Armstrong Forest Independent Forest Audit. Management Unit Action Plan

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Armstrong Forest Independent Forest Audit. Management Unit Action Plan"

Clyde Mills
6 years ago
Views:

1 Armstrong Forest Independent Forest Audit Management Unit Action Plan P a g e 1

2 Table of Contents Action Plan Submission Signature Page... 3 Prepared by:... 3 Reviewed by:... 3 Submitted by:... 3 Action Plan Approval Signature Page... 4 Endorsed by:... 4 Approved by:... 4 INTRODUCTION... 5 Recommendations... 5 Recommendation # 1:... 5 Recommendation # 2:... 6 Recommendation # 3:... 7 Recommendation # 4:... 8 Recommendation # 6:... 8 Recommendation # 7:... 9 Recommendation # 9: Recommendation # 10: Recommendation # 11: Recommendation # 12: Recommendation # 13: Recommendation # 14: P a g e 2

3 Action Plan Submission Signature Page Prepared by: Bertha Strickland, R.P.F. Management Forester MNR Thunder Bay District Original Signed on March 22, 2012 Reviewed by: Rik Aikman Area Supervisor, Thunder Bay North MNR, Thunder Bay District Original Signed on March 23, 2012 Submitted by: Frank Miklas District Manager, MNR, Thunder Bay District Original Signed on March 23, 2012 Kim Groenendyk District Manager, MNR, Nipigon District Original Signed on March 27, 2012 P a g e 3

4 Action Plan Approval Signature Page Endorsed by: Allan Willcocks, R.P.F. Regional Director MNR, Northwest Region Original Signed on March 29, 2012 by Frank Miklas Chris Walsh, R.P.F. Director MNR, Forests Branch Original Signed on April 12, 2012 Approved by: Rosalyn Lawrence Assistant Deputy Minister MNR, Policy Division Original Signed on April 17, 2012 Carrie Hayward A/Assistant Deputy Minister MNR, Regional Operations Division Original Signed on April 18, 2012 P a g e 4

5 INTRODUCTION In September, 2011, an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) was conducted on the Armstrong Forest by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd. for the period April 1, 2006 to March 31, The final audit report was received February 23, The final audit report included 12 management unit recommendations. Those recommendations directed at corporate MNR (R#5, #8) will be addressed in the separate 2011 Provincial Action Plan. For each audit recommendation this action plan outlines the actions required, responsibility, timelines, and method of tracking progress of actions. The Armstrong Forest and the former Lake Nipigon Forest are now included in the new Lake Nipigon Forest MU 815. The former Armstrong Forest is managed by MNR Thunder Bay District. The former Lake Nipigon Forest is managed under a Sustainable Forest Licence issued to Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. (LNFMI). The current Lake Nipigon Forest Forest Management Plan (FMP) has been prepared for the amalgamated management unit. Nipigon District is the MNR administrative lead for the new Lake Nipigon Forest and therefore has responsibilities reflected in this action plan. Nipigon District is the lead for working with the SFL holder to address audit recommendations related to the FMP. Recommendations Recommendation # 1: OMNR must fully meet its responsibilities as the forest manager of the Armstrong Forest. Action Required: 1. Thunder Bay District is developing a program to address outstanding silvicultural obligations by surveying areas that are not free-to-grow to determine whether renewal or tending treatments are required, whether the areas are regenerated (e.g. natural regeneration or previous treatments), or whether the areas are freeto-grow. (Also refer to recommendations #6, 9) reporting areas that are regenerated or free-to-grow in the Annual Reports confirming the actual treatments required and scheduling in the appropriate AWS and reporting in the Annual Report 2. Thunder Bay District is working with Northwest Region, the MNR Nipigon District, Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. (the SFL holder on the former portion of the Lake Nipigon Forest) as well as aboriginal communities towards finding resolution on the long term management structure for the amalgamated Lake Nipigon Forest. P a g e 5

6 1. Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor. 2. Thunder Bay District Manager (lead); Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor. 1. Silvicultural obligations assessment project planning formally initiated January 2012 and the intent is to complete the assessments within 3 years. ARs, AWS ongoing beginning Ongoing with renewed commitment made and enhanced effort undertaken by MNR in spring of 2011 to address the action. 1. Spatial Database (silvicultural obligations), ARs, AWSs. 2. SFL on the amalgamated Lake Nipigon Forest. Recommendation # 2: In the development of future forest management plans, the FMP Steering Committee must fulfill its Terms of Reference responsibilities and provide adequate support to the FMP process. The following will be documented within the applicable sections of future Terms of Reference and Project Plans of Phase II ( ) of the current Lake Nipigon Forest FMP and subsequent FMPs: The Project Manager will ensure that issues that impede the planning team are brought to the Steering Committee. Re-visiting of planning decisions will not occur without good cause. This applies to all involved in the FMP planning process (Plan Author, Area Forester, Project Manager, District Manager, SFL Manager, Planning Team, Steering Committee). The District Manager and SFL Manager will determine the financial and human resources necessary to ensure the plan proceeds on schedule. The advice of the Steering Committee will be obtained if funding or resources are insufficient. Regular updates by the Project Manager to the Steering Committee will occur during FMP development to ensure the planning process milestones are being met. The Project Manager will seek and incorporate guidance from the Steering Committee and MNR FMP Specialist if delays are encountered to ensure that modified timelines are realistic for the remainder of plan development. Outcomes related to the above actions will be documented (e.g. minutes or other records of discussion) by those noted in actions above. P a g e 6

7 Preparation of Terms of Reference & Project Plan: MNR Nipigon District Area Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester; Approval: MNR Nipigon District Manager and MNR Northwest Region Director. Implementation during plan development is specified in actions above: MNR (Project Manager, District Manager, Area Foresters), SFL (Plan Author, General Manager) as well as all other Planning Team and Steering Committee members. Phase II Plan beginning 2014 and ongoing until plan approval expected by March 31, 2016; ongoing for subsequent FMPs. Terms of Reference and Project Plans of Phase II ( ) of the current FMP and subsequent FMPs; Outcomes to actions documented in minutes or other records of discussion. Recommendation # 3: OMNR and LNFMI should assess whether the inclusion of all non-ftg areas as available forest in Term 1 of SFMM resulted in an appropriate increase in the area available for harvest. To address this audit recommendation the manner of incorporating the non-ftg area in the model needs to be reviewed. It is not a matter of running the model (SFMM) with the non-ftg areas excluded for the current FMP. Area cannot be removed if it is not free-to-grow (FTG) at the moment. It is inappropriate to conduct forest analysis in the long-term without dealing with the entire land base. At some point or another in modeling, portions of the forest area are not free-to-grow. Accordingly, a regeneration delay is assumed in the analysis for future harvest as is a likely success rate based on the most recent surveys for recent harvest. It is a matter of whether the modeling assumptions are appropriate, not whether or not the area is included. In development of modeling assumptions for the next FMP the survey data and assumptions of how the non-ftg area was incorporated in the FMP, and any available additional survey information that has occurred since then, will be reviewed to ensure that only appropriate area is included. MNR Nipigon District Area Forester (lead for working with SFL holder), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester, MNR NWR Regional Analyst FMP Analysis Package forecast for completion in P a g e 7

8 FMP Analysis Package. Recommendation # 4: OMNR should explore opportunities to benchmark yield curves in SFMM against actual harvest yields. Block level harvest volumes will be assessed as compared to predicted volumes to support the development of yield curves in next FMP based on the following: Determining and documenting appropriate field sampling of snow storm damaged stands and undamaged stands. The sampling will also consider the forest units in the plan, age, various stocking and site classes, number of blocks and location; Issuing separate Harvest Approvals for blocks and using corresponding volumes in MNR s TREES invoicing system to compare against predicted FRI volumes. MNR Nipigon District Area Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester, MNR Northwest Region Analyst. Beginning April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2019 to include in FMP Analysis Package. Record of field sampling plan, record of Block Harvest Approval volumes compared to predicted volumes, FMP Analysis Package. Recommendation # 6: OMNR must ensure that conifer renewal sites are monitored and that when required tending is undertaken to ensure that conifer regeneration is consistent with the achievement of the planned future forest condition. 1. MNR will continue and refine efforts to identify area that will require monitoring to determine if tending treatments are necessary. (Also, refer to recommendation #1) 2. Areas surveyed and determined to require tending will be prioritized based on risk as well as silviculture and management intent. The area will be scheduled in the appropriate AWS for tending dependant on funding availability. A possible complicating factor in the timely completion of chemical tending activities on the Armstrong Forest is the current and historical strong local opposition to the use of herbicide as a tending method. This may result in operational delays as dialog P a g e 8

9 between forest managers, the LCC and Aboriginal/First Nation communities continue. 1. MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester (lead), Planning and Information GIS. 2. MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. 1. Compile spatial data by March 30, 2012; ongoing annually. 2. Beginning with AWS April 1, 2013 and ongoing annually. 1. A spatial database has been compiled using all available information to identify the area that may require tending activities to meet intended regeneration standards on the forest. The spatial database will serve as the method of tracking; area surveyed; area to be surveyed; as well as the scheduling of any necessary tending activities. 2. AWSs, Annual Reports. Recommendation # 7: The OMNR must immediately implement a water crossing management strategy to reduce the potential for environmental damage and public safety hazards associated with deteriorating temporary water crossing structures. 1. MNR Thunder Bay District has completed an inventory on the majority of temporary water crossings during the fall of 2011 with the remainder scheduled for inspection in MNR Thunder Bay District developed a strategy to address deteriorating temporary water crossing structures based on risk and use beginning with removals scheduled in AWS. Crossing removal is dependant on funding availability. 3. MNR Thunder Bay District will continue its efforts to request funding. 1. MNR Thunder Bay IRM Technical Specialist (lead), Resource Management Technician. 2. MNR Thunder Bay Management Forester (lead), IRM Technical Specialist. 3. MNR Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor (lead), IRM Technical Specialist. 1. Partially completed November 2011; remainder to be completed AWS ongoing. 3. Requested for Fiscal ongoing. P a g e 9

10 1. Water crossing inventory information on file. 2. Water crossing inventory information; AWSs and Annual Reports. 3. Capital Funding Request/Budget. Recommendation # 9: OMNR must address the backlog in area requiring assessment of regeneration success (artificial and natural renewal) and maintain an annual regeneration assessment program approximating the annual allowable harvest area. 1. MNR will continue and refine efforts to determine the total area that requires free-to-grow assessment for previously depleted areas. The areas will be organized in an annual survey program dependant on funding availability. (Also refer to R#1) 2. Going forward MNR will maintain an annual free-to-grow survey program depending on the actual harvest area and the year to assessment targets as per the FMP silviculture ground rules. 1. MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester (lead); Planning and Information GIS System Officer. 2. MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. 1. Area determined by March 31, 2012; Annually beginning with the AWS. 2. Ongoing beginning with the AWS. 1. A spatial database has been compiled using all available information to identify the total area required to be surveyed. The spatial database will track the total area to be surveyed, the total area surveyed and future re-assessment if required. AWSs, Annual Reports. 2. AWSs, Annual Reports. Recommendation # 10: OMNR must complete the survey of XYZ category lands. Category X, Y, Z (previously harvested) lands apply to Sustainable Forest Licences. Since, the Armstrong Forest is no longer an SFL, these land classifications are no longer applicable. Since this recommendation is about surveying previously harvested lands this recommendation is addressed by the actions outlined in recommendations #1, 6, and 9. P a g e 10

11 Refer to R# 1, 6, and 9. Refer to R# 1, 6, and 9. Refer to R# 1, 6, and 9. Recommendation # 11: In the preparation of the next forest management plan, OMNR should ensure that SFMM modelling assumptions related to renewal pathways are re-assessed in light of the results of free-to-grow surveys and silvicultural effectiveness monitoring. The development of SFMM renewal pathway modelling assumptions for the next FMP, including those related to caribou habitat objectives, will include consideration and analysis of: the actual silviculture success (i.e. area regenerated to the intended forest unit) compared to regeneration success (i.e. area regenerated to forest unit that was not intended) achieved from implementation of the silviculture ground rules (SGRs); modifications necessary to the SGRs to improve silviculture success and achieve plan objectives e.g. how to reduce transitioning of pure conifer forest units to conifer mixedwood forest units; all survey data including free-to-grow surveys and MNR silviculture effectiveness monitoring (SEM) data will be used. MNR Nipigon District Area Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester, MNR NWR Regional Analyst Analysis Package forecast for completion in Next FMP Analysis Package. Recommendation # 12: In its assessment of progress on the achievement of the 2011 LNF FMP objectives in the Year 3 Annual Report, OMNR should consider alternate approaches to achieving caribou habitat objectives or alter current objectives to make them feasible to implement on the former Armstrong Forest portion of the Lake Nipigon Forest. P a g e 11

12 1. The model for the 2011 Lake Nipigon Forest FMP did not split the management unit or the caribou mosaics on the old management unit boundary. Therefore it is not possible with the model from the approved 2011 Lake Nipigon Forest FMP to conduct analysis on the impacts of the achievement of objectives for only the old Armstrong Forest portion of the new Lake Nipigon Forest. The year three ( ) Annual Report for the Lake Nipigon Forest FMP Progress Toward Achievement of FMP Objectives will include the following: Assessment of progress related to implementation of caribou habitat/caribou mosaic objectives (e.g. potential implications of under harvesting) and potential issues will be identified. This will serve as input to the development of the next FMP. As well, measures will be proposed to implement during the remainder of the plan to offset or reduce negative impacts (e.g. considerations in issuing harvest approvals for the remainder of the plan). A discussion on alternative approaches available to achieve caribou habitat Allowing more wild fire to burn naturally; Implementing a prescribed burn program; Accelerating the harvest; Prioritizing where possible harvest operations within caribou mosaic A blocks during the period where harvest operations are nearing completion. 2. As required of the 2009 FMPM the year three ( ) Annual Report will contain one of the following recommendations relating to the validity of the longterm management direction (LTMD) of the FMP, with rationale: the LTMD remains valid and planning of operations for the 2 nd 5 year term proceeds; the LTMD remains valid but requires minor adjustments to the level of renewal, tending, protection activities in the 2 nd 5 year term and planning operations for the 2 nd 5 year term proceeds with modifications; the LTMD is no longer valid and an early plan renewal is required. Organization & position responsible: 1. MNR Nipigon District Area Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester, MNR Nipigon District Area Biologist, with advice from MNR Northwest Region, Regional Analyst. 2. MNR Nipigon District Area Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Deadline date: 1. AR submission due November 15, 2014; following MNR review resubmitted AR for MNR endorsement due by Feb 15, Same as above. P a g e 12

13 Method of tracking progress: 1. Regional Director endorsement of year 3 Annual Report ( ). 2. Same as above. Recommendation # 13: The District Manager must ensure that the Action Plan and Action Plan Status Report are submitted within the specified time frames. 1. MNR Thunder Bay District, NW Region and Forest Branch have developed an Action Plan production and review schedule beginning with the Draft Final Report to ensure the Action Plan is submitted by at least 2 weeks prior to the deadline. 2. Regular scheduled meetings will occur during the development and review of the Action Plan. 3. MNR Thunder Bay District and the NW Region will develop a Status Report production and review schedule at least 6 months prior to the deadline and develop, review, and submit the Status Report according to this schedule. 1. MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester; MNR Northwest Region Forest Program Specialist, MNR Forests Branch Provincial Forest Evaluation & Reporting Forester. 2. MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester; MNR Northwest Region Forest Program Specialist. 3. MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester; MNR Northwest Region Forest Program Specialist. 1. Completed: February 23, By April 9, 2012 two weeks prior to the action plan submission deadline of April 23, months prior to the Status Report due date as determined by MNR Forests Branch based on Action Plan approval. 1. The actual production and review schedule. 2. Submission of action plan by the scheduled submission date. 3. Submission of status report by the scheduled submission date. Recommendation # 14: OMNR must address the imbalance in FRTF revenues and expenditures to ensure adequate funding is available to meet planned silviculture targets and address existing backlogs. P a g e 13

14 1. MNR Thunder Bay District will continue its efforts to identify and request funding to address outstanding silvicultural obligations on the forest. 2. Survey results completed under recommendation #1, #6 and #9, the required treatments and associated costs will be determined and prioritized. 3. Required treatments will be scheduled in the AWS and implemented on an annual basis dependant on resources and sufficient financial resources. 4. An annual review of the renewal rates will be conducted to ensure the levels are appropriate. 1. MNR Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor (lead); MNR Thunder Bay Management Forester. 2. MNR Thunder Bay Management Forester. 3. MNR Thunder Bay Management Forester. 4. MNR Nipigon District Area Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay Management Forester. 1. Beginning 2012 and ongoing. 2. Beginning 2012 and ongoing AWS/Annual Report and ongoing. 4. Annually beginning Capital Funding Request/Budget. 2. A spatial database has been compiled using all available information to identify the total area required to be surveyed. The spatial database will serve as the information source to prioritize areas potentially requiring artificial treatment and tending activities as documented in the Armstrong Forest Silvicultural Obligations Review February Cost estimates are based on provincial averages. 3. AWSs, Annual Reports. 4. Documentation of annual review of renewal rates. P a g e 14

Lac Seul Forest Independent Forest Audit. Management Unit Action Plan

Lac Seul Forest Independent Forest Audit. Management Unit Action Plan Lac Seul Forest 2006-2011 Independent Forest Audit Management Unit Action Plan INTRODUCTION In September 2011 an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) was conducted on the Lac Seul Forest for the period April