2010 IFA - Ogoki Forest · Ogoki Forest Independent Forest Audit i 1.0. Executive Summary This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Ogoki Forest

Ogoki Forest

Independent Forest Audit

2005-2010

Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd.

Oxford Mills, Ontario

January, 2011

© Queen‟s Printer for Ontario 2011

Table of Contents

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

2.0. TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES ...................................................................II

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

3.1. AUDIT PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................. 1 3.2. MANAGEMENT UNIT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 3.3. CURRENT ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.4. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND INPUT TO THE AUDIT ................................................................................... 7

4.0. AUDIT FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1. COMMITMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................. 8 4.3. FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING ................................................................................................................... 10 4.4. PLAN ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 12 4.5. SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................................. 16 4.6. MONITORING .................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.7 ACHIEVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES & SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................. 17 4.8. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 20 4.9. CONCLUSIONS AND LICENCE EXTENSION RECOMMENDATION. ........................................................................ 21

List of Tables TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................II TABLE 2. AREA SUMMARY OF MANAGED CROWN LAND BY LAND TYPE ..................................................................... 3 List of Figures FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE OMNR’S NORTHWEST REGION, NIPIGON DISTRICT & THE OGOKI FOREST IN THE

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO ......................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF FOREST COVER TYPES ON THE OGOKI FOREST ................................... 4 FIGURE 3. AGE CLASS AREA DISTRIBUTION BY COVER TYPE. ....................................................................................... 5

Ogoki Forest Independent Forest Audit

i

1.0. Executive Summary This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Ogoki Forest (SFL # 541965) conducted by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd. for the period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010. Procedures and criteria for the IFA are specified in the 2010 Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP). The audit assessed the forest management activities of Long Lake Forest Products Inc. and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Nipigon District. Until its bankruptcy, Buchanan Forest Products Ltd. (BFPL) acted as the forest management service provider. GreenForest Management Inc. has now assumed those responsibilities on behalf of the SFL holder. The 2008 Ogoki Forest Management Plan (FMP) includes a re-design of the 2003 FMP caribou mosaic into what the planning team decided was a more effective configuration to protect caribou habitat. The success of the caribou strategy is predicated on continued forest harvesting and silviculture, roads management and fire suppression. During the past two management terms, the full implementation of the FMP was negatively impacted by volume losses to snow damage and the province-wide economic downturn in the forest sector. The resultant underachievement of planned harvest levels is a significant concern. The failure to meet planned harvest targets has negatively affected the achievement of the caribou habitat targets and this will have significant implications for the provision of suitable habitat and landscape pattern development for caribou should the harvest trend continue. Recent large scale natural disturbance events have also undermined the full achievement of FMP objectives. Our assessment is that the SFL holder has designed and implemented the caribou mosaic strategy in accordance with the provincial policy direction, to the extent possible, given the constraints imposed by the forest age class area structure and prevailing economic circumstances during the audit term. We conclude that forest sustainability is largely being achieved with respect to FMP objectives related to biodiversity, forest condition and ecosystem productivity. We do, however, question whether the implementation of the caribou mosaic strategy is feasible given the forest structure, social conditions, and the logistical and economic challenges unique to this Forest. We provide a recommendation to consider alternate approaches to achieving caribou habitat objectives or to alter current objectives to make them more feasible to implement. We provide seven recommendations to address identified shortcomings in the delivery of the forest management program. Recommendations are provided for the SFL holder to ensure its contractual obligations are met with respect to, meeting reporting requirements, to address a future requirement to conduct tending operations, to meet FMPM reporting obligations and to develop and implement a formal roads monitoring program. Recommendations also direct the OMNR to track and monitor the status of Trust Payments and Crown dues, meet FMPM reporting obligations, and to engage the


ii

Ontario Ministry of the Environment to investigate improvements to the Issue Resolution and Individual Environmental Assessment Processes. The audit team concludes that the management of the Ogoki 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 Long Lake Forest Products 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 the Sustainable Forest Licence # 541965 for a further five years. We also conclude that the 2008 Forest Management Plan (FMP) met the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the initial 6 month implementation priorities of the Caribou Conservation Plan. 2.0. Table of Recommendations TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation on Licence Extension

The audit team concludes that management of the Ogoki 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 Long Lake Forest Products 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 the Sustainable Forest Licence # 541965 for a further five years.

Recommendations Directed to SFL Holder / OMNR District

Recommendation # 2: The SFL holder must ensure that conifer renewal sites are monitored and that timely and effective tending interventions are implemented. Recommendation # 3: The SFL Holder should develop and implement a formal roads monitoring/tracking program. Recommendation # 4: In its assessment of progress on the achievement of the 2008 FMP objectives in the Year 3


iii

Annual Report, LLFP in collaboration with District OMNR should consider alternate approaches to achieving caribou habitat objectives or alter current objectives to make them feasible to implement. Recommendation # 5: The SFL Holder must ensure that Annual Reports meet all FIM and FMPM requirements with respect to content and submission deadlines. Recommendation # 6: The Geraldton Area OMNR should work with MNDMF to develop and implement an effective system to track and monitor the status of payment of Crown dues on unutilized or non-marketed harvested wood to ensure that required Trust and Crown dues payments are made. Recommendation # 7: The OMNR District Manager and the SFL Holder must ensure the Action Plan responding to IFA recommendations is prepared within the required timeline.

Recommendations Directed to Corporate or Regional OMNR

Recommendation # 1: Corporate OMNR should engage in discussions with the OMOE to investigate modification(s) to the IEA and/or the forest management planning process to reduce the social, economic and workload impacts of the Issue Resolution/IEA processes.

1


1

3.0. Introduction This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Ogoki Forest (SFL # 541965) conducted by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd1. for the period April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010. Procedures and criteria for the IFA are specified in the 2010 Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP). This audit assessed the forest management activities of Long Lake Forest Products Inc. and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Nipigon District. Until its bankruptcy, Buchanan Forest Products Ltd. (BFPL) acted as the forest management service provider. GreenForest Management Inc. has now assumed these responsibilities on behalf of the SFL holder. 3.1. Audit Process The Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) requires that Sustainable Forest Licences (SFL) be audited every five years by an independent auditor. The audit also applies to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), and all licencees on the SFL. 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. The effectiveness of forest management activities is examined based on planned vs. actual results as verified through record examination and field sampling. The audit reviews whether actual results in the field are comparable with planned results and determines if they are accurately reported. A further discussion of the audit process is provided in Appendix 4. Forest Management Plans (FMPs) within the scope of the audit are the 2003-2008 FMP (last 3 years of implementation) and the 2008-2018 FMP (planning process and first 2 years of implementation). 3.2. Management Unit Description The Ogoki Forest is bordered to the north and east by the northern boundary of the Area of Undertaking as identified in the Class Environmental Assessment. The west and southwest portions of the Forest are bordered by the Armstrong and Lake Nipigon Forests, while the Kenogami Forest is situated to the south. The Forest is licenced to Long Lake Forest Products Inc. (LLFP) under the terms and conditions of SFL No. 541965. The unit is administered by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Nipigon Administrative District.

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


2

The management unit is located north of the Municipality of Greenstone which encompasses the towns of Nakina, Geraldton, Longlac, Jellicoe, and Beardmore. Nakina is located approximately 92 kilometres southeast of the Forest‟s southern boundary.

FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE OGOKI FOREST IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO Source: OMNR

There are no First Nation communities located within the Ogoki Forest; however, the Aroland, Animbiigoo Zaagi‟igan Anishinaabek (AZA), Eabametoong, and Marten Falls First Nations (FN) exercise rights within the Forest boundaries. The Ogoki Forest encompasses a total area of 1,090,985.5 ha. Of this, 1,022,497.6 ha (93.7%) is Crown Managed land. Table 2 provides an area summary of the managed Crown land by type.


3

TABLE 2. AREA SUMMARY OF MANAGED CROWN LAND BY LAND TYPE

Source: FMP-1 Table: Management Unit Land Summary in Hectares (2008 FMP)

Forest Cover Types The Ogoki Forest is a typical, fire-driven boreal forest ecosystem. Historic wildfires and human fire suppression activities have affected the age class area distribution and to a lesser extent the species composition of the Forest. The primary tree species include black spruce, white spruce, jack pine, poplar, birch, cedar, and larch. Upland mixed conifers, mixedwoods, jack pine and poplar make up approximately 66% of the productive forest landscape. Figure 2 presents the proportional representation of forest cover types.

2 Protection forest 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. 3 Production forest is land at various stages of growth, with no obvious physical limitations on the ability to practice forest management. 4 This area is deemed to have low stocking due to site limitations, natural disturbance or past forest

operations.

Managed Crown Land Type Area (Ha)

Non-Forested 78,559.6

Non-Productive Forest 58,343.2

Protection Forest2 134,540.1

Production Forest3

Forest Stands 662,563.5

Recent Disturbance 61,928.8

Below Regeneration Standards4 25,715.6

Total Forested: 943,091.2

Total Crown Managed: 1,022,497.6


4

FIGURE 2. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF FOREST COVER TYPES ON THE OGOKI FOREST Source: 2008 FMP

Age Class Area Distribution The age class area distribution is skewed to mature and over mature age classes. Increased fire suppression activities and a lack of forest management activities have resulted in a large age class area gap (ages 20-60 years) (Figure 3). This has negative implications on future wood supply, particularly with respect to the application of the caribou guidelines, and the availability of preferred habitats. Approximately 60%, of the forest is currently over 100 years of age. Many of these old stands will breakdown naturally before forest management activities can occur, resulting in volume and potential product quality declines. Additionally, the large proportion of old growth forest also offers future challenges in maintaining desirable levels of forest in old growth condition as old growth transitions to young forest through harvesting, natural succession and/ or natural disturbances. The projected shift in area classified as old growth/late-successional forest to young forest also will provide challenges in maintaining target levels of preferred habitat.

9%

9%3%8%7%

15%

16%

33%

Conifer Mix1 Conifer Mix2 Hardwood Mix Pure Jack Pine

Pure Poplar Lowland Spruce1 Lowland Spruce3 Upland Spruce


5

FIGURE 3. AGE CLASS AREA DISTRIBUTION BY COVER TYPE. Source: 2008 FMP

The Forest provides a predominately older-aged coniferous forest habitat for many wildlife species that are common to the boreal forest. Species categorized as endangered, threatened or of special concern that are known to occur, or thought to have occurred, are the Woodland Caribou, Wolverine, Great Grey Owl, Bald Eagle, Eastern Cougar5 and Lake Sturgeon. Other wildlife species include Black Bear, Moose, Beaver, Mink, Red Fox and Lynx, while small game species include Snowshoe Hare, Ruffed Grouse, Spruce Grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse and a variety of waterfowl. 3.3. Current Issues Implementation of the Forest Management Guidelines for Caribou Conservation The caribou mosaic is the overriding consideration affecting the majority of forest management decisions and long-term management objectives on the Forest. The objective of the caribou mosaic strategy is to ensure suitable and sustainable year-round caribou habitat. This requires forest planners to develop a caribou habitat mosaic which emulates natural disturbances and landscape patterns. The mosaic is applied to 100% of the Forest and dictates the amount of area and locations where harvesting can occur for a particular period of time. The application of the mosaic results in a harvest 5 Although no sightings have been reported on the Forest, observations have been reported on adjacent SFLs.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-

100

101-

120

121-

140

141-

160

161-

180

181-

200

201-

220

221-

240

241-

260

Age Class

Are

a (

Ha

)


6

volume decrease beyond 2018, and provides little opportunity for flexibility in the selection of harvest areas. The mosaic also limits the age at which forest stands may be harvested. Since much of the forest is in a mature to over mature stage, there is a strong likelihood that natural succession to younger forest stands will occur prior to harvest operations commencing in the mosaic blocks. Stands that naturally succeed, or succumb to wildfire, may not be harvestable when the block is accessed as they may be below an operable rotation age or contain insufficient volumes for viable harvest operations. Age Class Area Distribution A gap exists in the current age class distribution from approximately 20 to 60 years. As the forest in the individual caribou blocks ages and naturally succeeds (or succumbs to natural disturbance events) prior to access and harvest, it will be a challenge to maintain the area of preferred habitat for some species. It will also be difficult to maintain some upland forest units in an old growth condition. Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation An objective of the FMP was to establish harvest disturbances on the landscape consistent with the natural distribution template for the Ogoki Forest. Clearcut size and frequency objectives need to comply with the Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guideline (NDPEG) which requires that 80% of planned clearcuts be less than 260 hectares in size (for the first five-year period of the FMP). However, in order to achieve caribou management strategies, there is an FMP objective to create larger disturbances (i.e. clearcut blocks) greater than or equal to 10,000 hectares in size. The FMP objective and general NDPEG direction are somewhat in conflict. Forest Access The Ogoki Forest has relatively few roads when compared to other managed Forests in the Northwest Region. Therefore, access to areas within the various mosaic blocks is often limited, and the lack of an existing road network further complicates the ability to harvest stands at their optimal rotation age. In 2007, family members from the Eabametoong First Nation informed LLFP and the OMNR that a cultural heritage value was located beneath the road in the vicinity of the Witchwood crossing bridge and asked that vehicular traffic be stopped. The bridge at the site had been constructed in 2001. Due to the nature and sensitivities of the issue, access was voluntarily restricted and the issue remains unresolved after three years.


7

Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) The most recent FRI was completed in 1988. Apart from the vintage of the inventory, there are issues with respect to the accuracy of stand volume information. This is particularly an issue in stands affected by snow damage (2001) and for older stands which have begun to decline. Harvest volumes have generally been lower than forecast due to volume losses arising from the snow damage. The lower than anticipated volumes have also increased the area of by-pass and constrained the full harvest of mosaic blocks. For the development of the 2008 FMP, Sustainable Forest Management Model (SFMM) yield curves were reduced by 5-13% to reflect these volume losses. An Enhanced FRI is expected to be completed in 2014. Wood Utilization and Payment of Crown Dues Most of the northwest region is experiencing weak and/or unpredictable markets for poplar and other hardwood species. The unpredictable markets have resulted in the by-pass of poplar dominated stands. The lack of available markets, mill closures, and a continued access restriction at the Witchwood crossing has also resulted in timber being left in the bush (~12,000 m3). Crown dues for harvested wood dating back to 2001 remain unpaid. Silvicultural Monitoring As a result of the recent history of forest management on the unit and staff constraints associated with the economic downturn some silvicultural monitoring work is behind schedule (e.g. 5,900 ha require FTG survey). 3.4. 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 comments and/or complete a survey on the Arbex website were placed in the Times Star (Geraldton) and the Wawatay News. A random sample of 35% of the individuals and organizations listed in the 2008 FMP mailing list were sent a letter and a survey questionnaire requesting input to the audit process. All First Nations (FNs) with an interest in the Forest were contacted by mail with an invitation to participate and/or express their views on the management of the Forest during the audit term. Follow-up contacts were made with all FNs and, where possible, interviews were held with individual representatives. An audit team member attended a regularly scheduled meeting of the LCC, and some LCC members participated in the field audit. Five members of the tourism industry were interviewed.


8

GreenForest Management Inc. staff (representing LLFP) and OMNR staff with responsibilities on the Forest participated fully in the field audit and/or were interviewed by the audit team. 4.0. Audit Findings 4.1. Commitment The commitment principle is deemed to be met since during the audit term Long Lake Forest Products Inc. was certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification standard. This certification extends to March 21, 2012. 4.2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement The forest management planning process associated with the development of the 2008-2018 FMP was assessed for conformance with the IFAPP. Standard Public Consultation The public consultation process provided opportunities for the general public, individuals and organizations to participate in preparation of the FMP and inspection of Annual Work Schedules (AWS). Issue Resolution During the preparation of the FMP and minor amendments, opportunities for concerned person(s) to identify issues were clearly identified. Six individuals/groups requested that the formal Issue Resolution process be used to deal with their issues. None of the issues were resolved at the Plan Author or District Manager Stages; all six proceeded to the Regional Director Stage and a decision was delivered for 5 of the 6 requests. For the 6th request, the Regional Director and the Company agreed to an interim decision pending further discussion with the proponent. Many of the proponents subsequently requested that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) require an Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA). Individual Environmental Assessments (IEA) During the preparation of the FMP, opportunities for person(s) to make a request for an IEA for specific proposed forest management activities were clearly identified and seven individuals/groups requested that the OMOE require an IEA.


9

The OMOE notified the OMNR of the requests within the prescribed time schedule. The OMNR response to the OMOE took longer than what is normally expected as did the OMOE‟s subsequent decision letter to OMNR and the proponents. While the IEA process was generally followed, the delays in operations resulting from the IEA requests resulted in real economic impacts and the expenditure of a great amount of time, effort and money by the proponents, the OMOE, the OMNR and the forest company. A recommendation (Recommendation #1 – Appendix 1) is provided. Action Taken in Relation to the OMOE‟s Conditions Associated With the IEA Request Decision The OMNR Request for Proposals (RFP) text for the 2010/2011 Independent Forest Audits included some explicit deliverables stemming from the Ministry of the Environment‟s decision letter on the requests for an IEA. These deliverables required a review of whether the 2008 Ogoki FMP, as amended, addressed the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007, the Caribou Habitat Regulation and the Caribou Conservation Plan. In our review, we found;

The 2008 Ogoki FMP met the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007; no related amendments were required,

At the time of our audit the proposed Caribou Habitat Regulation had not been tabled,

The OMNR provided us with a Status Report on the initial six month (October 2009 to March 2010) implementation priorities of the Caribou Conservation Plan. We found that there was not a requirement to amend the 2008 Ogoki FMP to meet requirements stemming from the implementation of the Caribou Conservation Plan.

Local Citizens Committee The Geraldton Area Natural Resources Advisory Committee (GANRAC) has been very active in providing a local perspective on numerous natural resource planning and management activities that include fisheries and wildlife, as well as forestry. Most community interests are represented and attendance at meetings has been consistently high. Aboriginal participation has been minimal despite numerous efforts to encourage their involvement. For the development of the 2008 FMP a committee member attended every planning meeting. Members participated at all information sessions.


10

The Committee was fully involved in the implementation of the 2003 FMP. Committee agendas and minutes show on-going involvement providing advice and comment on the full range of plan implementation activities (e.g. Annual Work Schedules, Compliance activities, road construction, etc.). Members who were interviewed expressed a high level of satisfaction with efforts by the OMNR and forest industry to keep them informed and involved in all aspects of forest management. Aboriginal Involvement in Forest Management Planning There are no First Nation communities located within the Ogoki Forest; however, the Aroland, Animbiigoo Zaagi‟igan Anishinaabek (AZA), Eabametoong, and Marten Falls First Nations (FN) exercise rights within its boundaries. All First Nations were invited to participate on the planning team and four attended at least some of the meetings. All communities received the notices required by the FMPM for the development of the 2008 FMP, and within the correct timeframes. Aboriginal Background Information Reports and Community Demographic Profiles from the previous FMP were updated (where possible). Values maps were also updated. The OMNR produced the required annual Condition 34 reports. 4.3. Forest Management Planning FMPM requirements for the planning of the 2008 FMP were met. The caribou mosaic was the fundamental consideration in shaping the proposed management strategy. The mosaic defines the future forest structure, wildlife habitat, wood supply, access development and socio-economic benefits. The strategy sought to maintain 80% of the caribou blocks equal or greater than 10,000 hectares in size and to maintain 40% of the Forest in on-line habitat condition6 for a 100 year period. The FMP task team evaluated the suitability of the caribou habitat mosaic implemented in the 2003 FMP and modified this approach to ensure the protection of caribou calving areas, wintering areas and the maintenance of large contiguous patches of older forest (>100 years). The 2003 mosaic also required some modifications as a result of 2005 fire and damage from a major snowfall in 2001. Overall the commercial wood supply was reduced by over 50% through the application of the caribou mosaic strategy. The volume losses occur because the majority of the productive forest is in a mature to over-mature stage and natural succession will occur in many mosaic block stands prior to harvest operations.

6 On-line refers to the degree of suitability of a forest stand to be caribou habitat.


11

It is also noteworthy, that as a result of the skewed age class area structure, the projected supply of caribou winter habitat is projected to decline. The projected reduction in winter habitat supply is approximately 33% below current levels. The management strategy results in a reduction in winter habitat supply by 46%. This level of habitat reduction is still within the bounds allowed for by the FMP objectives. SFMM projections also indicate that SPF volumes will be reduced by 47% and poplar volumes will be reduced by 64% over the 100 year planning horizon. It is our assessment that the SFMM modeling was well done7. Yield curves used to model forest productivity were based on limited past yield and silviculture information due to the limited harvest history on the Forest. As more yield data is accumulated the relationship between the specific yield curve assumptions and the silvicultural treatments can reasonably be expected to improve. Given the extent of the volume losses and the mature nature of the Forest, it is imperative harvest volume information be collected for growth and yield modeling in future forest management plans. To reflect volume losses arising from snow damage (2001 snowdown event) yields were reduced by 5-13%. These reduction factors appear to be reasonable, based on field audit observations. Our review indicated that resource-based tourism values were appropriately addressed in the forest management planning process. The Silvicultural Ground Rules (SGRs)8 and Silvicultural Treatment Packages9 (STPs) were appropriate and all planned harvest renewal and tending activities were consistent with the management strategy. A blend of silvicultural intensities was proposed to meet the objective of maintaining conifer in mosaic blocks. Primary road planning is driven by the caribou mosaic where roads are strategically located to avoid caribou habitat and calving areas. Planning for roads met FMPM requirements and in our opinion, should minimize potential adverse effects on caribou and caribou habitat.

7 Various caribou mosaic options were investigated and the final 2008 mosaic generally reflected the 2003 mosaic with improvements to protect new caribou calving areas, provide for the longer term protection of northern wintering areas, and to allow for large continuous patches of forest older than 100 years to remain on the land base (i.e. Caribou F blocks have been scheduled for harvest between 100 and 160 years to maintain forest patches greater than 100 years of age). The new mosaic also continues to maintain connectivity between different habitat areas and adjacent management units. Two recent natural disturbances (2001 snowdown & 2005 Nipigon #20 fire) were incorporated into the caribou mosaic. 8 The Silvicultural Ground Rules were developed according to the Silvicultural Guide to Managing for Black Spruce, Jack Pine and Aspen on Boreal Ecosites in Ontario. These 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. 9 A Silvicultural Treatment Package is the path of silviculture 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.


12

4.4. Plan Assessment and Implementation The full implementation of the FMP has been negatively impacted by natural disturbance events (i.e. snowdown event) and the economic downturn in the forest sector during the past two management terms. The management approach for Woodland Caribou is for forest harvesting to create extensive areas of even-aged, conifer dominated forest. This strategy is predicated on continued effective fire suppression10, harvesting, silviculture and roads management. The predicted level of habitat supply is premised on the successful implementation of the planned harvest which, for the past ten years, has been significantly below FMP forecast levels. The inability to achieve planned harvest levels suggests that the harvest targets may be overly optimistic, particularly in the context of the current economies and the remoteness of this Forest. While it is not the intent of the caribou strategy to strand old wood or undermine long term forest health, the FMP recognized that some mosaic blocks in the first rotation will contain harvestable stands with lower than forecast volumes and wood quality or not have sufficient volume for economic harvest operations. The application of the mosaic strategy results in a volume decrease beyond the year 2018 with model projections indicating a 47% reduction in SPF and a 64% reduction in Poplar over the 100 year period. These volume reductions occur because the strategy dictates that mosaic blocks be harvested on a 100 year cycle, and approximately 60% of the Forest is currently over 100 years of age. The inability to meet the mosaic block harvest schedules during the first rotation will undoubtedly amplify volume and product losses to natural succession or disturbance in B, C, D, and E mosaic blocks11. It is also likely that extra efforts and costs to establish and maintain conifer species will be required in stands that succeed to shrub rich conditions prior to harvest. While the issue of silvicultural costs can be addressed in the development of subsequent plans, silvicultural investments may not be optimized in instances where planned harvest schedules are not achieved. Harvest During the 2003-2008 FMP term, the actual area harvested was approximately 82% of the planned for normal operations. Salvage harvest operations achieved 56% of the planned target. In 2008-2009, actual harvest levels achieved 34% of the planned target. This underachievement reflects the downturn in the forestry sector and the

10 Although caribou are adapted to wildfire disturbance regimes, wildfire may spatially displace caribou for 40-60 years before the forest becomes suitable habitat again as large patches of recently disturbed or young regenerating forest are more suitable for high densities of moose, which increase wolf densities, the primary predator of caribou. 11 In the caribou mosaic blocks available for harvest within a 20 year period are identified (i.e. “A” Blocks are scheduled to be harvested in the first 20 year term, “B” Blocks in the second, etc.).


13

closure of mills. The failure to meet planned harvest targets has negatively affected the achievement of forecast caribou habitat creation targets and this will have significant implications for the provision of suitable habitat composition and landscape patterns for caribou (i.e. clearcut block aggregate area) should the harvest trend continue (Section 4.7). Ongoing poor wood markets and associated reduced harvest levels pose a significant risk to the complete harvest of “A” blocks during the first twenty year management term. We note that at the time of the audit, there were 8 years remaining to complete the scheduled “A” block harvest and that the mosaic will be re-configured in subsequent FMPs to account for harvest shortfalls. However, given economic projections for the forest sector, issues related to forest access, and the significant un-harvested area in the “A” blocks12 we are not optimistic that FMP objectives related to the provision of caribou habitat can realistically be achieved on this Forest. The failure to meet the planned harvest schedule will also exacerbate anticipated volume losses through natural succession and will negatively affect the viability of future harvest operations in other blocks of the mosaic configuration. Harvest volumes have generally been lower than forecast largely due to losses from natural depletion (e.g. snow damage, past fire disturbances), the lack of harvesting in spruce13, inaccessibility, poorer than anticipated wood quality, and poor market conditions. Volume utilization achieved approximately 61% of planned for the 2008-2010 period. The lower than anticipated volumes realized served to increase the area by-passed during operations. As required by the FMP, harvesting took place in areas of salvage and the Caribou “A” blocks. Salvage operations were mainly focused on wood damaged in a 2005 wildfire. Economics, accessibility and deteriorating wood quality dictated the area actually salvaged (approximately 60% of the planned area). During the field audit, we visited 10% of the area harvested during the audit term. All inspected sites were approved for operations in Annual Work Schedules (AWS) and harvest prescriptions were implemented in accordance with the FMP Silvicultural Ground Rules (SGRs Our field site visits confirmed the proper implementation of all required guidelines (e.g. NDPEG for individual tree retention). Harvested wood was utilized to the extent possible given prevailing market conditions. However, due to the lack of markets there has been a history of problems related to wood utilization (particularly for hardwoods) dating back prior to 2001. The 2008 FMP provides a hardwood utilization strategy with the intent of maximizing the harvest of conifer and minimizing the harvest of unmarketable hardwood fibre. OMNR and LLFP had addressed compliance issues related to the carrying over of suspended blocks to the 2008 FMP, and explored options to remove material at roadside. Crown dues for

12 The A mosaic block A (i.e. A and AF1) has 11,000 to 23,000 hectares more available harvest area than the other four mosaic blocks implying the highest levels of harvesting were to occur during term 1 of the FMP. 13 Some Spruce stands were mistyped to a higher site class in the inventory and did not contain operational volumes.


14

unmarketable wood harvested between 2001 and 2005 remained outstanding during the audit term. We could not find evidence that planned “regular reviews” or “tracking of the status of the payment of Crown dues” on this timber is occurring and provide a recommendation (Recommendation # 6 - Appendix 1) to address that concern. Additionally, approximately 12,000 m3 of wood harvested north of the Witchwood crossing has not been hauled (See Access below). Renewal, Tending and Protection The field audit sampled 10% of renewal and site preparation activities conducted during the audit term. All inspected activities were approved in the AWSs and were in accordance with the applicable Silvicultural Ground Rule (SGR) and Silvicultural Treatment Packages (STP). Our site inspections indicated that renewal sites were generally well-stocked to the target species and that the program was effective in renewing the Forest. Plan renewal targets were not achieved as a result of the lower-than-planned harvest area. The total area renewed was generally in balance with the area harvested14 during the audit term. The area renewed by artificial regeneration exceeded planned levels as sites scheduled for seeding were re-designated for planting upon site inspection following harvest. Mechanical site preparation was conducted on 70% of the planned area. This underachievement is attributable to the lower harvest levels as well as to a reduced requirement for mechanical site treatments because harvest operations provided sufficient site disturbance and mineral soil exposure for renewal. Our site inspections indicated that site preparation was effective. No tending or pest protection activities were undertaken due to only a small area currently requiring treatment and First Nation opposition to the use of herbicides. Our field site inspections indicated that an annual tending program (chemical, manual or mechanical) will be required in the near future to ensure that the investment in conifer renewal is not lost and to maintain suitable habitat conditions for caribou. We provide a recommendation (Recommendation #2 – Appendix 1) to address this concern. Slash management operations were undertaken on depleted blocks in an effort to reduce the reliance on slash burning and to retain the slash to promote biofuel options. Slash was piled in rows to expose areas of mineral soil. Given this Forest‟s remote location, we are sceptical of the economic viability of biofuel production options, however, the slash management program, is reducing the area of productive forest land lost to logging debris. Free-to-grow (FTG) assessments were conducted only during 2005-2006 in old burn areas to provide for the update of the forest inventory. Limited FTG surveys were

14 There are some delays in renewal reporting associated with the adoption of the CLAAG harvest system and difficulty in accessing some natural renewal areas in the same year of the harvest.


15

completed on past harvest areas reflecting the short history of forest management on the unit15 . Currently there are 5,900 hectares of harvest area requiring FTG survey. The area requiring assessment is expected to increase as renewal projects undertaken during the first management term reach SGR assessment age. Access Access and road decommissioning requirements are dictated by the caribou mosaic with some modification(s) to accommodate stakeholder issues (where feasible). Forest access (including water crossings) was well planned and construction work was performed in accordance with the FMPs, AWSs and forest management guidelines. There was a good compliance record associated with road and water crossing construction during the audit term. However, during the field audit we noted a requirement for maintenance work on the majority of secondary roads as a result of the lack of forest management activity. Monitoring had been undertaken to ensure that environmental damage (e.g. crossing failures, erosion into watercourses, etc.) was not occurring on active roads. However, the monitoring program was not tracking the status of all roads for which LLFP has responsibility. The company has yet to develop and implement a formal roads monitoring/tracking program. We provide a recommendation (Recommendation #3 – Appendix 1) to address this issue. The issue of access at the Witchwood crossing remains outstanding despite three years of discussions to resolve the impasse with the Eabametoong FN. The OMNR has been, and continues to be actively engaged in negotiations with the FN. Since the resolution of the issue remains largely in the hands of the Eabametoong FN we do not provide a recommendation. We inspected a sample of forestry aggregate pits and found they were in compliance with the “Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards”. Road construction and maintenance activities invoiced under the “Forest Roads and Maintenance Agreement” were inspected and no non-conformities were observed. Renewal Support The level of renewal support was sufficient for the scale of the renewal program. Renewal support during the audit term consisted of seed collection and nursery stock production. A shortage of white spruce seed currently exists however, alternative seed sources have been identified so we do not provide a recommendation.

15 The first seeding and planting programs commenced in 2000 and 2001 respectively. Most forest units are projected to reach FTG in 7-10 years from establishment.


16

4.5. System Support Human Resources The IFAPP human resources principle is deemed to be met since the Ogoki Forest is certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). The certification expires in March, 2012. SFL holder staffing levels will need to increase with the resumption of operations. OMNR staffing levels are satisfactory to meet current obligations. Document and Record Quality Control During the audit, GreenForest was utilizing a record filing, documentation control system and Environmental Management System (EMS) developed by Buchanan Forest Products Limited. This record/document management system is sophisticated and the EMS ensures documents are managed appropriately with a back-up process in place. Forest certification requirements also include a requirement for the maintenance of a quality document and record control system. The OMNR maintains a good quality record and document control system. 4.6. Monitoring District Compliance Planning and Associated Monitoring District compliance planning was completed on an annual basis that included targets and identified individuals responsible for completing the work. During the audit period the OMNR carried out 59 inspections and reported 13 instances of non-compliance. The number of inspections was appropriate for the level of forest management activity. We completed a random review of inspection reports and they generally conformed to the Forest Compliance Handbook (2008) requirements. There were some minor timing variances associated with inspection reporting, however, there was evidence of substantial improvement in compliance reporting over the audit period. SFL Holder Compliance Planning and Monitoring LLFP completed a strategic compliance plan as required by the Guidelines for Forest Industry Compliance Planning (2005). Two hundred and fifty-eight compliance

inspections were conducted by industry over the term identifying 13 instances of non-compliant activities (95% compliance). Our assessment is that the number of inspections was appropriate for the level of forest management activity. Compliance reports substantially met timing and format requirements.


17

We completed a random review of inspection reports submitted during the audit term and they substantially conformed to the Forest Compliance Handbook (2008) requirements. Some issues associated with providing notifications to the OMNR and submitting reports were associated with company economic and staffing issues. There was good evidence that these issues are being resolved and significant improvement was evident over the past few years. Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring (SEM) The SEM program is in its infancy due to the short history of forest management on the unit. Harvest operations commenced in 1998 and silvicultural operations (site preparation and direct seeding program) were initiated in 2000. This short history of management limits the capability to assess “silvicultural and regeneration success” or determine emerging trends with respect to forest unit transitions. During the 2003-2008 FMP term, FTG assessments were completed on 64, 916 hectares of old burn areas left for natural renewal and a small area depleted by harvest operations. These areas are inaccessible for silvicultural operations and were surveyed in order to update the forest inventory. Sixty-two percent of the area assessed (39,839 hectares) was declared as free-to-grow. Areas not meeting FTG standards were classified as barren and scattered. No FTG surveys have been completed since 2006 on harvest areas (5,900 ha still require survey). Field monitoring activities undertaken during the audit term included assessments of regeneration success, free-to-grow surveys, assessments of vegetative competition and the establishment of PSPs to monitor growth in artificially renewed areas. The consistent delivery of the assessment programs (i.e. permanent sample plot establishment and measurement and three year regeneration assessments) was negatively impacted by the economic downturn (staff availability and funding). 4.7 Achievement of Management Objectives & Sustainability Appendix 2 provides our assessment of the achievement of the 2003 FMP objectives. While good progress is being made with respect to most forest management plan objectives we do have a concern related to the feasibility of the implementation of the caribou mosaic strategy as it applies to the Ogoki Forest. Assessment of the public policy direction for Woodland Caribou is not within the scope of this audit. However, it is within our scope to examine the efficacy of policy implementation as defined by FMP objectives. It is our assessment that the planning team designed the caribou mosaic strategy in accordance with the provincial policy direction and that the mosaic has been implemented to the extent possible given the impediments imposed by the forest age class area structure, the prevailing economic circumstances, etc.


18

During the past two management terms, the full implementation of the FMP was negatively impacted by natural disturbance events and associated salvage harvest requirements, and a lack of markets for some species and products. The inability to achieve the scheduled harvest, combined with other challenges, has negatively affected the achievement of forecast caribou habitat targets and also has significant and long term implications with respect to the economic viability of harvesting on the Ogoki Forest. GreenForest prepared a “Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned vs. Actual Forest Operations Report” on behalf of the SFL holder. The report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of 2010 IFAPP and the 2009 FMPM.16 Changes in forest unit descriptions between plans complicated the assessment of trends in forest areas and the relative infancy of the forest management program also limits the capability to identify and assess emerging trends. The following trends are reported:

The actual area harvested is below planned levels for both the 1998-2003 and 2003-2008 plan terms achieving 71% and 73% of planned annualized levels respectively (normal and salvage harvests combined). The underachievement of the planned harvest is principally due to the downturn in the forestry sector and the associated temporary closure of the destination mills associated with the Ogoki Forest. The achievement of harvest areas and volumes have been lowest in spruce lowland and mixed hardwood forest units.

Actual harvest volumes have been below planned over the planning terms assessed achieving 61% (1998-2003) and 67% (2003-3008) of planned. Hardwood harvest volumes have been consistently low due to marketability issues associated with white birch and poplar. The volume of balsam fir harvested was significantly higher than planned, likely reflecting the older vintage of the FRI and a higher than anticipated merchantable volumes of balsam fir in stand understories.

As a result of the underachievement of harvest targets, actual renewal area was also below planned targets over the past two management terms (37 and 81% of targets respectively for the 1998 and 2003 planning terms). Tree planting exceeded planned levels largely due to prevailing site conditions following harvest.

No tending activities have occurred to date.

Limited free-to-grow survey assessments have been undertaken in part, as a result of the relatively small area of recent harvest. As such, it is not possible to provide a meaningful assessment of “silvicultural success”.

As a result of harvesting operations and natural disturbance events there has been an increase in the area of young forest relative to 1998.

16 Only two forest management planning terms have occurred on the Ogoki Forest. Normal reporting requires that three planning terms be assessed.


19

Shifts in habitat area between plan terms have occurred and are largely attributed to differences in forest unit classifications between the 2003 and 2008 FMPs. It is noteworthy that, non-spatial habitat levels for woodland caribou exceed those available in 2003. A downward trend in winter habitat supply is projected as a result of age class area distribution on the forest.

The Trends Report Author concluded that none of the trends reported indicated an imminent threat to forest sustainability. We agree with this assessment. Based on our audit findings, we conclude that forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the IFAPP. This conclusion is premised on the following achievements:

The long term management direction in the 2008 FMP and their related management objectives are consistent with the attainment of forest sustainability.

Appropriate information was available to support forest management planning efforts and where there were information shortfalls appropriate measures had been enacted to address the shortcoming(s).

Forest management planning activities adhered to FMPM requirements.

Appropriate silvicultural ground rules were adopted and the silvicultural treatment packages were appropriate for observed field conditions.

Areas of Concern were appropriately protected through proper planning and management prescription implementation.

Forest management activities (e.g. harvest, renewal, tending) adhered to FMP requirements. Field operations were implemented with minimal environmental degradation.

Renewal operations were generally in balance with harvest operations.

Forest operations were compliant with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) and Forest Management Plans and approved manuals.

None of the reported trends in the Draft Year 10 Annual Report and Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned vs. Actual Forest Operations Report Trends Report indicates an imminent threat to forest sustainability.

However, our assessment is that the planned harvest will not be achieved. Our reasoning is that, in addition to low harvest levels, the current and future implementation of the caribou mosaic strategy is impeded by:

An old forest that is currently 60% mature to over-mature resulting in reduced volumes and quality of wood products at time of harvest or increases in the area by-passed,


20

The lack of an existing road network which affects the ability to harvest stands at their optimal rotation age,

The relatively high cost associated with the distance of the wood supply from processing facilities,

A lack of markets for some species and products,

Increased silvicultural costs associated with stands that are in decline or that have transitioned to a younger age class,

Increased planning costs and delays in forest operations as a result of the issue resolution and IEA processes related to caribou management components of the FMP,

Low ecological productivity associated with some ecosites. While low productivity can be conducive to suitable caribou habitat, it can result in stands being by-passed due to low volumes and/or low product quality,

Natural disturbance events that have reduced the wood supply and affected planned harvesting operations,

First Nation concerns which impede access, harvest and renewal.

We provide a recommendation (Recommendation # 4 – Appendix 1) to assess progress on the achievement of the 2008 FMP caribou habitat objectives and consider alternate approaches or alter current objectives to make them more feasible to implement. 4.8. Contractual Obligations Appendix 3 provides a general overview of the SFL holder‟s adherence to its licence obligations. Contractual obligations were largely met with a few notable exceptions; Payments to the Forestry Futures Trust and Forest Renewal Trust, and Ontario Crown dues are in arrears. There are outstanding Crown dues for wood harvested between 2001 and 2005. The payment of Crown dues for this fibre was to be reviewed on a regular basis to determine if “LLFP was in a position to allow for a payment”. We could not find evidence that “regular reviews” or “tracking” of the status of the payment of crown dues is occurring and provide a recommendation (Recommendation # 6 – Appendix 1) to address this concern. For wood harvested during the audit term it is our understanding that OMNR has made financial arrangements to address Trust accounts that are outstanding so we do not provide a recommendation. The IFAPP requires that the SFL holder and OMNR prepare an Action plan within 2 months of receipt of the final audit report. The 2005 IFA Final Audit Report was submitted in February 2006. The Action plan was submitted in December, 2008 approximately two and half years late. A recommendation (Recommendation # 7 – Appendix 1) is provided to address the need to meet specified timelines. The OMNR


21

letter acknowledging receipt of the Action plan indicated the Status report was to be submitted by December, 2009. It was submitted on time. There is a poor track record with respect to annual reporting. Problems persist since the last IFA with respect to meeting FMPM report submission and re-submission deadlines. The BFPL bankruptcy, staff turnovers and problems associated with electronic report submissions in the Forest Information Portal were contributing factors for late submissions and re-submissions. During the audit, the Draft Year 10 Annual Report (2007-2008) had yet to be accepted by the OMNR. A recommendation (Recommendation # 5 – Appendix 1) is provided to address our concerns related to annual reporting. The response to the 2005 IFA recommendations had numerous components, ranging from the provincial to local level involving ongoing and evolving processes. Many were linked to the developing Caribou Conservation Plan. Overall, our assessment is that the Company and OMNR complied with the Action Plan to the extent that was practical and feasible. However, some areas addressed in the past IFA require additional work (e.g. reporting) and recommendations addressing those areas are provided in Appendix 1. 4.9. Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation. Our assessment is that the SFL holder has designed and implemented the caribou mosaic strategy in accordance with the provincial policy direction, to the extent possible, given the constraints imposed by the age class area structure and economic circumstances of this particular Forest. The audit team concludes that management of the Ogoki 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 Long Lake Forest Products. 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 # 541965 for a further five years. We also conclude that the 2008 FMP met the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the six month implementation priorities of the Caribou Conservation Plan. Our conclusion that the forest sustainability is being achieved as assessed by the IFAPP, is premised on the following factors:

The long term management direction in the 2008 FMP and their related management objectives are consistent with the attainment of forest sustainability.


22

Appropriate information was available to support forest management planning efforts.

Forest management planning activities adhered to FMPM requirements.

Appropriate silvicultural ground rules were adopted and the silvicultural treatment packages were appropriate for observed field conditions.

Areas of Concern were appropriately protected through proper planning and management prescription implementation.

Forest management activities (e.g. harvest, renewal, tending) adhered to FMP requirements. Field operations were implemented with minimal environmental degradation.

Renewal operations are generally in balance with harvest operations.

Forest operations were compliant with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) and Forest Management Plans and approved manuals.

None of the reported trends in the Draft Year 10 Annual Report and Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned vs. Actual Forest Operations Report Trends Report indicates an imminent threat to forest sustainability.

The IFAPP indicates that it is the responsibility of the audit to “asses the effectiveness of forest management activities in meeting the forest management objectives set out in the forest management plan”. To that end, we question whether the implementation of the caribou mosaic strategy as planned is feasible on this Forest. We provide a recommendation to assess progress on the achievement of the 2008 FMP caribou habitat objectives and consider alternate approaches or alter current objectives to make them more feasible to implement. Recommendations are provided for the SFL holder to ensure its contractual obligations are met with, respect to required reporting (Annual Reports, IFA Action Plan), to develop and implement a formal roads monitoring program and to implement a tending program. Recommendations also direct the Geraldton Area OMNR to track and monitor the status of Trust Payments and Crown dues, and to meet FMPM reporting obligations. We also provide a recommendation for Corporate OMNR to engage the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to investigate improvements to the Issue Resolution and Individual Environmental Assessment Processes.

Appendix 1

Recommendations


1

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding

Recommendation # 1

Principle : PRINCIPLE 2; PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND ABORIGINAL INVOLVEMENT

Criterion: 2.4. Individual Environmental Assessments (IEA)

Procedure(s): 2.4.1.(part) Whether any IEA requests were made and if so, whether the IEA procedures

in the applicable FMPM were followed.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Seven individuals/groups requested that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment require an IEA for the 2008-2018 FMP. The IEA proponents‟ requests cited concerns related to inadequate knowledge about caribou and their habitat, the impact of forest management on caribou habitat, and insufficient First Nations consultation. The OMNR response to the OMOE notification of the requests took longer that what is normally expected (~4 months vs. 15 days) as did the OMOE‟s subsequent decision letter to OMNR and the proponents (~3 months vs. 45 days). The length of time taken for the IEA decisions overlapped with the period where approved forest management activities were scheduled for implementation. Consequently, the OMNR asked for the OMOE‟s concurrence (May 14 2008 and June 23, 2008) to permit some operations that were unaffected by the EA request to proceed. After considerable consultation with the appropriate requestors, the OMOE formally approved of two of the OMNR‟s three requests in late August and early September.

Discussion: The longer than normal time taken for the OMNR responses and the OMOE decisions was due principally to the complex nature of the proponents‟ concerns and related ongoing discussion with the proponents. Nonetheless, the process from the initial requests to the OMOE decision took seven months and necessitated the OMNRs “concurrence” requests to allow some of the approved operations to take place pending the OMOE decision. Most of the proponents were also previously involved in the OMNR Issue Resolution process which also took seven months from initiation to issuing of the Regional Director‟s decision. The delays in operations resulting from the IEA requests resulted in negative economic impacts (some operations were not permitted during the period and some were only allowed through concurrence at the “11th hour”; the impacts would have been greater if an economic slowdown had not resulted in reduced activity in the forest industry). The Ogoki IEA file is very large and contains a large amount of correspondence representing a great amount of time, effort and money spent by the proponents, the OMOE, the OMNR


2

and the forest company. Substantial additional time was spent on the same issues by proponents, the OMNR and the forest company in the Issue Resolution process. It is important that the OMNR and the OMOE continue to look for efficiencies in the FMP IEA process. Based on our audit experience, the performance of the OMOE in dealing expeditiously with IEA requests has improved considerably over the past few years and it is understood that the OMNR is currently engaging MOE in the production of a new Draft Declaration Order, but further improvement is needed. For example, perhaps the FMP schedule could be modified to have plan approval and public inspections (and the opportunity for IEA requests) take place several months prior to the planned FMP implementation date, thus at least reducing the need for the concurrence process. Perhaps efficiencies could be found by better harmonization of the Issue Resolution and IEA processes.

Conclusion: The IEA process was generally followed for the 2008 Ogoki FMP, but the process resulted in substantial social, economic and workload impacts.

Recommendation # 1: Corporate OMNR should engage in discussions with the OMOE to investigate modification(s) to the IEA and/or the forest management planning process to reduce the social, economic and workload impacts of the Issue Resolution/IEA processes.


Recommendation # 2

Principle: PRINCIPLE 4; PLAN ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Criterion: 4.5. Tending and Protection

Procedure(s): 4.5.1. Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved tending and

protection operations and determine if actual operations were appropriate for actual site conditions encountered.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The control of vegetative competition is significant for the successful implementation of the caribou habitat creation objectives on the Ogoki Forest. Given the relatively short history of forest management on the unit, there have not been large aggregate areas of artificial renewal requiring treatment to reduce vegetative competition. Our field inspections indicated that these areas (and other areas left for natural renewal) are now reaching a development stage where a tending treatment would be beneficial to release the conifer crop. Effective tending applications will ensure that both the investment in conifer renewal (where artificial treatments were applied) is not lost and that suitable habitat conditions for caribou are created and/or maintained.

Recommendation # 2: The SFL holder should ensure that conifer renewal sites are monitored and that timely and effective tending interventions are implemented.


4


Recommendation # 3

Principle: PRINCIPLE 4; PLAN ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Criterion: 4.7. Access

Procedure(s):

1. Assess whether the planned monitoring program for roads and water crossings was implemented as planned and whether it was effective in determining any environmental or public safety concerns.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: During the field audit we noted a requirement for maintenance work (i.e. grading) on the majority of secondary roads as a result of the recent lack of forest management activity on the unit. Roads monitoring occurs informally and is incidental to other management activities. As such the location and timing of roads monitoring activities was highly dependent on location and duration of other forest management activities. Active roads and crossings were monitored by a “daily monitoring program” where foreman and operators are responsible for the reporting of any instances of washouts or erosion. Roads management issues are addressed through a “best management practice” approach where corrective measures were taken as soon as possible. LLFP has yet to develop and implement a formal roads monitoring/tracking program.

Discussion: The current strategy adopted by the SFL holder focuses primarily on active roads. During the field audit it was evident that the majority of secondary roads travelled required some form of maintenance. A formalized road monitoring program should be implemented to ensure that all access (primary and secondary) for which the SFL holder has an obligation are inspected on an annual basis and identified issues and remedial measures are formally reported.

Conclusion: While incidental roads monitoring is occurring, LLFP has yet to develop and implement a formal roads monitoring and tracking program.

Recommendation # 3: The SFL Holder should develop and implement a formal roads monitoring/tracking program.


5


Recommendation # 4

Principle: PRINCIPAL 7; ACHIEVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND FOREST SUSTAINABILITY

Criterion: 7.2. Assessment of objective achievement Procedure(s):

2. In the audit report document the following:

for the current plan, which is the subject of the audit, summarize, in text form (noteworthy items only), the auditor‟s assessment of the progress towards achieving the objectives.

consider evidence gained through other audit criteria as indicated under procedure 1.

Background Information, Summary of Evidence and Discussion: The management approach for Woodland Caribou is for forest harvesting to create extensive areas of even-aged, conifer dominated forest. The application of the caribou mosaic is the overriding consideration affecting the management decisions and long-term objectives on the Ogoki Forest. The mosaic is applied to 100% of the Forest, indicating which areas are eligible for harvest in a given period of time and also driving the Available Harvest Area (AHA) for that particular period of time. As a result of the existing age class structure and the adoption of the caribou mosaic strategy the planned forest management interventions on the Ogoki Forest will not result in an increase in caribou habitat supply relative to the “natural benchmark run”. The “natural benchmark model run” estimates that Woodland Caribou winter habitat will decrease from approximately 350,000 hectares to approximately 220,000 hectares and that overall preferred caribou habitat will decline on the unit from 750,000 hectares to 700,000 hectares. The management strategy which assumes that harvest targets are achieved, results in a decline of winter habitat to 200,000 hectares and preferred caribou to 700,000 hectares. We note that the level of winter habitat reduction is still within the bounds allowed for by the FMP objectives, and that the winter habitat area reduction is largely a result of natural succession and associated age class distribution shifts that are not predominately associated with the forest management strategy. The predicted level of habitat supply attainment (compared to the natural benchmark) is premised on the successful implementation of the planned harvest which, for the past two audit terms has been significantly below FMP forecast levels. The inability to achieve planned harvest levels seems to suggest that the harvest targets may be overly optimistic, especially in light of the suite of factors that will result in an under-harvest on this Forest over the longer term. These include:

An old forest that is currently 60% mature to over-mature resulting in reduced


6

volumes and quality of wood products at time of harvest or increases in the area by-passed,

The lack of existing road network which affects the ability to harvest stands at their optimal rotation age,

The increased cost associated with the distance of the wood supply from processing facilities,

A lack of markets for some species and products,

Silvicultural costs associated with stands that are in decline or that have transitioned to a younger age class,

Increased planning costs and delays in forest operations as a result of the Issue Resolution and IEA processes related to caribou management components of the FMP,

Low ecological productivity associated with some ecosites. While low productivity can be conducive to suitable caribou habitat, it can result in stands being by-passed due to low volumes and/or low product quality,

Natural disturbance events that have reduced wood supply and affected planned harvesting operations,

First Nation concerns which impede access, harvest and renewal.

The failure to meet the planned harvest schedule will exacerbate anticipated volume losses through natural succession and this will negatively affect the viability of future harvest operations in other blocks of the mosaic. From a forest operations context the application of the mosaic results in a volume decrease beyond the year 2018 and provides little opportunity for flexibility in the selection of harvest areas. The application of the strategy limits the age of the forest to be harvested and since the majority of the productive forest is in a mature to over-mature stage natural succession will occur in many mosaic block stands prior to harvest operations. This circumstance resulted in SFMM projections showing a 47% harvest reduction in SPF and a 64% reduction in poplar over the 100 year period. These projections are premised on harvests occurring in accordance to the planned schedule. Additionally, the FMP scoping analysis indicates that any silvicultural regime implemented will not potentially improve the wood supply until Term 11 (120 years). Term 10 (100 years) is the point when harvest operations return to Caribou A blocks for a second generation harvest. There are also negative economic consequences in terms of product and volume losses (particularly in jack pine forest units and to a lesser degree for spruce forest units) when entry into blocks is delayed beyond the scheduled rotation. The present and future yield curves utilized in SFMM reflect volumes persisting for very long time frames. Operability and the last natural succession age range up to 185 years, with the projected wood supply being partially dependent on wood volumes harvested in stands between 145 and 175 years of age. The actual volume and product declines realized will be dependent on stand age at the time of harvest entry, site class, stand health condition, etc. The inability to complete the harvest in the A blocks during the first twenty year term has the potential to extend stand entry times for


7

B, C, D, E and F blocks and could amplify volume losses across subsequent terms. Caribou F blocks have been scheduled for harvest between 100 and 160 years to maintain forest patches greater than 100 years of age and meet requirements for longer term protection of northern wintering areas. It is also noteworthy that the current projections assume all areas are renewed, achieve FTG status and contribute to the AHA. Given, the unknown status of the large areas depleted by fire and the shortfall in renewal area (due to harvest shortfalls) this may not be a sound assumption (i.e. 9.5% of the SFMM land base). The non-renewal of stands will have implications for the future wood supply and may impact operations by extending rotations, etc. Stands which succumb to natural succession prior to harvest may succeed to shrub rich conditions which favour moose. As a result caribou habitat could be lost for many decades. Higher investments in site preparation and tending may be required to return these stands to conditions more favourable for caribou. While there is an opportunity to adjust renewal intensities (e.g. costs) in subsequent planning exercises any extended delay in the harvest re-entry of intensively treated blocks implies that silvicultural expenditures were not optimized. Intensive renewal treatments are expensive to implement with costs varying by forest unit ($700-$900 per hectare) depending on the density of plantings and the tending effort required. Intensive treatments are normally intended to establish stands that are density regulated and involve a high degree of intervention to increase growth rates, shorten age to economic maturity, and establish species compositions which more closely reflect natural conditions. Higher yields at earlier minimum operable ages are typically realized when contrasted with basic renewal treatments. The implementation of the mosaic rotation restricts or limits the opportunity to access stands at these “minimum operable ages”.

Conclusion: We found that the 2008 FMP has been designed and implemented the caribou mosaic strategy in accordance with the provincial policy direction. The Plan also met the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the initial 6 month implementation priorities of the Caribou Conservation Plan. However, we question whether the implementation of FMP objectives related to the caribou mosaic strategy are currently feasible on this landscape from the perspective of the creation of suitable habitat conditions for caribou and the provision of sustainable economic benefits from the forest. The predicted level of habitat supply attainment is premised on the successful implementation of the planned harvest which, for the past two audit terms has been significantly below FMP forecast levels. The inability to achieve planned harvest levels seems to suggest that the harvest targets may be overly optimistic, especially in light of the suite of factors that will result in an under-harvest on this Forest over the longer term.

Recommendation # 4: In its assessment of progress on the achievement of the 2008 FMP objectives in the Year 3 Annual Report, LLFP in collaboration with District OMNR should consider alternate


8

approaches to achieving caribou habitat objectives or alter current objectives to make them feasible to implement.


9


Recommendation # 5

Principle: PRINCIPAL 6; MONITORING

Criterion: 6.5. Annual Reports

Procedure(s): 6.5.1. Determine if Annual Reports have been prepared in accordance with the applicable FMPM including associated deadlines.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Annual Reports are to be submitted to the OMNR in accordance with the requirements of the FMPM and the Forest Information Manual (FIM). The AR is to be prepared and submitted by November 15. OMNR staff review the report for accuracy and completeness and are to provide results of the review to the report author within 30 days of the receipt of the AR. Comments provided by the OMNR are to be addressed and if required a revised AR is to be submitted by February 15. The status of audit term annual reports is as follows:

Year Initial Submission Date*

Acceptance Date/Comments

2005-2006 22/11/2006 Not currently accepted on the Forest Information Portal.

2006-2007 01/05/2008 Accepted 02/12/2008

2007-2008 07/11/2008 Re-submitted 10/09/2010 – Acceptance by OMNR is pending.

2008-2009 26/11/2009 Re-submitted 19/05/2010 – Accepted by OMNR

2009-2010 15/11/2010

*DD/MM/YYYY Re-submission and acceptance of the Year 10 AR (2007-2008) was still pending at the time of the audit.

Discussion: Initial submissions of ARs did not fully meet FIM or FMPM requirements/standards and re-submissions were required for accuracy or report completeness. Required timelines for reporting and re-submission were often not adhered to.

Recommendation # 5:


10

The SFL holder must ensure that Annual Reports meet all FIM and FMPM requirements with respect to content and submission deadlines.


11


Recommendation # 6

Principle: PRINCIPLE 8; CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Criterion: 8.1.1. Payment of Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown Charges.

Procedure(s): 1. Through a review of OMNR statements determine whether the licencees have paid up

to date all amounts in the Ontario Stumpage Matrix for Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown charges (stumpage).

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Most of the northwest region is experiencing weak and/or unpredictable markets for poplar and other hardwood species. The unpredictable markets for poplar and other hardwoods resulted in wood being “stranded” in the bush when receiving mills curtailed or scaled back operations (e.g. Longlac Wood Industries). Hardwoods were also harvested during access construction or as incidental harvest in conifer dominated stands. The voluntary access restriction at the Witchwood crossing has also resulted in wood being left in the bush.

Discussion: Due to the lack of markets for some hardwood and conifer species, there has been a history of problems related to the wood utilization (particularly for hardwoods) on the unit dating back to prior to 2001. In addition to the wood utilization issues associated with market conditions some 12,000 m3 of timber harvested north of the Witchwood crossing has not been hauled as a result of the inability of the OMNR, LLFP and Eabametoong First Nation to reach an agreement with respect to protection measures for a cultural heritage value associated with the site. We note that the 2008 FMP provides a hardwood utilization strategy with the intent to maximize the harvest of conifer and minimize the harvest of unmarketable hardwood fibre by providing operational flexibilities and regulatory tolerances which maximize the conifer harvest. During the audit term OMNR and LLFP addressed compliance-related issues related to the carrying over of suspended blocks to the 2008 FMP and explored options to remove material at roadside (in an environmentally sound and cost effective manner). In 2006, a large scaling project was implemented in order to inventory harvested timber remaining in the bush. Outstanding crown dues for wood harvested prior to 2001 remain unpaid. Crown dues for unmarketable fibre harvested between 2001 and 2005 remained outstanding during the audit term. The payment of Crown dues for this fibre was to be reviewed on a regular basis to determine if “ LLFP was in a position to allow for a payment”. However, we could not find evidence that “regular reviews” or “tracking” of the status of the payment of Crown dues is occurring.


12

Blocks where merchantable and unmarketable timber remains in situ are recorded in Forest Operation Inspection Program (FOIP) reports as “completed” with an “in-compliance with comments” note that fibre is still present on the block.

Conclusion: Crown dues remain outstanding on some unmarketed timber. Information as to the status of payments for wood harvested since 2001 was unavailable.

Recommendation # 6: The Geraldton Area OMNR should work with MNDMF to develop and implement an effective system to track and monitor the status of payment of Crown dues on unutilized or non-marketed harvested wood to ensure that required Trust and Crown dues payments are made.


13


Recommendation # 7

Principle: PRINCIPAL 8; CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Criterion: 8.1.9. Audit Action Plan and Status Report

Procedure(s): Audit Action plan and Status report “…was prepared in accordance with requirements…”

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The SFL requires the company to complete an Action plan subject to written corporate OMNR approved responding to audit recommendations within 2 months of receiving the final audit report. The IFAPP also notes the Action plan is to be jointly prepared by the OMNR and the SFL holder and submitted within 2 months of receipt of the final audit report. The 2005 IFA was submitted in February 2006. The Action Plan was submitted in December, 2008 approximately two and one half years late.

Discussion: Our investigations revealed that the OMNR had completed its portion of the Action plan within the required timeframe; however, the Company did not address its responsibilities for several years. We were informed by Company officials that the delay in submitting the required report was the result of;

Workload associated with the development of the 2008 FMP.

Staff issues associated with uncertainty about the economic viability of Long Lakes operations, company staff adjustments, a strike, etc.

Because the Action plan was significantly late previous draft versions had to be redone to reflect the situation at the time of submission. This also contributed to the delay in finalizing the report. While an approved Action plan was not in place the Company did respond to the relevant IFA recommendations in the development of the 2008 FMP, and did adjust various Company documentation and reporting processes. The OMNR also responded to recommendations specific to its operations. New directions and funding emanating from the Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan (2009) as well as the Endangered Species Act (2007) also addressed some of the recommendations. While the licence holder is responsible to follow the conditions of the SFL with respect to the submission of required reports, the OMNR also has a responsibility to ensure that the SFL holder complies with licence conditions.

Conclusion:


14

An Action Plan is to be produced within a specific time frame in response to IFA recommendations.

Recommendation # 7: The OMNR District Manager and the SFL Holder must ensure the Action Plan responding to IFA recommendations is prepared within the required timeline.

Appendix 2

Management Objectives Table


1

ACHIEVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 2003 OGOKI FMP

Note: There was a lack of consistency in the wording of the objectives between the main body of the 2003 FMP text and the FMP Summary. The Draft Year 10 Annual Report and the Trends analysis used the same terminology as the FMP Summary. Other differences between the FMP text and the other three documents existed as well, including inconsistent terminology used to describe targets and strategies the creation of sub-objectives. These inconsistencies are confusing to the reader and increased the difficulty of tracking the achievement of the 2003 FMP objectives. We would normally provide a related recommendation aimed at avoiding this confusion in the future, however we note that these inconsistencies did not occur between the 2008 FMP and the 2008 FMP Summary. We note also that the 2008 objectives and related indicators were more clearly defined which should also help improve the consistency of reporting on achievement of the FMP objectives for the 2008 plan. In order to minimize this confusion for the reader of this Independent Forest Audit report, we have adopted the terminology used in the 2003 FMP Summary, the Year 10 AR and the trends analysis as the basis for our comments on the achievement of the 2003 FMP objectives. Our assessment of the achievement of the 2008 FMP objectives is constrained due to that plan‟s short implementation period.

2003 FMP OBJECTIVES

ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE

ACHIEVEMENT

(YES, NO, PARTIAL)

AUDITOR COMMENTS

A) Forest Diversity and Forest Cover:

Objective 1:

Maintain the Biological Diversity of the Forest within the Bounds of Natural Variation and supply the habitat requirements for the regional indicator wildlife species.

The Year 10 Annual report correctly reports that the Forest Diversity objective will require several planning terms to illustrate trends, and that there have been no substantive changes in forest structure and/or composition due to the short history of harvesting and silviculture activities.


2

a) Landscape Pattern

Maintain a natural range and frequency of area in each size class based on natural disturbance patterns.

YES

The FMP is consistent with the achievement of this objective.

The FMP is consistent with maintaining a natural range and frequency of area in each size class based on natural disturbance patterns and maintaining each forest and wildlife habitat unit within 20% of what the natural forest would show. Forest operations were consistent with guidelines designed to emulate natural

disturbance patterns.

Post harvest silvicultural activities have been conducted as planned.

b) Composition

Maintain area in each forest unit and wildlife habitat unit within 20% of what the natural forest would show at age 100 (the point where the Desired Future Forest Condition is assessed.

YES

The FMP shows projected achievement of these forest composition targets.

c) Structure

Maintain area in old growth classes at year 100 and maintain vertical structure in harvest blocks in the form of snags.

YES

In FMP modeling the amount of old growth declines over time. This is due to the current high level of old growth that is a result of a lack of fire activity. This has caused aging of the forest without the normal level of replacement by younger age classes.

Operationally we found that management activities were consistent with forest structure requirements identified in the FMP.


3

d) Landscape Processes

Maintain health and function of headwater areas on the Forest.

YES

SFMM models projections indicate that processes are maintained.

Operations were generally consistent with the conservation of soil and water resources. There was a good compliance record with respect to the protection of soil and water. Overall compliance was approximately 95% and the non-compliant incidents were minor in nature.

Objective 2:

Wildlife Habitat

Maintain the broad forest cover features to supply required habitat type (quality and quantity)

Sub-Objective 2.1:

Caribou Habitat

Maintain acceptable levels of habitat through time.

Develop a mosaic that regulates the harvest pattern on the forest to maintain large blocks of connected suitable habitat through time.

PARTIAL

From a planning perspective, this sub-objective is being achieved through the creation of a mosaic of connected large disturbance blocks suitable for caribou habitat.

Survey programs are being conducted to broaden knowledge of caribou habitat use.

If the recent significant under- harvest levels continues it will have negative effect on this planning objective.

Sub-Objective 2.2:

Marten Habitat

Ensure a distribution of

YES

This sub-objective is being achieved through evaluation of the current caribou mosaic and known caribou and marten


4

large areas containing a high percent of suitable habitats is available on the landscape for the next 60 years.

Maintain for three 20 year terms core area that meet the targets as set out in the Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Marten Habitat.

habitat values.

The negative implications of any under-harvest on the achievement of caribou objectives may also have a negative effect on the achievement of marten objectives.

B) Social and Economic Matters:

The Forest Management Plans contained objectives to provide social, economic, recreational and economic benefits from the forest.

Objective 3:

Quality wood supply

To provide a continuous and predictable supply of suitable quality wood to local mills.

Supply 485,000 m3 of softwood and 104,000 m3 of poplar volume per year.

Ensure area is available to overlapping licence operations as well as LLFP and ensure allocations are balanced to allow for year-round harvesting.

PARTIAL

The wood supply met the industrial demand. The SMA does indicate some potential shortfalls in hardwoods and softwoods.

Although changes in parameters made calculation difficult, the amount of managed Crown forest available for timber production is predicted to slightly decline over

the long term.

For the 2003-2008 period 82% of the planned harvest area and ≈66% of the planned harvest volume was achieved. The relatively low volume was in part due to the replacement of normal harvest area with fire salvage areas.

When salvage volumes are combined with the actual normal harvest for the Spruce-Pine-Fir species group volume attainment for the 1998-2003 and 2003-2008


5

periods are 115% and 99% of the planned normal volume harvest, respectively.

The Forest has been characterized by decreasing harvest activity since 2006-2007 with only 50 ha harvested by an overlapping licencee in 2008. No harvest took place in 2009.

Effective silviculture to ensure the regeneration of harvested areas has occurred.

There has been a history of problems related to wood utilization (particularly for hardwoods) on the unit dating back to 2001.

The FMP preferred management alternative is a balance of summer and winter operable stand forest types. Fifty percent the target harvest level was allocated to overlapping licencees.

Compliance for the protection of natural resource features (inspections related to access and harvest) had approximately a 95% In-compliance rate. Reported non-compliances were minor in nature.

Objective 4:

Traditional Land Use Practices

Maintain opportunities for aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditional land use practices.

YES

Partnerships have been promoted between the First Nations people and forestry companies for mill, harvesting, and silviculture.

Community knowledge has been used to review and update First Nations values information.


6

Inventory known cultural site locations and protect as required.

Ensure no more than 50% of a trapline is harvested in any 40-year period.

Area-of-Concern prescriptions were developed to ensure values are not affected.

Meetings were held with First Nations in the Forest Management Planning and implementation processes. The value identified at the Witchwood crossing was incorporated into the FMP.

In the 2003 FMP all identified trapline values were afforded protection and AOC prescriptions protected trails.

Objective 5:

Commercial Tourism

To preserve the integrity of the Ogoki Forest as a remote tourism value.

Develop forest operations prescriptions around commercial tourism establishments to help maintain the wilderness experience for guests.

Long Lake Forest Products and Remote Tourism Operators will attempt to develop Resource Stewardship Agreements (RSAs).

YES

The company met with all outfitters to attempt to develop Resource-based Stewardship Agreements.

The company contacted individual outfitters early in the planning process and maintained contacts throughout the plan implementation.

Harvested areas close to remote tourism businesses were being managed via timing restrictions or road closures to minimize impact on these businesses during their operating season.

Harvest prescriptions were developed to maintain the shoreline aesthetics of remote tourism lakes.

Interviews with Tourism operators indicated that their values were being protected in the implementation of the 2003 FMP.


7

Compliance inspections related to the protection of resource based tourism values (access) were approximately 95 % in-compliance. The reported non-compliances were minor in nature.

Objective 6:

Recreation Opportunities- to ensure some areas are available for road-based recreation and traditional non-commercial tourism activities through signs and posters make public aware of areas available or closed to road-based recreation and protect all identified portage trails and campsites.

YES

All known campsites and trails in the vicinity of proposed allocations and road corridors were identified and treated as Areas-of-Concern.

Operations have not adversely impacted trails or portage routes.

Operational buffers were developed along canoe routes.

Publicity during FMP consultation and community liaison through the LCC ensured that the general public was aware of all opportunities and restrictions on the forest with regard to areas available for road based recreation.

Silviculture

Objective 7:

To optimize forest harvest, renewal and tending in order to contribute to other objectives.

Ensure the amount of productive forest area over time is maintained at a quality that will meet our future forest composition targets and wood supply targets.

YES

In the FMP all alternatives regenerated the forest to a level that met or exceeded the volume targets at the second rotation of the Caribou Habitat Mosaic sub-units.

All silvicultural treatments were conducted in a timely manner on a site-specific basis according to the Forest Operations Prescriptions in the AWS/FMP.


8

Post harvest prescriptions were performed to ensure that the most suitable treatments were being applied to each site to get the desired results.

Planned total renewal was 35,976 ha and actual total renewal was 29,278 ha. (81%). Since only 88% of the planned harvest area was depleted, this was a 92% level of relative achievement.

Although the lack of tending operations has not had a significant impact on regeneration to date, sites renewed to conifer will require monitoring. Tending interventions should be implemented as required.

Appendix 3

Compliance with Contractual Obligations


1

Licence Condition Licence Holder Performance

Payment of Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown charges.

The SFL holder and Overlapping licencees are in arrears with respect to the Trust Payments and Crown Dues. Crown dues remain to be paid for some wood harvested between 2001 and 2005. A recommendation (# 6) is directed at the Geraldton Area OMNR to track and monitor the status of payments.

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

All wood supply commitments were met.

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

Some of the Annual Reports and the Action Plan were submitted late. Recommendations # 5 and # 7 address this issue.

There was some late submission of compliance inspection reports early in the audit period; however, these improved significantly in the following years.

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

Inventories and surveys were completed during the audit term.

Wasteful practices not to be committed. A lack of markets and mill closures resulted in wood being left in the bush. Crown dues are outstanding on some of the harvested material (Recommendation # 6).

Apart from this problem, no significant wasteful practices were reported or observed during the audit term.

Natural disturbance and salvage SFL conditions must be followed.

Complete a FMP Amendment to deal with salvage circumstances.

Meet all silvicultural standards on the harvested salvage area. Salvage area not harvested to be listed as natural depletion in the Annual report.

All FMPM requirements were followed including an FMP amendment to facilitate salvage harvests.

All silvicultural standards were met in conjunction with salvage operations.


2

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

No pest management activities were undertaken during the audit term.

Withdrawals from licence area. There were Lands for Life withdrawals during the audit period.

Audit Action Plan and Status Report.

The Action Plan was prepared but was submitted late (Recommendation # 7). The Status Report was prepared in accordance with IFAPP requirements.

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

Payments were in arrears. We do not issue a recommendation as OMNR has made arrangements to deal with the payment of outstanding funds.

Forest Renewal Trust eligible silviculture work.

Audit site inspections determined that maps were accurate and work was completed as invoiced in the Specified Procedures Report.

Forest Renewal Trust forest renewal charge analysis.

An analysis of forest renewal trust charges was completed.

Forest Renewal Trust account minimum balance.

The minimum balances were not maintained 3 of the 5 years in the audit period. We do not issue a recommendation as OMNR has made arrangements to deal with the payment of outstanding funds.

Silviculture standards and assessment program.

Field monitoring activities undertaken during the audit term included assessments of regeneration success, free-to-grow surveys, assessments of vegetative competition and the establishment of PSPs to monitor growth in artificially renewed areas. The consistent delivery of the assessment programs (i.e. permanent sample plot establishment and measurement and three year regeneration assessments) was negatively impacted by the economic downturn (staff availability and funding). The FTG survey program was only conducted in 2005-2006, to facilitate the aggregation of larger areas for assessment.


3

Aboriginal opportunities. All FMPM Aboriginal notification and invitation to participate requirements were met. Opportunities were provided to participate in FMP development and harvest operations.

Preparation of compliance plan. Compliance plans were prepared as required.

Internal compliance prevention / education program.

Long Lake Forest Products Inc. had appropriate internal training and education programs.

Compliance inspections and reporting; compliance with compliance plan.

The number of inspections was appropriate for the level of activity on the Forest. There was adherence to the compliance plan. There were no major compliance issues or trends during the audit term.

Less than 5% of the Compliance inspections were Non-Compliant. None were assessed as significant. Of the 26 reported Non-Compliances, approximately 93% were assessed as minor and 7% were assessed as moderate.

SFL forestry operations on mining claims. All proper notifications were completed.

Appendix 4

Audit Process


1

This IFA consisted of the following elements: Audit Plan: An audit plan describing the schedule of audit activities, audit team members, audit participants and the auditing methods was prepared and submitted to GreenForest Inc., the OMNR Geraldton District, Regional OMNR, and the GANRAC chairperson in July 2010. Public Notices: Public participation in the audit was solicited by the placement of public notices and an invitation to provide comments and/or complete a survey on the Arbex website in the Times Star (Geraldton) and the Wawatay News. A random sample of 35% of the individuals and organizations listed in the 2008 FMP mailing list were sent a letter and a survey questionnaire to solicit input to the audit process. All FNs with an interest in the Forest were contacted by mail to participate and/or express their views. Each FN received several follow-up telephone calls and/or e-mails. One audit team member attended a regularly scheduled GANRAC meeting. Field Site Selection: Field site selections were made by the Lead Auditor and the Arbex GIS Specialist in June. Site selections were confirmed and finalized with GreenForest and OMNR staff at the Pre-Audit Meeting in July. Site Audit: The audit team spent 6 days in Geraldton during September 2010, conducting the field audit, document and record reviews and interviews. The field audit sampled between 10% and 24% of the forest management activities (including road construction and maintenance) that occurred during the audit term. (See the IFA Field Sampling Intensity on the Ogoki Forest below). Sample sites were stratified to ensure representation by silvicultural activity and year of operation. The audit team also inspected the application of Areas of Concern prescriptions, aggregate pits and water crossing installations. Areas listed in the “Forest Renewal and Maintenance Agreement” and invoiced in the “Forest Renewal Trust Specified Procedures Report” were also visited to ensure conformity between invoiced and actual activities. The field inspection included site-specific (intensive) and landscape-scale (extensive (helicopter)) examinations. Individual sites were selected to represent a primary activity (i.e. harvesting, site preparation); however, all associated activities at the site were assessed at the same time, allowing the team to augment the planned sampling intensity. Report: This report provides a description of the audit process and a discussion of audit findings and conclusions. Recommendations are directed at deficiencies in forest management and associate processes that require a corrective action. The OMNR Request for Proposals (RFP) text for the 2010/2011 Independent Forest Audits included some explicit deliverables stemming from the Ministry of the Environment‟s decision letter on the requests for an IEA. These deliverables required a review of whether the 2008 Ogoki FMP, as amended, addressed the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007, the Caribou Habitat Regulation and the Caribou Conservation Plan. In order to address this requirement we completed a document


2

review, interviewed the Area Biologist and the Acting Manager of Caribou Implementation. We also requested that OMNR supply us with a status report on the CCP six month implementation priorities.

Procedures Audited, by Risk Category

Principle

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Comments

Ap

plic

able

(#

)

S

ele

cte

d (

#)

%

Au

dite

d

A

pplic

able

(#)

S

ele

cte

d (

#)

%

Au

dite

d

A

udite

d (

#)

(1

00

% A

udite

d)

1. Commitment 2 1 50 0

This principle was considered met as the Forest was certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.

2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

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

3. Forest Management Planning

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

4. Plan Assessment & Implementation

1 1 100 1 1 100 10 All procedures audited.

5. System Support 1 1 100 1

This principle was considered met as the Forest was certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.

6. Monitoring 7 7 100 11 All procedures audited.

7. Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability

2 2 100 15 All procedures audited.

8. Contractual Obligations

7 7 100 13 The following procedures were not audited; 8.1.2.0, 8.2

Totals 8 5 78 38 32 86 93


3

IFA Field Sampling Intensity on the Ogoki Forest17

Activity Total Area

(Ha) / Number

Planned Sample

Area (Ha)

Actual Area (Ha)

Sampled18

Number of Blocks19 Visited

Percent20 Sampled

(%)

Harvest 19,259 1,970 1,970 12 10

Renewal 25,720 2,600 2,600 13 10

Site Preparation (Mechanical and Chemical)

5,460 550 550 3 10

Free-to-Grow 258 28 28 1 11

Specified Procedures Report Sites

4,233 499 499 6 12

Water Crossings 66 16 16 16 24

Primary and Branch Road Construction (kms)

205 kms 20.5 kms 205 kms 10021

Forest Roads and Maintenance Agreement Work22

1,378 kms 1,378 kms 1,378 kms 100

17 During the field audit we observed numerous areas where AOCs had been implemented in either linear buffer strips or in association with an identified value. We cannot provide an accurate estimate of the sample intensity given the linear nature of many of the buffers. All AOCs associated with sample sites were observed. 18Not every hectare of the area sampled is surveyed, as this is not feasible. 19 Blocks are comprised of amalgamated stands. 20 Percent sampled represents a combination of primary and secondary audit activities inspected on a site. 21 All Roads on this unit were either driven or observed during the aerial reconnaissance. 22 The Roads Invoices for maintenance and construction often list a given road and length a number of times, especially for maintenance. Therefore the total km listed for a given road is a „gross‟ figure compared to the „net‟ figure which is contained in the annual report.


4

Summary of Consultation and Input to the Audit

Public notices and an invitation to provide comments and/or complete a survey on the Arbex website were placed in the Times Star (Geraldton) and the Wawatay News. A random sample of 35% of the individuals and organizations listed in the 2008 FMP mailing list were sent a letter and a survey questionnaire to solicit input to the audit process. No responses to the invitations to participate were received. All FNs with an interest in the Forest were contacted by mail to participate and/or express their views. Each FN received several follow-up telephone calls and/or e-mails. Two First Nation representatives were interviewed and provided broad perspectives on issues associated with forest management. These included a concern about protection of cultural values, ongoing notification about forest planning and operations, and a desire for increased economic benefits. Two LCC members attended the field audit and an auditor attended a regularly scheduled meeting of the LCC. The LCC was concerned about continuing to be proactively involved in forest planning and operations as well as other resource management activities (e.g. fisheries management). LCC members were concerned about the long term effects of the caribou plan on their local industry and community members. GreenForest staff assigned to represent LLFP participated in the field audit and/or were interviewed by audit team members. GreenForest issues included;

Concerns about the implementation costs associated with the caribou mosaic.

Concerns about the OMNR's understanding of the forest management complexities and realities of trying to implement the caribou mosaic (e.g. rotation ages, harvesting of caribou blocks vis-à-vis wood marketing realities).

A healthy skepticism about the science underlying the delivery of the caribou program.

Concerns about government inability to deal effectively with a range of First Nation issues that affect forest management ( e.g. Witchwood crossing).

Concerns about the state of the economy.

Concerns about the time and costs associated with forest management planning.

The adequacy of the FRI.

The time and effort required address issues through the Issue Resolution and IEA process.

Timing of the IEA process relative to plan approval.


5

OMNR staff participated in the field audit, and/or were interviewed. Issues included;

A concern about the financial and human costs associated with the caribou program.

Concerns about the health of the industry and its ability to meet harvest objectives.

Concerns about the perceived lack of government support to deal effectively with First Nation issues.

Concerns about the time and costs associated with forest management planning.

The adequacy of the FRI.

The time and effort required to address issues through the Issue Resolution and IEA processes.

Timing of the IEA process relative to plan approval.

Concerns about the large amount of harvested wood left in the bush.

Five tourism operators were interviewed. All indicated that they had a good relationship with the Company and the OMNR staff and that their values were generally being protected in forest management planning and operations. Some concerns were expressed including the adequacy of some viewscapes, access at the Witchwood crossing, and managing caribou on a broad scale versus concentrating on known caribou habitat. Several operators expressed concerns about the caribou related road closures and the impact on their road-based tourism business, especially with respect to access for moose hunting. .

Appendix 5

List of Acronyms Used


1

ACOP Annual Compliance Operations Plan AHA Available Harvest Area AOC Area of Concern AR Annual Report AWS Annual Work Schedule AZA Animbiigoo Zaagi‟igan Anishinaabek BFPL Buchanan Forest Products Ltd CCP Caribou Conservation Plan CFSA Crown Forest Sustainability Act CLAAG Careful Logging Around Advance Growth DFFC Desired Future Forest Condition EMS Environmental Management System FIM Forest Information Manual FMP Forest Management Plan FMPM Forest Management Planning Manual FN First Nation FOIP Forest Operation Inspection Program FOP Forest Operations Prescription FRI Forest Resource Inventory FRT Forest Renewal Trust FSI Forest Stewardship Initiative FTG Free-to-Grow FU Forest Unit GANRAC Geraldton Area Natural Resources Advisory Committee Ha Hectares IEA Individual Environmental Assessment IFA Independent Forest Audit IFAPP Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol Inc. Incorporated LCC Local Citizens Committee LLFP Long Lake Forest Products Inc. Ltd. Limited m3 Cubic Metres MNDMF Ministry of Northern Development Mines and Forestry MOA Memorandum of Agreement NDPEG Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guidelines OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources PSP Permanent Sample Plot RD Regional Director RFP Request for Proposals R.P.F. Registered Professional Forester RSA Resource Stewardship Agreement SEM Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring SEV Statement of Environmental Values SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative


2

SFL Sustainable Forest Licence SFMM Strategic Forest Management Model SGR Silvicultural Ground Rule SPF Spruce/Pine/Fir STP Silvicultural Treatment Package VS Versus

Appendix 6

Audit Team Members and Qualifications


1

Name Role Responsibilities Credentials

Mr. Bruce Byford R.P.F.


Lead Auditor

Forest Management & Silviculture Auditor

Audit Management & coordination

Liaison with OMNR & Auditee

Review documentation related to forest management planning and review and inspect silviculture practices

Determination of the sustainability

component.

B.Sc.F.

ISO 14001 Lead Auditor Training. FSC assessor training.

30 years of consulting experience in Ontario in forest management planning and resource inventory.

Previous work on 13 IFA audits with lead auditor responsibility on 11 IFA. 16 FSC certification assessments with lead audit responsibilities on 7.

Mr. Al Stewart

Arbex Senior Associate

Wildlife/First Nations Auditor

Review & inspect AOC documentation & practices.

First Nations consultation.

Determination of the sustainability component.

B.Sc. (Agr)

ISO 14001 Lead Auditor Training. FSC assessor training.

41 years experience in natural resource management planning, field operations, policy development, auditing and working with First Nation communities.

Previous work experience on 13 IFA audits.

Mr. David Watton


Forest Management Planning & Public Participation Auditor

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


B.Sc., M.Sc.

ISO 14001 Lead Auditor Training.

41 years experience in natural resource management planning, land use planning, field operations, and policy development.



2

Mr. Trevor Isherwood R.P.F.

Tri-lac Forestry Services


Silvicultural, Forest Management and Contractual Compliance Auditor

Review and inspect silvicultural practices and related documentation.

Review and inspect documents related to contractual compliance and socio-economics.


B.Sc.F.

Former General Manager of SFL

41 years experience in forest management and operations.


Mr. Mark Fleming R.P.F.

Technical Advisor - SFMM

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

B.Sc.F. R.P.F.

Previous work experience on IFA audits and FSC certification assessments.

Experience as OMNR Planning Forester & Unit Forest.

Dorothy Dobrik

GIS Specialist


Administrative Assistant

Administrative support to the audit including GIS support for the selection of sample sites.

B.A. Geography,

Diploma Forestry Tech

Diploma GIS Specialist

Previous administrative support in IFA and FSC audits.

Appendix 7

Trends Analysis

The Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned vs. Actual Forest Operations was prepared by the forest management service provider GreenForest Management Inc. The report is included in this audit report without modification or adjustment.

Ogoki Forest 2005-2010 Independent Forest Audit

Trend Analysis Report

Prepared By:

GreenForest Management Inc. Joe Ladouceur, R.P.F. Ryan Murphy, R.P.F.

Erin Symington, R.P.F.


i

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST OPERATIONS .............................................................................................. 2

NORMAL HARVEST AREA .......................................................................................................................................... 2 SALVAGE HARVEST AREA ......................................................................................................................................... 2 NORMAL HARVEST VOLUME ..................................................................................................................................... 3 SALVAGE HARVEST VOLUME .................................................................................................................................... 4 RENEWAL & MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 5 HARVEST & REGENERATION ..................................................................................................................................... 6 FOREST CONDITION ................................................................................................................................................... 6 HABITAT FOR SPECIES AT RISK & SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES .............................................................................. 7

MONITORING & ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................ 8

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 8 FOREST OPERATION INSPECTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 8 MONITORING OF ROADS & WATER CROSSINGS ......................................................................................................... 9 MONITORING OF REGENERATION SUCCESS ............................................................................................................... 9

ANALYSIS OF FOREST DISTURBANCES ......................................................................................................... 10

ANALYSIS OF RENEWAL & TENDING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 10

REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS IN MODELING ................................................................................................... 11

PLANNING INVENTORY ............................................................................................................................................ 11 FOREST UNITS AND SILVICULTURAL INTENSITIES ................................................................................................... 11 NON-SPATIAL HABITAT CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 11 TREE SPECIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 INITIAL AREAS OF FOREST & NON-FOREST ............................................................................................................. 12 INITIAL & ACCUMULATING AREA OF RESERVES ..................................................................................................... 12 DEFERRED AREAS ................................................................................................................................................... 12 NATURAL SUCCESSION ............................................................................................................................................ 12 NATURAL DISTURBANCE CYCLES & SUCCESSION ................................................................................................... 12 YIELD CURVES ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 OPERABILITY LIMITS ............................................................................................................................................... 13 VOLUMES NOT UTILIZED DURING HARVEST ........................................................................................................... 13 RENEWAL OPTIONS & POST-HARVEST SUCCESSION ............................................................................................... 14 STUMPAGE RATES ................................................................................................................................................... 15 ACCUMULATING RESERVES ..................................................................................................................................... 15 ROADS, CONVERSION TO NON-FOREST ETC. ............................................................................................................. 15 SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 16

ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT ............................................................................................. 16

DIVERSITY & PROVISION OF FOREST COVER OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 16 SOCIAL-ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 19 SILVICULTURE OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 22

DETERMINATION OF SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................................................................... 22

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 24

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES ........................................................................................................................................ 24 INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Forestry Operations: .......................................................................................................................................... 25


ii

Processing Facilities .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Longlac Wood Industries (LWI) ......................................................................................................................... 26 Nakina Forest Products (NFP) .......................................................................................................................... 27 Long Lake Forest Products (LLFP) ................................................................................................................... 28 Mill Closures ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 Mining, Aggregates and Other Industrial Activities .......................................................................................... 28

NON-INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................. 29 Tourism .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 Road Based Tourism .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Parks and Protected Areas ................................................................................................................................. 30 Trapping ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Bear Management Areas .................................................................................................................................... 31

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 31


1

INTRODUCTION

The following trend analysis discusses the current trends on the Ogoki Forest unit, as required for the Independent Forest Audit for the period of April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010. It has been prepared in accordance with the Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario‟s Crown Forests (FMPM) (2009). Included is a discussion of planned and actual harvest area, harvest volume, renewal and maintenance, forest condition, wildlife habitat and monitoring and assessment. The FMPM requires the preparation of trend analysis Tables AR-7 through AR-13, and the reporting on activities for the most recently completed five-year forest management planning period (2003-2008 period) and the three previous five-year periods. However, only two forest management planning periods have occurred on the Ogoki Forest. For management plans prepared using the 1996 FMPM, MNR direction for the assessment of objective achievement and the determination of sustainability is to base it upon the requirements of the 1996 FMPM. That is, in lieu of Table AR-14, RPFO Tables 13 through 19 have been completed. Furthermore, given that the 2007-2008 10-year annual report was originally prepared and submitted to MNR under the requirements of the 2004 FMPM, this trend analysis report is a hybrid report based on the requirements of the 1996, 2004 and 2009 FMPM. The current Ogoki Forest is an amalgamation of the former Nakina North Forest and the former Ogoki Forest. The initial forest management activities for the 1998-2003 period were conducted under two separate forest management plans; one for each forest. Activities during the 2003-2008 were conducted under a single 2003-2023 FMP for the larger amalgamated Ogoki Forest. For the purposes of this report, all areas will simply be referred to as the Ogoki Forest. The 2003-2023 Forest Management Plan (FMP) established targets for a number of qualitative and quantitative objectives to assess forest sustainability. This trend analysis will discuss the implications of the trends on the achievement of the targets set for these objectives. Data used for the completion of AR tables has been annualized over a five-year period where required and where available the data reflects amendments to FMPs. Source information has been provided at the bottom of each table. Given that the management plans prepared for the 1998-2003 and 2003-2008 periods have several differences, such as forest unit classification, best efforts have been made to address the reporting of trends. In 2001, a significant winter weather event resulted in considerable snow and ice damage to forest stands across the Armstrong, Lake Nipigon, Kenogami and current Ogoki forests. Considerable damage occurred to forest stands approved for normal harvest in the 1998-2003 planning period. In an effort to maximize the utilization of damaged timber, salvage harvest approvals were granted without the need to amend the FMP. This “salvage as encountered within normal harvest”, however, made it impossible to accurately determine the planned salvage area or volume for this period. In addition to salvage operations in FMP allocated areas, amendments to include other


2

damaged areas that were reasonably accessible were also completed. As a result of these two methods of tracking salvage the estimates of planned salvage area and volume for the 1998-2003 period were made based on actual salvage area and volume from within the normal harvest areas and the FMP salvage amendment.

IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST OPERATIONS

Normal Harvest Area Table AR-7 presents a summary of planned and actual normal harvest area by forest unit, annualized, over the past and current FMPs. In the 1998-2003 period, the planned and actual normal harvest areas were 3,990 ha/yr and 2,874 ha/yr respectively. For the 2003-2008 period, the planned and actual harvest areas increased to 5,498 ha/yr planned and 4,534 ha/yr. This translates to an actual harvest area achievement level of 72% and 82% for each five-year period. These are reasonable levels of achievement, given bypass attributed to inoperable terrain, non-marketable species (particularly hardwoods), size of trees (lowland spruce Slow3 forest unit) and seasonal inaccessibility. Furthermore, there was normal area not harvested in the final year of the 2003-2008 FMP due to First Nation concerns and as a result of a shift in focus on salvage harvest in natural disturbance areas. Due to differences in the definition of forest units between the 1998 FMP and the 2003 FMP, it is somewhat challenging to directly discern trends in forest units harvested/bypassed. During the 1998-2003 period, with the exception of lowland black spruce (Site Class 3&4 - Slow3) and mixedwood forest units, actual harvest of planned area exceeded 70%. Overall harvest was 72% of planned. During the 2003-2008 period, the actual harvest of planned area was much higher, exceeding 80% for all forest units except the lowland black spruce forest units and the hardwood mixedwood (HwdMx) forest unit. Overall harvest was 82% of planned. Lowland black spruce harvest tends to be more often bypassed when a harvest block is operated during the frost-free season, and the stand size is small thus not-economical for a return winter harvest. Also, lowland black spruce stands (particularly the Slow3 forest unit) tend to have smaller average diameters and shorter top heights, negatively affecting the economics of harvest. Harvest in the hardwood dominated forest units on the Ogoki Forest becomes an issue of marketability given the lack of local or even available markets for this volume. It should also be noted that salvage harvest activities tend to somewhat detract from the harvest in planned normal areas where urgent timing is less critical. Salvage Harvest Area Table AR-7a presents a summary of planned and actual salvage harvest area by forest unit, annualized, over the past and current FMPs. The planned and actual salvage harvest areas were 1,683 ha/yr and 1,168 ha/yr respectively for the 1998-2003 FMP period. For the 2003-2008 period, the planned and actual harvest areas increased to 3,137 ha/yr planned and 1,757 ha/yr, respectively. The area salvaged in the 1998-2003


3

FMP period was exclusively snowstorm damage, while salvage in the 2003-2008 period also included a large amount of area from the 2005 Nipigon 20 fire. Economics, accessibility and deteriorating wood quality dramatically affected the actual harvest of all the potential salvage area. Overall, 61% of the area planned for salvage was indeed salvaged. In the case of the Nipigon 20 Fire amendment (Amendment #24), it was known that not all areas would likely be capable of supporting salvage opportunities; some were just too far damaged. However, in an effort to promote the utilization of any wood that might be salvageable from these areas nearly the entire burn was included in this amendment thus artificially inflating the planned harvest areas. There are both negative and positive implications of not harvesting the entire allowable harvest area as planned. Harvesting below planned levels can influence forest diversity, wildlife habitat and landscape pattern objectives as well as socio-economic objectives such as wood supply. In the short term, expected harvest volumes may not be achieved, which may have an impact on mills and associated socio-economic benefits. Another implication is that the future forest condition and the associated wildlife habitat and/or harvest volume that was projected to result from harvest and renewal activities in either the past and/or the current FMP may not be achieved. Of more significance would be the potential of not achieving landscape-level spatial disturbance pattern objectives. If eligible and operable forest stands are not are harvested as planned, in accordance with the spatial objectives for caribou habitat management (caribou mosaic), this could have negative implications on future caribou habitat value. A positive implication of not harvesting all the planned area, although relatively minor, is that non-spatially, unharvested timber will result in more residual patches and higher current wildlife habitat value for many species. For example, lowland spruce forest can be of high caribou refuge and winter habitat value, depending on how contiguous residual or bypass patches are. An achievement of approximately 72 % actual harvest of all planned normal and salvage area, in light of the additional, slower-paced salvage harvest operations and nearly complete shut-down of operations in the final months of the plan, is not perceived as concerning after the first ten-years of harvest operations on the Ogoki Forest. There is still an additional ten years of harvest opportunity in the caribou mosaic “A” blocks to ensure the relative completion of planned harvest and the creation of the even-aged disturbance patches. Normal Harvest Volume Table AR-8 presents a summary of planned and actual normal harvest volume by species annualized over the past and current FMPs. The planned and actual normal harvest volumes were 603,713 m3/yr and 366,589 m3/yr, respectively, for the 1998-2003 period. For the 2003-2008 period, the planned and actual normal harvest volumes were 568,029 m3/yr and 381,255 m3/yr, respectively.


4

Similar to normal harvest area for these two planning periods, actual volume harvested was below that which was planned. Although the actual achievement of harvested volume for both planning periods was nearly the same (61% and 67% of planned), hardwood harvest volume is consistently low, as the marketability of white birch and poplar is limited (due to economics) in the vicinity of the Ogoki Forest. This said, the harvest of poplar as a species did improve dramatically in the 2003-2008 period (increased by 55% from the 1998-2003 period). The harvest of jack pine volume is consistently high in both periods, as expected given the high level of harvest area achievement jack pine dominated stands. The underachievement in spruce volume is related to the lack of harvesting in all of the planned spruce dominated upland and lowland forest stands. As previously discussed, the focus on salvage harvest operations detracted somewhat from normal harvest operations and, more importantly here, lowland spruce areas tend to have a higher potential for bypass due to seasonal inaccessibility and the quality of wood associated with these areas. It is unknown why the actual balsam fir volume harvested was dramatically higher than planned. It might be speculated that given the vintage of the forest resource inventory, a higher merchantable balsam fir understory exists than would have been expected. Salvage Harvest Volume Table AR-8a presents a summary of planned and actual salvage harvest volume by species, annualized, over the past and current FMPs. As illustrated below in Figure 4, the planned and actual salvage harvest volumes were 293,992 m3/yr and 233,108 m3/yr, respectively, for the 1998-2003 period. For the 2003-2008 period, the planned and actual normal harvest volumes were 280,847 m3/yr and 135,337 m3/yr, respectively. The actual salvage volumes for the 1998–2008 period were practical, with 64% of planned volume being harvested within 61% of the planned area. The reasons for any underachievement in salvage volumes mirror those of salvage area explained previously. Not actually harvesting the planned volume can have negative socio-economic impacts on local communities and mills if a market demand exists. However, if no demand exists for a species or product, one could argue that it is not the non-harvest of the volume that is the cause of any negative socio-economic impacts, but markets. The objectives of the forest management plan are to essentially make volume available, but it has no control of mill utilization or market demand. When combined, the actual normal and salvage volumes for the Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF) species group, for the 1998-2003 and 2003-2008 periods, are 115% and 99% of the planned normal volume harvest, respectively. Considering that the SPF species group is of greatest demand for local mills related to the Ogoki Forest, very limited socio-economic impact would be expected.


5

Renewal & Maintenance

Table AR-9 presents a summary of planned and actual renewal, tending and protection operations, annualized. This table reflects all renewal treatments applied to both normal and salvage harvest areas. Renewal treatments that took place over the past 10 years include natural regeneration using the clearcut silvicultural system, careful logging around advanced growth (CLAAG) and artificial regeneration through tree planting and seeding. The planned and actual areas of renewal for the 1998-2003 period were 2,743 ha/yr and 1,005 ha/yr respectively. The planned and actual areas of renewal for the 2003-2008 period were 7,194 ha/yr and 5,856 ha/yr, respectively. This does not include the initiation of artificial renewal treatments through mechanical site preparation. There is normally at least a one year a delay following harvest in reporting of natural or artificial regeneration treatments. For natural regeneration treatments, particularly for CLAAG operations, regeneration surveys occur in the first frost free season after harvest. For artificial treatments, it is common for mechanical site preparation to occur one or two years following harvest with planting or seeding following in conjunction shortly thereafter. Any underachievement in renewal of planned areas is highly correlated to any underachievement in planned harvest area. For example, the harvest of forest units more apt for natural regeneration, such as lowland black spruce and hardwood mixedwood were not fully harvested thus contributing to lesser than planned achievement. The highest proportion of renewal in the 1998-2008 period was done through tree planting. Above that normally planned, much of the area that was originally proposed for seeding during this time ended up being planted. This is due to the site conditions present upon harvest and spatial distribution issues that economically dictated that areas be treated in accordance with adjacent ground (in this case via tree planting). While seeding is a less expensive, yet very effective, alternative to tree planting, it does require the presence of much more specific site conditions and the specialized equipment required to conduct direct seeding often makes it uneconomical to treat small areas. Mechanical site preparation was the exclusive means of preparing harvested forest stands for artificial regeneration. Annualized for the 1998-2003 period, a total of 1,004 ha/yr were site prepared. This is less than planned (48%). For the 2003-2008 period, 1,960 ha/yr were site prepared; 89% of planned. Actual mechanical site preparation for the 1998-2008 period was sufficient to treat harvested area for planting and seeding as needed. In many instances, post-harvest site inspections revealed that sites did not, in fact, require mechanical site preparation prior to regeneration activities as harvest operations had resulted in a sufficient site disturbance and mineral soil exposure. Where seeding had originally been planned, it was not uncommon for sites to be easily direct-planted.


6

No tending activities have occurred to date on the Ogoki Forest. Although through regeneration surveys it is recognized that some area would benefit from post-planting tending treatment, there tends to be insufficient aggregate area that would justify the development and implementation of an annual tending program. There is sufficient intensive treatment occurring to develop purer conifer forest units that more than compensates for the unplanned development of some conifer mixedwoods. Regeneration and silvicultural effectiveness monitoring will occur to verify these general observations. The total annualized area planned for renewal during the 1998-2008 period was 7,122 ha/yr, while the actual normal and salvage harvest amounted to 5,167 ha/yr. The total annualized actual area renewed was 4,913 ha/yr; which is 95% of the annual harvest. Given that not all area is available for regeneration (a small portion of productive area is lost to road construction), there is a one or two year delay in the establishment of regeneration post-harvest, and approximately seven of the ten years of harvest area has had renewal initiated, regeneration trends are extremely positive. Harvest & Regeneration Table AR-10 presents a summary of harvest and regeneration trends. Limited FTG surveying of post-harvest and post-salvage renewal occurred during the 1998-2008 period. This is due to the fact that renewal activities are still in their infancy on the forest with seeding having been conducted for the first time in 2000 and planting first in 2001. Most forest units are projected to reach FTG age in 7 to 10 years from establishment. Only a small area of hardwood dominated forest harvested during the 1998-2003 period has been assessed and classified as successfully regenerated. As such, no meaningful trends in harvest and renewal can be discussed for this period. Forest Condition Table AR-11 presents a summary of forest condition for the available managed Crown productive forest. Due to changes in forest unit descriptions and thus age class distributions from one planning period to the next, it is difficult to assess trends in the available managed crown productive forest. Issues related to dated FRI information have affected the classifications of area by forest unit. As expected with harvest operations, the overall age class distribution will become younger, and as a substantial portion of the forest will be harvested over a 100 year caribou mosaic schedule, there will tend to be a reduction in area over 100 years of age, over the long term. Relative to 1998, there was significant reduction of area in the 41-60 through 101-120 age classes by 2008, and a notable increase in 0-20 aged forest. Furthermore, there will be general reduction in mixedwood forest units and an increase in “purer” forest units and conifer dominated forest unit area.


7

Changes in forest unit composition and age class distribution directly affect the achievement of objectives for forest diversity, wildlife habitat and forest composition. Based on the limited period of time which the Ogoki Forest has experienced forest management activities, it appears that trends are favourable for the reduction of mixedwood forest types, maintenance of old forest above desired levels while providing for harvest opportunity and achievement of spatial disturbance and habitat patterns (caribou mosaic) over the long term. Habitat for Species at Risk & Selected Wildlife Species Table AR-12 presents a summary of habitat for species at risk and selected wildlife species. It is difficult to evaluate trends in wildlife habitat over the 1998-2008 period because planning requirements for the evaluation of non-spatial wildlife habitat types changed between forest management plans. Only seven wildlife species habitats were required to be evaluated in the 1998-2003 period: bald eagle, caribou refuge, caribou winter, lynx denning, marten, moose winter, moose feeding and osprey/heron. For the 2003-2008 period, twenty habitats were assessed, however only four habitat types are relatively common to both planning periods. Differences in the forest unit classification between the 1998 and the 2003 FMPs, and the subsequent correlation to wildlife habitat units for preferred habitat in the SFMM model resulted in some dramatic differences in habitat areas between 1998 and 2003. As an aside, for the 2008-2018 FMP period, requirements changed again, as MNR has taken the approach of monitoring fewer, more key species habitats that are utilized/preferred by a broader range of species. These preferred habitat types tend to be in mature and old forest. Again, while it is difficult to discern any trends in wildlife habitat area between 1998 and 2003, it appears that non-spatial habitat levels are on track to meet or exceed the short term targets and the future medium term and long term projections. Consistency in forest unit descriptions, wildlife habitat unit correlations and evaluated species habitats between FMPs would better the ability to track changes and assess objective achievement.

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200 201+

Age Class Distribution

1998 2003 2008 2023 2103


8

With respect to species at risk, woodland caribou habitat has been evaluated over the 1998-2008 period, but using different habitat classifications. Non-spatial habitat levels as of 2008 greatly exceed those at 2003. In spatial terms, only 10 years of harvest operations have occurred in the “A” blocks of the caribou mosaic, and there is still 10 years of scheduled harvest in these blocks to complete them and create the future even-aged large landscape patches that will become new caribou habitat in 60 years.

MONITORING & ASSESSMENT

Significant Events Apart from poor market conditions, there are multiple events that have affected the full implementation of the Ogoki Forest Management Plan. The most significant events for this FMP period have been the salvage of the blowdown/snowdown event which occurred in October of 2001, as well as the Nipigon 20 fire that occurred in the spring of 2005. Natural disturbances on the Ogoki forest to-date have effected a total of 14,434 hectares containing an estimated 1,514,840 m3 of fibre. Table AR-6 (year-10 AR) summarizes the area and volume associated with natural disturbances. The Nipigon 20 fire has affected all aspects of forest operations, silviculture and lumber production. One one hand, this fire destroyed a vast amount of volume and area but on the other, it resulted in a large increase in allocated salvage harvest area through FMP Amendment 03-24. The impacts of the snowdown/blowdown continue to be evaluated across the forest. An updated Forest Resource Inventory will be produced over the next few years and this will greatly assist in better classifying the post-storm stands and more accurately estimate volumes. In the meantime, LLFP and the MNR will continue to jointly search for damaged areas outside the current approved allocations that are suitable for salvage operations in order to maximize utilization of damaged timber. Of concern in identifying and harvesting suitable areas will be the constraints associated with the lack of access into many areas on this forest. LLFP has committed to focus selection on the most damaged areas as mutually agreed upon by both the company and the OMNR. Forest Operation Inspections LLFP maintains a compliance plan on the Ogoki Forest employing both formal and informal procedures that contribute to an effective monitoring program. The basic objectives of the compliance plan are outlined in the 2003 FMP:

1. To ensure that all forest operations (harvest, access, maintenance, renewal) are supervised by competent staff who have been trained in work practices that are designed to maximize compliance with plans and legislation for protecting and maintaining the long term health of the forest ecosystem.


9

2. To monitor forest management operations to determine the degree to which they are following all rules, regulations, operations, conditions, et cetera to which they are subject and to report on the findings.

3. To analyse the results of the monitoring program to develop/modify annual training requirements and priorities and assess progress

4. To co-operate with MNR and other regulatory agencies to ensure that the Compliance program is efficient, effective and appropriate

5. To conduct Compliance Inspections that will identify compliance issues and continuously improve the Company‟s compliance history.

The primary responsibility of monitoring and assessing forest operations lies with the company. The status of any such reviewed compliance is then reported to the OMNR. The OMNR carries out audits, spot checks and investigations on these activities on the forest as scheduled in the approved District Annual Compliance Operations Plan. A total of 258 compliance inspections were conducted by industry over the term identifying 13 instances of non-compliant activities. This is a 95% rate of compliance. The MNR compiled a total of 59 reports (mostly spot-checks or audits) also identifying 13 instances of non-compliance. Monitoring of Roads & Water Crossings To ensure all active roads and associated water crossings are adequately monitored, a Daily Monitoring Program is in place. Foreman and operators observe and report any instances of erosion or washouts and record, within their daily journals, as well as any problems associated with road access controls. A „best management practice‟ approach is generally taken as soon as possible and corrective measures are taken to deal with issues. LLFP has yet to develop a formal reporting/tracking program and as such, observations related to the informal process previously described would be difficult to summarize. In addition to the daily monitoring, the Compliance Annual Plan of Action schedules annual inspections for all active roads and water crossings. All indications are that Use Management Strategies for roads on the Forest are adequate. Monitoring of Regeneration Success Table AR-13 presents a summary of assessment and regeneration success. It is important to note that although harvest operations commenced in 1998, silviculture operations on the forest did not occur until the spring of 2000, at which time only site preparation and a direct seeding program commenced, with a tree plant occurring the following year. Therefore, as per the 1998 and 2003 SGRs, the harvest areas and the subsequent treatments that have occurred are just starting to become eligible (proper age) to assess as free-to-grow. As very little of this monitoring has taken place to date, any discussion around trends would be speculative in nature.


10

ANALYSIS OF FOREST DISTURBANCES

An evaluation of the frequency distribution of forest disturbances by size class at plan start in 2003 and plan end in 2008 suggests progress towards the natural distribution of forest disturbances template described in the 2003-2008 FMP. In the 2003 FMP, the Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation guide was in its early stages of implementation. As a result, the direction to the 2003 FMP planning team was to focus mainly on the distribution of disturbance patches on the forest using available historical disturbance information provided by the MNR Regional advisors. Data for frequency of number of size classes in AR-15 indicates that there were 85 disturbances at the plan end. From this, 42 disturbances or 49% were <260ha and 43 disturbances or 51% were >260 ha. The data suggests that there is an under-allocation in the <200 hectare size class for the past term. This is a direct result of the caribou management planning strategy used in plan development. The caribou management strategy is to provide a mosaic harvest pattern that is designed to provide long-term caribou habitat. By developing forest disturbances that emulate the natural disturbance template over each successive plan, planning teams will be able to balance the size classes and frequency of existing and planned disturbances on the forest‟s landscape. In the short term, however, the data presented suggests that the forest appears to have made some movement towards achieving this objective.

ANALYSIS OF RENEWAL & TENDING ACTIVITIES

Over the limited timeframe during which renewal activities have occurred on the Ogoki Forest (2000-2008), positive trends are observed in the area harvested/salvaged and regenerated (Table AR-10). As previously discussed, there is normally a delay between actual harvest and the initiation of the actual renewal treatment. For natural regeneration, this is generally one year, while for assisted regeneration (seeding and planting), initiation of may be two years following harvest due to the need for mechanical site preparation and preparation of planting stock. Given the short period of time since the commencement of renewal treatments and the end of this report period, limited surveys of regeneration success could occur (Table AR-13). As such, limited information is available as of 2008 as to the success of treatments. However, survival and regeneration surveys conducted prior to the assessment of regeneration success reveal few concerns in the achievement of regeneration success and desired future forest condition. No tending activities occurred during the 1998-2008 period, as limited area warranted treatment, and that which did is highly scattered. During the preparation of the 2008-2018 FMP, renewal activities, costs, and post-harvest succession pathways were reviewed by the plan author and the planning team. It was determined that, based on information available to date and other local


11

experience, renewal activities and costs were appropriate and limited modifications to assumptions for strategic modelling purposes were deemed necessary. At this time, there are no recommendations to be made to improve the effectiveness of renewal and tending operations.

REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS IN MODELING

In the 2003 FMP, forest modelling assumptions were documented, but in lesser detail than the new Analysis Package method. Many of the modelling assumptions were modified during the development of the 2008 FMP. All the modelling assumptions made for the 2008 FMP are documented in the Analysis Package located in Section 6.1.6 of the 2008-2018 Ogoki FMP. Planning Inventory The FRI for the 2003 plan was based on two inventories, the former Ogoki Forest and the Nakina North Forest that were combined and prepared to describe the current forest condition and to allow for modelling to determine future conditions. In April of 2000, satellite imagery was used to remove mature forest from all significant natural depletions that occurred since 1988. A combination of MNR records and the satellite imagery was used to identify where these areas were and the FRI was updated accordingly (all areas were identified as B&S). In fall of 2001 a snowdown event occurred on the Ogoki Forest as well as throughout other parts of northwestern Ontario. As a result of the event, the projected volumes have not been obtained during the 2003-2008 FMP period. Although an updated planning inventory was submitted which included updated FTG information relative to the B&S areas, the variation between the FRI and reality will continue to grow until the new FRI, now in production, is ready (see Recommendation #4 in Section 4.4). Forest Units and Silvicultural Intensities The Forest Units and silviculture intensities used in the plan were appropriate for the forest. In preparing the 2008 plan, the same forest units were used, however, slight modifications were made in terms of the SGR treatment packages in relation to the intensity that the forest unit would progress on. As well during the development of the 2008 FMP, slight modifications were made to the forest unit definitions for Slow 1, Slow 3 and SpUp relative to the ecosites within them. Non-spatial Habitat Classification This information relies on the wildlife matrix in SFMM which is set by MNR Provincially and not changeable by planning teams. MNR updated the matrix from the 1998 SFMM modelling to the 2003 SFMM modelling in an attempt to improve these relationships.


12

Tree Species Although balsam poplar is counted in the FRI under Po, it is not given a yield curve in SFMM in the 2003 plan due to lack of both knowledge and usage. Due to the limited amount of balsam poplar on the unit during the development of the 2008 FMP the same principles were followed as in the 2003 FMP. It is anticipated that with the development of a new FRI that the new planning inventory may account for this tree species and a yield curve will have to be developed based on opinions of future planning teams. Initial Areas of Forest & Non-Forest Issues around the FRI are described above. In the 2003 FMP, naturally depleted areas not yet FTG were classed as B&S_{Forest Unit}. A forest unit was assigned by the Plan Author and the concept used to classify these areas was to use the original forest unit that was present prior to the disturbance. As a result of the FTG surveys conducted on these sites, the assumptions made were appropriate. Initial & Accumulating Area of Reserves In the 2003 FMP, initial reserves consisted of parks, protection forest (PF), OLL Park/Reserves, wildlife habitat, harvest bypass, tourism exclusions and riparian zone. Additional tourism reserves, harvest bypass, riparian reserves and wildlife habitat accumulating reserves were also included as accumulating reserves. In the 2008 FMP, similar reserves were used but were updated to ensure that the available landbase was more accurately identified. Deferred Areas There was no area deferred in the 2003 FMP and the 2008 FMP does not include any area that is planned for deferral. Natural Succession Natural succession is the change from one forest type or stand age to another that occurs without human intervention as well as the change from a non-forest state to a forested state; and is expressed as a proportion per year. This is generally due to reclassification of area from Barren and Scattered to FTG. The succession rates are based on expert opinion of the planning team. Based on the review of the natural succession pathways in the preparation of the 2008 FMP, the modelling task team noted and made several adjustments to successional pathways based on new info provided by the Regional MNR. Natural Disturbance Cycles & Succession These are the expected cycles of stand-replacing natural disturbances such as fire, windthrow, and lethal but not endemic insect infestations. Information is based on past


13

records and the expert opinion of the Planning Team, as well as MNR Regional advice. Since the development of the 2003 Ogoki FMP, additional research on fire cycles has been conducted by the Northwest Region and the 2008 Planning Team determined that the average natural fire cycles were too low (fires too frequent) therefore the planning team developed new average natural fire cycles to be used in the 2008 FMP for each forest unit. For additional information on these changes please refer to the Analysis Package located in Section 6.6 of the 2008 FMP. The expected succession of stands replaced by natural disturbances was based on experience and the expert opinion of the Planning Team. For the 2008 plan, expert opinion and field survey results from LLFP/BFPL staff were incorporated into the succession rules. Yield Curves These are the expected timber yields by tree species by forest unit, age-class and silvicultural intensity in cubic meters per hectare. The information and figures in the 2003 FMP are based on data developed through the updating of yield curves used in the 1998 FMP. The information related to the Ogoki Forest was limited in terms of growth rates at the time, therefore, adjacent SFL‟s yield curves and stand development information was reviewed. MNR Northwest Science and Information provided guidance which was adjusted to more accurately reflect Ogoki Forest conditions. The adjustments were made by relying on the experience of past harvest yields and the expert opinion of the planning team. During the implementation of the 2003 FMP, volume shortfalls were predicted as a result of the 2001 snowdown event. The amount of shortfall varied, particularly by forest unit and species composition but the overall shortfall was expected to range between 10-25%. As a result, during the development of the 2008 FMP volumes, particularly on the conifer dominated forest units, the yield curves were adjusted downwards. It is recommended that LLFP continues to use the latest growth and yield data available accompanied by local knowledge. Operability Limits The ranges are based on maintaining the most efficient flow of products to fulfil the directives on the commitments from the Ogoki Forest. The ranges are based on the judgement of the planning team with consideration for commitments and the storability on the stump and are reviewed for each plan. No significant changes were made from the 2003 plan to the 2008 plan. The changes made related to ensuring the model maximized the amount of area harvested within the Caribou Mosaic „A‟ block, since the 2008 FMP identified areas for the remaining 10 years of the mosaic block. Volumes not Utilized During Harvest It is recognized that on most sites there will be some volume of growing stock left standing after harvesting. Situations where volumes are expected to be left are; where snag trees are left for wildlife purposes, and where trees are left during careful logging around advance growth. These volumes are accounted for in modelling for the 2003 plan. The 2008 plan was subject to the NDPE Guidelines and so this factor in SFMM


14

was increased accordingly. It is recommended that these volumes left on site should be investigated and updated for the next planning term to ensure accurate modeling and proper silviculture treatments can be applied. Renewal Options & Post-Harvest Succession Three levels of post-harvest intensity were used in the 2003 Plan: Extensive, Basic and Intensive. Extensive: Extensive development has the least amount of silvicultural intervention between current and future conditions. In all Forest Units, the only silvicultural intervention is harvesting. Regeneration occurs by whatever means it can. It is not intentionally assisted by special harvest patterns, methods or practices designed to favour certain species or conditions. It is preferred for hardwood sites, where poplar regenerates well without treatment. It is also used for very small areas where activities requiring more investment are not judged to be cost effective or useful. Basic: Basic development is for those stands where a minimal amount of intervention is needed during and/or after harvest to improve desired regeneration and stocking. It is expected that Basic treatments will regenerate a site at the same approximate rate as a natural disturbance. On many sites, but not all, the mix of tree species establishing will also emulate natural disturbances. Higher yields at a similar minimum operable age are generally produced with Basic treatments. There are two disadvantages to Basic treatments, a lack of density regulation due to constant ingress and Forest Unit conversions due to lack of control over seeding and advanced growth, as with Extensive treatments. Intensive: Intensive development is applied to Forest Units and stands that require a large amount of silvicultural effort to re-establish desirable species following the harvest. Intensive treatments are intended to establish stands that are density regulated. Intensive treatments involve a high degree of intervention after harvest to increase growth rates, shorten age to maturity and establish species compositions that more closely reflect natural conditions. Higher yields at earlier minimum operable ages are generally produced when compared with Basic treatments. The disadvantage of Intensive treatments is the expense of application. The cost assigned to Intensive treatments ranges by Forest Unit from $700 to $900 per hectare, depending on the density of plantings and amount of tending effort required, if applied. The 2008 plan was updated to include information and knowledge that was gained through the 10 years of experience operating on the SFL. For additional details of the updates made to the 2008 FMP please refer to the Analysis Package located in Section 6.6 in the 2008 FMP. IFA Recommendation: To continue utilizing local knowledge and expertise around extensive, basic, and intensive silviculture intensities as has been done in the 2003 FMP. This local knowledge comes from years of experience on the forest.


15

Clearcut post renewal succession on the Ogoki Forest is derived from local knowledge and expertise as well as other available information. Based on the information available the assumptions made in the 2003 FMP were appropriate. Following a silvicultural treatment, as with natural disturbances, some stands will regenerate to different species mixes and/or proportions than that which existed before harvesting. If the change is substantial enough, the stand can convert to other forest units. In general, conversions represent a small part of silvicultural outcomes and are acceptable as long as their cumulative effect does not jeopardize achieving management strategies and objectives. Stumpage Rates For the 2003 plan, stumpage rates in SFMM were set high enough to ensure funding was not a limiting factor throughout the 160-yr modelling timeframe. In the development of the 2008 FMP stumpage rates were increased from the rates previously used ($5.00 m3 for conifer and $1.00 m3 for hardwood) and were set depending on the period in which the caribou mosaic scheduled the operations to occur within the area. Accumulating Reserves The calculation of accumulating reserves was similar between the 2003 plan to the 2008 plan. As part of the 2008 FMP some of the 2003 accumulating reserves were amalgamated into the NDPEG reserves (wildlife habitat and harvest bypass). During the development and subsequent implementation of the NDPE Guidelines an increased understanding of the areas left for residual was developed which assisted the 2008 Planning team in the development of more accurate estimates. This improvement on estimating the amount of area required for accumulating reserves was also a factor in developing the tourism reserves for the 2008 FMP. The overall result was an improved accuracy between the 2003 and 2008 in terms of area reserved from harvest. One factor which has recently changed is the reporting of bypass in Annual Reports. It is no longer a requirement but it is important to track the actual bypass area after harvest (and area of riparian, wildlife and NDPEG reserves) to see whether the factors used are acceptably accurate and whether NDPEG patch requirements are being met and so that the information can be used in the development of the next FMP. It is recommended that although this information is not required, internal company records document the areas bypassed. Roads, conversion to non-forest etc. For both the 2003 and 2008 plans, conversion to non-forest values was estimated from depletion records. It was set for the number of terms after which it was estimated that the whole forest would be accessed. Based on the information available the modelling assumptions were appropriate.


16

Spatial requirements Caribou strategy: Little change occurred between the 2003 to 2008 Caribou Mosaic. The main changes which occurred were the inclusion of recently naturally disturbed areas into the original „A‟ blocks (as these areas where being harvested under salvage approvals). An in-depth discussion on the analysis that occurred between the 2003 and 2008 mosaic is included as part of the 2008 FMP, Section 6.13.1. In addition to this, the mosaic was modified from the 2003 FMP to the 2008 FMP to increase the duration of the deferrals in some cases. Section 6.13.1 of the 2008 FMP provides a detailed discussion on this topic. Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation: The 2003 plan was required to both move harvest patch size distribution closer to the estimated natural distribution and to justify cuts >260 ha. The 2008 FMP was subject to the NDPE Guidelines. Aside from the factors for retention of patches and individual trees already accounted for in SFMM, there were requirements for 80% of cuts to be <260 ha and to move towards the natural patch size distribution (i.e. larger patches). Cultural Heritage: Beginning with the 2003 plan, it was required to reserve areas which had been identified by landscape modelling as having a high potential for a cultural heritage value. These were riparian areas and often were often already covered off by riparian reserves.

ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT

The objectives, targets and strategies for the Ogoki Forest were developed by the planning team with the assistance of the Geraldton Natural Resource Advisory Committee (GANRAC) and input from the general public. The objectives were developed to achieve benefits or outcomes or maintain values that could be realized through the management of forest cover. The primary goal or objective for the 2003 FMP was that through forest management activities, a healthy and sustainable forest ecosystem was maintained into the future. Diversity & Provision of Forest Cover Objectives Objective 1: Maintain the Biological Diversity of the Forest within the Bounds of Natural Variation and supply the habitat requirements for the regional indicator wildlife species. Forest diversity is a long-term forest objective that will take many plan periods to achieve. The Company and the planning team had invested considerable effort in the analysis of historic local forest inventory data in order to establish benchmarks of the natural or historic forest condition. This effort formed the basis for establishing the desired future forest condition for the Ogoki Forest for both the 2003 and 2008 FMP.


17

As a long-term objective, it will require several planning terms to illustrate any trends. At this point, due to the short history of harvesting and silviculture activities on the forest, there is no substantive change in forest structure and/or composition. The forest diversity targets identified in the 2003 Ogoki FMP were not assessed in the 2008 Ogoki FMP due to a change in the requirements for establishing short term targets and long-term desirable levels. The achievement of biodiversity will be based on measuring the following attributes with targets and strategies developed for the 2003 FMP:

1. Pattern – maintain natural range and frequency of area in each size class based on natural disturbance patterns.

2. Composition – maintain area in each forest unit and wildlife habitat unit within 20% of what the natural forest would show at age 100 (the point where the Desired Future Forest Condition (DFFC) is assessed.

3. Structure – maintain area in old-growth classes at year 100 and maintain vertical structure in harvest blocks in the form of snags

4. Process – maintain health and function of headwater areas on the Forest.

Eight strategies were implemented to achieve this objective:

1. Plan harvest areas in the short-term and long-term within a mosaic pattern that will maintain the natural large disturbance patterns found on this forest;

2. Evaluate harvest patterns against the landscape analysis carried our by MNR Region to confirm consistency with natural patterns;

3. Define natural disturbance patterns as groups of stands with less than 200 metres of forested separation and within the same 20 year age class as per the Defining a Clearcut (MNR 1999) paper and relate to the Natural Disturbance Template for the Forest;

4. Compare management alternatives to the bounds of natural variation through long-term strategic analysis of SFMM outputs of forest condition at year 100;

5. Maintain a representative percentage of old growth forest for each of the forest units at year 100:

6. Maintain at least 25 trees per cutover hectare: a minimum of 6 large, living, potential cavity trees and the rest to be dead or declining trees with a range of species and diameter sizes as per the direction of the Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation;

7. Ensure that area within each harvest block (“clearcut”) is left to create structure normally found in wildfire areas: 2 – 8 % in island residual patches and 8 – 27 % in peninsular residual patches as directed by the NDPE Guide;


18

8. Complete a second order watershed disturbance analysis on proposed harvest allocations and report the results in Table FMP-6. If greater than 10% disturbance is being caused then re-evaluate the allocations and remove as required.

Overall, long-term forest cover and landscape pattern objectives are on track to be achieved. Normal and salvage harvest operations are being conducted as planned within the established caribou mosaic blocks as relatively scheduled, thus contributing to the creation of the desired landscape pattern. Residual forest cover patches have been retained through operations, and stand level wildlife trees maintained as necessary. Post harvest silvicultural activities are being conducted as prescribed through the silvicultural ground rules to create the desired future forest condition. To-date, limited assessment of renewal success has occurred as silvicultural treatments on the forest did not commence until the year 2000. Objective 2: Wildlife Habitat: Maintain the broad forest cover features to supply required habitat type (quality and quantity). Sub-Objective 2.1 Caribou Habitat – Maintain acceptable levels of habitat through time. Develop a mosaic that regulates the harvest pattern on the forest to maintain large blocks of connected suitable habitat through time. This sub-objective has been achieved through the implementation of the strategies described below. Two strategies were implemented to achieve this sub-objective:

1. Ensure a mosaic of large disturbance blocks across the forest and into the future is maintained and ensure there is a continuous connection of large blocks of suitable caribou habitat through time both within the Ogoki Forest and beyond to adjacent Forests;

2. Continue survey programs to broaden our knowledge of the used caribou habitat on this forest;

Sub-Objective 2.2 Marten Habitat – Ensure a distribution of large areas containing a high percent of suitable habitat are available on the landscape for the next 60 years. Maintain for three 20-year terms core area that meet the targets as set out in the Forest Management Guide for the Provision of Marten Habitat. This sub-objective has been achieved through the implementation of the strategies described below. Two strategies were implemented to achieve this sub-objective:


19

1. Evaluate current caribou mosaic and known caribou and marten habitat values through use of the Ontario Forest Analyst computer model and Ontario Marten Analyst to ensure future habitat and associated connectivity attributes are available through time;

2. Develop maps identifying cores over 60 years within the mosaic blocks not eligible for forestry operations.

Social-Economic Objectives

Objective 3: Quality wood supply – to provide a continuous and predictable supply of suitable quality wood to local mills. To supply 485,000 m3 of softwood and 104,000 m3 of poplar volume per year. To ensure area is available to overlapping licencee operations as well as LLFP and ensure allocations are balanced to allow for year-round harvesting. While this objective has a long-term horizon it has been achieved during this 5-year plan period. The wood supply from the Forest has thus far met the industrial demand. Nine strategies were implemented to achieve this objective:

Harvest full available harvest area as calculated by SFMM for the preferred management alternative;

Search out alternative economic buyers to work towards full utilization of all fibre while ensuring all obligations of larch, cedar, birch, and lower grade poplar at the LLFP sawmills. This strategy will need the support of the MNR;

Avoid operations in summer blocks during winter months;

Practice effective silviculture to ensure prompt regeneration of harvested areas;

Determine likely locations of satellite camps needed for the five years of the FMP and indicate on maps for public and MNR review. Develop a communications protocol to address the concerns about camp conditions and locations to other users of the forest and MNR;

Ensure that communication is maintained between the company and overlapping licencees to ensure all parties‟ concerns are addressed;

Work towards supporting and implementing the company Environmental Management System (EMS) that meet ISO 14001 standards;

Allocate areas for overlapping licencees based on Appendix “F” of the SFL. Harvest area for Aroland Economic Development Corp. and Nakina Heritage Corporation will normally be provided on the area of the former Nakina North Forest; harvest area for Marten Falls Economic Development Corporation and Eabametoong Economic Development Corporation on that portion of the Ogoki Forest which excludes the former Nakina North;


20

Continue to offer business opportunities to members of the First Nations communities including promotion of partnerships and employment of the First Nations people with forestry companies and LLFP for mill, harvesting, and silviculture;

Objective 4: Traditional Land Use Practices – Maintain opportunities for aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditional land use practices. Inventory known cultural site locations and protect as required. Ensure no more than 50% of a trapline is harvested in any 40-year period. This objective has been achieved. Six strategies were implemented to achieve this objective:

1. Use community knowledge to review and update First Nations values information;

2. Develop Area-of-Concern prescriptions for those values that may be affected by forest operations

3. Identify all spiritual and cultural values that may be affected by forest management activities through Native Values Collection process identified in the Terms of Reference;

4. Continue to work with First Nations in the Forest Management Planning and Implementation processes through regular community meetings;

5. Maintain current viability of traplines including protection as required of trails, cabins, and other property;

6. Ensure local knowledge and data inputs are included in the Socio-economic profiles of communities that realize benefits from this forest.

Objective 5: Commercial Tourism – to preserve the integrity of the Ogoki Forest as a remote tourism value. Develop forest operations prescriptions around commercial tourism establishments to help maintain the wilderness experience for guests. Long Lake Forest Products and Remote Tourism Operators will attempt to develop Resource Stewardship Agreements (RSAs) This objective was achieved through the implementation of the strategies detailed below. There were no reported instances of non-compliance related to this objective. Seven strategies were implemented to achieve this objective:

1. LLFP will attempt to meet with all outfitters located on the management unit prior to the first information centre. These meetings will continue through the planning process;


21

2. The company will attempt to meet with all outfitters to develop Resource-based Stewardship Agreements, especially with outfitters affected by operations proposed for the five-year term, as outlined by the Tourism and Forest Industry Memorandum of Understanding (MOU);

3. The company will take the initiative of contacting individual outfitters early in the planning process and maintain contacts throughout the plan implementation;

4. Ensure harvested areas close to remote tourism businesses are managed via timing restrictions or road closures to minimize impact on these businesses during their operating season;

5. The company will maintain ongoing dialogue with all outfitters on the Forest;

6. Use signs and gates as access controls while forest operations are using roads adjacent to tourism lakes. Following operations, there will be an abandonment program that will involve strategies including road removal at pinch points, destruction of portions of road networks, and the regeneration of most tertiary roads;

7. Develop harvest prescriptions that maintain the shoreline aesthetics of remote tourism lakes.

Objective 6: Recreation Opportunities – to ensure some areas are available for road-based recreation and traditional non-commercial tourism activities. Through signs and posters make public aware of areas available or closed to road –based recreation. Protect all identified portage trails and campsites. This objective was achieved. There were no noted issues of non-compliance related to this objective. Five strategies were implemented to achieve this objective:

1. Use gates and/or signage to define public road access areas. Create a permanent map display at the Geraldton MNR office and at the company offices to let residents of Greenstone and visitors know where the open and closed areas are located on the forest;

2. Educate public on the abandonment strategies and rationale used on this forest that define the areas available for use by the general public through the development and implementation of this five year plan;

3. Identify all known campsites and trails in vicinity of proposed allocations and road corridors and treat as Areas-of-Concern;

4. Ensure operations do not adversely impact trails or portage routes by leaving them free of debris in a timely manner;

5. Develop operational buffers along canoe routes according to aesthetic requirements based on level of use.


22

Silviculture Objectives Objective 7: To optimize forest harvest, renewal, and tending in order to contribute to other objectives. Ensure the amount of productive forest area over time is maintained at a quality that will meet our future forest composition targets and wood supply targets. The main strategy employed to meet this objective:

To develop silviculture ground rules that will describe the silvicultural systems and associated types of harvest, renewal, and tending treatments used to manage forest cover by forest units and site type. The silvicultural ground rules also identify the forest that is expected to develop over time as a result of various acceptable silvicultural treatments;

The planned renewal operations were undertaken where silviculturally feasible through the implementation of Silvicultural Ground Rules. The planned operation is a forecast, therefore, after harvesting has taken place silviculture operations may change based on field assessments. All silvicultural treatments to regenerate a site have been conducted in a timely manner on a site-specific basis according to the Forest Operations Prescriptions in the AWS/FMP. Post harvest prescriptions are also performed to ensure that the most suitable treatments are being applied to each site to get the desired results. Planned total renewal was 35,976 ha and actual total renewal was 29,278 ha. This is 81% overall achievement. With only 73% of the planned harvest area (normal and salvage) actually depleted, the relative achievement of renewal activities is greater than that planned. While there are still areas on the forest awaiting upcoming treatment, this is not unusual as silviculture treatments typically trail harvest activities by one or two years. The level of achievement demonstrated is sufficient to deem this objective met.

DETERMINATION OF SUSTAINABILITY

The Crown Forest Sustainability Act defines sustainability as “the condition of a forest ecosystem that sustains the ecosystem‟s complexity while providing for the needs of the people of Ontario”. By this definition the forest management plan has provided sustainability of the Crown Forest. The objectives pertaining to ecosystem maintenance and management are; 1) Forest Diversity, 2) Social and Economic Matters, 3) Forest Cover, and 4) Silviculture. As discussed in section 4.5 the achievement of all these objectives demonstrates the forest ecosystem complex is being sustained. Objectives 3, 4, 5, and 6 pertain to the socioeconomic requirements of the people of Ontario. As discussed in section 4.5 these objectives have also been achieved and can be considered a successful measure of sustainability. Overall, the implementation of planned operations has provided for the sustainability of the Crown forest. Forest sustainability is determined in section 2.3.2.2 of the 2003 FMP using the following six


23

criteria: biodiversity, forest condition and ecosystem productivity, soil and water quality, global ecological cycles, multiple benefits to society, and accepting society‟s responsibility for sustainable development. Measures of these criteria are presented in the following RPFO tables. Table RPFO-13 presents a Comparison of the Projected, Actual and Desired Future Forest Condition for the Managed Crown Forest Area Available for Timber Production. This table shows that the “End of Term Actual” (915,728 hectares) is greater than both the “Start of Term: and “Projected” values of 746,506 hectares and 716,250 hectares, respectively. The end of term value comes from table FMP-7 in the 2008 FMP (productive forest area) while the other values are from the previous FMP (FMP-11) which reports on production forest. For this reason the values are not directly comparable. However, a review of the FMP-1 of the 2008 FMP shows a production forest value of 750,208; A slight increase from the previous FMP. This increase is due to a modification to the management unit boundary for the 2008 FMP. Table RPFO-14 presents a Summary of the Managed Forest Area Available for Timber Production. No direct conclusions can be made from this table as there are no predicted values until the year 2023. However, the current actual value is far in excess of the predicted values into the future. Table RPFO-15 presents a Summary of the Landscape Pattern or Forest Diversity Indices. There are no Predicted values until the year 2023. The predicted values presented in the table for 2018 are taken from the 2003 FMP. There can be no conclusions drawn from the Forest Composition section as there are no predicted or actual values for the year 2008. RPFO-16 presents a Summary of Habitat for Selected Wildlife Species. No direct conclusions can be drawn from this information as there are no predicted valued until the year 2023. RPFO-17 presents a Summary of Landscape Processes. No direct conclusion can be drawn for Net Primary Productivity as there is no range of acceptable levels nor an actual value. The Total Productive Forest Area for the management unit second order watershed is 5,171,190 hectares (from the 2003 FMP). The % Productive Area Depleted Within Ten Years is 6.3%. Information from the previous plan (1998-2018) was not included in this table, as it was not available at the time of writing of the plan. RPFO-18 presents a Summary of Selected Measurable Indicators of Forest Sustainability Criteria. This table shows the total productive Crown forest by Provincial Forest Type by working group (taken from the 2003 FMP). As well it shows the % available harvest area actually utilized (this same information is presented in AR-1 and discussed in the text). The ratio of area of riparian reserve to length of shoreline adjacent to timber harvest activity is not presented here as new annual reporting requirements do not require riparian reserve area to be tracked. The 2004 FMPM Phase-in provisions state that the ten year AR is to be completed to the extent


24

reasonably possible. It is the view of the author that this content piece is not reasonable due to the amount of work that would be required to go back in time to determine the area under riparian reserve and also to calculate the length of shoreline (a manually intensive process in GIS). As well, this is a point-in-time value that compares to nothing in the plan and will never be assessed again under the new FMPM (2004). The indicators around Native communities and the LCC are taken from the 2008 FMP. The value-added value is taken from the socio-economic section (Section 4.6.1) and the percent of the silvicultural budget is taken from AR-11 and discussed in Section 4.2. RPFO-19 is not a required to be completed, in accordance with direction by MNR‟s Annual Report Preparation and Review Protocol.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REVIEW

This social and economic description includes a comparison of demographic profiles that were prepared for the 2003-08 and 2008-18 Ogoki Forest FMPs. A description of processing facilities, a discussion of intended and actual investments that were undertaken over the 2003-2008 FMP period and general trends of the forest industry is also included. A brief description of other non-timber related forest businesses and interests is also provided. Demographic Profiles The social and economic description for the Year Ten Annual Report for the Ogoki Forest is based on a comparison between the demographics used in the 2003-08 FMP and those used in the 2008-18 FMP. The demographic profiles were based on the most currently available Statistics Canada census information during the respective planning processes. For the 2003 FMP, the 1996 census data was used and for the 2006 FMP, the 2001 census data was used. The two demographic profiles were based on two different sets of communities, one for each FMP. The 2003-08 FMP included the communities of Longlac, Geraldton, Nakina, Red Rock and Terrace Bay, while the 2008-18 FMP considered Greenstone, Nipigon, Terrace Bay, and Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay was included in the 2008-18 FMP since the SFL holder‟s main office was located in Thunder Bay, with a large number of staff there having operational responsibilities on the forest. A number of receiving mills were also located in Thunder Bay. In 2001 the municipality of Greenstone was created through the amalgamation of 6 communities (formerly Geraldton, Longlac, Nakina, Jellicoe, Caramat and Beardmore). The inclusion of Thunder Bay, Jellicoe, Caramat and Beardmore in the 2001 census data has resulted in drastic changes for many indicators in the 2008-18 FMP demographic profile, when compared to the indicator statistics from the1996 census data. These changes are evident in Table 1 (below). This has made it impossible to determine (from census data alone) if any changes were a direct result of implementing the 2003-08 FMP. However it is important to note that the forest industry has faced


25

many difficulties over the 2003-2008 timeframe, across the province and in Northwestern Ontario specifically. Mill closures, strikes, declining hardwood markets, the high Canadian dollar and the Softwood Lumber Agreement have all contributed to a severely declining forest industry. Table 1. Demographic Profiles Statistics for the 2003-08 and 2008-18 Forest FMPs.

Original Source: 1996 and 2001 Statistics Canada Census

Aboriginal communities with demographic profiles were the same for both plans. They included Aroland, Eabametoong, Ginoogaming, Long Lake #58, and Marten Falls First Nations. Data for First Nations communities is generally unavailable due to the small population size and the requirement to ensure confidentiality in the results. In general, it is apparent from available data that First Nation communities have lower incomes and higher unemployment rates than provincial averages. Industrial Activities

Forestry Operations: The forest industry is the largest consumer of the resources on the Ogoki Forest. Over the 2003-08 FMP period, in addition to the Sustainable Forest Licence holder (Long Lake Forest Products Inc.), there were four overlapping licence holders on the forest: Aroland, Marten Falls, Eabametoong First Nations and Nakina Heritage Corp. Long Lake forest Products Inc. is the main employer (either directly or through contract arrangements with other companies) related to forest management activities and forest operations, including harvesting, renewal and road construction. The four overlapping licencees are provided the opportunity to harvest 50% of the total allocations, with LLFP harvesting the other 50%. Nakina Heritage Corp has the opportunity to harvest up to 9% of the total allocations and has been successful in harvesting their full allocation each year. The three First Nation communities have the opportunity to harvest up to 41% of the total allocation. Over the past five years, these communities have had limited success with harvesting operations on the Ogoki Forest

2003-2008 2008-2018

Population 10,692 121,403

Employment 88% 91.1%

Labour Force 5,215 61,640

Average Income $29,645 $66,269

Housing cost $33,905 $146,136

Forestry employment

(% of total labour force)

34.1% 10.5%

Migration (5 year movement) 38.4% moved locally 35.4% moved locally


26

due to a lack of capacity. Related discussion concerning harvest operations can be found in Section 2.3.2 of this annual report.

Processing Facilities Industrial users (dependent mills) have remained fairly constant over the last ten year period. Mills receiving fiber are: Terrace Bay Pulp Inc., Longlac Wood Industries, Long Lake Forest Products Inc., and Nakina Forest Products. As reported in Table AR-5 Annual Report of Wood Utilization by Mill, relatively minor volumes of conifer and hardwood have been delivered to other destinations during the 2003-08 FMP timeframe

Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. During the 2003-08 FMP period the pulp mill in Terrace Bay received a significant volume of wood harvested on the Ogoki Forest (491,268 m3). In 2003, the pulp mill was owned by Kimberly-Clark Inc. and employed about 600 people, producing hardwood and softwood pulp based on internal and external tissue and paper demands. Chips were provided through fiber exchanges and direct purchases from area mills. In November 2004 the mill was spun-off to Neenah Paper, with production levels reaching approximately 447,221 metric tons. In May 2005 the No. 1 pulp mill (hardwood mill) was closed indefinitely by Neenah, resulting in approximately 130 people being laid-off. In February 2006, all pulp manufacturing activities at Terrace Bay were suspended as a result of a strike by woodlands workers. Approximately 450 workers were unemployed. In August 2006 Buchanan Forest Products Inc. purchased the mill, which subsequently reopened in September 2006 as Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. Since acquiring the mill, the company proposed a $45 million investment for the installation of a steam turbine to generate electricity. The mill has traditionally generated 20 megawatts of power in the co-generation plant, while requiring 45 megawatts for operation (rendering it 44% self-sufficient in power production). This project, when completed, is expected to provide the long term energy self sufficiency of the plant, and place it in an excellent position to produce Northern Bleach Kraft Pulp at competitive pricing. The hog fuel required to operate the expanded co-generation plant will be derived from a variety of sources including Long Lake Forest Products, Nakina Forest Products, Dubreuil Forest Products and the pulp mill‟s own woodroom.

Longlac Wood Industries (LWI) The 2003-08 FMP reports an employment level of 450 people between the two mills located in Longlac. The plywood mill and waferboard mills are owned by Kruger Inc., a


27

Quebec based company. The 2008-18 FMP reports 359 jobs between the two mills including support and woodlands operations staff, a decrease of 91 jobs. Both mills receive wood from a number of sources including the Ogoki, Kenogami, Lake Nipigon, Armstrong, Nagagami, Big Pic, Hearst, Superior, Bright Sands, Caribou, Crossroute, Lac Seul and English River Forests. LWI also purchases open market fiber from as far west as Fort Frances and as far east as North Bay. On average the Ogoki Forest supplied approximately 35,620 m3/year of poplar to the waferboard mill and 11,560 m3/year of poplar to the plywood mill over the 2003-08 FMP period. As discussed in the 2003-08 FMP, LWI had intended to invest portions of profit each year to improve operations in the two mills. LWI was also investigating improvements to maximize the amount of veneer quality logs recovered from tree-length harvesting. They also increased production of a product known as Laminated Multi-Core, a value-added composite panel developed locally. The 2008-18 Ogoki FMP outlines LWI‟s intent to replace the existing plywood and waferboard mills with a new oriented strand board mill (OSB). This investment would have required an expenditure of $235,000,000 with an annual wood supply of 940,000m3 of poplar and birch. It was seen as the only viable solution to maintaining a hardwood mill in the region. The business plan for this venture has yet to be developed and approved. LWI ultimately decided not to proceed with the OSB expansion/replacement project. Since mid-2007 LWI‟s waferboard mill has only operated on an intermittent basis. The plywood mill has continued to operate, subject to market conditions and firm product orders. Kruger Inc. has declared their intent to close the LWI plywood and waferboard facilities in January 2009. These impending closures and other temporary shut downs have left investment intentions uncertain.

Nakina Forest Products (NFP) As discussed in the 2003-08 FMP, Nakina forest Products Ltd had recently finished construction of an SPF sawmill and planer that was expected to produce approximately 52,000,000 fbm of lumber annually and consume 242,000m3 of roundwood. This involved an investment of roughly $22,000,000. The Ogoki Forest has supplied 73% of the fiber to this mill, with remaining fibre delivered from the Kenogami Forest. The 2008-18 FMP shows a production rate of 107,628,000 fbm of lumber annually and a consumption of approximately 504,615m3 of roundwood. Employment projections in the two consecutive plans have remained fairly stable. The majority of the labour force is from the surrounding communities of Nakina, Aroland First Nation, Geraldton, and Longlac. The government of Ontario provided a grant (through the Forest Sector Prosperity Fund) of $600,000 to Long Lake Forest Products Inc. for a $6-million capital investment in new machinery at its Nakina Forest Products sawmill. The investment is for the


28

installation of an on-site slasher complex, expected to reduce wood costs and increase fibre efficiency. It would also help secure employment for about 140 mill employees and create about 50 new jobs. NFP indicated they would seek to fill these positions with employees from local First Nations communities. Construction began in 2006 and was completed in the summer of 2007. The sawmill has been closed indefinitely since August 2008 due to adverse conditions in the lumber market.

Long Lake Forest Products (LLFP) This Longlac sawmill is directly dependent on fiber from the Ogoki Forest, and received approximately 623,000 m3 during the 2003-08 period. This mill has traditionally employed about 214 people under normal operating conditions. Since 2003 the mill production potential has increased to approximately 118,309,000 fbm of lumber annually and subject to market conditions, can potentially employ up to 240 people, an increase in 26 jobs. Many of the jobs are filled by members of the Ginoogaming First Nation in Longlac. The 2003-08 FMP indicates that LLFP had previously invested approximately $30,000,000 into the dimensional lumber mill in Longlac to produce approximately 100,000,000 fbm of lumber annually. Another $7,100,000 was intended to be invested in mill upgrades. In 2007, construction of an on-site slasher complex began, similar to the complex in Nakina, with planned completion for spring 2008. The Longlac sawmill has been closed indefinitely since August 2008 due to adverse conditions in the lumber market, although portions of the mill continue to operate with a modified workforce to supply residual chips to the pulp mill in Terrace Bay.

Mill Closures Over the 2003-2008 period LWI, LLFP and Nakina have all taken temporary downtime at their operations usually lasting from 2 to 8 weeks. Over the affected time period these temporary shutdowns have occurred sporadically and have been primarily due to weak product markets or restricted wood supplies caused by weather (usually in the springtime). However, the summer of 2008 saw more extended shutdowns for the Nakina Forest Products and Long Lake Forest Products sawmills. It is uncertain when conditions in the forest industry will improve to support more continuous operations.

Mining, Aggregates and Other Industrial Activities There are currently numerous small prospecting and drilling operations on the Ogoki. These operations will continue subject to market demand. The opportunities for mining have shown a recent increase in potential and interest within the mining sector. Aggregate and hydro generation opportunities do not exist currently on the Ogoki Forest likely due to its remote location. These two sectors are not expected to develop here without an increase in roads infrastructure.


29

Non-Industrial Activities

Tourism A number of businesses operate outpost camps in the Unit. The 2003-08 FMP lists 17 outfitter businesses with camps. The 2008-18 FMP lists 18 companies, as shown in Table 2 (below). Outfitters employ up to seven people some seasonal and some year round. This industry supports a number of other services including building materials, groceries, fuel and transportation. The 2008-18 FMP outlines that there has been a decreasing trend in visitors to the local area due to the fluctuations in exchange rates, increased fuel cost and a decrease in economy. Table 2. Remote Tourism Companies

Company Outpost Camps

3002063 Nova Scotia Company (wilderness North) 7

Albany-Ogoki Outposts 5

Ara Lake Camps 2

Arctic Watershed Outposts 8

Armstong Outposts Ltd 8

Colimar Lodge 3

Leuenberger Air Service and Wilderness Lodge 11

Mattice Lake outfitters 7

Northland Outfitters 2

Ogoki Lake Outfitters 1

O‟Sullivan Lake Outfitters 6

The Ogoki Frontier 2

Tashoda Enterprises 3

Thunderhook Camps Inc. 4

Timberidge Air and Outposts Camps 7

Tom‟s Outpost Camps 7

Twin Lakes Outfitters and Wilderness Camps Inc 9

Wataywin 1

Source: 2008-18 Ogoki Forest Management Plan

Road Based Tourism A lack of road infrastructure on the unit and road access restrictions has prevented this industry from becoming established to a large degree. There are potential opportunities


30

available south of the Ogoki River and west of the Ogoki Road, as more roads are developed in this area.

Recreation The Ogoki Forest provides some opportunities for personal recreation activities like hunting, fishing, and canoeing subject to road access restrictions. This type of activity is difficult to track for user days resulting in limited data. There are no structured recreational activities such as organized campgrounds, snowmobile/ATV trail riding hiking, mountain biking or skiing on the Ogoki Forest. This industry is not expected to grow due to access restrictions, remoteness, increased fuel prices and a decline in economy.

Parks and Protected Areas There are five provincial parks and three conservation reserves located within or adjacent to the unit. They are listed in Table 3 (below). These parks and protected areas were not discussed in the 2003 plan illustrating the importance of developing new parks and protected areas. Commercial forest operations are not permitted in any of the parks or conservation reserves. Table 3. List of Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

Provincial Park Conservation Reserve

Wabakimi Attwood River

Albany River Kagianagami Lake

Little Current River Ogoki Lake

Sedgeman

Ogoki River

Source: 2008-18 Ogoki Forest Management Plan

Trapping There has been an increase in registered trappers for the 30 trap lines available on the Ogoki Forest. The 2003-08 plan reported 64 registered trappers, compared to the 101 reported in the 2008 plan. The trappers are from the communities of Eabametoong, Martin Falls and Aroland First Nations. Trapping is an important part of the local economy of Aboriginal communities. Traditional uses include food, clothing and income and also serve broader purposes of social, cultural and recreational identities.


31

Bear Management Areas There are four Bear Management Areas in the unit. Three of these operations focus on ecotourism as opposed to bear hunting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This 2007-08 Annual Report was prepared during the first year of implementation of the 2008-2018 FMP. The 2003 FMP forest modelling assumptions were documented within the plan but not to the same level of detail as in the Analysis Package format in the new 2008 FMP. A rigorous analysis of management alternatives, assessment of objective achievement and determination of forest sustainability was undertaken during the preparation of the 2008-18 FMP. Many of the previous modelling assumptions were modified during the development of the 2008 FMP. Some of the changes that occurred and/or were re-analyzed in the modelling assumptions were related to some of the recommendations and suggestions presented in the 2005 Ogoki Forest Independent Forest Audit (IFA). Section 6.1.2 of the 2008 Ogoki Forest FMP identifies those recommendations and suggestions that were considered in the development of the 2008 Ogoki FMP. All the modelling assumptions made for the 2008 FMP are documented in the Analysis Package located in Section 6.1.6 of the 2008-2018 Ogoki FMP. Nevertheless, there are some general points that can be made at this time and that should be considered during the implementation of the 2008-2018 FMP and in preparation of future FMPs. With the exception of wood supply, most forest management objectives have tracked in a positive manner through the term of the plan. The 2008-18 FMP planning team recognized and addressed a number of areas of improvement, notably with the development of new yield curves (to deal with the snowdown event), natural and post-harvest succession assumptions and planning inventory updates.

In order to maximize the available harvest area with the implementation of the 2008-18 FMP, operators must take full advantage of all inoperable areas or areas of unmarketable species in meeting the NDPEG residual requirements.

Planners must continue to take full advantage of all salvage harvest opportunities, when cost effective opportunities are available.

The harvest areas and volumes for all licencees must be monitored diligently to contribute to growth and yield decisions regarding the next plan.

Wood deliveries to the dependent mills must be closely monitored, to track the achievement of SFL Appendix E commitments.

Market for underutilized species: Continued investigations of market opportunities for underutilized species should be undertaken. During the final


32

year of the 2003-2008 Plan period, mill production at Longlac Wood Industries was curtailed. The continued curtailment of the mill has had implications on the achievement of wood flow projections in the Plan. Efforts to market this wood are ongoing. During development of the 2008-2018 Ogoki FMP a hardwood utilization strategy was developed.

The Nakina blowdown area has the potential for more damage due to fire, insects or disease. There are also longer term impacts regarding forest health (growth and yield) and inventory levels (stand stocking implications) that must be considered by the 2018-28 FMP planning team. Overall, at the end of the 2003-08 FMP term, there are no significant gaps between the planned and actual levels of renewal treatment, with the exception of natural regeneration levels. Silvicultural work is closely following the harvest, whether regular or salvage, with most sites being regenerated within two years of harvest. This gives good indication that the FMP objective relating to silviculture is being met. Chemical aerial and ground cleaning were not implemented during this FMP, however additional detailed monitoring of plantations and on-site inspections are necessary to verify the need for, and minimize the use of, herbicide application.

A focus on regeneration assessments for declaring areas as free-to-grow needs to be implemented on the Forest since many of the areas treated are reaching an age at which these assessments should be occurring. At the current time there are approximately 15,700 ha of Not Sufficiently Regenerated (NSR) areas that are awaiting assessment.

While overall harvest area accomplishment has been 78% for normal allocations and 61% for salvage allocations, volume utilized was only 64% in both instances. This means that slightly less money was going into the renewal trust than was anticipated. A full review of the forest renewal trust account balance as well as forecast volume, with a view toward resolving the question of whether or not an increase in the renewal rate is warranted, should be conducted.

The MNR Northwest Region has endorsed the continuation of the full tree harvest monitoring program for current participants, thereby allowing the monitoring to continue for those previously involved and for new members during the 2008-18 FMP. LLFP will conduct full tree harvest operations on very shallow soil (ecosite 12) sites using the Best Management Practices endorsed for the minimization of site disturbance and nutrient loss. The photography for an updated FRI has been completed (in 2008) and data collection is planned to commence in 2009. The new FRI is expected to be completed by 2012. This new FRI should be used in the development of the upcoming FMP and no further FMP should be developed using the current FRI.


33

The MNR, Long Lake Forest Products, and overlapping licencees must continue to promote participation in the planning process with all interested individuals or groups (LCC, trappers, tourist operators, etc.), but especially with First Nation peoples. This participation will facilitate the sharing of information (including the collection of values) as well as identifying and solving issues sooner, during the FMP planning stages. The preparation of a roads inventory (identifying ownership, responsibilities and liabilities) should be completed for incorporation into future FMPs. The current list of High Potential Cultural and Heritage values should be scrutinized and corrected as appropriate, in consultation with MNR specialists. While slash management programs have been carried out regularly and on the majority of harvested areas on the Forest, investigations of various techniques to manage the slash should continue to be investigated.


34

MANAGEMENT UNIT NAME: Ogoki Forest - 415

PLAN PERIOD: April 1, 2003 TO March 31, 2008

ANNUAL REPORT: April 1, 2007 TO March 31, 2008

AR-7: Summary of Planned & Actual Harvest Area

Medium-Term Long-Term

Forest

Unit*2023 2103

PjPur 435 362 530 523 246 1,381

SpUp 1,023 831 2,255 1,929 1,669 380

Slow1 895 626 730 496 989 210

Slow3 447 244 662 423 588 1,805

PoPur 171 163 311 266 197 366

CoMx1 102 65 629 570 327 886

CoMx2 - - 277 255 529 578

HwdMx 918 582 103 73 218 262

Total 3,990 2,874 5,498 4,534 4,763 5,867

AR-7a: Summary of Planned & Actual Salvage Harvest Area

Medium-Term Long-Term

Forest

Unit *2028 2108

PjPur 156 120 391 302

SpUp 414 251 740 512

Slow1 494 410 595 243

Slow3 260 192 480 190

PoPur 62 43 293 161

CoMx1 50 26 369 230

CoMx2 - - 148 98

HwdMx 247 126 121 21

Total 1,683 1,168 3,137 1,757

*Forest units changed in the 2003 FMP. The 1998 FUs rolled up into best corresponding 2003 FUs:

Pj1 added to PjPur; CnFr3 added to CoMx1; Hw1, Hw3 added to PoPur; MxWd1 and MxWd3 added to HwdMx

** Planned salvage area for 1998-2003 is estimated as actual salvage harvest within the originally approved normal

harvest areas + new salvage area amended to FMP.

n/a n/a

Area (ha) - Annualized

Current Plan

Planned

Salvage

2003-2008

Actual

Salvage

2003-2008

Projections

PLANNED HARVEST

Past Plans

Salvage

1998-2003

Past Plans

ACTUAL HARVEST

Salvage

1998-2003**

Area (ha) - Annualized

Current Plan

Actual

Harvest 2003-

2008

1998-2003 1998-2003

PLANNED HARVEST

Past Plans Past Plans

ACTUAL HARVEST

Projections Planned

Harvest 2003-

2008


35

AR-8: Summary of Planned and Actual Harvest Volume

Bf 1,238 9,236 6,340 2,493 11,577 6,909

Bw 9,307 678 8,233 164 11,857 7,450

Ce - 2 1,123 20 1,261 1,697

La 2,565 1,976 3,051 1,307 2,436 3,340

Pj 117,132 110,493 103,761 92,562 123,418 41,500

Po 102,646 31,423 86,949 48,657 108,456 44,340

Sp 370,825 212,781 358,572 236,052 432,607 436,591

Total 603,713 366,589 568,029 381,255 691,612 541,828

AR-8a: Summary of Planned and Actual Salvage Harvest Volume

Bf 1,533 1,313 3,835 881

Bw 79 - 6,755 -

Ce - - 1,040 -

La 1,240 1,240 1,383 858

Pj 75,288 65,262 54,835 35,874

Po 11,121 - 44,277 665

Sp 204,731 165,293 168,722 97,060

Total 293,992 233,108 280,847 135,337 - -

Sources: IFA Trend Analysis Report 2000-2005 Table 3a & 3b

Ogoki FMP 2003-2023 FMP23 & FMP27 (updated)

Ogoki Annual Report 2007-2008 AR4

Ogoki FMP 2008-2018 FMP10

** Planned salvage volume for 1998-2003 is estimated as actual salvage harvest within the originally approved normal

harvest areas + new salvage volume amended to FMP.

n/an/a

Species

Past Plans Past Plans Current Plan

Planned

Salvage

Actual

Salvage

Projections

PLANNED VOLUME

Current Plan

Salvage

1998-2003 Medium-Term

2023

Long-Term

2103

Medium-Term

2023

ACTUAL VOLUME

Salvage

1998-2003**

SpeciesProjectionsActual

Harvest

2003-2008

Planned

Harvest

2003-2008

Long-Term

2103

Volume ('000 m3) - Annualized

PLANNED VOLUME ACTUAL VOLUME

Volume ('000 m3) - Annualized

1998-20031998-2003

Past Plans Past Plans


36

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

UN

IT N

AM

E:

Og

oki F

ore

st

- 4

15

PL

AN

PE

RIO

D:

Ap

ril 1

, 2

00

3 T

O M

arc

h 3

1, 2

00

8

AN

NU

AL

RE

PO

RT

: A

pril 1

, 2

00

7 T

O M

arc

h 3

1, 2

00

8

AR

-9:

Su

mm

ary

of

Pla

nn

ed

an

d A

ctu

al R

en

ew

al, T

en

din

g &

Pro

tecti

on

Op

era

tio

ns

PL

AN

NE

DA

CT

UA

L

Cu

rre

nt

Pla

nC

urr

en

t P

lan

199

8-2

00

31

99

8-2

00

32

00

3-2

00

82

00

3-2

00

8

Re

ne

wa

l

Na

tura

l R

ege

ne

ratio

n

Cle

arc

ut S

ilvic

ultu

ral S

yste

m (

eve

n-a

ge

d)

652

-

1,4

16

389

Sh

elte

rwo

od

Silv

icu

ltu

ral S

yste

m (

eve

n-a

ge

d)

-

-

-

-

Se

lectio

n S

ilvcu

ltu

ral S

yste

m -

Se

lectio

n H

arv

est

(un

eve

n-a

ge

d)

-

-

-

-

CL

AA

G515

118

1,6

86

1,3

21

Art

ific

ial R

ege

ne

ratio

n

Pla

ntin

g1,2

98

887

2,8

79

3,6

74

Se

ed

ing

278

-

1,2

13

471

Sca

rifica

tio

n-

-

-

-

2,7

43

1,0

05

7,1

94

5,8

56

Sit

e P

rep

ara

tio

n (

me

ch

an

ical,

ch

em

ical,

pre

scri

be

d b

urn

)

Mech

an

ica

l2,1

10

1,0

04

2,1

96

1,9

60

Ch

em

ica

l-

-

-

-

Pre

scrib

ed

bu

rn-

-

-

-

2,1

10

1,0

04

2,1

96

1,9

60

Te

nd

ing

Cle

an

ing

-

-

-

-

Sp

acin

g,

Pre

-Co

mm

erc

ial

Th

inn

ing

, Im

pro

ve

me

nt

Cu

ttin

g

Cle

arc

ut a

nd

Sh

elte

rwo

od

Silv

icu

ltu

ral S

yste

ms (

eve

n-a

ge

d)

-

-

-

-

Se

lectio

n S

ilvic

ultu

ral S

yste

m (

une

ve

n-a

ge

d)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Pro

tecti

on

(In

se

ct

Pe

st

Co

ntr

ol)

-

-

So

urc

es

:IF

A T

rend

An

aly

sis

Re

po

rt 2

000

-20

05 T

able

6

Og

oki F

MP

200

3-2

02

3 F

MP

25

Og

oki A

nnu

al R

epo

rt 2

007

-20

08 A

R7

Are

a (

ha

) -

An

nu

alize

d

Op

era

tio

n

To

tal R

en

ew

al

To

tal S

ite

Pre

pa

rati

on

To

tal T

en

din

g

AC

TU

AL

Pa

st

Pla

ns

PL

AN

NE

D

Pa

st

Pla

ns


37




AR-10: Summary of Harvest & Regeneration Trends

Forest Unit 1998-2003 2003-2008

Harvest/salvage (ha) 459 3,997

Surveyed (ha)

Regenerated (ha)

Unavailable for Regeneration (ha)

Un-surveyed (ha) 459 3,997

Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 0% 0%

Harvest/salvage (ha) 1,763

Surveyed (ha)

Regenerated (ha)


Un-surveyed (ha) - 1,763

Percent FU Successfully Regenerated 0%

Harvest/salvage (ha) 3,541 472

Surveyed (ha) 144

Regenerated (ha) 144


Un-surveyed (ha) 3,397 472


Harvest/salvage (ha) 2,411 4,127

Surveyed (ha)

Regenerated (ha)


Un-surveyed (ha) 2,411 4,127



Surveyed (ha) 125

Regenerated (ha) 118


Un-surveyed (ha) 908 2,134



Surveyed (ha)

Regenerated (ha)





Surveyed (ha)

Regenerated (ha)





Surveyed (ha)

Regenerated (ha)



Percent Successfully Regenerated 0% 0%


Surveyed (ha) 269 -

Regenerated (ha) 262 -

Unavailable for Regeneration (ha) - -


Percent Successfully Regenerated 1% 0%

Sources: Ogoki 2007-2008 AR16

Ogoki 2005-2006 AR14

Term

Total

Slow1

Slow3

SpUp

PjPur

PoPur

ConMx1

ConMx2

HwdMx


38




AR-11: Summary of Forest Condition for the Available Managed Crown Productive Forest

Medium Term

2023

Long-Term

2103

SpUp Depleted

Below Regen Standard

0-20 89 30,966 33,158 37,362 32,408

21-40 337 7,729 2,980 29,640 37,030

41-60 12,922 8,844 6,447 14,866 31,607

61-80 23,281 30,327 26,270 28,865 27,300

81-100 36,081 46,595 36,532 65,104 33,243

101-120 31,427 36,148 45,324 33,823 16,816

121-140 19,464 62,962 57,620 20,579 8,817

141-160 10,364 36,622 34,751 30,401 2,727

161-180 779 2,057 1,790 7,131 827

181-200 194 245 319 112 10

201+ 100 126 44 -

Forest Unit Subtotal 134,938 262,594 245,316 267,927 190,785

Slow1 Depleted


0-20 23,705 10,753 14,406 20,899 28,782

21-40 628 153 939 9,844 22,202

41-60 5,751 985 1,059 145 18,854

61-80 13,492 5,198 3,706 3,570 16,191

81-100 28,214 4,140 3,440 34,226 5,823

101-120 45,197 5,407 5,041 6,475 2,186

121-140 59,611 19,557 17,827 3,477 144

141-160 45,651 54,841 50,465 9,204 793

161-180 4,075 16,958 17,442 25,427 285

181-200 502 230 563 267 3

201+ 306 315 228 -


Slow3 Depleted


0-20 30,588 17,777 20,901 22,904 19,967

21-40 330 241 167 14,059 16,902

41-60 6,393 1,026 644 230 19,705

61-80 7,194 7,722 7,275 983 20,568

81-100 13,763 2,696 3,309 22,013 16,110

101-120 31,180 4,920 4,709 11,410 6,107

121-140 59,611 32,758 30,312 2,404 387

141-160 23,248 43,182 40,241 21,331 495

161-180 2,182 13,211 14,648 23,250 196

181-200 403 514 567 635 8

201+ 178 156 202 -


Plan End

2008

Forest Unit Age/Condition Class Projections

Current Plan 2003-2008

1998-2003 Plan Start

2003

Area (ha)

Past Plans


39

PjPur Depleted


0-20 218 5,576 12,317 32,937 20,823

21-40 378 1,156 1,694 5,274 22,247

41-60 6,972 1,179 905 1,106 21,497

61-80 18,664 21,316 16,949 1,085 19,656

81-100 9,360 12,646 12,823 19,336 26,146

101-120 3,704 7,667 7,504 4,113 3,030

121-140 1,030 3,883 3,846 1,518 61

141-160 11 900 775 572 -

161-180 50 11 12 - -

181-200 - - -

201+ - - -


PoPur Depleted


0-20 366 3,489 5,873 12,093 6,100

21-40 199 469 185 3,147 4,103

41-60 7,539 296 427 450 5,319

61-80 16,800 8,662 5,639 283 7,006

81-100 18,229 21,970 18,697 8,286 7,464

101-120 5,517 16,189 20,076 11,370 1,952

121-140 479 3,898 4,253 4,848 23

141-160 20 645 750 - -

161-180 - 17 36 16 -

181-200 - - -

201+ - - -


CoMx1 Depleted


0-20 1,119 5,265 11,686 10,395 8,967

21-40 364 552 1,748 14,791 10,205

41-60 15,552 645 880 5,154 10,953

61-80 7,726 14,433 9,351 3,264 9,304

81-100 2,476 23,476 16,140 5,864 12,734

101-120 2,745 12,690 14,295 9,806 2,656

121-140 1,384 8,859 7,774 4,045 142

141-160 404 3,086 2,885 557 6

161-180 131 29 116 59 -

181-200 35 34 13 180 1

201+ 1 - -


HwdMx Depleted


0-20 49 955 3,992 1,775 674

21-40 918 283 321 1,152 981

41-60 98,252 495 290 1,168 2,164

61-80 36,911 5,013 4,198 1,135 1,527

81-100 31,277 5,217 4,153 1,194 860

101-120 19,310 6,941 8,341 3,127 705

121-140 7,655 1,945 2,085 1,050 103

141-160 3,128 696 601 376 8

161-180 763 22 25 - -

181-200 45 14 14 - -

201+ - -


CoMx2 Depleted


0-20 2,174 15,686 5,024 3,510

21-40 548 992 5,682 6,329

41-60 259 831 2,384 5,615

61-80 8,013 8,128 4,039 4,531

81-100 12,031 14,022 4,771 3,074

101-120 8,940 14,185 7,010 378

121-140 5,960 6,901 1,779 135

141-160 2,602 3,170 575 6

161-180 11 58 - -

181-200 20 - -

201+ - -

Forest Unit Subtotal 40,537 63,993 31,264 23,578

Total 807,287 746,500 749,106 692,923 610,466

Sources: IFA Trend Analysis Report 2000-2005 Table 5

Ogoki FMP 2003-2023 FMP9 & FMP11



40




AR-12: Summary of Habitat for Species at Risk & Selected Wildlife Species

330 3,295 4,016 2,376

28,600 28,643 22,401 32,402

19,000

333,028

362,017

455,200 455,237 427,987 309,230

208,500 208,496 191,070 128,126

469,500 620,800 620,777 587,590 593,242 731,989

234,300 234,271 207,773 101,367 348,819

260,700 260,724 268,236 273,282

116,900 116,884 107,545 73,719

397,500 397,473 373,500 259,982 305,972

37,500 288,536

570,500 424,400 424,440 401,056 271,676 324,615

166,200 116,200 116,151 132,966 103,984 107,616

3,300 381,400 381,377 347,343 359,615 356,056

411,500 411,480 374,246 232,296

21,000

58,800 58,840 51,230 9,874 54,874

72,500 72,548 67,635 17,985

162,600 162,611 165,508 204,499

86,600 86,608 73,428 41,700

70,900 70,896 66,476 21,630

9,700 97,021 77,974 20,896

335,700 335,683 323,435 209,967

Sources: Ogoki & Nakina North FMPs 1998-2003 FMP5



White-throated Sparrow

Spruce Grouse

White-tailed Deer (feeding)

American Kestrel

American Redstart

Bald Eagle

Black Backed Woodpecker

Connecticut Warbler

Black Bear (Foraging)

Boreal Chickadee

Northern Flying Squirrel

Osprey

Boreal Red-backed Vole

Woodland Caribou (general & snow free)

Caribou (winter)

Golden-Crowned Kinglet

Pileated Woodpecker

WILDLIFE SPECIES

White-tailed Deer (winter)

Moose (feeding)

Moose (winter)

Snowshoe Hare

Swainson's Thrush

Marten

Great Grey Owl

Lynx (denning)

AREA (ha)

Current Plan

Plan Start

2003

Plan End

2008

Long-Term

2103

Medium-

Term 2023

Short-Term

2013

Past Plans

1998-2003


41




AR-13: Summary of Assessment of Regeneration & Silvicultural Success

Harvest

CoMx1 All

CoMx2 All

HwdMx All 144 144 - 144

PjPur All

PoPur All 118 118 7 125

Slow1 All

Slow3 All

SpUp All

Harvest Subtotal 262 - 262 7 269

Natural Disturbance

Slow3 n/a 4,053 4,053

Slow1 n/a 2,791 2,791

SpUp n/a 5,604 5,604

PjPur n/a 4,922 4,922

PoPur n/a 855 855

CoMx1 n/a 6,961 6,961

HwdMx n/a 2,587 2,587

CoMx2 n/a 11,804 11,804

39,577 39,577 23,195 62,772

39,839 - 39,839 23,202 63,041

Sources: Ogoki Annual report 2007-2008 AR14

Area Assessed (ha)

Area Successfully Regenerated Area

Not

Successfully

Regenerated

Total Area

AssessedTotal Projected

Forest

Unit

Other

Forest

Unit

Grand Total

Natural Disturbance Subtotal

All natural disturbance area assessed was of historical fires on the Ogoki Forest

Forest Unit

Silvicultural

Ground

Rule


42

MANAGEMENT UNIT NAME: OGOKI FOREST

PLAN PERIOD: April 1st, 2003 TO March 31st, 2008

ANNUAL REPORT: April 1st, 2007 TO March 31st, 2008

RPFO - 13 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED, ACTUAL AND DESIRED FUTURE FOREST CONDITION

FOR THE MANAGED CROWN FOREST AREA AVAILABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION

Forest Condition (ha) Desired Future Forest Condition (ha)

End of

Forest Unit Age Class Stage of Start of Term Projected Past Term Current Term

Management Term Actual (Year 2103) (Year 2108)

(2003) (2008) (2023)

0-20 Clearcut 5,266 12,423 15,464 8,967 14,225

21-40 553 1,748 5,094 10,205 13,374

41-60 645 912 853 10,953 12,187

61-80 14,432 10,209 3,565 9,304 12,703

81-100 23,474 17,071 16,631 12,734 12,171

101-120 12,690 15,551 10,342 2,656 5,529

121-140 8,860 8,656 3,520 142 492

141-160 3,086 3,136 1,152 6 406

161-180 29 206 298 - 551

181-200 34 52 - 1 95

201+ - 1 - - -

Sub-Total 69,069 69,965 56,919 54,968 71,733

0-20 Clearcut 2,174 16,045 5,941 3,510 8,513

21-40 548 992 2,080 3,629 15,489

41-60 259 866 1,488 5,615 10,101

61-80 8,013 8,904 3,417 4,531 14,280

81-100 12,031 15,048 11,401 3,074 14,339

101-120 8,942 5,573 378 11,459

121-140 5,959 2,866 135 5,679

141-160 2,603 7,546 916 6 4,236

161-180 11 3,750 - - 2,405

181-200 - 94 - - 1,501

201+ - 20 - - -

Sub-Total 40,540 68,719 33,682 20,878 88,002

0-20 Clearcut 954 4,157 1,205 674 6,842

21-40 283 321 1,100 981 7,527

41-60 496 300 652 2,164 6,661

61-80 5,013 4,661 1,375 1,527 6,479

81-100 5,216 4,674 4,922 860 6,926

101-120 6,943 3,629 705 2,685

121-140 1,944 2,883 103 3,006

141-160 695 2,258 318 8 793

161-180 22 639 - - 101

181-200 14 26 21 - -

201+ - 14 - - -

Sub-Total 21,580 25,955 16,105 7,022 41,020

0-20 Clearcut 5,574 12,840 32,937 20,823 9,029

21-40 1,157 1,694 5,274 22,247 9,249

41-60 1,180 930 1,106 21,497 10,966

61-80 21,318 19,113 1,085 19,656 15,376

81-100 12,645 13,294 19,336 26,146 13,051

101-120 7,667 7,705 4,113 3,030 7,389

121-140 3,884 4,001 1,518 61 223

141-160 900 867 572 - 39

161-180 11 13 - - 94

181-200 - - - - -

201+ - - - - -

Sub-Total 54,336 60,457 65,941 113,460 65,416

15,454

8,905

CoMx1

CoMx2

HwdMx

PjPur


43

0-20 Clearcut 3,487 6,069 12,093 6,100 14,223

21-40 470 209 3,147 4,103 9,771

41-60 296 440 450 5,319 8,822

61-80 8,663 6,315 283 7,006 7,906

81-100 21,971 19,763 8,286 7,464 8,246

101-120 16,191 22,367 11,370 1,952 1,229

121-140 3,897 4,735 4,848 23 269

141-160 645 877 - - 141

161-180 17 36 16 - -

181-200 - - - - -

201+ - - - - -

Sub-Total 55,637 60,811 40,493 31,967 50,607

0-20 Clearcut 10,751 14,520 20,899 28,782 26,165

21-40 152 939 9,844 22,202 23,198

41-60 987 1,078 145 18,854 21,617

61-80 5,199 3,891 3,570 16,191 15,447

81-100 4,140 3,516 34,226 5,823 12,920

101-120 5,406 5,179 6,475 2,186 4,465

121-140 19,556 18,576 3,477 144 4,706

141-160 54,841 52,653 9,204 793 4,948

161-180 16,958 17,958 25,427 285 3,179

181-200 231 804 267 3 630

201+ 305 380 228 - -

Sub-Total 118,526 119,494 113,762 95,263 117,275

0-20 Clearcut 17,778 27,527 22,904 19,967 17,815

21-40 240 185 14,059 16,902 25,093

41-60 1,027 1,005 230 19,705 19,122

61-80 7,723 9,999 983 20,568 16,775

81-100 2,694 7,380 22,013 16,110 22,408

101-120 4,920 13,264 11,410 6,107 28,333

121-140 32,759 90,221 2,404 387 36,334

141-160 43,180 73,166 21,331 495 37,780

161-180 13,211 25,742 23,250 196 27,767

181-200 514 767 635 8 16,644

201+ 177 364 202 - -

Sub-Total 124,223 249,620 119,421 100,445 248,071

0-20 Clearcut 30,989 33,771 37,362 32,408 50,407

21-40 7,729 2,981 29,640 37,030 33,747

41-60 8,846 6,495 14,866 31,607 35,741

61-80 30,323 27,628 28,865 27,300 37,711

81-100 46,573 39,559 65,104 33,243 34,051

101-120 36,149 48,282 33,823 16,816 11,661

121-140 62,961 62,414 20,579 8,817 8,086

141-160 36,623 36,953 30,401 2,727 5,932

161-180 2,058 2,078 9,131 827 2,952

181-200 244 406 112 10 359

201+ 100 140 44 - -

Sub-Total 262,595 260,707 269,927 190,785 220,647

Total 746,506 915,728 716,250 614,788 902,771

The Start of Term column used the 2003-2008 FMP-11.

The End of Term actual used the 2008-2018 FMP-7.

The Projected used the 2003-2008 FMP-11.

The Past Term (2103) used the 2003-2008 FMP-11.

The Current Term (Year 2108) used the 2008-2018 FMP-7.

SpUp

PoPur

Slow 1

Slow 3


44




Plan Term 2043 2063 2083 2103

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted

2003-2008 n/a 749,049 n/a n/a n/a n/a 714,250 n/a 688,544 660,904 634,090 614,788

Plan Term 2078 2098

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted

1998-2018 781,668 753,675 n/a 711,844 675,457 637,048 597,013

Source: Ogoki/Nakina North FMP11

RPFO-14 SUMMARY REPORT OF MANAGED FOREST AREA AVAILABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION

Production Forest Available for Timber Production (ha)

Production Forest Available for Timber Production (ha)

2008 2013 2018 2023

1998 2018 2038 2058


45




RPFO-15 SUMMARY REPORT OF LANDSCAPE PATTERN OR FOREST DIVERSITY INDICES

Acceptable Levels

2008 2013 2018 2023 2043 2063 2083 2103 Index From To Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted

Forest Diversity Indices

Bounds of Natural Variation

FU relative to the NULL

Slow 3 195,972 301,349 n/a n/a 249,939 249,306 248,427 247,722 247,165

Slow 1 97,813 147,821 n/a n/a 122,290 121,595 120,728 119,704 119,097

SpUp 195,633 368,846 n/a n/a 296,688 308,862 306,165 291,166 275,431

PjPur 46,607 173,744 n/a n/a 71,381 78,748 87,117 102,967 117,186

PoPur 29,384 72,130 n/a n/a 44,765 31,932 29,949 31,682 33,435

CoMx1 50,730 89,540 n/a n/a 64,745 61,947 61,132 61,072 63,016

HwdMx 3,462 27,960 n/a n/a 17,620 12,347 9,904 8,341 7,699

CoMx2 23,769 51,761 n/a n/a 37,890 36,125 32,216 27,874 23,781

FU area relative to the BNV

Mature (51-90 yrs old)

Slow (Slow 1 and 3) 71,105 147,849 n/a n/a 79,958

SpUp 43,467 88,688 n/a n/a 77,430

PjPur 3,605 21,758 n/a n/a 43,307

PoPur 1,053 18,502 n/a n/a 14,886

CoMx1 3,710 19,910 n/a n/a 22,202

HwdMx 408 14,757 n/a n/a 3,408

CoMx2 1,758 25,770 n/a n/a 9,990

Old Growth (90+ yrs. Old)

Slow (Slow 1 and 3) 168,344 589,366 n/a n/a 89,486 56,254 14,293 21,016 162,629

SpUp 81,558 344,404 n/a n/a 50,574 42,639 28,260 33,421 106,435

PjPur 3,892 7,169 n/a n/a 4,671 8,015 3,102 949 16,793

PoPur 2,649 12,119 n/a n/a 19,227 5,027 665 148 5,462

CoMx1 4,452 14,894 n/a n/a 12,586 11,718 5,784 3,242 13,590

HwdMx 757 12,360 n/a n/a 5,627 2,588 1,431 604 1,716

CoMx2 3,172 23,929 n/a n/a 7,608 5,190 4,310 2,734 2,774

Forest Cover, Pattern,

and Structure

Old Growth Targets (@2103)

Slow 3 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

Slow 1 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

SpUp 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

PjPur 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

PoPur 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

CoMx1 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

HwdMx 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

CoMx2 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0

The acceptable levels reported on this page were also reported in Table FMP-13 (for the Selected Management Alternative).

There were no predicted levels for 2008.

No actuals are assessed in the 2008-2018 FMP.

Plan

Term

Forest or Landscape Diversity Index

2003-08

2003-08


46

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

UN

IT N

AM

E:

OG

OK

I F

OR

ES

T

PL

AN

PE

RIO

D:

Ap

ril

1st

, 2

00

3

TO

Mar

ch 3

1st

, 2

00

8

AN

NU

AL

RE

PO

RT

: A

pri

l 1

st,

20

07

TO

Mar

ch 3

1st

, 2

00

8

Pa

st P

lan

20

43

20

63

20

83

21

03

19

97

-20

17

Pre

dic

ted

Act

ual

Pre

dic

ted

Act

ual

Pre

dic

ted

Act

ual

Pre

dic

ted

Act

ual

Pre

dic

ted

Pre

dic

ted

Pre

dic

ted

Pre

dic

ted

Am

eric

an K

estr

aln/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4,2

34

n/a

3,3

69

2,2

05

1

,89

9

3,1

66

Sp

ruce

Gro

use

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

15

8,7

65

n/a

19

0,8

08

20

0,0

56

2

05

,08

6

20

9,8

72

Gre

at G

rey O

wl

n/a

n/a

30

5,9

72

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

33

2,9

29

n/a

28

8,6

42

23

1,5

08

2

34

,70

9

23

0,0

14

Pil

eate

d W

oo

dp

ecker

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

39

,42

1

n/a

17

,15

0

7,1

42

4

,88

2

10

,21

7

Bo

real

Chic

kad

een/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

39

8,5

24

n/a

33

9,2

42

28

0,3

93

2

88

,06

2

28

2,8

36

Go

lden

Cro

wned

Kin

gle

tn/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

93

,19

0

n/a

80

,92

1

64

,49

7

6

3,4

35

65

,83

4

Sw

ainso

n's

Thru

shn/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62

,13

4

n/a

44

,77

8

41

,35

8

4

1,9

20

40

,85

2

Am

eric

an R

edst

art

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

23

,02

6

n/a

27

,79

6

35

,42

6

3

8,4

58

31

,76

7

Co

nnet

icut

War

ble

rn/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

27

4,3

75

n/a

27

1,1

08

27

2,5

30

2

73

,58

2

27

8,7

95

Whit

e-th

roat

ed S

par

row

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

31

6,6

88

n/a

23

0,5

87

22

0,7

60

2

15

,78

7

20

9,9

77

Sno

wsh

oe

Har

en/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

,08

2

n/a

26

,85

3

13

,03

5

9

,81

9

15

,74

3

No

rther

n F

lyin

g S

quir

rel

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

31

4,7

03

n/a

25

2,4

11

21

3,1

72

3

19

,90

6

22

2,5

32

Bo

real

Red

-bac

ked

Vo

len/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

17

1,3

90

n/a

14

5,0

66

11

2,6

42

1

09

,57

4

10

0,9

33

Mar

ten

5,7

05

n/a

32

4,6

15

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

35

5,9

02

n/a

30

3,5

72

23

8,7

88

2

43

,79

7

24

4,3

39

Wo

od

land

Car

ibo

u4

,69

5

n/a

73

1,9

89

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

4,7

28

n/a

58

7,0

11

58

7,2

85

5

82

,61

6

57

8,8

49

Wo

od

land

Car

ibo

u W

inte

rn/a

n/a

34

8,8

19

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

17

1,0

09

n/a

11

1,8

18

97

,80

9

1

17

,12

6

10

1,0

35

Whit

e-ta

iled

Dee

r (f

ora

gin

g)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

53

,88

0

n/a

30

,36

1

17

,25

5

1

2,3

89

18

,79

4

Whit

e-ta

iled

Dee

r (w

inte

r)n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

57

,85

4

n/a

28

,84

1

19

,33

5

2

6,9

60

31

,75

3

Mo

ose

(fo

ragin

g)

1,6

62

n/a

10

7,6

16

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

14

4,9

63

n/a

11

6,3

33

10

5,6

33

1

08

,56

3

10

8,6

42

Mo

ose

(w

inte

r)3

3

n/a

35

6,0

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

31

8,7

16

n/a

34

6,2

44

34

8,7

43

3

38

,35

7

34

5,0

87

Lynx (

den

nin

g)

37

5

n/a

28

8,5

36

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bla

ck-b

acked

Wo

od

pec

ker

n/a

n/a

33

3,0

28

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bla

ck B

ear

(fo

ragin

g)

n/a

n/a

36

2,0

17

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Osp

rey

21

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bal

d E

agle

19

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

No

val

ues

wer

e p

red

icte

d f

or

the

yea

r 2

00

8,

20

13

, o

r 2

01

8.

The

SF

MM

pro

ject

ions

for

the

Sel

ecte

d M

anag

emen

t A

lter

nat

ive

wer

e in

incr

emen

ts o

f 2

0-y

ear

term

s.

The

sourc

e fo

r th

e "P

red

icte

d"

dat

a is

FM

P-1

3 o

f th

e 2

00

3 F

MP

. T

he

sourc

e fo

r th

e "A

ctual

" d

ata

is f

rom

FM

P-8

of

the

20

08

FM

P

So

urc

e fo

r th

e 1

99

7-2

01

7 p

lan i

s F

MP

-5 o

f th

e N

akin

a N

ort

h a

nd

Ogo

ki

19

97

-20

17

FM

Ps

20

03

-08

RP

FO

-16

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T O

F H

AB

ITA

T F

OR

SE

LE

CT

ED

WIL

DL

IFE

SP

EC

IES

Pla

n

Ter

m

Sel

ecte

d W

ild

life

Sp

ecie

s

Are

a o

f H

ab

ita

t A

va

ila

ble

(k

m2)

20

08

20

13

20

18

20

23


47

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

UN

IT N

AM

E:

OG

OK

I F

OR

ES

T

PL

AN

PE

RIO

D:

Ap

ril

1st

, 2

00

3

TO

Mar

ch 3

1st

, 2

00

8

AN

NU

AL

RE

PO

RT

: A

pri

l 1

st,

20

07

TO

Mar

ch 3

1st

, 2

00

8

To

tal

Pro

du

cti

ve F

orest

Area

(sq

. k

m.)

% P

ro

du

cti

ve F

orest

Area

Dis

turb

ed

wit

hin

10

yea

rs

% C

ha

ng

e f

ro

m

prev

iou

s p

lan

Fro

mT

o

19

98

-20

03

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

20

03

-08

n/a

n/a

n/a

5,1

71

.19

6.3

%n/a

* n

/a =

no

t av

aila

ble

The

To

tal

Pro

duct

ive

Fo

rest

Are

a is

the

val

ue

rep

ort

ed i

n T

able

FM

P-6

fro

m t

he

20

03

-08

FM

P.

The

% P

rod

uct

ive

Fo

rest

Are

a D

istu

rbed

wit

hin

10

yea

rs v

alue

is f

rom

FM

P-6

in t

he

20

03

-08

FM

P.

RP

FO

-17

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

T O

F L

AN

DS

CA

PE

PR

OC

ES

SE

S

Pla

n T

erm

Net

Prim

ary

Pro

du

cti

vit

y (

g/m

2)

Wa

ter Y

ield

(m

m h

a-1

da

y-1

)

Su

b-R

eg

ion

al

Accep

tab

le L

ev

els

Su

b-R

eg

ion

al

Actu

al

Ma

na

gem

en

t U

nit

Seco

nd

-Ord

er S

trea

m W

ate

rsh

ed

s


48




1988 to 1993 1993 to 1998 1998 to 2003 2003 to 2008 2008 to 2013

A 8

B 11,423

BW 8,290

CW 2,070

L 4,168

PJ 87,553

PO 81,660

S 121

SB 718,746

SW 256

Total Productive Forest 914,296

% of Available Harvest Area actually

utilized (by forest unit) (% of Forecast)

Slow3 1

Slow1 1

SpUp 1

PjPur 1

PoPur 1

CoMx1 1

HwdMx 1

CoMx2 1

100% 1

3 Communities 3 Communities

% of Native communities in or adjacent to

the management unit which are involved in

% of forecasted silvicultural budget

requirement actually received

N/A

Local citizens committee self-evaluation of

their effectiveness (1-10)

Value added (millions) N/A N/A 153,735,000

8

RPFO-18 SUMMARY REPORT OF SELECTED MEASURABLE INDICATORS OF FOREST SUSTAINABILITY

CRITERIA

Measurable IndicatorIndicator Values By Plan Term

Total Productive Crown Forest

(by Working Group)

Ratio of area of riparian reserve to length

of shoreline adjacent to timber harvest N/A

1

Documents

2010 IFA - Ogoki Forest · Ogoki Forest Independent Forest Audit i 1.0. Executive Summary This report presents the findings of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the Ogoki Forest