2015-2017 OPERATING PLAN

Transcription

MANITOBA SOLID WOOD DIVISION
2015-2017 OPERATING PLAN
March 13, 2015
Paul Chapman, Woodlands Manager, Forestry
Mike Paddock, Operations Forester
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
4.3
4.4
5.2
5.3
5.4
Summary of Wood Supply Sources .......................................................................... 18
5.1.1 Softwood Harvest and Purchase ................................................................. 18
5.1.2 Third Party Operations ................................................................................. 18
5.1.3 Log Stockpile Sites ......................................................................................... 19
Contingency Planning ................................................................................................ 20
Roadside Delimbing .................................................................................................... 20
Salvage Opportunity ................................................................................................... 20
FOREST RENEWAL .................................................................................................................. 21
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.0
General ........................................................................................................................... 15
Summary of Access Development ............................................................................ 15
4.2.1 All-weather Roads ........................................................................................... 15
4.2.2 Main Seasonal Roads ..................................................................................... 16
4.2.3 Watercourse Crossings .................................................................................. 16
Road Management Planning ..................................................................................... 16
Dickstone Road Licensing ......................................................................................... 17
HARVESTING ............................................................................................................................ 18
5.1
6.0
Wood Supply Requirements ...................................................................................... 12
Regulation of the Annual Allowable Cut ............................................................... 12
ACCESS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 15
4.1
4.2
5.0
General ............................................................................................................................. 7
Public Open House Meetings for 2015/17 OP ...................................................... 7
Manitoba Government Consultation with First Nations ..................................... 9
Public Issues and Concerns Table ............................................................................. 9
Other On-going Public Consultation Processes ................................................... 10
WOOD SUPPLY.......................................................................................................................... 12
3.1
3.2
4.0
Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................ 5
Plan Format ..................................................................................................................... 6
Plan Review Process ..................................................................................................... 6
General ........................................................................................................................... 21
Scarification, Site Preparation and Tree Planting ............................................. 21
Forest Regeneration Monitoring ............................................................................. 21
Stand Tending ............................................................................................................... 22
6.4.1 Vegetation Management ............................................................................... 22
6.4.2 Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Mitigation ........................................................ 22
FOREST MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 23
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
General ........................................................................................................................... 23
Pre-Harvest Forest Investigations .......................................................................... 23
Forest Protection ......................................................................................................... 23
7.3.1 Fire Protection ................................................................................................ 24
7.3.2 Insect and Disease .......................................................................................... 24
Integrated Resource Management .......................................................................... 25
2
8.0
MANAGEMENT OF OPERATION ......................................................................................... 27
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.0
Conservation and Water Stewareship Guidelines and Guidebooks ............... 27
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) ................................................................. 27
Forest Management and Operating Practices ...................................................... 28
Tolko Environmental Management System .......................................................... 28
Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement ........................................................................ 30
OP MONITORING AND REPORTING .................................................................................. 31
9.1
9.2
9.3
General ........................................................................................................................... 31
Forest Management Annual Report ........................................................................ 31
EMS and SFM System Reporting ............................................................................. 32
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – CWS AAC Levels on Open Crown Land for FML Area No. 2 ................................................ 14
Table 2 – Tolko Road Categories ............................................................................................... Appendix 2
Table 3 – Planned and Projected Access Development for FMLA........................................... Appendix 2
Table 4 – Road Development Schedules.................................................................................... Appendix 2
Table 5 – Proposed Company All-Weather Roads Scheduled for Closure in 2015/2017 ........ Appendix 2
Table 6 – Watercourse Crossing Information ........................................................................... Appendix 2
Table 7 – Planned Cutblocks by Forest Section ....................................................................... Appendix 3
Table 8 – Planned Forest Renewal Projects by Forest Section ............................................... Appendix 3
Table 9 – SFM Performance Indicators for the FML Area ..................................................................... 33
3
APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Abbreviation Codes
Appendix 2:
Roads
Table 2
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Appendix 3:
Tolko Road Categories
Planned and Projected Access Development for FMLA
Road Development Schedules
Road Decommissioning Status
Watercourse Crossing Information
Planned Activities
Table 7: Planned Cutblocks for Mountain Forest Section
Planned Cutblocks for Interlake Forest Section
Planned Cutblocks for Saskatchewan River Forest Section
Planned Cutblocks for Highrock Forest Section
Planned Cutblocks for Nelson Forest Section
Table 8: Planned Forest Renewal Projects by Forest Section
Appendix 4:
Public Consultation
Schedule of Public Meetings with Invitation Letter
Outline of Newspaper and Radio Ads for Public Meetings
Public Meeting Agenda
Community Meeting Minutes
Public Issues and Concerns Table
Appendix 5:
Maps
FML Area No. 2
Harvest Plan for Saskatchewan River Forest Section
Harvest Plan for Highrock Forest Section
Harvest Plan for Nelson River Forest Section
Forest Renewal for FML Area No. 2
Forestry Road Inventory Status
Appendix 6:
Cutblock Information Sheets and Aerial Photos
(In Separate Book)
4
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Terms of Reference
The 2015/2017 Operating Plan (also hereafter referred to as the Plan,
Operating Plan, or the OP), has been prepared as per requirements of Section
17 A (i) of the Forest Management License (FML) Agreement dated May 4,
1989 and amended 1995, between Tolko Industries Ltd., Manitoba Solid Wood
Division, (also hereafter referred to as the Company), and the Province of
Manitoba. The preparation of such plans falls within the requirements of The
Forest Act of the Province of Manitoba. The contents of this Plan conform to
the Planning and Submission Requirements for Operating Plans developed by
Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS) Forestry Branch.
Effective January 1, 2003 the Company’s Forest Management Licence (FML)
Area, FML Area No. 2, consists of the area described in Section 8 (A) (i) of the
FML Agreement, as confirmed by correspondence received from the Deputy
Minister, CWS, dated June 27, 2002. The decision by the Province to remove
the Grass River Provincial Park (FMU 60) from the FML became effective
March 31, 2009.
This plan provides details of the activities the Company proposes to undertake
for the management of the forest resource on FML Area No. 2 during the period
of June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017. This plan also provides for planned harvest
areas for third parties operating within FML Area No. 2.
This Plan provides detailed information regarding access development,
harvesting and forest renewal activities planned for the 2015/2016 and
2016/2017 operating years. In addition, projections of access development and
harvesting activities are provided for the period 2017/2018, and operating
areas proposed for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 are identified.
The activities identified in this Plan fall under the direction of Manitoba
Environment Act License No. 2302 ER which was issued to the Company by
Manitoba Environment on December 30, 1997 in approval of the 1997 – 2009
Forest Management Plan (FMP), with subsequent revisions on October 8, 1998
and on January 11, 1999. CWS - Environmental Assessment and Licensing
Branch has extended this License via a License Alteration made pursuant to
clause 14(2)(b) of the Manitoba Environment Act, issued on January 19, 2015.
This extension provides for licensing of the forest management activities
contained in this OP through to December 31, 2019. As stipulated in the
License Alteration all activities proposed in this OP will be conducted in
accordance with the specifications, limits, terms and conditions of Environment
Act License No. 2302 ER as revised January 11, 1999.
A map that illustrates the area encompassed by FML Area No. 2 is provided in
Appendix 5. The mill facilities and offices are located at The Pas, Manitoba.
5
1.2
Plan Format
This plan follows “Manitoba’s Submission Guidelines for Forest Management
Operating Plans” (June 2011) and covers a two year operating period.
Long term strategies for new operating areas and particular wildlife concerns
are being developed by Tolko in conjunction with the IRMTs on a case-by-case
basis subject to priorities, in a separate but complimentary process to the
Operating Plan preparation.
This year the Company has again included as much in block mitigation as is
practical at this stage of the planning process within the Plan. Details related
to the proposed cutblocks including any identified mitigation are provided on
individual cutblock information sheets (Appendix 6). The Plan includes
mitigation detail on 1:15,840 scale photographs of the proposed blocks, and
gross block boundaries, together with broad scale information about other
resource values and users, on 1:180,000 scale Forest Section maps. CWS head
office in Winnipeg will be supplied with a full set of 1:180,000 and 1:350,000
maps and 1:15,840 photographs, Regional offices will receive a copy with the
maps and photographs for their region only.
1.3
Plan Review Process
It is expected that this Plan will be reviewed by CWS on a regional basis by the
Branches of Forestry, Wildlife, Fisheries (Water Stewardship Branch), Lands,
Parks and Natural Areas, and Regional Operations through the Integrated
Resource Management Teams (IRMT) in FML Area No. 2.
Further detailed review of this Plan information will occur with the IRMTs in
conjunction with the submission and approval process for work permits.
Further to the CWS regional review, the CWS Integrated Directors Group
(IDG) will review the Plan from a provincial perspective. The Director of
Forestry will provide a collective CWS response to Tolko as a result of this
process.
The Plan will also be made available to the Canada Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and with Transport Canada, with respect to the Navigable Waters
Protection Act, to facilitate their consideration of activities in the Plan related
to their mandates. The Company will discuss implementation of Plan activities
with these agencies as required.
2.0
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
6
2.1
General
The Company recognizes the key role that public and stakeholder user group
participation plays in forest management on the FML Area. The Company’s
Forest Management Principles, Aboriginal Policy and Environmental Policy,
and the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Plan refer to public
participation as a key element in planning, implementation of operations,
integration of non-timber values, monitoring and reporting. A variety of
mechanisms are used to accommodate the range of public knowledge, varying
interests and levels of involvement desired by participants, and to address both
broad community values and the site specific concerns of individuals and
groups.
For the preparation of the OP, the principle public consultation process that
provides input to plan development is the public open house meeting program.
Commencing in 1992, the Company initiated a public communication program
related to the 1993 OP preparation process. This program has been continued
for the preparation of all subsequent Operating Plans, including this OP. Over
the past several years the Company has refined and further formalized the OP
public consultation process, including changes made in conjunction with the
development and implementation of the Company’s SFM Plan. This was done
to provide a more structured opportunity to provide information about the plan
to the public and to offer the opportunity for feedback.
2.2
Public Open House Meetings for the 2015/2017 OP
Through a series of open house meetings held throughout FML Area No. 2, the
Company provided an opportunity for other forest resource users and members
of the public to become aware of the forest management activities proposed and
to discuss with the Company any interests or concerns that they may have.
These community meetings are consistent with the public and community
consultation provisions of the Manitoba Environment Act License issued for
the 1997-2009 FMP. For this Operating Plan public meetings were held
between January 26th and February 20th, 2015 in Cranberry Portage,
Cormorant, Cross Lake, Flin Flon, Grand Rapids, Easterville, Moose Lake,
Sherridon, Snow Lake, OCN/The Pas, Thompson and Wabowden.
Letters were sent to organizations, groups and individuals on the Company’s
mailing list inviting them to attend these meetings. These organizations
represented a broad range of interests including other members of the forest
industry, other resource users, First Nations and community groups. In
addition to these individual invitations, an open invitation was extended to all
7
members of the general public to attend the meetings held throughout FML
Area No. 2 through local newspaper and radio ads.
These meetings provided an opportunity for those people who have an interest
in the Company’s operations to learn more about activities proposed for each of
the Company's operating districts. They were designed for those in attendance
to discuss their interests and provide input into the Operating Plan prior to its
submission to CWS for approval. The meetings also provided an opportunity to
discuss road development, road closure, access management plans, traditional
knowledge concerns, local plant and wildlife knowledge and any local
community issues relating to forest management activities. The timing of the
public meetings occurred primarily in January to provide for public input in
the planning process.
A copy of the letter of invitation to the Open House meetings and examples of
newspaper ads plus meeting minutes can be found in Appendix 4.
The purpose of the OP public information meetings is to:




Inform the public of the specific forest management activities planned to be
undertaken in the forthcoming two “plan years” and indicate the projected
activities for the subsequent year, and forecast for a total of a five year
period;
Answer questions, seek input and discuss interests and concerns that
resource users and/or the general public may have about the plan and
projected activities;
Discuss any further additional forest management concerns or interests
that the attendees may have; and,
Document in the Issues and Concerns Table any expressed concerns or
interests in review of the plan proposals for consideration prior to plan
completion and submission for approval.
This OP public open house also discussed the process of developing a long
term Forest Management Plan (FMP) and asked for public input on methods
of public participation, values and services obtained from the forest and
important wildlife species to stakeholders.
The OP public open house meetings now include the following agenda
elements:



Information presented on the opportunity for the public to access the
Company’s SFM Plan and a summary of the 1997 – 2009 FMP at
www.tolkomanitoba.com;
Presentation of the developing OP plan under consideration;
Discussion of proposed road development and decommissioning activities;
8








Question and answer period with recorded minutes;
Opportunity for open-house detailed review of planning materials (maps,
etc.) and documented input from participants;
Discussion of any local plant and animal species of interest to the
community;
Other local community interests including non-timber values;
Heritage values;
Opportunity for sharing of Aboriginal forest values including traditional
ecological knowledge from participants;
Presentation of ongoing public consultation processes including the FRAC;
and,
Opportunity to be placed on the Company’s mailing list to receive future
mail out notices of upcoming meetings.
A copy of the agenda can be found in Appendix 4
2.3
Manitoba Government Consultation with First Nations
Given the mandate of the Crown to ensure that consultation with First Nations
occurs for resource management activities, CWS has communicated to the
Company that the Manitoba government will conduct its own First Nation
consultation regarding this 2015/2017 Plan during the spring of 2015.
Additional conditions resulting from this consultation may be provided to the
Company when the plan is approved. Note that the company continues to hold
its own communications with First Nations communities through the open
house, FRAC, Resource Boards and other processes.
2.4
Public Issues and Concerns Table
One of the key mechanisms developed through the SFM Plan process, which
has ongoing application to the OP, is the development and implementation of
a Public Issues and Concerns Table. This provides a mechanism for
documentation of issues brought forward by the public for input, as applicable,
to the planning process. Any such issues and concerns brought forward are
tracked for application to the development of the OP and any subsequent Road
Management Plans.
The Issues and Concerns Table includes input as brought forward during the
OP public meetings:

Documented issues and concerns arising during the Draft Plan presentation
and the question and answer session that remain open issues or require followup in the OP;
9


Documented issues and concerns brought forward to Company staff during the
open-house portion of the meetings as raised by participants in one-on-one
discussions;
Further documented input received in the form of one-on-one enquiries, letters,
emails and phone calls received from the public beyond the open house
meetings
The updated Public Issues and Concerns Table is provided in Appendix 4 to
this OP to document the concerns identified during the public consultation
process and the nature of the party concerned, as available. Issues and
concerns that have been raised are addressed by the Company Area Planner
within the mitigation proposed as applicable for cutblocks in the OP or in the
Road Management Plan as applicable.
Within the table, the Company’s response and action plan for each concern is
documented including situations where a difference in view may prevail. As
noted, concerns brought forward throughout the year will also be documented
in the respective OP Public Concerns Table. This table is also summarized
annually to bring together all concerns raised and how they were addressed for
reporting in the SFM Report.
2.5
Other On-going Public Consultation Processes
In addition to these public open house meetings that are specifically orientated
towards review of the OP, the Company holds meetings periodically, when
invited to do so, with community-based Resource Co-management Boards.
Currently the Resource Co-management Boards that are in place include the
communities of Nelson House, Norway House, OCN, Moose Lake, Cormorant,
and Easterville.
The Company undertakes public communication on an ongoing basis through
resource user consultation with special interest groups, individual
stakeholders and through the FML Area - FRAC established in 1996. The
name of the committee was changed to the Sustainable Forest Management
Committee (SFMC) because of the role the committee had in development and
monitoring of the SFM plan. The SFMC meets several times throughout the
year and discusses pertinent issues related to forest management planning and
operations. The SFMC has included representation from a wide range of
interests across the FML Area including:







Towns’, Municipalities’ and community interests;
Non-timber resource users;
First Nations and Métis;
Education and training;
Manitoba Government;
Environmental Organizations;
FML Area-related Workers; and,
10

Manitoba Timber Sale Operators.
All meeting minutes of the FRAC and SFMC can be found at the Company’s
web site located at www.tolkomanitoba.com.
User group consultation, a particularly key mechanism in development of the
OP, has been on-going for a number of years, including attendance/
presentations to association and group meetings, and one-on-one meetings and
field trips with individual resource stakeholders. These approaches are viewed
as being very valuable to the planning and mitigation process for the OP as
they bring forward local values, knowledge and expertise to assist in
identifying and dealing with specific issues and areas of concern. Information
gathered through such meetings and field trips is documented and utilized in
development of specific mitigation plans.
The final approved version of the 2015/2017 OP will be made available
(including maps) at the Company’s website, and local communities and First
Nations will be advised when it is posted.
11
3.0
WOOD SUPPLY
3.1
Wood Supply Requirements
The Company operates an unbleached kraft pulp and paper mill and a random
length sawmill at The Pas. For the 2015/2016 operating year, the planned
volume of softwood is estimated at 685,000 m3. Acceptable softwood species for
the use of the operations are black spruce, white spruce, jack pine, and to a
limited extent, balsam fir.
Province of Manitoba timber sale operators within FML Area No. 2 hold timber
volume rights as regulated through their respective Timber Sale Agreements
with the Province of Manitoba under the Manitoba Timber Quota System.
These operators may manufacture this timber in their own mill facilities or sell
the timber to other operations. For 2015/2017, there are sufficient blocks in
the plan to meet the volume requirements of the Quota Holders. The Company
projects a portion of this softwood volume will be available for purchase.
3.2
Regulation of the Annual Allowable Cut
The Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is the volume of wood that can be harvested
each year on a sustainable basis and is essentially equal to the volume of wood
that grows from the forest base in one year. Information related to the use of
the CWS Forest Inventory as a basis for the development of the AAC, the
calculation of the AAC, and its application to sustainable forest management
is provided in the FMP.
The AAC by FMU for FML Area No. 2 is presented in Table 1. AAC figures
provided in Table 1 are for total softwood volumes. The total softwood AAC
figures include volumes available for use by the Company as well as for other
operators in FML Area No. 2 including all Province of Manitoba timber sale
operators. Current softwood AAC figures provided for all FMUs are based upon
Level I Utilization according to the CWS Forest Inventory that includes only
softwood stands. The Company has no harvest rights to hardwood on the FML
Area and hardwood planning is the responsibility of CWS. Therefore hardwood
volumes could be harvested by Province of Manitoba timber sale operators from
some FMUs in FML Area No. 2.
Calculated AACs provide for the overall regulation of the total volume
harvested by all operators within each FMU. The regulation of the AAC is
determined and administered by CWS as per their policy “Harvest Control on
Forest Management License Agreement Areas.” Wood volumes planned for
harvest in each FMU are provided in this Operating Plan (see Appendix 3 –
Table 7). Actual volumes harvested from each FMU are then reported to CWS
12
in the Company’s Forest Management Annual Report. This information
provides for the monitoring and regulation of the AAC by CWS.
The FMLA includes the northern portions of FMU 12 and 47. The southern
portions of these FMUs were severed from the FMLA in 2003. With the
completion of the new forest inventory for the Saskatchewan River Forest
Section and FMUs 67 and 68 of the Highrock Forest Section, the remaining
portions of FMU 12 and 47 have now been amalgamated into the Saskatchewan
River Forest Section and FMU boundaries have been modified to reduce the
number of FMUs and to have boundaries follow natural features on the
landscape to the extent possible. As well, all Saskatchewan River and
Highrock Forest Section FMU AACs (excluding FMU 69) have been recalculated and are reflected in Table 1. Volumes listed are in m3 and reflect
the ‘Provincial 8’ log length’ standard of utilization for softwood. Also the
‘INCO Strip’ in the Nelson River Forest Section has been amalgamated back
into the previous FMU alignment as of April 1, 2014 but at this time the AAC
has not been re-allocated back to these FMUs so it remains listed separately.
As indicated in the FMP, the planning target in terms of AAC regulation is to
plan and harvest within the AAC for each FMU on an annual basis, recognizing
that this target may not always be feasible due to access limitations in some
FMUs, timber salvage requirements and other operating constraints (such as
the practicality of harvesting a relatively small AAC from an FMU each year).
For these reasons, it may be necessary at times to exceed the AAC for particular
FMUs in a given year.
During the term of this Plan the Company intends to harvest in excess of the
AAC in one FMU, specifically FMU 50, but others may be added to this list as
the Plan unfolds and changes become necessary. This will be carried out in
compliance with Forestry Branch Circular Dir. 19, “Harvest Control on Forest
Management License Agreement Areas.” Tolko will not be requesting approval
from CWS for any FMUs where harvest will exceed the AAC by less than 10%.
For any FMUs for which single year overcuts take place, the simple average
harvest volumes will be balanced with the AAC by the end of the current cut
control period. The upcoming cut control period runs from April 1, 2015 to
March 31, 2020.
13
Table 1: CWS AAC Levels on Open Crown Land for FML Area No. 2
Forest Section
FMU
Level 1
Softwood
Saskatchewan River
50
53
58
59
Sub – total
Highrock
356,197
671
682
693
Sub – total
Nelson River
Sub – total
Total FML Area No. 2
26,809
103,990
131,910
93,488
379,371
62,206
167,880
609,457
83
84
85
87
89
Inco
190,050
174,600
121,130
115,380
33,050
41,100
675,310
1,640,964
Source: CWS Forestry Branch.
FMU 67- includes all of “old” FMU 61, 62 and portions of “old” FMU 63, 64 & 65
FMU 68- includes portions of “old” FMU 63 & 64
3
FMU 69- includes portions of “old” FMU 64, 65 & 66
1
2
14
4.0
ACCESS DEVELOPMENT
4.1
General
Access development is necessary in the management of the timber resource to
provide the on-going wood requirements for the mills while balancing the
harvest within the individual FMU AAC volumes. This access development
involves, but is not limited to, clearing of road right-of-ways, upgrading of
existing roads and the construction of new roads, watercourse crossings and
rail sidings.
As with the operations of the Company, the Third Party operators on FML Area
No. 2 require access development to their operating areas throughout FML
Area No. 2. Third Party operators are responsible for the construction,
maintenance and management of their own access roads.
For consistency the access roads projected for use by Third Parties are
described using the same planning categories as those used for the Company
roads.
4.2
Summary of Access Development
For planning purposes, the Company categorizes roads used in its forest
management operations as described in Appendix 2 – Table 2.
Access development activities related to all-weather road construction and
main seasonal roads planned for 2015 - 2017are summarized in Appendix 2 Table 3. Planned and projected access development and previously established
roads and rail sidings are illustrated on the maps provided in Appendix 5.
4.2.1 All-weather Roads
For each planned and projected all-weather road to be established in 2015 2017, a description of the schedule of road development activities and related
information is provided in Appendix 2 – Table 4. Information includes:
 Tolko road category
 Schedule of Activity

- right-of-way clearing
- construction
Location of watercourse crossings
15
4.2.2 Main Seasonal Roads
For main seasonal roads to be established in 2015 - 2017, a description of the
expected use is also provided in Appendix 2 – Table 4. Information includes:
 Tolko Road Category
 Plan and/or projection year(s) to be used
 Road distance
4.2.3 Watercourse Crossings
For each planned and projected watercourse crossing related to the planned
and projected all-weather roads (2015 - 2017), a watercourse crossing data form
is provided in Appendix 2 – Table 6. Information includes:







Crossing location
Government contacts
Site description
Watercourse uses
Proposed structure
Mitigation
Abandonment Plan
The Company will comply with processes outlined by Fisheries and Oceans
Canada when establishing watercourse crossings.
Before construction of a navigable water crossing, the Company will provide
detailed information to Transport Canada as required under the Navigation
Protection Act.
4.3
Road Management Planning
To assist in the integration and management of non-timber resources, the
Company will continue to develop road management plans in conjunction with
CWS as areas are developed for harvesting and renewal activities. Road
management plans can include the type of access (e.g. winter vs. all weather),
access control measures, and the closure of roads when Company operations
are complete.
For new roads identified in this plan, the Company will work with the IRMTs
to develop road management plans for these specific roads. In addition, as
determined from discussions with the IRMTs, the Company will work with
16
CWS on road management plans for existing roads (or road systems) that are
currently required by the Company.
As noted in Section 2.2 the public meetings on this Operating Plan provided
an opportunity to generally discuss road development and management plans.
Specific road management plans will be developed on an ongoing basis outside
of the Operating Plan process.
Tolko and CWS have identified a number of Company-built roads which are or
will soon no longer be required for harvesting or basic silviculture access. A list
of the roads under review is included in the OP public open house meeting
agenda included in Appendix 4. This road list was discussed at the public
meetings. The Company and CWS will jointly develop a strategy for these
roads on an individual basis that could include permanent or temporary
decommissioning, transfer of responsibility or access restriction.
Proposed road decommissioning and roads that have been decommissioned, as
well as associated watercourse crossings have been included in this OP.
Proposed and already decommissioned roads are illustrated on the Forestry
Road Inventory Status map provided in Appendix 5. In summary, these roads
are listed in Appendix 2 - Table 5. Tolko will continue to work with the IRMTs
using public consultation processes as needed to develop mitigation for Forest
Road Development Plans (FRDPs) on an on-going basis as needed input and
supporting information becomes available.
Specific details pertaining to the management of seasonal roads developed to
access cutblocks and the management of specific cutblock roads are outlined in
the Cutblock Information Sheets included in Appendix 6. Such road
management prescriptions will be put in place in consultation with CWS.
4.4
Dickstone Road Licensing
The company received an Environment Act license on August 12, 2009 to
construct a road linking the Chisel Lake road with PTH 39. Road construction
has been proceeding and will continue to proceed as set out by the terms of that
license.
17
5.0
HARVESTING
5.1
Summary of Wood Supply Sources
5.1.1 Softwood Harvest and Purchase
For the 2015/2016 operating year, the total softwood volume planned from the
FML Area for Company use is estimated at 685,000 m³. The cutblocks proposed
in this Plan including those for the third parties included in this Plan are
illustrated on the Summary Forest Section Harvest Maps for the 2015/2017
plan period and the 2017/2018 plan years (Appendix 5). General areas
proposed for operation in years 4 (2018/2019) and 5 (2019/2020) are also noted
on the maps as projections.
Appendix 3 – Table 7 provides a listing of all proposed cutblocks and
summarizes the volumes for each FMU. Sufficient cutblocks are presented to
match the full AAC level for most FMUs.
Further to the summary information provided in Appendix 3 – Table 7, more
detailed information is provided for each cutblock on Cutblock Information
Sheets provided in Appendix 6. For proposed 2015/2017 and contingency
cutblocks, each sheet provides forest resource information as well as the
mitigation strategy to be implemented to integrate other resource values for
the area. Detailed mapped information related to mitigation for the 2015/2017
plan blocks, and any contingency blocks, is illustrated on the individual
1:15,840 scale aerial photos (accompanying the Cutblock Information Sheets).
The Cutblock Information Sheet, together with the details mapped on the
aerial photograph provides the overall forest management and mitigation for
each cutblock.
In September 2009, CWS published a new manual “Forest Management
Guidelines For Riparian Management Areas”. In January 2010, CWS
published a new manual “Forest Management Guidelines For Terrestrial
Buffers”. These guidelines have been implemented in the mitigation of the
blocks included in this Operating Plan, or are being applied in the submission
of the work permit.
5.1.2 Third Party Operations
Province of Manitoba timber sale operators have individual timber allocation
agreements with the Province of Manitoba independent of Tolko Industries
Ltd. Timber sale blocks are illustrated on the maps provided in Appendix 5.
Timber volumes associated with timber sale operators are regulated through
18
their respective Timber Sale Agreements with the Province of Manitoba under
the Manitoba Timber Quota System.
The Company expects to purchase a portion of its softwood requirements from
Province of Manitoba timber sale operators included in this Plan. These
purchase volumes will be obtained from cutblocks included within the listing
outlined in Appendix 3 – Table 7.
Timber sale operations are market driven. They produce mine timber, lumber
and tongue and groove planks for flooring. Usually the desired material for
these products is not found in just one or two stands; therefore, to accommodate
their needs, a number of blocks are shown on Athapap Road in FMU 59 (as well
as Payuk Lake and Albert’s Lake areas in FMU 67) which, if completely
harvested, would exceed the AAC. In reality these blocks are expected to be
harvested over several years. Supervision of the CWS timber sale operators
falls to CWS. The actual volume harvested will be limited to the available AAC
by CWS unless CWS has approved harvesting in excess of the AAC.
In compliance with the FML Agreement, the Company provides the
Government of Manitoba with reports detailing the volumes of wood delivered
to the Company from each FMU. CWS tracks the volume of wood used by third
parties and supplies the information to the Company for reporting. Total
volumes of wood harvested and delivered for 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 will be
reported to CWS in the Company’s Forest Management Annual Reports. This
information will provide the data necessary to monitor the regulation of the
AAC.
5.1.3 Log Stockpile Sites
A large portion of the wood harvested in the FML Area occurs during the winter
months. In some instances wood needs to be moved over a short period of time
from the winter cut areas to stockpile sites where logs will be processed and
delivered to the mill at a later date. Stockpile sites that may be utilized in
2015/2017 include:

Nelson River Forest Section
Massan Spur
Radar Spur
Pipun Spur
Wabowden
Birch Tree

(Twp 76 Rge 02W)
(Twp 72 Rge 03W)
(Twp 67 Rge 09W)
(Twp 68 Rge 08W)
(Twp 77 Rge 03 W)
Highrock Forest Section
Blueberry
Jungle Lake Spur
Hobbit
(Twp 68 Rge 27W)
(Twp 71 Rge 23W)
(Twp 70 Rge 27/28W)
19
Buzz Lake
Ballpark

(Twp 65 Rge 16W)
(Twp 69 Rge 7W)
Saskatchewan River Forest Section
Freshford
Crossing Bay Km 51
17/18W)
Crossing Bay DW-15
Dolomite
(Twp 56 Rge 26W)
(Twp
58
Rge
(Twp 56 Rge 21W)
(Twp 64 Rge 20 W)
In addition, in some operating areas chipperwood may be consolidated within
individual cutblocks.
5.2
Contingency Planning
As part of the planning process it is important that allowance be made for
potential factors which are not fully known at the time the Plan is prepared to
ensure access to the timber resource. Such factors can include, but are not
limited to, weather conditions, mill product markets, contractor efficiency,
effects of forest fire, insect and disease outbreaks, and operational factors such
as unforeseen mitigation requirements put in place as the Plan is
implemented.
Some contingency areas have been indicated for 2015/2017 for specific areas in
order to accommodate for potential circumstances as described above. Blocks
identified as contingencies are identified on the maps provided in Appendix 5.
A description of the purpose of the contingency blocks and the 1:15,840 photo
is included in the Cutblock Information Sheets provided in Appendix 6.
5.3
Roadside Delimbing
The Company will continue to seek approval to roadside delimb where it makes
sense from both an economic and silviculture point-of-view.
5.4
Salvage Opportunity
There are no salvage opportunities existing at the time this plan was prepared.
The company would be willing to investigate any salvage opportunity arising
over the operating period and submit an amendment if an economical use for
the fibre can be found.
20
6.0
FOREST RENEWAL
6.1
General
In compliance with Section 22, paragraph (F) of the FML Agreement, forest
renewal activities to be undertaken in 2015/2017 are presented in this Plan.
Site specific details, in combination with the reforestation treatment options
selected, will dictate the year in which a specific forest renewal activity will
take place. As a result, forest renewal activities planned for 2015/2017 will
occur on sites that may be harvested in 2015/2017 or have been harvested in
previous years.
Forest renewal activities planned for 2015/2017 are described in Appendix 3 –
Table 8 for each cutblock planned to receive forest renewal treatment in
2015/2017, a description of the treatment(s) is provided by FMU. Information
provided includes:




Scarification/site preparation - type of equipment and area (ha)
Planting - species, number of trees and area (ha)
Leave for natural treatments have been assigned to certain blocks
Vegetation management (herbicide) area (ha)
Not all the basic renewal treatments for this OP are covered in Table 8 as
planting and scarification activities in 2016 will depend to a great extent on
the actual harvest areas that are cut in 2016/2017. There are sufficient
treatment blocks included to complete planned herbicide activities in the entire
planning period.
The silvicultural procedures that are scheduled in the 2015/2017 Operating
Plan are fully described in the FMPOPs.
6.2
Scarification, Site Preparation and Tree Planting
Planned scarification, site preparation and tree planting areas are summarized
in Appendix 3 – Table 8 and locations are presented on the Summary Forest
Section Maps (Appendix 5).
6.3
Forest Regeneration Monitoring
Forest regeneration surveys will be conducted on blocks harvested in 2007 or
earlier to ensure sufficient stocking is present and identify areas requiring
follow up treatments. Free to grow surveys will be performed on blocks cut
around 1999 to confirm that they meet government standards or identify
further treatments needed to achieve that status.
A combination of
21
conventional ground surveys and aerial evaluation surveys will be used in the
planning year.
6.4
Stand Tending
6.4.1 Vegetation Management
In order to ensure that conifer stands are not suppressed by excessive
hardwood competition a program to release stands by aerial herbicide is
planned for fall 2015 and 2016. An aerial application of the herbicide
glyphosate will be applied where hardwood competition is most serious.
6.4.2 Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Mitigation
As described in section 7.3.2 sanitation procedures to mitigate dwarf mistletoe
infections in regenerating stands will be implemented as they are discovered.
In 2015/2017 blocks will be assessed for sanitation requirements and treated
as required based on PHFI surveys and information gathered during ongoing
operations.
22
7.0
FOREST MANAGEMENT
7.1
General
Within the context of this Plan, forest management includes activities related
to forest inventory, forest protection, integrated resource management and
forest renewal activities including stand tending. The following is an overview
of the proposed 2015/2017 forest management activities for FML Area No. 2.
The Company has assumed forest renewal responsibilities for all areas
harvested after January 1, 1989 where the volume harvested was subsequently
delivered to the Company. The Company ensures that all areas harvested by
Company and contractor operations on FML Area No. 2 as well as by Province
of Manitoba timber sale operators who are included in this Plan and who sell
their wood to the Company are reforested. Forest renewal of any remaining
areas harvested by timber sale operators is the responsibility of the Province of
Manitoba. In consideration of this agreement, it is the Company's intention to
ensure complete reforestation, to the required Government standards.
Actual forest renewal activities which occur in this Plan will be reported to CWS
in the Company’s Forest Management Annual Report.
7.2
Pre-Harvest Forest Investigations
In preparation for future harvest planning, the Company undertakes preharvest forest investigations. As outlined in the Company FMPOPs, the
purpose of the pre-harvest forest investigations is to:









7.3
Confirm suitability of area for harvest
Determine silviculture renewal prescriptions and season of harvest
Identify/confirm access requirements
Identify any mitigation concerns
Collect wildlife and habitat information
Collect data to forecast wood flow
Document unique and important features including vulnerable,
threatened, rare and endangered species
Identify non-timber forest uses
Identify forest health concerns
Forest Protection
The roles of the Company and the Province of Manitoba with respect to forest
protection are defined in Clause 23 of the FML Agreement. In summary,
Manitoba is responsible to provide forest protection services including
protection against fire, insects and disease on areas within FML Area No. 2.
23
7.3.1 Fire Protection
The Company’s annual Fire Suppression Plan will be provided to CWS prior to
the start of each fire season. This plan will provide details of the location,
training and equipment of the Company's contractors. These resources will be
made available for prevention, detection and suppression of forest fires when
required. The Company will provide CWS with an up-to-date map of any inbush timber inventories and stock pile sites, with the Fire Plan.
The Company will augment the fire detection operations of CWS in areas of the
FML Area in which Company personnel are working. The Company will
immediately report all fires discovered by their personnel to CWS.
For its part, the Company has and will continue to develop and enforce rules
and regulations regarding forest fire prevention for its employees in their work
environment. The Company will maintain its focus on enforcing the Tolko
Industries Ltd. Industrial Forest Operations Equipment Standard, and will
continue to apply the Company's Forest Operation Modification Guidelines
system, which determines forest operation restrictions according to the fire
hazard.
7.3.2 Insect and Disease
Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe is a parasitic plant infecting jack pine in some
areas of the FML Area. In areas of severe infection, large volume losses can
occur before the stand reaches merchantable size. In order to prevent the
spread of this parasitic plant into regenerating pine stands, the Company may
perform sanitation operations during the harvesting and renewal operations on
high-risk sites. These control measures generally involve removal of infected
pine within the block boundaries and reducing the number of infected trees at
the stand edge. Buffers of resistant species may also be established along the
periphery of cutblocks to reduce the risk of infecting the newly established
stand. The requirement for disease sanitation may conflict with other forest
management goals, such as line of sight and understorey protection.
A similar pest, eastern dwarf mistletoe, can infest black spruce. This mistletoe
occurs in serious levels occasionally in FMU 12 and is treated in a similar
manner.
Request to exempt wildlife guidelines and to initiate follow-up manual
sanitation will be identified as conditions are identified at the harvesting stage
of operations. Occasionally effected areas are located during harvest, in which
case these requests could be made to the supervising NRO. FMUs most likely
to be affected include 50, 53 and 58.
In addition, as with other identified insect and disease situations on the FML
Area, Tolko will notify CWS of any identified incidences of the Mountain Pine
24
Beetle where they are found during Pre-harvest Forest Investigation or other
field activities.
Tolko will continue to communicate with CWS to assist in prioritizing areas for
the provincial spruce budworm spray program in the Saskatchewan River and
Highrock Forest Sections.
7.4
Integrated Resource Management
The integration of non-timber resources will continue to be an important
component of the Company’s forest management activities. Planning and
operations staff work with a variety of operational guidelines, CWS staff and
other resource users to ensure these values are considered within the context
of forest management planning and operations.
Directly tied to the development of the Operating Plan are the Pre-Harvest
Forest Investigations discussed earlier. The purpose of these surveys is to
collect information pertinent to the development of the operating plan including
specific information related to integrating non-timber resources.
The Company has developed a series of Standard Operating Practices (SOP) as
part of its Environmental Management System (EMS). Applicable SOPs have
been reviewed with contractors to help protect areas such as water and soil.
As described earlier, the public consultation process and the associated
application of the Public Issues and Concerns Table for documenting and
tracking progress on expressed concerns provides an important mechanism to
assist the Company in integration of other non-timber concerns within the OP
development process. This process enables the Company to bring together such
concerns as they arise from a variety of public consultation mechanisms to have
them on-hand and available for planning. Through the SFM Annual Report,
progress on this work is tracked.
The management of access is an important aspect of protecting non-timber
resources. Road management plans for Company roads will be further
developed in 2015/2017 and built on the work conducted jointly with CWS and
the information provided in Section 3.0 of this plan. These plans will be
developed with the CWS Regional IRMTs, will include road strategies for
individual roads or road systems and will incorporate a community consultation
process.
The Company will continue to work with CWS on the development of strategies
to mitigate woodland caribou habitat concerns for the caribou herds in the FML
Area. This will include working cooperatively with the IRMT on an on-going
basis.
As part of its management of harvest operations, the Company will establish
an agreed upon buffer to be retained along boundaries of provincial parks. In
25
addition, such potential concerns are also addressed through the Project
Tailgate Checklist process within the EMS where block boundaries are
reviewed with contractors.
Tolko supports the work done by the Speleological Society of Manitoba in their
efforts to locate and mark the many sinkholes in the Grand Rapids area. The
Company will work with the local harvesting contractors to raise their
awareness in the importance to protect the sinkhole and cave entrances from
possible equipment damage.
The Company continues to participate in a number of partnership initiatives
related to integrated resource management. These initiatives include: the
Forest Practices Committee and Manitoba Silviculture Technical Committee.
As in the past, Company representatives will participate in industry and
association workshops and seminars that focus on management practices
addressing resource concerns relative to forest management activities.
The Company intends to pursue landscape level natural disturbance emulation
through its harvest and renewal strategy for ongoing operations and future
plans.
26
8.0
MANAGEMENT OF OPERATION
8.1
Conservation and Water Stewardship Guidelines and Guidebooks
In development of mitigation for road development, harvesting and renewal
operations, Tolko makes use of appropriate guidance as provided by the CWS
guidelines and guidebooks. The Company wishes to remain involved in ongoing
review and update processes for such guidelines as they evolve to meet the
needs of forest management for the province.
8.2
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
The Canadian Standard Association (CSA) is a not-for-profit membership based
association serving business, industry, government and consumers in Canada
and the global marketplace. CSA has developed over 2,000 standards for
various industries. In 1996, a CSA forestry standard was developed in Canada.
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) refers to the way a forest is managed to
maintain and enhance the long-term health of forest ecosystems for current and
future generations. The CSA SFM standard requires the Company to (a) seek
comprehensive and continuing public participation, (b) adherence at the local
forest level to the best suite of broadly accepted Canadian forest values
generated to date, (c) ensure the CSA standard has system requirements that
are consistent with ISO 14001 and (d) practice continual improvement and
adaptive management.
The Company initiated the CSA SFM process in early 2003 and with the help of
a CSA public advisory committee, a CSA SFM Plan was completed in August
2004. The CSA SFM Plan includes 48 performance indicators that cover
harvesting, road development, forest renewal, compliance with work permit
conditions and legislation/regulations. Some of the indicators were established
to provide baseline information and a basis for refinement of indicators in the
future. In October 2004 the CSA SFM Plan was successfully certified to the
CAN/CSA Z809-02 standard. Annual third party audits are required to
maintain this standard.
The CSA standard Z809-08 has replaced the older Z809-02 standard which the
Company was initially registered under. The Company, through the SFM
committee, revised the SFM plan in 2012 to meet the new requirements.
The latest external surveillance audit on the Company’s SFM System in
meeting the requirements of the CSA SFM Z809:2008 Standard was conducted
in October 2014. The audit found that the management system of Tolko
Manitoba continues to be suitable and effective and was recommended for
registration to CAN/CSA-SFM-Z809:2008.
The implementation strategies that have been documented in the SFM Plan
provide the Company with direction for working towards achieving the targets
that have been established for each indicator in the SFM performance
framework.
27
A copy of the CSA SFM Plan and the audit summary can be found at
www.tolkomanitoba.com.
8.3
Forest Management and Operating Practices (FMPOPs)
The legislation and government guidelines that pertain to the FML Area
provide the overall legal framework for implementing forest management.
The Company’s Forest Management Planning and Operating Practices
(FMPOPs), developed in association with the preparation of the 1997-2009 FMP
to document the processes for implementation of the Plan, document the
processes and practices to be followed by the Company and contractors in
undertaking forest management activities on the FML Area. In addition the
Company developed the Forest Management Planning and Operating Practices
Operators Guide (updated in 2012) for use in training and educating Company
and contractor staff, employees and workers in the key field components of the
FMPOPs and for providing operational procedures for their implementation.
The Operators Guide is reviewed with contractors at the Annual Woodlands
Meeting. In addition, updated versions of the Operators Guide are attached as
an appendix to the standard contract issued to each contractor.
8.4
Tolko Environmental Management System (EMS)
Developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and
recognized worldwide, ISO 14001 is a system of standards that provide the
structure and third-party certification of environmental management. Once an
Environmental Management System (EMS) has been developed, it forms the
base level from which the company can seek certification of its environmental
performance.
The EMS put into place by the Company is a method of organizing and
managing the Company’s environmental performance and provides a structured
process for continuously improving this performance over time. The foundation
of the EMS is the Company’s environmental policy, which is a statement of its
intentions and commitments with respect to environmental performance. The
Company has identified significant environmental risks that are part of the
operations and has developed procedures and tracking systems that will ensure
continual improvement around these areas. In summary the EMS uses the
continuum of establishing a policy, planning, implementation, operation,
checking, corrective action and management review. In 2002 the Company
initiated an Environmental Management System across the FML Area.
In November 2002, the Company was successfully certified to the ISO 14001
standard. To maintain this standard the Company is audited each year by an
independent third party.
The Company’s EMS includes Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
necessary to ensure conformance with the EMS and CSA SFM objectives and
28
targets.
Standard Operating Procedures and other operational control
mechanisms (forms, etc.) have been implemented to make sure that activities
are undertaken consistent with all applicable legal and guideline requirements
for the FML Area and the requirements of SFM. In addition, on-going and
newly developed programs such as training seminars, development of
guidelines, development of new systems (such as road monitoring) and other
processes are undertaken within the EMS and SFM Systems as part of the
commitment to continual improvement.
A key component of the EMS and the SFM System is the need to ensure that
the requirements of the EMS and SFM for the FML Area are communicated and
documented with contractors and suppliers to ensure that they understand the
requirements of the EMS and CSA SFM that apply to them. Annual review is
undertaken with all relevant contractors with information on all key concepts,
issues, obligations and procedures of the EMS and SFM Systems that are
appropriate to contracted activities as documented on the Contractor
Orientation Record (COR). Additional follow-up with contractors occurs at the
pre-work stage through a “tailgate” meeting and completion of a Project Tailgate
Checklist which includes review of pertinent OP and work permit conditions for
operation of the block. On-going inspections are undertaken throughout the
implementation of operations with results captured for follow-up and reporting
using Operations Inspections Forms. The Project Tailgate Checklist and
Operations Inspections are of particular relevance in the implementation of the
OP and provide a framework for ongoing follow-up of the activities which have
been planned in this document.
The EMS is used as the system mechanism to ensure compliance of the
Company with respect to planning and operating in accordance with the
specifications, limits, terms and conditions of the Environment Act License No.
2302 ER, issued December 30, 1997, and revised January 11, 1999. The EMS
continues to provide the system framework for the Company in operating in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Environment Act License No.
2302 ER through the extended license term granted to December 31, 2019, and
for any further license term extensions that will be necessary.
Manitoba Timber Sale Operators are licensed independently and directly by the
Manitoba Government. These operators are required to fully comply with all
legislation, regulations and government guidelines. To increase the overall
knowledge and awareness of the Manitoba Timber Sale Operators on the FML
Area the Company has provided all relevant SOPs and Operator Guides to these
operators. A number of these operators also conduct activities under contract
to the Company on the FML Area as contractors. In these roles the operator is
directed and managed under the Company’s EMS and SFM Plan.
29
8.5
Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement
In 2010 Tolko became signatory to the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement
(CBFA), a groundbreaking partnership with 21 forestry companies and 9
national environmental organizations. The agreement has 6 strategic goals as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Develop world class sustainable forest management practices.
Complete the network of protected areas that represent the diversity of
ecosystems within the boreal forest.
Protect species at risk in the boreal forest with emphasis on woodland
caribou.
Improve the prosperity of the forest sector and communities that rely on
it.
Recognition by the marketplace of the Canadian forest sector.
Tolko is active as a participant on the Manitoba-Saskatchewan working group
which is focused on goals 2 and 3 regionally. The remaining goals are the focus
of national level working groups.
30
9.0
OP MONITORING AND REPORTING
9.1
General
In compliance with FML Agreement and CWS requirements, the Company
maintains harvest, renewal and regeneration records for the FML Area through
the GIS. These records are also utilized by the Company to maintain the forest
inventory for the FML Area up-dated with respect to forest management
activities. Forest renewal monitoring and measurement includes the use of
CWS certified regeneration surveys to track the success or need for further
renewal work for all areas harvested.
From the data collected for harvesting, and renewal, annual summaries are
produced each year to summarize harvest and renewal activity for a given
harvest year.
The continuing operation of the SFMC is viewed as an important component of
the overall public consultation and monitoring program of the Company.
Through on-going interaction with this committee the Company is committed to
review planning and operations to seek input, review findings and to take
corrective action when necessary.
9.2
Forest Management Annual Report
The Forest Management Annual Report is prepared and submitted to CWS
annually as required by the FML Agreement. The report is provided each year
to report on the forest management activities conducted on the FML Area
during the preceding year. A key component of this report is to provide
assessment and reporting on actual activities that were conducted as compared
to those planned in the OP for the same period.
Information presented in the Forest Management Annual Report includes:












Manufacturing facility production
Wood fibre supply in terms of harvesting and deliveries
Regulation of the AAC
Stumpage dues collection
Province of Manitoba timber dues collection
Forest renewal activities
Status of the Manitoba Environment Act License
Access development
Planning and reporting
Forest protection
Integrated resource management
Public communication
A follow-up meeting is held between the Company and CWS to review the
findings of the Report. The Forest Management Annual report is posted to the
Company’s public forest management website at www.tolkomanitoba.com.
31
9.3
EMS and SFM System Reporting
The Company is committed to monitoring and measurement of environmental
performance relating to the EMS, including the measurement of SFM
performance for the FML Area. Monitoring and measurement of indicators of
SFM for the FML Area is a crucial part of checking and corrective action leading
to continual improvement.
Assessment of the SFM performance indicators is undertaken according to the
program outlined in the indicator fact sheets provided in the SFM Plan.
Measurements in terms of levels observed for each indicator are recorded and
compared to the target that has been established as part of the performance
framework. Findings are documented along with any variances from the target
levels in the Annual SFM Report. The resulting assessment of the performance
indicators will be utilized to identify where progress is being made towards
achieving SFM Plan objectives. The Annual SFM Report is posted to the
Company’s public forest management website at www.tolkomanitoba.com.
All public consultation programs conducted each year for the OP will be
summarized in the SFM Report. This summary will include a compilation of
the concerns brought forward to the Company and the respective response of
the Company to each concern (Public Issues and Concerns Table). In addition,
this summary will indicate and reference the number of instances where plans
were modified or jointly developed with other stakeholders or communities in
response to public consultation findings.
A number of the indicators, as listed in the table below relate to the development
and implementation of elements of the OP, including:




Regulation of the AAC;
Forest renewal success;
Adherence to work permits and SOPs; and,
The role of public consultation.
32
Table 9:
SFM Performance Indicators for the FML Area
Indicator
1.1.1.1.1
1.1.2.1.1
1.1.3.1.1
1.1.4.1.1
1.1.4.1.2
1.2.1.1.1
1.2.2.1.1
1.2.2.2.1
1.2.3.1.1
1.2.3.1.2
1.3.1.1.1
1.4.1.1.1
1.4.1.1.2 A/B
1.4.2.1.1
1.4.2.2.1
2.1.1.1.1
2.2.1.1.1
A/B/C
2.2.1.1.2 A/B
2.2.1.1.3
2.2.1.1.4
2.2.1.1.5
2.2.1.1.6
2.2.2.1.1
3.1.1.1.1
A/B/C
3.1.1.1.2 A/B
3.1.1.1.3
3.1.1.1.4
Indicator Name
Forest cover composition of reforested cutover areas
Harvest levels in cubic metres as compared to the AAC
Abundance of residual stand structure
Amount and distribution of coarse woody debris
Woodland caribou habitat for priority Herds
Woodland caribou habitat for priority Herds
Staff awareness of current SARA and MESA lists for DFA
Proportion of regeneration comprised of native species
Percentage of areas planted with stock from the same or approved government seed zone
Percentage of harvest blocks subject to Pre-harvest Forest Investigation (PHFI) surveys
Protected Areas and ASIs recognized in forest management plans (FMP and AOP)
Proposed all-weather roads reviewed for the potential for the occurrence of heritage resources
Reforestation success
Limit extent and duration of in-block seasonal roads and landings
3.1.2.1.1
3.2.1.1.1
3.2.1.1.2
3.2.1.1.3
4.1.1.1.1
4.1.1.1.2
4.1.1.1.3
4.2.1.1.1 A/B
4.2.1.1.2
A/B/C
4.2.1.1.3
5.1.1.1.1
5.1.1.1.2
5.1.1.1.3
5.1.1.2.1
Amount of area in all-weather roads (Categories 1 & 2) in place at any given time
Harvest blocks are regenerated as soon as possible
Provision of information on insects and disease to MC for the DFA
Company caused forest fires
Recurrence mistletoe infections in regenerating stands
Adherence to work permit conditions and Tolko SOPs guiding Tolko and contractor forestry
operations on the DFA including those pertaining to rutting, protection of non-timber values, and for
operations adjacent to watercourses including buffers and the handling and storage of fuels,
lubricants and herbicides
Amount and distribution of coarse woody debris
Proportion of watershed or water management areas with recent stand-replacing disturbance
Condition of stream crossings and roadways in terms of erosion control
Net carbon uptake
Reforestation success
Level of awareness of Woodlands staff of effects of unnecessary vehicle idling
Documentation of public consultation process followed, communities consulted, concerns raised and
strategies/mitigation developed to address concerns of local Aboriginal and other communities and
non-timber resource users within forest management plans for the DFA (FMP, AOP, Road
Management Plans)
33
Indicator
5.1.2.1.1
5.1.2.1.2
5.1.3.1.1
5.1.4.1.1 A/B
5.2.1.1.1
5.2.2.1.1
5.2.2.1.2
5.2.2.1.3
5.2.3.1.1
5.2.4.1.1
5.2.4.1.2
6.1.1.1.1
6.1.1.1.2
6.1.2.1.1
6.1.3.1.1
6.2.1.1.1
6.3.1.1.1
6.3.1.1.2
6.3.2.1.1
6.3.2.1.2
6.3.3.1.1
6.3.3.1.2
6.4.1.1.1
6.4.2.1.1
6.4.3.1.1
6.5.1.1.1
6.5.2.1.1
6.5.3.1.1
6.5.3.1.2
6.5.3.1.3
6.5.3.2.1
Indicator Name
Proposed all-weather roads reviewed for the potential for the occurrence of heritage resources
Protected Areas recognized in forest management plans (FMP and AOP)
Extent of local involvement in forest operations in the DFA
Tolko understanding and practices based upon current and emerging knowledge and recommended
practices
Training and awareness opportunities for contractors on the DFA
Level of investment in training and skills development
Management Plans)
Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation in
general
Percentage of Woodlands staff who have participated in Aboriginal, treaty rights and cultural
awareness sessions
Management Plans)
Management Plans)
Management Plans)
Management Plans)
Evidence that the organization has co-operated with other forest-dependent businesses, forest users,
and the local community to strengthen and diversify the local economy
Evidence of co-operation with DFA-related workers and their unions to improve and enhance safety
standards, procedures, and outcomes in all DFA-related workplaces and affected communities
Evidence of co-operation with DFA-related workers and their unions to improve and enhance safety
standards, procedures, and outcomes in all DFA-related workplaces and affected communities.
Evidence that a worker safety program has been implemented and is periodically reviewed and
improved.
Evidence that a worker safety program has been implemented and is periodically reviewed and
improved.
Degree of satisfaction with the public participation component of the planning process
Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation in general
Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation for
Aboriginal communities
Number of people reached through educational outreach
Availability of summary information on issues of concern to the public
Training and awareness opportunities for contractors on the DFA
Tolko understanding and practices based upon current and emerging knowledge and recommended
practices
Training members of the Forest Resource Advisory Committees (FRAC) and the SFM Committee
Access of the broad public to information on SFM, FMP and AOP plans and related public
participation processes
34
In addition, the SFM System for the FML Area is assessed utilizing the EMS
audit process. These system audits will be utilized to determine the adequacy
of the Tolko EMS and the SFM System developed for the FML Area as compared
to the requirements of the CSA Z809-08 and ISO 14001 Standards. The process
improvement and management review processes within the EMS will be applied
to the review and continual improvement process as it applies to the SFM
System for the FML Area.
Procedures for identifying and resolving non-conformances and noncompliances on contractor operations are identified in the EMS and the COR.
This process includes discussion and documentation of the consequences of nonconformance, including potential termination of the contract and/or fines. The
roles and responsibilities of contractors to meet SFM requirements are
identified in the EMS Manual. Any non-conformances or non-compliances will
be addressed through corrective and preventative actions as described in the
process improvement procedure set out in the EMS.
The EMS continues to be used to monitor the progress of the Company with
respect to planning and operating in accordance with the specifications, limits,
terms and conditions of the Environment Act License No. 2302 ER, through the
extended license term granted to December 31, 2019, and for any further license
term extensions that will be necessary.
35
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
ABBREVIATION CODES
Appendix 1: Abbreviation Codes used in the Tables and Cutblock
Information Sheets
The following codes are utilized in the tables and the Cutblock Information Sheets to
conserve space as required:
1.
2.
Season
W
SP
SM
F
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Tree Species
BS
WS
JP
BF
L
TA
BP
WB
Black Spruce
White Spruce
Jack Pine
Balsam Fir
Larch
Trembling Aspen
Balsam Poplar
White Birch
3.
Scarification/Site Preparation Treatment
AC
Anchor Chain
SF
Shark Finned Barrels and Chains
RT
Ripper Tooth Plough
DT
Disc Trencher
NM
No Mechanical Treatment (followed by planting)
NATREGEN
Natural Regeneration following harvest
4.
Stand Tending Treatment
CR
- Chemical Release of Softwood
5.
Cutblock Name
AB
AC
AF
AL
AP
AR
AX
BC
BE
BF
BG
BI
BJ
BL
BM
BP
BN
Albe
Antler Corner
Affleck
Alberts Lake
Ashmal Point
Armit River
Axis Lake
Birch River
Bellsite
Buffalo Lake
Buckingham Lake
Big Island
Bellsite Flats
Batty Lake
Big Muddy
Burntwood Penn.
Bluenose
BQ
BR
BS
BT
BZ
CB
CC
CE
CH
CK
CL
CP
CT
DA
DB
DL
DN
DO
DP
DU
DV
DW
EA
EG
EI
ER
ES
ET
GM
GR
GS
GU
GY
HB
HC
HG
HM
HO
HT
HY
IM
JL
JN
JO
KI
KK
KL
KN
Barkman Lake
Bracken
Bess
Bignell North
Buzz
Cross Bay
Clarke Creek
Cedar
Charles
Chitek
Claw Lake
Collins Point
Carrot
Dave Adams
Dawson Bay
Dismal Lake
Davidson
Dolomite
Dancing Point
Red Deer Dump
Devils Lake
Driftwood
Easterville
Egg Lake
East Island
Easterville Road
Easterville
East Arm
Gary Mosiondz
Grass River
Gostling Lake
Guthrie Green Blocks
Grassy Lake
Herblet
Homestead Creek
Hargrave
Hart Mountain Road
Hobbit
Hunting River
Halfway
Imperial
Joey Lake
Johnson Lake
Jonas Road
Kipahigan
Kaminis
Kaspryzk Lake
Kississing North
KO
LA
LB
LC
LE
LI
LK
LL
LN
LO
LP
LR
LU
MA
MB
MC
MF
MG
MH
MI
MK
ML
MM
MO
MP
MT
MV
NA
NJ
NL
NM
NO
NP
NS
OB
OF
OG
OL
OP
OV
OZ
PC
PD
PF
PH
PI
PO
PR
Kotyk
Landry
Liars Bay
Lucille
Leak Lake
Limestone
Leptick
Lost Lake
Landing North
Loonhead
Laurie Parker
Loreen Riemer
Laurie River
Moose A Blocks
Moose B Blocks
Moose C Blocks
Mafeking Sand Flats
Minago River
Mitchell
Mitishto
McKay Lake
McLaren Lake
Moose Mountain
Morrison Lake
Mossy Portage
Montreal Lake
Marvco
Naosap
North Joey
Nichols Lake
National Mills
Novra
Nelson Lake
North Steeprock Lake
Budai
Jim Olfrey
Opegano
Ochre Lake
Opuskaw Bay
Overflow
Osborne
Partridge Crop
Power Dam
Peter Pfund
Paul Hlady
Pine
Pork Chop
Prospector
PS
PT
PU
RA
RB
RC
RD
RK
RL
RP
RR
RT
RU
RW
SB
SD
SE
SF
SH
SI
SL
SO
SP
SR
SS
ST
SU
SX
TB
TD
TF
TM
TP
TR
TT
TU
TW
VA
VE
VL
WA
WG
WJ
WK
WL
WM
WO
WP
WS
WT
Peterson Lake
Pothier
Payuk
Roy Anderson
Rib
Rice Creek
Red Deer Lake
Rocky Lake
Radar Lake
Ripper's Point
Rancher's Road
Root Lake
Ruddock Lake
Raweeb
South Bog
South Ditch
Setting Lake
Sea Falls
Shoal River
Sipiwesk Landing
Spider Lake
Simonhouse
Springwater
Streak Lake
South Steeprock Lake
Spruce
Suwannee
Bacon Lake
Thirteenth Baseline
Talbot D Blocks
Three Finger
Talbot M Blocks
Thicket Peninsula
Bison
Tippett Lake
Turnberry
Twin Lakes
Vamp
Velde
Virgin Lake Road
Waugh
Wedge Lake
Whiskey Jack
Wabishkok
Woosey Lake
West Arm
Wapisu Lake
Wintering Peninsula
Westray
Walton Lake
APPENDIX 2
ROADS
Appendix 2 - Table 2: Tolko Industries Ltd. Road Categories - Planning
Criteria for FML Area No. 2
Category 1: All-Weather Road - Primary


All-weather road constructed to access major long-term wood supply areas on
an FMU scale.
Life expectancy of about 20 years or more.
Category 2: All-Weather Road - Secondary

All-weather road constructed to access operating area(s) of wood.

Life expectancy of about three years to 20 years.
Category 3: Seasonal Road - Summer Access




Seasonal road (trail) stumped out to provide access within and between
cutblocks inside operating areas from primary and secondary roads. May also
on occasion provide the access to the area in situations involving smaller
operators and/or isolated blocks of wood.
Life expectancy usually one or two years but may be longer for access between
cutblocks or in situations described above.
Consist of stumped trails with little to no gravel or grade.
Category 3 seasonal roads are those bush roads that are on high ground
allowing for vehicle (truck) access more or less year round.
Category 4: Seasonal Road - Winter (Frost) Access




Seasonal road (trail) stumped out to provide access within and between
cutblocks inside operating areas from primary and secondary and winter ice
roads. May also on occasion provide the access to the area in situations
involving smaller operators and/or isolated blocks of wood.
Life expectancy usually one or two years but may be longer for access between
cutblocks or in situations described above.
Consist of stumped trails with no gravel or grade.
Category 4 seasonal roads are those roads, which at some point on the route
utilize swamps and/or wet ground to such an extent that vehicle (truck) access
requires frost conditions for travel.
Category 5: Seasonal Road - Winter (Ice) Access




Seasonal winter road built to access and deliver wood from operating area(s).
A given route may be utilized for a single winter season or on an annual basis.
A given route may include tramping of swamps and low drainage areas and ice
crossings of lakes. Crossing over periodic areas of higher ground may require
some stumping. Temporary winter crossings of creeks, streams and rivers will
be made as required.
Category 5 winter roads are distinguished from Category 4 seasonal winter
(frost) roads by including major crossings of large swamps and/or lakes.
Table 3: Tolko Industries Ltd - Manitoba Woodlands Planned and Projected Access Development
for FML Area No. 2
2015
Kilometres Developed
Forest Section
Road
HIGHROCK
BATTY ROAD
HIGHROCK
ROW De
Construction
D
Watercourse Crossings
Type
Location
2.50
0.00
Bridge
13.7
DICKSTONE ROAD
15.60
3.50
Bridge
2.0
HIGHROCK
CROW LAKE ROAD
24.70
18.40
HIGHROCK
KIPAHAGEN WINTER ROAD
20.50
20.50
HIGHROCK
BUZZ LAKE WINTER ROAD
13.20
13.20
HIGHROCK
HACKETT LAKE WINTER
9.80
9.80
HIGHROCK
ROAD
NORRIS LAKE WINTER ROAD
6.10
6.10
HIGHROCK
RUDDOCK ROAD
5.10
0.00
Bridge
9.3
SASKATCHEWAN
BIGNELL ROAD
17.70
6.10
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
LESKO ROAD EAST
2.10
2.10
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
POTHIER LAKE WINTER
12.00
12.00
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
ROAD
PAUL HARBOUR ROAD
8.20
0.00
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
ATHAPAP WINTER ROAD
20.20
20.20
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
MOOSE LAKE WINTER ROAD
0.00
53.80
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
BI-POLE III WINTER ROAD
0.00
26.20
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
LESKO ROAD WEST
8.50
8.50
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
MAHIGAN ROAD
5.80
5.80
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
MOSSY PORTAGE WEST
2.10
2.10
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
WINTER ROAD
EAST ARM ROAD
4.40
6.60
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
MOOSE MOUNTAIN WINTER
17.10
17.10
RIVER
ROAD
195.60
232.00
Ice Bridge
11.0
for FML Area No. 2
2016
Forest Section
Road
HIGHROCK
RUDDOCK ROAD
HIGHROCK
MARTELL LAKE WINTER
HIGHROCK
ROW De
Construction
D
0.00
5.10
10.40
10.40
ROAD
MARTELL LAKE WEST
3.30
3.30
HIGHROCK
WINTER ROAD
DICKSTONE ROAD
7.70
15.60
HIGHROCK
CROW LAKE ROAD
11.10
6.30
HIGHROCK
BATTY ROAD
0.00
2.60
NELSON RIVER
BLACK DUCK CREEK WINTER
20.50
20.50
NELSON RIVER
ROAD
THREE POINT LAKE ROAD
8.50
8.50
SASKATCHEWAN
MAHIGAN ROAD
10.20
0.00
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
BIGNELL ROAD
0.00
11.60
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
BRACKEN CREEK ROAD
35.80
0.00
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
PAUL HARBOUR ROAD
14.60
8.20
122.10
92.10
RIVER
Type
Location
Bridge
46.0
Bridge
31.1
for FML Area No. 2
148.30
2017
ROW De
Construction
D
Forest Section
Road
HIGHROCK
CROW LAKE ROAD
0.00
11.10
HIGHROCK
DICKSTONE ROAD
6.70
6.70
NELSON RIVER
BLACK DUCK CREEK WINTER
12.20
12.20
Temporary - Snow/Ice
32
NELSON RIVER
ROAD
THREE POINT LAKE ROAD
12.10
12.10
8.5
SASKATCHEWAN
POTHIER LAKE WINTER
12.50
12.50
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
ROAD
BRACKEN CREEK ROAD
0.00
35.80
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
MOSSY PORTAGE EAST
19.40
19.40
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
WINTER ROAD
PAUL HARBOUR ROAD
0.00
14.60
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
LAMB LAKE ROAD
7.50
7.50
Bridge
7.5
Bridge
7.2
Culvert
5.7
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
NISKA ROAD
6.20
6.20
RIVER
SASKATCHEWAN
MAHIGAN ROAD
0.00
10.20
RIVER
76.60
Type
Bridge
Location
58.3
Table 4: Tolko Industries Ltd. - Manitoba Woodlands Road Development
Plan Year:
Road: ATHAPAP WINTER ROAD
Forest: SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015
0.0
15.9
40.00
0
0
2015
0.0
4.3
40.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2015
0.00
15.90
15.00
4
Winter Seasonal Road
2015
0.00
4.30
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: BATTY ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
12.4
ROW Width
14.9
Softwood Volume
45.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2016
From
Surface
To
12.30
Width
14.90
Road Category
6.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Secondary All-weather Road
Year
2015
Location
13.7
Watercourse
Unnamed Creek
Crossing Type
Bridge
ID
H-33
2015
Plan Year:
Road: BI-POLE III WINTER ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
26.20
Road Category
10.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
2015
Location
11.0
Watercourse
Frog Creek
Crossing Type
Ice Bridge
ID
S-11
2015
Plan Year:
Road: BIGNELL ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
17.7
Softwood Volume
50.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2015
0.00
6.10
7.00
2
2016
6.10
17.70
7.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: BLACK DUCK CREEK WINTER ROAD
Forest: NELSON RIVER
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2016
0.0
12.5
40.00
0
0
2016
12.5
20.5
40.00
0
0
2017
20.5
28.6
40.00
0
0
2017
28.6
32.7
40.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2016
0.00
12.50
15.00
4
2016
12.50
20.50
15.00
4
2017
20.50
28.60
15.00
4
2017
28.60
32.70
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
2017
Location
32
Watercourse
Black Duck Creek
Crossing Type
ID
N-20
2015
Plan Year:
Road: BRACKEN CREEK ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2016
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
35.8
Softwood Volume
50.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2017
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
35.80
Road Category
6.00
3
Road
Life
Load
Span
Summer Seasonal Road
Year
2016
Location
31.1
Watercourse
Bracken Creek
Crossing Type
Bridge
ID
S-4
2015
Plan Year:
Road: BUZZ LAKE WINTER ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
24.0
ROW Width
37.2
Softwood Volume
40.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
24.00
Width
37.20
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: CROW LAKE ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
12.0
40.00
0
0
2015
0.0
6.4
40.00
0
0
2015
12.0
18.3
50.00
0
0
2016
18.3
29.4
40.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2015
0.00
12.00
7.00
2
2015
0.00
6.40
7.00
2
2016
12.00
18.30
7.00
2
2017
18.30
29.40
5.00
3
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: DICKSTONE ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015
36.0
51.6
50.00
0
0
2016
51.6
59.3
50.00
0
0
2017
58.3
65.0
50.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2015
2.00
5.50
7.00
2
2016
36.00
51.60
7.00
2
2017
51.60
58.30
7.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2017
58.3
File River
Bridge
H-41
2016
46.0
North Star Creek
Bridge
H-40
2015
2.0
Grass River
Bridge
H-38
2015
Plan Year:
Road: EAST ARM ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
7.6
ROW Width
12.0
Softwood Volume
50.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
5.40
Width
12.00
Road Category
7.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: HACKETT LAKE WINTER ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
9.8
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
9.80
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: KIPAHAGEN WINTER ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
20.5
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
20.50
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: LAMB LAKE ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2017
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
7.5
Softwood Volume
50.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2017
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
7.50
Road Category
7.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2017
7.5
Ranchers Creek
Bridge
S-3
2017
7.2
Moose River
Bridge
S-2
2017
5.7
McKay Creek
Culvert
S-1
2015
Plan Year:
Road: LESKO ROAD EAST
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
2.1
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
2.10
Road Category
5.00
3
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: LESKO ROAD WEST
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
8.5
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
8.50
Road Category
5.00
3
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MAHIGAN ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015
0.0
5.8
50.00
0
0
2016
5.8
16.0
50.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2015
0.00
5.80
7.00
2
2017
5.80
16.00
7.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MARTELL LAKE WEST WINTER ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2016
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
3.3
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2016
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
3.30
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MARTELL LAKE WINTER ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2016
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
10.4
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2016
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
10.40
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MOOSE LAKE WINTER ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2015
0.00
22.30
20.00
4
2015
22.30
53.80
20.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MOOSE MOUNTAIN WINTER ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
17.1
Softwood Volume
40.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
17.10
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MOSSY PORTAGE EAST WINTER ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2017
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
19.4
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2017
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
19.40
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MOSSY PORTAGE NORTH WINTER ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: MOSSY PORTAGE WEST WINTER ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
7.6
ROW Width
9.7
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
7.60
Width
9.70
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: NISKA ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2017
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
6.2
Softwood Volume
50.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2017
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
6.20
Road Category
7.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: NORRIS LAKE WINTER ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
0.0
ROW Width
6.1
Softwood Volume
30.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2015
From
Surface
To
0.00
Width
6.10
Road Category
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: NORRIS ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: PAUL HARBOUR ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015
0.0
8.2
50.00
0
0
2016
8.2
22.8
50.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2016
0.00
8.20
7.00
2
2017
8.20
22.80
7.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: POTHIER LAKE WINTER ROAD
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015
0.0
12.0
40.00
0
0
2017
12.0
24.5
40.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2015
0.00
12.00
15.00
4
2017
12.00
24.50
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
Location
Watercourse
Crossing Type
ID
2015
Plan Year:
Road: RUDDOCK ROAD
Forest: HIGHROCK
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
2015
ROW To
7.8
ROW Width
12.9
Softwood Volume
50.00
0
Hardwood Volume
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
2016
From
Surface
To
7.80
Width
12.90
Road Category
6.00
2
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
2015
Location
9.3
Watercourse
Un-named Creek
Crossing Type
Bridge
ID
H-32
2015
Plan Year:
Road: THREE POINT LAKE ROAD
Forest: NELSON RIVER
Access Control:
Control Location:
ROW Clearing
Year
ROW From
ROW To
ROW Width
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2016
0.0
8.5
40.00
0
0
2017
8.5
20.6
40.00
0
0
Road Construction
Construct
Year
From
Surface
To
Width
Road Category
2016
0.00
8.50
15.00
4
2017
8.50
20.60
15.00
4
Road
Life
Load
Span
Year
2017
Location
8.5
Watercourse
Taylor River
Crossing Type
ID
N-10
2015
Table 5.
Road Decommissioning Status
ROAD NAME
Anvil Lake Road
Albert’s Lake Road
Bacon Lake Road
Bah Lake Road
Bruneau Road
Buckingham Road
Cliff Lake Road
Danielson Road
Davidson Road
Dolomite Road
Duval Road (km 6-32)
East Talbot Road
Egg Lake Road
Goose River Road
Grass River Road
Halfway Road
Hargrave Road
Herb Bay Road
Herblet Road
Imperial Road
Jonas Road South
Kississing North
Leak Lake Road Road
Leak Lake Tower Road
Long Lake Road
McLaren Creek
Milk Lake Road (North)
Milk Lake Shortcut
Naosap Road (New)
Naosap Road (Old)
North Joey Road
Ochre Lake Road (km 20-26.5)
Okaw Road
Old Witch Road
Paint Creek Road
Partridge Crop Road
Radar Lake Road
Sawlog Road
Scatch Lake Road
Setting Lake Road
Simonhouse Road (km 8-17)
South Joey Lake Road
Spruce Road
Sturgeon Landing Road
Sugar Road
Syme Lake Road
DECOMMISSION
STATUS
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete (Temp)
Complete (Temp)
Complete (Temp)
Complete
Complete
2015-2019
2015-2019
Complete
2015-2019
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete (Temp)
Complete (Temp)
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete (Temp)
2015-2019
Complete
Complete
2015-2019
Complete (Temp)
Complete
Complete
Complete (Temp),
final 2015-2019
Complete (Temp, final
2015-2019)
2015-2019
2015-2019
2015-2019
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete (Temp)
Complete
Complete
Complete (Temp)
Complete
Complete
2015-2019
Complete
2015-2019
2015-2019
PROPOSED DECOMMISSION
LOCATION
Setting Lake Road entrance
Temporary Closure – Location TBD
Entrance
Origin at PTH 6
TBD
Origin at Crossing Bay Road
Km 1
Origin @ PTH 6, MB Hydro has re-opened
Beyond Duval junction, pending Winter
Road location change
Origin at PR 373 (Jenpeg Road)
Origin at PR 373 (Jenpeg Road)
Origin at Sherridon Road (PR)
Entrance
Km 20
Entrance
Origin at PTH 6
Origin at Talbot Road
Origin at Ochre Lake Road
Talbot Lake Road
Thicket Creek Road
Thompson Creek Road
Thunderhill
Velde Creek Road
Wabishkok Road
Westarm
Wintering Peninsula
2015-2019
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete (Temp)
Origin at Kississing North Road
Appendix 2 - Table 6.
Watercourse Crossing Information
OPERATING PLAN WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Highrock
Operating Area:
Takipy
Road:
Ruddock
Watercourse:
Un-named Creek
Operating Plan Map Reference I.D.:
H-32
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS



Transport Canada – Coast Guard – navigability assessment
Transport Canada – Fisheries and Oceans – letter of advice re:winter crossing
Manitoba Water Stewardship – Fisheries Branch – scientific collection permit
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography:
15840 Scale Aerial Photograph
Digital site photos
Estimated Watercourse Width: 5 m
Estimated Maximum Depth: 1.2 m
North Bank (1)
South Bank (2)
- Slope:
- Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
<2%.
organic
<2%
organic
WATERCOURSE USES
Possible Fish Present:
Blacknose shiner
Spottail shiner
Fathead minnow
White sucker
Longnose sucker
Known Boat Traffic:
Northern pike
Troutperch
Ninespine stickleback
Brook stickleback
Yellow perch
Sauger
Walleye
Slimy sculpin
None
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Construction Season:
Semi-permanent bridge on pilings
3 – 5 years
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
1. Bridge will be of sufficient span to maintain existing flows
2. Rip rap will be used to armor creek banks around the structure.
3. Erosion control measures will be undertaken to minimize erosion potential (e.g. retention of
vegetation mat, diversion berms, grass seed).
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
1. Minimal in-stream and stream bank disturbance.
2. Schedule construction to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high water levels).
3. Any material placed on the ice to facilitate crossing during winter will be removed prior to
spring break-up.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Bridge will be removed following the completion of operations.
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Highrock
FMU:
68
Twp:
70
Rge:
21
Operating Area:
File River
Road:
Batty Lake Road
Watercourse:
Unnamed creek between Zdan and Batty Lakes
H-33
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS


Navigable Waters Application
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Application
Photography:
Estimated Watercourse Width:
15 m
Estimated Maximum Depth:
1.5 m
West Bank (1)
< 5% grade
Silty Clay
< 5% grade
Silty Clay
- Slope:
- Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
East Bank (2)
WATERCOURSE USES
Blacknose Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Ninespine Stickleback
Yellow Perch
Slimy Sculpin
Known Boat Traffic:
None
White Sucker
Longnose Sucker
Fathead Minnow
Sauger
Northern Pike
Trout Perch
Brook Stickleback
Walleye
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Semi-Permanent Bridge on pilings
3 to 5 years
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
1. Bridge will be of sufficient span to maintain existing flows. Pilings will be driven to refusal.
2. Rip rap will be used to armor creek banks around the structure.
3. Erosion control measures will be undertaken to minimize erosion potential, (eg. retention of vegetation
mat, diversion berms, grass seed).
1. Minimal instream and streambank disturbance.
2. Will schedule construction to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high water levels).
3. Any material placed on the ice to facilitate crossing during winter will be removed before spring breakup.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
The bridge will be removed at the conclusion of operations and erosion control measures implemented if
required.
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Highrock
FMU: 60
Operating Area:
Simonhouse
Road:
Dickstone Road
Watercourse:
Grass River
H-38
Twp:
65
Rge:
22
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS





Manitoba Environment Act License No. 2896
Parks & Natural Areas Branch - PCGP 64921
Transport Canada reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) TC File
No. 7184-70-6-224, CEAR File No. 08-01-47696
Transport Canada reviewed under Navigable Waters Protection Act, NWPP File No. 8200-0810236
Fisheries and Oceans Canada notification
Photography:
Digital site level photographs
26 m
2m
South Bank (1)
< 5% grade
Rock
< 5% grade
Silty Clay
North Bank (2)
- Slope:
- Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
WATERCOURSE USES
Northern Pike, Walleye, Sucker, Perch, Whitefish
Known Boat Traffic:
Canoe Route portage location
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Bridge
Long term (20+ years)
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN




Clear span bridge
I-beams on abutments, concrete deck panels.
Approaches will be minimally cleared of vegetation. Abutment will be raised to the level of the south
side.
Approaches will be armored with rock riprap.
Minimal in-stream and stream bank disturbance.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Site will be decommissioned as per the Dickstone South Road Decommissioning Plan approved under
Environment Act License No. 2896 when forestry operations are complete.
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Highrock
FMU: 67
Twp:
Operating Area:
Herblet
Road:
Dickstone Road
Watercourse:
Unknown drainage
H-40
68
Rge:
21
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Application upon AOP Review
Photography:
5m
2m
North Bank (1)
Unknown - TBD
Unknown - TBD
Unknown - TBD
Unknown - TBD
South Bank (2)
- Slope:
- Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
WATERCOURSE USES
Unknown
Known Boat Traffic:
None
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Culvert or bridge depending on survey results
Will schedule construction to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish
spawning, high water levels).
CROSSING DESIGN

Culvert or bridge.
Approaches will be minimally cleared of vegetation. Erosion control measures will be undertaken
during and after construction.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Crossing will be removed at conclusion of harvest operations.
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Highrock
FMU: 67
Twp:
Operating Area:
Herblet
Road:
Dickstone Road
Watercourse:
File River
H-41
69
Rge:
20
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Application upon AOP Review
Photography:
7m
3m
North Bank (1)
Unknown - TBD
Unknown - TBD
Unknown - TBD
Unknown - TBD
South Bank (2)
- Slope:
- Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Boat Traffic:
None
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Bridge
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN


Clear span bridge
I-beams on abutments.
Approaches will be minimally cleared of vegetation. The abutments will be above the high water mark.
Erosion control measures will be undertaken during and after construction.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
The bridge will be removed and erosion control measures will be implemented as required when all forestry
operations are complete.
ANNUAL PLAN WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Nelson River FMU: 87
Twp:
Operating Area:
Bison Lake/Ospwagan Boundary
Road:
Three Point Road - +Km 8.5
Watercourse:
Taylor River
73
Rge: 07 W
Annual Plan Map Reference I.D.: N-10
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
MC Regional Fisheries:
D. MacDonald, Northeast Region, Initial Helicopter
Viewing - May 22, 1997
Ernie Watson (DFO) June 12, 2001
Federal Navigable Waters: R. Settee, NWPA Officer and J. Woodward, CEAA
Environmental Officer, Canadian Coast Guard, Viewing May 22, 1997
Deemed navigable - Application under Navigable
Waters Protection Act pending.
Photography: 15840 Scale Aerial Photograph
35 mm View Photograph(s)
Date: May 22, 1997
Estimated Watercourse Width: 19.2m
Estimated Maximum Depth: 1.5m
Bank (1) - Slope: gradual
- Soil type: Silty clay
- Soil type: Silty clay
Creek bed is solid bottom.
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present: Pickerel
Northern Pike
Suckers
Known Boat Traffic: Canoes
Three Point Road + Km 8.5 - Taylor River (Continued)
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Ice crossing or possible temporary portable bridge
Lifespan:
One winter season at a time
Construction Season: Early Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
1. Crossing and approaches will be built up by freezing in clean snow and ice until
sufficient thickness is achieved to support required traffic to facilitate operation
OR
2. A temporary portable bridge would be placed to span the channel and be supported by
a bearing surface (large timber or swamp mat) on each end to displace the weight across
the width (and potentially slightly beyond) of the structure – approaches to the bridge
surface would be constructed of clean snow and ice
1. All construction activities will take place during frozen conditions
2. There should be no need to expose mineral soil at the site, vegetation will be left in
place
3. Temporary portable bridge and weight bearing structure, if utilized, will be removed
prior to spring breakup – if an ice crossing is used, any material placed on the ice other
than clean snow and ice will be removed or if there is a risk of ice jams the flood ice can
be broken up prior to spring breakup
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Removal of temporary portable bridge if utilized from the site, possible seeding or other
erosion control method if there has been any exposure of mineral soil that would create an
erosion risk – not expected
Aerial Photograph: Crossing N-10
Crossing: N-10
View Photograph: Facing West
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Nelson River FMU: 83
Twp:
63
Operating Area:
Minago
Road:
Black Duck Creek Winter Road - +Km 32
Watercourse:
Black Duck Creek
Rge: 07 W
Annual Plan Map Reference I.D.: N-20
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
Unknown
Photography: 5000 and 15840 Scale Aerial Photography
Estimated Maximum Depth: 1.5m
- Soil type: Unknown
- Soil type: Unknown
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present: Unknown
Known Boat Traffic: Unknown
Black Duck Creek Winter Road + Km 32 – Black Duck Creek (Continued)
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Ice crossing
Lifespan:
CROSSING DESIGN
3. Crossing and approaches will be built up by freezing in clean snow and ice until
sufficient thickness is achieved to support required traffic to facilitate operation
place
6. Any material placed on the ice other than clean snow and ice will be removed or if there
is a risk of ice jams the flood ice can be broken up prior to spring breakup
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Possible seeding or other erosion control method if there has been any exposure of mineral
soil that would create an erosion risk – not expected
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Sask. River
FMU: 53
Operating Area:
Bracken
Road:
Lamb Lake
Watercourse:
McKay Creek
S-1
Twp:
54
Rge:
20
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
N/A
Photography:
12 m
1.5 m
North Bank (1) - Slope:
- Soil type:
South Bank (2) - Slope:
- Soil type:
2%
silt
2%
silt
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present:
Unknown
Known Boat Traffic:
None
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Culverts
20 years
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
Multiple large diameter culverts.
Backfill culverts/construct road embankment using granular materials and shot rock.
Schedule construction to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high water).
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Culverts will be removed and erosion control measures implemented as required following completion of
forestry activities.
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Sask. River
FMU: 53
Operating Area:
Bracken
Road:
Lamb Lake
Watercourse:
Moose River
S-2
Twp:
54
Rge:
20
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
N/A
Photography:
30 m
3m
North Bank (1)
2%
silt
2%
silt
South Bank (2)
- Slope:
-Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present:
Known Boat Traffic:
commercial fishing boats
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Bridge
20 years
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
Clear span bridge, steel I-beams on piles driven to refusal.
Minimal in-steam and stream bank disturbance.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Bridge will be removed and erosion control measures implemented as required following completion of
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Sask. River
FMU: 53
Twp:
Operating Area:
Bracken
Road:
Lamb Lake
Watercourse:
Rancher’s Creek
S-3
54
Rge:
20
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
N/A
Photography:
25 m
3m
North Bank (1)
2%
silt
2%
silt
South Bank (2)
- Slope:
- Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present:
Known Boat Traffic:
commercial fishing boats
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Bridge
20 years
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
ABANDONMENT PLAN
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Sask. River
FMU: 53
Operating Area:
Bracken
Road:
Bracken Creek
Watercourse:
Bracken Creek
S-4
Twp:
54
Rge:
17
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
N/A
Photography:
10 m
1.5 m
North Bank (1)
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
South Bank (2)
- Slope:
- Soil type:
- Slope:
- Soil type:
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present:
Known Boat Traffic:
Unknown
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Lifespan:
Bridge
20 years
Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
ABANDONMENT PLAN
LOCATION
Forest Section:
Saskatchewan River FMU: 59
Twp: 60
Operating Area:
Cormorant
Road:
BI-POLE III Winter Road - +Km 11.0
Watercourse:
Frog Creek
Rge:
21 W
Annual Plan Map Reference I.D.: S-11
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
CWS Northwest Region IRMT
October, 2014
Photography: 5000 and 15840 Scale Satellite Image (2009)
Estimated Maximum Depth: 2-3 m
Bank (W) - Slope: gradual /flat
- Soil type: Muskeg over
Silty clay
Bank (E) - Slope: gradual/flat
- Soil type: Muskeg over Silty
clay
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present: Walleye
Northern Pike
Suckers
Known Boat Traffic: Fishing Boats
Bi-pole III Winter Road + Km 11.0 – Frog Creek (Continued)
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type:
Temporary portable bridge
Lifespan:
CROSSING DESIGN
4. A temporary portable bridge will be placed to span the channel and be supported by a
bearing surface (large timber or swamp mat) on each end to displace the weight across
the width (and potentially slightly beyond) of the structure – approaches to the bridge
surface would be constructed of clean snow and ice
place
9. Temporary portable bridge and weight bearing structure will be removed to high
ground prior to spring breakup
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Removal of temporary portable bridge from the site, possible seeding or other erosion
control method if there has been any exposure of mineral soil that would create an erosion
risk – not expected
APPENDIX 3
PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Table 7: Tolko Industries Ltd. - Manitoba Woodlands Planned, Contingency, and
Projected Cutblocks by Forest Management Unit
Forest Section
FMU
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
50
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015 Plan Cutblocks
MP-208
6,000
0
MP-209
22,000
0
MP-210
25,000
0
MP-211
20,000
0
73,000
2015 Contingency Cutblocks
CT-6
ER-1
3,500
1,500
0
200
ER-2
6,000
0
ER-3
1,000
0
MT-1
5,000
0
OV-1
12,000
0
PH-6
RP-2
1,000
10,000
0
0
RP-3
10,000
0
TB-1
2,000
0
WS-3
8,000
0
WS-7
3,000
0
WS-8
WS-9
5,000
3,000
0
0
MP-212
22,000
0
MP-213
30,000
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
52,000
2017 Plan Cutblocks
MP-200
12,000
0
MP-201
14,000
0
MP-202
16,000
0
MP-203
15,000
0
MP-204
7,000
0
MP-205
15,000
0
79,000
Projected Cutblocks by Forest Management Unit (continued)
Forest Section
FMU
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
53
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015 Plan Cutblocks
EAST ARM ROAD ROW
2,000
0
ET-5
50,000
0
ET-6
80,000
0
132,000
ET-1
2,000
0
ET-2
ET-3
55,000
7,000
0
0
MB-30
1,000
0
MM-1
100,000
0
MM-2
90,000
0
RW-23
10,000
0
RW-24
RW-25
24,000
20,000
0
0
TM-50
20,000
0
TM-51
14,000
0
TM-52
10,000
0
TM-53
11,000
0
ET-13
6,000
0
ET-14
40,000
0
ET-15
35,000
0
ET-4
26,000
0
ET-7
ET-8
45,000
55,000
0
0
ET-9
35,000
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
242,000
2017 Plan Cutblocks
ET-10
25,000
0
ET-11
33,000
0
ET-12
60,000
0
118,000
Forest Section
FMU
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
58
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015 Plan Cutblocks
MAHIGAN ROAD ROW
6,000
0
NISKA ROAD ROW
3,000
0
OL-18
12,000
0
OL-21
9,000
0
OL-22
9,000
0
OL-24
5,000
0
OL-26
2,000
0
OL-27
2,000
0
OL-76
4,000
0
OL-83
3,000
0
OL-84
8,000
0
OL-85
5,000
0
OL-86
5,000
0
SR-2
20,000
0
93,000
BF-100
20,000
0
BF-101
8,000
0
BF-102
CB-225
35,000
20,000
0
0
CB-226
12,000
0
CB-227
8,000
0
CE-201
13,000
0
CE-202
7,500
0
CE-207
CE-208
5,000
8,000
0
0
CE-209
12,000
0
CE-300
45,000
0
EA-201
15,000
0
OL-12
6,000
0
OL-13
OL-14
1,000
6,000
0
0
OL-15
3,000
0
OL-16
1,000
0
OL-87
8,000
0
OL-88
5,000
0
OL-9
SR-1
4,000
55,000
0
0
SR-3
1,000
0
SR-4
40,000
0
CE-301
CE-302
8,000
30,000
0
0
CE-303
25,000
0
CE-304
7,000
0
CE-305
37,000
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
Forest Section
FMU
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
58
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
107,000
2017 Plan Cutblocks
CE-306
20,000
0
CE-307
9,000
0
CE-308
16,000
0
CE-309
22,000
0
CE-310
CE-311
45,000
25,000
0
0
SR-5
60,000
0
SR-6
30,000
0
SR-7
26,000
0
253,000
Forest Section
FMU
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
59
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015 Plan Cutblocks
HY-18
3,000
0
HY-19
5,000
0
HY-20
2,000
0
HY-5
10,000
0
HY-8
12,000
0
HY-9
9,000
0
PF-7
200
0
PF-8
600
0
RW-10
14,000
0
RW-12
2,000
0
RW-13
8,000
0
RW-9
7,000
0
72,800
BT-3
40,000
0
DO-211
12,000
0
DO-212
6,000
0
DO-213
11,000
0
HY-13
HY-14
5,000
10,000
0
0
HY-15
4,000
0
HY-16
3,000
0
HY-23
10,000
0
HY-28
6,000
0
HY-30
HY-31
18,000
12,000
0
0
LA-201
2,000
0
LA-203
20,000
0
LA-207
19,000
0
LA-208
4,500
0
LA-209
LA-218
8,000
4,000
0
0
LE-6
5,000
0
LE-7
7,000
0
LE-8
4,000
0
LK-14
500
0
LK-15
LK-16
1,000
6,000
0
0
LK-17
1,000
0
LK-18
1,000
0
LK-19
1,000
0
LK-2
2,000
0
LK-20
LK-21
500
1,000
0
0
LK-22
1,000
0
LK-23
8,000
0
LK-4
2,000
0
LK-5
1,000
0
LK-7
LK-8
1,000
1,000
0
0
Forest Section
FMU
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
59
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
LK-9
1,000
0
MH-16
9,000
0
MH-18
1,000
0
MH-19
4,000
0
MH-21
5,000
0
MV-14
3,000
0
PF-10
2,000
0
PF-9
400
0
PT-3
20,000
0
PT-5
6,000
0
PT-6
7,000
0
PT-7
3,000
0
PT-8
4,000
0
QFG-1
6,000
0
28,000
0
RW-14
8,000
0
RW-17
16,000
0
RW-18
24,000
0
RW-6
12,000
0
RW-8
3,000
0
AB-202
3,000
0
HY-1
7,000
0
HY-21
HY-22
14,000
24,000
0
0
HY-29
8,000
0
HY-32
5,000
0
HY-33
8,000
0
HY-34
4,000
0
RK-6
2016 Plan Cutblocks
73,000
2017 Plan Cutblocks
BT-11
4,000
0
BT-2
26,000
0
BT-4
5,000
0
BT-5
4,000
0
BT-8
BT-9
3,000
18,000
0
0
RW-19
10,000
0
RW-20
3,000
0
RW-21
16,000
0
RW-26
10,000
0
RW-27
RW-28
10,000
15,000
0
0
124,000
Forest Section
FMU
HIGHROCK
67
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015 Plan Cutblocks
BZ-2
2,000
0
BZ-40
50,000
0
BZ-41
45,000
0
HO-28
12,000
0
HO-29
22,000
0
HO-7
22,000
0
NA-38
20,000
0
NA-39
2,000
0
175,000
AL-10
20,000
0
AL-11
4,000
0
AL-12
AL-4
10,000
5,000
0
0
AL-5
7,000
0
AL-6
8,000
0
AL-7
4,000
0
AL-8
5,000
0
AL-9
BS-10
9,000
20,000
0
0
BZ-20
9,000
0
BZ-22
4,000
0
BZ-23
8,000
0
BZ-24
6,000
0
BZ-25
BZ-27
14,000
45,000
0
0
CL-14
2,600
0
CL-15
15,000
0
CL-7
2,500
0
CL-8
5,000
0
GO-10
HB-10
7,000
3,000
0
0
HB-11
25,000
0
HB-12
20,000
0
HB-8
25,000
0
HB-9
20,000
0
HO-22
HO-23
16,000
22,000
0
0
HO-24
32,000
0
HO-25
25,000
0
HO-26
23,000
0
IM-18
9,000
0
IM-24
IM-25
4,000
12,000
0
0
IM-26
25,000
0
IM-27
30,000
0
IM-28
14,000
0
IM-29
14,000
0
IM-30
IM-9
16,000
16,000
0
0
Forest Section
FMU
HIGHROCK
67
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
KI-1
10,000
0
KI-2
8,000
0
KI-3
10,000
0
KI-4
10,000
0
KI-5
12,000
0
KI-6
25,000
0
KN-10
18,000
0
KO-10
4,000
0
KO-11
15,000
0
KO-6
8,000
0
LC-1
12,000
0
LC-2
10,000
0
LO-16
16,000
0
LO-18
25,000
0
LO-3
24,000
0
LO-4
6,000
0
LO-5
40,000
0
LO-6
40,000
0
OZ-4
8,000
0
OZ-5
9,000
0
OZ-6
10,000
0
OZ-7
12,000
0
PU-10
14,000
0
PU-11
5,000
0
PU-12
22,000
0
PU-13
12,000
0
PU-14
10,000
0
PU-15
8,000
0
PU-16
8,000
0
PU-2
3,000
0
PU-4
6,000
0
PU-5
4,000
0
PU-6
8,000
0
PU-7
5,000
0
PU-8
600
0
PU-9
22,000
0
TF-32
15,000
0
TF-36
15,000
0
VA-8
12,000
0
WM-1
1,000
0
WM-19
4,000
0
WM-25
5,000
0
WM-30
5,000
0
BL-17
18,000
0
BL-26
22,000
0
BZ-42
70,000
0
KN-2
KN-3
50,000
25,000
0
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
Forest Section
FMU
HIGHROCK
67
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2016 Plan Cutblocks
KN-7
12,000
0
LO-7
70,000
0
267,000
2017 Plan Cutblocks
BL-19
35,000
0
BL-20
30,000
0
BL-21
BL-23
40,000
25,000
0
0
BL-24
25,000
0
BL-27
25,000
0
BZ-37
30,000
0
BZ-38
30,000
0
BZ-39
KI-10
45,000
10,000
0
0
KI-11
15,000
0
KI-7
11,000
0
KI-8
8,000
0
KI-9
10,000
0
KN-1
KN-14
18,000
30,000
0
0
LO-9
24,000
0
411,000
Forest Section
FMU
HIGHROCK
68
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
BL-10
10,000
0
BL-11
13,000
0
BL-14
20,000
0
BL-9
34,000
0
RU-10
13,000
0
RU-3
16,000
0
RU-5
12,000
0
RU-6
13,000
0
RU-7
6,000
0
RU-9
9,000
0
TF-12
20,000
0
TF-26
18,000
0
TF-27
16,000
0
TF-29
4,000
0
TF-30
20,000
0
TF-33
18,000
0
TF-34
5,000
0
TF-42
5,000
0
TF-51
9,000
0
WT-2
6,000
0
WT-3
6,000
0
WT-4
6,000
0
WT-5
11,000
0
WT-6
29,000
0
WT-7
4,000
0
BL-12
12,000
0
BL-13
7,000
0
BL-15
6,000
0
RU-11
RU-12
25,000
24,000
0
0
RU-13
28,000
0
RU-14
15,000
0
RU-8
6,000
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
123,000
2017 Plan Cutblocks
GU-11
36,000
0
GU-12
20,000
0
GU-8
40,000
0
GU-9
50,000
0
146,000
Forest Section
FMU
NELSON RIVER
83
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2015 Plan Cutblocks
SI-50
15,000
0
SI-51
3,000
0
SI-52
3,000
0
SI-53
38,000
0
59,000
HL-3
JO-100
6,000
7,000
0
0
JO-101
23,000
0
JO-92
17,000
0
KL-24
7,000
0
KL-27
2,000
0
KL-30
KL-32
3,000
1,800
0
0
KL-39
6,000
0
KL-46
4,400
0
KL-50
14,000
0
KL-53
6,000
0
KL-99
MG-10
6,500
6,000
0
0
MG-11
6,000
0
MG-14
4,300
0
MG-17
5,500
0
MG-19
5,600
0
SE-9
SE-97
10,000
10,000
0
0
SE-98
1,700
0
SI-14
9,000
0
SI-55
4,000
0
SI-56
10,000
0
SI-59
SI-60
15,000
6,000
0
0
SI-8
4,000
0
TT-25
4,000
0
TT-26
3,000
0
TT-27
3,100
0
AX-16
6,000
0
AX-17
5,000
0
AX-18
5,000
0
AX-19
5,000
0
AX-20
AX-21
9,000
5,000
0
0
JO-98
4,055
0
MG-21
5,800
0
MG-25
7,000
0
MG-28
6,500
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
Forest Section
FMU
NELSON RIVER
83
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2016 Plan Cutblocks
MG-29
15,000
0
MG-30
7,200
0
MG-33
11,500
0
MG-34
14,400
0
MG-36
2,500
0
MG-37
4,000
0
MG-40
5,500
0
MG-41
6,000
0
MG-45
8,200
0
MG-46
6,300
0
SE-11
24,018
0
SI-61
5,000
0
SI-62
5,000
0
SI-63
7,000
0
SI-64
5,000
0
SI-65
3,000
0
187,973
2017 Plan Cutblocks
MG-53
MG-54
8,700
8,200
0
0
MG-55
11,200
0
MG-58
7,300
0
MG-59
8,700
0
MG-60
6,800
0
MG-63
MG-64
7,900
9,000
0
0
MG-71
16,200
0
MG-75
7,100
0
MG-80
6,600
0
MG-81
11,900
0
MG-84
MG-85
7,900
12,800
0
0
130,300
Forest Section
FMU
NELSON RIVER
84
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
JO-81
12,000
0
JO-82
20,000
0
JO-83
35,000
0
JO-84
20,000
0
JO-85
15,000
0
JO-87
15,000
0
JO-90
16,000
0
JO-91
12,000
0
JO-93
13,000
0
JO-94
19,000
0
JO-95
14,000
0
RL-14
6,500
0
RL-31
8,000
0
RL-57
10,000
0
RL-60
15,000
0
RL-63
26,000
0
RL-64
7,000
0
RL-67
4,600
0
RL-71
16,000
0
RL-80
5,000
0
RL-82
35,000
0
RL-83
18,000
0
RL-85
10,135
0
RL-87
17,000
0
RL-72
17,000
0
RL-73
6,000
0
RL-74
23,000
0
RL-89
16,000
0
RL-90
RL-91
19,000
14,000
0
0
RL-92
17,000
0
RL-93
10,235
0
TR-49
5,500
0
TR-50
6,500
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
134,235
2017 Plan Cutblocks
RL-12
7,000
0
RL-13
4,000
0
RL-94
20,000
0
RL-95
10,000
0
RL-96
RL-97
18,500
15,000
0
0
RL-98
15,000
0
RL-99
6,500
0
WP-23
6,100
0
WP-29
8,000
0
Forest Section
FMU
NELSON RIVER
84
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
2017 Plan Cutblocks
WP-35
4,500
0
WP-41
4,700
0
WP-44
10,300
0
WP-47
4,000
0
133,600
Forest Section
FMU
NELSON RIVER
85
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
BG-5
17,000
0
BG-7
19,000
0
BQ-29
21,500
0
BQ-31
12,000
0
BQ-33
20,000
0
BQ-35
12,000
0
GS-1
7,700
0
GS-13
6,300
0
GS-15
9,000
0
GS-29
15,000
0
GS-3
17,100
0
GS-5
22,300
0
GS-7
8,500
0
NL-13
5,000
0
NL-37
6,200
0
BG-1
17,000
0
BG-11
BG-13
19,000
19,000
0
0
BG-15
18,000
0
BG-17
12,000
0
BG-18
4,735
0
BG-9
8,000
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
97,735
2017 Plan Cutblocks
BG-19
15,000
0
BG-21
18,000
0
BG-23
18,000
0
BG-27
9,000
0
BG-29
BG-31
6,000
12,735
0
0
NL-40
5,715
0
84,450
Forest Section
FMU
NELSON RIVER
87
Cutblock
Softwood Volume
Hardwood Volume
BQ-1
9,000
0
BQ-17
17,000
0
BQ-2
6,500
0
BQ-23
5,000
0
BQ-25
5,000
0
BQ-27
8,000
0
BQ-51
7,000
0
GS-31
15,000
0
NL-11
2,000
0
NL-12
3,000
0
TR-33
TR-34
12,197
9,800
0
0
TR-35
20,000
0
TR-36
10,000
0
TR-47
15,000
0
TR-48
8,000
0
2016 Plan Cutblocks
74,997
2017 Plan Cutblocks
NL-28
4,700
0
NL-31
4,800
0
NL-34
11,500
0
TR-17
16,997
0
TR-40
TR-41
14,000
13,500
0
0
TR-42
12,500
0
TR-45
18,000
0
95,997
Table 8: Tolko Industries Ltd. - Manitoba Woodlands Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification
Treatment
Site Preparation
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
Planting
# Trees
Species
Tending
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
HIGHROCK
FMU 67
AL-13
CR
90
BN-8
CR
40
CR
40
CR
50
NA-2
CR
20
PU-1
CR
40
PU-2
CR
88
PU-3
CR
40
BZ-13
BZ-15
90,000 BS
40
BZ-20
80,000 BS
50
BZ-22
225,000 BS
150
BZ-23
80,000 BS
50
BZ-24
135,000 BS
75
BZ-26
160,000 BS
100
BZ-3
80,000 BS
40
BZ-4
36,000 BS
12
BZ-40
310,000 BS/WS
175
BZ-42
360,000 BS/WS
200
BZ-44
300,000 BS/WS
200
BZ-6
DL-8
120,000 BS/JP
HO-28
SF
80
HO-29
SF
120
KN-7
200,000 BS
70
121
ST-28
200,000 BS
90
ST-29
315,000 BS
30
ST-35
20,000 BS
10
ST-36
41,000 BS
23
ST-5
109,800 BS
50
VA-5
50,000 BS
30
VA-7
50,000 BS
30
Total for FMU 67
SF
20
220
2,961,800
1,546
408
FMU 68
BL-1
CR
32
BL-5
CR
41
LI-10
CR
100
LI-12
CR
200
LI-13
CR
40
LI-17
CR
10
Scarification
Treatment
Cutblock
Site Preparation
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
Planting
# Trees
Species
Tending
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
LI-18
CR
90
LI-19
CR
70
LI-20
CR
20
LI-23
CR
30
LI-25
CR
60
LI-28
CR
41
LI-29
CR
100
LI-30
CR
30
LI-35
CR
130
LI-6
CR
75
LI-98
CR
46
LI-99
CR
11
TF-38
CR
15
TF-40
CR
62
TF-44
CR
84
WT-2
CR
22
WT-3
CR
128
Total for FMU 68
1,436
FMU 69
AG-1
CR
37
LU-25
CR
14
SU-6
CR
25
Total for FMU 69
Total for HIGHROCK
76
220
2,961,800
1,546
1,920
NELSON RIVER
FMU 83
AX-12
CR
45
CC-2
CR
100
KL-60
CR
169
MG-2
CR
47
MG-3
CR
21
PD-42
CR
111
SE-98
CR
25
SI-18
CR
159
SI-23
CR
78
SI-24
CR
24
SI-25
CR
49
SI-26
CR
85
Scarification
Treatment
Cutblock
Site Preparation
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
Planting
# Trees
Species
Tending
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
SI-27
CR
SI-28
CR
56
SI-36
CR
178
SI-41
CR
131
SI-42
CR
180
SI-46
CR
150
SI-47
CR
39
CR
100
CR
150
TT-1
CR
31
TT-10
CR
125
TT-2
CR
37
TT-3
CR
71
TT-7
CR
87
TT-9
CR
50
WJ-32
CR
100
SI-48
SI-50
125,000 BS
75
SI-51
180,000 BS
100
SI-52
50,000 BS
25
SI-53
60,000 BS
30
SI-54
30,000 BS
15
SI-56
180,000 BS
90
SI-59
150,000 BS
75
SI-6
SI-60
Total for FMU 83
55,000 BS
830,000
64
30
440
2,462
FMU 84
JO-39
CR
200
JO-47
CR
70
JO-49
CR
30
JO-50
CR
36
JO-51
CR
50
JO-57
CR
25
JO-58
CR
106
JO-62
CR
50
JO-63
CR
25
JO-64
CR
100
JO-66
CR
70
JO-67
CR
100
JO-68
CR
86
JO-69
CR
46
JO-70
CR
25
JO-71
CR
85
Scarification
Treatment
Cutblock
Site Preparation
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
Planting
# Trees
Species
Tending
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
JO-77
CR
25
LL-39
CR
22
LL-40
CR
63
LL-41
CR
59
LL-47
CR
34
LL-49
CR
38
LL-50
CR
4
LN-11
CR
80
LN-12
CR
33
LN-25
CR
39
LN-27
CR
56
LN-29
CR
25
LN-3
CR
16
LN-31
CR
32
LN-33
CR
25
LN-5
CR
13
LN-7
CR
42
RL-84
CR
75
Total for FMU 84
1,785
FMU 85
BQ-87
CR
126
BQ-91
CR
144
GS-11
CR
150
GS-33
CR
26
GS-9
CR
60
JO-32
CR
10
CR
9
NL-7
CR
17
PC-1
CR
200
PC-2
CR
25
PC-25
CR
140
PC-28
CR
45
PC-31
CR
120
PC-34
CR
100
PC-4
CR
75
PC-7
CR
75
JO-33
NJ-7
25,000 BS
16
NJ-9
54,000 BS
30
VE-4
160,000 BS
41
VE-5
513,000 BS
193
752,000
280
Total for FMU 85
1,322
Scarification
Treatment
Cutblock
Site Preparation
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
Planting
# Trees
Species
Tending
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
FMU 87
BQ-19
CR
20
BQ-45
CR
38
GS-39
CR
115
NL-3
CR
71
Total for FMU 87
244
Total for NELSON RIVER
1,582,000
720
5,812
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
FMU 50
RB-31
12,560 BS
16
RB-32
22,400 BS
16
RB-34
35,000 BS
18
RB-37
50,000 BS
50
RB-38
30,000 BS
20
SD-2
CR
35
TU-3
CR
10
Total for FMU 50
149,960
120
45
FMU 53
DN-24
CR
37
DN-26
CR
40
M-2
CR
104
MA-36
CR
10
MA-37
CR
45
MA-38
CR
65
MA-43
CR
25
MA-47
CR
15
MB-31
CR
38
MB-33
CR
30
MB-37
CR
72
MB-42
CR
37
MB-44
CR
20
MC-37
CR
84
PI-1
CR
150
PI-4
CR
400
PI-6
CR
343
TD-17
CR
135
ET-5
ET-6
SF
300
100,000 BS
600
Scarification
Treatment
Cutblock
Site Preparation
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
Planting
# Trees
Species
Tending
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
TD-31
CR
15
TD-39
CR
22
TD-43
CR
15
TD-44
CR
20
TD-46
CR
25
TD-47
CR
45
TD-48
CR
31
TD-50
CR
150
TD-51
CR
40
TM-21
CR
75
TM-25
CR
70
TM-26
CR
60
TM-27
CR
32
TM-29
CR
70
TM-36
CR
70
TM-37
CR
40
TM-39
CR
60
TM-40
CR
31
TM-5
CR
40
TM-205
NATREGEN
220
240,000 BS
150
TM-206
80,000 WS/BS
28
TM-207
475,000 BS/WS
295
TM-208
390,000 BS/WS
121
Total for FMU 53
520
1,285,000
1,194
2,560
FMU 58
OL-54
CR
20
OL-56
CR
25
OL-58
CR
40
OL-59
CR
50
OL-63
30,000 BS
CR
50
OL-64
CR
50
OL-65
CR
25
OL-67
CR
25
OL-69
CR
28
CR
20
CR
50
OL-71
50,000 BS
30
60
OL-73
OL-75
SR-1
SF
400
SR-2
SF
300
TM-211
Total for FMU 58
109,000 BS
700
189,000
42
132
383
1,3
Scarification
Treatment
Cutblock
Site Preparation
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
Planting
# Trees
Species
Tending
Area
(Ha)
Treatment
Area
(Ha)
FMU 59
AB-16
40,000 BS
25
AB-2
CR
AB-5
CR
90
AB-6
CR
124
CR
53
DO-9
CR
24
DW-1
CR
60
MH-1
CR
12
MV-15
CR
10
MV-3
CR
45
OF-3
CR
25
PF-5
CR
8
PT-1
CR
150
PT-2
CR
162
AB-8
150,000 BS
69
DO-1
DO-210
18,000 BS
10
DO-214
54,000 BS/JP
30
HY-10
SF
61
HY-19
72,000 WS/BS
40
HY-20
60,000 WS/BS
30
HY-24
50,000 BS
25
HY-25
10,000 BS
5
HY-26
25,000 BS
12
36,000 BS
20
35,000 BS
20
HY-8
90,000 BS
75
HY-9
18,000 BS
75
HY-27
HY-5
SF
70
RW-10
180,000 BS/WS
100
RW-13
180,000 BS/JP
100
RW-17
180,000 JP/BS
100
RW-18
270,000 JP/BS
150
RW-6
360,000 JP/BS/W
S
150,000 BS
100
RW-9
Total for FMU 59
27
131
1,978,000
70
1,056
790
APPENDIX 4
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
An invitation letter to join the Sustainable Forest Management Committee was also included:
Examples of ads:
Examples of posters posted in various communities:
Appendix 4 – Public Issues and Concerns Table
2015 2017 OP Public Meetings – Questions and Concerns Raised
Cranberry Portage
January 26, 2015
2 pm
Q. Does Tolko get credit from Hydro for producing power in the co-gen facility?
A. Currently we use the power internally, there is a proposal that would generate surplus power for sale to the
grid.
Q. Can Tolko use fire killed wood as hog fuel?
A. It could be used if it is accessible and economical to bring in.
Q. What chemical is used for vegetation management?
A. Tolko uses glyphosate in a similar formula to Roundup for controlling hardwood competition.
Q. Some countries in Europe are banning glyphosate in forestry programs, if that happens here is there a
backup chemical you would use?
A. Glyphosate is the best option for us currently we would reevaluate if it was not available.
Q. Who is responsible for the hardwood renewal?
A. MC is responsible for hardwood renewal, if there is softwood from those blocks that comes to Tolko, the
company does renewal on the softwood component.
Q. Some of the hardwood blocks around The Pas were old softwood cuts that were not properly treated by
the province back in the ‘70s, is there an intention to convert them back to softwood types?
A. We are using the most recent cover type to determine the reforestation objective.
Q. What year did the company take on renewal responsibility?
A. 1989
Q. How do you access logging areas across the Beach Ridge Road now?
A. We have a multi-year road use agreement with OCN.
Q. Will Crossing Bay Road eventually access Highway 6?
A. That is not likely as the province has concerns about wildlife management effects.
Q. Does the company plan to use rail access for wood from Wekusko area?
A. It is better to truck that wood to the mill.
Q. Are there still radio collars on caribou up here?
A. The province is continuing to use satellite collars on them.
Q. Has provincial biologist been replaced?
A. That position was refilled .
Note: we are seeing more caribou than usual around the Cranberry area
Q. Why do you decommission roads so close to the highway? As an outfitter I have a lot of gear in my truck
and if I leave it near the highway stuff goes missing, better if you would decommission the road part way
down so a parked truck wouldn’t be seen from the highway.
A. Keep in touch periodically to try to address any concerns related to activities.
Note: The Syme road is also being considered for closure.
Flin Flon
January 26, 2015
7pm
Q. East side of Wekusko is well staked with mining claims, how do you avoid them? You can look on line to
find out who owns the claims.
A. If we had reliable GPS coordinates we could plan to protect the markers, otherwise have to rely on
operators to notice them.
Q. How will you access the Naosap blocks now that that road is being shown to close?
A. They are accessible from the Sherridon road.
Q. Can you provide some maps of recent cut at Vamp Lake and herbicide treatment near Imperial road?
A. We will forward that to you.
Moose Lake
January 27, 2015
2 pm
Q. I don’t think the Resource Management Board was consulted about the new quarry.
A. It is the provinces responsibility to consult, Company recalls correspondence from the province to the RMB
on that subject.
Q. I subcontract the road grading on portion of Crossing Bay road and would like the contract directly to me.
A. Propose it to the harvesting supervisor.
Q. Why does Moose Lake not benefit from logging?
A. Moose Lake Loggers has been the contractor in this area for decades and have employed many band
members.
Q. There are not enough nutrients in the soil for proper tree growth after logging.
A. All blocks are surveyed to ensure they are meeting requirement for growth.
Q. Someone was storing waste oil on the reserve by the lakeshore and it was overflowing into the lake.
Q. Who gave Tolko the contract to cut trees by the school, it is a fire hazard, and there was arson there and
the logging equipment was burned? We are really concerned about logging on the reserve and who approved
it.
A. Band controls wood on the reserve, Tolko not involved in cutting on reserve, ask Band leadership who
approved it and what the plans for it are. Band could sell wood to Tolko but up to them to manage harvest
and trucking.
Q. Locals want jobs on tree planting, want logging jobs, want to do scarification contract, want to do the
herbicide work, want to get training for driving.
Q. Concerned that Tolko is chipping wood that could be used for lumber.
A. More value in chips than logs in current market.
Q. What is a cord of wood worth?
A. Locally the stumpage to the province is $2.40/m3.
Q. Grand Chief told the people to put their foot down instead of watching our resources be depleted, we want
something in return, we are very poor here. We will tell the council to contact you, we want to stop logging,
we want money from the logging contractor.
Q. Marten are moving around more as a result of logging.
Q. Forest grows better after a fire than logging.
Q. Could we get jobs shoveling hog fuel into the boiler?
A. It is an automated conveyor system.
Q. No one has rights to cut wood.
Q. Should be more accounting of oil purchased vs oil returned for recycling to see where it goes, the waste oil
facility should provide an inventory of returns.
Q. Don’t want an all-weather road at East Arm because the only benefit will be to tourists.
A. The road is gated.
Q. Government should do training.
Q. We don’t want hardwood cut.
Q. We co-manage the resource with the province.
Q. Would like a field trip to look at regen performance and oil storage.
A. We could arrange that.
Q. How come the tree plant was taken away?
A. For a while there was not enough work to attract a local contractor.
Q. How many planters does Outland have?
A. About 40.
Q. Those could be local jobs, Outland never hires locally.
Q. In past when we had the contract the trees were given to someone else, we weren’t allowed to hire more
than 15 planters, we would be happy if we had those jobs.
Q. The school can’t afford books we could put the money towards that.
Q. Comment that Outland had hired locally for the last couple of years.
Q. Should offer tree planting jobs by posting, lots of people would apply.
A. Outland has been instructed to advertise locally.
Q. Should give Moose Lake the contract .
A. Willing to meet with possible local contractor to discuss a contract.
Q. We would need the company to loan us the money to start, Tolko should be number one funder, then
band, then government.
A. Company not in business to offer loans, up to contractor to find funding.
Q. How does herbicide affect the insects and worms in the soil?
A. Has no effect on soil fauna.
Q. It runs into the lake and kills fish.
A. We are careful to put on buffers to water and inspect that they occur as planned.
Q. Do you herbicide to make money?
A. It is a cost that we do to ensure sustainability of the forest.
Q. How many people work on the spray program?
A. 4 helicopter pilots.
Q. Does it kill Seneca root? Seneca root grows in heavy aspen
A. It could kill other plants growing under the aspen where we spray. We try to minimize area sprayed due to
the expense.
Q. Why not spray by hand?
A. Less cost effective (more expensive) and not a popular labor job.
Cormorant
January 27, 2015
7 pm
Q. How much oil is burned in the mill?
A. That figure is probably in the SFM annual report on the website. We offset a huge volume of fuel and
associated greenhouse gasses using hog fuel.
Q. Would we ever cut on Moose Mountain?
A. We would need to survey it to see if there is wood on the ridge, also it is an ASI so the boundary would have
to change before we could log there.
Q. Trapping is more of a hobby that an business now.
Q. Jack pine can regrow very thick, do you ever thin it out?
A. There were some projects done with external funding in the 80s but we don’t do any currently.
Q. Do you cut any second growth?
A. Probably a bit we are not even aware of, plus some of the hardwood blocks were previously logged.
Q. Are you aware of a large hole in the ground in Pork and Beans point area?
A. We had heard of it but don’t have accurate location, (some contact information was given to the company
that would allow for follow up to identify the location).
Sherridon/Cold Lake
January 28, 2015
7 pm
Q. What were the issues related to proposed logging around Cree Lake in the past?
A. It is close to the community and it seemed like there was lots of use of the area.
Q. Can all councilors get on the distribution list, seems like we are not all getting the message?
A. Supply a contact list and you will all get added.
Q. What opportunities for local employment are there?
A. Discussed community allocation, requirements for safety plans for active contracts like pile burning or road
maintenance.
Q. We want to build capacity, could we ship tree length to the mill?
A. Rail cars not set up for tree length wood.
Q. What is the status of the bridges on limestone?
A. Recently inspected, not fit for heavy trucks, not sure what the weight limit was set at.
Q. Will there be work on transit road, there are some washouts could we be hired to fix them, interested in
training opportunities.
Q. There is a good moose area around this lake. It would be good not to log there.
The Pas/OCN/Wanless
January 29, 2015
7 pm
Request to add firewood availability and access to the agenda.
Q. Is the trestle bridge still out on the Chisel Lake Road?
A. Yes, it is not travelable, someone cut out a section and perhaps blew some of it up, it used to be a good
snowmobile route between Snow Lake and Cranberry. It was also examined as one option when considering
the Dickstone road project but not the preferred route.
Q. Some people concerned about going in to Moose Mountain area which would not be good for the moose.
Currently it is a moose refuge. A road would make it too easy for snowmobiles to get in there.
Q. Snowmobile club requests that operator on hardwood auction blocks around Wanless try to preserve the
trail as much as possible
Q. An extension to Athapap road could conflict with the skidoo trail operated by the Flin Flon club, suggested
Tolko should contact them.
Q. An all-weather road south of Halfway could be close to the snowmobile trail along the west side of Scaler
Lake, would require discussion with the club.
Q. Could someone push a little trail through the burn to make access for firewood? There is good standing dry
wood on bipole 3 right of way, easy for someone with a snowmobile to access.
A. Access is a concern to MC and other resource users. Tolko has been requested by resource users closer to
the burn to eliminate access.
Q. Do you use GPS to spray?
A. Where we have georeferenced maps we do, otherwise we get treatment files from contractor. Contractor
uses GPS to space passes properly.
Q. Snowmobile club would appreciate if Tolko sprayed the blocks east of the mill where the trail goes through.
Q. Don’t accept that risk of someone getting hurt is a good reason to close a road, you are always taking a
chance when you go out.
Q. What is difference between temporary and permanent closure?
A. Permanent closure generally has more intensive work around removal of crossings and culverts, while
temporary is more restricted to access control, often at request of MC or a community.
Wabowden
Feb. 15, 2015
2 pm
Q. How accurate is the GPS on a buncher?
A. Quite accurate (can be sub-metre).
Q. What are projections for the lumber over next year?
A. No talk yet about saw mill start up, although continued low dollar may help the economics.
Q. Didn’t the GPS work when cutting near the cemetery at Herb lake?
A. GPS worked fine, but the coordinates supplied by the regulator were incorrect by 220 m. Fortunately the
operator noticed it right away and backed out of the area and called his supervisor. We worked with the local
community to clean up the site and had removed any felled timber within the boundary.
Q. Will Sipiwesk be a summer cut?
A. Summer and fall.
Q. If there is any more discussion of JO-100 and JO-101, would you meet with the trapper and resource users?
A. Yes.
Q. Disappointed that young people and loggers are not coming to these meetings, why is it just the elders
attending?
Q. GO-10 is in my beaver trapping territory.
Q. If you decide to cut a contingency block do you have to contact us?
A. We would if you had indicated a concern at these meetings about it first.
Q. You are showing blocks by Bruneau Lake?
A. They are there more in case the sawmill reopens.
Q. There is a good stand of wood on East side of Tullibee Lake, good sawlog stand.
Q. Is the questionnaire available on the web site?
A. Yes.
A. Is glyphosate environmentally friendly to rabbits?
Q. Safe on rabbits when used as directed.
Q. Do you spray close to the road like South Jonas? Should not spray along roads were public can see it and
get upset about it.
MC Forester Bruce Holmes reviewed the NW Region hardwood plan
Q. There is a good stand of poplar around the Milk Lake Road.
Q. If you spray on the forest that is our source of food, that doesn’t make sense when it is banned in
Winnipeg.
A. Properly used glyphosate is safe, the Winnipeg ban was not specific to different classes of pesticide. There
has been a lot of studies by the government in the US and Canada showing it is a safe product.
Q. What was done before chemicals used in forestry?
A. A lot of area came back to be poplar forest.
Q. There was an area of pine that blew down and came back thick to pine again without aspen or spraying?
A. It depends on the conditions that existed prior to disturbance, sometimes a small amount of hardwood can
become a lot of hardwood if untreated.
Q. If I owned a trap line and didn’t want spraying on my trap line could we sit down and discuss it?
A. Yes we could sit down and talk about where and why not to spray. Tolko has some flexibility with province
to negotiate site specific exemptions to require some treatments.
Q. Is South Jonas Road opened by Hydro?
A. Yes it will be operated by Hydro for next two winters.
Q. Are you going to Wintering Peninsula? We trap there, and had a trail we kept up before you built the road,
after the road we stopped maintaining our trail and it grew in.
A. Only if the sawmill restarts.
Q. Will you pull the bridge on South Jonas?
A. No it is just a short term closure.
Q. There should be more notice when you close a road, so people don’t have equipment left down there.
A. Maybe you could provide a list of people who need to be notified.
Q. Do you have a deal with Hydro on road access?
A. They deal with MC on permits and requirements.
Q. Proposed herbicide is in an area where I catch lynx, removing the aspen would reduce the lynx habitat. Can
you avoid the parts I access from the road?
A. Tolko can leave parts of the block as discussed for wildlife needs.
Q. You have shown herbicide in a part of my trap line that I don’t access, it would not be a problem if you
sprayed there.
Thompson
February 2, 2015
7pm
No one attended this meeting.
Snow Lake
February 3, 2015
7 pm
Q. Will Grass River bridge be temporary?
A. It will likely be a 20-25 year life span.
Q. We won’t see more caribou unless the wolves are controlled, they are using the powerline ROW as access.
Q. Once the Dickstone road is done what will happen to Chisel Railbed Road?
A. It would stay in use for light vehicle access.
Q. The Osborne Lake area contains 3 trap lines and several groups hunt moose there.
Q. Who plants Tolko’s trees?
A. Outland.
Q. Where would the Dolomite Road be closed?
A. There is some history there, parts are thought to be provincial road (at least to dump site). Tolko would
probably look at closure past the dump location.
Q. Would the road to Cook Lake be all season? There are several cabins there with good fishing, if the road
was all season it could get fished out and the cabins would be de-valued.
A. Planning a winter access there.
Discussion followed on logging by Herb Lake cemetery. Although Tolko put a buffer on the location provided
by heritage resource branch, it was located over 200 m from there. Contractor took effective action to
minimize effects of disturbance and worked with local residents to clean up site.
Cross Lake
February 13, 2015
1 pm
One person attended but objected to the process and would not discuss any specifics of the plan. He felt we
had no authority to log or come to the community to talk about it. He had some issues with past Hydro
agreements that he wanted honored. When we explained we were following the process set out by the band
and their lawyer he objected to it as well. Provincial forester agreed to follow up on issues related to
consultation and Hydro agreements.
Grand Rapids
February 20, 2015
6:30 pm
Q. Who collects Pre-harvest survey information?
A. Tolko has 2 Forestry Field Coordinators on staff year-round and we hire temporary staff in the summer to
assist – 6 this year from Forestry /Natural Resources post-secondary programs.
Q. Who determines what information is collected?
A. The Province has a standard for the survey that has to be met.
Q. Is spraying herbicide in this area a done deal, approved?
A. No there is a permitting process we go through with the Province before any spraying can occur.
Q. How much area are you proposing to spray in this area?
A. About 380 hectares or 1000 acres.
Q. Who plants the trees for Tolko?
A. Outland Reforestation, they hire mostly university students, we do ask that they try to hire locally.
Q. Could Tolko work with the community to establish local treeplant contract, provide summer employment
for local kids?
A. Have to be 18 years old to work in forestry industry, there is a lot to it, Safety Plan, regulations to comply
with, equipment required, may not be enough trees to plant annually in the area to justify the effort,
recommend applying to Outland.
Q. We get nothing from Tolko, you need to be inclusive with the community.
A. You’re not being excluded, people are choosing not to take advantage of the situation.
Q. How much does tree planting cost?
A. $0.25/tree, 2000 trees per hectare.
Q. Tolko bankrupted lots of people in this community.
Q. Is there any interest in creating a Public Advisory Group (PAG) in Grand Rapids?
A. We have created community PAGs in other communities in the past, we would be willing to do the same
here.
Q. Want to hold the Province to the “free, prior and informed consent” standard.
Q. Wildlife species that are of most concern locally are moose and bats.
Q. One of the local committee members has been conducting land use interviews with local people
knowledgeable about important areas for animals, medicine picking, petroforms and others.
Q. You said this plan is to be approved June 1?
A. Yes, but that isn’t approval to go to work, there is another process to go through, we need to have work
permits before any work can commence.
Q. (To Province) Do you agree with the “free, prior and informed consent” standard?
A. That’s a policy question, not for me to answer but in practice you have been able to say yes or no.
Q. What’s the Board that makes the decision on work permits?
A. The Integrated Resource Management Team (IRMT) in The Pas. They can modify the plan (at the work
permit stage). Community can access the IRMT through Troy. The Director of Forestry signs off on the
Operating Plan.
Q. We would like to meet with the IRMT when we are ready.
Questions and Responses from Tolko Public Concerns Table March 2013 to February 2015
Q. Person driving from Hudson Bay to The Pas had been forced off the road while trying to pass by a log truck
that was driving erratically. She had a very good description of the truck and load (white cab, sleeper, hauling
small softwood logs), and had reported it to the RCMP. Was able to dig herself out and thought that due to
time of incident that truck might still be in yard.
A. Checked with the scale and found there were two Saskatchewan trucks in that morning, one had left by
7:30 and she was sure that could not have been the truck. There was a truck hauling on a contract to
Edgewood products in the yard unloading so we went to look at it. It was blue and she was sure that was not
the truck. Did a follow up with RCMP from Saskatchewan, Provided contact info for Waugh on chance they
could have been hauling to him. Requested follow up from RCMP that if they did identify the driver to notify
me. Further conversation with RCMP indicated that they thought the truck was delivering to a Saskatchewan
location and were trying to track down driver in Hudson Bay.
Q. Letter from Grand Rapids Town and some concerned citizens from Misipawistik Cree Nation regarding
herbicide and logging and supporting the Wabowden position.
A. Replied with same letter I sent to Wabowden regarding February concern. Held follow up meetings with
group on two occasions in April where Company staff traveled to Grand Rapids to attempt to accommodate.
Q. MC advised that there may be bear hunting operations in the vicinity of some recently permitted harvest
blocks
A. Contacted the outfitter via e-mail and through several e-mails back and forth with attached aerial photos
determined where the potential impacts were and a mitigation strategy, the outfitter was very appreciative Removed a 7.8 Ha portion of the permitted area from the block to accommodate the outfitter.
Q. Trapper had looked at OP map on-line and was wondering if we were going to be re-opening the “Old
Witch” (Duval) Road to access blocks on map – had heard that we may be improving the closure of the Old
Witch Road due to traffic getting in and he’s hoping we won’t because he accesses his trapline with ATV.
A. Blocks on the Old Witch Road have not been approved due to caribou habitat concerns pending data from
new caribou collars deployed this past winter – I am not aware of any plan to modify the existing closure.
Q. Field investigation of AB-12 determined that there was a bear bait on the planned access to the block. Troy
Werstroh and Lee Messett(MC) were notified. Lee followed up with the outfitter and notified the company
that there shouldn’t be a problem with opening up and using the access.
A. Access will be used but road location will be slightly modified so no damage is done to the stand or bait site
- Access location modified slightly to avoid stand/bait location.
Q. Trapper wondered if we could ensure there was a passable spot to get his snowmobile over the Dickstone
Road where his trapping trail crosses it – reasonable slope and no big boulders.
A. Said we could accommodate as long as he provides us with the location - Flagged the location during ROW
clearing during winter of 2013-14, road constructed during winter of 2014-15, road subgrade was ramped on
either side for access and debris windrow was opened up to facilitate access to the trail.
Q. Proactively contacted cabin owner where we were planning herbicide spray within 200 m of his cabin.
Looking for feedback on any special use or features in cutover behind his cabin. Informed him of chemical to
be used and reasons.
A. Cabin owner had no concerns about proposed treatment. We discussed that he should wash any berries
picked this fall, although he didn’t spend much time in the bush there.
Q. General concern and desire for consultation identified by Lands Manager for Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation on
contingency blocks TB-1 and OV-1 in the Overflowing River area.
A. Made a note in WTS under the “Issues” tab for each block to contact them prior to finalizing harvest plans
for these blocks – have made contact again with development of 2015-2017 OP and are working at setting up
a consultation meeting.
Q. Moose Lake resident inquiring about debris pile burning contract in Moose Lake.
A. Concern forwarded to area supervisor, area supervisor followed up with individual.
Q. Trapper expressed interest in burning debris piles that were left by last year’s operations. Trapper was
notified of requirements to become a contractor and was told that the best way to make it happen on such
short notice would be to work for another contractor. Individual and staff tried to make something work, but
it wasn’t possible on such short notice.
A. Area supervisor committed to getting a brief written summary done of contractor requirements and
meeting with the trapper. This would be an attempt to make something work in future years. The majority of
debris piles have been burnt by a regular Tolko contractor – the Company has since been avoiding burning
chipper debris due to the risk of holdover fires in the spring.
Q. Discussion with the son of the trapper that holds the trapline in the PB blocks. Phone number was supplied
to Tolko to contact the trapper regarding planned activities.
A. Planner contacted the trapper Nov 19/13 but trapper hasn’t been well so asked for a call back in a few
weeks when he hopes to be feeling better. Met with the trapper face to face in Jan/14 resulted in a second
proposal with block area reduced from 677 Ha to 341 Ha followed by more phone calls and a community
council meeting in May/14 which resulted in a further reduction of the proposed harvest area to 241 Ha –
CWS issued work permits based on the 241 Ha proposal, community council and trapper remain opposed, no
timber has been harvested to March 8/15.
Q. Local dog musher wondering if we were going to be accessing the Ribs area off the powerline south of The
Pas again this year as he runs his dogs down that way and if we were going to be using the area he would
modify his route accordingly.
A. Planner responded with a return phone message that Tolko would be active in that area again this winter,
that this should be the last year we are using that access and to call back if he had any questions.
Q. Employee of MIT looking for a shapefile of our harvest areas along PTH 39 near Herb Lake Landing turnoff
as they are looking for sources of borrow for a highway re-alignment project.
A. Planner e-mailed shapefile and explanation of potential conflict with an active stockpile/chipping site and a
couple of harvest shapes that are quite new and don’t have actual shapes for in the database yet.
Q. Manitoba economic development organization looking for representative from Tolko to be on a working
group to develop economic spinoffs from Hydro line clearing.
A. Divisional forester agreed to be company point of contact. Discussed in general terms purchase wood and
hog fuel purchases.
Q. There are legacy debris piles at locations along Sherridon road (km 2.5 and km 14.5). What is status?
A. The following information was passed on to the person who inquired: Km 2.5, highways MIT camp clearing
for resurfacing #10, contractor was Nelson River Contracting from Winnipeg. Km 14.5 piles were from
Waugh’s Woods ltd, cut by Lutz logging, burnt Dec. 12 by someone (most likely working for Waugh). Neither
operation was a Tolko operation.
Q. Request to be added to mail distribution list for information that is sent out by Tolko.
A. Name and address added to mail distribution list.
Q. Representative of Kelsey Trail Sno-Riders concerned that a feller buncher had been back and forth across
their groomed trail in multiple spots creating an unmarked hazard for riders – wanted us to mark the rough
stretch somehow, also commented that he hadn’t seen any signs up on the roads where they cross the trail to
warn truckers that they were approaching an active snowmobile trail.
A. Told the individual I would pass his concerns on to the area supervisor which I did and he attended the site
2 days later to check/post signs.
Q. Trapper heard Tolko is getting pushed out of Grand Rapids and now going to harvest at Old Witch/Duval
area. Trapper stores a trailer on opposite side of berm that doesn’t want to get wrecked so was calling to
know when to move it out of the way because the word was that Tolko was going there soon to harvest.
A. Haven’t heard that we are going to be harvesting there any time soon. Area held off from harvest by
caribou, there was a mitigation meeting just recently that there was talk that the government might open an
area for harvest in the area. Tolko to let trapper in the old witch area know when we are going to harvest if
there happens to be some in his trap line area.
Q. Moose Lake Resource Management Board (RMB) concerned about rock blast at km 12, there was some
stone on the road following the blast, someone could have been hurt if they had been in the wrong place at
the wrong time
A. The contractor likely blocked traffic a safe distance back in each direction from the blast site prior to the
blast taking place to ensure nobody was in the danger zone, promised to check and see if this had been done,
followed up next day with individual involved in the blast and they confirmed traffic was prevented from
entering the area during the blast.
Q. Moose Lake RMB: Will there be employment opportunities for community members arising from road
upgrade work this summer?
A. Potentially yes, Tolko encourages contractors to hire local people to the extent possible, don’t know at this
point who will be doing the work but there will be loader operators and truck drivers required to perform the
work.
Q. Moose Lake RMB: One individual at the meeting wanted more roads left open so that fishermen may have
optional access points to get on the lake
A. There is a safety issue with that in that we are not traveling or maintaining the roads while we are not
actively using them so situations could develop that are dangerous to the public, also CWS is concerned about
putting too much pressure on the resource such as wildlife and fish populations, if you wanted to make a case
for a particular road could take it forward through RMB to CWS
Q. Representative of OCN Lands Dept. concerned about equipment parked on Reserve Land and potential
unauthorized resource extraction, wanted to know if it was any connection to Tolko operations
A. Operations Forester told OCN Lands rep that he’s 99% sure that it is not part of anything Tolko is doing but
will check with other staff to confirm this and get back to them, was confirmed and communicated the
following week.
Q. Person from Crossing Bay area called asking about opportunities for selling wood to Tolko and working for
or as a contractor.
A. Woodlands assistant provided contact information for purchase wood and list of contacts for contractors re
employment. Briefly outlined requirements to be a Tolko contractor – safety plan, SWP’s etc. Was more
interested in the employment/selling wood.
Q. Woman from Crossing Bay area called asking if Tolko was interested in purchasing land from her in the
Crossing Bay area.
A. Woodlands assistant responded – Tolko does not purchase land; we would purchase any wood if meeting
Tolko requirements. Wanted to sell the land.
Q. Residents of Herb Lake Landing wanted to commend the tree plant contractor for leaving the staging area
in such clean condition and for the efficient use of the local dump (tree plant debris can overwhelm a dump if
not properly separated).
A. Information was passed to the project manager and regional manager with thanks.
Q. Concerned that the Moose Lake road (public highway) and Crossing Bay road (company road) get rutted up
when we haul in the rain, it is hard on public’s cars and truck and could we stop hauling when the road is wet.
Spoke about what a good berry crop they got on the recent harvest area near the community.
A. Suggested they also contact highways about the public road maintenance. Truckers don’t get paid when
they don’t work, but when it is too wet they can’t get in the bush. Passed the request on to area
superintendent.
Q. OCN Lands Dept. had been advised our herbicide notice indicated we were going to spray in the vicinity of
Egg Lake road and was concerned if we might be proposing to herbicide on reserve land.
A. Replied that proposed area was not on the reserve area, but about 8 km to the west.
Q. Caller had phoned provincial office to ask about disease affecting spruce trees north of town on Hwy 10.
They couldn’t help her and told her to call Tolko.
A. There is a dramatic infection of needle rust on white spruce trees around Watchi Bay. This is actually the
second year of infection there although much more noticeable this year. I suggested that it wasn’t likely to
persist and the trees would recover if not attacked for another two years.
Public meeting at Wabowden:
Q. Wabowden: Road closures, trapper compensation, buffer widths.
A. Reasons for road closure when we are not planning near term road re-use discussed (provincial government
requirement, public and environmental liability, standard of closure to keep out trucks and cars. Tolko does
not pay compensation, will work with trappers to mitigate effects. Buffer widths determined after meeting
with local trapper and MC.
Q. Wabowden: Maintain medicine plants and traditional use following logging.
A. Additional plant collection areas were discussed and mapped on poster sized photo of operating area.
Much of traditional and potential use areas were located in riparian areas and on previously disturbed sites
along company and provincial roads. No critical medicinal plant sources were identified in proposed blocks.
Q. Looking to develop access to new reserve and clear land for development. Interested in seeing Tolko log
on, and north of, reserve to develop access.
A. Will investigate logging opportunity and requirements for logging reserve land.
Q. Grand Rapids Camp Day: Concerned about impacts to other stakeholders (trapper, hunters, campers, etc.),
moose populations, lack of benefits to the community.
A. Discussed that we can try to mitigate these concerns with leave areas, corridors and access control,
operations forester to send harvest proposal map to councilor to record areas of concern – maps mailed
August 29.
Q. Would like in-block roads left intact in DW-12 and 15 to facilitate firewood gathering and berry picking.
A. DW-15 road will remain open as we will continue to utilize it as a stockpile area in the future, would let him
know if the gov’t wanted Tolko to do more closure work at DW-12.
DW-12 block and roads have been scarified with anchor chains for natural jack pine regeneration, advised
supervisors to let operations forester know if they were getting pressure to do more closure work at which
point the elder’s request would be discussed with gov’t – ended up having to spread chipping debris onto
roads as we are not burning it anymore and didn’t want to impact regeneration off the road – advised
individual what we had to do and why and he understood and appreciated the call.
Q. Trapper was concerned about an old portage trail through proposed harvest areas.
A. We incorporated the old trail into our in-block road network so that the location would not be lost.
Q. Trapper concerned about buffer widths and access points in proposed harvest area on his RTL.
A. Expanded some buffers and reduced access points to satisfy the trapper.
Q. UCN instructor looking for info on access to a stock trial site and borrowing height poles.
A. Referred to Forestry Superintendent who advised on access situation and was looking into availability of
height poles.
Q. Call from trapper in follow-up to meeting in September to say he was happy with the changes we had
incorporated into our harvest plan and appreciated us working with him.
Q. Contractor who was burning debris piles near Grand Rapids noticed that someone had set traps in some of
the piles.
A. Tolko contacted local band council and asked for help identifying the trapper (was in an open trap line).
Councilor assisted in providing contact information and company was able to speak with the trapper.
Tolko apologized for inadvertently interfering with trapping operation and offered to make amends. Tolko
supplied the trapper with requested number and type of traps. Trapper thanked Tolko for coming forward
and addressing the mistake.
Q. Several meetings and various communication with Cormorant Community Council and RMB about
harvesting timber in RW blocks, delivering wood through the community and also delivering wood salvaged
from the Bi-Pole III transmission line ROW through the community, discussions centered around safety and
benefits to the community.
A. Both MB Hydro and Tolko agreed to several safety and benefit creating measures but late in December the
demands got too large and the Company had to draw the line and say no so harvest plans were canceled for
the area.
Q. Trapper in Buzz Lake area wanted to know what our harvest plans were for the winter so he could plan his
trapping around it.
A. Discussed areas that were planned to be harvested and mailed a couple of maps to him with Operations
Forester and Area Supervisors’ business cards attached.
Area Supervisor met with him in person on Jan 7/15 and reviewed specifics of the map.
Q. Trapper in Vamp Lake area wanted an updated map of the area and to know what our plans were for the
near future.
A. One planned block wasn’t harvested, VA-8, no immediate plans to harvest, possibly next winter, printed
and mailed a large map to him.
Q. Contacted trapper and told him that we are going to be actively harvesting BZ-40 in the next couple weeks.
He said he is done trapping now and not to drop any trees on his cabin at Stuart Lake.
A. Trapper was told that there was a 100m buffer on Stuart Lake and the in-block road will be within 125 m of
the lake. Trapper was ok with this. Trapper said that his cabin was in a rocky area close to the lake. He also
marked the trapping trail with ribbon and liked the idea of high stumps to mark the trail. Another part of his
trail goes through swamp and he told me that the bunchers wouldn’t be in the area anyways because there
was no merchantable wood.
Q. During meeting with Buzz Lake area trapper he advised Area Supervisor of another trapper that would be
impacted by our operations and shared his contact information.
A. The second trapper was contacted and a meeting with the Area Supervisor was arranged and carried out.
Area Supervisor took trapper for a tour of operations and reviewed maps of proposed harvest areas – trapper
had no issues with the proposed harvest.
Q. Operations Forester called representative of Kelsey Trail Sno-Riders to advise that there had been a change
of plans and we would be active on the Mitchell Lake Road within a few weeks time. We discussed need for
signage and their preference is to have snow windrowed on the north side of the road as the south side is very
deep already.
A. Passed this info on to Area Supervisor for implementation, roads were opened up but no logging ended up
taking place.
Q. Nelson River Logging encountered a grave marker while harvesting in BZ-44.
A. Operator immediately left the area by the route he’d come in and advised his supervisor of what he’d
encountered, NRL supervisor contacted their Tolko supervisor who passed information to Operations Forester
and went to investigate, got GPS coordinates, took photos, determined the site was within the permit
boundary, Historic Resources Branch (HRB) of MB was contacted, 3 locals who are active in the area were
contacted and 2 visited the site and confirmed that it was in fact the Herb Lake Cemetery (we were aware that
there was a cemetery in the area and had buffered the location supplied by HRB with 150 m buffer but
cemetery was 230 m from this location) and provided their knowledge of the extents and orientation of the
site, they were also on site when we brought in a manual bucking crew to buck and remove the trees that had
been laid down by the harvesting equipment within the cemetery boundary, this wood was bucked into stove
lengths and delivered to a local trapper’s cabin that was nearby, bundles of trees that were well outside of the
cemetery were skidded to roadside by a grapple skidder, snow fence was set up around the exposed side of
the cemetery to ensure no equipment accidentally entered the site, a new GPS shapefile was created with 130
m buffer (on advice from HRB) on the actual location and loaded into GPS tablets.
APPENDIX 5
MAPS
APPENDIX 6
CUTBLOCK INFORMATION
AND AERIAL PHOTOS
(In Separate Binders)

2015-2017 OPERATING PLAN

Transcription

Similar documents

ajga 2016 poster

Tolko Industries Ltd.

Retail Leasing Brochure Here

champneys - Bouygues UK

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

AGE SPECTACULARLY!

Parque Nacional Natural Cueva de Los Guacharos

Algyői Általános Iskola

Some facts about Biggest Roulette Win In Vegas