Report of an Independent Audit of Forest Management on the ... - Premier of Ontario · 2015. 2....

Report of an Independent Audit of Forest Management on the Algonquin Park Forest

for the Period 2007 to 2012

Craig Howard, RPF, CEA (SFM) Brian Callaghan, RPF, CEA (SFM)

Tom Clark, M.Sc., H.B.Sc. Mark Leschishin, RPF

Phil Shantz M.E.S, R.P.P.

May 2013

Final Report Independent Forest Audit of the Algonquin Park Forest

3

Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5

2.0 TABLE OF AUDIT FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 7

3.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 9

3.1 AUDIT PROCESS ....................................................................................................................9 3.2 MANAGEMENT UNIT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................9 3.3 CURRENT ISSUES ................................................................................................................ 12 3.4 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND INPUT TO AUDIT ................................................................ 14

4.0 AUDIT FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 14

4.1 COMMITMENT ........................................................................................................................14 4.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL INVOLVEMENT ................................................15 4.3 FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING ....................................................................................17 4.4 PLAN ASSESSMENT and IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................21 Harvest ............................................................................................................................................21 Renewal ..........................................................................................................................................23 Access .............................................................................................................................................24 4.5 SYSTEM SUPPORT ...................................................................................................................25 4.6 MONITORING ......................................................................................................................26 Compliance Monitoring..................................................................................................................26 Silvicultural Monitoring .................................................................................................................27 Annual Reports ...............................................................................................................................28 4.7 ACHIEVEMENT of MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES and SUSTAINABILITY ...............................28 4.8 COMPLIANCE with CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS .............................................................31 4.9 CONCLUSIONS and LICENCE EXTENSION RECOMMENDATION ..........................................31

1.0 ANNUAL REPORT FOR APRIL 1, 2009 TO MARCH 31, 2010 .................................. 5

3.5 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................5 3.6 1.2 SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF FOREST OPERATIONS ................................................5

1.2.1 Harvest Area ..................................................................................................................6 1.2.2 Renewal, Tending and Protection .............................................................................7 1.2.3 Access Road Construction and Maintenance ...........................................................7 1.2.4 Wood Utilization ...........................................................................................................7

3.7 1.3 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................8 1.3.1 Areas Harvested under the Clearcut Silvicultural System ...................................9 1.3.2 Monitoring of Roads and Water Crossings ..............................................................9 1.3.3 Forest Operations Inspections .................................................................................10 1.3.4 Assessment of Regeneration Success .....................................................................13 1.3.5 Summary of Annual Work Schedule Conditions ...................................................14

3.8 1.4 SYNOPSIS .................................................................................................................. 14

2.0 YEAR 10 ANNUAL REPORT FOR APRIL 1, 2005 TO MARCH 31, 2010 ................. 16

3.9 2.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST OPERATIONS – TREND ANALYSIS ............................... 16 2.1.1 Harvest Area ................................................................................................................16


4

2.1.2 Harvest Volume ...........................................................................................................18 2.1.3 Renewal and Maintenance ........................................................................................20 2.1.4 Harvest and Regeneration ........................................................................................21 2.1.5 Forest Condition .........................................................................................................25 2.1.6 Habitat for Species at Risk and Selected Wildlife Species ..................................27 2.1.7 Monitoring and Assessment .....................................................................................28

3.10 2.2 ANALYSIS OF FOREST DISTURBANCES ....................................................................... 31 3.11 2.3 ANALYSIS OF RENEWAL AND TENDING ACTIVITIES ................................................... 32 3.12 2.4 REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS IN MODELLING ................................................................ 33 3.13 2.5 ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT ............................................................... 36

2.5.1 Progress towards addressing Independent Forest Audit Recommendations 36 2.5.2 2005 FMP Objectives ..................................................................................................39

3.14 2.6 DETERMINATION OF SUSTAINABILITY....................................................................... 50


5

1.0 Executive Summary

A team of five auditors carried out an independent audit of forest management on the Algonquin Park Forest covering the period from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2012.

The Algonquin Park Forest has been managed by the Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) since the passage of the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act in 1975 and subsequent implementation of the AFA mandate in 1983. Operations during this audit period have been conducted under the auspices of 20-year forest management plans (FMP) commencing April 1, 2005 and ending March 31, 2010 and April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2020. Algonquin Provincial Park maintains management oversight for the forest under both the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. The audit examined compliance with the terms and conditions of the forestry agreement and reviewed the Park’s performance in meeting its obligations on the Forest. The audit included an extensive review of the 2005 FMP, as well as the process, planning, and operational efforts associated with the 2010 FMP. Records of forest management activities were also reviewed, along with field verification visits to areas where a variety of forest management activities occurred during the audit period. Public input was solicited through newspaper advertising, individual interviews, and mail-in surveys.

This audit report identifies 13 recommendations aimed at improving the management and administration of the Algonquin Park Forest. The audit has also noted two best practices, indicating performance that is significantly above normal level.

Algonquin Provincial Park and the AFA have done an exceptional job of implementing protective measures for a designated species-at-risk. The AFA has developed a silvicultural tracking program that is both innovative and effective. Best practices were issued for both of these activities.

Eight recommendations have been issued requiring action from OMNR either corporately or at the regional level. Two recommendations require increased corporate and regional support for the development and management of the species-at-risk program. Four recommendations require improvement in the administrative functions provided by corporate OMNR, including ensuring independent forest audit reports are publically available in time for consideration in FMP production, improving the timeliness and flexibility to issue Authorities to Haul Unscaled Crown Resources, and scheduling forest resource inventory (FRI) production so that important information is available in time for development of the subsequent FMP. The OMNR had not extended the AFA license agreement in response to the last audit, an oversight that, while administrative, was clearly unwarranted. The audit also requires OMNR planning direction to define planning objectives that are credible, measurable, and predictable, and that targets associated with each objective are understandable and feasible. Further, the planning process should also define the quality of the information supporting each objective, and reduce reliance on objectives that are based on less accurate information.

The audit has recommended Algonquin Provincial Park meet with the Algonquins of Ontario to continue discussing how cultural heritage sites and Native values can be identified and protected during forest management operations.


6

The AFA has been directed to improve its pre-operations communications with contractors to ensure site-specific constraints are clearly understood.

There is a protective area of concern (AOC) prescription along a hydro transmission line that appears to provide no benefit in terms of safety or ecology. The AFA and the Park have been asked to review this situation.

They have also been asked to review plans to extend the Billy Lake Road to see if there are less costly alternatives available and to improve communications on compliance matters.

Forest operations in Algonquin Provincial Park take place in a highly valued and highly visible environment. Timber harvest from the Park supplies approximately 40% of the total volume harvested from OMNR’s entire Southern Region and generates an annual economic benefit exceeding $130 million. This takes place while accommodating the most rigorous environmental protection measures that exist in Ontario. It is an impressive example of how a landscape can be managed for multiple uses, and continues to provide sustainable environmental, recreational, and economic benefits.

The auditors applaud the managers and staff of the AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park for their continued work in making the Park work. The commitment of all staff was evident throughout the audit.

In the opinion of the auditor, the Forest is very well managed. Technical aspects of forest management are as good as the audit team has witnessed anywhere in the province. Although there is room for some improvement, communication between the various stakeholders on the Forest is pragmatic and intensive and relations are professional, positive, and progressive. The AFA and the Park are meeting the overall responsibilities associated with their roles in managing this Forest at a very high level. The audit team confirms that, based on the evidence reviewed, management of the Algonquin Park Forest was in compliance with the legislation, policy, and regulations that were in effect during the 2007-2012 audit term. The Algonquin Park Forest is being managed sustainably. The audit team recommends that the term of the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement be extended for an additional five years.


7

2.0 Table of Audit Findings

Recommendation on License Extension

The audit team concludes that management of the Algonquin Park Forest was generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations, and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement held by the AFA. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (OMNR 2012). The audit team recommends the Minister extend the term of the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement for a further five years.

Best Practices/Recommendations Directed to the AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park

Best Practice 1: The development and implementation of the species-at-risk area of concern prescription by the AFA and local OMNR field staff shows a high level of commitment at the local level to ensure the objectives of the Endangered Species Act are addressed effectively.

Best Practice 2: The AFA staff are commended for operationally researching and developing a free-to-grow survey methodology that can be considered state-of-the-art and is better suited for application in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest.

Recommendation 1: Ontario Parks is to hold a meeting with the Algonquins of Ontario to explain how cultural heritage sites and Native values can be, and are, protected from forest management activities.

Recommendation 5: The OMNR and AFA should review non-aesthetic, non-biological area of concern prescriptions, and in particular the 23 m hydro corridor buffer, to ensure they are still appropriate.

Recommendation 10: Algonquin Provincial Park and AFA must review the construction plans for the Billy Lake Road and consider alternative access routes that could reduce the financial and environmental cost of accessing the harvest opportunity east of Lake Opeongo.

Recommendation 11: The AFA and Ontario Parks need to continue building upon the level of communications between both organizations, particularly on compliance matters.

Recommendation 12: The AFA shall employ strategies to reduce the number of persistent issues that are impacting on its compliance record.

Recommendations Directed to Corporate OMNR

Recommendation 2: Corporate OMNR shall re-evaluate the scheduled implementation of new forest resource inventories so that they are delivered in time to be used for the development of the applicable forest management plans.


8

Recommendation 3: Corporate OMNR must ensure that the requirements in the Forest Management Planning Manual define planning objectives that are credible, measurable, and predictable, and that targets associated with each are understandable and feasible. Further, the planning process should also recognize the quality and accuracy of the information supporting each objective.

Recommendation 4: Corporate OMNR must take responsibility for reviewing the process for development of species-at-risk area of concern prescriptions, including the use of Section 18 of the Endangered Species Act, and provide appropriate guidance to planning teams.

Recommendation 6: Corporate OMNR must act to have independent forest audit reports released publicly in a more timely fashion.

Recommendation 7: Corporate OMNR must develop a plan for coordinated long term monitoring of specific risk benefit analysis projects for species-at-risk in Algonquin Provincial Park.

Recommendation 8: Corporate OMNR shall review the resource complement for Algonquin Provincial Park to ensure that the administration of forestry is providing cohesive and timely direction to forestry operations inside the Park and to ensure operational approvals, such as area of concern timing restrictions, are coordinated and consistent with surrounding OMNR Districts.

Recommendation 9: Corporate OMNR shall review the process for issuing Authority to Haul permits to ensure they meet the demands of the current timber markets.

Recommendation 13: Corporate OMNR shall ensure that the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement is extended as expeditiously as possible.


9

3.0 Introduction

3.1 AUDIT PROCESS

An independent forest audit of the Algonquin Park Forest was undertaken in October of 2012. The objective of the audit was to assess the performance of forest management activities conducted during the five years from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2012 as measured against the plans, guidelines, regulations, and legislation in force during that period. The audit was conducted in compliance with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) (Statutes of Ontario 1994) and fulfills the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 2003). The audit assessed the effectiveness of forest management activities in achieving the management objectives for the Forest. The audit examined the compliance of the Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) with the terms and conditions of the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement for the Algonquin Park Forest, initially approved in 1985 and most recently updated on February 7, 2005. The audit also reviewed the performance of Ontario Parks, as a representative of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), in meeting its obligations on the Forest.

The audit was conducted in accordance with the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (OMNR 2012) by a team of five independent auditors, consisting of three registered professional foresters (RPF), a biologist/ecologist, and a socio-economist. Their qualifications are presented in Appendix 6.

The Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol outlines eight principles upon which the audit is based (see Appendix 4). The principles define the major features of forest management that were audited. Each principle is supported by a series of criteria. The Protocol describes how each criterion should be audited and specifies the evidence that should be available for the auditors to use to assess compliance with the criteria.

The audit was conducted within a standard five-day, on-site audit program. The auditors collected evidence through document review, interviews with staff and stakeholders, and physical inspection of field activities that occurred on the Forest between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2012. Field site visit locations were selected to evaluate harvest, renewal, tending/maintenance, free-to-grow (FTG) operations, areas of concern (AOC), road construction and maintenance, site preparation, water crossings, wildlife management activities, and other areas of special interest. Additional details on the audit process and sampling are provided in Appendix 4.

This report summarizes the findings of the audit and presents recommendations that are intended to improve conformance to contractual obligations.

3.2 MANAGEMENT UNIT DESCRIPTION

The Algonquin Park Forest is situated entirely within the boundaries of Algonquin Provincial Park and, as such, occupies an operating environment that is unique in Ontario. In addition to the obligation to operate in accordance with the CFSA, forest operations occur under the priority consideration of the Provincial Parks and Conservations Reserves Act (2006). That Act requires


10

specific consideration for protected area management, and demands an elevated performance standard for operations in the Algonquin Park Forest. The Park is administered by Ontario Parks, a branch of OMNR.

One of the major provisions of the 1974 Algonquin Provincial Park management plan was the establishment of the AFA. The AFA is a Crown Agency created to harvest timber, produce logs, and perform such forestry, land management, and other programs as authorized. The 1974 plan also states the AFA “…shall conduct its operations in conformity and harmony with the provisions of the true intent and spirit of the park management plan…”. The AFA accepted responsibility for forest management operations in 1983.

Forest management in Algonquin Provincial Park is dominated by a need to operate in a manner that meets high operational standards and a high level of public scrutiny. The Park is often described as “the Crown Jewel” of Ontario parks and hosts over 1.0 million visitors annually. There is little doubt that forest operations are subordinate to the recreational and ecological values the Park provides.

Algonquin Provincial Park has been divided into seven main land use areas (Figure 1). Forest operations are allowed on the Recreation and Utilization Zone which, in net area available for operations, represents about 55% of the total Park. There are a number of restrictions in place that influence the planning and conduct of forest operations within that zone. Some of these are common to most Crown forests in Ontario. Some others, such as the self-sustaining brook trout AOC and canoe route reserves, are unique to Algonquin Provincial Park. There are ongoing developments (i.e., the Lighten the Footprint initiative1) that may add additional conditions to forest operations. A recent estimate, provided by AFA, has identified that about 15% of the total park area, just over 112,000 ha, is available for normal forest operations.

Table 1 presents a summary of the managed Crown land on the Algonquin Park Forest for 2007-2012. The Forest is composed of two basic forest complexes. The tolerant hardwood and hemlock forest primarily occupies the Precambrian Uplands on the west side of the Park while white and red pine, poplar, and white birch are found mainly on the east side.

Logging in the pine forests on the east side of the area that is now Algonquin Provincial Park started around 1830. The composition of the historic forest shows subtle changes in comparison to the current forest condition. Historically, non-forested land constituted about 16.9% of the area and is about 16.0% today. Hemlock is not as common, largely because it was harvested to make ties for the Toronto subway in the 1960s. Yellow birch has declined due to aggressive harvesting during the Second World War, and to birch dieback in the 1950s and 1960s. Yellow birch is currently regenerating successfully and should become a more significant part of the Forest in the future. Ecosites dominated by white and red pine have increased as has maple-dominated forest.

1 Joint Proposal for Lightening the Ecological Footprint of Logging in Algonquin Park - presented to the

Minister of Natural Resources by the Ontario Parks Board and Algonquin Forestry Authority Board. It outlines ways to reduce the environmental impacts of forestry activities in the Park, enhance protection for Park values, and still provide certainty of wood supply and economic security for local mills and communities.


11

______________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. Location of the Algonquin Park Forest.

Table 1. Crown Land Area on the Algonquin Park Forest by Land Type.

Land Class Managed Area (ha)

Total Area (ha)

Non-forested Water 78,669

Other land 3,183 4,136 Forested

Non-productive 47,750 61,948 Protection 7,404 10,180

Production 481,478 608,622

TOTAL 539,815 763,555

Source: FMP-1 2010 Algonquin Park Forest Management Plan


12

Major fires occurred in the Park up to, and including, the 1940s. Other significant depletions have occurred due to wind or hail damage. Losses due to insects and disease, with the exception of the birch dieback noted above, have been relatively small.

The current forest is made up of tree species ranging from tolerant (maple, beech, hemlock) to intermediate (white pine, yellow birch). These species thrive in silvicultural systems based on partial cutting, such as selection cutting or shelterwood systems. These forest management systems maintain a continuous canopy cover, which blends well with the primary focus on wilderness recreation in the Park.

3.3 CURRENT ISSUES

The audit team presented an initial list of high priority items that were generated from a review of the most recent independent forest audit, forest management plan (FMP) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) certifications audit, at the pre-audit meeting. This generated significant discussion and review by all parties. The final list of high priority issues considered by the audit team follows.

During an issue resolution process that was part of the development of the 2010 Algonquin Provincial Park FMP, the decision of the District Manager required the following text to be added to the 2010 FMP text: “The provision of old growth in this Forest Management Plan was questioned by an environmental group through the issue resolution process. The 2012 Independent Forest Audit will review old growth management included in this FMP to determine if all appropriate information is being considered in the development of old growth targets.”

The 2010 FMP was prepared with direction not to allocate forest operations within the proposed Lighten the Footprint area identified in 2007. Since that time, another report (commissioned jointly by the Boards of the AFA and Ontario Parks) has been prepared with smaller boundaries for the Lighten the Footprint area. The AFA would now like to conduct operations following the newer, smaller boundaries and a proposed amendment (by Ontario Parks) to the Algonquin Provincial Park FMP to accommodate the proposal has been prepared but not yet approved. The change cannot be adopted until the amendment is completed or cancelled. Currently, there are operational and logistical issues with following the older, larger boundaries.

The last audit recommended Algonquin Provincial Park and AFA complete its road management strategy. The strategy was completed. Based on public concerns related to roads raised through the issue resolution process during development of the 2010 FMP, the commitment was made in the FMP to conduct an independent review of forest roads in the Park. A final report is expected in the summer of 2013. The results of the independent roads review will be made available to the audit team and may be applicable to this audit. The AFA has expressed concern that the roads strategy, with changes required due to species-at-risk considerations and the potential impacts of the Lighten the Footprint report, will lengthen haul patterns and challenge the sustainability of some mills due to increased costs. This issue contributed to the discussion around the Billy Lake Road extension and Recommendation 10.


13

Recommendation 3 in the previous audit report focused on the relationship of the Algonquin Provincial Park Plan (1974) with the forest management planning process and directed Ontario parks to harmonize future planning in the Park with operational prescriptions to ensure new science can be used as the basis for both plans. The Park Master plan provides primary guidance to forest operations in the Park, but it appears to be rarely amended. The action plan for the 2007 audit indicated that the Park plan can be amended, using the Protected Areas Planning Manual, but there is no evidence that this has been done. The Algonquin Provincial Park plan is scheduled for review in 2018. This will remain an area of interest for the next audit.

The Algonquin First Nation land claim on the majority of the management unit is the largest strategic issue. It is currently not resolved but land claim discussions are progressing at this time. Concerns largely focus on access for cultural activities. There has been very active First Nation participation on the FMP planning team and the CSA Forest Certification Advisory Group, and increasing First Nation participation in logging and silvicultural operations.

The action plan for the 2007 audit indicated that a pragmatic, budget-driven approach to confirming thermal classifications of streams near forest operations will be maintained rather than the more holistic approach recommended in that audit. During that audit it was observed that the consequence of insufficient budgets for stream assessments was a default classification of all unclassified streams to the cold-water category and the associated result of imposing the largest buffers on harvest and roads. The application of the new Forest Management Guide for

Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales (Stand and Site Guide) could effectively address this noted concern but cannot be implemented in Algonquin Park because of over-riding direction in the 1998 Park Management Plan.

Recommendation 11 in the 2007 audit report requested that the silviculture assessment monitoring program keep pace with that projected in the FMP.

Given the repeated re-entry requirements of both the selection and shelterwood silvicultural systems, good road beds seem a logical investment. However, for safety and liability reasons and to restore natural drainage patterns, water crossings are removed at the end of forestry operations. This causes concerns for the Algonquins of Ontario related to access for their cultural activities.

The Forestry Agreement for the AFA has not been extended since the 2007 audit. This creates an air of uncertainty among staff and other interested parties.

The implementation of the Endangered Species Act (Statutes of Ontario 2007) has increased planning and wood costs and compromised silviculture. Implementation varies across the region. It has been suggested that road removal and reopening for silvicultural activities due to species-at-risk should be an eligible silvicultural expense.


14

The area available for summer harvest is scarce.

It is difficult to amend the Park management plan to accommodate new science, which makes it difficult to incorporate new science in the FMP.

Utilization of low-quality hardwood and softwood is challenging as markets are poor.

Roads, gravel pits, ground water management, calcium depletion and the Algonquin

Park Fire Management Plan have all been topics of Local Citizens’ Committee (LCC) discussion. Many of these items have been addressed during issue resolution and the development of the 2010 FMP.

3.4 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND INPUT TO AUDIT

The auditors distributed 782 surveys and placed advertisements inviting comments in two local papers as well as web-based versions of the same documents. Members of the Algonquin Park Forest LCC were interviewed, as were members from each of the First Nations communities with an expressed interest in the Forest. A more detailed summary can be found in Appendix 4.

4.0 Audit Findings

This section provides a summary of audit findings for each principle. Detailed discussions for each recommendation are found in Appendix 1.

4.1 COMMITMENT

The Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol requires the AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park to have policy statements and operational performance that demonstrate the commitment of the organizations to sustainable forest management.

The audit identified that both have clear policies that identify a commitment to the sustainable management of the Algonquin Park Forest. These documents are available for view by employees, stakeholders, and interested members of the public.

The AFA maintains third party certification of its forest management program under the CSA Sustainable Forest Management standard, which requires a specific and public statement of AFA’s commitment to the principles of sustainable forest management.

Operational performance, as detailed in the remainder of this report, clearly implements the written directives. Virtually all operational activity inspected was well done and all staff interviewed demonstrated a high level of competence.


15

4.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL INVOLVEMENT

Consultation on forest management in Algonquin Provincial Park is usually associated with the LCC, consultation on the FMP and annual work schedules (AWS) with the general public, and specific consultation with Aboriginal peoples.

The LCC was established by the Algonquin Provincial Park Superintendent in accordance with the requirements of the Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM). During the audit period the LCC membership contained a good balance of interests with representation from environmental organizations, recreation, forest industry (mills), local communities, cottage lease holders, cultural heritage interests, angler and hunters, the general public, the Algonquin Forest Authority Board and the Algonquin First Nation. At the time of the audit a few members of the LCC had just resigned, although they were active through the audit period. While these interests (primarily environmental) will need to be replaced, no recommendation is made here as these gaps in the committee occurred outside the audit period.

Most of the members have been on the LCC for a long period of time and are very knowledgeable about various aspects of Algonquin Provincial Park and its management. Committee members are generally a fair bit older than on most LCCs; it may be advisable to attract some younger individuals to ensure continuity in the future.

All members of the LCC support forest management activities in the Park and most of the members were very supportive of how forest management is undertaken in the Park. All members of the LCC indicated that meetings were run in a fair and inclusive fashion. It is clear LCC members were very respectful of others’ opinions and the diligent efforts by OMNR and the AFA. A member of the LCC was appointed to the FMP planning team and LCC members were highly involved in plan preparation.

Two issue resolution processes were initiated by members of the public during the preparation of the 2010 Park FMP. Prior to the initiation of the first issue resolution process, the AFA and Ontario Parks tried to resolve the concerns with this group through an ongoing dialogue that lasted several years. All the appropriate steps in the issue resolution process were followed.

The second proponent raised a number of concerns including road density, the use of the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM), an unsustainable business plan, and definitions of old growth. At the Regional Director stage of the issue resolution process, several other issues were added, including the harvest of hemlock, calcium depletion in soils, forest edge effects, and how Ontario Parks should be environmentally rather than economically driven. All the appropriate steps in the issue resolution process were followed in this case as well.

Most of Algonquin Provincial Park is covered by an Aboriginal rights and title claim by the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO). Discussions and negotiations about the claim have been ongoing since the 1990s. The AOO is comprised of ten Algonquin communities located throughout their traditional territory/claim area, which covers a large area of eastern Ontario, including Mattawa/North Bay, Antoine, Whitney, Bonnechere, Greater Golden Lake, Ottawa, Pikwakanagan, Snimikobi (Ardoch), Kijicho-Manito (Bancroft), and Shabot Obaadjiwan (Sharbot Lake). The collective AOO has a unified approach to moving forward on negotiating with the provincial and federal governments to reach a settlement of their land claim. A member of the


16

audit team initially met with the AOO Forestry Working Group and then held subsequent individual sessions with the Kijicho-Manito (Bancroft), Pikwakanagan, Bonnechere, and Mattawa/North Bay communities.

In recognition that Algonquin Provincial Park forms a central portion of the traditional territory of the Algonquins, and that the AOO has a significant interest in the management of Algonquin Provincial Park, the Crown has offered opportunities for the AOO to become more involved in forest management planning in the Park. The Algonquin communities were consulted at the start of the FMP process and each community was asked to consider their preferred consultation approach, nominate a planning team member, and begin the production of an Aboriginal Background Information Report. There was subsequent correspondence at various stages of the planning process. Nine of the ten Algonquin communities joined the planning team; they considered this to be the main form of their involvement and were satisfied with it. Some of the Algonquin communities prepared Aboriginal Background Information Reports. The AOO indicated to the audit team that involvement in the planning team should not necessarily be construed as AOO support for, or approval of, the FMP. The planning team provided opportunities for AOO input to the FMP.

The Park has always been highly valued by the Algonquin people. Algonquin communities use the Park for moose and deer hunting, fishing, trapping, general recreation, birch bark collection, gathering of food and water, medicinal plants, firewood, other collecting (spruce roots and gum, mushrooms, etc.), berry picking, forestry, and the practice of cultural ceremonies and activities.

Because the Park and specific locations are so highly valued by the Algonquins, sites of spiritual, cultural, and historical importance take on special significance. Discussions with some Algonquin representatives indicated that they are comfortable with the process to protect these values on the landbase from forest management activities. However, there is some confusion in the Algonquin communities about whether Borden2 cultural heritage sites (those identified in Ontario's Archaeological Sites Database) are protected from forest management activities. It is highly important that all Native values (Borden or not) be protected from forest management activities. A recommendation has been issued for Ontario Parks to hold a meeting with the AOO to discuss how cultural heritage sites and Native values can be and are protected from forest management activities. (Recommendation 1)

There are numerous members of the Algonquin communities that benefits from forest management activities in the Park. In any given year, a significant amount of wood is harvested by Aboriginal contractors. Makwa, the Aboriginal contractor for the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, is one of the largest logging companies operating in the Park. Whitney and the Mattawa-North Bay communities also participate in the forest industry in Algonquin Park.

2 A Borden site is an archaeological site identified in Ontario's Archaeological Sites Database.

Native/Aboriginal values may or may not be a Borden site. For example, a pre-contact Native encampment would be a Borden site but may also be a Native value if the local First Nations have identified it. A modern day trapping cabin may be a Native/Aboriginal value but would not be a Borden site because it would not be deemed to have cultural heritage significance (unless it was quite old --- i.e. greater than 60 years +).

A Borden site has legal protection under the Ontario Heritage Resources Act. If someone is found damaging or removing artifacts they can be charged under the Act.


17

Two Algonquin communities expressed an interest in receiving an allocation either in the Park or on adjacent Crown land. Similar to many other examples across the Province, the most beneficial and successful Aboriginal logging companies have generally been those which emphasize using local Aboriginal labour since the benefits of employment are usually much more significant than the ability to generate profit. There is ample evidence that the AFA has worked co-operatively in identifying and creating more economic opportunities for Algonquin peoples. The Algonquin people and communities that have been associated with the industry recognize the importance of the forest industry in their local communities and are very supportive of forest management in the Park. Ontario Parks also employs some Algonquins as full time, seasonal, and summer student staff.

The AOO are deeply committed to the environmental protection of the Park and are very satisfied with how forest management occurs. However, while they are supportive of logging in the Park, many communities have concerns with respect to access. To some extent this may be a function of where the communities are located and how readily accessible the Park is to them.

Access is a complicated issue. It involves the conflicting objectives of some of the Algonquin people wanting more access and the FMP planning the removal of permanent water crossings to protect ecological values as well as eliminate ongoing liability concerns and the monitoring expense. There are concerns with respect to safety, environmental protection, quality of use and impacts on Aboriginal rights.

There is a communications lag between the Park staff, AFA, the AOO, and Algonquin harvesters operating in the Park about the locations of active forest operations (no hunting areas) and water crossing removals. Current efforts to engage First Nations include provision of AWS reports and maps that show all planned operations, including water crossing removals, and offers from Algonquin Park to meet with each community annually. Access remains a troubling issue for the Algonquins and will likely remain so until there is a more strategic assessment of the roads that addresses Algonquin concerns together with those of the Park and the AFA, and that assessment is effectively communicated to, and within, the AOO communities.

Near the completion of the audit, the team received additional correspondence from the Algonquins of Ontario indicating that the audit should consider reviewing the Forestry Chapter of the Preliminary Draft Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement-in-Principle. The audit team notes that the Agreement-in-Principle is only a draft and falls outside the audit period. That being said, the audit team notes that the AFA and Algonquin Park have made efforts over the last several years to facilitate Algonquin economic opportunities in forestry and these efforts are consistent with some of the initiatives identified in the Agreement-in–Principle document.

4.3 FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING

The 2005-2010 Algonquin Provincial Park FMP provided direction to the forest managers for the first three years of the audit period. The 2010-2020 FMP governed forest management activities on the Forest for the last two years. Both FMPs were well done and met the technical requirements of the FMPM. The Lighten the Footprint exercise and the AOO land claim were both significant issues with which the planning team dealt. Nine of ten Algonquin First Nations


18

had representatives on the 2010 planning team, a significant increase from earlier efforts. All parties are credited with making the process work.

The last full forest resource inventory (FRI) for Algonquin Provincial Park was completed in 1977. There have been new photography and operational updates since then, but the base information is effectively 29 years old. New digital photography has been completed and interpretation of that photography is scheduled to be available in 2014. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to be useful for forest planning until the 2020 FMP, at which point the information will be nearly ten years old. The FRI is important information for forest management and it is unfortunate that the FRI production schedule is not more tightly linked to the FMP schedule. The audit team has recommended that OMNR review the FRI production schedule so that this critical information is delivered in time to contribute to the production of the FMP. (Recommendation 2)

The auditors note that Table FMP 13 (Assessment of Objective Achievement) has little real planning purpose. The size and scope of this table requires small print to be used, making it very difficult to read. This table repeats much of the text already in the plan, making it redundant. The auditors suggest that OMNR consider dropping Table FMP 13 from the forest management plan template.

The auditors reviewed how the FMP describes the current forest condition by considering a broad range of parameters. Current forest condition is the basis for the development of management strategies and decisions in the plan. These include landscape pattern or forest diversity indices, habitat for selected wildlife species, landscape processes, and a description of fish and wildlife resources, existing roads, and land uses. Protective measures for species that are required by the Endangered Species Act and notable natural resources, such as significant old growth stands and wetlands, were also reviewed.

The audit focused on aspects of forest condition that were regarded as most challenging, including the overall planning context, the approach to ecologically evaluating spatial old growth on the landscape, and objectives and indicators related to selected wildlife species.

One public group raised a concern that there was insufficient old growth in Algonquin Provincial Park generally, and the Recreation and Utilization Zone specifically. The auditors reviewed the old growth management strategies in the Park to determine if all appropriate information is being considered in the development of old growth targets. A concern was raised that setting a target of 75% of the benchmark of the Range of Natural Variation for landscape, wildlife, and old growth indicators was too low. It became apparent that the group voicing its concern is seeking a Park that is driven primarily by natural processes. That is a significant change from the current land use and is beyond the scope of the audit. However, as directed, the auditors have reviewed the planning process for old growth management strategies.

The planning team applied the Old Growth Policy for Ontario’s Crown Forests as required. This policy provides provincial direction for the identification and conservation of old growth conditions and values for major tree species or forest community associations present in Ontario's Crown forests. In the development of the FMP, a task team was created to address the old growth issue. The team developed on-set ages for old growth in the even-aged forest units. Current old growth areas were mapped across the Forest. During the examination of


19

management alternatives, old growth constraints were used within the SFMM model to ensure a certain level of old growth is being maintained over time. Appendix L (Old Growth Forest Supporting Documentation) to the FMP Analysis Package provides detailed summaries on old growth areas by forest unit over the short and long terms. It also presents forecasts of old growth by forest unit. The planning team prepared maps showing the old growth areas across Algonquin Provincial Park to the year 2020.

The planning team set targets around the maintenance and spatial distribution of old growth across the Forest. The FMP is forecasting a 30% increase, nearly 30,000 ha, of old growth over the next ten years.

The planning team has addressed the old growth indicator appropriately. The FMP states that “… 26% of the HDSEL forest unit and 34% of the HeSel unit (for a total of 28% of the uneven-aged forest) is not being managed and will all eventually become old growth. If the Lighten the Footprint amendment is completed as planned, an additional 20,000 ha will be added to this uneven-aged unmanaged area. This unmanaged forest within Algonquin Park provides significant representation of uneven-aged old growth, both now and into the future.”

The audit team accepts that the AFA has taken a relatively cautious approach to old growth. In fact, FMP modeling predicts achievement of 236 of the 251 desired levels (not all of these pertain to old growth but it demonstrates a broadly positive forecast). Many of these objectives are landscape based, including numerous wildlife objectives. This is a good level of performance.

The 2010 FMP modeled and reported projected abundance of habitat for 19 species, a larger number than most SFLs in the province.

Hermit Thrush, a sensitive species, actually does well and is projected to increase above the benchmark levels due to forestry activities. Moose and deer require some disturbance, either natural or human, to create the best habitat conditions. Habitat for Northern Flying Squirrel will decline according to the wood supply model. However the decline remains within the 75% bounds that ensure a significant portion of the habitat remains.

The wildlife modeling that is done is part of the coarse filter approach that is an accepted method of managing species on a large landscape basis. A fine filter approach is also applied to ensure site-specific habitat features are also maintained and protected. This includes a more detailed review by local biologists and, if there is still a concern, more expert advice is solicited. The audit verified that the biologist was involved in all aspects of the modeling and the outcome in the 2010 FMP.

The 2010 FMP identified 38 management objectives to be evaluated against more than 250 indicators. It was evident that some members of the planning team did not understand many of the objectives or indicators. Many of the indicators have extended call dates of 100 years and are based upon projections of the FRI data, which, as noted above, is dated for this Forest. All of the targets presented that are based on modelled projections appear to have a precision that overstates their accuracy. Their use as a coarse filter is suitable. However, the auditors are concerned that the planning process is proclaiming a confidence in the future forest condition that is unsubstantiated. A recommendation has been issued requiring corporate OMNR to


20

ensure the planning process weights more certain objectives more than longer term, less credible objectives. (Recommendation 3)

Algonquin Provincial Park and the AFA have been at the forefront of important developments related to protection measures for endangered species since the creation of the Endangered Species Act (2007). There is a long history of interest in the Park by scientists, naturalists, and universities, and the research conducted has added significantly to overall knowledge. In the audit, there was a concern raised about the understanding of species-at-risk and support for long term monitoring work. Surveys and basic knowledge about species-at-risk in the Park are as good as anywhere in the province.

The audit team reviewed the process used to ensure that social, ecological, and cultural values were identified and appropriate AOC prescriptions incorporated by the planning team in a timely manner. This is a significant effort, given the complex terrain, abundant water courses, and relatively continuous tree cover typical of central Ontario.

The Stand and Site Guide, which came into effect in March 2010, was in draft form and was used to some extent as a source of direction for most site level, ecological AOC prescriptions during the preparation of the 2010 FMP.

Good information was available for most AOC prescriptions. Reasonable alternatives were considered. Mapping was accurate, and reflected the number of required updates due to a continuous stream of new values information (e.g., some confidential values3). The process for updating and communicating values through ARMS (an AOC Revision Management System developed by AFA) was effective.

Several forest-dependent species in Algonquin Provincial Park have been identified as threatened or endangered. The Endangered Species Act places a very high standard on not impacting species-at-risk. However, the overlapping direction for forestry in the Park is captured in multiple pieces of legislation that govern forestry directly. As a result, there is confusion in understanding the legal priorities. Significant resources have been invested by OMNR in trying to meet its obligations but direction from senior management is unclear. The audit team felt that the process for implementation of AOC prescriptions for species-at-risk has been poorly managed at the Corporate MNR level. A recommendation has been issued requiring OMNR senior management to review the process for development of species-at-risk AOC prescriptions, including the application of Section 18 of the Endangered Species Act, and provide appropriate guidance to planning teams (Recommendation 4). The local knowledge of field staff has made possible the implementation of the current AOC prescription despite a confusing administrative context.

Development of the Brook Trout AOC has been an ongoing process. The current Park prescription is for a 500 m restricted access zone. The Stand and Site Guide requires a recharge area associated with known brook trout spawning area to be mapped. This should sensibly confirm where the risk to the value is real. It is expected that the shift to this Stand and Site Guide requirement will be considered in Phase 2 of the 2010 FMP planning process. The

3 OMNR requested that species at risk not be specifically named in this audit report. They have been

described as confidential values.


21

dialogue between the AFA and OMNR on this matter is constructive. Public input is considered fairly. Algonquin Park is unique in having a large number of Brook Trout lakes.

The FMP includes a prescription requiring a 23 m buffer around the main hydro corridor transecting the Park. There was no ecological, safety, or operational reason evident to restrict harvest operations near this corridor. A recommendation is made to review the non-aesthetic, non-biological AOC values, and in particular the 23 m hydro corridor buffer, to ensure they are still appropriate. (Recommendation 5)

Finally, the auditors note that the last independent forestry audit was not read into the legislature, thereby becoming public information, in time for consideration during development of the 2010 FMP. A recommendation has been issued requiring OMNR to ensure audit reports are processed in time for required consideration in the next FMP. (Recommendation 6)

4.4 PLAN ASSESSMENT and IMPLEMENTATION

Harvest

The 2009 Year 10 annual report reports a total of 37,668 ha were harvested during the 2005-2010 period in Algonquin Provincial Park, compared to the planned level of 66,785 ha (an achievement level of 56%). In terms of volume, 2.290 million m3 were harvested during the same timeframe, compared to the planned target of 3.386 million m3 (an achievement level of 68%). The shortfall was driven by poor market conditions.

Most of the wood harvesting in the Park is conducted by contractors employed by the AFA to cut and deliver forest products to area mills. A small amount (5%) is cut by mills with third party agreements or as standing timber sales.

The silviculture systems applied to the Park are predominantly the shelterwood (40%) and selection systems (54%), which employ partial cutting methods and rely on natural regeneration. Even-aged harvest (clearcuts with standards) accounts for the remaining 6%.

Tree marking is a critical aspect of implementing the two partial cutting systems and is also required for certain prescriptions under the clearcut system. The AFA uses certified tree markers who are trained to designate trees for removal/retention based on parameters established in the silviculture ground rules and in accordance with the AFA’s tree marking guidelines. Tree markers are also responsible for marking AOC reserves and making adjustments to prescriptions when unmapped values such as nesting sites, intermittent streams, and cultural heritage sites are encountered. The use of partial cutting systems and associated tree marking prescriptions ensures that tree species diversity is maintained or enhanced on the landscape and that genetic diversity for different tree species is conserved.

Observations at all harvest locations visited by the audit team confirmed that utilization and harvesting practices were good to excellent. Logging damage to residual trees, regeneration, and skid trail coverage was minimal on all sites. Retention of marked crop and wildlife trees and removal of poor quality stems was very effective. Area of concern boundaries and harvest block boundaries were conspicuously painted and appropriately protected.


22

There is a high degree of variability in site conditions within subcompartments and within stands. The FRI does not capture this diversity, therefore tree markers must be cognizant of the changing stand structure and adjust their marking approach accordingly. The approach of the AFA in these circumstances is to recognize this variability and adjust the silviculture prescription that best suits local conditions. Tree markers recommend a change to the prescription if necessary, which is reviewed and approved by one of the AFA’s registered professional foresters. The prescription adjustments were appropriate for the specific site conditions that were encountered.

Poor markets led AFA to adopt a strategy, in cooperation with Ontario Parks, for the 2010 FMP with the goal of minimizing the production of low-end fiber while concurrently ensuring that silviculture objectives are met. The strategy defers harvest in operating units/stands containing high proportions of low-grade fibre until markets have improved. Deferred stands will be tracked with the intent of re-allocating them in subsequent FMPs or AWSs as markets improve. The strategy appears to be a satisfactory measure for addressing short-term market difficulties

Harvest sites were nearly spotless with very little industrial garbage being found. Logging debris observed at landings was minimal. Landings had been rehabilitated and those observed on older cuts were naturally re-vegetating. The only exceptions to this appraisal were a few old culverts that had been left at roadside by AFA operations and the materials stored on-site from research projects.

Areas of Concern

The enforcement of AOC prescriptions in the Park is strict. There were no exceptions to any of the implementation manuals or guidelines used to develop the AOC prescriptions for the FMP. A large number of AOC boundaries were inspected and they were found to be appropriately located and clearly marked.

The provincial commitment to wildlife monitoring in The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan (Version 2.0, June 2010) states, “The MNR developed the Wildlife Assessment Program to identify and assess population trends of selected wildlife species that may be affected by forest management practices and to facilitate understanding of why populations may be changing.” This clearly fits the on-the-ground need for the some of the confidential values which are not included in the monitoring program. More specific monitoring is called for in the Recovery Strategy for some confidential values in Ontario. Progress has been minimal.

Algonquin Provincial Park field staff were responsible for monitoring the newly developed practices in the AOC prescription for confidential values as well as other recovery and protection monitoring. The data on the use of ecopassages4, among a number of projects, were monitored either directly by local OMNR staff or by research partners. Even with this level of effort, it was apparent that risk benefit analysis has to be done. The information available on species distribution was reasonable on which to base management decisions. However, the assessment of risks caused by forest operations is weak. For example, AFA is required to remove road infrastructure when in species-at-risk habitat, even when it is probable the actual use of the

4 ecopassages are devices used to direct some wildlife species away from forest roads.


23

road is so infrequent that it is unlikely to pose an appreciable risk to any of the population of concern. Corporate OMNR has provided no assistance in dealing with this issue through monitoring policy. The auditors are recommending Corporate OMNR provide leadership in developing risk benefit analysis programs for species-at-risk. (Recommendation 7)

Conservation practices for some species-at-risk were initiated prior to the Endangered Species Act becoming law in 2007. Implementation of various AOC prescriptions was reviewed in the field. Although resource intensive, the conservation practices are simple and include bridge

removals, road rehabilitation, and fencing of roads adjacent to wetlands.

The implementation of the species-at-risk AOC prescriptions by the AFA and local OMNR field staff is considered by the audit team to be a best practice (Best Practice 1). Despite being encumbered by lack of policy direction, the AFA, its contractors, and the local Park field staff went from a difficult working relationship to an apparently effective approach to managing industrial forestry adjacent to a very sensitive value. Individuals interviewed felt that for some species-at-risk, practices would likely meet an “overall benefit” test. All of the local staff interviewed from both the AFA and the OMNR felt that there is now a reasonable plan in place for managing species-at-risk. The challenge now is to make it efficient and ensure annual planning is timely and meets the operational requirements.

Algonquin Provincial Park is a very different organization from a normal OMNR District Office, due to the demands of directly operating the park system as well as overseeing forest management operations. The Park produces approximately 40% of the wood volume of OMNR’s Southern Region and makes an important contribution to the socio-economic health of the communities around the Park. The audit team noted that approval of operations in areas near species-at-risk is not provided in time for inclusion in the AWS. This is not consistent with other SFLs in the region. Front line staff must have the support to review and approve an AWS that includes all of the now complex practices that are required for some species-at-risk. It should be done in time for inclusion with the rest of the AWS, and not on a case by case basis during implementation of operations. The achievement of the best management practice noted above is in spite of unclear implementation guidance on the part of OMNR main office.

The auditors have recommended that OMNR corporately review the resource complement for Algonquin Provincial Park to ensure that the administration of forestry at the operational level is providing direction to forestry operations inside the Park that is consistent with that of adjacent OMNR districts. (Recommendation 8)

Renewal

Renewal and harvest achievement were consistent. During the 2005-2010 operating term, 29,785 ha were regenerated, which represents 54% of the planned renewal program of 55,085 ha over the same period. The shortfall in target achievement is similar to the shortfall in harvesting, resulting in less area being available for renewal.

The audit team visited numerous examples of silviculture treatment packages at various stages of implementation on the ground. The auditors were satisfied that logging damage is being minimized to residual trees and to natural regeneration evident under all of the silviculture systems.


24

In blocks prescribed for natural renewal (e.g., poplar, shelterwood or selection cuts ), the regeneration was prolific. Seed tree and tree planting treatments were effective. Mechanical site preparation and mechanical scarification treatments normally employ bulldozers with straight blades or skidders pulling drags or mounted with front rakes. These treatments rearrange logging debris and create suitable microsites to assist natural regeneration (e.g., hemlock in a group selection setting, yellow birch or white pine shelterwood, or red pine seed tree harvest) or to prepare sites for artificial regeneration.

In general, the audit team witnessed an effective renewal program implemented on the Forest over the audit period, where sites were treated promptly and with appropriate prescriptions. Remedial treatments are conducted as needed should monitoring indicate that additional work such as tending is needed to assure renewal success. The auditors are satisfied that the level of renewal (29,785 ha during the 2005-2010 term) is keeping pace with harvest levels over the same period of time (30,006 ha after factoring in thinnings, preparatory cuts, and removal cuts in the shelterwood system (7,662 ha) which are not considered regeneration activities).

Access

The primary purpose of the interior road network in the Park is for conducting forestry operations and to provide Park staff and, in some limited areas, public access to recreational facilities in the Recreation and Utilization Zone. Public use of roads is normally restricted to protect the significant natural, cultural, and recreational values of the Park.

Access construction and maintenance are strictly controlled and adhere to a stringent set of standards established in the Algonquin Provincial Park management plan and Algonquin Park FMP. Standards have also been established regarding limitations on where roads, aggregate pits, and landings may be located relative to various values. Limitations are also set out with respect to the operation of roads (e.g., seasonal and diurnal use restrictions) and aggregate pits.

The 2002 independent forest audit recommended that Algonquin Provincial Park lead a review of the Park roads management strategy that existed at that time. This was delayed and the 2007 audit recommended that the strategy be finalized. It was completed in August 2008. The Forest Management Access Roads Strategy for the Algonquin Park Forest includes four primary objectives dealing with road planning and design, best practices, road management information system implementation, and road safety.

The AFA continues to expand its use of portable bridges at water crossings to help minimize in-stream work and potential environmental impacts as well as mitigate safety and liability concerns. The AFA now has approximately 60 portable bridges in circulation. Portable bridges and culverts are removed as soon as possible when roads are no longer required for forest management purposes. The audit team observed many good examples of water crossing decommissioning that had been rehabilitated effectively.

The timber harvested in the Park is measured for Crown dues at the destination mills or, in the case of veneer wood or wood destined for smaller mills, may be stick scaled by the AFA. The AFA must, therefore, secure an Authority to Haul permit from OMNR to allow the hauling of


25

unscaled Crown timber to the processing mills. Previously, when there was more certainty in timber markets, such authority was issued by the start of the operating year. However, since the economic downturn, the marketplace has become more uncertain and volatile. Markets for some timber products tend to emerge and disappear with little advanced notice and securing an Authority to Haul permit in a suitable timely manner has become a barrier to capturing these important but transient markets. The auditors have recommended that Corporate OMNR review the Authority to Haul process to ensure it meets the requirements of current market conditions. (Recommendation 9)

The AFA is currently extending the Billy Lake Road to access a harvest opportunity east of Lake Opeongo. This area was accessible in previous cutting cycles through the use of the existing Opeongo Lake and Cameron Lake road systems, allowing the wood to be hauled to highway #60 in a more direct route. The construction of the Billy Lake Road is turning into a significant undertaking as the rugged terrain and extensive bedrock are requiring extensive blasting. The outcome will be a road that is an expensive haul for loaded log trucks. The site impacts do not seem to be consistent with the Lighten the Footprint initiative being considered. There may be a simpler alternative in directing seasonally restricted log haul down the Lake Opeongo road, as was done previously. It appears as though that road could be improved with less financial and environmental expense than continued work on the Billy Lake Road extension. The auditors have recommended that alternative access be reconsidered that will minimize the financial and environmental cost of accessing this harvest opportunity. (Recommendation 10)

4.5 SYSTEM SUPPORT

The system support portion of the audit evaluated the level of training and awareness of Algonquin Provincial Park and AFA staff, as well as document control. Both the AFA and the Park maintain basic personnel records. Training opportunities are provided as requested by AFA staff and their initiative is supported.

Training records for Park staff are extensive. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is very safety conscious, and organized training is provided for almost every outdoor activity. Training related to the FMP process for both AFA and government staff is organized by OMNR in a timeframe appropriate for planning. Corporately, OMNR has a mature program for organizing FMP training.

The AFA’s Environmental Management System is ISO 14001 certified and the Forest

Management System is CAN/CSA - Z809-2002 by QMI. A certified forest (QMI- CERT-0051980) means that the company has been audited for, among other things, their compliance to specific human resources standards. This requires that awareness, education, and training programs are in place to ensure general knowledge as well as knowledge specific to an individual’s responsibilities in the sustainable forest management system. The OMNR has a sophisticated human resources system that complies with all provincial and national laws. Their training programs are extremely thorough.

Document management and control was examined for both OMNR and the AFA. The OMNR has a significant information technology infrastructure. All basic requirements such as off-site backup of values and inventory information are carried out as part of the corporate procedures.


26

The audit team did not fully examine all of these procedures. The AFA's information technology system is modern and was able to effectively deal with all of the requests from the audit team.

4.6 MONITORING

Compliance Monitoring

The OMNR provincial compliance priorities are reviewed annually at the Provincial and regional level. Ontario Parks adopts these priorities and develops local compliance priorities to address specific concerns affecting operations within the Algonquin Park Forest. The compliance program is reviewed annually by the Algonquin Park management team.

The AFA completed almost twice as many inspections as Algonquin Provincial Park during the audit period. The number of inspections declined through the audit period, consistent with the decline in harvest and silvicultural operations. Algonquin Park staff consistently monitored forestry activities within the Park. The AFA forwards weekly and monthly operational and compliance updates to Algonquin Park staff which contributes to the effectiveness of the compliance program.

Algonquin Provincial Park has been diligent when responding to identified operational issues although, in a few cases, response and investigation times have been lengthy. Response times for notifying AFA of new values and for approving various operational matters were occasionally slow. There were compliance issues identified in the Forest Operations Inspection Program that are ascribed to the failure of AFA to obtain proper approval before proceeding with certain activities. Park managers were often unaware of these approval delays.

Both the AFA and Algonquin Park staff stated that the level of communications between the two organizations has improved since the last audit and that they share a good working relationship on compliance matters. There were incidents where Algonquin Park staff did not involve the AFA when investigating and verifying operational issues although the provincial compliance handbook strongly encourages this. It has been recommended that both parties continue work to improve the level of dialogue with respect to managing operational compliance. (Recommendation 11)

Reports for fully compliant blocks were not meeting reporting deadlines 20% to 25% of the time. Given that no negative findings were involved, the auditors view this as an administrative deficiency. It is suggested that this be monitored by Park management. Not-in-compliance reports were consistently submitted on time. Twelve outstanding open task issues were found in the Forest Operations Inspection Program database. These may be remnants from the previous tracking system but it is suggested that Algonquin Park staff and AFA should act to have them closed.

The 38 non-compliances reported over the 2007-2012 audit term were relatively minor in significance. Non-compliances were associated with activities related to harvesting or access and most appeared to be preventable. Harvest-related non-compliances involved a variety of issues such as failing to obtain an Authority to Haul or follow hauling conditions, operating inside an AOC or near values without approval, and skid trail coverage exceeding guidelines. Other harvesting issues involved site damage, constructing landings without


27

approval, and operating outside the approval boundary. Access non-compliances generally involved roads not being constructed to FMP standards (i.e., right-of-way built too wide), problems at water crossings (e.g., erosion controls not being in place), or operating inside an AOC. The areas affected by the non-compliances were small.

Reasons for the non-compliances varied; however, lack of communication or supervision was cited as a contributing cause in a number of instances. Since many of the non-compliances were minor in nature, they were usually resolved through voluntary self-compliance by the AFA. There were recurring minor non-compliances that prompted OMNR to take harsher action. Ten penalties totaling nearly $20,000 were assessed and seven compliance orders and six written warnings voicing concerns were issued by Ontario Parks. The enforcement actions issued by Ontario Parks may appear excessive; however, the harshest actions were undertaken on issues of a persistent nature. After reviewing the circumstances around the non-compliances, the auditors are satisfied that the actions to resolve the non-compliant situations were carefully considered, reasonable, and appropriate.

The AFA has attempted to improve compliance performance by delivering additional training and re-enforcing compliance messages with operations supervisors during their annual training sessions. Operational supervisors review detailed maps with contractors prior to start up for each block and either AFA operations supervisors or contractors supervisors are on site to deal with daily challenges or constraints. The AFA requires full payment from contractors for any fines levied for non-compliant performance, which build in direct contractor accountability for unacceptable performance. However, compliance levels have been inconsistent year after year and there are still occasions where people in the field are not being told about AOC changes or road access changes. Additional strategies are needed to improve compliance performance. The auditors have recommended that the AFA place additional attention on improving performance in this area. (Recommendation 12) Silvicultural Monitoring

The silviculture effectiveness monitoring program at the AFA employs four types of surveys: tree-marking audits, stocking assessments, survival assessments, and FTG assessments. All regeneration assessments are conducted using ocular (extensive) or intensive ground sampling. Collected data is entered into portable data collectors, which have now become standard practice for the AFA. For FTG assessments requiring intensive ground surveys (i.e., the success of the silvicultural treatment is not visually obvious), the AFA has developed a FTG survey methodology which incorporates components of the Provincial STARS (Silvicultural Treatment Assessment and Reporting System) program and guidance from OMNR's Southern Science and Information Section. The survey methodology is programmed into the portable data collectors which include GPS capabilities.

This survey system was developed internally to provide FTG survey methodologies that are better suited to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest. Automation of the survey method, along with the GPS capability, should help increase data and location accuracies. The AFA staff have obviously undertaken considerable effort to develop the survey system in collaboration with OMNR Southern Science and Information Section and are continuing to work together to refine the survey methodology. The system developed by the AFA is considered by the auditors as state-of-the-art and deserves special commendation as a best practice. (Best Practice 2)


28

Overall assessment of silviculture effectiveness is conducted on a Forest-wide basis through regular reporting as required by the FMPM and the Forest Information Manual. Data is compiled and evaluated annually or as required under the applicable FMPM. The AFA is required to provide commentary and an evaluation of program achievements and effectiveness when certain annual reports are submitted (e.g. Year 10 Annual Report, which was the 2009-2010 Annual Report for the Algonquin Park Forest) and has satisfactorily met this requirement.

Annual Reports

Annual Reports for the first four years of the 2007-2012 audit term were available for the auditors to examine. The 2011-2012 annual report was not available since it was not due for submission before the auditors were preparing the draft audit report. The reports met the guidance requirements. The AFA was very attentive in meeting the annual report submission requirements for nearly all reports for which data was available during the entire audit term. The annual reports are well done. The AFA made good use of charts, graphics, and supplemental tables in some cases to provide more informative analysis. The level of analysis and commentary satisfactorily meets the applicable FMPM requirements.

4.7 ACHIEVEMENT of MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES and SUSTAINABILITY

Forest sustainability is the overriding goal of the CFSA. The success of forest management activities in meeting that goal has been assessed in terms of meeting the objectives they were designed to achieve. By reviewing planning commitments as detailed in the 2010 FMP against achievements and analysis shown in Appendix 2 and as reported in the Year 10 Annual Report, and observations during this audit, the auditors have assessed sustainability on the Algonquin Park Forest.

All aspects of the Year 10 annual report have been completed in a satisfactory manner. The findings are consistent with observations made throughout this audit.

There are two essential elements that drive all other ecological and economic opportunities on the Algonquin Park Forest. The first is the depletion of stands through harvest or natural disturbance. The second is renewal of the forest after the depletion has occurred.

Observations at all harvest locations visited by the audit team confirmed that utilization and harvesting practices were generally good to excellent. Logging damage to residual trees, regeneration, and skid trail coverage was minimal where observed on all sites and within the standards that have been established for the Park. Site damage caused by machinery operating on soft ground conditions (i.e., rutting) was periodically observed, but was within the Park guidelines. Overall implementation in terms of retention and removal of appropriate trees (e.g., removing poor quality stems, retaining wildlife trees, and retaining sufficient basal area and diameter classes) was very effective.

The dominance of selection and shelterwood silvicultural systems results in a forest that is naturally regenerating and has a near constant canopy. The auditors noted a consistent bias in both tree marking and harvest operations towards the removal of lower rather than higher quality stems. The consequence should be a forest that maintains its ecological integrity and improves its economic value over time. Even-age harvest areas have been promptly and effectively renewed.


29

Table 2 provides greater detail of the level of FTG survey effort during the 2005-2010 operating term, listing the degree of silvicultural success and regeneration success for each forest unit by type of disturbance.

Table 2. Free-to-grow Survey Results on the Algonquin Park Forest by Forest Unit (areas listed in hectares).

Forest Unit Total Area Forest Unit Assessed

Projected Forest Unit

Other Forest Unit

Total Area Not Successfully Regenerated

Silviculture Success (%)

Regeneration Success (%)

Harvest

PJCC 14 6 4 10 4 60 71

PRCC 260 138 22 160 100 86 62

SbCC 37 10 17 27 10 37 73

LCUS 72 29 29 43 100 40

PWUS 5,380 2,504 676 3,180 2,200 79 59

SFUS 556 377 99 477 79 79 86

HeSEL 1,396 866 307 1,174 223 73 84

ORUS 117 35 35 83 100 30

INTCC 205 128 39 167 37 77 82

HDUS 1,316 853 310 1,163 153 73 88

MWUS 1,532 903 176 1,079 453 84 70

HDSEL 17,263 17,153 88 17,241 22 100 100

Total Harvest 28,148 23,002 1,738 24,742 3,407 93 88

Natural Disturbance

INTCC 38 33 33 5 0 87

PrCC 48 45 2 48 94 100

PWUS 96 77 12 89 8 87 93

HDUS 5 5 5 0 100

HeSEL 69 8 61 69 12 100

Total Natural 256 130 113 244 13 53 95

Total Forest 28,404 23,132 1,851 24,986 3,420 93 88

NOTES: Regeneration success has been calculated as the percentage of the forest unit area that has been declared FTG. For

example, for the Jack Pine clear cut forest unit (PJCC), 10 of the 14 ha (71%) originally in the forest unit have met defined stocking and height requirements required to support a FTG conclusion.

Silvicultural success has been defined as the portion of the area declared FTG that meets the species specifications of the planned forest unit, per the Silviculture Ground Rule that was applied. In the case of the PJCC forest unit, 6 of the 10 ha met the species composition and height requirement FTG standards for the targeted forest unit, thus achieving a silviculture success rate of 60%.

The auditors assume the area not meeting FTG will be reassessed in the future, and at that point the silvicultural success will be recalculated.


30

An alternate calculation would present silvicultural success as a percentage of the total forest unit. In the opinion of the auditors, this presents a less accurate assessment of the probability that the forest unit will develop as predicted. A final evaluation of silvicultural success is not useful until the stand in question has been declared FTG.

Analysis of the results shows that the levels of silvicultural success were reasonably high for most forest units. Lower success in the PWUS forest unit is attributed to low stocking, insufficient desired tree height, or excessive competition. The AFA continues to monitor all of the outstanding PWUS forest unit and has planned action to address this weaker level of performance by identifying sites requiring remedial treatments and undertaking the treatments. Forest renewal rates have been recently increased to help fund the remedial activities, and supplementary funding has also been received from the Forestry Futures Trust. It should be noted that silvicultural effectiveness of forest units managed under the selection system (e.g., HDSEL, HeSel) is measured by meeting management standards for stocking and residual stand conditions rather than meeting regeneration standards.

Explicit direction from the AFA Board of Directors has ensured that financial resources will be available for required silviculture. This program is among the most stable this audit team has witnessed in Ontario, and reflects the benefits of the unique management approach defined by the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act.

The FRI on this Forest is not current, but operational planning largely compensates for that deficiency. All sites are walked prior to harvest and adjustments made to silvicultural prescriptions as required. The audit team has identified a concern with reliance on long-term modeling based on an inaccurate inventory but, in a forest system that is largely driven by short term (e.g. 15-20 year) harvest interventions, there is clear rigor in the assessment and correction of planning assumptions.

The assessment of achievement of the management objectives shows no deficiencies. Some objectives, such as increasing the amount of old growth of white and red pine on the Forest, have not yet been achieved but progress towards that target is clearly evident.

Social and economic objectives have been specifically defined for timber production, tourism, fisheries, wildlife, First Nations resource use, resource access, recreation, education and research, and cultural heritage.

There has been notable movement in the development of an Aboriginal rights and title claim by the AOO. Discussions and negotiations about the claim have been ongoing since the 1990s. First Nation communities and individuals actively participate in planning, operations, and recreational use.

Area of concern prescriptions in the Park are more protective than elsewhere in Ontario. This is clearly a product of conducting forestry operations within a provincial park. The AOC prescriptions serve to ensure that the recreational and ecological values of the Park coexist with forest operations that generate annual economic benefits exceeding $130 million.

Road construction and maintenance were judged to be effective. Road corridors are narrower in Algonquin Provincial Park than anywhere else in Ontario, and the AFA, the Park, and various


31

partners and stakeholders continue with active discussions to ensure that access management is balanced.

Road water crossings are a potential source of sedimentation into streams and are always the subject of particular attention from the auditors. Water crossings were found to be in good order and the aquatic values suitably protected. Operations adjacent to aquatic habitats were consistently within practice standards established for operations in riparian zones.

This audit identified operational compliance issues, but the auditors are satisfied they are very limited in scope and have been effectively managed by the AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park.

In summary, the ecological components of the Algonquin Park Forest, which are most likely to be influenced by forest operations, are being managed in a sustainable manner.

The auditors note that forest operations in Algonquin Provincial Park take place in a highly valued and highly visible environment. Timber harvest from the Park has supplied approximately 40% of the total volume harvested from the entire OMNR Southern Region during the audit term. The total area of the Park is 763,000 ha, but once removals are made for lakes, non-forested areas, policy withdrawals, and AOC protection, some forest operations are allowed on about 55% of the gross area. Furthermore, after allowing for conditions required for modified harvest, seasonal restrictions, noise restrictions, and species-at-risk prescriptions, only about 15% of the gross area is available for normal summer harvest. The Park is an impressive example of how a landscape can be managed for multiple uses and provides sustainable environmental, recreational, and economic benefits.

The auditors applaud the managers and staff of the AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park for their continued efforts to make the Park work. The commitment of all staff was evident throughout the audit.

4.8 COMPLIANCE with CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

The audit team reviewed the terms and conditions in the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement.

The AFA has met all of the conditions contained therein. The OMNR has not renewed the agreement since before the last independent forest audit, some five years ago. The auditors recommend the renewal be completed expeditiously. (Recommendation 13)

Other conditions of the agreement have been met.

Appendix 3 provides detail on the performance of the AFA in meeting its obligations.

4.9 CONCLUSIONS and LICENCE EXTENSION RECOMMENDATION

The auditors have concluded this is an effectively managed forest. The AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park have done an excellent job of implementing the strategic and tactical direction presented to them in guidance documents. Operational staff have a very strong knowledge of the land base and site decisions regarding harvest operations appear to be well thought out and implemented effectively.


32

Staff members from both parties communicate pragmatically and, for the most part, effectively. This audit has identified two best practices; the efforts made in management of species-at-risk and the development and use of innovative tracking technology for silvicultural records were both extremely impressive.

The audit team confirms that, based on the evidence reviewed, management of the Algonquin Park Forest was in compliance with the legislation, policy, and regulations that were in effect during the 2007-2012 audit term. The Algonquin Park Forest is being managed sustainably. The audit team recommends the Minister extend the term of the Algonquin Park Forest for a further five years.


33

Appendix 1 – Audit Findings


34

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding

Recommendation #1

Principle 2: Public Consultation

Criterion: 2.5 Aboriginal Involvement in Forest Management Planning

Procedure(s): 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 theapplicable FMPM and assess the resulting involvement and consideration in the plan or amendment.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The Park is highly valued by the Algonquin people both historically and today. Historically, many current members have had parents or grandparents who lived in the Park for substantial portions of their lives and many locations within the Park have deep spiritual and social significance to them. Currently, Algonquin communities use the Park for moose and deer hunting, fishing, trapping, general recreation, birch bark collection, gathering of food and water, medicinal plants, firewood, other collecting (spruce roots and gum, mushrooms, etc.), berry picking, forestry, and the practice of cultural ceremonies and activities. The use of parts of the Park varies from community to community but is heavily influenced by the location of each community.

Discussion: Because the Park and specific locations are so highly valued by the Algonquins, sites of spiritual, cultural, and historical importance take on special significance. Discussions with some Algonquin representatives indicated that they are comfortable with the process to protect these values on the landbase from forest management activities. However, there is some confusion in the Algonquin communities about whether Borden cultural heritage sites (those identified in Ontario's Archaeological Sites Database) are protected from forest management activities. There is also confusion about how the Ministry of Culture ensures the protection of registered Borden sites. The protective measures taken by Ontario Parks and AFA appeared to be effective. The issue was one of communication rather than technical performance.

Conclusion: It is highly important that all Native values (Borden or not) be protected from forest management activities. It is therefore recommended that Ontario Parks hold a meeting with the AOO to explain how cultural heritage sites and Native values can be and are protected from forest management activities.

Recommendation 1: Ontario Parks is to hold a meeting with the Algonquins of Ontario to explain how cultural heritage sites and Native values can be, and are, protected from forest management activities.


35

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding Recommendation # 2

Principle 3: Planning Criterion: 3.3.2 Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for the FMPProcedure(s): 1. Assess (including achievement of FMPM checkpoint) whether the FRI has been updated,

reviewed, and approved to accurately describe the current forest cover that will be used in development of the FMP including: • depletions and accruals • forecasts of depletions and accruals/assumptions for the remainder of the current plan

term • discussion of reliability of these forecasts/assumptions • classification of lands by land ownership and land types including productive Crown forest

land base 2. Assess implications of the FRI on development of the FMP by considering land ownership,

land type, provincial forest type, and age class.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The chronological development of the FRI for the Park is: 1977: last full FRI. New photos and interpretation park wide. 1987: park-wide photos flown again. Photo interpretation completed on areas depleted between 1977 and

1987. Mechanical update of all other areas conducted (ages, heights, stocking, site class). 1993: FRI delivered by OMNR to AFA 1997: update of depletion areas from 1987 to 1995 2002: update of depletion areas from 1995 to 2000 2006: update of depletion areas from 2000 to 2005

The current FRI data being used on the AFA is effectively 29 years old. It has been updated regularly to reflect forest depletions. A new inventory is anticipated to be ready in 2014. This new inventory will be fully adopted and implemented in the 2020 FMP, at which point it will be ten years old and will require a significant update. The AFA has a transition strategy in place for a smooth switch to the new inventory.

Discussion: New inventories were traditionally scheduled to be delivered two years prior to the implementation of an FMP. Today, most inventories are being delivered after a management plan is completed. Given the move to ten-year management plans, this can mean that a new inventory is delivered nine years prior to its use in a new plan. New inventories can be used in an existing plan if there is a desire to coordinate the old and new inventories but this approach can be very onerous and time consuming, and result in major amendment(s) to the plan.

Conclusion: Better scheduling of inventory delivery is required and should meet the needs of forest planning first.

Recommendation 2: Corporate OMNR shall re-evaluate the scheduled implementation of new forest resource inventories so that they are delivered in time to be used for the development of the applicable forest management plans.


36


Recommendation # 3

Principle 3: Planning

Criterion: 3.4.1.4 FMP achievement of the Checkpoint ‘Support for Management Objectives’ (2009 FMPM

Procedure(s): 1. Assess progress towards achievement of the checkpoint by reviewing the results of the desired forest and

benefits process by considering • whether the purposes of the desired forest and benefits meeting were achieved • the process used to refine the desired forest and benefits to ensure they are achievable

2. Assess achievement of the checkpoint including by reviewing the FMPM requirements and determining whether • reasonable objectives, indicators (including desirable levels) and appropriate targets have been

developed by the planning team with the assistance of the LCC • the 4 CFSA objective categories have been addressed • the objectives and indicators incorporated the results of the desired forest and benefits meeting

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The 2010 FMP contains 38 management objectives. Several objectives and indicators are wholly based upon long term modelling projections. Modelling outputs purport to provide evidence of objective achievement over time and show the same level of precision and accuracy whether the forecasting period is ten years or 100 years.

Ecological sustainability is not in jeopardy in this plan as all indicators are within an acceptable range. Long term forest management constraints may be unnecessarily limiting the provision of social benefits, since many of these constraints are a result of modelling outcomes projected well beyond the veracity of the data and the FMP.

Discussion: The plan has identified 38 objectives of management to be evaluated against more than 250 indicators. Many of the indicators have extended call dates of 100 years and are based upon projections of the FRI data. Ontario’s FRI data does not include statistical accuracy measures, is most accurate on the date of its creation, and is increasingly less accurate from that point onward. Modelling, based on this data of undefined initial accuracy, uses a series of assumptions (each with their own set of undefined statistical inferences) to project how the future forest estate is likely to support a series of wood and habitat supply targets. The wood and habitat supply targets are also based on imprecisely defined characteristics. They are derivatives of the FRI and have the inherent accuracy problems that also exist in the inventory. Precise targets for forest conditions or wildlife habitat 100 years hence should only be considered theoretical. All of the targets presented that are based on modelled projections have a precision that overstates their accuracy.

When it is evident that at least some interviewed planning team members (who are in the best position to bethe most informed of the veracity and use of modelling tools) do not have a working knowledge of the objectives let alone the 250 indicators, the conclusion emerges that the planning process is proclaiming a


37

confidence in the future forest condition that is unwarranted.

This finding is not unique to this Forest, and, in fact, the deficiency arguably has less impact on the Algonquin Park Forest than most others in Ontario. The operational planning and implementation programs observed on this audit include an extremely high degree of ground-truthing of stand and habitat conditions prior to any forest operations. This practice greatly improves the probability that trained professionals will make the best possible operational decisions to ensure that the ecological condition of each stand will provide expected future benefits.

Forest management plans are revisited every five years and rewritten every ten years. The FRI, which is the basis for forest level plans, is renewed approximately every 20 years. Given the matters that can influence the achievement of planned forest condition, be they natural depletions such as fire, wind, insect or disease, or changed demand for fibre due to markets, it seems reasonable that forest plans would give higher priority to objectives that can be achieved inside that 20-year window and weight longer term, less credible targets as a monitoring task.

Conclusion: The long term objectives and targets in the FMP, which are based on forest modelling, are poorly understood by some planning team members, and do not reflect the veracity of the information supporting them. Forest management plans could be improved if reliance on critical and credible, near term objectives was increased, and longer term objectives tracked as a monitoring task rather than used as hard constraints.

Recommendation 3: Corporate OMNR must ensure that the requirements in the Forest Management Planning Manual define planning objectives that are credible, measurable, and predictable, and that targets associated with each are understandable and feasible. Further, the planning process should also recognize the quality and accuracy of the information supporting each objective.


38


Recommendation # 4

Principle: 3 Forest Management Planning

Criterion: 3.5.2 FMP area of concern (AOC) prescriptions

Direction: The FMP must contain specific prescriptions for all AOCs which may be affected by planned operations within the areas of operations. Assess whether specific prescriptions for planned harvest, renewal and tending activities are appropriate to protect the values.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Currently in Algonquin Provincial Park for some confidential values habitat under the ESA, forestry is governed under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act which requires “avoidance” of harm. Section 17 of the Act allows permits to be issued which may cause some harm to individuals, as long as “overall benefit” to the population is demonstrated. In other words, although some individuals may be harmed, there is a net benefit for the population through other mitigation. Mitigation could include things like overall reduction in the road network which has the effect of reducing the interaction of equipment with the species, thus reducing the overall mortality. Other examples exist but cannot be discussed due to confidentiality. Section 18 has the same overall benefit requirement, but replaces the permit with an “instrument”. An instrument is another piece of legislation which works under the Act to provide the overall benefit test. In the case of forestry, the CFSA is that legislation, which would use the regulatory arm of the FMPM. The CFSA has been amended to allow it to be an instrument. Advice from the Species-at-risk Branch would still apply.

The use of Section 9 means that there is zero tolerance, as the interviewees described it. Harm to a single individual will bring legal charges. The OMNR was not sure of the exact penalty, nor were they sure if charges would then lead to a requirement for a Section 17 permit, since harm has been demonstrated and was unavoidable.

Both OMNR and AFA expressed concern that using a Section 17 permit is not acceptable because it impliesforestry may “harm”. The feeling was that in the Park this would be unacceptable to the public. Arguments of overall benefit, even if there is a clear and important benefit, would not be accepted by some part of the public.

Discussion: The experience of the last FMP showed that under the Section 9 avoidance approach, the Planning Team members were spending an inordinate amount of time checking with the Species-at-risk Branch about whether the AOC prescriptions would be compliant with the Act, and meet the avoidance-of-harm test. Policy seems to indicate the Species-at-risk Branch has an advisory role, but by involving themselves in every operational detail, they functionally become the approvers. Also of concern to the auditors, the Species-at-risk Branch does not appear to have the operational background to be providing this kind of advice. This also brings into question what the regional role is of the Species-at-risk Branch in the development of an FMP. Prior to FMP approval there were an extraordinary number of meetings of the working group which attempted to develop a prescription. The outcome of that process may have


39

resulted in a more informed final decision, but the level of effort seemed out of proportion.

The concept of using Section 18 was not explored locally or, apparently, higher in OMNR. Section 18 provides for the local planning team to develop an overall benefit argument through the FMPM. The difference between Section 18 and Sections 9 or 17 is that local control and understanding of prescription development through the already mature FMP process is more efficient. The auditors are recommending that corporate OMNR explore the possibility of using Section 18, or explain why it is not an option to local managers.

Conclusion: Overall, the audit team felt that the process for species-at-risk AOC prescription development was inefficiently managed; clearer direction from senior managers about who was responsible for which aspects would have saved time and resources. The responsibilities of the Planning Team, OMNR Region, and especially the Species-at-risk Branch were unclear at the time. The audit team feels these responsibilities have not become clearer since approval of the FMP. The achievement of Best Management Practice 1 in this audit is despite management problems.

Recommendation 4: Corporate OMNR must take responsibility for reviewing the process for development of species-at-risk area of concern prescriptions, including the use of Section 18 of the Endangered Species Act, and provide appropriate guidance to planning teams.


40


Recommendation # 5

Principle: 3 Forest Management Planning

Criterion: 3.5.2 Review the AOC prescriptions and assess whether specific prescriptions for planned harvest, renewal and tending activities are appropriate to protect the values.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: In the Park a prescription requires a 23 m buffer around hydro corridors. Field review did not indicate the reason for concern about harvesting near the corridor, nor could AFA staff explain it. Safety was not a concern in the area viewed by the audit team. Harvesting is allowed near hydro lines elsewhere, within reason.

Discussion: A main hydro line that runs north to south is long enough that hundreds of hectares are tied up with this buffer.

Conclusion: There needs to be a review of the AOC prescriptions to ensure that the ones that apply to non-aesthetic, non-biological values are still appropriate.

Recommendation 5: The OMNR and AFA should review non-aesthetic, non-biological area of concernprescriptions, and in particular the 23 m hydro corridor buffer, to ensure they are still appropriate.


41


Recommendation # 6

Principle 3: Planning

Criterion: 3.5.12 FMP results of audits

Procedure(s): Review the FMP to assess whether

recommendations made in the last IFA have been addressed in development of the current plan where appropriate

where recommendations have not been addressed determine whether a reasonable explanation has been documented

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: There is no reference to the 2007 independent forest audit in the Supplementary Documentation as required. The plan states: “The most recent Independent Forest Audit on the Algonquin Park Forest was completed in the fall of 2007. This audit covered the 5-year period from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2007. The final report for this audit was submitted in June 2008 and the action plan was approved in April, 2009. At the time of Forest Management Plan production, the IFA report had not yet been tabled in the legislature, and was therefore not a matter of public record. As a result, the action plan could not be summarized in the FMP. Regardless, all of the recommendations that could be addressed through the 2010 FMP have been incorporated.” (2010 FMP, p.105)

Discussion: Independent forest audit reports have been delayed to the point where the results cannot be formally considered in the subsequent FMP, contrary to direction provided in the FMPM. The delays can mean that an audit report may become public years after it is actually completed. Delays in publishing independent forest audit reports erode the credibility of the audit and FMP processes.

Conclusion: Delays in the public release of independent audit reports have resulted in FMPs being issued without acknowledged consideration of the recommendations of the audit reports.

Recommendation 6: Corporate OMNR must act to have independent forest audit reports released publicly in amore timely fashion.


42


Recommendation # 7

Principle: 4 Plan Assessment and Implementation

Criterion: 4.1 Plan assessment Auditors must examine areas of the FMP that can be assessed in the field and assess whether the FMP was appropriate in the circumstances... assess whether the AOC prescription was appropriate in the circumstances.... assess the effectiveness of implementation of the approved effectiveness monitoring program for any AOC prescriptions.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Field staff from OMNR were responsible for monitoring the newly developed practices in the species-at-risk AOC prescriptions, as well as other recovery and protection monitoring. The data on the use of ecopassages and artificial nest sites, among a number of projects, were monitored either directly by local MNR staff or by research partners. The partnerships were worked out locally.

The auditors noted the provincial commitment to wildlife monitoring in The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan (Version 2.0, June 2010) which is coordinated through the Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Section of OMNR. The plan states, “The MNR developed the Wildlife Assessment Program to identify and assess population trends of selected wildlife species that may be affected by forest management practices and to facilitate understanding of why populations may be changing.”

The provincial wildlife monitoring program contains almost no information on the subject of reptiles, stating only, “There has been little in the way of long-term, broad-scale monitoring undertaken of species in this group, both because there has traditionally been less interest in these taxa and because many of them are difficult to detect.”

Discussion: It was apparent that other risk benefit analysis has not been completed. The auditors found the information available on species-at-risk distribution to be reasonable for management decisions. However, the assessment of risk factors to the species-at-risk caused by operations was weak or nonexistent. For example, AFA is required to remove road infrastructure when in species-at-risk habitat, even when it is probable the actual road use by people is so infrequent that it is unlikely to pose an appreciable risk to the population. Corporate OMNR has not provided direction with regard to risk assessment.

Conclusion: The Species-at-risk Branch and the Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Section of OMNR have been absent in providing advice or broad coordination of monitoring despite having a clear mandate to do so through Environmental Assessment Term and Condition 81. The development of a workable prescription for operations near species-at-risk needs central coordination.

Recommendation 7: Corporate OMNR must develop a plan for coordinated long term monitoring of specific risk benefit analysis projects for species-at-risk in Algonquin Provincial Park.


43


Best Practice 1

Principle 2: Public Consultation

Criterion: 4.1 Plan assessment - Auditors must examine areas of the FMP that can be assessed in the field and assess whether the FMP was appropriate in the circumstances. Include consideration of:

o other forest resources dependent on forest cover

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Species-at-risk have become a major challenge across eastern Ontario because of extensive restrictions

on forest operations to meet the critical life requirements of species listed by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). A detailed AOC for species-at-risk species is in place consistent with Ontario Regulation 242/08. The auditors reviewed a number of protection measures for species-at-risk in the field, including:

Hundreds of metres of temporary fencing

Artificial nest habitat

Landscape cloth to steer species-at-risk away from nesting in risky locations

Road removals to reduce exposure

Training for logging truck operators and contractors

Ecopassages The audit team noted that there is local monitoring information to show that these protective measures were effective.

Discussion: Field staff from OMNR have developed and implemented conservation practices for species-at-risk despite lack of clear direction and very little funding. Despite being encumbered by lack of policy direction, the AFA, its contractors, and the local OMNR field staff went from a difficult working relationship to an apparently effective approach to managing industrial forestry adjacent to a very sensitive value. All of the local staff interviewed, both for the AFA and the OMNR, felt that there is now a reasonable plan in place for managing the species-at-risk. The main challenge now is to make it efficient.

The training programs provided and the leadership shown by AFA to its employees and contractors have led a genuine effort to assist in the recovery of the wood species-at-risk and consequently, the audit team felt that the implementation of the wood species-at-risk AOC prescription by the AFA and local OMNR field staff is a best practice.

Best Practice 1: The development and implementation of the species-at-risk area of concern prescription by the AFA and local OMNR field staff shows a high level of commitment at the local level to ensure the objectives of the Endangered Species Act are addressed effectively.


44


Recommendation # 8

Principle: 6 Monitoring Criterion: 6.2.1 Compliance Planning and Monitoring - To review and assess whether the compliance program has been developed and implemented to effectively monitor program compliance and effectiveness in accordance with the conditions of the APF Licence, the FMPM, and FIM, including standards established by the Minister. Procedure(s): 6.2.1.4 Examine whether the AFA has continued to maintain their overall forest management oversight role related to development and maintenance of the compliance plan and its implementation.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Algonquin Provincial Park is a different organization from a normal OMNR District Office. Primary governance occurs under the auspices of the Algonquin Provincial Park Master Plan (1974) which identifies the overall mandate of management in the Park. The 2005 and 2010 FMPs that direct forest management operations in Algonquin Park provide second order direction to managers. The demands of directly operating the park system as well as overseeing forest management operations is unique in Ontario. The Park produces approximately 40% of the wood volume of OMNR’s Southern Region and makes an important contribution to the socio-economic health of the communities around the Park.

The audit team noted that approval of operations in areas near species-at-risk is not provided in time for inclusion in the AWS. This is not consistent with other SFLs in the region. Front line staff must have the support to review and approve an AWS that includes all of the now complex practices that are required for some species-at-risk. It should be done in time for inclusion with the rest of the AWS, and not on a case by case basis during implementation of operations. The achievement of the best management practice noted above is in spite of unclear implementation guidance on the part of OMNR main office.

The timing restrictions and a number of other conditions for hauling in species-at-risk habitat protection are different between the Park and adjacent OMNR Districts. With the exception of restrictions in place to mitigate potential conflict with recreational users, there is no reason for these differences between the Park and in adjacent SFLs.

The auditors have recommended that Regional OMNR review the resource complement at Algonquin Provincial Park to ensure that the administration of forestry is providing direction to forestry operations inside the Park that is timely and consistent with that of adjacent Districts.

Discussion: There are insufficient OMNR resources in Algonquin Provincial Park to provide consistent and timely direction to forest operations.

Conclusion: The OMNR should review its resource complement dedicated to forest management in Algonquin Provincial Park.


45

Recommendation 8: Corporate OMNR shall review the resource complement for Algonquin Provincial Park to ensure that the administration of forestry is providing cohesive and timely direction to forestry operations inside the Park and to ensure operational approvals, such as area of concern timing restrictions, are coordinated and consistent with surrounding OMNR Districts.


46


Recommendation # 9

Principle: 4.7 Access

Procedure(s): Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved access activities. Determine whether the operations implemented were consistent with:

locations in the approved FMP, AWS

conditions on construction including the approved water crossings structure, Fisheries Act review, and conditions on crossings of other AOCs

use management (maintenance, access control, any decommissioning or reclamation provisions)

assess whether roads have been constructed, maintained, decommissioned, and reclaimed to minimize environmental impacts and provide for public and operator safety

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: All of the timber harvested in the Park is measured for Crown dues at the destination mills. AFA must therefore secure an Authority to Haul permit from OMNR to allow the hauling of unscaled Crown timber to the processing mills. Previously, when there was more certainty in timber markets, such authority was issued for all anticipated destinations by the start of the operating year. However, since the economic downturn, the marketplace has become more uncertain and volatile. Markets for some timber products tend to emerge and disappear with little advanced notice and securing amendments to an Authority to Haul in a suitable timely manner has become a barrier to capturing these important but transient markets.

Discussion: The OMNR's process for issuing Authority to Haul permits is not as responsive throughout the year as the marketplace demands and this has led to missed opportunities or situations where contractors will risk hauling timber to processing mills without the proper authority being issued. This can lead to non-compliant situations that the AFA and its contractors would prefer to avoid. The OMNR's system of approving hauling authorities needs to be more adaptive given the current dynamic nature of the forest products marketplace.

Conclusion: The OMNR needs to improve the flexibility and timeliness of its Authority it Haul process.

Recommendation 9: Corporate OMNR shall review the process for issuing Authority to Haul permits to ensure they meet the demands of current timber markets.


47


Recommendation # 10

Principle: 4.7 Access

Procedure(s): Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved access activities. Determine whether the operations implemented were consistent with:

locations in the approved FMP, AWS

conditions on construction including the approved water crossings structure, Fisheries Act review, and conditions on crossings of other AOCs

use management (maintenance, access control, any decommissioning or reclamation provisions)

assess whether roads have been constructed, maintained, decommissioned, and reclaimed to minimize environmental impacts and provide for public and operator safety

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: There is a need to improve upon the existing road system or construct new roads to support harvest within portions of the Recreation and Utilization Zone between the Billy Lake Road and the Opeongo Lake Road. The AFA is currently extending the Billy Lake Road to access a harvest opportunity that was accessed during previous harvest opportunities from the Opeongo Lake Road. This is turning into a massive undertaking as the rugged terrain and extensive bedrock are requiring extensive blasting.

Discussion: The Opeongo Lake Road is heavily used for recreational purposes through the snow-free period, and would need upgrading to support travel by loaded logging trucks. The auditors drove the Opeongo Lake Road on October 2 and recreational traffic was heavy and erratic. Areas of the road were effectively blocked by several individuals set up to take photographs. The small pick-up truck driven by the auditors was literally weaving between friendly but determined photographers. It is easy to understand the desire of Algonquin Provincial Park and AFA staff to avoid having log trucks there at that time.

It appears the construction effort on the Billy Lake Road will have unnecessary ecological and financial impacts. The road will require significant blasting, and will result in a difficult and expensive haul for loaded log trucks. The site impacts do not seem to be consistent with the Lighten the Footprint initiative being considered in the Algonquin Provincial Park Master Plan.

There may be a simpler alternative in directing seasonally restricted log haul down the Opeongo Lake road as was done before. It appears as though that road could be improved with less financial and environmental expense than continued work on the Billy Lake Road extension.

There are many examples in the Park of timber harvest or haul operations being adjusted seasonally to avoid conflicts with recreational users.


48

Conclusion: The extension of Billy Lake Road may result in more financial and ecological expense during construction and more ongoing operational expense than pursuing an alternative that allows hauls, with seasonal restrictions, out of the currently paved Opeongo Road.

Recommendation 10: Algonquin Provincial Park and AFA must review the construction plans for the Billy Lake Road and consider alternative access routes that could reduce the financial and environmental cost of accessing the harvest opportunity east of Lake Opeongo.


49


Recommendation # 11

Principle: 6 Monitoring

Criterion: 6.2.1 AFA Holder Compliance Planning and Monitoring - To review and assess whether an AFA compliance program has been developed and implemented to effectively monitor program compliance and effectiveness in accordance with the conditions of the AFA, the FMPM, and FIM, including standards established by the Minister.

Procedure(s): 6.2.1.4 Examine whether the AFA has continued to maintain their overall forest management oversight role related to development and maintenance of the compliance plan and its implementation.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Both the AFA and OMNR stated that the level of communications between the two organizations has improved since the last audit and that they share a good working relationship on compliance matters. The auditors also heard evidence to suggest that there is room for improvement in communicating compliance monitoring issues, both internally and externally, in both organizations.

Discussion: Some Algonquin Provincial Park staff may not have been aware that, under the 2010 Forest Compliance Handbook, they are highly encouraged to involve the industry when investigating and verifying operational issues. There have been occasions where this has not been the case, with Parks staff verifying and visiting sites with operational issues without early AFA involvement. Having AFA involvement early in the investigation process is beneficial and desirable. Joint inspections would likely prove invaluable and mutually beneficial in understanding the circumstances that triggered the operational issue, reaching a common understanding in terms of compliance expectations, and developing an effective preventative action plan.

Another persistent situation that contains a strong communications element is the necessity for AFA to seek approvals for such matters as locating operational roads and landings within certain values, such as cold water lakes and streams. The approval process has experienced difficulties, where approvals from Ontario Parks have been delayed or requests for approvals were not submitted by the AFA. The auditors have issued recommendations elsewhere to address the approval process. There have also been issues related to lack of supervision and submission of inspection reports with activities associated with water crossing installations and removals. Improved oversight and communications are needed to address this shortcoming.

Conclusion: Both AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park need to make continuing efforts to improve the level of dialogue between their organizations. The following steps are examples that may address the issue: )

(a) Ontario Parks ensures that all compliance staff are aware of the necessity of contacting appropriate AFA staff when an operational issue is discovered or being verified, per the requirements of the 2010 Forest Compliance Handbook;

(b) AFA reinforces messages with its staff and contractors of the need to contact Ontario Parks for necessary


50

approvals in accordance with the requirements of the FMP or conditions of the AWS.

(c) AFA ensures that staff adhere to the Forest Operations Inspection Program reporting commitments, particularly those associated with water-crossing installations and removals, as listed in the compliance plan.

Recommendation 11: The AFA and Ontario Parks need to continue building upon the level of communications between both organizations, particularly on compliance matters.


51


Recommendation # 12


Criterion: 6.2.1 APFA Holder Compliance Planning and Monitoring - To review and assess whether an APFA compliance program has been developed and implemented to effectively monitor program compliance and effectiveness in accordance with the conditions of the APFA, the FMPM, and FIM, including standards established by the Minister.

Procedure(s): 6.2.1.4 Examine whether the APFA has continued to maintain their overall forest management oversight role related to development and maintenance of the compliance plan and its implementation.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Although the effectiveness of the AFA's compliance monitoring program over the audit period is generally good and its commitment to continual improvement and prevention of non-compliances is genuine, its compliance record demonstrates a moderate degree of variation in performance. Overall compliance rates during the audit term range from 87.2% to 98.1%, based on AFA reporting. The 98.1% was recorded for 2011-2012, but may be adjusted downward as there were three operational issues pending a decision from the Algonquin Park Superintendent. According to the 2009 Year 10 annual report, compliance levels achieved ranged from 85% in 2009‐2010 to 96% in 2007‐2008. Non-compliance frequency originating from forest industry inspections has fluctuated from 10.1% to 1.2% per year during the audit term, while not-in-conformance frequencies from Ontario Parks reporting fluctuated from 16.1% to 3.3% per year. Reasons for the non-compliances varied, however lack of communication or supervision was cited as a contributing cause in a number of instances. Since many of the non-compliances were minor in nature, they were usually resolved through voluntary self-compliance by the AFA. There were a number of recurring, though minor, non-compliances that prompted OMNR to take harsher action. Ten penalties totaling nearly $20,000 were assessed against the AFA over the audit term. As well, seven compliance orders and six written warnings were issued by Ontario Parks. The auditors believe there is room for improvement and a need to stabilize performance to a consistently higher level of compliance.

Discussion: Review of the circumstances and reasons for the non-compliances led the auditors to conclude that lack of communication or supervision was a significant contributing factor leading to the infractions. The auditors also believe that many, if not all, of the non-compliances were preventable. The AFA has taken actions internally to address some of their compliance shortcomings, such as delivering additional training and re-enforcing compliance messages with Operations Supervisors during their annual Spring training sessions. Additional strategies are needed to improve compliance performance.

Conclusion: Pre-operations meetings have been very successfully deployed by other forest companies and may help reduce some of the issues that continue to emerge in the Algonquin Park Forest. Other similar strategies should also be explored in the interest of significantly reducing the recurring issues. The auditors have noted that AFA provides measures for positively reinforcing good performance among its contractors, which is commendable. However, there was no evidence that disciplinary actions (such as suspension of contracts or


52

other privileges) are taken when contractors or employees continually demonstrate careless practices or initiate work without proper authority being in place, although AFA does pass along the value of the fines to individual contractors.

Recommendation 12: The AFA shall employ strategies to reduce the number of persistent issues that are impacting on its compliance record.


53

Independent Forest Audit

Best Practice 2


Criterion: 6.3 Silviculture Standards and Assessment Program - To review and assess whether an effective program exists to assess area that is successfully regenerated to the projected forest unit (silvicultural success) of to another forest unit (regeneration success) in accordance with the applicable FMPM, FIM, FOSM, and SEMMO.

Procedure(s): 6.3.1 Review and assess, including in the field, achievement and reporting of the silviculture standards for the specific management unit.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: All regeneration assessments undertaken by the AFA are conducted using ocular (extensive) or intensive ground sampling. Collected data is entered into portable data collectors, which have now become standard practice for the AFA. For FTG assessments requiring intensive ground surveys (i.e., the success of the silvicultural treatment is not visually obvious), the AFA has developed a FTG survey methodology which incorporates components of the Provincial STARS (Silvicultural Treatment Assessment and Reporting System) program with guidance from OMNR's Southern Science and Information Section. The survey methodology is programmed into the portable data collectors which also include GPS capabilities. The program will generate assessment plot locations using a random grid pattern, directing the assessor to where to establish the next plot. Competition rules are incorporated in the program and are computed in real time. As the survey progresses, the assessor is informed when the pre-determined confidence limits are reached and the survey can be concluded.

Discussion: This survey system was developed in-house by innovative staff who have been searching for FTG survey methodologies that are better suited to the Great Lakes-St Lawrence Forest. Automation of the survey method, along with the GPS capability, should help increase data and location accuracies. The AFA staff have obviously undertaken considerable effort to develop the survey system in collaboration with OMNR Southern Science and Information Section and are continuing to work together to refine the survey methodology.

Conclusion: The automated regeneration survey system developed by the AFA is considered by the auditors as state-of-the-art and deserves special commendation.

Best Practice 2: The AFA staff are commended for operationally researching and developing a free-to-grow survey methodology that can be considered state-of-the-art and is better suited for application in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest.


54


Recommendation # 13

Principle: 8 Contractual Obligations

Criterion: 8.1 Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement (APFA)

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The 2007 independent forest audit of the Algonquin Park Forest was strongly positive and concluded with the following recommendation: “The auditors recommend that the Minister of Natural Resources should extend the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement for the APF for an additional five-year period.”

As of the beginning of the field work for the 2012 audit, the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement had not been extended by the Minister.

Conclusion: Corporate OMNR has not issued the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement extension, nor has the AFA been provided with any explanation as to why this has not been completed.

Recommendation 13: Corporate OMNR shall ensure that the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement is extended as expeditiously as possible.


55

APPENDIX 2 – ACHIEVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES


56

Table 3. Review of Achievement of 2005-2025 FMP Objectives.

Objective Audit Assessment

1.0 Social and Economic Objective

Maintain Park aesthetics, in order to contribute to the recreational and wilderness experience of Algonquin Provincial Park visitors.

No input was received from any party objecting to the impacts of forest management on the aesthetics of the Park. There are several extraordinary temporal and spatial AOC prescriptions that support separation of forestry and recreational operations, and significant land use segregations that recognize the need to maintain the visual values of the Park. Primary and secondary roads are narrower than on any other forest in Ontario. Seasonal restrictions serve to avoid interaction with the majority of recreational users. Buffers around water and portages ensure that forest operations are visually undetectable to water-based recreational users. The objective is being met.

To maintain the ecological and productive capacity of the forest, in order to provide society with a sustainable harvest of forest-based material and social values

There has been sufficient wood supply for the needs of all consumers. There has been a chronic underachievement of harvest in terms of both area and volume, but the AFA has a done a good job of marketing wood beyond the Appendix D commitment holders. The flexibility to sell wood to the open market is laudable. The objective is being met.

To protect natural and cultural heritage values found on the unit. This includes minimizing the impacts of forest access on self-sustaining brook trout lakes, and reducing opportunities for long term public access to significant Park values

There were no instances observed where natural or cultural heritage values were negatively impacted. The objective is being met.

Identify and implement ways of achieving more equal participation by Algonquin First Nation communities in the benefits provided through Forest Management Planning.

Nine of ten First Nation communities participated in the 2010 FMP process. First Nation companies are active in harvest and silviculture. Most of Algonquin Provincial Park is covered by an Aboriginal rights and title claim by the AOO. Discussions and negotiations about the claim have been ongoing since the 1990s. Progress towards achieving this objective is ongoing.

To utilize the range of products that the forest will sustainably yield in a safe and efficient manner.

Forest operations showed excellent utilization. Landings were exceptionally clean. The AFA has done a good job of marketing higher value products. Hardwood pulp quality material is underutilized as the principle buyer is no longer receiving wood from the Forest. No deficiencies were noted in the renewal program. The objective is being met.

The 100 year objective for white and red pine sawlogs is to exceed an average annual volume of 110,000 m

3 over the first ten terms. The 100 year

objective for tolerant hardwood and white birch sawlogs is to annually produce 70,000 m

3 of

tolerant hardwood and white birch sawlogs in

This objective cannot be assessed in the near term, and the far distant timeline renders the objective functionally immeasurable within the scope of planning. It is suggested that the objective be refined to include measurable, near term milestones.


57

each of the first ten year terms. The 100 year objective for red pine poles/tree length is to annually produce 16,700 m

3 of red pine poles/tree

length in five or more of the first ten terms.

The 2005-2025 target will be to produce 520,000 m

3 of forest products on an annual basis for the

selected management alternative. Of this total, it is estimated that 248,000 m

3 is in sawlog and

better products and 272,000 m3

is pulp and composite quality products.

The objective for current term harvest was missed for hardwood and white birch sawlogs (-16%), total sawlogs (-6%) and total volume (-3%). The AFA has done an excellent job of product marketing. Most other forests in Ontario have not come as close to meeting harvest volume targets through the last five-year period. The AFA business model, which explicitly enables marketing of wood beyond those commitments listed in the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement, is an excellent model for continuing to develop markets for available volume. The objective has not met the explicit targets over the past five years, but performance in terms of searching for markets for underachieving volumes has been very good.

Maintain or enhance the economic value added that harvesting in Algonquin Provincial Park contributes to the Provincial and local economies as determined for the selected management alternative at 5 year intervals. Baseline value is $110,280,576 for the 2005-2025 term.

The Trends Analysis (Appendix 7, page 38) reports an average annual value added of $131,917,421. The objective is being met.

Objectives to provide forest cover

To plan and implement forest management activities to protect and maintain the natural values dependent on forest cover, while achieving sustainable use of the forest resources, and maintaining overall forest sustainability. This will be accomplished by continued implementation of silvicultural, wildlife and fisheries guidelines

Protection of natural values dependent on forest cover is largely achieved through the use of the most rigorous AOC prescriptions in Ontario. Harvest operations explicitly consider short and long term provision of habitat for feature species. Performance in developing and implementing management strategies for species-at-risk was identified as a best practice on this audit. The silvicultural program was successful over 90% of the time, which is a completely acceptable performance level given the coarseness of the measurement. The objective is being met.

Maintain preferred habitat for all selected wildlife species above the lower bound of sustainability for the first 100 years during the modelling process (SFMM). Targets are to maintain preferred habitat in excess of the following: a. Moose winter habitat > 45,000 ha b. White-throated sparrow >39,000 ha for at least 80 of the next 100 years. c. Deer wintering habitat (total forest) to mimic natural (benchmark) levels over time.

With the exception of the specific target listed for white-throated sparrow (target b), all targets have been explicitly met. The white-throated sparrow target is no longer modeled on the 2010 FMP as a result of public consultation and other landscape class indicators that incorporate the habitat type. There is no evidence to suggest this target has not been met. The objective is being met.


58

d. Maintain preferred habitat (spatial habitat from OWHAM) for pileated woodpeckers (225,933ha) for the first five-year term. e. No net loss of preferred habitat (spatial habitat

from OWHAM) for red-shouldered hawk for the first five-year term (9,289 ha in 2005).

To ensure the protection of recreational values. No input was received from any party objecting to the impacts of forest management on the recreational values. There are several extraordinary temporal and spatial AOC prescriptions that support separation of forestry and recreational operations, and significant land use segregations that recognize the need to maintain the visual values of the Park. Primary and secondary roads are narrower than on any other forest in Ontario. Seasonal restrictions serve to avoid interaction with the majority of recreational users. Buffers around water and portages ensure that forest operations are visually undetectable to water-based recreational users. The objective is being met.

Maintain or improve habitat for wolf prey species,specifically, moose and beaver throughout 40% of the Park and deer south of Highway 60 and east ofthe Rolphton-Minden hydro line.

Habitat projections for all prey species have exceeded the targets set for this objective. Beaver habitat improvement cuts have been implemented on 37 areas. The objective is being met.

Silviculture

To manage and upgrade the quality of the Forest to ensure the long term needs of local industry while maintaining forest health, diversity of species, and ecosystem integrity.

The AFA has presented evidence confirming the upgrading of the quality of the Forest over time. The development of markets for low grade hardwood has supported this improvement. As was noted on the last audit, the audit team witnessed a consistent bias towards removing low quality stems on harvest areas and leaving a stand of notably improved quality. This objective is being met.

To ensure silvicultural revenue exceeds expenditures for all terms.

The AFA adjusted renewal rates in 2011, and has maintained a rolling balance of $2.5 million in its renewal account, which is just over $1.0 million over the required minimum balance. Expenditures have exceeded explicit revenues over the past five years due to increased effort in artificial regeneration, requirements to regenerate blow down areas, and reduced harvest activity. The transfer of funds from AFA’s general account to its renewal account to cover and exceed the minimum balance supports a conclusion that, while the designated revenues from harvest to cover silvicultural expenditures over the past five years have not been met, there has always been more than sufficient resources available to implement the silvicultural program.

Forest Diversity


59

To protect the productive capacity of the soil and water in the management unit.

Area of concern implementation around water courses was observed to be excellent. The AOCs are the most restrictive in Ontario. Soil damage due to harvest was minimal. Landings were clean and, in most cases, naturally vegetating. The impact caused by the extension of the Billy Lake Road was notable. The auditors have recommended options for accessing the harvest opportunity be reevaluated. The objective is being met.

To ensure that the current biological diversity of the Algonquin Park Forest is not significantly changed, and within the limits of silvicultural requirements, is restored to a pre-settlement condition.

Forest diversity and landscape indices are being maintained within the time horizons of planning periods. There has been a reduction, from levels estimated prior to the onset of logging (i.e.1830), in the abundance of yellow birch and hemlock. The change in habitat type and age is relatively subtle, largely due to the harvest systems used. The canopy cover and age class distribution on the Forest is consistent across planning periods. The objective is being met.

The total available area of red and white pine forest units will not be reduced to a level less than what exists in the bench mark year of 2000 (76,829 ha).

The total areas of red and white pine forest units have increased from 76,286 ha in 2000 to 79,987 ha in 2005. The objective is being met.

Achieve 25% of the red and white pine forest units in old growth (120 years +) on the Algonquin landscape.

The planning team set targets around the maintenance and spatial distribution of old growth across the Forest. The FMP is forecasting a 30% increase in old growth over the next 10 years, an increase of nearly 30,000 ha. The objective is on track, although it will take time to achieve it completely.

Maintain a minimum of 1,750 ha of the jack pine forest unit area in the available forest over the next 100 years.

The objective has been met. 2,712 ha of jack pine forest units are currently on the Forest. Renewal of jack pine was effective.

Maintain a minimum of 12,000 ha of the intolerant forest unit area in the available forest over the next 100 years.

There were 36,131 ha of intolerant forest units on the Forest in 2010. The objective is being met.

Forest management practices will maintain genetic diversity within tree species native to the unit.

Reliance on natural regeneration ensures genetic diversity is maintained on most harvest areas. Where artificial regeneration is used, seed is sourced locally. The objective is being met.

Appendix 3 – Compliance with Contractual Obligations


61

Licence Condition Licence Holder Performance Payment of Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown charges The payments are up to date as of March 31, 2012.

Wood supply commitments, memoranda-of-agreement, sharing arrangements, special conditions

The Algonquin Forestry Authority is the sole licencee for the Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit and delivers forest products to mills that have volume supply agreements or ministerial commitments with the Minister of Natural Resources. The level of volume supply is based on the approved FMP in effect at the time. The Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement lists nine wood supply commitments in Appendix D. One facility received no wood during the audit period, although it was available. All others received at least some of the committed level. The volumes delivered, as a percentage of that committed, varied by year, as the market capacity of each mill varied. Dament and Charles Lumber Manufacturing absorbed 150% of their volume commitments, Herb Shaw 96%, McRae Lumber 91%, and Murray Brothers 75% over the five-year period. The AFA was able to market wood each year of the audit period. The AFA marketed 68% of planned volume over the period of the 2005 FMP. The obligation has been met.

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

Preparation of the FMP, AWS, and annual reports were completed in accordance with the requirements of the FMPM. Compliance reports with negative findings were consistently submitted within the required timeframes.

Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies; provision and collection of information in accordance with the Forest Information Manual

The AFA has met the requirements of the Forest Information Manual.

Wasteful practices not to be committed The auditors did not observe wasteful practices other than those reported in compliance reports. In general, harvest sites were exceptionally clean of industrial garbage and utilization was excellent. Slash management was excellent.

Natural disturbance and salvage AFA conditions must befollowed

The license conditions regarding natural disturbance and salvage harvesting were followed.

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

No pest management programs were completed on the Forest.

Withdrawals from license area No areas were withdrawn from the Forest during this audit term.

Audit action plan and status report The action plan dealt with each of the 12 recommendations from the previous independent forest audit. The audit team was impressed with the thoroughness of the response from the Park and the AFA to the last independent forest audit.

Payment of forest renewal charges to Forest Renewal Trust

The AFA maintains a separate account, rather than a trust fund, for forest renewal charges. There is an obligation to maintain a minimum of $1.5 million in this account. The AFA Board has directed that a sufficient cash reserve be maintained to support $2.5 million worth of silviculture. Renewal rates were raised in 2011.

Forest Renewal Trust eligible silviculture work Field inspections of the 2010-2011 work confirmed that the


62

silvicultural operations were consistent with forest operations prescriptions and were eligible for reimbursement from the trust fund. Maps and records were available and were consistent with invoices submitted.

Forest Renewal Trust forest renewal charge analysis The renewal rates were reviewed and adjusted in 2011 to ensure sufficient funds were available to meet the requirements of the silvicultural program.

Forest Renewal Trust account minimum balance The AFA maintains a separate account, rather than a trust fund, for forest renewal charges. There is an obligation to maintain a minimum of $1.5 million in this account. The AFA Board has directed that a sufficient cash reserve be maintained to support $2.5 million worth of silviculture. Renewal rates were raised in 2011.

Silviculture standards and assessment program Silvicultural standards were maintained at an acceptable level.

Aboriginal Opportunities Nine of the ten Algonquin communities joined the planning team and they considered this to be the main form of their involvement and were satisfied with it. The Park is highly valued by the Algonquin people both historically and today. Algonquin communities use the Park for moose and deer hunting, fishing, trapping, general recreation, birch bark collection, gathering of food and water, medicinal plants, firewood, other collecting (spruce roots and gum, mushrooms etc.), berry picking, forestry, and practicing of cultural ceremonies and activities. There are numerous members of the Algonquin communities that participate in the benefits of forest management from the Park. In any given year a significant amount of wood is harvested by Aboriginal contractors. Makwa, which is the Aboriginal contractor for Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, is one of the largest logging companies that operates in the Park. Whitney and the Mattawa-North Bay communities also participate in the forest industry in the Park.

Preparation of compliance plan Preparation of the compliance plan met the contractual obligations.

Internal compliance prevention/education program The internal compliance program met contractual requirements.

Compliance inspections and reporting; compliance withcompliance plan

Compliance inspections by the AFA were generally well done.

Forestry operations on mining claims There are no mining claim holders with operations within the Algonquin Park Forest.

Algonquin Forestry Authority maintenance of public access roads

Roads have been maintained as stated in the FMP.

Review of Recommendations from Previous Audits

The previous independent forest audit was completed in 2007. The audit identified 12 recommendations, including the final recommendation to extend the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement an additional five years. Oddly, given the favorable comments of the last audit report, the


63

recommendation to extend the license was the only one that appeared to receive no attention. This audit has issued a recommendation (Recommendation 13) that this be addressed as expeditiously as possible. The auditors note that on most Crown Forests in the province, the extension of the AFA agreements is considered a very significant event by forest managers and stakeholders alike. In the opinion of the audit team, the delay in extending the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement was not warranted by activity noted on the last audit or this one.

All other recommendations identified in the audit report have been carefully considered by both the OMNR and the AFA. The auditors were impressed with the thoroughness of the response generated to the audit report.

The last audit recommended that the roads strategy be completed, and this has been done. Roads remain a subject of ongoing discussion, as noted in discussions in Section 4.2 and Recommendation 10.

Two recommendations targeted the FMP process. The Park addressed a recommendation to review the output of the SFMM model to ensure the long term sustainability of selected wildlife species. The 2007 audit included a recommendation that future plans be harmonized with the FMP requirements to ensure new knowledge can be incorporated. The audit response committed to review the AOC prescriptions in the Algonquin Park FMP during the next review.

Three recommendations addressed management of AOCs. All self-sustaining brook trout stream shorelines adjacent to forest operations are currently surveyed for brook trout prior to operations. This is a less comprehensive response that the recommendation identified, but appears to pragmatically address the most urgent need for AOC confirmation in time for adjustment prior to operations. The Park and AFA completed the Algonquin Park Aggregate Site Requirements Protocol.

The audit required that AWSs not be used as a planning tool for changing or revising primary access decisions made in the FMP. This has been done.

The audit recommended that Algonquin Provincial Park attempt to get better information on use patterns in the Park and more precise information on enforcement of access restrictions. The auditors witnessed an impressive tracking of recreational campsite bookings and, to a certain extent, that addressed part of the recommendation. No evidence was reviewed on tracking of enforcement information and the action plan indicated a preference to make roads impassable as opposed to using enforcement measures.

The IFA also include a recommendation to conduct more joint AFA/Algonquin Provincial Park compliance inspections. Recommendation 11 in this audit addresses some of the same issues.

Appendix 4 – Audit Process


64

The CFSA directs the Minister of Natural Resources to conduct a review of the Algonquin Park Forest every five years to ensure that the licensee has complied with the terms and conditions of its license. Independent forest audits, as directed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (2012) are conducted to support this direction.

The Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (2012) details the scope and process requirements of an independent forest audit, and contains approximately 150 individual audit procedures. It states that the purpose of the audits is to:

• assess to what extent forest management planning activities comply with the Forest Management Planning Manual and the [Crown Forest Sustainability] Act;

• assess to what extent forest management planning activities comply with the Act and with the forest management plans, the manuals approved under the Act, and the applicable guides;

• assess the effectiveness of forest management activities in meeting the forest management objectives set out in the forest management plan, as measured in relation to the criteria established for the audit;

• compare the forest management activities carried out with those that were planned;

• assess the effectiveness of any action plans implemented to remedy shortcomings revealed by a previous audit; and

• review and assess a licensee's compliance with the terms and conditions of the forest resources license.

There are two key types of findings in an independent forest audit, recommendations and best practices. A recommendation provides direction to address a noted deficiency in the planning, implementation, or monitoring of forest operations. Recommendations can be directed towards the Company and/or at the appropriate administrative level of the OMNR. The auditee must address all recommendations in follow-up actions.

If the audit team feels that an aspect of forest management is exceptional it may be identified as a best practice. The Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (2012) states that “Highly effective novel approaches to various aspects of forest management may represent best practices”.

The auditors collected evidence through document review, interviews with staff and stakeholders, and physical inspection of field activities that occurred on the Algonquin Park Forest between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2012. The audit process began with a pre-audit and site selection meeting in Whitney on June 26, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was for the lead auditor, the AFA, and OMNR to discuss audit logistics and for the lead auditor to collect background information and documents for the audit. Following the meeting, an audit plan was finalized and distributed that outlined the audit schedule and identified the main contacts for the audit.

From June 30 to Sept 30, the audit team reviewed documents describing forest management activities on the Algonquin Park Forest. Interviews were held with a variety of interested parties. Personnel from the AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park were interviewed throughout the audit. Most of these interviews


65

took place in person, but contact by phone and e-mail between the audit team, auditee, and the public was common.

Field site visit locations were selected to evaluate harvest, renewal, tending/maintenance, FTG operations, AOCs, road construction and maintenance, site preparation, water crossings, wildlife management activities, and other areas of special interest. Sites that had multiple audit values (e.g., renewal and AOC) were preferentially selected. Field sites were also selected to ensure that evaluations of winter and summer operations were representative of actual operations and included representative sites for the operations of each of the overlapping licensees. On-site and field audit activities occurred between October 1 and 5, 2012.

The audit team verified records and information systems at the AFA and Algonquin Provincial Park offices. The team split into two or three field crews at different times, each of which was accompanied by AFA or OMNR staff. Sampling was completed through 14 person days of field inspections. Sampling continued until the auditors had viewed all of the selected sites and were satisfied that they had viewed enough sites to be confident in their assessment of field performance.

Table 4.1 shows the total amount of each key activity that has occurred on the Algonquin Park Forest during the audit period, total area of the sites visited, and the sample size as a percentage of the total area. The audit protocol requires the audit team to sample a minimum of 10% of the area treated during the audit period, and to increase the sample where higher risk activities were identified.

Table 4.1 Sampling Intensity for the Algonquin Park Forest Audit by Operational Activity.

Activity Area of Operations

(ha)

Area Selected

(ha)

Sample %

Harvest selection 13,553 5,450 40

Harvest Shelterwood 13,309 5,329 40

Harvest Clearcut 1,333 851 64

Improvement Cut 9,756 2,886 30

Manual Cleaning 822 267 33

Plant 2,451 553 23

Scarify 615 161 26

SP Mechanical 2,785 625 22.4

PCT 1,712 718 42

AOC and Roads Inspections The auditors viewed implementation of a total of 44 AOC prescriptions in the field, along with a sample of their documentation and compliance reports. As well the auditors reviewed other wildlife related regular operations (non AOCs). By category: Other AOCs such as Trails, Cultural Heritage, Cabins, Boundary, hydro 8; Water Crossings (and removals) 15; Cold Water, Warm Water or Wetlands 13; Nests 8. All AOCs examined were from both the 2005 and 2010 FMPs. Also examined were the other values such as seeps, peninsulas and islands in block layouts, wolf rendezvous sites, beaver habitat modification, and monitoring wells.


66

The audit team also travelled extensively on the road system in the Algonquin Park Forest and observed operational road conditions on primary, branch, and operational roads.

In 2006, the Government of Ontario developed a funding program (the Road Construction and Maintenance Agreement) to assist the forest industry in offsetting road construction and maintenance costs for roads meeting the program’s criteria. Throughout the audit term, the AFA qualified for assistance to maintain a number of primary and secondary roads and was reimbursed for maintenance costs as illustrated in Table 4.2. Reported in the table are the funds expended on the Algonquin ParkForest landbase only. [Note: The AFA also qualifies for assistance for roads that it maintains that may be located on other adjacent Forests – roads that connect to roads on the Algonquin Park Forest landbase. These figures are not included below.]

Table 4.2 Assistance Received by the Algonquin Forestry Authority from the Road Construction and Maintenance Agreement.

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Total

Actual cost of invoices for construction and maintenance work reimbursed

$1,221,743 $1,620,723 $1,523,731 $ 1,735,363 $ 1,600,964 $ 7,702,524

Actual total km of road constructed

3.5 4.5 0 19.4 9.1 36.5

Actual number of crossings constructed

0 5 0 5 2 12

Actual total km of maintenance work completed

679.4 576.9 714.5 543.5 522.8 3037.1

Actual number of crossings maintained

34 22 31 18 14 119

Maintenance work included road and water crossing construction, bridge and culvert replacements and repairs, road base improvements, graveling, brushing, sign repairs, summer grading, and snow plowing. The auditors sampled a great majority of the roads that had received funding and found ample evidence that the work for which the funding was provided had indeed been performed.

Risk Assessment The audit protocol allows the auditors to subsample procedures identified as low and medium risk in terms of contributions to the sustainability of the Forest. Given that the audit team reviewed the content, process, or outcome of each of these procedures in their assessment of those procedures deemed high risk, the auditors elected to audit all procedures pertinent to the Algonquin Park Forest (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Independent Forest Audit Procedures Audited by Risk Category.


67

Procedures Audited, by Risk Category

Principle

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Comments

Ap

plic

able

(#)

Sele

cte

d

(#)

% A

ud

ite

d

Ap

plic

able

(#)

Sele

cte

d

(#)

% A

ud

ite

d

Au

dit

ed

(#)

1. Commitment 2 2 100 2 2 100 100 All procedures were audited

2. Public Consultation & Aboriginal Involvement

6 6 100 6 6 100 100 All procedures were audited

3. Forest Management Planning


4. Plan Assessment and Implementation


5. System Support2 2 100 2 2 100 100 All procedures were audited

6. Monitoring 4 4 100 4 4 100 100 All procedures were audited 7. Achievement of Objectives and Forest Sustainability


8. Contractual Obligations


Totals 72 72 100 72 72 100 100

Summary of Consultation and Input into the Audit

General Public: A survey was sent to 872 stakeholders on August 7, 2012 using the mailing list that the Park maintains for the Algonquin Park Forest. The audit team received 32 responses to the survey by mail and two by e-mail. Additionally, invitations to comment on forest management on the Algonquin Park Forest over the audit term were placed in daily newspapers and an on-line version of the same. The replies were generally neutral or slightly negative.

Local Citizens’ Committee: The LCC was established by the Algonquin Park Superintendent in accordance with the requirements of the FMPM. All LCC members were interviewed during the course of the audit. During the audit period the LCC membership contained a good balance of interests with representation from environmental organizations, recreation, forest industry (mills), local communities, cottager lease holders, cultural heritage interests, angler and hunters, general public, Algonquin Forest Authority Board, and the Algonquin First Nation. At the time of the audit a few members of the LCC had just resigned from the Committee. While these interests (primarily environmental) will need to be replaced, no recommendation is made here as these gaps in the committee occurred outside the audit period. Most of the members have been on the LCC for a long period of time and are very knowledgeable about various aspects of Algonquin Park and its management. Many, if not all, of the members hold a deep attachment to the Park. The LCC was heavily involved in the preparation of the 2010 FMP. All members of the LCC support forest management activities in the Park. Most of the members of the LCC were very supportive of how forest management occurs in the Park.


68

First Nations: Most of Algonquin Park is covered by an Aboriginal rights and title claim by the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO). Discussions and negotiations about the claim have been ongoing since the 1990s. The AOO is comprised of 10 Algonquin Communities located throughout their traditional territory/claim area, which covers a large area of eastern Ontario: Mattawa/North Bay, Antoine, Whitney, Bonnechere, Greater Golden Lake, Ottawa, Pikwakanagan, Snimikobi (Ardoch), Kijicho Manito (Bancroft), and Shabot Obaadjiwan (Sharbot Lake). As this collective, the AOO has a unified approach to moving forward on negotiating with the federal and provincial governments to reach a settlement of their land claim. During the audit, a member of the audit team initially met with the AOO Forestry Working Group and subsequently individual sessions were held with the Kijicho-Manito (Bancroft), Pikwakanagan, Bonnechere, and Mattawa/North Bay communities.

Algonquin Park: The Acting Park Superintendent, Area Forester, Acting Park Biologist, Park Planner, Senior Technician, and Resource Technician participated in the opening and closing meetings and all or part of the field audit. Regional OMNR staff attended the opening meeting, and the closing meeting. No OMNR main office staff attended the field audit, although there was participation in the opening and closing meetings via conference call.

OMNR: One representative from Corporate OMNR attended throughout the field audit. A regional OMNR representative participated in the opening and closing meetings.

AFA: All staff from the AFA with responsibility for management of the Algonquin Park Forest participated in the audit.


69

Appendix 5 – List of Acronyms

AFA Algonquin Forestry Authority AOC Area of Concern AOO Algonquins of Ontario APF Algonquin Park Forest APFA Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement AWS Annual Work Schedule CFSA Crown Forest Sustainability Act CSA Canadian Standards Association FMP Forest Management Plan FMPM Forest Management Planning Manual FRI Forest Resource Inventory FTG Free-to-grow LCC Local Citizens’ Committee OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources RPF Registered Professional Forester SFMM Strategic Forest Management Model


70

APPENDIX 6 – AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Craig Howard, R.P.F., CEA (SFM) – Lead Auditor

Education: B.Sc. Forestry, University of New Brunswick, 1983. Experience: 29 years’ experience in forestry, 16 years in private practice, 3 years in the

OMNR. Previous Audits: 24 Independent Forest Audits, 14 Sustainable Forest Initiative verifications, 14

Forest Stewardship Council assessments.

Mark Leschishin, R.P.F – Forester

Education: B.Sc. Forestry, Lakehead University, 1978. Dip. For. Tech., 1974. Experience: 33 years’ experience in forestry in Ontario. Previous Audits: 28 Independent Forest Audits, one Forest Stewardship Council assessment.

Tom Clark – Ecologist

Education: M.Sc., H.B.Sc. Experience: Forest ecologist and biologist with 31 years experience in habitat ecology. Previous Audits: 29 Independent Forest Audits, and numerous Forest Stewardship

Council assessments and audits.

Phil Shantz – Socio-economist

Education: M.E.S, R.P.P. Experience: Registered professional planner with 19 years experience in forest

auditing/certification, resource and socio-economics, environmental assessment and public consultation.

Previous Audits: 18 Independent Forest Audits, 15 Forest Stewardship Council assessments.

Brian Callaghan, R.P.F. – Forest Management Planning Analyst

Education: B.Sc.F., University of Toronto, 1982. Experience: 30 years experience in forestry in Ontario. Previous Audits: 26 Independent Forest Audits, 60 Sustainable Forest Initiative verifications, 30

Forest Stewardship Council assessments.


71

APPENDIX 7 – Trends Analysis Report for the Algonquin Park Forest


72

________________ _______________________ ___________

____________

YEAR 10 ANNUAL REPORT

for the

ALGONQUIN PARK FOREST

Plan Period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010

Algonquin Park District

Southern Region

Algonquin Forestry Authority

For the year

April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010

I hereby certify that this annual report is complete and accurate, and has been prepared to the

best of my professional skill and judgement, in accordance with the requirements of the Forest

Management Planning Manual and the Forest Information Manual.

[R.P.F. Seal] Gordon Cumming, R.P.F.

Chief Forester

Date

Forest Information Portal Submission Identifier:


i

Table of Contents

1.0 Annual Report for April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 ......................................................................... 5

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Summary and Evaluation of Forest Operations ............................................................................ 5

1.2.1 Harvest Area .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Renewal, Tending and Protection ......................................................................................... 7

1.2.3 Access Road Construction and Maintenance ........................................................................ 7

1.2.4 Wood Utilization ................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Monitoring and Assessment ......................................................................................................... 8

1.3.1 Areas Harvested under the Clearcut Silvicultural System..................................................... 9

1.3.2 Monitoring of Roads and Water Crossings ........................................................................... 9

1.3.3 Forest Operations Inspections ............................................................................................ 10

1.3.4 Assessment of Regeneration Success ................................................................................. 13

1.3.5 Summary of Annual Work Schedule Conditions ................................................................. 14

1.4 Synopsis....................................................................................................................................... 14

2.0 Year 10 Annual Report for April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010 .......................................................... 16

2.1 Implementation of Forest Operations – Trend Analysis ............................................................. 16

2.1.1 Harvest Area ........................................................................................................................ 16

2.1.2 Harvest Volume ................................................................................................................... 18

2.1.3 Renewal and Maintenance ................................................................................................. 20

2.1.4 Harvest and Regeneration .................................................................................................. 21

2.1.5 Forest Condition .................................................................................................................. 25

2.1.6 Habitat for Species at Risk and Selected Wildlife Species .................................................. 27

2.1.7 Monitoring and Assessment ............................................................................................... 28

2.2 Analysis of Forest Disturbances .................................................................................................. 31

2.3 Analysis of Renewal and Tending Activities ................................................................................ 32

2.4 Review of Assumptions in Modelling .......................................................................................... 33

2.5 Assessment of Objective Achievement ....................................................................................... 36

2.5.1 Progress towards addressing Independent Forest Audit Recommendations .................... 36

2.5.2 2005 FMP Objectives .......................................................................................................... 39


ii

2.5.2.1 Forest Diversity ............................................................................................................... 39

2.5.2.2 Social and Economic ........................................................................................................ 42

2.5.2.3 Provision of Forest Cover for Those Values which are Dependent on Forest Cover ..... 44

2.5.2.4 Silviculture ...................................................................................................................... 47

2.6 Determination of Sustainability .................................................................................................. 50


iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Planned vs. Actual Harvest Area ................................................................................................. 17

Figure 2. Planned vs. Actual Harvest Volume ............................................................................................. 18

Figure 3. Example Free-To-Grow Time Frames ........................................................................................... 23

Figure 4. Forest Condition over Time.......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 5. Habitat for Selected Wildlife Species ........................................................................................... 27

Figure 6. 2005-10 FOIP Compliance Report Summary ................................................................................ 29

Figure 7. Assessment of Compliance Plan Priority Categories ................................................................... 30


iv

Appendices

A Annual Report Tables

B Additional Summary Tables

C AWS Approval Letter

D Product Volume Summary Graph

Hard Copy Only:

E Depletion and Roads Composite Map

F Renewal, Tending and Protection Composite Map

G Harvest Depletion Stand List

H Renewal and Tending Stand List

I Window Maps

Draft Independent Forest Audit of the Algonquin Park Forest

5

1.0 Annual Report for April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010

3.5 1.1 Introduction

The Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit (MU #451) is in the Southern administrative region

of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Algonquin Forestry Authority is the sole licencee in Algonquin Park. Operations in the 2009-

2010 term were conducted under Forest Resource Licence #551047.

Algonquin Park is a Natural Environment Park under the Provincial Parks Classification system. A

Natural Environment Park incorporates outstanding recreational landscapes with representative

natural features and historical resources to provide high quality recreational and educational

experiences. Part of the Park is zoned recreation-utilization. Low intensity recreation and

commercial timber harvesting are permitted within this zone.

This Annual Report (AR) for the Algonquin Park Forest is for the fifth and final year of the 2005-

2010 term of the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan (FMP), which was prepared under the

1996 Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM). This Annual Report has been prepared

using the phase-in requirements of the 2009 FMPM and the 2009 Forest Information Manual

(FIM).

The AR tables required under the 2009 FMPM have been prepared and are contained in

Appendix A. The tables associated with section 1 of this report are tables AR-1 to AR-6. In

addition, the FMPM and FIM require that some ‘information products’ are submitted as digital

spatial files which are not required to be summarized in tabular format in the AR. Some of the

older style AR summary tables have also been prepared to aid in discussion of progress toward

targets and are contained in Appendix B.

3.6 1.2 Summary and Evaluation of Forest Operations

This section consists of a summary of forest operations that were carried out during the year of

the Annual Report (2009-2010) and an evaluation of progress toward achievement of planned

activities for the 5 year term of the FMP.

The weakened economy has reduced demand for forest products worldwide and resulted in

numerous temporary and permanent mill closures across the province, affecting all forest

sectors.

Of particular concern to the Algonquin Park Forest was the 2008 closure of the Smurfit-Stone

hardwood kraft mill in Portage-du-Fort, Quebec and the Tembec sawmill in Mattawa. The

Smurfit-Stone hardwood kraft mill was the largest recipient of pulp quality material from the

management unit in roundwood form and also received chips from area sawmills. Many other


6

pulp and paper mills are also operating well below capacity or are temporarily shut down. The

veneer mills in Rutherglen and Pembroke have been running below capacity or have been shut

down due to markets and/or labour issues for most of the 2005-2010 plan term. Grant Forest

Products in Englehart and ATC Panels in Pembroke also shut down in 2008. Pre-Cut Hardwood

Inc. in North Bay stopped taking deliveries from the Algonquin Park Forest and Tembec

Huntsville did not operate in the Park in 2009-2010.

Although demand for pulp grade material is anticipated to remain weak, harvesting levels

required to satisfy sawlog demand, while adhering to minimum Scaling Manual utilization

standards are anticipated to generate volumes of low-grade material far exceeding the present

demand of the pulp and paper industry.

Lack of markets for pulp quality wood has had an effect on the selection of areas for harvest as

well as the amount of volume and area harvested.

1.2.1 Harvest Area

The 2009-2010 depletion area was mapped using supplemental aerial photographs, ground

information and GPS data. Depletion summaries were generated using the Algonquin Forestry

Authority’s Geographic Information System (GIS).

Table A (Appendix B) shows the harvest area by forest unit/age class/stage of management for

the 2005-2010 plan term and compares it to the available harvest area and forecast harvest

area.

The harvest area breakdown by silvicultural system for 2009-2010 is 6% clearcut (of which 30%

was a thinning treatment and 70% regeneration harvest), 41% shelterwood (6% preparatory cut,

52% regeneration harvest, 26% first removal and 16% final removal) and 53% selection.

For harvested areas in Table A the forest unit and stage of management reported was

determined from the Forest Operations Prescription based on actual stand conditions. This may

result in harvesting forest unit/age class/stage of management combinations that were not

forecast or harvesting more of one than forecast (the PrCC forest unit for example).

The overall harvest area to date is less than forecast (53.3% of the 5 year forecast harvest area).

Geographically, however, some available harvest area is utilized to a much higher level than

others. For example, in the McRae and Whitney area 85% of the available harvest area was

utilized over the 2005-2010 plan term. It is anticipated that the slowdown in the economy will

continue in the short term and harvest area will continue to be lower than forecast.

Additional harvest area will be reported in Year 1 of the new 2010-2020 FMP, in the 2010-2011

Annual Report. This area is bridging area brought forward from the 2005-2025 FMP, and has not

been summarized at the time of completion of this report. It is anticipated that an additional

3,000 hectares of bridging area will be harvested and reported in the 2010-2011 Annual Report,

bringing the total 2005-2010 percent area utilization up to 58%.


7

Ten fires were reported on the management unit ranging in size from 0.1 hectare to 1.0 hectare

(average 0.33 ha, total 2.0 ha), none of which resulted in a reported natural depletion.

1.2.2 Renewal, Tending and Protection

Table B in Appendix B identifies annual renewal and tending accomplishments. A total of

308,000 trees were planted on 270 hectares in 2009. Six hundred and thirty four hectares were

mechanically site prepared for planting and a further 132 hectares were scarified for natural

seeding. Uneven-aged hardwood stand improvement was performed on 926 hectares of harvest

area which meets the criteria for the selection forest unit. Some of this area was harvested in

2009-2010 and some was harvested in the preceding seasons. This level of stand improvement

is less than forecast in the FMP, as table FMP-25 is based on harvesting 6,278 hectares of

selection forest unit per year, which is more than is being currently harvested. Manual tending

was performed on 127 hectares to release established white pine and red pine regeneration

from competing vegetation and precommercial thinning and even-aged improvement was

performed on 88 hectares. (Note: the Actual to Date numbers have been revised to include 46

hectares of PrCC that was missed in the table in 2008-09).

Table AR-3 is a summary of renewal support and includes activities such as seed collection and

planting.

Levels of renewal and tending activity are below that forecast in the FMP. A large part of the

reason for this is the lower than forecast area being harvested as discussed elsewhere.

Table AR-4 reports expenditures for renewal and tending. The source of the expenditure data is

the AFA accounting system. Forest management activities are fully funded under the renewal

portion of the Crown stumpage matrix that the Authority retains as part of its Algonquin Park

Forestry Agreement with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

No pesticides were used on the Management Unit. Table AR-5: Summary of Planned and

Completed Pesticide Applications in Ontario Crown Forests has not been completed.

1.2.3 Access Road Construction and Maintenance

Road construction and maintenance have been provided as a digital spatial product as per the

FMPM and FIM. Levels of road construction and maintenance are at FMP forecast levels. A total

of 85.5 km of operational roads were constructed in 2009-2010. Of the total, 51.3 km was new

construction and 34.2 km were upgrades of roads that were used in a previous cutting cycle. A

total of 534 km of roads were maintained in 2009-2010 (333 km of primary road, 116 km of

branch road and 85 km of operational road).

1.2.4 Wood Utilization

The Algonquin Forestry Authority is the sole licencee for the Algonquin Park Forest Management

Unit and delivers forest products to mills that have volume supply agreements or ministerial


8

commitments with the Minister of Natural Resources. The level of volume supply is based on the

approved Forest Management Plan in effect at the time.

Harvest volumes for 2009-2010 are reported in AR-1 and AR-2. Additional harvest volume will

be reported in Year 1 of the new 2010-2020 FMP, in the 2010-2011 Annual Report. This volume

is from the bridging area brought forward from the 2005-2025 FMP, and has not been

summarized at the time of completion of this report. It is anticipated that an additional 177,000

m3 bridging volume will be harvested and reported in the 2010-2011 Annual Report.

These volumes include undersized volume to which Crown charges do not apply. The Ministry

of Natural Resources provides volume information from the provincial ‘TREES’ system to AFA as

of September 15 each year. In both tables ‘TREES’ volume information for yellow birch, red oak,

beech, ash, basswood and black cherry has been combined into ‘Upland Hardwoods’ (UH) in

order to be consistent with forecasts in Table FMP-24. Elm volume is shown under ‘Lowland

Hardwoods” (LH). The FMP (based on Strategic Forest Management Model outputs) also

includes soft maple in the LH group; ‘TREES’ combines hard maple and soft maple volumes into

the ‘Maple-all’ group.

The annual volume utilized was below that forecast in Table AWS-2 and below recent levels

primarily due to reduced demand for some species and products. Markets for pulpwood

continued to be weak. Markets for sawlog and better products have also declined over the past

couple of years and remained lower than normal (refer to section 1.2 for more detail related to

mill closures during the 2005-2010 plan term).

‘TREES’ data does not always accurately account for product type. A portion of wood recorded

as ‘Sawmill and Special Product’ sector is delivered to mills in treelength form, however a

percentage of the treelength is pulpwood quality material. For some mills this pulpwood

remains recorded under the ‘Sawmill and Special Product’ sector. In other instances pulpwood

quality material is utilized at “Sawmill” destinations.

Volume harvested in 2009-2010 is below the FMP annual forecast volume. After the five years of

the FMP 68% of the forecast FMP volume has been utilized. Volume utilization varies by species.

Table AR-2, compiled by ‘TREES’, details wood deliveries to individual mills in 2009-2010. As

discussed earlier the economic downturn and very poor pulp markets have decreased most

mills’ utilization levels.

Variance in actual volumes utilized by mills is due to market fluctuations and their ability to

receive deliveries at certain times of the year.

3.7 1.3 Monitoring and Assessment

The 2005-2025 FMP has been affected by several events throughout its implementation, the

most significant being the blowdown in 2006, and the downturn in the markets and economy in

2007. Refer to section 2.1.1 of this report for more discussion on blowdown events and the


9

impact on planned operations. This natural depletion event caused a reduction in the utilization

of planned harvest area and a revision in the planned silviculture program as much of this area

required treatment. Refer to section 1.2 and 2.1 for more discussion on the market downturn

and the impact on planned harvest area and volume. This decline in demand for forest products

had a significant impact on the implementation of this FMP.

1.3.1 Areas Harvested under the Clearcut Silvicultural System

The area harvested under the clearcut system for 2009-10 represents 6.0% of the total area

harvested for the year. For the first five year term of this FMP, the area harvested under the

clearcut system represents 3% of the total area harvested.

The 2005 FMP is the first plan for the Algonquin Park Forest in which individual clearcut planning

and the requirements of the Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern

Emulation apply. However, since the FMP was prepared under the 1996 Planning Manual, Table

FMP-12 from the 2009 FMPM (Planned Clearcuts) was not completed. Planning at the FMP

stage is based on the forest resources inventory (FRI) as well as assumptions regarding proposed

harvests at the end of the prior FMP. This type of planning for clearcuts, in conjunction with the

highly variable forest conditions in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence (GLSL) forest cause some

difficulties in this aspect of the planning process.

Many stands which are forecast as clearcuts in the FMP are found at forest operations

prescription (FOP) stage to be more suitably managed under the shelterwood or selection

systems. For example, Table A in Appendix B shows that 6% of forecast harvest area was

planned under the clearcut silvicultural system, while only 3% was actually depleted as such for

the 5 year term. This results in; actual clearcuts which are much smaller than the planned

clearcut and, planned clearcuts which are harvested entirely as shelterwood or selection. The

significant planning effort associated with clearcuts in the GLSL forest is of limited value. In

addition, many ‘clearcuts’ in the GLSL forest are fully stocked with tolerant/mid-tolerant

regeneration when harvested, resulting in a stand condition which does not resemble the

clearcut condition that was envisioned during development of the Guide.

1.3.2 Monitoring of Roads and Water Crossings

In 1997 AFA started a water crossing monitoring program of all existing forest industry water

crossings in Algonquin Park. All new water crossings are also monitored. The AFA Area Manager

and Manager of Operations assign monitoring duties to AFA staff who perform the monitoring

and evoke preventative maintenance as required.

Routine visual inspections of roads and water crossings occurred on primary and branch roads

that were utilized by AFA haul traffic in 2009-2010. Additionally, scheduled inspections were

carried out on older crossings as identified by AFA's water crossing information database. The

results of monitoring ranged from conducting signage replacement, to maintenance at culvert

crossings by removing beaver debris, to providing information and recommendations for


10

replacements at a few of the older culvert crossing sites. AFA staff were unable to complete

scheduled inspections in areas that were inaccessible to vehicle travel.

Public travel on most interior Park roads is prohibited under the Algonquin Park Management

Plan. Generally, the road system, which is closed to public travel, is signed and gated at the point

where it leaves public roads. Portable bridges are used for many watercrossings and once

removed and the crossing is rehabilitated, access control is achieved.

1.3.3 Forest Operations Inspections

Table AR- 6 the “Annual Report of Forest Compliance Inspection Reports, Non-Compliances and

Remedies”, summarizes the forest operations inspection report information collected by the

AFA and MNR, and the activities in which non-compliances occurred. It also summarizes the

remedies applied during the fiscal year. The inspections reported in this table are those which

were conducted and submitted to FOIP during the period of the Annual Report for 2009-10. The

remedies reported in this table are those which were applied during the period of the 2009-10

Annual Report, regardless of the year in which the non-compliance occurred.

A total of 79 AFA inspections reports were completed and of that total, 8 were non-compliance

reports. The total number of AFA inspection reports is down by 30% compared to the total

number of reports (103) submitted in 2008-09. There were a total of 62 reports submitted by

Ontario Parks and of that total, 10 were non-compliance reports. The total number of Ontario

Parks inspection reports is down by 22% compared to the total number of reports (76)

submitted in 2008-09. In total there were 141 reports with 18 non-compliance reports

submitted by both AFA and Ontario Parks. The decreased number of reports submitted by AFA

and Ontario Parks is attributed to a later than normal startup of operations and an overall

reduced level of operations.

AFA Summary:

The non-compliance items reported by AFA are discussed below.

The non-compliance items related to Access were under the water crossings (1), road

construction (1) and areas of concern (3) categories.

Access – Water Crossing (1)

There was one occurrence where water crossings were added to the AWS Table-1 during a

second submission of AWS information. Ontario Parks was not aware of the additions and this

led to the approval process not being followed. The non-compliance is the result of two

crossings being installed without approval. Upon review, Ontario Parks acknowledges this issue

is resolved because there was no intent to install water crossings without an approval.

Access – Area of Concern (3)


11

There were two occurrences where roads from the previous cutting cycle were reopened. These

non-compliances resulted because sections of these reopened roads were built within either

120m of water or 500m of a brook trout lake without approval. Ontario Parks acknowledges that

the significance of these issues are minor. Upon further review, a repair order was filed that

ordered AFA to rehabilitate the portion of roads and landings within each respective AOC. These

portions of roads and landings included in these two reports have been now rehabilitated by the

date identified in the order.

There was an occurrence where measurements were not taken from a creek prior to

constructing a landing. The non-compliance is a result of a landing being built within 120m of

water without approval. Upon review by Ontario Parks, a repair order was filed that ordered

AFA to rehabilitate the portion of road and landing within 120m of water.

Access –Road Construction (1)

There was an occurrence where wood was piled road side next to a landing full of tree length

wood. A non-compliance resulted because the area of the landing measured above the

standard. This issue has been communicated to the contractor. It was agreed by Ontario Parks

that the significance of this issue is minor.

The non-compliances related to Harvest were under the cutting category.

Harvest – Cutting (3)

There was an occurrence where rutting guidelines were exceeded. The non-compliance is the

result of site damage caused by operators continuing to work following a major rain event in

August. The contractor voluntarily applied new actions to deal with operating in periods of

potential site disturbance, the primary action being, shutting down the operation in advance of

wet weather. Ontario Parks issued a warning letter that acknowledged the contractors new

procedure and self corrected action. The issue with this contractor has been resolved to Ontario

Parks’ satisfaction and monitoring this contractors shut down procedure continues.

There was an occurrence where the residual stand was not protected adequately. The non-

compliance resulted because the skid trail coverage guideline was exceeded when several gangs

were finishing the last landing in a harvest block. Ontario Parks issued a warning letter and is

satisfied with the resolution to have the trail system established ahead of time by the contractor

in that circumstance.

There was an occurrence where 80 trees identified to be retained were harvested. Start up

landing discussion did not occur with this new operator prior to cutting. The issue was verified

by Ontario Parks to be a not in-compliance and the issue resolved with a ‘warning’.

MNR Summary:


12

A total of 62 Ontario Parks inspections were completed with 10 issues of non-compliance

reported. The total number of inspections decreased from 70 while the number of non-

compliance issues have increased from 7 reported in 2008/09. All of the non-compliance issues

for 2009/10 were minor in nature. Of the 10 issues, 6 were inspections reporting on access

while the remaining 4 were from harvest. The 6 access issues were for constructing a road

and/or landing inside a cold water area of concern without approval (3), water crossing with

inadequate erosion and sediment controls causing sedimentation into a cold water creek (1), 2

crossings installed poorly (1), and extracting aggregate within 1.5 meters of ground water (1).

The harvest issues included skidding and constructing a road within a cold water area of concern

(2), sedimentation entering a cold water creek at a skidding bridge (1) and skid trail coverage

exceeding the standard(1). Five issues related to area of concern infractions were caused by

one contractor. The Algonquin Forestry Authority also reported a number of infractions on this

same contractor. The remaining issues were random events however access issues reported for

substantial crossing installations and sedimentation entering a cold water creek has been

ongoing for a number of years. All of the 2009/10 issues have been resolved and resolutions

communicated to the AFA although the reports within FOIP have not been closed to date. These

remedy’s applied will be reported in next year’s annual report.

There are 8 reports noted in the Remedy Applied section of the AR-6, 6 are noted as having a

written warning remedy while there was one compliance order and an administrative penalty

issued. These are remedies that were resolved / applied during 2009-10 however some issues

may have occurred / reported in previous annual reports.

The issues resolved through warnings included; skid trail coverage exceeding the guidelines (2),

site damage caused by rutting, a road and landings constructed within a brook trout area of

concern, water crossings installed on the same road system without any fisheries review

completed and picking up salvage without an approval. Two written warning letters were

issued; one to assist in the resolution of skid trail coverage mainly due to new mechanized

harvesting equipment utilized within tolerant hardwood stands and another letter for site

damaged caused by rutting beyond the identified standards. The other 4 written warnings were

documented in FOIP. Ontario Parks hired an independent surveyor to prepare a report on skid

trail coverage utilizing this new piece of equipment. This report has been completed and shared

with the AFA. Discussions will occur in order that the trail coverage standards can be re-visited.

This is documented in the 2010-2020 FMP. The other letter dealt with excessive rutting as a

result of the history of the same infraction by the same contractor. Ontario Parks also

considered the appropriate actions taken by the AFA field supervisors to minimize / stop

damage.

A compliance order was issued as a result of no erosion or sediment mitigation at a water

crossing removal. During this review it became apparent to Ontario Parks that AFA needed to

include logging and road construction contractor staff in their water crossing training as AFA

staff were not always on site. The compliance order was for AFA to host a water crossing

workshop, including erosion and sedimentation subject matter, for anyone on their license area


13

that was responsible and / or part of the installation / removal of water crossings. This

workshop was held in the spring of 2010 and was attended by AFA staff and contractor staff

performing water crossing installations / removals.

An administrative penalty was issued for extracting aggregate within 1.5 meters of ground

water. A penalty was applied due to the history of previous infractions for the same issue,

discussions and field trips with AFA staff related to this issue and that Ontario Parks had

identified that this site had a potential for ground water. The penalty was paid within 30 days of

invoice date.

From April 1st, 2009 to March 31st, 2010, there were also two non-compliances resolved

through self correction in FOIP, these were for a road within the 120 meter area of concern on a

cold water creek and a landing and road constructed inside the 120 meters of a cold water pond.

Ontario Parks opinion is that the sustainability of Algonquin Park Forest has not been threatened

by the non-compliant activities reported during 2009/2010.

Compliance Implementation Training Summary

A joint AFA and Ontario Parks workshop was held in the spring of 2009 before operations

commenced for the 2009-2010 season. Discussion consisted of topics that relate to compliance

monitoring with respect to improving the compliance record by encouraging more joint

investigations between AFA and Ontario Parks inspectors, and encouraging the application of

best practices during operations to prevent issues that later become non-compliances. The

discussion continued with a recap of the past season’s non-compliances and actions that were

agreed to prevent similar natured non-compliances from re-occurring again in the future. This

workshop also included a presentation by the Parks Biologist on the population status of wildlife

species managed in the Park.

In addition, AFA held an internal training session to allow Operations Supervisors to share best

management practices when implementing harvest and road construction activities. Topics

covered during the session that relate to compliance monitoring included minimizing aggregate

use, long skidding applications, erosion and sediment control and utilization standards.

1.3.4 Assessment of Regeneration Success

Results of regeneration assessments have been provided in a digital information product. AFA

has been working to improve the quality of the spatial information provided in this product.

Refer to section 2.1.4 and table AR-13 for a summary of regeneration assessment information

for the 2005-2010 FMP term. A large SEM program was completed by AFA during the 2008 field

season (6,656 hectares). For the 2009-10 season 4,110 hectares was surveyed, with 83% of the

total area assessed being successfully regenerated and 74% regenerated to the projected forest

unit. The remaining area that has not successfully regenerated will continue to be monitored

and treated as required.


14

Ontario Parks’ audits have revealed some issues in past years which are being addressed. While

there is consistency and agreement with the AFA and Ontario Parks SEM results in selection

harvested areas, there is some inconsistency with the shelterwood and clearcut results. A

variety of issues are contributing to this inconsistency including; survey methodology (intensive

vs. extensive, AFA vs. STARS), sample size and locations, mapping issues (stand lumping vs.

splitting) and evolving regeneration/competition standards. AFA and Ontario Parks are working

to resolve these issues and AFA has increased the amount of manual tending being conducted to

control competing vegetation.

The level of regeneration assessment in 2009-2010 was on track to meet the level forecast in

the FMP for some forest units, but not for others. It should be noted that some forecasts, such

as HDSel are based on projected harvest levels which are not being experienced, and therefore

the level of assessment will not reach the forecast levels, but will be based on actual harvest

levels.

Treemarking quality control inspections are also part of the overall silvicultural effectiveness

monitoring program on the Management Unit. Over 4,960 hectares were marked and inspected

in 2009-2010.

1.3.5 Summary of Annual Work Schedule Conditions

In order to track the implementation and completion of conditions included in the approval of

the Annual Work Schedule, the Annual Report contains a summary of the conditions and how

they were met.

A letter dated March 16, 2009 (Appendix C) outlines stipulations, conditions and comments

applying to the AWS approval and to operations for the 2009-2010 season. The conditions have

been numbered for reference and where applicable, the following steps were taken to

implement them:

1. Winter haul schedules and winter road planning were discussed before winter.

3. The Hemlock Creek bridge was not installed in 2009-2010.

4. Haul truck speeds were discussed with AFA contractors and monitored during

operations.

5. Ontario Parks approved roads as requested in the listed OPU’s as needed.

3.8 1.4 Synopsis

2009-2010 was the final year of the 2005-2010 FMP term. Both harvest area and volume were

lower than in previous years due to declining market conditions. The weakened economy has

reduced demand for forest products worldwide and resulted in numerous temporary and

permanent mill closures across the province, affecting all forest sectors. It is anticipated that

this situation will persist for the short term and future FMP harvest targets will also be affected.


15

Lower harvest levels also affected some renewal and monitoring programs, which did not reach

FMP target levels by plan end. Assessment of regeneration has fallen short of overall FMP

target levels. Some forecasts, such as HDSel, were based on projected harvest levels which were

not achieved, therefore the level of assessment has fallen short of forecast levels.

Compliance monitoring of forest operations by AFA and Ontario Parks staff continues to be

effective, through the identification of operational issues and corrective action as required.

Refer to the following section 2.0 for a complete discussion of implementation of forest

operations for the full 2005-2010 FMP year term.


16

2.0 Year 10 Annual Report for April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010

3.9 2.1 Implementation of Forest Operations – Trend Analysis

References to the current plan in the following discussion refer to the 2005-2025 Forest

Management Plan. Although this section is referred to as the “Year 10 Annual Report”, it

focuses discussion on the last 5 year 2005-2010 FMP term. Trends from previous 5 year terms

are also addressed. The “Year 10” terminology comes from the new 2009 Forest Management

Planning Manual, and will be more applicable starting with the newly developed 2010-2020

FMP.

The discussion in this trend analysis section focuses on the planned/actual numbers to date.

The tables associated with the “Year 10” section of this report are tables AR-7 to AR-15 and are

contained in Appendix A. Future projections are also presented in these tables. Future

projections are created during the development of the Forest Management Plan and are usually

linked to emulation of natural benchmark trends or objective/target setting. Detailed discussion

of the future projections identified in these tables is contained within 2005-2025 Forest

Management Plan.

2.1.1 Harvest Area

Table AR-7 and Figure 1 below is a summary of Planned and Actual Harvest Area for the current

plan and the previous three plans. The planned 2000-2005 numbers have been revised to

reflect the post-carryover amendment numbers (amendment #6). The 2005-2010 term actual

numbers are from Table A in Appendix B of the 2009-10 Annual Report, which contains some

additional summary tables that are no longer required by the Forest Management Planning

Manual.

Figure 1. Planned vs. Actual Harvest Area

Additional harvest area will be reported in Year 1 of the new 2010-2020 FMP, in the 2010-2011

Annual Report. This area is bridging area brought forward from the 2005-2025 FMP, and has not

been summarized at the time of completion of this report. It is anticipated that an additional

3,000 hectares of bridging area will be harvested in 2010-2011. This additional estimated

harvest area has been included in Figure 1.

Planned harvest area has averaged approximately 14,000 hectares per year over the 4 terms of

this report. Actual harvest has increased over the first 3 terms, from 7,433 hectares per year in

1990-1995 to 8,181 hectares per year in 2000-2005. Actual harvest area then declined to 7,766

hectares during the 2005-2010 term (bridging estimate included). Percent of actual to planned

harvest area increased from 45% from the 1990-1995 term to 67% for the 2000-2005 term. This

percentage has dropped to 58% of planned area harvested in the 2005-2010 term. The main

reason for the under-harvest is related to markets and is discussed in the following section on

volumes. Several mills declined deliveries at given years over this time frame.

Natural depletion area has also been included in the Actual Depletion Area numbers when

salvaged. On July 5, 1999 a severe windstorm affected approximately 6,000 hectares of forest

on the east side of Algonquin Park to varying degrees. Operational efforts in 1999-2000 were

redirected from harvesting of planned areas to salvage of blowdown. Had this redirection of

efforts in 1999/2000 not been required, a higher percentage of the planned area would have

been harvested. In July of 2006 another windstorm travelled through the north part of

Algonquin Park resulting in approximately 5,500 hectares of blowdown area.

At the forest unit level, for the four terms of this report, the lowest percentage of utilization of

planned harvest area was in the SbCC forest unit (18%), the SFUS forest unit (32%) and the LCUS

forest unit (35%). These forest unit areas have the least market demand and are often too wet


17

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010

An

nu

aliz

ed

Are

a (h

a)

Year

Planned vs. Actual Harvest Area

Planned

Actual

to harvest. The highest percentage of forecasted area harvested was in the PrCC forest unit

(86%), the PjCC forest unit (74%) and the PwUS forest unit (70%). This level of utilization has

been a function of stronger market conditions for pine sawlogs and poles. In the most recent

term (2005-2010), the PrCC planned harvest area was exceeded by 198 hectares for the 5 year

term. This is a function of forest operations prescription changes throughout the

implementation of the plan, where other forest units (mainly PwUS and MWUS) have been

changed to PrCC based on actual field conditions.

2.1.2 Harvest Volume

The Algonquin Forestry Authority is the sole licensee for the Algonquin Park Forest Management

Unit and delivers forest products to mills that have volume supply agreements or ministerial

commitments with the Minister of Natural Resources. The level of volume supply is based on

the approved forest management plan in effect at the given time.

Table AR-8 and Figure 2 below is a summary of planned and actual annual harvest volumes for

the current term and the three previous terms. Actual harvest volume numbers are those

generated from the MNR Timber Scaling and Billing System (TSBS) and the MNR Timber

Resources Evaluation System (TREES) as reported in annual reports (net m3). These volumes

include undersized volume to which crown charges do not apply. Planned harvest volumes

represent total planned volume (planned utilized and unutilized where applicable).

Figure 2. Planned vs. Actual Harvest Volume

Additional harvest volume will be reported in Year 1 of the new 2010-2020 FMP, in the 2010-

2011 Annual Report. This volume is from the bridging area brought forward from the 2005-2025

FMP, and has not been summarized at the time of completion of this report. It is anticipated


18

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010

An

nu

aliz

ed

Vo

lum

e (

m3

)

Year

Planned vs. Actual Volume

Planned

Actual


19

that an additional 177,000 m3 of bridging volume will be harvested in 2010-2011. This additional

estimated harvest volume has been included in Figure 2.

Actual harvest volumes were above planned volumes in the 1995-2000 term, and below planned

volumes for the 1990-1995, 2000-2005 and 2005-2010 terms. There has been an increase in the

Planned volumes over the past 3 terms of this report. Actual volumes increased over the first

three terms of this report and then declined in the final term (2005-2010). In the last term of

this report (2005-2010), 73% of the total planned volume was harvested (bridging estimate

included). This compares to 88% in 2000-05 and 102% in 1995-2000. Over the four terms of this

report, 85% of the total planned volumes have been harvested.

Planned volumes were exceeded during the 1995-2000 term due mainly to the salvage of

blowdown areas that occurred in July of 1999. This blowdown salvage operation yielded an

additional 80,000 m3 of timber in 1999/2000. Yield estimates also appear to have been

conservative and have since been increased. Demand was positive for sawlog and better

products in this term, but the limiting factor in total harvest volume was the lack of demand for

pulp quality products.

Demand for these pulp quality products increased dramatically in the 2000-2005 term, and the

total harvest increased by 32% from the previous term. Pulp quality products comprised 55% of

the total harvest from the Algonquin Park forest (Source: AFA data on product recovery -

Appendix D (gross m3)). It is important to note that harvesting of pulp quality products aids the

achievement of forest management objectives.

Percentages of pulp volumes referred to in this report are based on AFA data, not the MNR TSBS

or TREES. The MNR system does not always differentiate volumes by product. For example,

wood destined for a sawmill is often classified exclusively as sawlog material within TREES, even

though the final destination for some of this wood may be a pulp mill (in the form of chips). This

is a limitation of using the TREES numbers for product level comparisons, and can lead to

misleading conclusions. The AFA data provides a more realistic estimate of product recovery

and pulpwood utilization because the AFA system tracks wood consistently based on a product

specification, not just a destination.

During the final term of this report market conditions took a significant downturn, resulting in

only 73% of planned volume utilized in the 2005-2010 term. Demand for veneer, pine sawlogs

and poplar has softened significantly. At the same time, price for maple 1 common and better

hit lows not seen since around 2000. Reduced home construction in the United States, global

competition, the cost of fuel/energy and a higher valued Canadian dollar has resulted in a

difficult economic climate for Ontario's forest industry. These declining market conditions have

had an impact on meeting 2005 FMP objectives. As detailed in AR-14, 3 of the 6

social/economic targets for volume harvested have not been met.

It is important to realize when dealing with partial cutting that the estimation of volumes to be

harvested is difficult due to the impact of tree marking. It is not possible to gather the type of


20

data required on tree species and quality and the effect of tree marking on final available

volumes. Despite these challenges, strides in volume estimation have been made with

improved computer models and yield curves used in forest management planning. In the past,

volume estimates appear to have been overly conservative. Use of these improved yield curves

has resulted in an increase to the forecast available harvest volume in the past three terms. This

does not imply that more volume per hectare is being approved for harvest, it only means that

the more recent volume estimates are closer to actual volumes being cut. These changes in

volume estimates have not resulted in any changes to silvicultural ground rules or residual forest

cover requirements.

There is not a direct correlation between percent of area harvested and percent of volume cut.

This is a result of difficulties in the estimation of volumes to be harvested as discussed above. In

addition, the following factors contribute to the difference between planned and actual yield

per hectare:

Changing utilization standards (i.e. harvesting under-sized material when pulp markets

are strong) and the inclusion of undersize volume in the annual report volumes;

Salvage of unplanned blowdown area;

Stand description inaccuracies in the planning inventory;

Changes in planned to actual silviculture system based on actual site conditions;

AFA’s strategy to capitalize on strong pulp markets when they exist and utilize more

lower quality, higher yielding forest units, and

Harvest of higher stocked stands than the average condition represented in modelling.

Based on historic data, the average yield achieved has increased from 47 m3/ha in 1990-1995,

to 66.4 m3/ha in 2000-2005, and 63.5 m3/ha in 2005-2010. Total estimated yield for the

allocated area in the 2005 FMP was 50.4 m3/ha as compared to the actual yield of 63.5 m3/ha.

The total forecast yield in the 2010-2020 Forest Management Plan is 58 m3/ha.

2.1.3 Renewal and Maintenance

Table AR-9 provides a summary of planned and actual renewal, tending and protection

operations for the past 4 planning terms. Total regeneration activities (natural and artificial)

have averaged 6,744 hectares per year since 1990.

Natural regeneration has varied in proportion to area harvested, being lower in terms where

less area is harvested. This is a direct reflection of the fact that natural regeneration of areas cut

under the selection system is virtually guaranteed following harvest. The level of planned

natural regeneration shelterwood cuts declined from the 1990-2000 period as a result of an

increase in first and final removal shelterwood cuts which already have established

regeneration.

Artificial regeneration, including planting, seeding and scarification is averaging 370 ha/year. On

average, 294 ha/year have been planted since 1990.


21

An average of 368 ha/yr of site preparation has been completed since 1990. All of this has been

mechanical site preparation for future planting.

Area tended has increased from 2,656 hectares per year in the 1990-1995 term to 3,277

hectares per year in the 2005-2010 term (average of 3,248 ha/yr since 1990). The majority of

this work (2,970 hectares per year) has been uneven-aged stand improvement in areas

harvested using the hardwood selection silvicultural system.

Silvicultural expenditures during the 2005-2010 plan term ($6.428 million) were slightly greater

than the expenditures during the 2000-2005 plan term ($6.304 million). Renewal and tending

expenses are increasing as harvest area is decreasing. Refer to section 2.5.2.4 Silviculture

Objectives for a discussion on silviculture revenues vs. expenses. Dedicated forest management

funding via the renewal portion of the stumpage matrix has resulted in a consistent program of

tree marking, artificial regeneration, site preparation and tending work as indicated in the table.

All depletion areas are being treated as required and results are successful.

2.1.4 Harvest and Regeneration

Table AR-10 is a summary of harvest and regeneration trends.

Harvest areas were compiled from the1990-1995 and 1995-2000 RPFO’s and a five year Report

of Depletion by Area for 1985-1990 which is contained in the 1990-1995 TMP. Some of the data

was reported by working group/forest unit and has been included in the most appropriate forest

unit. The old PoCC and BwCC forest units have been combined into INTCC and the old SpUS and

BfUS forest units have been combined into SFUS. Prior to 1985, harvest area had not been

compiled to the level of detail necessary for inclusion in this table.

For the SbCC, MWUS and ORUS forest units there are some terms with regeneration numbers

identified with no associated harvest area. These forest units did not exist in earlier terms but

recent SEM surveys are classifying regenerated area into these new forest units.

Direction from MNR regarding completion of this table in 2004 stated that, for the shelterwood

forest units, only the area of regeneration harvest should be listed as the harvest area in this

table (not removal or prep. cut areas). For the 1995-1999 and 2000-2004 terms this was done.

The data for earlier terms (1985-1989) had not been compiled in this manner (stage of

management depletion data unavailable), and therefore, contain all stages of management

harvest area for shelterwood forest units. This has the effect of lowering the % FU Successfully

Regenerated for the terms prior to 1995. The format for this table also changed in the 2009

FMPM (used for this report). Best available information has been used to revisit previous terms

(prior to 2005-2009) to complete additional rows added to this table.

Regenerated areas were compiled from the Algonquin Forestry Authority’s NSR database and

SEM database. Information in these databases were assigned to the most appropriate forest

unit. However, given changes to forest units and reporting requirements over time, the


22

“Harvest/Salvage” and “Regenerated” numbers for a given term in the table may not refer to

exactly the same areas on the ground. Estimates for area surveyed have been used in earlier

terms where regeneration numbers exist in the AFA SEM database, but no survey area has been

tracked or identified.

A total of 197,610 hectares has been harvested from 1985-2010. Of that area harvested 111,043

ha. (56%) was uneven-aged management and 86,644 ha. (44%) was even-aged management

area. The hemlock forest unit was switched from an even-aged to an uneven-aged forest unit in

2000.

Not all of this harvested area identified in AR-10 is available for regeneration (shelterwood

preparatory and removal cuts, and area used for roads and landings). A 2% estimate for area

unavailable for regeneration for roads/landings has been applied globally to the harvest area

(same as used in FMP).

The overall percentage forest unit successfully regenerated in AR-10 ranges from 80% in the

1985-1989 term to 69% in the 1995-1999 term. The overall percentage successfully regenerated

for the previous five terms back to 1985 is 75%. Natural regeneration is the dominant method of

regenerating the forests of Algonquin Park and is for the most part successful. Management

without the use of herbicides and seasonal restrictions on logging to protect recreational and

wildlife values present the greatest challenges to forest managers in Algonquin Park.

There were significant salvage areas in the 1985-1989 and 1995-1999 terms resulting from large

blowdowns. All of this salvage area has been included in the table, though at the time of the

operations it was recognized that not all the area needed to be regenerated due to the low

proportion of the stand damaged (regeneration would wait until a later managed harvest).

According to the Silvicultural Ground Rules of the day (prior to the 2005 term), generally

hardwood forest units (selection, hardwood shelterwood, poplar, white birch, mixedwood) were

not assessed for regeneration, and therefore, the “Regenerated” area on the table is low. Some

regeneration assessments have been done in these forest units in order to answer specific

questions regarding mid-tolerant hardwood or hemlock regeneration in selection management,

effect of ungulate browsing on regeneration, etc. The results of these surveys have shown that

these forest units are regenerating as predicted. For the purpose of this table, areas harvested

under the selection system are deemed to be successfully regenerated and have been classified

as such for the past five terms for HDSEL and two terms for HeSEL.

The later terms in this table display lower regeneration success numbers due to the

regeneration time lag. The more recent the harvest, the less likely it is that the area has been

regenerated and surveyed. Initial Free-to-Grow surveys are generally performed 10 years after

the harvest. The Algonquin Forestry Authority uses the results of these surveys to identify areas

that are regenerated, areas that only need more time to become FTG, as well as areas needing

further treatment. Follow-up treatments and surveys are then scheduled. Natural regeneration

is heavily relied upon, and the FTG time frames in the silvicultural ground rules need to be taken


23

into account when interpreting table AR-10. The following table contains some examples of

these free-to-grow time frames:

Forest Unit Free-To-Grow Time frame (years) from Silvicultural Ground Rules

Natural Regeneration Artificial Regeneration

PwUS 15-20 7-10

PrCC 10 7

PjCC 10 7

BfUS 15

SFUS 20 7

HeUS 20 20

HwdUS 5 5

Figure 3. Example Free-To-Grow Time Frames

Often the initial assessment, when done at 10 years does not indicate successful natural

regeneration. This is not unexpected based on the above FTG time frames. This timing does help

to identify problem areas in time for re-treatment to be effective. This concept also affects the

comparison of area successfully regenerated to area assessed in Table AR-13.

Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring for the selection system (uneven-aged management) has

been a subject of discussion in the Southern Region in the recent past. It is agreed by all, for the

selection system, that silvicultural effectiveness is more a matter of meeting management

standards (residual BA, increase in AGS percentage, stand structure etc) than of meeting

regeneration standards. Table FMP-28 in the 2000 and 2005 FMP contain targets for

Assessment of Regeneration Success (including the selection system), the results of which are

now being reported in table AR-13. Therefore, the area managed in the HDSEL and HeSEL forest

unit which has met management standards, as per AFA treemarking inspections, and which has

been harvested and inspected during the term of this report, has been included in this report as

successfully regenerated.

It is recommended that MNR develop a method of reporting on silvicultural effectiveness for the

selection system that recognizes the requirements of the selection system and is integrated with

the planning and reporting requirements of the FMPM.

Silvicultural practices in Algonquin Park are consistent with the FMP renewal and maintenance

objective of “managing and upgrading the quality of the forest to ensure the long term needs of

local industry while maintaining forest health, diversity of species and ecosystem integrity”.

Partial cutting systems with the targeting of undesirable growing stock for harvesting is resulting


24

in higher percentages of sawlogs and better quality timber in second cuts. AFA tree marking

practices ensure the maintenance of species diversity and forest health at the stand level. At

the landscape level, results from regeneration surveys indicate a high percentage of successful

regeneration to original cover types, and the maintenance of species diversity in the Algonquin

Park forest management unit over the long term.

Table AR-13 is a summary of assessment of regeneration and silviculture success for the area

surveyed during the 2005-2010 term. Analyses of the results in AR-13 indicate the following:

For the harvest depletion area category, 82% of the area surveyed was regenerated to

the projected forest unit (silviculture success), 6% to another forest unit (regeneration

success), for a total of 88% of the total area surveyed classified as regenerated.

For the natural depletion area category, 51% of the area surveyed was regenerated to

the projected forest unit (silviculture success), 44% to another forest unit (regeneration

success), for a total of 95% of the total area surveyed classified as regenerated.

In total, the table indicates that 88% of the total area assessed is successfully

regenerated, with 81% regenerating to the projected forest unit. The remaining area

that has not successfully regenerated will continue to be monitored and treated as

required.

There is variability of regeneration success at the forest unit/silvicultural ground rule level.

These results will be further analyzed by AFA to identify opportunities to improve silvicultural

success, and future modeling inputs will be refined as necessary to reflect actual trends.

As discussed in section 1.3.4 of this report, Ontario Parks’ audits have revealed some issues in

past years which are being addressed. A variety of issues are contributing to this inconsistency,

which mainly exists in shelterwood managed areas. AFA and Ontario Parks are working to

resolve these issues and AFA has increased the amount of manual tending being conducted to

control competing vegetation.

Assessments are not only required to verify free-to-grow status, but are also required to assess

regeneration progress and prescribe further treatment if required. This is important on the

Algonquin Park Forest where natural regeneration after harvest is heavily relied upon in many

forest units. Where natural regeneration has not been successful, follow-up artificial

regeneration treatments or tending are prescribed. The inclusion of regeneration progress

assessments (or stocking assessments) in the data analyzed for AR-13 has the effect of lowering

the regeneration success. Starting with the 2010 FMP, AFA is ensuring that all surveys are

classified as either Free-to-Grow or stocking surveys, and annual reporting will only reflect the

results of Free-to-Grow assessments.

Table FMP-28 of the 2005-2025 FMP forecasted a regeneration assessment area of 54,272

hectares. Based on the area assessed in AR-13, only 52% of this forecast area has been assessed.

It should be noted that some forecasts (such as HDSel) were based on projected harvest levels


25

which were not realized. Therefore the level of assessment will not reach the forecast levels,

but will be based on actual harvest levels. Approximately 19,228 hectares of the 28,404 hectare

shortfall in surveyed area (35%) is in the HDSEL and HeSEL forest units. This shortfall in

assessment area is a function of the reduced harvest area experienced during this plan.

The PWUS, SFUS, PjCC and INTCC forest units are also below the target assessment area. Some

of these areas had the formal survey delayed because it was apparent that further treatment

was required. Others were recently harvested, salvage logged after the 2006 windstorm, or

recently received silviculture treatment and survey was delayed until regeneration success is

expected.

The MWUS, PrCC, SBCC, LCUS and ORUS forest unit assessments were greater than planned.

Treemarking quality control inspections are also part of the overall silvicultural effectiveness

monitoring program on the Management Unit. Approximately 7,500 hectares per year was

marked and inspected throughout the 2005-2010 FMP term. The successful implementation of

partial harvesting systems depends on quality treemarking which is assessed pre-harvest to

ensure that prescriptions are properly applied and management standards are being met.

Following harvest operations, compliance checks and audits are completed and reported by AFA

and Ontario Parks performs audits to ensure compliance with all relevant guidelines and

requirements.

2.1.5 Forest Condition

Table AR-11 is a Summary of Forest Condition for the Available Managed Crown Productive

Forest.

The 2005-2025 FMP has a forest diversity objective “to ensure the current biological diversity of

the Algonquin Park forest is not significantly changed, and where desirable and practical, is

restored to a pre-settlement condition”. The silvicultural systems that are used in Algonquin

Park rely heavily on natural regeneration which result in the perpetuation of existing forest

cover types over the long term. Supplemental artificial regeneration is also used where it is

required to maintain existing forest cover types.

The summary of total productive crown forest landbase by forest unit for the 2000, 2005 and

2010 FMPs is presented in AR-11, and in the following Figure 4. With the exception of minor

landbase area changes due to digital park boundary revisions and fluctuation in the amount of

area classified as not yet regenerated, the total area available for timber production has

remained the same. Unregenerated or “barren and scattered” areas were not included in the

table FMP-11 in the 2000 FMP. Future losses in area as shown in the Projections columns

represent modelled losses to the productive forest landbase due to roads and landings (2% per

year for one rotation). Specific details of fluctuations in total productive crown forest area over

this time period are discussed in each FMP. Harvesting activities have not negatively impacted

available harvest area.

Figure 4. Forest Condition over Time

The forest inventory for Algonquin Park shows a lack of younger age classes (40 years and less)

due to the use of the uniform shelterwood and selection systems. Under the uniform

shelterwood harvest system the new forest is developing under the canopy of the original forest

and the age of this new forest won’t be depicted in the FRI until the original forest canopy is

harvested.

Changes in area at the forest unit level are a result of changes to forest unit classifications that

occurred during the development of the FMPs. For example, increases in the HeSEL forest unit

and decreases in the HDSEL forest unit are a result of changes to the hemlock forest unit criteria

to include all stands down to a 40% or greater hemlock composition. Details of these changes

are described in each respective FMP. Changes are also a result of inventory updates that occur

prior to the development of each FMP. These updates reflect changes in forest stand

compositions as a result of harvesting and regeneration activities that have occurred. A

complete new forest inventory for the Algonquin Park Forest is scheduled for delivery during the

implementation of phase 1 of the 2010-2020 FMP.

These trends in forest unit area are consistent with the Forest Management Plan objectives of

maintaining forest cover diversity and not reducing the area available for timber production in

the white and red pine forest unit group. Progress is also being made towards desired levels of

white and red pine old growth forest as classified in the 2005 FMP (refer to AR-14).

The Algonquin Park forest is maintaining its level of diversity as depicted in table AR-11. All

forest diversity indices and landscape diversity indices are being maintained within the bounds


26

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Are

a (h

a)

Forest Unit

Forest Condition

2000

2005

2010

of natural variation. The partial harvesting systems and continued implementation of a tree

marking program to rigorous standards are maintaining diversity in Algonquin’s forests.

2.1.6 Habitat for Species at Risk and Selected Wildlife Species

Table AR-12 is a Summary of Habitat for Species at Risk and Selected Wildlife Species. During

the production of each FMP the “Plan Start” levels of habitat are recalculated using the most

current and updated wildlife habitat matrix (which is incorporated into the SFMM model).

Updates to the wildlife habitat matrix are made to incorporate the latest science and research

available at the time of plan development. This sometimes causes difficulties when comparing

wildlife habitat levels from one plan to the next.

Data was unavailable for the 1990 and 1995 past plans, as the 2000 FMP was the first Algonquin

Park FMP to be prepared using the SFMM model. During the development of table RPFO-16 in

2005, an error in the black bear (summer) portion of the habitat matrix was discovered. This

resulted in an error in the 2005 FMP estimated black bear habitat level for the Management

Unit (RPFO-16 2005 Actual level), which explains the large difference in black bear (summer)

habitat between the 2005 and 2010. This error was rectified in the 2010 FMP. The future

predicted levels of habitat in AR-12 have been extracted from the 2005 Selected Management

Alternative SFMM file.

0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000

Bar

red

Ow

l

Bay

Bre

aste

d W

arb

ler

Bla

ck-b

acke

d W

oo

dp

ecke

r

Bla

ck B

ear

(su

mm

er)

Bla

ck B

ear

(fal

l)

Bla

ckb

urn

ian

War

ble

r

Bo

real

Ch

icka

de

e

Bro

ad-w

inge

d H

awk

(bre

edin

g)

Leas

t Fl

ycat

che

r

Lyn

x d

enn

ing

Her

mit

Th

rush

Mar

ten

Mo

ose

(fa

ll)

Mo

ose

(W

inte

r)

No

rth

ern

Fly

ing

Squ

irre

l

Pin

e Si

skin

Pile

ate

d W

oo

dp

eck

er

East

ern

Red

bac

k Sa

lam

and

er

Ru

by-

cro

wn

ed K

ingl

et

Red

-eye

d V

ireo

Ru

ffed

Gro

use

Sno

wsh

oe

Har

e (w

inte

r)

Wh

ite-

taile

d D

eer

(su

mm

er)

Wh

ite-

taile

d D

eer

(win

ter)

Wh

ite-

thro

ated

Sp

arro

w

Are

a (h

a)

Habitat for Selected Wildlife Species

2000

2005

2010

Figure 5. Habitat for Selected Wildlife Species


27


28

Refer to section 3.5.4 of the 2005 FMP for a discussion on changes in wildlife habitat from the

2000 FMP to the 2005 FMP. Refer to section 3.2.2 of the 2010 FMP for a discussion on changes

in wildlife habitat from the 2005 FMP to the 2010 FMP. This section contains an explanation of

the decline in Marten habitat that was calculated for the 2010 FMP (wildlife habitat matrix

revision).

Overall, the wildlife habitat changes between plans are not simply limited to matrix changes or

harvest updates for 5 years of activity. The broader FRI update process that includes associated

changes to forest type classifications and development stage representation are also responsible

for the relative differences between plan start levels.

The featured species approach (ie. moose, deer) used in the 2000 and 2005 FMP is based on the

knowledge that by managing for the habitat of these species, the habitat requirements of about

70% of all wildlife species in the management unit would be met. Species modelled were

selected to represent a broad range of habitat requirements. Habitat requirements of rare,

threatened and endangered species, species sensitive to disturbance, area sensitive species, and

wetland and riparian species are protected through the implementation area of concern

guidelines. In addition, stand level prescriptions incorporated retention of cavity trees, nest

trees and mast trees.

During the development of the 2010 FMP the list of wildlife habitat species modeled was revised

as a result of public consultation/input, and the inclusion of new landscape class indicators to

the FMP. The addition of the new landscape class indicators covered off the habitat types of

several of the original selected species that were modelled. This resulted in the addition of 7

new species modelled and the elimination of 6 traditional species that were modelled in

previous FMPs. New AOC prescriptions for species at risk under the Endangered Species Act,

2007 have also been introduced with the new 2010 Forest Management Plan.

Habitat for selected wildlife species is being maintained by implementing provincial wildlife

guidelines. Predicted habitat levels for all of the selected wildlife species in the 2005 FMP fall

within the bounds of natural variation and the selected management alternative does not

threaten the availability of preferred habitat for these species.

2.1.7 Monitoring and Assessment

The goal of the Algonquin Forestry Authority’s 2005-2010 Monitoring Plan is to “encourage and

ensure adherence to rules and requirements which contribute to the sustainable management

of Ontario’s forests,” (A Forest Compliance Strategy, 1997). The main thrust of the Authority’s

monitoring program is to evaluate its harvest and access programs, in order to achieve continual

improvement in its forest management practices.

Figure 6 below illustrates the number of compliance reports submitted to the Forest Operations

Information Program for each year of the 2005-2025 FMP, along with the proportion of in

compliance vs. not in compliance reports. The total number of reports was reduced over the

duration of the plan because the overall level of forest activity was reduced and reporting

frequency moved from bi-weekly to monthly. Compliance levels achieved ranged from 85% in

2009-10 to 96% in 2007-08. Over the duration of the 5 year plan, a total of 91 % of the

compliance reports submitted were fully compliant. This compliance outcome is based on a

sample of 966 reports taken by certified AFA and MNR inspectors from all forest management

operations over the five year term.

Figure 6. 2005-2010 FOIP Compliance Report Summary

During the preparation of the 2005-2010 Compliance Monitoring Plan, the following priorities

were established for monitoring and measurement over the five year term: (1) sustain healthy

forest ecosystems in the planning and implementation of all activities, (2) continue to evaluate

forest operations to ensure Park values and current laws are not compromised, (3)

communicate on a regular basis with Ontario Parks staff in order to assist in the identification of

changes in regulation, policies and new issues, (4) continue to train AFA personnel and

woodworkers on environmentally-sound forestry practices to increase their knowledge of

Provincial regulations and guidelines relating to their respective job and (5) seek continued

improvement of all forest management practices. Actions and strategies were then developed

in the Plan for each of these five priorities.

The 2005 FMP Monitoring Plan identified a number of monitoring objectives, and increased

awareness during implementation and monitoring of the following activities was identified:

Operations adjacent to or within Areas of Concern as per values maps. Special attention

will be applied to certain AOCs identified in the 2005 FMP, notably wood turtle

habitat/nesting sites & brook trout lakes;


29

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

# o

f R

epo

rts

Year

2005-10 Compliance Summary - FOIP

Not in Compliance

In Compliance


30

Wood measurement haul authorization conditions;

Road right-of-way widths and seeking approval when required;

Roads crossing waterways and portages as this is potentially high risk;

Maintaining the site in a productive state (i.e. site impact);

Impacts of forestry operations on residual trees and regeneration.

To measure success related to these priority activities, the number of compliance reports

submitted by year by Ontario Parks and AFA inspectors were totalled (by compliance status and

activity checked by operation type). A total of 2,737 reported activities that were checked by

certified inspectors over the 2005-2010 term were indentified under the corresponding

monitoring category. The sum of not in compliance checked activities was divided by the sum of

in compliance with comments, and in compliance checked activities, to calculate percent

compliance by year for each activity. The results of this analysis are displayed below in Figure 7.

% Compliance

Operation Type

2005-2010 Compliance Monitoring Plan Category 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Average for All Years

Harvest and

Access

Operations adjacent to or within areas of concern as per values maps.

96 94 98 98 87 95

Harvest

Wood measurement haul authorization conditions.

96 99 97 97 100 98

Maintaining the site in a productive state (i.e. site impact).

98 97 99 100 96 98

Impacts of forestry operations on residual trees and regeneration.

100 100 100 98 99 99

Access

Road right-of-way widths and seeking approval when required.

95 99 100 100 100 99

Roads crossing waterways and portages as this is potentially high risk.

97 93 100 100 88 96

Figure 7. Assessment of Compliance Plan Priority Categories

This data analysis revealed that operations in close proximity to AOCs were the highest

inspected activity completed by Ontario Parks and AFA inspectors, followed by, maintaining the

site in a productive state, and ensuring no negative impacts of forestry operations on residual

trees and regeneration. The overall compliance outcome for these monitoring categories

ranged from 95% to 99% over the duration of the plan. Overall, forestry operations in Algonquin


31

Park that were monitored closely under these priority activities achieved a 97% level of

compliance over the 2005-2010 Forest Management Plan period.

This summary of compliance results for the 2005-2010 term indicates an overall high level of

compliance with the Forest Management Plan. Compliance Plan goals and objectives are being

achieved, and the ongoing evaluation of AFA harvest and access programs is resulting in

continual improvement of forest management practices in Algonquin Park.

To facilitate in the preparation of future Annual Reports, AFA recommends that reporting

functionality be added to the Forest Operations Information Program to allow for generation of

customized reports by activity (i.e. compliance status by activity based on number of reports

submitted).

3.10 2.2 Analysis of Forest Disturbances

Table AR-15 is a summary of frequency distribution of forest disturbances by size class. The 2005

FMP projected movement towards the regional disturbance template in that 4 of the 6 size

classes. Using the actual disturbances for the 2005-2010 term, 3 of the 6 size classes have

moved towards the template. The frequency of the largest disturbance size class (521+) has

decreased, where the regional template directs an increase. The following factors help to

explain the differences between planned and actual disturbance frequencies:

Many of the areas planned did not get harvested,

Those that did get harvested were much smaller than planned,

Many of these planned clearcut forest unit stands were not clearcut due to the presence

of more shade tolerant species that are harvested with partial cutting systems,

Some larger areas got split into multiple smaller disturbances rather than one larger one

due to distance proximities and,

A small number of patches were planned but then removed from the FMP in the 2006

carryover amendment.

As would be expected with a reduced harvest area, fewer disturbance patches overall were

created than planned. Fewer of the smallest size class and fewer of the two largest size classes

were created than planned. A greater number of the three mid-range size classes were created

than planned. Movement towards the disturbance template for the largest size class is difficult

to achieve in Algonquin Park given the overall forest diversity, and would require more

aggressive clearcut harvesting practices. Ninety three (93%) percent of the forest disturbances

as of 2010 are small in size (0-130 hectare size class). 4.6% percent of the forest disturbances

are in the 131-260 hectare size class, 1.7% are in the 261-520 hectare size class and 0.6% are

>520 hectares in size.

As discussed in section 1.3.1, the significant planning effort associated with clearcut planning

and disturbance tracking is of limited value in the southern region. Many ‘clearcuts’ in the GLSL

forest are fully stocked with tolerant/mid-tolerant regeneration when harvested, resulting in a


32

stand condition which does not resemble the clearcut condition that was envisioned during

development of the NDPE Guide. It is recommended that this planning requirement be

eliminated, as has been done with the new provincial Landscape Guide.

3.11 2.3 Analysis of Renewal and Tending Activities

Section 1.2.2 provides a summary of renewal, tending and protection activities for 2009-10, a

summary of renewal support and information on renewal expenditures. Section 2.1.3 provides

a summary of renewal, tending and protection activities for the five year term. Section 1.3.4

provides information on the annual assessment of regeneration success and section 2.1.4

provides a summary of harvest and regeneration trends for the five year term. Progress towards

meeting renewal and tending targets for the five year term are discussed in section 2.5.2.4.

Renewal and tending operations reported in Table AR-13 for the term are generally less than

forecast, which is a function of the reduced area harvested. Renewal expenditures have

increased from the previous plan, while harvest area has decreased. As discussed in section

2.5.2.4 renewal activities have been well funded, however a review of the current funding

formula is being initiated to ensure funding is adequate into the future based on the changing

market conditions and operational restrictions.

Table AR-10 summarizes harvest (including salvage) over a number of past terms and the areas

reported as regenerated. Refer to section 2.1.4 for a detailed discussion of these harvest and

regeneration trends. The renewal and tending program has positive results as shown in Table

AR-10 for the areas harvested.

Recommended changes to improve silvicultural effectiveness monitoring and the effectiveness

of renewal and tending operations in the Algonquin Park Forest are as follows:

Continue the refinement of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program to ensure

complete and accurate classification and treatment of depletion areas. This refinement

should continue with the involvement of AFA and MNR in order to ensure consistent

standards and evaluation of regeneration success.

MNR southern region assume a lead role in the development and transfer of a

silvicultural effectiveness monitoring methodology that is appropriate for the partial

harvest systems practiced in this region.

MNR should develop a method of reporting on silvicultural effectiveness for the

selection system that recognizes the requirements of the selection system and is

integrated with the planning and reporting requirements of the FMPM (refer to section

1.3.4).

AFA should ensure that all surveys are classified as either Free-to-Grow or stocking

surveys and annual reporting should only reflect the results of Free-to-Grow

assessments.


33

Restrictions on summer logging should be minimized. Seasonal restrictions are resulting

in economic hardship for contractors, unsustainable wood supplies for mills relying on

wood from Algonquin Park, reduced opportunities for natural regeneration and

increased silvicultural costs.

Access restrictions should consider silvicultural treatment requirements and follow-up

monitoring requirements. Removal and re-installment of access is increasing renewal

and tending costs and silvicultural effectiveness monitoring costs.

Silvicultural restrictions associated with species at risk habitat need to consider the

ability of the forest manager to meet the requirements of silvicultural ground rules in a

cost effective fashion.

3.12 2.4 Review of Assumptions in Modelling

The 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan was the second Forest Management Plan for Algonquin

Park to utilize the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM). A number of improvements

were made to the model (version 2.1) from the version used for the 2000-2020 FMP (version

1.6). Significant refinements were made to the model to improve selection and shelterwood

simulations. Appendix 7 of the 2005-2025 FMP provides a summary of the modelling

assumptions used for the current plan. Following is a review of some of the main changes or

additions to SFMM modelling assumptions, along with recommendations from the 2005 Year 10

Annual Report for the 2010 FMP where applicable.

Landbase Definition:

Reserved Forest and Non-Forest Land Types

A new NDPE accumulating reserve category was created to model residual requirements for the

Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guide. This reserve type has resulted in significant losses

to the landbase and AHA over time, especially in the INTCC forest unit. The retention of residual

patches during clearcut harvest operations is a further reduction in available harvest area at the

stand level.

Recommendation #3 - review the use of NDPE as accumulating reserves in the 2010 SFMM

model and revise if appropriate. This was completed during the development of the 2010 FMP.

Losses to NDPE are now accounted for in several sections of the model; Growing stock left

unharvested, Shelterwood harvest volumes and Areas reserved from harvesting. In Areas

reserved from harvesting the NDPE loss estimates have been reduced from the 2005 FMP to

reflect more recent MNR direction that clearcuts <100 ha. in size do not require a residual patch

strategy. Refer to section 4.14 of the Base Case Analysis Package in the 2010 FMP for more

detail.

Deferral Selections

Deferrals were used in the PwUS forest unit as a means of ensuring the model does not

immediately harvest an area equivalent to recently harvested seed cut and first removal areas.


34

The amount of area deferred corresponds to the area harvested in the seed cut and first

removal cut stages of management for the 1995-2000 period.

Forest Dynamics:

Natural Forest Succession

Natural forest succession is based on information generated at the provincial and local level. It

is also based on expert opinion from foresters experienced in working in the Algonquin Park

forest. While new models were being developed to forecast natural successional patterns, it

was felt that these were too preliminary for use during the development of the 2005 plan.

Recommendation #4 - Explore new models and science available for improving succession rules

in the 2010 FMP (i.e. MOSSY). This was completed in the development of the 2010 FMP.

Natural succession rules were developed using the most current information and science

available from the provincial Landscape Guide (LG) process. In some cases modifications were

made using local expert opinion, combined with inputs from the previous FMP. Refer to section

3.1 of the Base Case Analysis Package in the 2010 FMP for more detail.

Growth and Yield of Even-aged and Uneven-aged Forest

Appendix 5 of the 2005-2025 FMP contains a detailed discussion of growth and yield curves

used in that FMP. As discussed in section 2.1.2 Harvest Volume, there is difficulty in accurately

estimating yields in partial cutting systems. The actual yield realized is also affected by amount

of area harvested in each forest unit. The 2005 FMP forecast yield of 51 m3/ha was based on all

of the area allocated for harvest, including the entire Selection forest unit where the lowest

yields are generated. With only 67% of the area actually harvested in the 2000-2005 term, some

forest units more than others, the actual yield is affected.

Recommendation #5 - Re-examine yield curves during preparation of the 2010 FMP and revise

as required. This was completed in the development of the 2010 FMP. Yield curves have been

revised for the 2010 FMP. Yield forecasts have been increased to more closely align with actual

yields. Refer to section 3.4 of the Base Case Analysis Package and Appendix F of the Analysis

Package for complete details of revisions made to growth and yield estimates in the 2010 FMP.

Wildlife Habitat Unit Definitions

The age at which the various development stages begin for each ecosite, was determined by

wildlife researchers at the provincial level. The forest unit to wildlife habitat unit proportions are

calculated by SFMMTool. The wildlife habitat suitability indices have been updated by Naylor et.

al. in 2001. Further updates to the wildlife habitat matrix in SFMM were completed during the

development of the 2010 FMP, based on the latest science and research results.

Silvicultural Options:


35

Selection Harvest Options

These are based on the estimated improvement in acceptable growing stock (AGS) for each cut

and the desired long-term target for AGS.

Areas Reserved from Harvesting

Three categories of reserves were identified for modelling; AOC’s, Bypass2 and NDPE. The

percentage of area in each forest unit to be left as reserves (AOC’s) and bypass was determined

from an analysis of area reported from annual reports for the previous ten years (1995-2005).

During the preparation of the 2005-2025 FMP a management unit AOC coverage was created in

the GIS based on the AOC dimensions identified in table FMP-17.

Recommendation #6 - When calculating areas reserved from harvesting for the 2010 SFMM

model, consider using the modelled AOC areas by forest unit, as calculated by the Management

Unit AOC GIS coverage. This was completed in the development of the 2010 FMP. The AOC

reserve category in SFMM now includes all AOC reserve areas projected across the entire

available landbase for the protection of features as identified in table FMP-14. This is the first

FMP where this has been done. Refer to section 2.7 of the Base Case Analysis Package for

complete details.

Conversion of Harvested Areas to Non-forested Land

The area identified here is for losses to roads and landings and is based on historical averages.

In many cases old roads are used for new harvest operations, however, the area associated with

these old roads is often not identified in the FRI or the initial SFMM landbase.

Recommendation #7 - Start tracking road construction for annual reports by new construction

and re-construction of existing roads, in order to refine estimates of areas lost to roads and

landings. This has been completed. Refer to section 4.15 of the Base Case Analysis Package for

complete details of projected areas lost to roads and landings.

Recommendation #8 - Update assumption criteria in the Strategic Forest Management Model

(SFMM) as new information becomes available. This has been completed during development of

the 2010 FMP. Complete details of updated assumptions are contained in the Base Case

Analysis Package in the supplementary documentation of the 2010-2020 FMP.

During the development of the 2010 FMP, a review of the assumptions and projections in the

SFMM model related renewal and tending activities was completed. This process consisted of

reviewing renewal costs, treatment levels and post renewal forest succession rates for all forest

units. Modelling projections were compared to actual treatment levels reported in annual

reports (up to 2007) and revised were necessary. Refer to sections 4.4, 4.4 and 4.7 of the 2010

FMP Base Case Analysis Package for complete details of these modeling assumption updates.


36

3.13 2.5 Assessment of Objective Achievement

2.5.1 Progress towards addressing Independent Forest Audit Recommendations

The Algonquin Park Forest has had independent forest audits in 1991, 1997, 2002 and 2007.

Implementation of recommendations from these audits enhance forest management practices

on the management unit.

Recommendations from the 2007 audit and details from the action plan that have been

addressed in the 2010 forest management plan are summarized below. This information was

not presented in the 2010 FMP because the 2007 Independent Forest Audit report had not yet

been tabled in the legislature.

Recommendation #1

Algonquin Provincial Park shall complete a strategy for managing access roads. The strategy

must include input from the AFA and LCC. It should be completed in time to provide guidance

for the 2010 FMP.

Status 2010: In August 2008 Ontario Parks finalized the strategy in partnership with the AFA and

involvement of the LCC. The Forest Access Management Areas (FAMAs) created during this

process have been used as the basis for primary and branch road planning in the 2010 FMP.

Direction from the road strategy has also been included table FMP-13 and throughout the

relevant portions of the FMP text.

Recommendation #2

The OMNR should review the current output of the SFMM model for selected wildlife species

and ensure that the long-term sustainability of those species has been considered by biologists,

or is addressed by appropriate field level considerations such as the tree marking guide.

Status 2010: Extensive work was completed during the development of the 2010 Long Term

Management Direction related to wildlife habitat modeling. Model inputs (including a review

and refinement of T-stage representation) and model outputs for the selected wildlife species in

SFMM were extensively reviewed. Evaluations with respect to consistency with the new

landscape guide trends were also completed.

Recommendation #3

Ontario Parks should try to harmonize future park management planning with operational FMP

prescriptions for values at the site and stand level to ensure that new science can be

incorporated into AOC prescriptions in the FMP.

Status 2010: All AOCs in the FMP are consistent with the Park Management Plan. New science

from the Stand and Site Guide has been used for some AOC prescriptions that are not covered


37

by the Park Management Plan. The next Park Management Plan review (date unknown at this

time) will include a review of AOC prescriptions.

Recommendation #4

Algonquin Provincial Park should conduct a survey of unknown streams prior to forest

operations to determine thermal regimes and fish community status.

Status 2010: All self-sustaining brook trout lakes adjacent to forest management activities have

had their shorelines surveyed for nursery creeks prior to operations commencing. This is an

ongoing annual project.

Recommendation #5

Algonquin Provincial Park, in consultation with the AFA, should develop a protocol for

development of aggregate pits in brook trout headwaters prior to the commencement of the

next FMP.

Status 2010: Protocol is complete as of September 2009 and has been added to the 2010 FMP.

Recommendation #6

Algonquin Provincial Park should develop more effective and flexible AOC prescriptions for self

sustaining brook trout lakes to ensure measures are effective in protecting ecological values

while allowing for operational efficiencies.

Status 2010: Groundwater modeling (recharge, discharge areas) has been completed Park wide

to show important groundwater areas related to specific brook trout lakes. Results of this

modeling still need to be ground truthed and interpreted with the assistance of the Southern

Region Hydro geologist. The brook trout lake AOC has been changed to allow aggregate pits

within the non-sensitive hydrological portion of the AOC. Roads and landings that are required

within the AOC due to operational/environmental concerns will be considered after careful

review.

Recommendation #7

Algonquin Provincial Park should not use the AWS as a planning tool for changing or revising

primary access decisions made in the FMP.

Status 2010: Road planning in the 2010 FMP conforms with the requirements of the 2004 FMPM

and has been developed with adequate detail so additional detail will not be required at the

AWS stage.

Recommendation #8

The Algonquin Provincial Park should attempt to get better information on use patterns in APP

and more precise information on enforcement of access restrictions.


38

Status 2010: Ontario Parks continues to collect information on use patterns through the

licensing and permit system in place. AOC prescriptions can be effective (i.e. brook trout lake

AOC) in preventing road access to lakes. Signage, gates, berms etc. are moderately successful to

control access however, determined people can usually get past these measures. Well planned

road layout and removal of watercrossings upon completion of operations are the most

successful ways to control access.

Recommendation #9

The AFA shall determine if there are more opportunities for applying tending treatments in

renewing stands that are high risk and high investment (e.g., plantations) that have not yet been

declared FTG.

Status 2010: During the 2008 field season, refresher training for AFA staff performing

Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring (SEM) emphasized the need to consider competition

control, and an emphasis was placed on monitoring plantations on higher risk sites. The 2008

AFA SEM program identified several sites requiring tending treatments. In 2009 manual tending

was performed on 127 hectares to release established white pine and red pine regeneration

from competing vegetation. A total of 178 hectares of manual tending was completed during

the 2005-2010 term, or 297% of the FMP target. In addition, approximately 370 hectares of

area has been completed as of this Annual Report submission date, with partial funding secured

through Forestry Futures. In 2009, AFA and Ontario Parks staff jointly participated in two field

days that included site visits relating to tending, and both organizations assisted OMNR

Southern Science and Information staff in the re-measurement of a tending trial established in

2007.

Recommendation #10

Investigations dealing with non-compliances shall include the joint participation of AFA and APP

field staff to accurately and objectively review and record the factors contributing to the

incident and to confirm the performance requirements.

Status 2010: Joint consultation prior to submission of inspections of reported non-compliances

has been incorporated into both the AFA’s and Ontario Park’s Annual Compliance Plans in order

to ensure that the cause and action are appropriate for each situation with the objective to

continually improve the compliance record.

Recommendation #11

The AFA shall ensure that the level of silviculture assessment monitoring is more closely aligned

to the level projected in the approved FMP.

Status 2010: Refer to section 2.1.4 for a discussion on assessment of regeneration success and

table AR-13. A large SEM program was completed by AFA during the 2008 field season (6,656

hectares) and 4,110 hectares was surveyed in the 2009 field season. Monitoring of selection


39

forest units is reported for the year in which areas are harvested. The 2005 FMP targets for

selection forest units were not met, since actual harvest levels in these forest units were lower

than planned.

Forecasting of SEM targets has been revised in the 2010 FMP. Targets have been directly linked

to cut history records, targets have not been specified for HDSEL since assessments are for

management standards not regeneration success, and FTG assessments will now be conducted

after removal cuts (not at seeding cuts as was previously done).

2.5.2 2005 FMP Objectives

The 2005 FMP desired future forest condition for the Algonquin Park Forest was to maintain all

indicators of sustainability (ecosite diversity, ecosite groupings by development stage groupings

and preferred habitat for selected wildlife species) within the bounds of natural variation, and to

meet all of the targets associated with the management objectives as detailed below.

Acceptable ranges (based on the bounds of natural variation) for the indicators of sustainability

(individual ecosites, ecosite groupings by development stage groupings and preferred wildlife

habitat) were detailed in FMP-13. With the onset of the 2004 Forest Management Planning

Manual and new planning direction stemming from the provincial Landscape Guide process,

several of these indicators of sustainability were discontinued with the 2010 FMP.

Forest management prescriptions, to the extent possible, attempt to mimic natural forest

processes. Emulation of natural disturbances occurs at both the landscape and stand level as

described in 2005 FMP sections 5.3.2.8 Forest Disturbance, and section 6.4.3 Natural

Disturbance Pattern Emulation. Discussion on progress towards meeting these objectives is

contained in section 2.2 and table AR-15 of this report.

The goal of forest management for the Algonquin Park Forest is: `To produce a continuous

supply of forest products to the forest industry of the region through environmentally sound

forest management practices and in harmony with other Park uses and goals'. To accomplish

the forest management goal for Algonquin Provincial Park, the following objectives were

established. The level of objective achievement is also documented in the following section.

2.5.2.1 Forest Diversity

Forest diversity objectives for the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan and the associated level

of achievement are as follows:

▸ To protect the productive capacity of the soil and water in the management unit.

The extensive use of partial cutting systems on the harvested area and use of Area of Concern

guidelines on waterways ensures conservation of soil and water qualities. Maintenance of the

canopy in partial cutting systems protects the forest floor from extreme weather conditions. In

addition, fisheries, water quality, and site impact guidelines are used to minimize any damage to

the forest floor.


40

The proportion of water crossings that are properly installed and removed was 100% in

2007/08, 99% in 2008/09 and 96% in 2009-10 (source Forest Operations Information Program).

During the 2007 Independent Forest Audits auditors inspected 59 harvest operations, reviewed

all compliance reports, and spent 16 person days travelling roads and water crossings. No major

soil disturbance or water impacts were observed. Minor rutting was noted on fewer than 4% of

sites visited.

This objective is being met.

▸ To ensure that the current biological diversity of the Algonquin Park forest is not

significantly changed, and within the limits of silvicultural requirements, is restored to a pre-

settlement condition.

Forest diversity and landscape indices are being maintained within the bounds of natural

variation. Movement towards the desired future forest condition is tracked in Table AR-11 and

discussed in section 2.1.5. Forest descriptions show progression towards desired future forest

condition, but the change is very subtle. Forest units are effectively stable on the landbase and

are expected to remain so, given the predominance of the low impact selection and

shelterwood silvicultural systems used on this forest.

Approximately 25% of individual productive forest types are protected in reserves or wilderness

zones.


▸ The total available area of red and white pine forest units will not be reduced to a

level less than what exists in the bench mark year of 2000 (76,829 ha).

Total available production forest area of white and red pine forest units has increased from

76,286 ha. in 2000 to 79,987 ha. in 2005. The 2010 FMP plan start level is 85,318 ha (source:

table AR-11).


▸ Achieve 25% of the red and white pine forest units in old growth (120 years +) on the

Algonquin landscape. This target is in line with the Conservation Strategy for Old Growth Red

and White Pine Forest Ecosystems for Ontario, 1996. The goal of this strategy is “to ensure

that red and white pine ecosystems, including old growth stands, are present on the

landscape of Ontario now and into the future, while permitting a sustainable harvest of red

and white pine.”

This target will be assessed from the managed (including area in the basic and intensive stages

of management) and unmanaged forest, and may take several plan terms to accomplish.


41

The level in old growth red and white pine forest at the beginning of the 2010 FMP is 29%

(source – SFMM file Proposed Management Strategy 7.1 - 2010 FMP plan start numbers).

This objective has been met.

▸ Maintain a minimum of 1,750 hectares of the jack pine forest unit area in the available

forest over the next 100 years.

Target met – 2,812 hectares of jack pine forest unit available forest area in 2010 (source AR-11).

The 2007 Independent Forest Auditors had the following comments on this objective: “The

auditors viewed all jack pine harvests that have occurred over the audit term and found that the

operations implemented will ensure the return of the sites to jack pine. The objective will have

an ongoing target. Progress is evident. The objective will be met if current practices are

maintained”.

▸ Maintain a minimum of 12,000 hectares of the intolerant forest unit area in the

available forest over the next 100 years.

Target met – 36,131 hectares of INTCC forest unit available forest area in 2010 (source AR-11).

The 100 year projection for the INTCC forest unit in the new 2010 FMP indicates that 18,335

hectares of INTCC available forest area will exist in 2110 (source SFMM dat file – selected

management strategy).

A similar comment as above was made by the 2007 Independent Forest Auditors: “This objective

will be met if current practices are maintained”.

▸ Forest management practices will maintain genetic diversity within tree species native

to the unit.

A reliance on natural regeneration is the primary strategy for the maintenance of genetic

diversity within tree species native to the unit. In addition, all seed used for artificial

regeneration on the unit is obtained from seed zone 29 (Algonquin Park) and there is no use of

exotic species in the reforestation or rehabilitation program. Note: in 2007 there was some

bareroot tree seedling stock acquired from neighbouring seed zone 30, however, this stock did

comply with MNR’s seed zone transfer policy.


In summary, there were no substantive changes in forest cover and composition during the

2005-2010 plan term. The forest condition trends in table AR-11 indicate progress towards the

desired forest condition. The landscape pattern targets are being achieved, with the exception

of increasing the frequency of the largest disturbance size class (521+ ha). There are no

significant factors interfering with forest diversity objective achievement.


42

2.5.2.2 Social and Economic

Social and economic objectives for the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan and the associated

level of achievement are as follows:

▸ Maintain Park aesthetics, in order to contribute to the recreational and wilderness

experience of Algonquin Provincial Park visitors.

Park aesthetics are maintained in order to contribute to the recreational and wilderness

experience of Algonquin Park visitors. This is mainly accomplished through Park zoning, the use

of partial cut harvesting systems on 95% of the harvested area, and through the implementation

of Area of Concern prescriptions outlined in Table FMP-17 of the Forest Management Plan.

The 2007 Independent Forest Auditors had the following comments on this objective:

“Interviews with APP staff, a review of complaints logs, and interviews with dozens of APP

visitors during Loggers Day confirm forest management is not having a negative impact on APP

aesthetics from a client perspective. A flight conducted during the audit provided a view of a

largely uninterrupted forest cover”.


▸ To maintain the ecological and productive capacity of the forest, in order to provide

society with a sustainable harvest of forest-based material and social values.

Partial cutting systems ensure soil and water conservation by retaining the forest canopy. In

addition, fisheries, water quality and site impact guidelines are used to minimize any damage to

the forest floor. Thus, impacts of soil disturbance are reduced.

The 2007 Independent Forest Auditors had the following comments on this objective: “Auditors

inspected 59 harvest operations, reviewed all compliance reports and spent 16 person days

travelling roads and water crossings. No major soil disturbance or water impacts were observed.

Minor rutting was noted on fewer than 4% of sites visited”.


▸ To protect natural and cultural heritage values found on the unit. This includes

minimizing the impacts of forest access on self-sustaining brook trout lakes, and reducing

opportunities for long term public access to significant Park values.

While an issue was raised during the 1997-2002 independent forest audit related to a cultural

heritage value, much work has been completed with respect to the identification and protection

of cultural heritage values since then. Efforts are ongoing to ensure protection now and into the

future.

The 2007 Independent Forest Auditors had the following comments on this objective: “Evidence

gathered during the 2002-2007 Independent Forest Audit showed a high degree of awareness


43

among AFA and Ontario Parks staff and contractors of natural and cultural values. Current AOCs

are being applied with rigor, and new findings by field and logging staff have been reported and

efficiently entered into the NRVIS database, followed by revisions to the AWS where required”.

Independent Forest Audit recommendation #6 from the 2007 IFA (as discussed in section 2.5.1)

and the associated action plan also assists in meeting this objective.


▸ Identify and implement ways of achieving more equal participation by Algonquin First

Nation communities in the benefits provided through Forest Management Planning.

During the 2005-2010 term, work opportunities were provided for the Algonquin communities

in tree marking, road construction and maintenance, logging, stand improvement, manual

cleaning and site preparation. Contracts for this work averaged $3.5 million per year for the 5

year term, or 18% of total direct program costs. Volume harvested by Algonquin contractors

represented approximately 16% of the total volume harvested in Algonquin Park during the

term (19% in 2009-10). Silviculture work conducted by Algonquin contractors represented

approximately 12% of the total silviculture program for the Park during the term. Nine

Algonquin communities participated regularly on the 2010 FMP planning team, and none of the

native communities requested the special native consultation option outlined in the FMPM.


▸ To utilize the range of products that the forest will sustainably yield in a safe and

efficient manner.

The 100 year objective for white and red pine sawlogs is to exceed an average annual volume

of 110,000 m3 over the first ten terms. The 100 year objective for tolerant hardwood and

white birch sawlogs is to annually produce 70,000 m3 of tolerant hardwood and white birch

sawlogs in each of the first 10 year terms. The 100 year objective for red pine poles/tree

length is to annually produce 16,700 m3 of red pine poles/tree length in 5 or more of the first

ten terms.

The 2005-2010 target was to produce 520,000 cubic metres of forest products on an annual

basis for the selected management alternative. Of this total, it is estimated that 248,000 cubic

metres will be in sawlog and better products and 272,000 cubic metres of pulp and composite

quality products.

Refer to table AR-14 for a summary of this objective achievement. Due to declining market

conditions during the later years of the 2005-2010 term, only 3 of these 6 volume targets were

achieved. The hardwood and white birch sawlog target was 16% under target, the total sawlogs

and better was 8% under target, and the total volume was 3% under target. Note: due to

limitations in product identification in TREES, achievement for these targets was evaluated with

AFA sales data. Also, the inclusion of bridging volume harvested in 2010-2011 may result in


44

achievement of these targets. This information (by species and product) is currently not

available.

The 100 year projections from the new 2010 FMP indicate available long term projected

volumes by product in excess of these 2005 FMP targeted volumes for each product category

(source 2010 Table FMP-13).

Restrictions on summer logging opportunities because of sound zones, increased modified AOC

areas and new SAR AOCs has resulted in more winter logging, and fewer summer logging

operations. It is becoming more difficult to maintain a stable qualified forestry contractor base

and to provide a sustainable year-round wood supply for client mills relying on wood from the

Algonquin Park Forest.

Lost time days per 1000 m3 of wood harvested have been reduced from 0.49 during the 1990-

95 term to .32 during the 2000-2005 term and .34 during the 2005-2010 term.

This objective was partially achieved.

▸ Maintain or enhance the economic value added that harvesting in Algonquin

Provincial Park contributes to the Provincial and local economies as determined for the

selected management alternative at 5 year intervals. Baseline value is $ 110,280,576 for the

2005-2010 term.

Target met. Based on the 5-year average annual harvest of 458,047 m3 and the 2005 FMP value

added multiplier of $288 per m3, the average annual value added for the 5 year term was

$131,917,421.

In summary, the full available harvest area and volume from the Algonquin Park Forest is not

being fully utilized, primarily due to depressed market conditions. The trends in Table AR-11 do

not indicate any concerns with the area available for forest management. The implementation

of the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan did contribute to local mill and community stability

and for the most part, the desired benefit targets were achieved.

2.5.2.3 Provision of Forest Cover for Those Values which are Dependent on Forest Cover

Objectives to provide forest cover for the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan and the

associated level of achievement are as follows:

▸ To plan and implement forest management activities to protect and maintain the

natural values dependent on forest cover, while achieving sustainable use of the forest

resources, and maintaining overall forest sustainability. This will be accomplished by

continued implementation of silvicultural, wildlife and fisheries guidelines.


45

The continued implementation of silvicultural, wildlife, and fisheries guidelines in forest

planning and operations ensures the protection and maintenance of the natural values

dependent of forest cover.


audit confirmed that silviculture, fisheries, wildlife, and landscape guides are being implemented

on the Algonquin Park Forest”.


▸ Maintain preferred habitat for all selected wildlife species above the lower bound of

sustainability for the first 100 years during the modelling process (SFMM). Targets are to

maintain preferred habitat in excess of the following:

a. Moose winter habitat > 45,000 hectares.

This target has been reduced from the last plan (88,310 hectares) to correspond with changes in

the wildlife habitat matrix in SFMM. The new matrix is producing approximately 50% of the

preferred habitat compared to the old matrix. The new target has been reduced accordingly.

This target has been met. Moose winter habitat at 2010 plan start is 50,531 hectares (source

AR-12).

b. White-throated sparrow >39,000 hectares for at least 80 of the next 100 years.

This target has been increased from the last plan (6,330 hectares) to also correspond with

changes in the wildlife habitat matrix in SFMM. The new matrix is producing significantly more

preferred habitat compared to the old matrix. As with the new moose winter habitat target,

new target levels were determined based on sustainable levels calculated by the new habitat

matrix in SFMM.

This species was removed from the list of wildlife species to be modelled in the 2010 FMP as a

result of public consultation and the addition of new landscape class indicators that covered off

the habitat types of several of the original selected species that were modelled. Although this

value was not included in the 2010 FMP, it has been generated from the Strategic Forest

Management Model (SFMM) Selected Management Alternative file for this report (as were the

other 5 species removed). Although the 2010 value of 33,737 hectares falls short of the 39,000

hectare target value, it is consistent with the overall target of exceeding this value for 80 of the

next 100 years . The 2010 (T1) value is greater than the plan start value, and in 2015 (T2), the

level exceeds the target value. This level is maintained above 39,000 hectares over the medium

term and then drops below again in 2105 (T11). This target has been met.

The preferred habitat for the white-throated sparrow covers the full range of ecosites but is

limited to the pre-sapling and sapling development stages of these ecosites. Refer to section 3.7

of the 2010 FMP for a complete discussion regarding the presapling forest condition.


46

c. Deer wintering habitat (total forest) to mimic natural (benchmark) levels over time.

Although this species was also removed from the list of wildlife species to be modelled in the

2010 FMP, it has also been generated from the SFMM Selected Management Alternative file for

this report. The 2010 value of 49,735 hectares is consistent with this objective of mimicking the

natural benchmark levels over time. This target has been met.

Refer to section 2.2.4.2 of the 2010 FMP text for more information regarding objectives for deer

in Algonquin Park.

▸ Maintain preferred habitat (spatial habitat from OWHAM) for pileated woodpeckers >

225,933 hectares for the first five-year term.

This target has been met. Spatial pileated woodpecker habitat at 2010 plan start is 244,224

hectares. (source: 2010 FMP Analysis Package - Appendix K)

▸ No net loss of preferred habitat (spatial habitat from OWHAM) for red-shouldered

hawk for the first 5 year term (9,289 hectares in 2005).

This target has been met. Spatial red-shouldered hawk habitat at 2010 plan start is 10,026

hectares. (source: 2010 FMP Analysis Package - Appendix K)

▸ To ensure the protection of recreational values. The target is to maintain forest cover

on the landscape and to separate forest management and recreational activities during the

summer period.

Algonquin Provincial Park is a world class recreational area. Strategies such as the separation of

forestry activities and recreation by "time and space", and use of partial cutting systems where

tree species and site conditions dictate, have proven successful in minimizing impacts of forestry

operations on recreationists. Protection of values important to society is paramount during the

planning and implementation of forestry operations. Area of Concern prescriptions for values

are outlined in Table FMP-17 of the Forest Management Plan. Knowledge of the land base and

using experienced tree markers and woodsworkers ensures protection of water quality, wildlife

habitat, cultural heritage areas and other values society wishes protected. In addition, AFA posts

a Harvest Schedule map on the AFA internet site to assist with recreational planning in proximity

to planned forestry operations.


audit team inspected 69 implemented AOC prescriptions and found compliance to be

exceptionally high”.

This target is being met.


47

▸ Maintain or improve habitat for wolf prey species, specifically, moose and beaver

throughout the Park and deer south of Highway 60 and east of the Rolphton-Minden hydro

line.

The 2005 FMP implemented the AOC for beaver habitat in order to meet this objective. During

the 2005-2010 term, a total of 37 beaver habitat cuts were installed in suitable locations.

OWHAM and SFMM projections show that moose winter habitat will be maintained.


In summary, the habitat targets for species at risk and the selected wildlife species are being

achieved. The trends in Table AR-12 do not indicate any concern with the area of habitat for any

species at risk and or selected wildlife species.

2.5.2.4 Silviculture

Silvicultural objectives for the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan and the associated level of

achievement are as follows:

▸ To manage and upgrade the quality of the forest to ensure the long term needs of

local industry while maintaining forest health, diversity of species and ecosystem integrity.

This will be measured by the percentage of sawlog and better products compared to pulp

harvested over time.

Appendix D - Product Volume Summary Graph is a summary of product volumes harvested over

time from Algonquin Park. The overall trend of increasing pulpwood utilization from the forest

indicates an upgrading in the quality of the forest through harvesting practices. Tree marking

practices focus on the marking of the poorest quality trees for removal, and the maintenance of

the best quality trees for retention and natural regeneration. The 2000-2005 plan term

demonstrates a noticeable increase in pulpwood utilization from the forest (from 42% to 55%

pulp vs. total volume harvested), and significant progress towards meeting this forest

management objective. The 2005-2010 plan term demonstrates a further but less dramatic

increase in pulpwood utilization from the forest (from 55% to 56% pulp vs. total volume

harvested). Full stand improvement has also been completed on the majority of selection

harvested areas. As stands are entered for the second cut, higher sawlog to pulpwood ratios are

being obtained. Improvements in utilization and sawlog recovery at the mill are also

contributing to these percentages.


auditors viewed a consistent bias in harvesting towards removing poor quality trees. It is highly

likely that the next harvest of all sites visited will draw a timber product that is equal to, or

higher than, the product being removed on the last harvest”.



48

▸ During the 2005-2010 term, the renewal target is to naturally regenerate 52,589

hectares of forest and to artificially regenerate 1,983 hectares by planting 1,882,000 trees

during the 5 year term. A total of 514 hectares of scarification for natural regeneration is

planned.

Refer to section 2.1.3 - Renewal and Maintenance for a summary of renewal and tending

activities completed during the 2005-2010 plan term. Natural regeneration continues to be the

preferred option for renewal in Algonquin Park, and accounted for 94% of the total regeneration

activities during the plan term. Levels of natural regeneration and artificial regeneration were

53% and 68% of forecast levels respectively. Regeneration levels are forecast in the FMP for all

areas planned for harvest. Actual area harvested was 54% of planned, which accounts for the

shortfall of renewal and tending activity. A total of 1.251 million trees were planted over the

term, or 631,000 trees less than the target. Total area scarified for the five year term was 495

hectares, or 19 hectares less than the target. All of these silviculture targets were based on

100% utilization of the planned harvest area, which did not happen.

This objective was partially achieved.

▸ Natural regeneration of all tree species will be the preferred option, where stand and

site conditions permit.

Table AR-9 demonstrates the commitment to natural regeneration in the Algonquin Park Forest.

Natural regeneration continues to be the preferred option for renewal in Algonquin Park, and

accounted for 94% of the total regeneration activities during the plan term. As more timing

restrictions are imposed on forestry activities in Algonquin Park, it is becoming more difficult to

achieve effective natural regeneration and there is a greater reliance on artificial regeneration

to achieve desired results. Restrictions on summer logging opportunities because of sound

zones, increased modified AOC areas and new SAR AOCs has resulted in more winter logging, a

greater reliance on artificial site preparation and increased costs to the renewal program.


▸ The maintenance target is to tend 693 hectares of evenaged hardwood stands, to

conduct stand improvement on all tolerant hardwood area harvested under the selection

silvicultural system, to conduct 60 hectares of manual cleaning in PwUS forest unit area and to

conduct 50 hectares of pre-commercial red pine thinning during the plan term.

None of the planned 693 hectares of Hwd-US even-aged stand improvement work was reported

as completed. This area was planned in the FMP as both a commercial thinning harvest and a

precommercial thinning tending treatment. This was done in order to provide flexibility to

produce commercial material if encountered. Based on the stand conditions encountered on

site and the state of the market, this area was only reported as a harvest. Approximately 53% of

the Hwd-US forest unit was cut during the 2005-2010 term. Demand for hardwood pulp was

poor and as a result, operations scheduled for these younger hardwood stands was generally


49

deferred. In addition, one of these stands planned for Hwd-US thinning was re-classified to a

MWUS forest unit regular harvest during the forest operations prescription.

Approximately half (51%) of the forecast uneven-aged hardwood stand improvement work for

the 5 year term was completed, as a result of the undercut of the hardwood selection forest unit

forecast area.

The manual cleaning target of 60 hectares was more than doubled, with 127 hectares

completed between harvest and natural depletion area. This target has been increased in the

2010-2020 FMP to 131 hectares per year.

Forty six (46) hectares of harvest depletion area and 59 hectares of natural depletion area was

pre-commercially thinned during the 5 year term. The combine area thinned is 175% of the 60

hectare target for the term. All thinning occurred in red pine plantations that also included

varying but significant levels of jack pine natural regeneration.

This objective was partially achieved. Underachievement is directly related to declining markets

for forest products and subsequent reduced harvest activity and silvicultural treatment area.

▸ To ensure silvicultural revenue exceeds expenditures for all terms.

Table AR-4 indicates forest management expenditures from the Algonquin Park renewal account

for the 5 year term of $6.428 million. As of 2008-09, this Annual Report table no longer identifies

revenues to the account (FMPM revision). A separate data request was made to MNR to provide

this information. Based on the results of this request, total revenues to the renewal account for

the 5 year term were $4.734 million, resulting in a difference of approximately $1.685 million.

Over the later years of the 2005-2010 term, expenditures from the renewal account have been

exceeding revenues as a result of the following issues;

Reduced harvest activity is generating less revenue for the account,

Increased silvicultural activity to regenerate blowdown areas – 1999 and 2006

blowdown events,

An increase in renewal and tending efforts to meet silvicultural obligations and

silvicultural effectiveness monitoring recommendations and,

A greater emphasis on more costly artificial regeneration as summer logging

opportunities are reduced.


renewal fund balance has exceeded the minimum required by $800,000- $1,300,000 each year

of the audit period. That is likely to be reduced during the current market slump”.

The Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement requires the AFA to retain a minimum balance of

$1,500,000 in the Forest Renewal Account as of each March 31. To offset lower revenues

received from renewal stumpage charges during the economic downturn during late 2008 to


50

March 31, 2010 the AFA transferred funds from the General Account to the Renewal Account. The Renewal Account has a balance of $2,500,000 as of March 31, 2010.

An evaluation of the current funding formula is ongoing. Based on the results of this evaluation, renewal rates may be increased to balance revenues and expenditures.

This objective was partially met.

In summary, not all of the planned renewal operations in the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan were undertaken, primarily due to a reduction in actual harvest area. Renewal treatments that were completed are producing the anticipated results, and the forest is growing and developing as projected.

3.14 2.6 Determination of Sustainability Forest diversity objectives in the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan were achieved to the extent possible (7 out of 7). There were no substantive changes in forest composition or age class from the previous plan. The productive capacity of the soil and water on the unit is being maintained and forest unit areas are being maintained within their bounds of natural variation. The total available production forest area of red and white pine forest units has increased and the old growth objective has been met. Genetic diversity within tree species is also being maintained through a reliance on natural regeneration.

Five of the 6 social and economic objectives in the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan were achieved and the sixth objective was partially achieved. Park aesthetics and recreational/wilderness experiences are being maintained. The productive capacity of the forest is being maintained and natural and cultural heritage values are being protected. The level of participation by Algonquin communities in forestry operations in Algonquin Park continues to be significant. The average annual harvest volume for the five year term was 458,047m3/year. A range of products were harvested in a sustainable fashion and delivered to both supply commitment and open market mills. Due to declining market conditions throughout the term, only 3 of the 6 volume targets were achieved. The value added from harvesting in Algonquin Park exceeded the baseline value from the 2005 FMP, and Algonquin Park continues to be the largest direct employer of contract loggers and workers associated with logging and silviculture operations in the Southern region. As summer logging opportunities continue to decline however, contractors are experiencing challenges staying economically viable and client mills are challenged to maintain a sustainable supply of fibre throughout the year.

Provision of Forest Cover objectives in the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan were achieved (8 out of 8) through the continued implementation of silviculture, wildlife and fisheries guidelines in forest planning and operations. Areas of preferred habitat for selected wildlife species are being maintained within the bounds of natural variation and above selected target levels.


51

Forest cover is maintained through the extensive use of partial cutting systems and strategies are being implemented to minimize impacts of forestry operations on recreationists.

Two of the 5 silviculture objectives in the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan were achieved, while the other three were partially achieved. A lower than planned level of silvicultural work resulted from declining markets for forest products and subsequent reduced harvest activity and silvicultural treatment area. Funding for forest management is assured through the renewal portion of the crown stumpage matrix that the Authority retains. Silviculture expenditures are currently exceeding revenues however, renewal funding has been maintained by transferring funds from the AFA general account. An evaluation of the current funding formula is ongoing. The quality of the managed forest is being upgraded through the increased levels of pulpwood utilization and full stand improvement being applied to most hardwood areas harvested under the selection system.

The compliance monitoring program conducted by both AFA and Ontario Parks is effective in monitoring all aspects of the forest management program. The summary of compliance results for the 2005-2010 term indicates an overall high level of compliance with the Forest Management Plan, and the Compliance Plan goals and objectives are being achieved.

Independent forest management audits were performed on the Algonquin Park Forest in 2002 and 2007. Both audits concluded that the Algonquin Park Forest is being managed sustainably and recommended that the Minister of Natural Resources renew the agreement with respect to forest management in Algonquin Park. The implementation of the 2005-2025 Forest Management Plan has provided for the sustainability of the Algonquin Park Forest.

1

MANAGEMENT UNIT NAME: Algonquin Park ForestPLAN PERIOD: April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010ANNUAL REPORT: April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010

AR-1 ANNUAL REPORT OF WOOD UTILIZATION

Licenseeor

Grouping

ActualHarvest

Area(ha)

Product

Harvest Volume by Species (m3)

TotalConifer Hardwood Biofibre Mixedwood

White Pine Red Pine Jack Pine Spruce - All Hemlock Balsam Fir Cedar Larch (Tamarack) Subtotal Maple - All Uh White Birch Lh Poplar - All Subtotal

A. HarvestActual Volume Utilized Algonquin Forestry Authority 4,987 Composite Wood Panel 1,020 202 1,221 0 2,847 2,847 4,069

Fuelwood 390 260 650 8,200 3,177 124 11,501 12,151Not Elsewhere Specified 149 1,042 83 1,274 0 0 1,274Paper Mill 792 259 2,236 250 3,536 0 0 3,536Pulp Mill 3,249 139 3,389 3,044 443 5,107 9,752 18,345 21,734Sawmill & Special Product 96,114 44,222 2,106 14,018 6,507 1,893 164,860 74,149 13,557 3,096 0 8,799 99,601 264,461Veneer/Plywood 0 111 395 506 506

Total 101,714 44,823 3,407 16,336 6,507 2,143 0 0 174,930 85,392 17,288 8,722 0 21,398 132,800 0 307,730Total Actual Volume Utilized 101,714 44,823 3,407 16,336 6,507 2,143 0 0 174,930 85,392 17,288 8,722 0 21,398 132,800 0 307,730

B. SalvageActual Volume Utilized 0 0 0

0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Actual Volume Utilized 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note :Uh (Upland Hardwoods) includes Be, By, Aw, Iw, Cb, Or, OH; Lh (Lowland Hardwoods) includes Ms, Ew, AbNote: Actual Volumes: Ms is combined with Mh as Maple-AllNote: Harvest volumes do not include 177,000 m3 of estimated bridging volume to be harvested in 2010-2011.

2


AR-2 ANNUAL REPORT OF WOOD UTILIZATION BY MILL

Mill ProductVolume by Species (m3)

Conifer Hardwood Biofibre Mixedwood Total

White Pine Red Pine Jack Pine Spruce - All Hemlock Balsam Fir Larch (Tamarack) Subtotal Maple - All Uh White Birch Lh Poplar - All Subtotal

1114386 Ontario Inc. (Emeric Etmanskie,Wilno) Sawmill & Special Product 0 520 520 520Ben Hokum & Son Ltd. (Killaloe,Sawmill) Sawmill & Special Product 1,752 4,678 6,430 0 2,072 2,072 8,502Bois Daaquam Inc. (Ste. Just De Bretenieres) Sawmill & Special Product 2,106 9,676 394 12,177 0 0 12,177Brushmat Material/Camp Construction/Bridge Construction (Not Elsewhere Specified 82 82 0 0 82Carson Lake Lumber Ltd. (Pembroke) Sawmill & Special Product 16,134 2,206 204 17 18,561 0 0 18,561Columbia Forest Products Ltd. (Rutherglen) Veneer/Plywood 0 111 395 506 506Commercial Fuelwood Fuelwood 390 260 650 8,200 3,177 124 11,501 12,151Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd. (Pembroke,Sawmill) Sawmill & Special Product 10,558 10,558 0 0 10,558Dament & Charles Lumber Manufacturing Ltd. (Pembroke) Sawmill & Special Product 36,047 7,006 0 168 38 43,258 0 1,313 1,313 44,571Domtar Inc. (Espanola) Pulp Mill 404 25 430 161 42 3,753 8,970 12,926 13,356Fortress Specialty Cellulose Inc. (Thurso,Pulp) Pulp Mill 742 742 2,354 120 118 29 2,621 3,363Freymond Wood Prod. Inc. (Bancroft,Paper) Paper Mill 792 1,983 95 2,871 0 0 2,871Freymond Wood Prod. Inc. (Bancroft,Pulp) Pulp Mill 792 792 0 0 792GP North Woods LP Comp Composite Wood Panel 0 0 1,373 1,373 1,373Gro-Bark (Ontario) Ltd. (Waterloo,NES) Not Elsewhere Specified 149 1,035 1,184 0 0 1,184Herb Shaw & Sons Ltd. (Pembroke) Sawmill & Special Product 18,943 18,943 0 0 18,943Lavern Heideman & Sons Ltd. (Eganville, Scragg Mill) Sawmill & Special Product 834 4,084 4,918 0 0 4,918Lavern Heideman & Sons Ltd. (Eganville,Pulp) Pulp Mill 1,311 114 1,424 0 0 1,424Lavern Heideman & Sons Ltd. (Eganville,Sawmill) Sawmill & Special Product 4,365 1,375 5,740 0 0 5,740Louisiana Pacific Canada Ltd. (Bois Franc) Composite Wood Panel 0 0 813 813 813Masson Paper Ltd. (Buckingham) Paper Mill 259 253 154 666 0 0 666McRae Mills Ltd. (Whitney) Sawmill & Special Product 601 1,669 5,317 1,171 8,758 70,481 9,900 1,000 84 81,465 90,223Murray Brothers Lumber Co. Ltd. (Madawaska) Sawmill & Special Product 25,823 5,930 2,300 1,190 274 35,517 3,668 3,641 2,052 0 4,811 14,172 49,690Norampac Inc. (Trenton) Pulp Mill 0 529 281 1,235 753 2,798 2,798Southern Region - Horticultural Material Not Elsewhere Specified 7 2 8 0 0 8Tembec (Huntsville) Sawmill & Special Product 0 16 43 59 59Uniboard Canada Inc. Composite Wood Panel 1,020 202 1,221 0 661 661 1,883

0Total 101,714 44,823 3,407 16,336 6,507 2,143 0 174,930 85,392 17,288 8,722 0 21,398 132,800 0 307,730

Note :Uh (Upland Hardwoods) includes Be, By, Aw, Iw, Cb, Or, OH; Lh (Lowland Hardwoods) includes Ms, Ew, AbNote: Actual Volumes: Ms is combined with Mh as Maple-AllNote: Harvest volumes do not include 177,000 m3 of estimated bridging volume to be harvested in 2010-2011.

3


AR-3 ANNUAL REPORT OF RENEWAL SUPPORT

A. Seed Collected

Species Seed Zone/Breeding Zone

Source of Seed Collection

Seed or Cones Collected (hl)

This Year To Date

Pr 29 Bulk stands 0.6 20.85Pw 29 Bulk stands 21.6Sr 29 Bulk stands 0.52 0.62Pj 29 Bulk stands 2.3 2.3

B. Seeding

Species Seed Zone/Breeding Zone

Source of Seed Collection

Number of Seed Used (000s)

This Year To Date

C. Tree Planting

Species Seed Zone/Breeding Zone Stock Type

Number of Trees Planted (000s)

This Year To Date

Pj 29 Container 5.3 139.1Pw 29 Container 155.6 708.5Pr 29 Container 147.1 320.7Pr 29 Bareroot 57Pr 30 Bareroot 25.7

4


AR-4: Annual Report of Expenditures

Expenditures ($)

Activity

Forest Renewal Trust Fund or

Special Purpose Account (000s $)

Forestry Futures Trust Fund (000s $)

This Year To Date This Year To DateNatural Regeneration 506 3,721Artificial Regeneration 141 448 33 50Site Preparation 354 940 49 60Tending 92 960 33 33Renewal Support 30 359Other Eligible ActivitiesOther Eligible ActivitiesProtection (Insect Pest Control)

Total 1,123 6,428 115 143

5

AR-5: Summary of Planned and Completed Pesticide Applications in Ontario Crown Forests

This document satisfies the data reporting requirements of both the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and the Pesticides Act with regared to aerial pesticde applications in Crown Forests

Summary of Planned and Completed Pesticide Applications in Ontario Crown Forests

Management Unit Name:Plan Period:

Annual Report Term:Year of Application:

Application Type:Purpose of Application:

Pesticide / PCP Number:Concentration grams/litre:

Operator:Operator Licence #:

MOE Regional Office:MOE Permit Number:

Spray PeriodSite of Application Pesticide Used Exterminator Aircraft Incidents / Complaints

Start Date End Date

1: 20,000 Scale OBM Map Sheet Zone, East,

NorthBlock

#

ofA

pplic

atio

ns

Application Ratein kg per ha.

Proposed Size of Treatment Area (ha)

Actual Size of Treatment Area (ha)

Total Quantity of Pesticide

product used in kg ai

Name Number

Reg

istra

tion

Num

ber

Y/N Reference Number (Supplied by MOE Pesticides Specialist)

6

Access 25 2 27 21 5 26 46 7 53 0

Renew

al 4 0 4 1 1 00 5 0

Main

tenan

ce

00 0 0 0 0 00 00

5


AR-6: Annual Report of Forest Compliance Inspection Reports, Non-Compliances and Remedies

Forest Operations Inspected

Industry Submitted Reports MNR Submitted Reports Industry + MNR TotalTotal Number

of Non SFL Related Reports

Non-Compliance Remedy Applied

Number in Compliance

Number Non -Compliance Total Number Number in

ComplianceNumber Non -

Compliance Total Number In Compliance Non - Compliance

Total Number Reports Activity Number Non-

ComplianceWritten Warning

Remedy Order(s) Issued s. 58 Penalty Levied

s. 64 Offence Levied

s.59 License Suspended/ Cancelled

s. 55 s. 56 s. 57

Access 25 2 27 21 5 26 46 7 53 0

Aggregates 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Area of Concern 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Fire Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road Construction 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Water Crossing 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Harvest 42 6 48 30 5 35 72 11 83 0

Area of Concern 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Cutting 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0Fire Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Utilization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wood Measurement/ Movement

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Renew

al 4 0 4 1 0 1 5 0 5 0

Fire Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pesticide Application 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Renewal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main

tenan

ce

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fire Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pesticide Application 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 71 8 79 52 10 62 123 18 141 0 18 6 0 0 1 1 0 0

NOTES: 1. Remedies are not always applied the same year in which the non-compliance occurred. Numbers for Reports and Non-Compliance are not comparable to the numbers for Remedies Applied2. Total number of Inspections may not be equal to number In Compliance report + number Not In Compliance report due to operational issue still pending

7

MWUS 0 1 704 1 203 0 771 926 1 099 785 1 370 982


AR-7: Summary of Planned and Actual Harvest Area

Area (ha) - AnnualizedPLANNED HARVEST ACTUAL HARVEST

Forest Unit

Past Plans Past Plans Current Plan 2005-2010

1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005Planned Harvest

Actual Harvest

Projections

Medium-Term 2025

Long-Term 2105

INTCC 2,387 336 445 1,101 221 269 577 84 325 136PjCC 72 27 92 52 47 60 72 37 10 8PrCC 217 43 69 144 37 54 72 112 50 43SbCC 0 0 30 0 0 12 38 0 34 22HDUS 1,027 1,114 865 751 598 739 888 471 1,016 949MWUS 0 1,704 1,203 0 771 926 1,099 785 1,370 982LCUS 82 66 51 24 45 20 88 11 51 177OrUS 0 0 135 0 0 82 149 23 163 141PwUS 1,704 1,996 1,914 1,042 1,702 1,277 2,181 1,473 2,715 3,453SFUS 1,313 1,050 366 418 329 182 896 292 691 922HDSEL 9,161 8,099 6,607 3,651 3,518 4,196 6,278 3,381 954 1,024HeSEL 726 585 486 250 251 364 1,019 498 5,749 7,555

Total 16,688 15,020 12,264 7,433 7,519 8,181 13,357 7,166 13,128 15,412

Note: Actual harvest area numbers do not include 3,000 ha. (600 ha. annualized) of estimated bridging area to be harvested in 2010-2011.

8


AR-8: Summary of Planned and Actual Harvest Volume

Volume ('000 m3) - AnnualizedPLANNED HARVEST VOLUME ACTUAL HARVEST VOLUME

Species

Past Plans Past Plans Current Plan 2005-2010

1990-95 1995-2000 2000-2005 1990-95 1995-2000 2000-2005Planned Harvest

Actual Harvest

ProjectionsMedium-Term

2025Long-Term

2105

Pw 62,400 60,888 95,640 69,020 99,673 103,805 126,558 107,132 118,429 140,972Pr 30,800 29,112 30,911 34,336 32,754 51,224 32,630 45,589 33,141 39,115Pj 807 320 10,509 1,951 2,784 7,233 9,102 4,891 1,601 2,620Spruce - All 30,793 22,496 26,464 12,438 17,309 18,617 31,301 17,157 32,873 29,215Bf 0 1,370 15,400 777 1,272 1,625 21,954 2,300 18,001 27,092Ce 6,300 0 1,186 1 0 14 1,969 0 2,201 2,856La 0 0 30 3 118 7 79 3 18 53He 52,700 6,326 28,159 7,790 7,187 17,335 36,187 13,131 36,378 38,912Po 51,710 55,000 135,868 59,177 72,989 110,340 96,107 73,717 67,290 93,761Bw 19,900 28,582 37,495 20,837 18,337 19,193 29,204 12,185 22,821 30,171Mh 125,980 139,858 152,281 96,789 121,110 167,902 183,145 147,305 140,616 148,560Uh 50,720 43,586 74,511 46,230 36,415 45,649 92,971 34,636 71,415 75,907Lh 0 0 12,021 0 0 1 16,091 1 12,329 14,736

Total 432,110 387,538 620,474 349,350 409,947 542,947 677,298 458,047 557,113 643,970

Note: Actual harvest volumes do not include 177,000 m3 of estimated bridging volume to be harvested in 2010-2011.

Chemical 394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9


AR-9: Summary of Planned and Actual Renewal, Tending and Protection Operations

Area (ha) - AnnualizedPLANNED ACTUAL PLANNED ACTUAL

OperationPast Plans Past Plans Current Plan Current Plan

1990-1995

1995-2000

2000-2005

1990-1995

1995-2000

2000-2005 2005-2010 2005-2010

RenewalNatural Regeneration

Clearcut Silvicultural System (even-aged) 918 271 636 168 162 294 627 180Shelterwood Silvicultural System (even-aged) 5,565 6,319 1,621 3,376 2,658 1,475 2,590 1,561Selection Silvicultural System - Selection Harvest (uneven-aged) 10,255 7,879 6,607 3,986 3,572 4,190 7,300 3,878

Artificial RegenerationPlanting 380 264 365 212 401 324 397 238Seeding 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0Scarification 0 66 0 0 201 0 103 99

Total Renewal 17,118 14,803 9,230 7,742 6,995 6,283 11,017 5,957Site Preparation (mechanical, chemical, prescribed burn)

Mechanical 186 338 469 400 329 410 397 334Chemical 394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Prescribed Burn 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Site Preparation 580 348 469 400 329 410 397 334Tending

Cleaning 168 71 20 43 38 20 12 36Spacing, Pre-Commercial Thinning, Improvement Cutting

Clearcut and Shelterwood Silvicultural Systems (even-aged) 250 601 152 269 434 245 149 27Selection Silvicultural System (uneven-aged) 8,000 3,000 6,607 2,343 2,956 3,366 6,278 3,214

Total Tending 8,418 3,672 6,778 2,656 3,427 3,631 6,439 3,277Protection (Insect Pest Control)

768 389 559 86 208Regenerated (ha) 542 453 112

10


AR-10: Summary of Harvest and Regeneration Trends

Term

Forest Unit <1975

1975 - 1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2009

PwUS

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 9,420 9,327 10,121 2,373 7,367Surveyed (ha) 4,935 5,400 3,933 789 96Regenerated (ha) 4,633 5,608 8,015 4,935 5,400 3,933 789 34Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 188 187 202 47 4,795Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 4,485 3,927 6,188 1,584 7,272Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 53% 59% 40% 34% 1%

PrCC

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 753 718 186 271 559Surveyed (ha) 559 453 86 112 0Regenerated (ha) 768 542 389 559 453 86 112 208Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 15 14 4 5 11Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 194 265 100 160 559Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 76% 64% 47% 42% 38%

PjCC

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 97 259 234 299 185Surveyed (ha) 95 129 26 4Regenerated (ha) 355 73 94 95 129 26 4Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 2 5 5 6 4Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 2 130 209 295 185Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 100% 51% 11% 1% 0%

SFUS (SpUS + BfUS)

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 1,915 2,091 1,783 217 978Surveyed (ha) 1,037 580 515 9Regenerated (ha) 1,163 256 280 1,037 580 515 9Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 38 42 36 4 500

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 331 122 103 8 41

11


Forest Unit

2005-2009

1990-1994

1995-1999


Term

2000-2004<1975

1975 - 1979

1980-1984

1985-1989BfUS)

Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 878 1,511 1,268 208 978Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 55% 28% 29% 4% 0%

SbCC

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 62 0Surveyed (ha) 38 89 21Regenerated (ha) 365 24 31 38 89 21Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 1 0Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 0%

LCUS (formerly OCUS)

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 331 122 103 8 41Surveyed (ha) 9 73 18 6 0Regenerated (ha) 64 52 9 73 18 6Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 7 2 2 0 16Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 322 50 85 2 41Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 3% 61% 18% 79% 0%

HeSEL (formerly

HeUS)

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 3,031 1,250 1,257 1,821 2,488Surveyed (ha) 1,310 230 742 1,785 2,438Regenerated (ha) 128 298 440 1,310 230 742 1,785 2,438Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 61 25 25 36 50Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 1,721 1,020 515 0 0Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 44% 19% 60% 100% 100%Harvest/Salvage (ha) 1,880 2,837 2,644Surveyed (ha) 909 1,047 1,003 148 57

1,303Un-surveyed ((ha) 0 1 366 800 3950 0 4,968

12


Forest Unit

2005-2009

1990-1994

1995-1999


Term

2000-2004<1975

1975 - 1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

MWUS Regenerated (ha) 888 547 482 909 1,047 1,003 148Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 38 57 1,331Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 0 0 877 2,689 2,587Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 54% 5% 0%

INTCC (PoCC + BwCC)

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 2,096 5,507 1,106 1,343 419Surveyed (ha) 730 539 306 40 25Regenerated (ha) 2,864 1,146 1,936 730 539 306 40Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 42 110 22 27 8Un-surveyed ha) 0 0 0 1,366 4 968 800 1 303 395Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 36% 10% 28% 3% 0%

HDSEL

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 33,001 18,257 17,591 20,981 16,904Surveyed (ha) 32,341 17,892 17,239 20,561 16,566Regenerated (ha) 15 73 32,341 17,892 17,239 20,561 16,566Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 660 365 352 420 338Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

HDUS

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 4,466 3,753 2,490 1,080 1,380Surveyed (ha) 459 865 933 214Regenerated (ha) 59 56 257 459 865 933 214Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 89 75 50 22 1,003Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 4,008 2,888 1,557 866 1,380Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 10% 24% 38% 20% 0%

23 70811 8 889 43 027 24 921 19 246487 12 290 28 352Regenerated (ha)

13


Forest Unit

2005-2009

1990-1994

1995-1999


Term

2000-2004<1975

1975 - 1979

1980-1984

1985-1989

OrUS

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 190 95Surveyed (ha) 605 1,056 100 41Regenerated (ha) 200 325 240 605 1,056 100 41Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 4 23Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 95Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 22% 0%

Total

Harvest/Salvage (ha) 0 0 0 55,110 41,284 36,751 31,482 33,060Surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 43,027 28,352 24,921 23,708 19,182Regenerated (ha) 11,487 8,889 12,290 43,027 28,352 24,921 23,708 19,246Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) 0 0 0 1,102 826 735 630 8,078Un-surveyed (ha) 0 0 0 12,975 14,759 11,600 7,318 13,490Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 80% 70% 69% 77% 77%

14


AR-11: Summary of Forest Condition for the Available Managed Crown Productive Forest

Area (ha)

Forest Unit Age Stage of

Management

Past Plans Current Plan 2005-2010

Data Not Available

Data Not Available 2000 Plan Start

2005

Plan End 2010

(Start of 2010 FMP)

Projections

Medium-Term 2025

Long-Term 2105

INTCC 1-20 64 2,785 1,199 6,979 2,97321-40 810 902 1,116 2,779 3,23541-60 935 778 1,218 900 2,21361-80 7,727 5,308 2,704 776 3,90881-100 16,395 15,709 14,046 5,296 734101-120 10,338 11,733 12,404 9,436121-140 878 1,370 3,152141-160 185 155 287161-180 4181-200 1201+ 0

Forest Unit Subtotal 37,332 38,740 36,131 26,167 13,063PjCC 0-20 104 418 697 1,112 1,051

21-40 117 204 227 65 23341-60 341 356 211 204 19561-80 537 462 402 355 26681-100 1,065 594 543 116 84101-120 624 756 650121-140 15 51 67141-160 16161-180181-200201+

Forest Unit Subtotal 2,803 2,841 2,812 1,852 1,829PrCC 0-20 223 814 1,064 1,091 227

21-40 809 995 1,131 332 23541-60 294 262 249 993 1,64261-80 175 122 49 261 1,02881-100 1,775 1,017 631 122 513101-120 1,855 2,052 2,702 1,015121-140 184 397 584 801141-160 20 20 20 396161-180 28 28 28 20181-200201+ 11 11 11

Forest Unit Subtotal 5,374 5,718 6,468 5,031 3,646SbCC 0-20 80 226 748 785 621

21-40 185 217 232 226 26341-60 451 314 158 217 45661-80 1,259 1,638 891 313 65081-100 1,480 1,628 1,399 1,634 847101-120 1,261 1,224 1,317 1,624 239121-140 861 950 980 644 215141-160 257 255 724 675 311161-180 94 94 107 13 1,620181-200 94 218201+

15



Stage of Management Data Not

AvailablePlan Start

2005

Area (ha)

Forest Unit Age


Data Not Available 2000

Plan End 2010

(Start of 2010 FMP)

Projections

Medium-Term 2025

Long-Term 2105

Forest Unit Subtotal 5,928 6,546 6,558 6,226 5,438HDUS 1-20 Seed Cut 101 3,664 1,673 101 96

21-40 Seed Cut 4,947 3,757 3,718 3,701 2,00241-60 Seed Cut 1,330 1,804 2,986 6,938 5,79261-80 Seed Cut 4,890 3,637 3,487 1,800 7,21281-100 Seed Cut 2,675 3,437 2,636 3,629 15,524

Final Removal 1,478 1,415 3,863101-120 Seed Cut 4,991 4,044 3,558 2,250 9,491

Final Removal 2,855 3,683 2,493 2,409 8,094121-140 Seed Cut 2,768 2,831 1,962

Final Removal 1,995 2,075 2,704 7,086 418141-160 Seed Cut 4,743 4,433 2,396

Final Removal 6,579 4,669 4,878 4,459161-180 Seed Cut 1,590 2,690 3,408 3,257

Final Removal 4,076 4,183 3,852 5,645181-200 Seed Cut 796 883 1,896 654

Final Removal 2,793 2,264 1,816 5,890201-220 Seed Cut 689 625 1,459 392

Final Removal 2,175 1,539 1,460 1,240221-240 Seed Cut 104 209 624

Final Removal 158 227241+ Seed Cut 133 165 237

Final Removal 64 67Forest Unit Subtotal 51,471 52,092 50,913 50,311 48,627

LCUS 1-20 Seed Cut 12 75 11 921-40 Seed Cut 4 16 94 75 23341-60 Seed Cut 51 280 151 219 90861-80 Seed Cut 454 765 417 279 50381-100 Seed Cut 689 1,156 613 165 2,345

Final Removal 237 248 916 454101-120 Seed Cut 905 934 650 219

Final Removal 432 445 766 956 754121-140 Seed Cut 434 733 618 932




Final Removal 10 23 7 63201-220 Seed Cut 10 10 61

Final Removal 10 3221-240 Seed Cut

Final Removal

Forest Unit Subtotal 4,106 5,694 6,045 5,255 4,752

16




AvailablePlan Start

2005

Area (ha)

Forest Unit Age



Plan End 2010

(Start of 2010 FMP)

Projections

Medium-Term 2025

Long-Term 2105

MWUS 1-20 Seed Cut 77 43 98 2,658 1,76821-40 Seed Cut 512 285 626 4,157 3,43941-60 Seed Cut 454 752 2,510 11,861 9,27961-80 Seed Cut 4,732 3,490 2,334 1,199 3,83981-100 Seed Cut 8,508 12,723 7,846 3,482 8,454

Final Removal 12,376 4,331 3,840101-120 Seed Cut 7,177 11,417 15,071 8,488

Final Removal 10,431 8,465 5,189 4,485 9,264121-140 Seed Cut 509 1,088 2,957

Final Removal 1,612 1,563 1,895 7,900141-160 Seed Cut 30 537 588

Final Removal 323 231 1,054 672161-180 Seed Cut 24 32 59 536

Final Removal 17 14 41181-200 Seed Cut 22 16 32

Final Removal 17 13 12201-220 Seed Cut

Final Removal 29221-240 Final Removal241+ Seed Cut 28 29 28

Forest Unit Subtotal 46,850 45,012 44,165 45,499 36,042OrUS 1-20 Seed Cut 58 165 32 35

21-40 Seed Cut 39 2,849 1,81841-60 Seed Cut 254 80 420 4,32461-80 Seed Cut 126 145 98 253 1,82981-100 Seed Cut 1,403 1,356 655 145 1,671

Final Removal 389 217 671101-120 Seed Cut 6,044 6,456 4,295 1,353 1,414

Final Removal 1,809 864 1,519 57 1,303121-140 Seed Cut 288 789 2,242 4,921

Final Removal 163 63 784141-160 Seed Cut 34 63 160 787

Final Removal 11 12 91161-180 Seed Cut 38 63

Final Removal181-200 Seed Cut 1

Final Removal201-220 Seed Cut

Final Removal221-240 Final Removal

Forest Unit Subtotal 10,267 10,277 10,838 10,880 12,393PwUS 1-20 Prep Cut 2,625 4,266 3,043 694 475

17




AvailablePlan Start

2005

Area (ha)

Forest Unit Age



Plan End 2010

(Start of 2010 FMP)

Projections

Medium-Term 2025

Long-Term 2105

21-40 Prep Cut 1,266 1,897 3,908 7,654 7,39341-60 Prep Cut 280 946 1,056 11,441 35,59261-80 Prep Cut 1,070 710 352 1,369 14,419

Seed Cut 325First Removal 66Final Removal 15

81-100 Prep Cut 1,916 593 279Seed Cut 7,273 4,611 1,476 100 4,884First Removal 9,761 6,306 1,786Final Removal 1,581 933 1,034

101-120 Seed Cut 13,955 11,903 17,336 4,601 6,970First Removal 22,998 27,364 14,298 470 5,405Final Removal 2,779 2,559 9,237 6,753 14,011

121-140 Seed Cut 1,803 2,777 7,595 7,469First Removal 3,585 6,201 7,024 15,240Final Removal 384 744 3,915 15,655 2,746

141-160 Seed Cut 253 207 1,209First Removal 866 1,683 1,168 1,384Final Removal 128 246 1,100 4,477

161-180 Seed Cut 108 73 203First Removal 358 441 187 103Final Removal 2 53 942

181-200 Seed Cut 15 14 194First Removal 91 78 61 36Final Removal 256

201-220 Seed Cut 43 33 110First Removal 146 105 19 7Final Removal 87 85 62 46

221-240 Seed Cut 4 42 33Final Removal 60 52

241+ Seed Cut 4First Removal 72Final Removal 36

Forest Unit Subtotal 71,455 74,260 78,850 79,416 92,173SFUS 1-20 Seed Cut 45 1,267 650 77 76

21-40 Seed Cut 687 718 1,744 4,012 3,91641-60 Seed Cut 2,588 2,288 2,227 6,714 12,356

Final Removal 672 396 37261-80 Seed Cut 14,308 13,792 5,547 2,295 11,860

Final Removal 4,821 3,632 4,891 395 44881-100 Seed Cut 5,482 6,340 4,757 6,460 141

Final Removal 2,667 2,792 9,435 6,727 4,815101-120 Seed Cut 1,387 1,261 1,974 1,518

Final Removal 1,741 1,615 1,358 3,693 31121-140 Seed Cut 324 354 1,006 1,258

Grand Total 479,343 449,367472,302 482,744 429,498

18




AvailablePlan Start

2005

Area (ha)

Forest Unit Age



Plan End 2010

(Start of 2010 FMP)

Projections

Medium-Term 2025

Long-Term 2105

Final Removal 485 429 577141-160 Seed Cut 206 192 143 353

Final Removal 79 7 244161-180 Seed Cut 57 63 36



Final Removal 8 72 10 291221-240 Final Removal 3 7241+ Seed Cut 1 1 1

Forest Unit Subtotal 35,710 35,298 35,149 33,703 34,834HeSEL 1-999 30,322 30,829 27,097 25,606

Forest Unit Subtotal 20,019 30,322 30,829 27,097 25,606HDSEL 1-999 180,987 172,543 173,985 157,931 151,096

Forest Unit Subtotal 180,987 172,543 173,985 157,931 151,096Grand Total 472,302 479,343 482,744 449,367 429,498

19


AR-12: Summary of Habitat for Species at Risk and Selected Wildlife Species

Area of Habitat (ha)Past Plans Current Plan 2005

Wildlife Species1990 1995 2000

Plan Start

2005

Projections Plan End

2010Short-Term2015

Medium- Term2025

Long-Term2105

Barred Owl n/a n/a 260,600 278,070 274,521 268,198 282,020 280,243Bay Breasted Warbler n/a n/a 69,758Black-backed Woodpecker n/a n/a 7,747Black Bear (summer) n/a n/a 9,300 78,476 75,061 67,382 65,106 7,863Black Bear (fall) n/a n/a 72,600 65,159 61,128 58,705 60,100 77,243Blackburnian Warbler n/a n/a 293,000 295,733 287,923 282,094 297,000 297,225Boreal Chickadee n/a n/a 22,652Broad-winged Hawk (breeding) n/a n/a 470,100 398,899 374,502 354,778 359,517 407,450Least Flycatcher n/a n/a 274,200 355,700 344,990 332,066 320,455 352,309Lynx denning n/a n/a 40,124Hermit Thrush n/a n/a 34,098Marten n/a n/a 282,900 281,377 268,549 246,509 225,380 154,990Moose (fall) n/a n/a 5,900 132,476 166,182 142,302 118,788 116,372Moose (Winter) n/a n/a 95,900 49,865 48,555 46,640 46,466 50,531Northern Flying Squirrel n/a n/a 228,600 254,278 238,816 227,828 230,795 270,380Pine Siskin n/a n/a 91,842Pileated Woodpecker n/a n/a 250,300 257,606 229,355 187,743 158,543 248,891Eastern Redback Salamander n/a n/a 364,400 430,602 420,894 416,282 408,591 429,723Ruby-crowned Kinglet n/a n/a 51,000 8,486 10,279 17,951 28,262 13,737Red-eyed Vireo n/a n/a 409,061Ruffed Grouse n/a n/a 9,900 14,834 31,833 56,086 64,282 19,033Snowshoe Hare (winter) n/a n/a 30,700 42,694 48,592 51,889 40,000 50,246White-tailed Deer (summer) n/a n/a 7,400 134,701 168,790 145,357 120,033 119,573White-tailed Deer (winter) n/a n/a 146,900 51,059 49,259 50,000 58,352 49,735White-throated Sparrow n/a n/a 6,300 31,252 43,253 50,000 34,859 33,737

1HeSEL* HE N 293 7 1 116822 4 222 7 1 338 8

20


AR-13: Summary of Assessment of Regeneration and Silvicultural Success

2005-2010 Area Assessed Area Successfully Regenerated

Area Not Successfully Regenerated

Total AreaAssessedForest Unit

SilviculturalGround

RuleProjected Forest Unit Other Forest Unit Total

HarvestPJCC PJ-NS 4.1 4.1

PJ-SP 3.8 3.8 3.8PJ-PW 6.4 0.0 6.4 6.4PJ-N

Forest Unit Subtotal 6.4 3.8 10.2 4.1 14.3PRCC PR-NS 93.0 22.0 115.0 77.9 192.9

PR-SP 15.2 15.2 2.7 17.9PR-ST 29.4 29.4 19.3 48.7PR-NST

Forest Unit Subtotal 137.6 22.0 159.6 99.9 259.5SbCC SB-N 10.3 16.8 27.1 10.4 37.4

Forest Unit Subtotal 10.3 16.8 27.1 10.3 37.4LCUS LC-N 29.3 29.3 43.1 72.4

Forest Unit Subtotal 29.3 29.3 43.1 72.4PWUS PW-N 1,872.3 649.3 2,521.6 1,635.7 4,157.2

PW-NS 60.5 5.7 66.2 52.1 118.3PW-NT 26.1 26.1PW-MIX 11.5 11.5 4.9 16.4PW-SP 533.0 16.2 549.1 474.9 1,024.1PW-P 26.7 26.7 3.2 29.9PW-SPT 4.6 4.6 3.2 7.8

Forest Unit Subtotal 2,504.0 675.7 3,179.6 2,200.0 5,379.7SFUS SF-N 363.1 91.0 454.1 79.3 533.4

SF-NT 14.2 8.4 22.6 22.6SF-P

Forest Unit Subtotal 377.2 99.4 476.6 79.3 555.9HeSEL* HE-N 822.4 293.7 1,116.1 222.7 1,338.8

HE-NS 29.6 13.6 43.2 43.2HE-NT 14.2 14.2 14.2

Forest Unit Subtotal 866.2 307.3 1,173.5 222.7 1,396.1ORUS OR-N 34.5 34.5 82.5 117.0

Forest Unit Subtotal 34.5 34.5 82.5 117.0INTCC INT-N 128.2 39.2 167.4 37.4 204.7

INT-PWForest Unit Subtotal 128.2 39.2 167.4 37.4 204.7

HDUS HWD-N 770.5 255.6 1,026.1 143.7 1,169.8HWD-PW 3.4 44.9 48.3 48.3HWD-BYF 74.4 74.4 9.6 84.0HWD-NS 9.4 9.4 9.4HWD-NT 4.9 4.9 4.9

Forest Unit Subtotal 853.2 309.8 1,163.0 153.3 1,316.3MWUS MIX-N 903.4 167.2 1,070.6 395.1 1,465.7

MIX-PW 8.4 8.4 57.4 65.8Forest Unit Subtotal 903.4 175.6 1,079.0 452.5 1,531.5

HDSEL* SEL-T 17,153.3 88.1 17,241.4 22.0 17,263.4Forest Unit Subtotal 17,153.3 88.1 17,241.4 22.0 17,263.4

Harvest Subtotal 23,003.6 1,737.6 24,741.2 3,407.2 28,148.4

Natural DisturbanceINTCC INT-PW 32.6 32.6 5.1 37.7

Forest Unit Subtotal 32.6 32.6 5.1 37.7PrCC PR=SP 45.4 2.4 47.8 47.8

Forest Unit Subtotal 45.4 2.4 47.8 47.8PwUS PW-SP 76.6 12.0 88.6 7.8 96.4

Forest Unit Subtotal 76.6 12.0 88.6 7.8 96.4HDUS HWD-N 5.3 5.3 5.3

Forest Unit Subtotal 5.3 5.3 5.3HeSEL* HE-N 8.4 60.5 69.0 69.0

Forest Unit Subtotal 8.4 60.6 69.0 69.0Disturbance Subtotal 130.4 112.9 243.3 12.9 256.2

Total 23,133.9 1,850.5 24,984.5 3,420.1 28,404.6

* Note: Assessments in the HDSEL forest unit and some of the HeSEL forest unit are assessments of management standards not regeneration assessments

21


AR-14: Assessment of Objective Achievement

LTMD - Projections

Management Objective Indicator Plan StartLevel

DesirableLevel Timing of Assessment Target Medium

(20 Years)Long

(100 Years) Assessment

Quantitative Objectives

1. Forest DiversityAchieve 25% old growth red and white pine at 2025.

Proportion of FU Group area

>120 years (total forest)

17% 25% at 2025 2010 25% 43% 28% Target met. 28% in 2010. Note: this objective has been revised in the 2010 FMP to >=75% of the natural benchmark level of old growth for each even-aged forest unit 150 years.

Increase the white and red pine forest unit group area over time.

Area of FU Group (total forest) Ha

97,547 > 97,547 2010 > 97,547 104,126 121,367 Target Met. 2010 FMP start level = 101,395 ha.

Maintain a minimum of 1,750 hectares of jack pine forest unit area in the available forest over the next 100 years.

PJCC forest unit available forest

area

2,488 >1,750 2010 >1,750 1,852 1,829 Target met. 2,812 ha. in 2010. Note: this objective has been revised in the 2010 FMP to >=75% of the natural benchmark level by term for landscape classes.

Maintain a minimum of 12,000 hectares of intolerant forest unit area in the available forest over the next 100 years.

INTCC forest unit available

forest area

36,412 >12,000 2010 >12,000 26,167 13,063 Target met. 36,131 ha. in 2010. This objective has been revised in the 2010 FMP to >=75% of the natural benchmark level by term for landscape classes.

2. Socio-Economic

Average volume of white and red pine sawlogs for the first 10 terms >110,000 m3.

m3/yr 137,132 >110,000 2010 >110,000 131,344 147,022 Target met. 111,609 m3/yr of Pw/Pr sawlogs harvested during the 2005-2010 term

Red pine poles/treelength annually in 5 or more terms > 16,700m3.

m3/yr 22,975 > 16,700 2010 > 16,700 20,924 22,661 Target met. 17,252 m3/yr of Pr poles/treelength harvested during the 2005-2010 term

Hardwood and white birch sawlogs for each of the first 10 terms > 70,000 m3 per year.

m3/yr 94,795 > 70,000 2010 > 70,000 85,031 108,544 Target not met. 59,075 m3/yr of hardwood/white birch sawlogs harvested during the 2005-2010 term

Produce 520,000 cubic metres of forest products on an annual basis - 248,000 cubic metres is in sawlog and better products and 272,000 cubic metres of pulp and composite quality products.

m3/yr 658,480 > 520,000 2010 > 520,000 594,183 647,861 Target not met for total volume where 503,526 m3/yr were harvested during the 2005-2010 term. Target not met for total sawlog and better volume where 228,498 m3/yr were harvested. Target met for pulp/composite quality products where 275,028 m3/yr were harvested during the 2005-2010 term.

Maintain or enhance value added for selected management alternative.

$ $110,280,576 > $110,280,576 2010 > $110,280,576 N/A N/A Target met. Based on the 5-year average annual harvest of 458,047 m3 and the 2005 FMP value added multiplier of $288 per m3, the average annual value added for the 5 year term was $131,917,421

Participation by native communities in benefits provided through forest management planning.

Level of Participation

2010 Target met. Refer to text section 2.5.2.2 - social and economic objective achievement.

3. Wildlife

Deer wintering habitat (total forest) to mimic natural levels over time.

Ha. 51,059 50,000 58,352 Target met. Note: this species was removed from the list of wildlife species to be modelled in the 2010 FMP.

Moose winter habitat > 45,000 ha. for the first 10 terms

Ha. 49,865 > 45,000 2010 > 45,000 46,640 46,471 50,531 ha in 2010. Target met.

White-throated sparrow habitat > 39,000 ha for at least 80 of the next 100 years

Ha. 31,252 > 39,000 2010 > 39,000 for atleast 8 of 10

terms

50,000 34,859 Target met. Note: this species was removed from the list of wildlife species to be modelled in the 2010 FMP.

Maintain preferred habitat (spatial habitat from OWHAM) for pileated woodpeckers > 225,933 hectares for the first five-year term.

Ha. 239,041 >225,933 2010 >225,933 N/A N/A Target met. Spatial pileated woodpecker habitat at 2010 plan start is 244,224 hectares

No net loss of preferred habitat (spatial habitat from OWHAM) for red-shouldered hawk for the first 5 year term (9,289 hectares in 2005).

Ha. 9,289 >9,289 2010 >9,289 N/A N/A Target met. Spatial red-shouldered hawk habitat at 2010 plan start is 10,026 hectares

4. Silviculture

Revenue exceed expenditures for all terms. Rev-exp (Net $) 2010 Target met. Refer to section 2.5.2.4 for a discussion silvicultural objective achievement.

22


AR-14: Assessment of Objective Achievement

Medium (20 Years)

Long(100 Years) Assessment

LTMD - Projections

Management Objective Indicator Plan StartLevel

DesirableLevel Timing of Assessment Target

Naturally regenerate 52,589 ha of forest, artificially regenerate 1,983 ha, 514 ha of scarification, 693 ha of polewood tending and 31,392 ha of unevenaged improvement work during first five-year term for the selected management alternative.

Ha. 2010 N/A N/A Partially achieved. 53% overall achievment of planned levels (53% of natural regeneration, 52% of artificial regeneration, 96% of scarification, 13% of polewood tending and 51% of uneven-aged stand improvement). Under-achievement is a function of reduced harvest levels.

Qualitative Objectives

Biological/species diversitySoil, water and air qualityStructural legacyGenetic diversityProtection of natural and cultural valuesForest coverAestheticsMaintain ecological and productive capacity of the forest.Recreational values

Assessment:

Non-quantifiable objectives are achieved over time through the application of standards that are detailed in theForest Management Plan, Provincial silvicultural and wildlife guidelines, construction and operational manuals,resource and environmental manuals.

Compliance to these standards is measured in the Algonquin Forestry Authority's monitoring inspectionsof its operations, Ministry of Natural Resources audits and independent forest audits.

Refer to section 2.5.2 of the Annual Report text for an assessment of these qualitative objectives.

23


AR-15 SUMMARY OF FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST DISTURBANCES BY SIZE CLASS

Size Class (ha)

Frequency of Forest DisturbancesNumber Percent

Plan Start (2005)

Projected Plan End (2010) Actual To Date Plan Start Projected Plan

End Actual To Date Template

0 to 10 105 87 50 45.06% 33.46% 28.90% 41%11 to 70 104 140 98 44.64% 53.85% 56.65% 47%

71 to 130 12 14 13 5.15% 5.38% 7.51% 3%131 to 260 8 11 8 3.43% 4.23% 4.62% 1%261 to 520 2 5 3 0.86% 1.92% 1.73% 3%

521+ 2 3 1 0.86% 1.15% 0.58% 6%

Total 233 260 173 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100%

Report of an Independent Audit of Forest Management on the ... - Premier of Ontario · 2015. 2....

Documents

Transcript of Report of an Independent Audit of Forest Management on the ... - Premier of Ontario · 2015. 2....