information in the 2011 Dryden FMP is superior to what we have seen in other FMPs.

The assessment of the social and economic impact of the Proposed Management Strategy (PMS) was made using a non-modeling analysis process which compared differences between the 2006 FMP and proposed 2011 FMP related to timber volume, silvicultural expenditures and non-timber activities and values. Since differences between harvest levels in the 2006 FMP and those predicted in the 2011 FMP LTMD were small, we agree with the planning team’s decision to use the qualitative non-modeling analysis process in the 2011 FMP.

The assessment of timber value and related impacts was thorough, taking into account reduced short term and long term supply from the Forest, future demand for wood, and the effect on individual mills, operators and communities.

We found that the process of assessing silvicultural value and the impacts was reasonable. It reflected FMP projections of reduced basic or intensive silviculture over the next ten years and a related reduction in spending. The principal impact was in the Dryden workforce which has the main concentration of people performing the work. Assessment of the impact of the FMP on non-timber values adequately identified the positive and negative impacts of FMP implementation on these activities.

We reviewed 5% of the approximately 400 alterations resulting from an internal review of the draft forest management plan and found them to be appropriate. Our 30% sample of FMP amendments and Annual Work Schedule revisions lead us to conclude that they were thoroughly prepared, well documented and completed in a timely manner.

It is our assessment that the Strategic Forest Management Modeling (SFMM) was well done and clearly documented. Model inputs and decision rules were reasonable and appropriate. The Long Term Management Direction (LTMD) does not meet wood supply commitments for all terms in order that the supply of old conifer forest (e.g. marten core habitat) could trend towards the natural benchmark template. There was a 21% reduction in the available harvest volume from the 2006 FMP. Wood supply demand was defined as 112,000 m3/year of Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF) and 66,000 m3/year of hardwood. This compares with the term one 2011 FMP supply allocation of 91,000 m3/year for SPF and 47,000 m3/year for poplar. After term one, the projected wood supply drops further in order to strike a balance between FMP timber and non-timber objectives (i.e. wildlife habitat, old growth targets, and marten cores). While the volume reductions could have been higher in the first term of the FMP, the planning team determined that the further reductions would negatively impact funding for forest


management, wood prices and the viability of DFMC. A decision was taken to lessen the economic impact of the reduction by distributing it over two 10-year management plans. This approach enabled DFMC to prepare a business plan for operations at the next projected volume reduction in 2021.

The socio-economic analysis in the 2011 FMP found that the projected wood supply reductions would have little impact on current mills:

“There is currently a surplus of timber volume available in the northwest region. Should a mill need wood, each mill has the capacity to purchase wood from other locations. The impact of reduced volume on the Dryden Forest has no real impact on any mill since it does not have any specific volume requirement to a mill. The main difference is how much any given mill is willing to pay for its wood. Market prices and other economic factors have a much higher significance than the current wood allocation on the Dryden Forest.”10

We do not provide a recommendation with respect to the declining wood supply as we concluded that a satisfactory balance between retaining acceptable levels of habitat while not unduly constraining the level of available harvest area and the viability of DFMC was achieved for the current management term. The balancing of wood supply with non-timber objectives will be revisited during the development of the 2021 FMP.

The management unit description in the 2011 FMP met the requirements of the FMPM. Management unit inventory information (e.g. Forest Resources Inventory (FRI)) and other descriptive information (i.e. Aboriginal Background Information Reports, Socioeconomic information) was effectively integrated into the FMP and was appropriately used in the development of FMP objectives and strategies, the LTMD and forest management activities.

We note that the vintage of the FRI has caused operational and planning challenges with respect to harvest scheduling and allocation due to lower than anticipated species and product volumes. The operational issues included the allocation of some low volume stands (particularly poplar) which were uneconomic to harvest as well as lower than anticipated merchantable volumes in some operable hardwood due to deteriorated stand conditions which were not reflected in the inventory. The delivery of FRI products is seriously out of synchronization with the forest management planning cycle (e.g. the 2021 FMP will utilize photography acquired in 2009). This circumstance is not unique to the Dryden Forest and we note that the previous auditors shared this same concern. We repeat a recommendation to Corporate OMNR to better synchronize FRI product delivery schedules with forest management planning schedules (Recommendation # 2, Appendix 1).

Silvicultural Ground Rules11 (SGRs), Silvicultural Treatment Packages12 (STPs) and Forest Operations Prescriptions (FOPs) were, for the most part, appropriate for the

10 2011 Dryden Forest Management Plan (page 217, lines 17-22). 11 Silvicultural Ground Rules specify the silvicultural systems and types of harvest, renewal and tending treatments that are available to manage forest cover and the type of forest that is expected to develop over time.


forest cover types and site conditions encountered on the Forest. SGRs were based on a combination of silvicultural guides, historical treatment success and professional experience on the unit. We provide a recommendation (Recommendation # 1, Appendix 1) to address a concern related to the chemical tending program (see Section 4.4.). Forest management activities planned in each of the AWSs were consistent with those outlined in the relevant FMPs. All the AWSs conformed to FMPM requirements.

Habitat modeling was completed for selected species and the LTMD maintained habitat supply within the bounds of natural variation for all species with the exception of marten13. As previously indicated, minor adjustments were made in SFMM to control the rate of decrease in older coniferous forest and to maintain levels of habitat supply above minimum acceptable levels. Overall acceptable levels of habitat were achieved. Habitat was protected, maintained or enhanced through the application of appropriate provincial guidelines, AOC strategies and silvicultural strategies and practices (e.g. retention of standing trees, residual shelter patches and woody debris). Sufficient funding was available during the planning process for the OMNR District to complete required field surveys to support the preparation of the FMP and support field operations.

Species at Risk (SAR) listed under the Endangered Species Act and dependent on the Dryden Forest were appropriately considered in the 2011 FMP. Habitat descriptions, management guidelines and operational prescriptions were included in the FMP and/or its supporting documentation14.

Aquatic resources were given high, medium and low potential sensitivity designations with applicable slope-based reserves. Where operations were deemed to be low risk, partial harvesting of riparian reserves was permitted in accordance with the Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales. We inspected a riparian reserve that had been partially harvested. The harvest was effective in diversifying the vertical structure and age of the shoreline vegetation and available habitats for wildlife. No evidence of site damage arising from the harvest operation was evident. OMNR had installed a comment box at a public boat launch located adjacent to this reserve. Our review of the comments indicated that the public reaction to harvesting to the shoreline was overwhelming negative. However, despite the objections, all requirements associated with harvesting the reserve were met.

All requirements for the protection of resource based tourism values were addressed, from initial consultations through to the protection of values by use of AOC’s and the establishment of one Resource Stewardship Agreement.

12 A Silvicultural Treatment Package is the path of silvicultural treatments from the current forest condition to the future forest condition. STPs include the silvicultural system, harvest and logging method(s), renewal treatments, tending treatments and regeneration standards.13 Only two areas are of sufficient size and potential suitability to be able to supply landscape level marten habitat at the present time, it is anticipated that an area burned in 1980 will be potentially capable of producing core marten habitat in 40 years.14 For example regionally rare tree species (e.g. yellow birch, burr oak and white elm) are not harvested.


Access planning met FMPM requirements and road management and maintenance activities for the planning term were appropriately documented.

We conclude that planning process for the 2011 FMP met FMPM requirements and that a high quality management plan was produced.

4.4. Plan Assessment and Implementation

The significant area and configuration of patent land in relation to Crown land and the presence of numerous values on the DF pose logistical challenges and limitations for the delivery of forest management. For example:

• The average area of cut blocks scheduled in the 2006 FMP approximated 35 hectares. To be economically viable smaller harvest areas typically required winter access. This dependence on winter access roads subsequently limited the accessibility of some areas for silvicultural treatment(s) (i.e. site preparation, tending).

• The extent of patent lands on the unit in combination with the small block sizes and configuration of the cuts on the landscape posed significant limitations for the delivery of an aerial tending program.

• The prevalence of clay and silt soils result in management challenges with respect to competition control.

Despite the continued economic downturn in the forest products sector, demand for wood during the audit term was steady and harvest operations achieved 82% of planned levels. The relatively high level of harvest resulted in actual levels of silviculture approximating planned levels and enabled DFMC to take good advantage of the Forest Roads and Maintenance Agreement (FRM).

Table 3 presents the planned vs. actual area treated by silvicultural activity for the audit term. A discussion of the implementation of the harvesting and silvicultural program is provided in the sections below.


TABLE 3. PLANNED VS. ACTUAL SILVICULTURE TREATMENTS DURING THE AUDIT TERM (2008-2013).

Activity Planned (Ha)

2008-2013

Actual (Ha)

2008-2013

% of

Planned Harvest* 6,268 5,130 82% Natural Regeneration 2,301 1,291 56% Artificial Regeneration (Total) 4,319 3,699 86%

Seeding 1,858 2,053 110% Planting 2,461 1,646 67%

Site Preparation 4,024 3,158 78% Tending (Total) 2,226 2,634 119%

Chemical 1,791 2,210 123% Manual 435 424 97%

Pre-commercial thinning 655 786 120% *2013 actual harvest is estimated at 740 ha.

Harvest

FMPM requirements for harvest planning were met. The planned harvest levels were generally achieved for all species groups during the audit term as markets existed for all available wood produced on the Forest. The area harvested achieved 82 % of the planned harvest area target during the audit term15. All areas were harvested under the conventional clear cut system. Actual harvest levels averaged 156,000 m3 for the 2006 FMP term which exceeded the planned annual target volume of 150,000 m3. Planned average yields per hectare were 123 m3/ha with actual yields achieving 131 m3/ha. For normal operations, planned conifer utilization was slightly higher than the planned hardwood utilization. Conifer utilization achieved the planned level (126,000 m3). This trend was consistent with the prevailing markets for species and products during the audit term.

A small area of blow down was salvage harvested in 2009. FMPM requirements for the operation were met.

During the field audit we visited 14 % of the area that was harvested. All inspected sites were approved for operations in the AWSs. Harvest prescriptions were implemented in accordance with the SGRs and individual forest operations prescriptions were prepared and appropriately implemented for each harvest block. There was no evidence of site or environmental damage arising from harvest operations on the inspected harvest blocks and AOC prescriptions in harvest areas were appropriately implemented. Our finding that harvest operations were well planned and implemented is supported by Forest Operations Inspection Program reports which indicated only one harvest-related compliance infraction during the audit term.

15 Data for 2013 are not fully available. The actual harvest area was estimated at 740 ha by DFMC staff. SFL holders are required to submit information on harvest area and other silvicultural operations in an Annual Report by November 15th .


During interviews with OMNR staff we were informed that the “Water Classification Tool” tested in the planning process was not properly classifying streams and that issues with unmapped or inappropriately classified streams were sometimes encountered during operations. We visited a site where differences in opinion with respect to a stream classification had resulted in a compliance issue. We discussed the process that the parties had adopted to address and resolve the problem and were impressed with the co-operative approach for resolution of the issue and the apparent good working relationship between OMNR and DFMC staff. The field findings related to the application of the tool have been communicated to Corporate OMNR and work is being undertaken to refine the model.

Slash & Chipper Debris Management

The previous audit identified a requirement that DFMC take action to reduce the loss of productive forest area to logging debris and ensure that areas recovered through slash and chipper debris management are renewed.

In 2011, DFMC implemented a tree planting program on areas managed for slash reduction and monitored these sites as a component of its pre-FTG survey program. Following a review of its chipper debris management practises a “Logging Debris Management Protocol” was developed which outlines procedures to; minimize the loss of productive land on landings, ensure prompt reforestation of landings, create opportunities for the use of biomass, reduce fire hazards associated with logging debris and to improve the aesthetics associated with large debris piles.

A trial prescribed burning program of chipper debris piles was instituted in 201016. Results of the burn program have been variable as pile consumption varied based on factors such as the size, configuration and the age of the debris. In response to the OMNR Regional direction (2011) to reduce the loss of productive land associated with debris piles DFMC implemented a program to redistribute debris within cutovers utilizing grapple skidders. It is notable that problems have been encountered where the mat of debris created is impenetrable to disc trenchers during site preparation treatments. DFMC is conducting trials to determine the effectiveness of various other site preparation and debris management (i.e. creation of linear piles) techniques and strategies. Beginning in 2011, DFMC implemented a program where chipper pads are mapped and monitored until the sites are successfully renewed.

DFMC implemented a slash pile burn program during four years17 of the audit term treating approximately 3,707 hectares. Observations made during the field audit indicate that the slash management program is being effectively delivered. During the field audit we observed several sites where treated piles (and burn sites) had been effectively burned and replanted.

16 Chipper debris burning trials occurred on approximately 250 ha. 17 A slash pile burning program was not implemented in 2009 due to early heavy snowfalls. Piling of slash was undertaken.


Renewal, Tending and Protection

Renewal

For the audit term the area harvested and renewed is in balance with 5,131 ha being harvested and 4,990 ha being treated for renewal18. Our field observations confirm that the Forest is being successfully renewed.

During the 2006 FMP term artificial renewal treatments were applied on 71% of the area treated for renewal and natural renewal strategies were adopted on 29% of the renewal area. The 2011 FMP projects a higher reliance on natural regeneration (48%) due to significantly more mixed wood forest units (which are typically renewed by natural regeneration) being allocated for harvest. The renewal strategy supports the FMP objective to increase the representation of pure hardwood on the unit (e.g. PO1 forest unit representation is projected to increase from 5% to 17% over a forty-year period).

During the audit term the area treated by artificial renewal achieved 86% of the planned target with seeding being the most commonly adopted strategy (56% of the artificial renewal program). Our site investigations revealed that renewal to jack pine by seeding was highly effective on sites where the potential for site competition by grasses, other herbaceous vegetation and hardwoods was low. Seeding failures were observed on some competitive sites. While this practice was not widespread (approximately 10% of the area treated by seeding) it is the opinion of the audit team that multiple and/or earlier tending interventions on these sites would have resulted in higher crop tree stocking levels and improved growth and yield. (Recommendation # 3, Appendix 1).

The previous audit identified problems with respect to planting quality. Our field investigations (which covered 22% of the area renewed by planting) indicated that the identified issues related to planting quality had been resolved. Planted areas were well stocked with appropriate spacing and micro-site selections. In support of the objective to increase the representation of red and white pine on the Forest 226,000 red pine and 30,000 white pine seedlings were planted during the 2006 FMP term.

The inspected natural renewal areas were generally well-stocked to desired species.

Browsing of pine by white-tail deer is a significant issue and has resulted in lower than anticipated stocking levels and/or damage or mortality to crop trees on some sites. During the audit term, DFMC began planting or seeding to spruce (where site characteristics permit) as an alternative species in areas where browsing has been problematic.

We examined 17% of the forest renewal activities implemented during the audit term (see Appendix 4). All inspected sites were approved in the AWS and renewal activities were in accordance with the applicable SGR and STP. With the exception of some of the seeded sites (where site competition was significant) most of the inspected sites had achieved satisfactory stocking levels to the desired species.

18 A regeneration lag period between harvest and renewal is normal as other operations such as site preparation may be required before a harvested site can be treated for renewal.


Site Preparation

During the audit term site preparation achieved 78 % of the planned target (4,024 ha planned vs. 3,158 ha actual). The lower than planned achievement of targets largely reflects the increased reliance on winter harvesting where areas are not typically accessible to site preparation equipment and the fact that site conditions on some harvest areas did not warrant a site preparation treatment.

Chemical site preparation has not been adopted as a vegetation control method. Several of the sites we visited may have benefited from an early intervention to control competing vegetation prior to the renewal treatment. DFMC is encouraged to consider a full range of vegetation control options (i.e. chemical site preparation treatment, aerial spray treatments) and we provide a recommendation (Recommendation # 3, Appendix 1).

During the field audit we inspected 14% of the area treated with site preparation. On the examined blocks the site preparation activities were effective in exposing mineral soil and no instances of site damage from the operations was observed.

Tending

It is noteworthy that approximately one third of the soils of the DF are characterized as lacustrine clays and silts which are conducive to the growth of hardwoods and herbaceous species which compete aggressively with conifer crop trees for site nutrients and resources. Tending treatments must be implemented on these sites to promote the establishment and optimal growth of desired crop tree species by reducing site competition for resources. The size, configuration and non-timber values on the DF also pose logistical challenges and limitations with respect to the aerial application of herbicides. As a result, tending operations were all ground based using an air blast sprayer mounted on a skidder or a manual backpack sprayer. Vegetation control measures were typically implemented once during the stand rotation period19 one to three years following renewal operations. During the audit we visited 17% of the area treated by tending operations (chemical and manual).

The previous audit identified a concern with the adequacy of the herbicide tending program and made the extension of the SFL conditional on a requirement that all stands requiring tending were treated in order to maintain the level of conifer forest cover projected in the 2006 FMP20. To address the recommendation, DFMC assessed areas treated by artificial renewal between 2003 and 2009 and amended the 2006 FMP to increase the area planned for tending treatments to 2,449 hectares21. In 2010, OMNR sampled 19% of area within the 2003-2007 IFA scope to verify company decisions with respect to the requirement to conduct tending operations. Eleven additional blocks were deemed to require tending treatments and these areas were included in the

19 The rotation period is the time between the establishment the stand and its harvest. 20 Recommendation 13: DFMC must ensure that all stands operated during the audit term that require or are expected to require competition control be treated by the end of 2010 growing season.21 Amendment # 12 increased the amount of planned tending (cleaning and spacing) from 1,117 ha to 3,026 ha.


2010/2011 AWS. It is our opinion, that DFMC fulfilled its obligation with respect to the 2003-2007 IFA recommendation. We note that DFMC also implemented a pre-free to grow survey program which is intended to assess regeneration success and site competition levels on harvested areas between 2-5 years after the harvest. This survey process will identify sites where tending or additional tending treatments will be required to achieve the desired forest unit.

As a result of the conditional licence extension requirement, tending achieved 119% of the planned targets (2,226 ha planned vs. 2,643 ha actual) for the audit term. Manual chemical tending was implemented on 424 ha (97% of planned area) and air blast chemical tending treatments were carried out on 2,210 ha (123%) of the planned area. The overachievement of chemical tending operations reflects DFMC initiatives to address the conditional recommendation in the previous IFA.

Manual tending was adopted in older plantations because of the logistical restrictions associated with use of aerial treatments (i.e. small blocks on a fragmented landscape) and to avoid mechanical damage to larger crop trees by skidder mounted equipment. Tending was an effective means of competition control provided that the treatment occurred during June or July. Later season treatments were less effective as the stem was not killed and re-sprouting was evident. Despite the failure to kill treated stems a beneficial effect was realized through the reduction in height of the competing aspen.

The air blast treatments appeared to be more effective than back pack treatments on the inspected areas. The poorer results attributed to the back pack treatments could be attributed to a range of factors including the timing of the treatment, weather conditions following the treatment, improper chemical application and the height of competing vegetation.

As discussed, seeding strategies on some of the more competitive sites showed variable results. It is our opinion that the adoption of multiple tending interventions early in the development of the stand would be beneficial for tree establishment, survival and growth on these sites (Recommendation # 3, Appendix 1). In addressing tending issues and requirements we suggest that DFMC review the potential for an aerial tending program and the use of chemical site preparation treatments.

Protection

No pesticides (to control insects or diseases) were applied during the audit term.

Access

Forest access planning met all FMPM requirements in the development of the 2011 FMP. Annual Work Schedules reflected FMP requirements and all access roads were constructed in accordance with the relevant forest management guidelines. A roads and water crossing monitoring program was implemented during all years of the audit term which included effects monitoring inspections during tertiary road construction in eagle and osprey AOCs.


The ability of DFMC to sustain relatively high levels of harvest enabled the company to access relatively high levels of funding22 for roads construction and or maintenance under the “Forest Roads and Maintenance Agreement (FRMA)”23. Our review of invoices submitted to the FRMA found the invoices to be complete and accurate.

During the audit term, 33 water crossings were constructed and crossings on active haul roads were maintained. Water crossings were well constructed. There was no evidence of environmental damage or public safety concerns arising from crossing installation or use. Our review of FOIP records confirms this finding with no not-incompliance incidents related to water crossings during the audit term.

Our inspection of a sample of forestry aggregate pits found no instances of noncompliance with respect to pit operational standards. This finding was confirmed by our review of FOIP records where no significant compliance issues were reported.

Renewal Support

DFMC did not conduct a seed collection program during the three years of the audit term as stored quantities of seed were sufficient to meet planned requirements. Small amounts of black spruce cones were collected in 2008 and 2013.

DFMC is a member of the Superior Woods Tree Improvement Association and is the lead agency for tree improvement sites on the DF. Tree improvement work (i.e. topping) and physical improvements (e.g. electrified wildlife fencing) were completed in orchards during the audit term.

4.5. System Support

The IFAPP human resources principle is met through the SFI certification.

DFMC documents and records are located in the company office in Dryden and were readily retrievable. A functional back-up process is in place. Forest Information Manual technical requirements for amendments, ARs, AWS’s, etc. were all met during the audit period. Requirements to digitally submit data to central OMNR systems (e.g. FOIP) were being met in the required format and in a timely manner. Our assessment is that DFMC maintains and operates an effective record/document management system.

All record and document development/retention requirements that are the responsibility of the OMNR were fully met during the audit term. Paper records and documents are located and accessed in a central storage area.

22 Funding levels approximated $ 600,000 per year over the audit term. 23 During the audit term 30.5 kilometers (kms) of primary road and 14.1 kms of secondary road were constructed. Road maintenance work was completed on 210 kms.


4.6. Monitoring

SFL and District Compliance Planning and Associated Monitoring

OMNR compliance planning was completed on an annual basis and included targets and identified individuals responsible for completing the work. DFMC completed strategic compliance plans for the 2006 and 2011FMPs as required by the guidelines. A sampling of inspection reports indicated that both the OMNR and DFMC conformed to requirements in the Forest Compliance Handbook (2010).

The AR’s from the audit period indicated there were 257 inspections with OMNR completing approximately 20 per cent and DFMC approximately 80 percent. Our assessment is that this was an appropriate number of inspections for the level of forest management activity that occurred during the audit term. The in-compliance rate was approximately 99 percent. During that same period there were 15 Operational Issues that required corrective action, although they did not result in a Not-in- Compliance designation. Our review indicated these were relatively minor incidences and the DFMC acted quickly to correct them. We also note a declining trend in compliance issues since 2006.

Our assessment is that the excellent compliance rate is the result of the on-going communications between the Company and OMNR, the training programs implemented by DFMC that have been very responsive to identified issues, and the high level of experience of operators working on the Forest.

Monitoring of Silvicultural Activities

During the audit term, DFMC conducted assessments of regeneration success, vegetative competition (pre-free-to-grow surveys) and free-to-grow (FTG) status of renewed stands. It is our assessment that an effective monitoring program was in place.

FTG assessments were completed during each year of the audit term with 7,302 ha being surveyed (77% of the planned forecast area). Tables 4 and 5 present the results of the assessments. All surveyed areas depleted by harvest or natural disturbance have been successfully regenerated. Regeneration is considered a silvicultural success when all the standards contained in the SGR applied to that stand have been met and the projected forest unit is achieved. A regeneration success occurs when regeneration meets all the standards of an SGR but the stand has regenerated to another forest unit.


Table 4. Silvicultural and Regeneration Success by Forest Unit – Harvest Depletion Areas

Forest Unit

Total Area

Assessed (Ha)

Percent Silvicultural Success24

(%)

Percent Regeneration

Success (%)

Percent Area

Successfully Regenerated

Percent Area Not


BF1 44.97 0 100 100 0

IHM 692.59 77 23 100 0

MC1 970.40 63 37 100 0

MC2 1,185.53 51 49 100 0

OCL 1.37 100 0 100 0

PJ1 1,882.87 69 31 100 0

PO1 710.23 62 38 100 0

PR1 1.25 0 100 100 0

SBL 54.02 100 0 100 0

SPU 549.08 27 73 100 0

Total: 6,092.31 61 39 100 0

Source: AR-13 Summary of Assessment and Silvicultural Success. 2010-2011 Annual Report for the Dryden Forest Management Unit # 535.

Objective 9c in the 2011 FMP establishes a target to achieve 60% of the harvest area regenerated to free-growing status to the projected forest unit with 10 years of the harvest operation. This target level reflects the reality that regeneration to other forest units may not be deemed a silvicultural success but may still result in acceptable future forest conditions. A compounding factor in defining silvicultural vs. regeneration success is that forest units are fairly narrowly defined on the DF and a relatively minor shift in species composition (10%) can result in a change in forest unit classification25. Table 4 indicates that the target of 60% was achieved. It is also noteworthy that the table does not reflect the results of tending work completed during 2009 and 2010 where DFMC adjusted its renewal program to address the forest cover transitions and the requirement for tending identified in the 2008 audit. Our field investigations indicated that on the vast majority of sites identified to address the 2008 IFA tending recommendation hardwood levels have been reduced and a conifer dominated forest unit designation(s) had been achieved.

24 Silvicultural Success Rate Percent was determined by dividing the area regenerated to the projected forest unit by the total area assessed as FTG.25 Forest units definitions are based on regional guidelines.


The 2010-2011 AR indicates that the relative proportion of forest unit area in the MC1, MC2 and IHM has decreased and these forest units have transitioned to jack pine or poplar forest units. The observed trend is consistent with the LTMD projected trends of the natural benchmark and the desired future forest condition. We also note that low silvicultural success rates were reported for the BF1 and SPU forest units. The SGR for the balsam fir forest unit is for natural regeneration after harvest. During the audit term no harvesting occurred in balsam fir forest units. Our record review, site investigations and discussions with the forest manager lead us to conclude that harvesting had been very limited in the SPU forest unit and that the forest unit transitions that had occurred were largely attributable to the natural ingress of jack pine which resulted in a shift to the SBM and PJM forest unit designations. The historic lack of past tending also contributed to the transition to other forest units.

Table 5 indicates an average silvicultural success rate of 73% on areas disturbed by natural disturbances. This silvicultural success rate reflects the general expectation that mixed and pure hardwood forest units left for natural regeneration will contain higher densities of hardwood.

TABLE 5. SILVICULTURAL AND REGENERATION SUCCESS BY FOREST UNIT – NATURAL DISTURBANCE AREAS

Forest Unit

Total Area

Assessed (Ha)

Percent Silvicultural Success26

(%)

Percent Regeneration

Success (%)

Percent Area


Percent Area Not


IHM 56.69 83 17 100 0

MC1 226.22 60 40 100 0

MC2 226.66 71 29 100 0

PJ1 110.39 100 0 100 0

PO1 27.68 75 25 100 0 Total: 647.64 73 27 100 0 Source: AR-13 Summary of Assessment and Silvicultural Success. 2010-2011 Annual Report for the Dryden Forest Management Unit # 535.

Given the 2011 FMP objective to increase the overall abundance of conifer through a focus on monitoring developing stands (e.g. pre-FTG surveys) and effective tending it can reasonably be expected that higher levels of silvicultural success will be attained. The adoption of the pre-FTG monitoring program will enable DFMC to track forest unit movements and make adjustments to its silvicultural program to ensure that renewed areas develop in accordance with the SFMM forest unit transition assumptions. The

26 Silvicultural Success Rate Percent was determined by dividing the area regenerated to the projected forest unit by the total area assessed as FTG.


Enhanced FRI will also provide updated information with respect to the portions of forest cover types.

Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring (SEM)

The effectiveness of forest operations prescriptions in achieving the desired forest unit must be understood to facilitate reporting on forest sustainability and to provide reliable inputs into the forest management planning process (e.g. development of SGRs, SFMM model inputs and assumptions). As identified in the FMPM and the Forest Information Manual (FIM) the SFL holder is required to provide information on the outcomes of its silviculture program to the OMNR. OMNR is required to substantiate the reported results and evaluate the effectiveness of the silviculture program.

OMNR implemented a SEM program during all years of the audit term and met all of its core task requirements. We noted a potential problem with respect to the sequencing of SFL and OMNR FTG data in ARs and other provincial reports (i.e. State of the Forest Report). The current direction for FTG SEM monitoring is for OMNR District staff to review 10% of the FTG information submitted in the previous year’s AR (e.g. the information has been collected, compiled and posted and rolled up into provincial reports). This process results in a 2 year lag between submission of the information in the Annual Report and the SEM Core Task verification of the field work27. If inaccuracies in forest unit designations are not reported by the SFL in its next AR submission errors can persist in the system which may result in incorrect forest unit designations and/or inaccurate yield projections. A recommendation to Corporate OMNR to review its direction for SEM FTG assessment and sequencing of FTG reporting in ARs is provided to address this concern (Recommendation # 4, Appendix 1).

Sites invoiced in the “Forest Renewal Trust Specified Procedures Report (SPR)”were visited to ensure conformity between invoiced and actual activities. No non-conformities were found.

Exceptions Monitoring

Exceptions monitoring is carried out to determine the effectiveness of prescriptions included in forest management plans that are “not recommended” in the OMNR forest management guides. During the audit term exceptions monitoring was undertaken on ecosites 11 and 12 where full tree logging on shallow soils is not recommended in the Silvicultural Guide to Managing Black Spruce, Jack Pine and Aspen on Boreal Ecosites in Ontario (OMNR 1007).

Our record review and field inspections of operations on Ecosites 11 and 12 confirmed that best management practises for operations on shallow sites (i.e. equipment with high floatation tires, winter harvest) had been implemented and that monitoring of eagle and osprey AOCs had occurred.

27 For example, DFMC reports its FTG results on Nov. 15th 2013 for surveys that were completed in 2012. The OMNR doesn’t do field work on the 2013 FTG information until 2014 resulting in a 2 year period between SFL field survey and the OMNR field verification.


Annual Reports

Annual Report (AR) preparation and submission is a contractual obligation of the SFL holder. This audit reviewed ARs for 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012. The 2013 AR was not due or available for the audit. FMPM AR content and submission requirements were mostly met28. The 2010-2011 AR reported on the FMPM additional requirements for the Year 10 Management Unit Report.

4.7. Achievement of Management Objectives & Sustainability

The 2010-11 AR identified the following significant trends:

• There is a clear trend of declining planned harvest area, and planned volume over the four planning terms, with a 20% drop in area from the 1991-1996 FMP to the 2006-2011 FMP. This trend is due in part to the need to meet planning direction for increased emphasis on other values of the forest (e.g. provision of wildlife habitat).

• The percentage of the planned harvest that is actually harvested overtime has been trending upward with a steady rise from 58% in the 1991-1996 FMP to 90% in the 2006-2011 FMP.

• The average yield (m3) per hectare showed a declining trend in the first three planning periods. The allocation of more difficult operational blocks with lower volumes likely caused this trend.29

• The area treated by natural regeneration has increased relative to area treated by artificial regeneration over successive planning periods.

• Harvested areas have been satisfactorily regenerated.

The AR also noted that the assessment of trends associated with forest cover and age class structure was difficult due to changes in forest cover type classifications that had occurred during the past four management terms.

We agree with the AR’s conclusion that forest sustainability is being achieved and progress is being made towards the desired future forest condition and the provision of FMP forest benefits. In our assessment of sustainability we also examined the progress in achieving FMP objectives (Appendix 2) and concluded that most FMP objectives were met or have been partially achieved. We also concluded that the management plan and forest operations during the audit term were not posing a long term risk to forest sustainability. This conclusion is premised by the following findings:

28 AR are prepared for each one-year period (April 1 to March 31) of the FMP and are to be submitted by the following November 15th . The 2009 AR was submitted on January 15, 2011. 29 For the 2011 FMP actual yields are close to the predicted yields.


• Forest management was planned and implemented in accordance with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA).

• The Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sustainable Forest Licence.

• The majority of indicators of FMP objective achievement that could be assessed were within or exceeded minimum desirable levels. The documented rationale for any indicators where targets were not achieved was reasonable (i.e. landscape pattern did not allow for achievement of target).

• The 2006 FMP Selected Management Alternative projected that objectives for forest diversity would be met. We agree with this assessment and to the degree possible (some objectives can only be assessed over a very long time frame) our field observations confirmed that operations were consistent with meeting those objectives. The only exception was the objective “To develop a landscape pattern that emulates the Natural Disturbance Patterns Template for the Dryden Forest” which was only partially being met. This was due to the interspersion of Crown and private land and past land use that fragmented the forest.

• With the exception of the inability to achieve marten core habitat requirements objectives for the provision of forest cover are being met. Reasonable targets have been set in the 2011 FMP for the eventual achievement of the marten core habitat guideline. Minimum habitat levels for all featured species in the 2011 FMP remained above the targeted lower bounds of natural variation for the model forecast (100 years).

• Socioeconomic objectives are being met. We note that the 2006 FMP objective of maintaining or exceeding an average annual harvest of 150,000m3 is not sustainable in future management terms due to reductions in the available harvest area in order that the supply of old conifer forest (e.g. marten core habitat) could trend towards the natural benchmark template. This served to reduce the available harvest area. Lower than planned volumes from declining stands also reduced harvest volumes. A satisfactory balance between retaining acceptable levels of habitat while not unduly constraining the level of available harvest area and the viability of DFMC was achieved.

• The area of harvest and renewal are in balance. Sites inspected for renewal were typically well stocked to the desired species and the silvicultural ground rules and treatment packages adopted in planning were generally appropriate to the field conditions observed.

• An effective slash and debris management program was being implemented to minimize the loss of productive forest land to logging debris.


• AOC prescriptions protected identified values and were appropriately implemented during operations.

• Forestry operations were largely compliant with a 99% in-compliance rate. We did not observe any instances of environmental damage arising from forestry operations.

We do note that the trend of declining planned harvest area and volumes and decreasing yields is expected to continue and it will not be possible to sustain the average annual harvest volume of 150,000 m3. This is due to the scheduling of less productive stands in harvest allocations and the planned reduction in available harvest area to accommodate other forest values and balance forestry activities with other forest uses. We were informed that the reduction of annual harvest levels to 125,000 m3 is not significant enough to jeopardize the viability of the DFMC and we note that adjustments have been made to business operations to accommodate the planned decline in harvest volume. DFMC staff did express a concern that any significant further reductions to the annual harvest could potentially jeopardize the viability of the company.

It is also noteworthy that the issues identified in this report with respect to the accuracy of the FRI, the extent of patent lands on the unit and the existing age class area structure will pose management challenges in the next planning cycle. Our opinion is that these issues do not currently pose a significant risk to the long term sustainability of the Forest. We note that a new inventory is scheduled for 2017 and the DFMC is implementing a process to continuously enhance its FRI information by tracking harvest yields and conducting inventory work (in regenerating stands) to refine yield curves and volume estimates. This information will be incorporated into future wood supply modeling. The conversion of older low stocked areas to young well-stocked stands through harvesting and the timely and effective application of planned silvicultural treatments is occurring in accordance with the FMP. The planned renewal and tending treatments can reasonably be expected to assist in the achievement of FMP forest diversity and forest cover objectives and socioeconomic benefits related to the provision of a continuous wood supply.

4.8. Contractual Obligations

It is the opinion of the audit team that DFMC was in compliance with the terms and conditions of SFL # 542444 (Appendix 3). Some OLs are in arrears with payments to the Forestry Futures Trust and the Forest Renewal Trust. These balances are mostly associated with receivership proceedings and the OMNR is pursuing collection of the monies owed. The 2008 IFA Action Plan was submitted late as a result of the late submission of the IFA report and scheduling and workload issues at DFMC.


The 2008 IFA resulted in 20 recommendations (including the conditional extension of the SFL)30. It is our assessment that all recommendations were appropriately addressed or work was on-going to address the identified issue (Appendix 3).

As identified throughout this report, the audit made the extension of the SFL conditional on a requirement that all stands requiring tending were treated in order to maintain the level of conifer forest cover projected in the 2006 FMP31. The Action Plan Status Report reports that DFMC met its obligations for the extension of the SFL and that the OMNR Forest Branch made a recommendation to Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry (MNDM&F) Industry Relations Branch on the licence extension32. A review by Corporate OMNR as to whether to extend the SFL for a further five year term has not been completed. We provide a recommendation (Recommendation # 5, Appendix 1) to address this issue.

4.9. Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation

With the exception of the noted requirement to consider additional vegetative competition control measures on some competitive sites, DFMC and the OMNR are effectively managing the Dryden Forest. Planned forest management targets were largely achieved during the audit term, there were very few compliance issues associated with operations and the contractual obligations of the SFL holder and obligations of OMNR as the administrator of the Forest were met. Undoubtedly the relatively long tenure of DFMC and senior OMNR staff offered a level of local knowledge and on-the-ground experience that effectively informed the forest management decision-making process and resulted in the delivery of a successful forest management program.

The audit team concludes that the management of the Dryden Forest was generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and that the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sustainable Forest Licence held by Dryden Forest Management Company. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence # 542444 for a further five years.

30 11 Recommendations were directed at the SFL holder, 3 at the District OMNR, 2 joint (SFL & OMNR) and 3 to Corporate OMNR.31 Recommendation 13: DFMC must ensure that all stands operated during the audit term that require or are expected to require competition control be treated by the end of 2010 growing season.32 At the time of the recommendation the MNDM&F had licence renewal responsibilities. In 2011, elements of the OMNR Forestry Branch that had been transferred to MNDM&F (including licence renewal responsibilities) were transferred back to OMNR.


Appendix 1

Recommendations & Best Practice

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding

Recommendation # 1

i. Principle 2: Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

Criterion: 2.2 Standard Public Consultation Process

Procedure(s): …1. Review and assess whether the public consultation processes for the plan ....met the requirements of the applicable FMPM and whether the process was effective.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence:

Section 3.3.2.5 of the 2009 FMPM states that” “ Under the provisions of the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), OMNR must place Registry Information Notices on the provincial Environmental Registry at the same time as the public notice is issued for each stage of public consultation in Phase I and Phase II planning. For each of Phase I and Phase II planning, a Registry Information Notice will be placed on the Environmental Registry when the public notice is issued at Stage One of public consultation. At each successive stage of public consultation, an updated Registry Information Notice will be placed on the Environmental Registry.”

There were two instances in the production of the 2011 Dryden FMP where late approval of the ER Information Notice resulted in significant “last minute” adjustments having to be made to the consultation process:

• The ER Notice for Stage 2 (Review of the Long Term Management Direction) was submitted on June 25, 2009 with a requested posting date of July 23, 2009. The actual posting occurred on August 17, 2009; the late posting required an extension of 26 days to the public review period to meet FMPM consultation requirements.

• Posting of the ER Notice for Stage 4 (Review of the draft FMP) was requested for June 18 2010. The actual posting occurred on July 22, 2010; the late posting of the ER Notice was the same day as the Information Centre requiring that the dates listed were altered to match the advertised public review dates.

This issue resulted in potential confusion to the public and considerable stress to planning team members in meeting consultation schedules.

Conclusion:

Approval of ER Information Notices is an internal OMNR and OMOE matter. Delays result in inconvenience and /or confusion to the public. It should be possible to develop/refine a protocol that would minimise such delays and thereby increase the efficiency of the planning process and reduce any inconvenience to the public.

Draft Report – Dryden Forest IFA 1

Recommendation # 1 :

Corporate OMNR should review the current protocol for the submission, approval, and posting of ER Information Notices and make improvements as necessary to avoid delays in approval and posting of Notices.



Recommendation # 2 Principle 3: Forest Management Planning

Criterion: 3.3.2. Forest Resource Inventory

Procedure(s): 1. Assess whether the FRI has been updated, reviewed and approved to accurately describe the current forest cover that will be used in the development of the FMP.


Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) information utilized in the preparation of the 2011 FMP was based on 1997 inventory information updated to 2011. A new Enhanced FRI is tentatively scheduled for delivery in 2017 based on photo acquisition in 2009 and photo interpretation and validation of field work beginning in 2015. This schedule implies that the 2021 FMP will utilize photography acquired in 2009.

Discussion:

The vintage of the FRI caused operational and planning challenges with respect to harvest scheduling and allocation due to lower than anticipated species and product volumes.

During the audit term low volume stands (particularly poplar) which were uneconomic to harvest or treat were being allocated for harvest. Additionally, the merchantable volume in some operable hardwood stands was lower than anticipated due to deteriorated stand conditions which were not reflected in the inventory.

The delivery of FRI products is seriously out of synchronization with the forest management planning cycle. This circumstance is not unique to the Dryden Forest and we note that the previous auditors shared this same concern (2003, 2008 IFA’s).

Recommendation # 2:

Corporate OMNR should work to ensure that the delivery of FRI products is better synchronized with forest management planning schedules.



Recommendation # 3 Principle 4: Plan Assessment and Implementation

Criterion: 4.5. Renewal, Tending and Protection

Procedure(s): 4.5.1. Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved tending and protection operations and determine if actual operations were appropriate for actual site conditions encountered.


Approximately one third of the soils of the DF are characterized as lacustrine clays and silts which are conducive to the growth of hardwoods and herbaceous species which compete aggressively with conifer crop trees for site nutrients and resources.

A lack of tending treatments in past management terms (largely attributed to public concerns over herbicide use, and the proximity of treatment sites to patent land ) resulted in a recommendation in the 2008 IFA that DFMC implement an expanded competition control program on the Forest.

Our site investigations of seeding practices on competitive sites indicated that many of these sites were poorly stocked due to competition by grasses, other herbaceous vegetation and hardwoods. These sites approximated 10% of the area treated by seeding during the audit period.

Discussion:

Reducing site competition has been shown to be beneficial for crop tree development. Where competing vegetation threatens the establishment and/or growth of crop trees site preparation and early release are worthwhile silvicultural practices. Chemical site preparation or other methods of early vegetative competition control will aid in crop tree establishment and initial growth on competitive sites scheduled for renewal by seeding. Alternatively, artificial renewal by planting should be considered.

Conclusion:

On competitive sites scheduled for renewal by seeding crop tree establishment and growth will benefit from the adoption of a regime of multiple treatments (e.g. chemical site preparation treatment or an early post seedling establishment vegetation control treatment). The current vegetation control regime of a singular tending treatment on these particular sites is often not sufficient to secure the investment in renewal.

Recommendation # 3:

DFMC should consider multiple vegetation control interventions on competitive sites scheduled for renewal by seeding.



Recommendation # 4 Principle 6: Monitoring

Criterion: 6.3.Silviculture Standards and Assessment Program

Procedure(s): 2. Assess whether the management unit assessment program (SFL and District) is sufficient and is being used to provide the required silvicultural effectiveness monitoring information included whether it is appropriately used to update the FRI.


OMNR implemented a SEM program during all years of the audit term and met all of its core task requirements. We noted a potential problem with respect to the sequencing of SFL and OMNR FTG data in ARs and other provincial reports (i.e. State of the Forest Report). The current Provincial direction for FTG SEM monitoring is for OMNR District staff to review 10% of the FTG information submitted in the previous year’s AR. This process results in a 2 year lag between the submission of the information in the Annual Report and the SEM Core Task verification of the field work.

The unverified results in the ARs are then included in provincial level reports prepared annually utilizing the data submitted in the ARs.

Discussion:

Should any inaccuracies in forest unit descriptions not be reported by the SFL in its next year’s AR submission then these errors persist in the system and can result in incorrect forest unit designations and/or inaccurate yield projections.

Recommendation # 4:

Corporate OMNR should review its direction for SEM FTG assessments including the sequencing of FTG reporting in Annual Reports.



Recommendation # 5

Principle: 8. Contractual obligations

Criterion: 8.1.9 Audit action plan and status report

Procedure(s): …actual actions were effective in addressing the audit recommendations.

This criterion has its basis in Section 9 of SFL licence # 542444 entitled Periodic Review of Licence Performance.


Recommendation 20 from the 2008 IFA extended SFL 542444 for a further 5 years conditional on “…all stands operated during the audit term that require or are expected to require competition control be treated by the end of 2010 growing season.”

To address the recommendation, DFMC assessed areas treated by artificial renewal between 2003 and 2009 and amended the 2006 FMP to increase the area planned for tending treatments to 2,449 hectares In 2010, OMNR sampled 19% of area within the 2003-2007 IFA scope to verify company decisions with respect to the requirement to conduct tending operations. Eleven additional blocks were deemed to require tending treatments and these areas were included in the 2010/2011 AWS.

The Action Plan Status Report indicates that DFMC met its obligations for the extension of the SFL and that the OMNR Forest Branch made a recommendation to Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry (MNDM&F) Industry Relations Branch on the licence extension. A review by Corporate OMNR as to whether to extend the SFL for a further five year term has not been completed. Conclusion:

OMNR should promptly conduct a review as to whether to extend SFL # 542444 as the conditional requirement for licence extension has been met by the SFL holder.

Recommendation # 5:

Based on the satisfactory completion of the conditional licence extension requirement imposed by the 2008 Independent Forest Audit corporate OMNR should promptly complete a review as to whether to extend the SFL for a further five year term as per the requirements of Section 26 (3) of the CFSA.



Best Practice # 1 Principle 2: Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

Criterion: 2.5. Aboriginal Involvement in Forest Management Planning

Procedure(s): 1. Review and assess whether reasonable efforts were made to engage each Aboriginal community in or adjacent to the management unit in forest management planning as provided by the applicable FMPM and assess the resulting involvement and consideration in the plan or amendment.


Planning Team meetings included an innovative approach to encourage the input of First Nation planning team members. Immediately following most meetings, an additional session (First Nation Community Representatives Meeting) involving First Nation, OMNR and DFMC representatives occurred. Discussion at these meetings focused on planning aspects of particular interest to First Nation members and provided an opportunity to discuss these aspects in more detail. Additionally these meeting provided a forum where topics outside the scope of Forest Management Planning could be discussed.

Discussion:

The consistent involvement of First Nations over the approximately 2 ½ years of planning team deliberations is typically difficult to achieve. During the 2011 Dryden FMP process 29 First Nation Community Representative meetings were planned of which First Nations on the planning team attended 20 (70%). This is one of the highest attendance rates we have encountered. Our interviews with planning team members (including a First Nation’s representative) indicated that the sessions were very useful in allowing a more detailed discussion of First Nation planning concerns.

We have not seen this type of process used before and it is our understanding the only other time it has been used was in the planning process for the 2008 Wabigoon FMP.

Best Practice # 1:

The use of First Nation Community Representatives Meetings in the FMP planning process was an innovative and effective approach to encourage and more fully engage First Nation planning team members in the forest management planning process.


Appendix 2

Management Objectives Table

ACHIEVEMENT OF 2006 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

DRYDEN FOREST FMP

2006 DRYDEN FMP OBJECTIVES

ASSESSMENT OF

OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT

(MET, NOT MET

PARTIALLY MET,

UNCERTAIN)

AUDITOR COMMENTS

Note:

This table reports on the achievement of the 2006 Dryden Forest FMP objectives.

However in some instances, in our analysis we reference the 2011 FMP objectives and their achievement. When we are referring to the 2011 FMP we reference it specifically in the table below.

All other comments refer to the achievement of 2006 FMP objectives.

1. FOREST DIVERSITY OBJECTIVES

1.1 Forest Structure Our observations during the field audit and Objective: our review of compliance records indicated

a high rate of compliance in the retention of To maintain or move toward a snag trees or patches of residual trees forest structure (individual residual trees) that would be MET within harvested areas. Operators received

training in the implementation of the Forest more natural in order to Management Guide for Natural increase the amount of Disturbance Pattern Emulation (NDPEG). wildlife habitat on harvested areas.

2013 Independent Forest Audit - Dryden Forest 1

Objective: 1.2 Forest Composition

The 2006 FMP Selected Management To maintain the area of each Alternative projected that the area of all forest unit that emulates the forest units would remain above the Natural Benchmark (With no fire suppression and no MET estimated lower bounds of natural variation

for the next 100 years. The projected commercial harvesting) for forest unit area through time reflected the the Dryden Forest. trends in area estimated in the Natural

Benchmark.

Species/Communities1.3 Rare Forest

rare species when encountered and DFMC committed to not harvest individual

Objective: recognized in harvest operations. All harvest operators participated in a training

To protect areas of rare forest course on the identification of rare forest species/communities.

MET species/communities. There were no instances reported in FOIP where rare forest species were harvested.

As a result of the frequency of occurrence of red maple on the unit it was dropped as a rare species in the 2011-21 FMP.

1.4 Forest Pattern Objective (Size, shape, location &adjacency):

To develop a landscape pattern that emulates the Natural Disturbance Patterns Template for the Dryden Forest.

PARTIALLY MET

While the 2006 FMP provides for movement towards a landscape that emulates the natural disturbance template progress in achieving the objective has been slow due to the interspersion of Crown and private land and past land uses resulting in the fragmentation of the forest. DFMC allocated the available harvest area to meet forest pattern objectives in the FMP.

Retention of snag trees in harvested stands was consistent with the requirements of the Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation, and new clear cuts met the target of 80% being less than 260 hectares in size.

1.5 Old Growth Objective: MET The area of white and red pine old growth was forecast to increase in the 2006 FMP Selected Management Alternative. The


To maintain the area of old growth in each forest unit (PRW and PR1) so as to emulate the Natural Benchmark (With no fire suppression and no commercial harvesting) for the Dryden Forest.

2011 planning process met the 2006 FMP target for old growth red and white pine forest.

During 2011 FMP planning process OMNR and DFMC identified candidate areas of old growth red pine and white pine and included these areas (upon field verification by OMNR) on the Values Map and the Stewardship Inventory.

In support of the objective to increase the representation of red and white pine on the Forest 226,000 red pine and 30,000 white pine seedlings were planted during the 2006 FMP term.

For the next forest management plan, DFMC plans to redefine the actual old growth PRW and PR1 areas by measuring and delineating portions of any stand that is known to meet the old growth definition. Adjacent areas conducive to Pr & Pw restoration will also be defined. Detailed prescriptions for restoration (such as gradual reduction in non-pine species in conjunction with planting) will be determined in the next Forest Management Plan.

2. FOREST COVER OBJECTIVES

2.0 Landscape Pattern and Habitat modeling was completed for Residual Stand Structure selected species with the selected Objective: management alternative maintaining To provide and sustain a forest landscape pattern and residual stand structure that will supply

habitat supply within the bounds of natural variation for all species with the exception of marten. Overall acceptable levels of

suitable wildlife habitat for all habitat for marten were achieved. species across the Dryden Forest. MET Habitat was protected, maintained or

enhanced through the application of appropriate provincial guidelines, AOC strategies and silvicultural strategies and practices (e.g. retention of standing trees, residual shelter patches and woody debris). Sufficient funding was available during the planning process for the OMNR District to complete required field surveys to support the preparation of the FMP and


support field operations.

AOCs were developed to protect known critical nesting habitat and riparian areas from potential impacts of forest management activities. Our observations during the field audit and our review of compliance records indicated AOCs were successfully implemented during forest operations.

3. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES

To sustain a continuous and The average yearly harvest target of predictable wood supply in 150,000m3 per year was exceeded. Actual order to contribute to the harvest averaged 156,000 m3 per year needs of local and regional throughout the 2006-11 FMP. Average industrial wood processing annual conifer volume was 126,000 m3

facilities.

MET

while annual hardwood volumes averaged 30,000 m3. The objective of providing a continuous and predictable wood supply was met. The target of limiting the decrease in Spruce-Pine-Fir volume between 10-year terms to a maximum of 15% was met in the 2006 SMA.

The actual harvest area achieved 82% of the planned level of the audit term.

The vintage of the FRI resulted in some low volume stands (poplar) being included in the harvest allocations which were not economical for harvest or other silvicultural treatments. There will be on-going management challenges associated with the forest inventory due to the lack of synchronization between the inventory and the forest management planning cycle.

3.2 Personal Use Harvest Objective:

To make available incidental forest products for personal uses such as fuel wood, building logs and fence post material..

MET Areas for personal use were identified and maps of the eligible areas were displayed at the OMNR District Office.


3.3 Other Forest Users Objective:

To plan and conduct forestry operations in a manner that does not limit the ability of other forest resource users to access the Dryden Forest.

.

MET

In general there are very few access restrictions on Crown land and the primary and secondary road infrastructure provided access for other Forest uses. Active haul roads were maintained for public travel.

All primary resource users were notified before road decommissioning occurred. Several fords were created during the five year period to allow for ATV and light truck traffic.

4. SILVICULTURE OBJECTIVES

4.1 Renewal Objective The area harvested and renewed is in balance with 97% of the area harvested

To ensure every forest stand treated by renewal. Our field observations harvested on the Dryden confirm that the Forest is being Forest is renewed by the most successfully renewed. appropriate and cost effective method to achieve the desired The area treated by artificial renewal future forest condition.

PARTIALLY MET

achieved 86% of the planned target with seeding being the most commonly adopted strategy. Seeding failures were observed on some competitive sites and a recommendation is provided to address this concern (Recommendation # 3, Appendix 1).

The previous audit identified problems with respect to planting quality. Our field investigations indicated that the identified issues related to planting quality issues had largely been resolved. Planted areas were generally well stocked with appropriate spacing and micro-site selections.

In support of the objective to increase the representation of red and white pine on the Forest 226,000 red pine and 30,000 white pine seedlings were planted during the 2006 FMP term.

Browsing of pine by white-tail deer is a significant issue and has resulted in lower than anticipated stocking levels and/or damage or mortality to crop trees. During the audit term, DFMC began planting or


seeding to spruce (where site characteristics permit) as an alternative species in areas where browsing has been problematic.

4.2 Intensive Silviculture Objective

The Year 5 AR Target/Objective To plan and implement a Assessment reports that black spruce and silviculture program that will white spruce seedlings were all grown from meet the objectives relating to seed produced by managed orchards at wood supply (Socio-economic the end of 2011. Jack pine cone production objective). was poor, compounded by a jack pine

budworm outbreak. As a result no jack pine seedlings were produced from managed

. PARTIALLY MET

orchards. Progress is currently being made on obtaining jack pine seed from a managed orchard.

An annual target of 150 hectares of precommercial thinning was met through an annual program that achieved 143 hectares per year.

The effective application of the renewal and tending programs on the Forest can be expected to increase volumes per hectare within managed stands.

4.3 Natural Benchmark Trends Objective

To plan and implement a silviculture program that follows the general trend of the Natural Benchmark for each forest unit. (Biodiversity objectives). PARTIALLY

MET

Progress was made on the FMP target to increase the area of the jack pine forest unit (PJ1) over time. Work included seeding or planting within other forest units (MC1, SPU) and manual and chemical tending operations.

Our field observations verified that silvicultural activities were generally effective in renewing and/or promoting the establishment and growth of jack pine on treated areas. A recommendation is provided to consider early and multiple vegetation control treatments on competitive sites renewed by seeding. (Recommendation # 3, Appendix 1).

4.4 Red Pine & White Pine Renewal Objective

To plan and implement a

MET During the 2006 FMP term 226,000 red pine and 30,000 white pine seedlings were planted. Deer browsing of pine remains a


Silviculture program that will increase the red pine and white pine representation on the Dryden Forest

significant problem.


Appendix 3

Compliance with Contractual Obligations

Licence Condition Licence Holder Performance

Payment of Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown charges.

Crown charges and payments to the FFT by the OLs are in arrears ($ 192,181) due to receiverships. The OMNR is pursuing the collection of the monies owed.

Wood supply commitments, MOAs, sharing arrangements, special conditions.

Wood supply commitments and sharing arrangements were met.

Preparation of FMP, AWS and reports; abiding by the FMP, and all other requirements of the FMPM and CFSA.

All documents and reports were completed to a high standard with FMPM content and submission requirements being met.

Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies; provision and collection of information in accordance with FIM. .

Inventories and information collection was completed as required and met FIM requirements.

Wasteful practices not to be committed. No wasteful practices were reported in FOIP or observed during audit field investigations.

Natural disturbance and salvage SFL conditions must be followed.

A salvage harvest (blow down) was conducted in 2009. FMPM requirements for the operation were met.

Protection of the licence area from pest damage, participation in pest control programs.

No pest control programs were required during the audit term.

Withdrawals from licence area. There were no withdrawals from the licence area during the audit term.

Audit Action Plan and Action Plan Status Report prepared.

The content of the Audit Action Plan and Action Plan Status Report met IFAPP requirements, however, as a result of the late submission of the audit report and workload and scheduling issues at DFMC, the Action Plan was submitted late.

The 2008 IFA resulted in 20 recommendations. It is our assessment that all recommendations were appropriately addressed and that sufficient effort was being directed to address the identified issue in instances where on-going work is required. Work is on-going with respect to the following recommendations:


• R# 10: Chipper debris management practices.

• R# 11: Supervision and delivery of the tree planting program.

• R# 12: Slash management. • R# 17: Surveys to assess silvicultural

treatments in advance of FTG surveying. • R# 18: Ensuring the accuracy and

completeness of Annual Reports. • R#19: Development of

recommendations for the determination of sustainability.

Payment of forest renewal charges to Forest Renewal Trust (FRT).

A small balance was owed to the Trust by DFMC as of March 31, 2013. This amount has been remitted.

Some OLs have outstanding balances due to receiverships ($149,374). The OMNR is pursuing the collection of the monies owed.

Forest Renewal Trust eligible silviculture work.

Our sample of silvicultural work invoiced under the Specified Procedures Account indicated that the silvicultural work was completed as per the invoices submitted to the program.

Forest Renewal Trust forest renewal charge analysis.

DFMC and OMNR undertook an annual analysis of trust fund renewal rates as a component of the AWS.

Forest Renewal Trust account minimum balance.

DFMC maintained the minimum balance for all years of the audit term with the exception of 2012-2013 where there was a deficit arising from accounting delays associated with the winter harvest. The account was brought up to the required minimum balance in early April 2013.

Silviculture standards and assessment program.

An effective silviculture standards and assessment program was implemented during all years of the audit term.

We provide a recommendation to Corporate OMNR to review its direction for SEM FTG assessments including the sequencing of FTG reporting in Annual Reports (Recommendation # 4, Appendix 1).


Aboriginal opportunities. Three aboriginal communities have Overlapping licencees and other silvicultural work was completed by aboriginal contractors. The Term and Condition 34 Reports demonstrate an ongoing outreach program.

Preparation of a compliance plan. Compliance plans were completed as required.

Maintenance of records, including maps, of the amount of Eligible Silviculture Work implemented and the cost.

A sample of sites invoiced in the “Forest Renewal Trust Specified Procedures Report” was visited to ensure conformity between the invoiced and actual activities. No nonconformities were observed.

The Company shall meet the silvicultural standards on all Class X and Y Lands.

No X or Y lands are present.

The Company shall carry out tending treatments on Class Z Lands as required by the Minister.

There are no Class Z lands.

The Company shall assess and report on the achievement of its regeneration efforts.

Monitoring programs were in place and reporting on regeneration efforts was provided in the Annual Reports. Overall a 61% silvicultural success rate was achieved and there is not a significant backlog in the area requiring FTG survey.

Internal compliance prevention/education program.

There was an effective training and education program in place as demonstrated by the relative low number of Not in Compliance reports during the audit term.

Compliance inspections and reporting; compliance with compliance plan.

A strategic compliance plan and annual plans were developed. Field implementation reflected the direction contained in the plans and the SFL holder completed an appropriate number of inspections relative to the level of operations that occurred on the Forest. This is a compliant Forest.

SFL forestry operations on mining claims. Requirements were met.


Appendix 4

Audit Process

This IFA consisted of the following elements:

Audit Plan: An audit plan describing the schedule of audit activities, audit team members, audit participants and the auditing methods was prepared and submitted to the DFMC, OMNR District, Regional OMNR, Forestry Futures Trust Committee and the LCAC Chair in March 2013.

Public Notices: Public participation in the audit was solicited through the placement of a public notice in the Dryden Observer in early September prior to the field audit. These notices invited the public to provide comments and/or complete a survey on the Arbex website. Additionally, a random sample of 25% of the individuals and organizations listed in the 2011 FMP mailing list were sent a letter and a survey questionnaire which invited comment on the forest management activities of the forest manager during the audit term.

All FNs with an interest in the Forest were contacted by mail to participate and/or express their views. Each FN received several follow-up telephone calls and/or e-mails. LCAC members were advised by letter of the audit and a representative for the LCAC attended the field portion of the audit.

Individual interviews (face-to-face or telephone) were held with tourism operators and interested stakeholder groups and/or individuals with specific interests on the Dryden Forest. Contact with stakeholder groups was initiated by the auditor, and/or occurred in response to public consultation process initiated during the audit (i.e. newspaper notices).

Field Site Selection: Field sample sites were selected randomly by the Lead Auditor (with the assistance of the Arbex GIS specialist) in May, 2013. Sites were selected on the basis of operating year, forest management activity, species treated or renewed, and access using GIS shapefiles provided by DFMC. Site selections were confirmed and finalized with DFMC and OMNR District Staff at the Pre-Audit Meeting (June 26, 2013).

Site Audit: The audit team spent 5 days on the Dryden Forest during September conducting the field audit, document and record reviews and interviews. The field audit sampled between 10% and 100% of the forest management activities (including road construction and maintenance) that occurred during the audit term. (See the IFA Field Sampling Intensity on the Dryden Forest below).

Sample sites were stratified to ensure representation by silvicultural activity and year of operation. The audit team also inspected the application of Areas of Concern prescriptions, aggregate pits and water crossing installations. Areas listed in the “Forest Road Construction and Maintenance Agreement” and sites invoiced in the “Forest Renewal Trust Specified Procedures Report” were visited to ensure conformity between invoiced and actual activities. The field inspection included site-specific (intensive) and landscape-scale (extensive helicopter) examinations. Individual sites were selected to represent a primary activity (i.e. harvesting, site preparation); however, all associated


activities at the site were assessed at the same time, allowing the team to augment the planned sampling intensity.

Report: This report provides a description of the audit process and a discussion of audit findings and conclusions. Recommendations are directed at deficiencies in forest management and associate processes that require a corrective action.

Procedures Audited, by Risk Category

Principle

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Comments

App

licab

le (#

)

Sele

cted

(#)

% A

udite

d

App

licab

le (#

)

Sele

cted

(#)

% A

udite

d

Aud

ited

(#)

(100

%A

udite

d)

1. Commitment 2 1 50 0 This principle was considered met as the Forest is SFI certified.

2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

6 3 50 2 The following procedure was not audited: 2.6.1.

3. Forest Management Planning

7 4 57 12 10 91 41 The following procedures were not audited; 3.2.1., 3.2.2., 3.3.2.3., 3.7, 3.8.

4. Plan Assessment & Implementation 1 1 100 1 1 100 10 All procedures audited.

5. System Support 1 1 100 1 This principle was considered met as the Forest is SFI certified.

6. Monitoring 7 7 100 11 All procedures audited.

7. Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability

2 2 100 15 All procedures audited.

8. Contractual Obligations 7 7 100 13

The following procedures were not audited; 8.1.2.0, 8.2.

Totals 8 5 78 38 32 86 93


IFA Field Sampling Intensity Primary Activity Selection on the Dryden Forest33

Activity Total Area (Ha) / Number

Planned Sample Area (Ha)

Actual Area (Ha) Sampled34

Number of Sites35

Visited

Percent36

Sampled

Depletion (Harvest & Natural) 5,180 518 729 13 14

Renewal 4,990 499 855 24 17

Site Preparation 3,158 316 443 12 14

Tending 2,634 263 439 11 17

Pre-Commercial Thinning 786 78 144 4 18

Free-to-Grow 7,302 730 758 23 10

Slash & Debris Management 3,708 370 370 13 10

Specified Procedures Report Sites

2,998 299 599 24 30

Water Crossings (# of Crossings) 33 3 10 30

Forest Resource Aggregate Pits (# of Pits)

4 2 2 50

Forest Roads and Maintenance Agreement Work

4537 45 45 NA 100

33 During the field audit we observed numerous areas where AOCs had been implemented in either linear buffer strips or in association with an identified value. We cannot provide an accurate estimate of the sample intensity given the linear nature of many of the buffers. All AOCs associated with sample sites were observed. These included riparian reserves and nest buffers.34Not every hectare of the area sampled is surveyed, as this is not feasible.35 Sites are sometimes comprised of amalgamated stands. 36 Percent sampled represents the primary audit activities inspected on a site. Since subsequent audit activities were observed on many sites (e.g. site preparation, renewal, tending) the primary sample intensity percent must be considered as a minimum sample intensity.37 Primary and secondary road construction


Summary of Consultation and Input to the Audit

Public Stakeholders

A public notice stating the purpose of the IFA and soliciting public input in the audit was placed in the Dryden Observer newspaper in September in advance of the field audit. These notices also invited interested individuals to contact the audit firm with comments or complete a survey questionnaire on forest management during the audit term on the Arbex website. A random sample of 25% of individuals and organizations on the 2011 FMP mailing list received a letter and the survey questionnaire in August. Nine responses to the mail out survey were received.

An additional sample of stakeholders was contacted directly by telephone. Individuals interviewed included those associated with the tourism industry, trapping, Bear Management Areas, naturalists, anglers and hunters and trail users. They all indicated that they had been made fully aware of the 2011 FMP process and had the opportunity to become involved in the planning process and to identify values important to them. A common thread in the comments we received was an appreciation of the high level of effort made by DFMC to keep them informed and to try to understand and accommodate their concerns. References were also made that OMNR also had a common sense approach with respect to meeting its responsibilities. Several interviewees made favourable comparisons of management of the Dryden Forest compared to neighbouring Forests. Other more specific comments, issues and concerns identified by these stakeholders included:

• There should be better clean-up of logging debris including chipper debris following cuts. Perhaps keep some roads open longer after the cut to encourage the taking of more fuel wood off cutovers.

• Concern about environmental impacts associated with clear cutting. Also concern that clear cutting favours deer over moose and affects the success of white and red pine re-establishment.

• An opinion that licences need to be retained by local people who are directly involved in logging and the community.

• Encourage OMNR to keep the LCAC discussions transparent and neutral.

• Provincial roads funding is resulting in roads that are of higher quality than necessary, resulting in excess spending of taxpayers’ dollars, too many stream crossings, and impact on beaver habitat.

• A concern that declining moose populations on the DF were the result of over harvesting and that moose management was not adequately considered in the planning process.


• A concern that the forest was being over harvested.

• A concern that forest management activities were negatively impacting tourism opportunities associated with the bear hunting.

• Shoreline harvesting may not be a good idea due to its impact on birds dependent on the wetland-woodland interface.

• A public safety and health concern with respect to the use of herbicides.

• Opposition to planned harvest operations on the Farabout Peninsula and a concern that harvesting would be re-instated in the 2021 FMP.

SFL Holder

The DFMC General Manager and GIS Forester accompanied the auditors during the field audit and participated in additional interviews. Issues and concerns expressed by DFMC included:

• A longstanding concern with respect to the vintage of the FRI and timing of FRI products relative to the production of the forest management plans.

• A concern that the “Water Classification Tool” is not properly classifying streams.

OMNR

OMNR District and Regional staff participated directly in the field audit and/or were interviewed during the course of the audit. Issues and concerns identified by OMNR staff included:

• A concern the OMNR downsizing was making it increasingly difficult for staff to effectively carry out their duties on the Forest.

• A concern as to whether the ground-based herbicide program is adequate to ensure the investment in artificial renewal.

• Concern with respect to the application of aerial seeding to renew jack pine on clay soils due to the competitive nature of the sites.

• Concern with the retention of balsam fir during site preparation operations.

• A concern that the “Water Classification Tool” is not properly classifying streams.


Local Citizens Advisory Committee

Individual members of the LCAC received a letter inviting their participation in the audit and five members were interviewed. Comments and concerns expressed by the LCAC respondents included:

• Satisfaction with the relationship between LCAC, DFMC and the OMNR. The relationship was characterized as respectful and productive. Communication between the parties was excellent.

• A general satisfaction with the overall management of the Forest.

• A concern the OMNR downsizing was making it increasingly difficult for staff to effectively carry out their duties on the Forest.

First Nations

All First Nations communities with an interest in the Forest were contacted by mail, telephone and/or email and asked to express their views on forest management during the audit term. Conversations with respect to the intent and delivery of the IFA were held with individuals from seven First Nations as well as a Métis community. Two individuals from the Eagle Lake FN participated in the field audit. Identified issues included;

• A desire for increased benefits (e.g. employment, contracting opportunities) from the Dryden Forest.

• Concern that social and cultural values/activities on the Forest be recognized and protected (e.g. medicinal plants).

• On-going requirements that Aboriginal communities be consulted on all aspects of the forest management including road and water crossing construction, harvest allocations, etc.

Overlapping Licencees (OLs)

No comments were received.


Appendix 5

List of Acronyms Used

AHA Available Harvest Area

AOC Area of Concern

AR Annual Report

AWS Annual Work Schedule

B.Sc.F. Bachelor of Science in Forestry

CFSA Crown Forest Sustainability Act

EBR Environmental Bill of Rights

ER Environmental Registry

DF Dryden Forest

DFMC Dryden Forest Management Company Ltd.

FAP Forest Aggregate Pits

FIM Forest Information Manual

FMP Forest Management Plan

FMPM Forest Management Planning Manual

FN First Nation

FOIP Forest Operation Inspection Program

FOP Forest Operations Prescription

FRI Forest Resource Inventory

FRT Forest Renewal Trust

FTG Free-to-Grow

FU Forest Unit

GIS Geographical Information System

Ha Hectares

IEA Individual Environmental Assessment

IFA Independent Forest Audit

IFAPP Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol

KMS Kilometers


LCAC Local Citizens Advisory Committee

LTMD Long Term Management Direction

m3 Cubic Metres

MNDM&F Ministry of Northern Development Mines and Forestry

MOE Ministry of Environment

NDPEG Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guideline

OL Overlapping Licencee

OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

PMS Proposed Management Strategy

RBT Resource Based Tourism

R.P.F. Registered Professional Forester

RSA Resource Stewardship Agreement

SAR Species at Risk

SEM Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring

SEIM Socio-economic Impact Model

SFL Sustainable Forest Licence

SFMM Strategic Forest Management Model

SGR Silvicultural Ground Rule

SMA Selected Management Alternative

SPF Spruce-Pine-Fir

SPR Specified Procedures Report

STP Silvicultural Treatment Package

VS Versus


Appendix 6

Audit Team Members and Qualifications

Name Role Responsibilities Credentials Mr. Bruce Byford R.P.F. Lead Auditor Audit Management & B.Sc.F. Arbex Forest Resource Forest coordination ISO 14001 Lead Consultants Ltd. Management &

Silviculture Auditor

Liaison with OMNR & Auditee Review documentation related to forest management planning and review and inspect silviculture practices Determination of the sustainability component.

Auditor Training. FSC assessor training. 34 years of consulting experience in Ontario in forest management planning, operations and resource inventory. Previous work on 24 IFA audits with lead auditor responsibility on 23 IFAs. 27 FSC certification assessments with lead audit responsibilities on 7.

Mr. Al Stewart First Nations & Review & inspect B.Sc. (Agr) Arbex Senior Associate LCC

Participation in Forest Management Process Auditor Forest Compliance

AOC documentation & practices. Review of operational compliance. First Nations consultation.

ISO 14001 Lead Auditor Training. FSC assessor training. 43 years of experience in natural resource management planning, field operations, policy development, auditing and working with First Nation communities. Previous work experience on 24 IFA audits.

Mr. David Watton Forest Review B.Sc., M.Sc. Arbex Senior Associate Management

Planning & Public Participation Auditor

documentation and practices related to forest management planning & public participation.

ISO 14001 Lead Auditor Training. 43 years of experience in natural

Determination of the sustainability component.

resource management planning, land use planning, field operations, and policy development. Previous work experience on 23 IFA audits.


Mr. Trevor Isherwood Silvicultural, Review and inspect B.Sc.F. R.P.F. Forest silvicultural practices Former General Tri-lac Forestry Services Management and related Manager of an SFL. Arbex Senior Associate and Contractual

Compliance Auditor

documentation. Review and inspect documents related to contractual compliance.

43 years of experience in forest management and operations. Previous work experience on 20 IFA audits.

Mr. Mark Fleming R.P.F. Technical Advisor - SFMM

Analysis of SFMM model outputs and decision criteria and the determination of the sustainability component.

B.Sc.F. Previous work experience on IFA audits and FSC certification assessments. Experience as OMNR Planning Forester & Unit Forest.

Dorothy Dobrik Administrative Administrative support B.A. Geography, GIS Specialist Assistant to the audit including Diploma Forestry Tech Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd.

GIS support for the selection of sample sites.

Diploma GIS Specialist Previous administrative support in IFA and FSC audits.


Dryden Forest Independent Forest Audit Report 2008 – 2013 · Corporate OMNR should review its...

Documents

Transcript of Dryden Forest Independent Forest Audit Report 2008 – 2013 · Corporate OMNR should review its...