Temagami Management Unit Independent Forest Audit 2011 (April 1, 2006 March 31, 2011) Action Plan Status Report

Transcription

1 Temagami Management Unit Independent Forest Audit 2011 (April 1, 2006 March 31, 2011) Action Plan Status Report Prepared by: Don Farintosh, R.P.F. Temagami Management Forester MNR North Bay District Original signed on October 15, 2014 Submitted by: Mitch Baldwin District Manager MNR North Bay District Original signed on October 15, 2014 Signed by: Corrinne Nelson, R.P.F. Regional Director MNR Northeast Region Original signed on November 3, 2014

2 Temagami Management Unit Independent Forest Audit 2011 (for 5 year term ) Action Plan Status Report INTRODUCTION The Temagami Crown Management Unit received its third Independent Forest Audit by KBM Forestry Consultants during the week of June 20-24, This status report is to be submitted to the North Bay District Manager within two years of the approval of the action plan which occurred on February 21, As the Temagami Management Unit is managed exclusively by the Crown all required action will be carried out by MNR staff from the North Bay District Office until such time as a new forest manager is identified. Recommendations 1-5 were directed to the management unit and are covered in this status report. Recommendation 6 was directed to Forests Branch and will be dealt with in the provincial status report submitted by the Manager of the Forest Evaluation and Standards Section. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation #1: District MNR staff should review the AWS and any associated documents to ensure that mandatory conditions included in the AWS focus on the desired operational results rather than dictate how to achieve them. Actions required: 1. During the development of the AWS a detailed review of all conditions will be conducted to ensure the focus is on desired results as opposed to prescriptive direction. 2. Where the review identifies unnecessarily prescriptive conditions, changes to AWS conditions will be made so the original intent of the condition is not lost by using other means to convey the desired outcome (e.g. best practices) Progress to Date: 1. Completed. The detailed review was conducted by the MNR Senior Forestry Specialist and Management Forester in February, Completed. Conditions that were less prescriptive {e.g. the standards and good practices contained in the Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings (1988) relating to culvert installation (e.g. length of culvert, depth in stream bed, etc) shall be adhered to} than the previous ones were added to the current and future Annual Work Schedules. Starting on April 1 st, 2014, additional direction will come from the Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales. The Plan Author (Management Forester) and IRM Senior Technician involved in the preparation of the Annual Work Schedule will be responsible to ensure that the wording used is not prescriptive. Future Tracking: 1. none required 2. none required 1 of 9

3 Recommendation #2: District MNR should review blocks harvested during the first two years of the plan (2009/2010 & 2010/2011) to determine if all of the merchantable volume was harvested. Where all of the available volume was not harvested, and where it is practical to do so, MNR should require the licensee to complete the harvest utilizing all merchantable material. MNR must also ensure that all standing merchantable material eligible for harvest is utilized on future harvest blocks. Actions required: 1. All blocks harvested from April 1 st, 2009 to December 31, 2011 will be reviewed to determine if significant amounts of merchantable volumes from unharvested areas remain. 2. Where significant amounts of merchantable volumes are identified licensees will be instructed to clean up any unharvested areas where practical to do so. 3. From January 1 st, 2012 onward an on-site start up meeting will occur with the licensee s representative to discuss planned harvest operations. The meeting s discussion regarding planned utilization will be documented in the Forest Operations Information Program (FOIP) to ensure that both parties are in agreement with the utilization levels. The document Northeast Region Operations Guide for Marketability Issues (April 2008) or its successor, will be used to provide direction for the utilization level agreement. Any modifications to the agreement will also be documented in a subsequent FOIP report. 4. A final cut inspection will be conducted (prior to the harvesting equipment leaving the site) to ensure the agreed upon planned utilization levels have been achieved. The FOIP will be used to document once a block has been released by MNR. 5. This recommendation and the associated actions will be further discussed at the next MNR Temagami & Forest Resource Licensee meeting to ensure the Licensees are familiar with their requirements. Organization and position responsible: 1. MNR Forest Compliance Technician and Management Forester 2. MNR Resources Management Supervisor 3. MNR Forest Compliance Technician and Management Forester 4. MNR Forest Compliance Technician 5. MNR Management Forester Deadline date: 1. March 1, March 31, January 1, 2012 and ongoing thereafter 4. January 1, 2012 and ongoing thereafter 5. June 21, 2012 Method of tracking progress: 1. The text of the annual work schedule will identify blocks that are being reviewed to determine whether cleaned up operations are warranted. 2 of 9

4 2. The text of the annual reports for and will identify blocks that have been cleaned up in order to address this recommendation. 3. Future FOIP reports 4. Future FOIP reports 5. The meeting notes/minutes from the next MNR & Temagami Forest Resource Licensee meeting will document this discussion. Progress to Date: 1. Completed. A review of all blocks harvested from April 1 st, 2009 to December 31, 2011 was conducted by the MNR Forest Compliance Technician and Management Forester in January, The review sought to determine if significant amounts of merchantable volumes from unharvested areas remained in licensee s blocks that had been identified by the licensee as finished. 2. Completed. The review identified one harvest block (Gillies Limit 41) where a significant amount of unharvested area had been left. However, the main reason this block was operated was because an important branch road (Island Lake Road) originates in this block and the harvest of portions of this block facilitated this road construction. This block was harvested in when the % of actual harvest / planned harvest equalled 92%, so the level of utilization was not nearly as poor as its been at other times. The licensee was not instructed to return to this block since it was viewed to be impractical due to the high equipment floating costs. 3. Discussions between licensee s representative and the forest compliance inspector have been and continue to be conducted. 4. Forest compliance inspectors have been conducting and documenting wood utilization in their FOIP reports. 5. Complete. The meeting occurred on May 14, 2012 at the Catholic Church basement meeting room in Temagami. Future Tracking: 1. None required 2. None, as no blocks were returned to 3. No additional tracking as FOIP will document action 4. No additional tracking as FOIP will document action 5. None required, unless new FRL holder are added 3 of 9

5 Recommendation #3: District MNR should review its slash management program to further improve the existing program. Background: Three key factors contribute to having a successful slash pile burn: a) loosely packed, tall piles b) experienced contractors using adequate amounts of starter fuel and c) favourable weather conditions prior to and during the burn. The need to improve slash pile management has been identified in previous audits and the following actions have been carried out: training of licensees of what constitutes a good flammable slash pile (photographs) and inclusion of AWS conditions such as i) licensees shall pile all slash in a loose manner to allow air circulation to facilitate burning and ii) slash piles shall be located 30 metres from residual conifer trees to minimize damage during burning. In an attempt to further improve the slash management program, the following actions will be implemented: Actions required: 1. MNR will continue to monitor harvest, delimbing and piling activities to ensure compliance with the AWS conditions. 2. MNR will ensure future prescribed burn contactors have a well-established, proven track record with respect to successfully burning slash piles. 3. MNR will review the qualifications and experience of potential contractors for the program. Organization and position responsible: 1. MNR Forest Compliance Technician 2. MNR Senior Forestry Technical Specialist 3. MNR Silviculture Technician and Management Forester Deadline date: 1. January 2012 and ongoing thereafter 2. Summer of 2012, prior to awarding the contract 3. September 2011 Method of tracking progress: 1. The FOIP will be used to document the quality of the slash piling operation 2. The post burn report and field auditing will evaluate the results of future slash pile burns 3. The post burn report and field auditing will evaluate the results of the slash pile burn 4 of 9

6 Progress to date: 1. Ongoing. FOIPs are used to document slash piling efforts on full-tree operations. 2. Complete. The contractor used for the and slash pile burning contract had a long, well established track record of successful burns. During the spring/summer of 2011, the MNR Temagami silviculture technician interviewed MNR fire managers and staff from SFLs to determine the past performance of various contractors. 3. Results from the burns conducted from November 22 - December 9, 2011 were very positive. This was further substantiated in the 2011 Post Burn Report that indicated the majority of blocks had over 80% consumption. Future Tracking: 1. Ongoing, MNR Forest Compliance Technician will continue to monitor harvest, delimbing and piling activities to ensure compliance with the AWS conditions and will use FOIP to document the quality of the slash piling operation and identify any necessary action. 2. None required 3. None required 5 of 9

7 Recommendation #4: MNR should review its tending program to improve white pine regeneration. Background: The basis for this recommendation was the auditor s observation that: Despite the careful application of herbicides, white pine seedlings were damaged by the herbicide on three sites. The required actions have been divided into two categories: 1. Alternatives to herbicides for tending white pine and 2. Modifications to the timing and application rate Actions required: 1. Alternatives to using herbicides for tending white pine (e.g. brushsaws, steam control) and the use of site preparation (e.g. mechanical, chemical) to lessen the need for follow up tending will continue to be explored, field tested and used where warranted. 2. Where herbicides are deemed necessary to control competition in areas of white pine regeneration, tests for cold hardiness / dormancy will be used to confirm herbicide resistance. Organization and position responsible: 1. MNR Silviculture Technician and Management Forester 2. MNR Silviculture Technician Deadline date: 1. March 1, 2012 and ongoing thereafter 2. Annually, in late August / early September of each year Method of tracking progress: 1. The annual results of our field monitoring will be documented in the Silviculture Effectiveness Monitoring report 2. The results of the tests for cold hardiness / dormancy will be documented in the project report associated with the herbicide tending treatment. Progress to date: 1. Silviculture effectiveness surveys conducted during the summer of 2011 that looked specifically at areas of white pine that had been tended with a herbicide showed a survival rate greater than 80%. The MNR Temagami Silviculture Technician researched and evaluated using steam as a tending tool. The MNR Temagami Forester actively participates in a forum involving tours that investigate silviculture employed on other SFL units in the Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Forest. Discussing with the MNR Vegetation Program Leader occur regularly and include looking at herbicide alternatives. Extensive field testing of brush saws with and without an herbicide applicator has occurred in the past including a multi-year study 6 of 9

8 conducted as a recent of a 2006 IFA recommendation. At the time of writing no viable alternatives worthy of field testing have been identified. 2. White pine cold hardiness / dormancy chemical test kits have been acquired. Test results continue to be documented to assist in determining the start date for our herbicide tending program. The MNR Silviculture Technician annually conducts these tests and the results are filed in the project report associated with the herbicide tending treatment. Future Tracking: 1. Ongoing 2. Ongoing 7 of 9

9 Recommendation #5: MNR should review its FTG aerial survey program, silvicultural record keeping methods and reporting methods to improve consistency and veracity. Background: This recommendation appears to be based on two findings: 1. The auditor s observation that there were discrepancies in the FRI description (i.e. species composition and age) between what was observed by the audit team during the helicopter flight and MNR s aerial ocular surveys in terms of species composition and age. 2. Inconsistencies were noted between what was documented in Tables AR-13 (Summary of Assessment of Regeneration and Silvicultural Success) for the individual Annual Reports , , , and and the Year 10 Annual Report ( ) The required actions have been divided into two categories: 1. Review of and proposed corrective action to the FTG program and 2. Review and modifications to Annual Report Tables associated with Summary of Assessment of Regeneration and Silvicultural Success Actions required: 1. The species composition, age of stands recently declared FTG using aerial ocular methods will be compared and verified with the interpretation of new EFRI data. Where necessary changes to the inventory based on the EFRI interpretation will be made to improve accuracy. In addition, ground based surveys will be used to assist with training and verification of aerial ocular surveys. 2. The data used to produce the Summary of Assessment of Regeneration and Silvicultural Success Tables by individual years and 5 year summary will be reanalyzed to ensure the correct data is contained in all Annual Reports. Organization and position responsible: 1. MNR Management Forester and Planning and Information Management Forester 2. MNR Management Forester and Planning and Information Management Forester Deadline date: 1. prior to the next FTG survey or upon delivery of EFRI product currently scheduled for June 29, 2012 Method of tracking progress: 1. The forest inventory managed within GIS will contain the most up to date FRI layer 2. The FI Portal will contain the appropriately revised Annual Report Tables AR of 9

10 Progress to Date: 1. Ongoing. All aerial ocular FTG surveys now conducted employ a confirmation process that uses imagery and/or EFRI description or ground based surveys to verify results. 2. Complete. In July 2012 a project forester completed a review of the data contained in AR-13, Summary of Assessment of Regeneration and Silvicultural Success tables for the individual years vs. Year 10 Annual Report ( ). The correct information is found in FI Portal submission Future Tracking 1. Ongoing 2. None required 9 of 9