Northshore Forest SFL # Independent Forest Audit Report

Transcription

1 Northshore Forest SFL # Independent Forest Audit Report Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd. Oxford Mills, Ontario January, 2013

2 Queen s Printer for Ontario 2013

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I 2.0. TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS... III 3.0. INTRODUCTION AUDIT PROCESS MANAGEMENT UNIT DESCRIPTION CURRENT ISSUES SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND INPUT TO THE AUDIT AUDIT FINDINGS COMMITMENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL INVOLVEMENT FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING PLAN ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM SUPPORT MONITORING ACHIEVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES & SUSTAINABILITY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS CONCLUSIONS AND LICENCE EXTENSION RECOMMENDATION APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX 2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES TABLE APPENDIX 3 COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS APPENDIX 4 AUDIT PROCESS APPENDIX 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS USED APPENDIX 6 AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS List of Tables TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS... III TABLE 2. AREA SUMMARY OF MANAGED CROWN LAND BY LAND TYPE... 3 TABLE 3. PLANNED VS ACTUAL SILVICULTURE TREATMENTS DURING THE AUDIT TERM ( ) TABLE 4. SILVICULTURAL AND REGENERATION SUCCESS BY FOREST UNIT List of Figures FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE NORTHSHORE FOREST (SOURCE: OMNR)... 2 FIGURE 2. PROPORTIONAL AREA OF FOREST UNITS ON THE NORTHSHORE FOREST... 4 FIGURE 3. AGE CLASS AREA DISTRIBUTION BY COVER TYPE.... 5

4 This page has been left intentionally blank

5 1.0. Executive Summary This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Northshore Forest (SFL # ) conducted by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd. for the period of April 1, 2007 to March 31, Procedures and criteria for the IFA are specified in the 2012 Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP). This audit addressed the forest management activities of Northshore Forest Inc. (NFI), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Sault Ste. Marie (SSM) and Sudbury Districts and all Overlapping Licencees (OLs) during the audit term. The Northshore Forest (NF) is managed by Northshore Forest Inc. (NFI). The lead OMNR District is the Sault Ste. Marie District (SSM), with the Blind River Area office assuming responsibilities on the former Mississagi unit and the Sudbury District Espanola Area office assigned responsibility for the area within the former Spanish River unit. The Forest is certified as sustainably managed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). It is our assessment that NFI delivered a high quality forest management program during the audit term and that the Forest is well-managed. We concluded that the long term management direction and related objectives of the 2005 and 2010 Forest Management Plans are consistent with the attainment of forest sustainability. The forest management planning process and the implementation of the FMPs met all legal and regulatory requirements resulting in the production of a high quality FMP and the implementation of an effective silviculture program with a good compliance record. The contractual obligations of the SFL holder were largely met. We were concerned that conifer renewal on some mixedwood and pine ecosites was being negatively affected by hardwood competition and that the delivery of a single tending treatment was not sufficient to secure the investment in conifer renewal. We provide a recommendation to NFI to evaluate the effectiveness of its current tending regime on these ecosites and modify the silvicultural ground rules (as required) or tending strategies to ensure that stand renewal objectives are achieved (Recommendation # 1, Appendix 1). OMNR met its administrative and forest management obligations with the exception of the delivery and reporting of its Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring (SEM) program. Given the importance of the SEM program in assessing the efficacy of silviculture practices and in helping determine forest sustainability, we found the failure by OMNR to implement an effective program particularly concerning. We provide a recommendation to the SSM District OMNR to increase its managerial oversight of its SEM program delivery and institute annual SEM project planning and reporting frameworks (Recommendation # 2, Appendix 1). We also recommend that Corporate OMNR provide direction with respect to the content and format of SEM reports (Recommendation # 3, Appendix 1) Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest i

6 The audit team concludes that the management of the Northshore 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 Sustainable Forest Licence held by Northshore Forest Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence # for a further five years Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest ii

7 2.0. Table of Recommendations TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion and Recommendation on Licence Extension The audit team concludes that the management of the Northshore 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 Sustainable Forest Licence held by Northshore Forest Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence for a further five years. Recommendations Directed to the SFL Holder/OMNR District Recommendation # 1: NFI must assess the effectiveness of the current tending regime on some conifer renewal sites (richer mixedwood and white pine ecosites) and modify the silvicultural ground rules and/or silvicultural treatment packages (as required) to ensure conifer renewal objectives are achieved. Recommendation # 2: The Sault Ste. Marie District must improve its managerial oversight of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring (SEM) program and institute annual SEM project planning and reporting frameworks in order to ensure the effective delivery of the program and the utility of the collected information for the assessment of silvicultural effectiveness. Recommendations Directed to Corporate or Regional OMNR Recommendation # 3: Corporate OMNR should standardize reporting requirements (content and format) for District silvicultural effectiveness monitoring reports Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest iii

8 3.0. Introduction This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Northshore Forest (Sustainable Forest License # ) conducted by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd 1 for the period of April 1, 2007 to March 31, The Northshore Forest (NF) is managed by Northshore Forest Inc. (NFI). The lead OMNR District is the Sault Ste. Marie District (SSM), with the Blind River Area office assuming responsibilities on the former Mississagi unit and the Sudbury District Espanola Area office assigned responsibility for the area within the former Spanish River unit Audit Process The Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) requires that all Sustainable Forest Licences (SFL) and Crown management units be audited every five years by an independent auditor. The audit applies to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and all licencees. The audit reviews the applicable Forest Management Plan (FMP) in relation to relevant provincial legislation, policy guidelines and Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM) requirements, including a review of field operations and required monitoring and reporting functions. The audit reviews whether actual results in the field are comparable with planned results and determines if the results were accurately reported. The results of each audit procedure are not reported on separately but collectively provide the basis for reporting the outcome of the audit. Recommendations within the report set out a high level directional approach to address a finding of non-conformance. In some instances the audit team may develop recommendations to address situations where a critical lack of effectiveness in forest management activities is perceived even though no non-conformance with the law or policy has been observed. A further discussion of the audit process is provided in Appendix 4. The procedures and criteria for the IFA are specified in the 2012 Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP). The FMPs within the audit scope include the FMP (last 3 years of implementation) and the FMP (first two years of implementation and the planning and development process) Management Unit Description The NF is located entirely within the Northeast Region of the OMNR (Figure 1). The Forest is an amalgamation of the former Mississagi and Spanish River management units which resulted in a division of OMNR responsibilities on the Forest between the Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury Districts. 1 A list of the audit team members and their qualifications is presented in Appendix Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 1

9 Northshore Forest Inc. manages the SFL on behalf of four shareholder companies 2. In 2010 EACOM Timber Corp. was contracted as the forest management service provider for NFI. Prior to 2010 forest management services were provided by Domtar Inc. On behalf of NFI the forest management service provider is responsible for the preparation of Forest Management Plans, Annual Work Schedules (AWS) and Annual Reports (ARs), maintaining the forest inventory and directing harvesting, renewal and tending. There are twenty-five independent licensees that carry out logging operations through Overlapping Licenses (OLs) issued by the OMNR. The Forest is certified as sustainably managed by the Forest Stewardship Council. FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE NORTHSHORE FOREST (SOURCE: OMNR) The Forest occupies an area of 1,250,487 ha of which 74% is classified as Crown Managed Land. Approximately 11 % of the land base is classified as patent land. There are 18 Provincial Parks, 9 forest reserves and 15 conservation reserves located wholly 2 Northshore Independent Forestry Association Inc., Domtar Inc., Midway Lumber Mills Ltd., EACOM Timber Corp Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 2

10 or in part in the NF. Protected areas within the boundaries of the NF occupy 151,821 ha of which 116,511 ha is classified as forested (12% of the forest area). Managed Crown Land production forest land occupies 734,372 ha. Table 2 provides an area summary of managed Crown land by land type. TABLE 2. AREA SUMMARY OF MANAGED CROWN LAND BY LAND TYPE SOURCE: TABLE FMP Managed Crown Land Type Area (Ha) Non-Forested 114,190 Non-Productive Forest 61,190 Protection Forest 3 14,112 Production Forest 4 Forest Stands 694,573 Recent Disturbance 17,715 Below Regeneration Standards 5 22,084 Total Forested: 809,674 Total Crown Managed: 923,864 There are five First Nation communities with an identified interest in the NF; Thessalon First Nation, Mississauga First Nation, Serpent River First Nation, Sagamok Anishnawbek and the Whitefish River First Nation. The Forest is used extensively for recreation and tourism. There are over 5,000 inland lakes which support sport fishing, bait fisheries and tourism operations. Approximately 14% of Ontario s trout lakes are contained within the Forest. Commercial tourism is significant to the local and regional economy as the Forest supports 70 base lodges and over 100 fly-in outpost camps and 80 bear management areas. The Forest is well accessed by highways, forest access roads, all-terrain vehicle and snowmobile trails. Much of the Forest is situated in the transition between the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Region (GLSL) and the Boreal Forest Region. Approximately 45% of the unit is 3 Protection forest land is land on which forest management activities cannot normally be practiced without incurring deleterious environmental effects because of obvious physical limitations such as steep slopes and shallow soils over bedrock. 4 Production forest is land at various stages of growth, with no obvious physical limitations on the ability to practice forest management. 5 Areas where regeneration treatments have been applied but the new forest stands have yet to meet free-to-grow standards Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 3

11 contained within the GLSL Forest Region while the remaining 55% is contained within the transition zone. Tree species composition is typical of the transition zone between forest regions, with the most common species being poplar, white birch, jack pine, white and red pine and maple. Eastern white pine, red pine, eastern hemlock and yellow birch, white and black spruce, balsam fir and larch are also present. Figure 2 presents the proportional area of forest units. Silvicultural systems utilized for forest management include the selection system, shelterwood system and clearcut system. 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 Area (Ha) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Forest Unit1 BW1 HDMIX HDSEL HDUS HECE MW1 MW2 PJ1 PJSP PO1 PR1 PWMIX PWUS4 SBLC SFIR FIGURE 2. PROPORTIONAL AREA OF FOREST UNITS ON THE NORTHSHORE FOREST 6 Source: Table 2010 FMP The Forest supports a diversity of wildlife species due to the variety of habitats associated with the transition between forest regions. Common species include white tailed deer, moose, black bear, marten and lynx. Small game species include ruffed grouse, hare and a variety of waterfowl. A number of species identified under the provincial Endangered Species Act (2007) reside in the Forest (e.g. wood turtle, olivesided flycatcher, short-eared owl, least bittern etc.). 6 Forest Units are as follows: BW1=White Birch, HDMIX=Hardwood Mixed, HDSEL=Hardwood Selection, HDUS=Hardwood Shelterwood, HECE=Hemlock Cedar, MW1=Mixedwood-Poor, MW2=Mixedwood-Rich, PJ1=Jack Pine, PJSP=Jack Pine-Spruce, PO1=Poplar, PR1=Red Pine, PWMIX=White Pine Mixed, PWUS4= White Pine, SBLC=Black Spruce Lowland Conifer, SFIR= Spruce-Fir 2012 Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 4

12 The age class area distribution is skewed to mature to older age classes ( years). Many of the stands within these age classes are fire origin from the 1948 Mississagi Fire. Figure 3 depicts the age class area distribution. Area(Ha) 240, , , , , , , , , ,000 90,000 75,000 60,000 45,000 30,000 15, Age Class FIGURE 3. AGE CLASS AREA DISTRIBUTION BY COVER TYPE (CROWN MANAGED LAND). Source: 2010 FMP Current Issues Very few issues were identified in our document review and initial consultations with the auditees. High priority aspects for the audit included; An assessment of NFI s management and coordination of the harvest and compliance activities of the 25 OLs with wood supply commitments on the unit. The 2010 FMP has an Endangered Species Act (ESA) provisions for species at risk and of special concern. An assessment was required as to whether Species at Risk (SAR) objectives appropriately considered the Act. The Enhanced Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) will not be available for the development of the Phase II operations plan. For the development of the 2010 FMP the current FRI (1992 for the former Spanish Unit and 1994 for the former Mississagi Management Unit) was updated for actual and forecast depletions. The adequacy of the FRI for forest management planning was examined Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 5

13 Forest access is often a source of contention amongst remote tourism operators, forest industry and other stakeholders. The NF is heavily used by recreationalists and is well-accessed. These factors required that the planning team develop balanced access plans and forest road management strategies Summary of Consultation and Input to the Audit Details on public consultation and input during the audit are provided in Appendix 4. Public notices and an invitation to provide comment and/or complete a questionnaire on the Arbex website were placed in the Sudbury Northern Life and the Elliot Lake Standard. Additionally, a random sample of 35% of the individuals and organizations listed in the 2010 FMP mailing list were sent a letter and questionnaire requesting input to the audit process. All First Nations (FNs) with an interest on the Forest were contacted by mail with an invitation to participate and/or express their views on the forest management during the audit term. Follow-up contacts were made with all FNs and interviews were held with interested respondents. A member of the LCC participated in the field audit and an auditor attended a regularly scheduled LCC meeting. Additional interviews were conducted with trappers and hunters, cottagers, Bear Management Area Licencees, and remote and road based tourism operators. OMNR District (Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury) and Regional staff participated in the field audit and/or were interviewed by the audit team. The NFI General Manager and EACOM staff participated in the field audit and were interviewed by the audit team Audit Findings 4.1. Commitment The IFAPP commitment principle is deemed to be met as the NF is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 7. OMNR has updated policy and mission statements which have been widely distributed by internal newsletters and are prominently displayed on office bulletin boards and the MNR website. All contacted staff were aware of OMNR direction, sustainable forestry commitments and codes of practice. Our assessment is that all commitment requirements were met. 7 Certification code SW-FM/COC Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 6

14 4.2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement With minor exceptions (i.e. late responses to public comments, variations in the public consultation schedule) the FMPM public consultation requirements for the development of the 2010 Forest Management Plan and amendments to the 2005 and 2010 FMPs were met. All the constituencies contacted during the audit (tourism, trapping, LCC members, forest industry, other interest groups) indicated that they had been made fully aware of the FMP process and that they were provided with opportunities to become involved and to identify values. We sampled approximately 25% of public comments and planning team responses. OMNR responses to comments submitted by the public in response to the invitation to participate (December 2007) were very late, occurring from 4 to 6 months after the submission of comments. Between December 2007 and May 2008 OMNR did not have a functional public input database. This concern was also well documented in planning team minutes. We would normally make a recommendation concerning this issue, however a new comments and response tracking system was instituted in May 2008, resulting in greatly improved response times and record keeping. Response content was adequate. Some public consultation dates occurred significantly later than those identified in the original Terms of Reference however public inspection of the Approved Plan occurred on time (as discussed in Section 4.3). Issue Resolution Opportunities to make a request for Issue Resolution or an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) were clearly identified in the planning processes (2010 FMP development and 2005 and 2010 FMP amendments) conducted during the audit term. Four formal issue resolution requests were received during the preparation of the 2010 FMP. All requests were related to forest access roads and the potential impact of the access on tourism and/or recreational (cottage) values. One issue was resolved at the OMNR District Manager Stage and one at the Regional Director Stage. Two issues were not resolved at the Regional Director Stage, resulting in the proponents requesting that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) require OMNR to prepare an individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) for the 2010 FMP. Implementation of the issue resolution process met 2009 FMPM requirements. Individual Environmental Assessments (IEA) In response to the two requests for individual Environmental Assessments, in April MOE rendered its decision that an IEA was not required for either request. In February 2010 OMNR had requested MOE s concurrence that pending MOE s IEA decision, OMNR be allowed after April 1 to engage in forest management activities outside the areas that 2012 Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 7

15 were the subject of the individual IE requests. That request was granted. In responding to the IEA requests all 2009 FMPM requirements were met. Local Citizens Committee The Local Citizens Committee (LCC) known as the Resource Management Advisory Committee (RMAC) was appointed by the OMNR District Manager and includes a broad representation of stakeholder interests (e.g. cottagers, trappers). At the time of the audit there were no First Nation (FN) representatives on the RMAC despite the fact that numerous invitations to participate had been extended to Aboriginal communities with an interest in the NF. Minutes of RMAC meetings were mailed to FN community representatives in order to apprise the communities of forest management issues and provide updates on FMP development. The Committee was actively involved in the implementation of the 2005 FMP. Meeting minutes indicate an on-going involvement by the LCC with a full range of forest management activities (e.g. Annual Work Schedules, Compliance activities, road construction, etc.). The Terms of Reference for the Committee was updated for the 2010 FMP planning process and a RMAC member was assigned to the Planning Team. RMAC was fully involved at all stages of the planning process with Planning Team members providing regular updates and presentations to the LCC during the planning process. Discussions with individual LCC members and a meeting with the full Committee revealed satisfaction with OMNR and forest industry efforts to keep them informed. There was general agreement that their efforts were worthwhile and that their input was valued by the OMNR and Industry. The LCC statement in the 2010 FMP reports that... The Local Citizens Committee (LCC), known as the Resource Management Advisory Committee (RMAC) is in general agreement with the Forest Management Plan. Our assessment is that the LCC was effective, well managed and productive. Aboriginal Involvement in Forest Management Planning As required by the FMPM each of the five FNs with an interest on the NF (Thessalon, Mississauga, Serpent River, Sagamok Anishnawbek and Whitefish River) received an invitation to participate in the 2010 FMP planning process. With the exception of the Whitefish River FN all communities identified a representative to the Planning Team. Ongoing participation on the planning team was variable, with each community responding according to its own priorities. For the development of the FMP, no formal community-specific consultation approaches were identified. Community information centres were held at Serpent River, Sagamok Anishnawbek and Mississauga First Nations. Aboriginal Background Information Reports were updated as required, and it is our assessment is that FMPM requirements related to the participation of Aboriginal communities in the forest management planning process were met Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 8

16 The OMNR produced Condition 34 Reports 8 during each year of the audit term. Report format and content met all requirements. Over the audit term the OMNR and NFI made regular efforts to involve Aboriginal communities in forest operations. Local mills and woodlands operations continue to employ a number of Aboriginal people Forest Management Planning Our audit reviewed planning activities related to the development and first two years of implementation of the 2010 Northshore Forest FMP and the last three years of implementation of the 2005 FMP. The skills and experience represented on the 2010 planning team, planning advisors and support staff ensured that the planning process had direct involvement of affected stakeholders and access to professional and technical expertise. Planning team meetings were typically well attended although it proved difficult to achieve First Nation participation with representation at only the last four of thirteen planning team meetings. However, First Nation information centers were held and Aboriginal values were reflected in the FMP (as discussed in Section 4.2). Planning Team meeting minutes could be improved by the addition of more detail (i.e. the inclusion of task team minutes) although progress of the planning process was adequately documented and the final plan was delivered on time and met requirements of the 2004 FMPM. NFI and OMNR staff produced a high quality forest management plan. There was some slippage in meeting original Terms of Reference checkpoint dates (the Management Strategy Checkpoint was four months later than scheduled, and the public review of the Proposed Long Term Management Direction was three months later than planned) however, the planning team had built enough flexibility into the schedule that the FMP was approved on time. The audit team found the development of the LTMD and assessment of sustainability to be sound and based on reasonable and realistic inputs. We also determined that the Strategic Forest Management Modeling (SFMM) was well done and conformed to OMNR best modeling practice. Model inputs and decision rules (e.g. fire cycle, natural succession rules etc.) were reasonable and appropriate to the conditions on the Forest. Shorter term objectives, principally those related to social and economic benefits and silviculture had targets that could be reasonably measured (e.g. acreage based targets, wood supply allocations, resource values protection objectives and planting and tending targets). However; the measurability of some of the longer term objectives/targets related to forest diversity and forest cover were not as readily measurable (e.g. changes in long term representation of various tree species groups (forest units) and wildlife habitat supply). This measurability problem is due to changes that took place between successive plans in the definition of forest units and to wildlife species being monitored. 8 Condition 34 from the 2003 Class Environmental Assessment requires OMNR District Managers to conduct negotiations with Aboriginal peoples to identify and implement ways of achieving a more equal participation in the benefits provided through forest management planning Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 9

17 We make no recommendation on this issue since most of the changes were made to reflect the emergence of new science and its incorporation into models used in planning. The LTMD reflected long term even flow of timber and achieved a good balance between timber (i.e. wood supply) and non-timber objectives (e.g. wildlife habitat, old growth, marten cores). Wood supply commitments to the OLs were realistic and sustainable and reflected a long term even flow of timber volumes. In addition to achieving wood supply objectives the LTMD also achieved 75% of the natural benchmark forest conditions through time (i.e. wildlife habitat, forest unit areas, conifer restoration, area of old growth forest etc.) reflecting the sub-unit differences in management objectives in the FMP. The management unit description in the 2010 FMP met or exceeded the requirements of the FMPM. Management unit inventory (e.g. forest resource inventory(fri)) and other descriptive information (i.e. socio-economic information) was effectively integrated into the FMP and was appropriately used to inform the development of plan objectives and strategies, the LTMD and other forest management activities and operations proposed in the FMP. Silvicultural Ground Rules (SGRs) 9, Silvicultural Treatment Packages 10 (STPs) and Forest Operations Prescriptions (FOPs) were, for the most part, appropriate for the forest cover types and site conditions. We did have a concern as to whether a single tending treatment was sufficient to secure conifer renewal on some mixedwood and pine ecosites and we provide a recommendation (Recommendation 1, Appendix 1). The SGRs were based on MNR s silvicultural guides and the experience of the SFL and MNR foresters and appropriately considered factors such as average species composition, stocking, the distribution of the FEC ecosites within a forest unit, stand history and the general types of logging systems and equipment used in the NF. The planned harvest, renewal and tending activities were consistent with achievement of the Long Term Management Direction (LTMD) (with the tending program exception noted above). Forecast renewal activities were consistent with those projected in SFMM and supported the achievement of FMP objectives. The distribution of harvest area in the 2010 FMP between the two five-year terms is approximately equal (44,748 ha vs. 44,129 ha) and does not exceed the calculated available harvest area for any forest unit. Sufficient contingency area was selected from the optional harvest areas to support a minimum of one year, and a maximum of two years of harvest operations. The social and economic description, the interpretation of those data in the local context, and the assessment of economic value to the local community were excellent. 9 Silvicultural Ground Rules specify the silvicultural systems and types of harvest, renewal and tending treatments that are available to manage forest cover and the type of forest that is expected to develop over time. 10 A Silvicultural Treatment Package is the path of silvicultural treatments from the current forest condition to the future forest condition. STPs include the silvicultural system, harvest and logging method(s), renewal treatments, tending treatments, and regeneration standards Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 10

18 The assessment of the social and economic impact of the Proposed Management Strategy (PMS) did not use a formal model but instead used local data to compare differences between the 2005 and the proposed 2010 FMP under three categories: timber volume, silvicultural expenditure and non-timber activities and values. We concluded that the use of this non-modeling analysis process was appropriate and we concurred with the planning team s conclusions about socio-economic impact of the PMS. Requirements for the protection of resource based tourism values were addressed, including the protection of values by use of AOC s and Resource Stewardship Agreements. As required by the Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource- Based Tourism and the Guide to Resource Stewardship Agreements, in July and August of 2007 initial letters were sent by NFI to tourism establishments asking for an indication of interest; a follow-up letter was sent by OMNR. Of approximately 65 Resource Based Tourism (RBT) Operators only six submitted a letter of interest. Two RSA s were signed. We were unable to determine if an OMNR scoping session had taken place with interested RBT operators since OMNR files contained only an unsigned and undated letter in reference to such a meeting and our interviews with OMNR, NFI and Tourism Operators were unable to confirm that such a meeting had taken place. We do not make a recommendation since the RBT operators we interviewed were aware of the opportunity to negotiate an RSA. Areas of concern (AOC) prescriptions were appropriately documented in the 2010 FMP and conformed to the appropriate Guidelines. Funding was available for the OMNR to collect values information in a timely manner and this information was used in the development of the 2010 FMP. We reviewed in detail 10% of the approximately 120 alterations required by the plan reviewers. This number of alterations is small compared to other Plans that we have reviewed, suggesting a well written plan and involvement of the reviewers during its production. We found that the required alterations were reasonable and were satisfactorily considered in the final FMP. Our sample 11 of FMP Amendments and Annual Work Schedule Revisions included those made for water crossings to accommodate new information on values. The relatively large number of amendments/revisions (75) was appropriate, since it was principally due to the provision of ( unassigned ) allocations to operators who became able to use additional wood supply during FMP implementation 12. The amendments and revisions were thoroughly prepared, well documented and completed in a timely manner. Species listed under the provincial Endangered Species Act, and dependent on the NF were appropriately considered in the 2010 FMP. The FMP lists a large number of species, with descriptions of habitat needs and the measures used to address those needs. Objectives and protection measures were developed for each species. For example, some species were afforded protection through standard riparian buffer 11 A 30% sample was completed. 12 Unassigned allocations are discussed further in Section 4.4 under Harvest 2012 Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 11

19 strategies (e.g. rusty blackbird) while an AOC strategy specific to the protection of wood turtle habitat was also provided. Our field observations verified that AOCs for the protection of SAR species were appropriately implemented and our review of the 2010 FMP indicates that FMPM requirements for SAR were met. As required in the FMPM alternative locations for road corridors were considered in the 2010 FMP and the rationale for the selected corridor was documented in the FMP. Maintenance, monitoring, access control and decommissioning activities for the fiveyear term were also appropriately documented. During plan development the planning team assembled background information on all existing roads and then assigned joint or individual responsibilities to OMNR and/or industry. We view this procedure as proactive and necessary given the significant use of forest access by the public. Four access related issues were resolved using the Issues Resolution and Independent Environmental Assessment process provided for in the FMPM (Section 4.2) Plan Assessment and Implementation The full implementation of the FMPs was negatively impacted by the downturn in Ontario s forest sector economy. Table 3 presents the planned vs. actual area treated by silvicultural activity for the audit term. A discussion of the implementation of the harvesting and silvicultural program during the audit term is provided in the sections below. TABLE 3. PLANNED VS. ACTUAL SILVICULTURE TREATMENTS DURING THE AUDIT TERM ( ). Activity Planned (Ha) Actual (Ha) Harvest 47,097 19, Natural Regeneration 29,503 9, Artificial Regeneration 12,556 8, Site Preparation 14,364 4, Tending 11,265 6, Thinning Forest Protection Harvest % of Planned During the audit term the area harvested was below planned levels (19,592 ha actual vs. 47,097 planned) due to weak market conditions and the curtailment of operations at some receiving mills. Volumes harvested were also lower than planned levels. Most of the 25 OLs operated over the audit term although some operated at reduced levels compared to previous plan terms. A biofibre trial salvage operation was conducted on approximately 216 ha of an area burned by Sault Fire # 13. Approximately 4,509 m 3 was salvaged during the trial. Planning for the treatment met FMPM requirements Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 12

20 For normal operations, conifer utilization was higher than hardwood utilization. Harvest levels were highest in forest units managed under the clearcut system and lowest for forest units managed under shelterwood and selection systems. These trends are consistent with the prevailing markets for species and products during the audit term. The planned harvest allocation reflected the calculated available harvest area (AHA) and was fully allocated and balanced between the 5 year operating periods of the FMP. We note that past audits recognized that the calculated available harvest area (AHA) was considerably higher than historic utilization levels. To address this situation unassigned harvest areas at the end of the 2005 FMP were made available to licencees with a demonstrated capacity to harvest additional areas. The full implementation of this initiative was hampered somewhat by the poor economy and the resultant lower than planned harvest levels. During the field audit we visited 10% of the area that was harvested. All inspected sites were approved for operations in the Annual Work Schedules (AWSs). Harvest prescriptions were implemented in accordance with the Silvicultural Ground Rules (SGRs) and individual forest operations prescriptions were prepared and appropriately implemented for each harvest block. It is our assessment that NFI did a credible job managing harvest allocations and operations given the inherent challenges associated with managing a significant number of number of operators with preferences to harvest within traditional areas and/or cut certain species. We concluded that harvest operations were conducted in a manner consistent with good forest practices. AOCs were adequately protected during harvest operations including those for the protection of SAR. Our finding that harvest operations were well done is supported by Forest Operations Inspections Program (FOIP) results which indicated a 96% in- compliance rate for harvest activities during the audit term. Stands allocated for selection or shelterwood harvest were marked by certified markers and the marking was audited prior to the commencement of operations. It is noteworthy that our inspection of selection and shelterwood harvest blocks showed little evidence of damage to residual trees indicating operator care and due diligence during harvest operations. Renewal, Tending and Protection Renewal As a result of the shortfall in achieving harvest targets, planned renewal targets were not achieved. However, the area renewed was essentially in balance with the area harvested during the audit term (18,251 ha renewed vs. 19,592 ha harvested). Planned targets for both natural and artificial renewal were not achieved. Artificial renewal activities achieved 68% of the planned target while natural renewal achieved 33% of planned levels. 13 The area treated by natural renewal slightly exceeded the area treated 13 Artificial renewal exceeded natural renewal because conifer utilization was higher than hardwood utilization and many conifer forest units are renewed by planting or seeding Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 13

21 by artificial methods (9,671 ha natural vs. 8,580 ha artificial) reflecting a slightly higher concentration of the harvest in stands where SGRs required natural renewal as preferred treatment. Our field audit examined 12% (2,113 ha, 51 sites) of the artificial and natural renewal activities implemented during the audit term. All inspected sites were approved in the AWS and were implemented in accordance with the applicable SGRs and STPs. It is our conclusion that the renewal program was effectively implemented and that renewed areas were, for the most part, achieving satisfactory stocking levels of desired species. Site preparation activities occurred on only 4,866 ha of the planned 14,364 ha as a result of the shortfall in meeting planned harvest targets, difficult site conditions and/or areas having site conditions favourable for direct renewal treatments. Most site preparation treatments were done with power disk trenchers although a straight blade was utilized on some white pine renewal areas 14. No chemical site preparation activities were planned. During the field audit we inspected 16% (766 ha, 23 sites) of the area treated with site preparation. Treatments were effective in exposing mineral soil for either planting or seeding and there was no evidence of environmental damage arising from the operations. However, we observed a number of sites where chemical site preparation may have been an effective tool to reduce site competition. We provide a broader recommendation related to tending and further discussion of this issue in the section below and in Recommendation #1 (Appendix 1). The NFI had a slash management program in place to minimize the area of productive land lost to slash. On the NF slash management is directed towards areas that are harvested under the full tree logging method. The most commonly applied slash management treatments are piling, piling and burning, dispersing slash back into the harvest area or utilizing the slash as biomass. Pile burning did not occur during every year of the audit term in order to ensure sufficient area had been accumulated for a feasible burn program. During the FMP term approximately 87% of the harvest area was managed to reduce slash. In the final two years of the audit period 3,900 ha of the harvest area were treated with slash piling and 4,164 piles were burned. It was our assessment that NFI implemented an effective slash management program during the audit term. Tending Chemical tending activities were primarily delivered via aerial spray programs although a limited area (501 ha) was treated by ground mist blower. Chemical tending treatments are typically applied once during stand establishment. During the audit term tending achieved 58% of planned target (6,526 ha actual vs.11,265 ha planned). 14 Straight blade treatments are preferred on White Pine renewal sites in order to minimize root damage to residual stems and maximize available seedbed Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 14

22 Eighteen percent of the area that had been chemically tended was inspected during the field audit (1,153 ha, 17 sites). Our overall assessment of the tending program was that it was usually effective in reducing site competition. However, we did encounter sites where treatments had been applied late in the season 15 (which reduced the effectiveness of the spray treatment) and other instances where, despite initial good results post-treatment competition was negatively impacting crop tree growth. It was our assessment that NFI needs to augment its current tending regime by applying a second chemical tending treatment or utilizing chemical site preparation treatments in conjunction with its normal tending program to reduce site competition on the richer mixedwood sites and/or ecosites renewed to white pine (Recommendation # 1, Appendix 1). Protection No protection activities were required during the audit term. Access Forest access was planned and constructed in accordance with the FMPs, AWSs and relevant forest management guidelines. Road construction and maintenance responsibilities 16 are assigned to individual OLs. During the audit term, road construction levels were lower than planned due to the reduction in the area harvested 17. In general, primary access roads were well built and maintained. Surface conditions on secondary roads were somewhat variable reflecting the lack of active operations in some of the inspected blocks and/or a reduction in maintenance due to prevailing economic circumstances. No instances of environmental degradation due to road deterioration were observed. The relatively stable harvest levels achieved during the audit term enabled NFI to qualify for a significant proportion of the funding allocations for road construction and maintenance work available through the Forest Roads and Maintenance Agreement (FRMA). Our sampling of 10% of the activities invoiced under the FRMA found that invoices for program activities were complete and accurate. The previous IFA provided a recommendation that water crossings construction be improved to adhere to appropriate standards. To address this issue a concerted effort between OMNR, NFI and the North Shore Independent Forestry Association Inc. 18 (NSIFAI) provided training and workshops for the Overlapping Licencees on culvert 15 NFI has had challenges in securing spray contractors during the spray window 16 Road assignment includes the monitoring of road conditions, and maintenance of the existing roads / road networks, including addressing potential or existing hazards on the roads. This can include the closing of roads where hazards exist kilometres (kms) of primary road and 70 kms of secondary road was constructed 18 The NSIFAI is a shareholder of NFI whose membership is comprised of independent loggers holding Overlapping Licenses on the NF Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 15

23 installations and sediment control. As well, annual compliance plans included increased monitoring of crossing installations. Our audit inspected 13% (17) of the water crossings installed during the audit term and found them to be well constructed. We did not observe any instances of non-compliance associated with poor installation or maintenance. Our inspection of FOIP records is also consistent with this finding. Forestry aggregate pits inspected during the audit (18 pits) complied with operational standards. Renewal Support NFI is a member of the Northeast Seed Management Association (NESMA) which is responsible for establishing and maintaining tree orchards and other tree improvement initiatives. Planned renewal support programs were well documented in the FMPs and were sufficient to meet planned silvicultural program requirements for the audit term. Renewal support activities included tree seed collection, planting stock production and tree improvement operations System Support The IFAPP human resources principle for the OMNR and NFI is deemed to be met as the NF is FSC certified. Document and Record Quality Control Our assessment is that EACOM/NFI maintains an excellent document and record control system. Interviews with EACOM employees and a review of their files indicated that there is a formal functional system of document control (filing, updating, distribution and purging of obsolete documents). Individuals responsible for specific work areas maintain local systems which are backed up onto a central server. Silviculture records are maintained in a Geographic Information System (GIS) which facilitates the scheduling of silvicultural treatments during stand development and the tracking and reporting of stand and forest level silvicultural information. For the initial stages of the 2010 FMP planning process OMNR did not have a functional database for tracking and responding to public comments. A new record keeping system was instituted during the audit term which enabled better record keeping and response times for public comments. At the time of the audit OMNR had an effective record/document management system in place. Documents are readily retrievable and there was a formal back-up process in place. Blind River staff responded to our information requests in a timely manner. The FMP planning and Aboriginal contact documentation was comprehensive Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 16

24 4.6. Monitoring SFL and District Compliance Planning and Associated Monitoring OMNR compliance planning was completed on an annual basis and included targets, priorities and identified individuals responsible for completing the work. NFI completed strategic compliance plans for the 2005 and 2010 FMPs that met all format and content requirements of the Guidelines for Forest Industry Compliance Planning (2005). The AWSs contained information on compliance priorities and detailed the number of inspections planned for each of the OLs. Our assessment is that during the audit period there was an appropriate number of industry and OMNR inspections relative to the forest management activity that occurred. Interviews with OMNR and NFI staff, OLs and LCC members confirmed this finding as it was the general consensus that the level of monitoring was sufficient and effective. The ARs report a total of 552 inspections by NFI and the OMNR with an overall incompliance rate of 94 percent. Inspections were well dispersed across the major activities (i.e. access, harvest, renewal, maintenance) with no discernible trends in infractions by activity. A review was completed of all FOIP reports (industry and MNR) produced during the audit term. With the exception of some minor issues associated with submission timelines they conformed to the Forest Compliance Handbook (2008 and 2010) requirements. There are 25 OLs 19 operating on the NF. The high number of operators implies a higher potential for communication lapses, mistakes (e.g. boundary incursion) and delayed reporting. The successful management of the compliance program on such a large area and with a high number of OLs involves a considerable amount of effort and commitment on behalf of the SFL holder, the OMNR and the OLs. We note a concerted effort between OMNR, NFI and the North Shore Independent Forestry Association Inc. (NSIFAI) to provide training and workshops for the Overlapping Licensees. As well a joint subcommittee of OMNR, NFI and NSIFAI met semi-annually to address issues, develop best practices and provide training. It is our assessment that the process for managing forest compliance was effective. Monitoring of Silvicultural Activities NFI implemented a silvicultural monitoring program with both informal and formal survey work being completed during all years of the audit term. Survey work included assessments of regeneration success, vegetative competition, and free-to-grow status (FTG). 19 Three OLs ceased to operate during the audit term Independent Forest Audit Northshore Forest 17