Appendices - Algonquin Forestry Authority

Transcription

SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
For
CAN/CSA-Z809-08 CERTIFICATION
For
The Algonquin Park Forest
Appendices
APPENDIX A: CAN/CSA-Z809-08 Requirement Summary
APPENDIX B: Performance Indicators for the Algonquin Park Forest DFA (VOIT Matrix)
APPENDIX C: Public Participation Plan
APPENDIX D: Advisory Group Terms of Reference (contained within Appendix C)
APPENDIX E: Advisory Group Minutes
APPENDIX F: Public Input Summary/Public Survey Results
APPENDIX G: Management Review Summary
APPENDIX H: FMP Summary
APPENDIX I: AFA SFM Policy
APPENDIX J: Ecosite Area Projection Graphs
APPENDIX K: Forest Unit Area Projection Graphs
APPENDIX L: Pre-sapling/Sapling/T-stage Area Projection Graphs
APPENDIX M: Old Growth Area Projection Graphs
APPENDIX N: Wildlife Habitat Area Projection Graphs
APPENDIX O: Harvest Area Historical Utilization
APPENDIX P: Algonquin Park Tertiary Watersheds and Disturbances
APPENDIX Q: Native Background Information Report and Native Consultation Summary
APPENDIX R: 2010-11 MNR Algonquin Park District Report for Class EA Condition 34
APPENDIX A:
CAN/CSA-Z809-08 Requirement Summary
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CAN/CSA-Z809-08
STANDARD
4. Sustainable Forest Management Requirements
4.1 General Requirements
The organization shall meet the
a) public participation requirements specified in Clause 5;
b) performance requirements specified in Clause 6; and
c) system requirements specified in Clause 7.
4.2 Required Activities
The organization shall meet the SFM requirements of this Standard, which include
a) compliance with legislation applicable to the DFA;
b) values, objectives, indicators, and targets that clearly address the SFM criteria
and elements in this Standard;
c) ongoing and meaningful public participation;
d) implementation of adaptive management;
e) progress towards or achievement of performance targets; and
f) continual improvement in performance.
5. Public Participation Requirements
5.1 Basic Requirements
The organization shall establish and implement a public participation process by
a) starting a new process;
b) building on an existing process; or
c) reviving a previous process.
5.2 Interested Parties
The organization shall:
a) openly seek representation from a broad range of interested parties, including
DFA-related workers, and invite them to participate in developing the public
participation process;
b) provide interested parties with relevant background information;
Page 1
c) demonstrate through documentation that efforts were made to contact and
encourage affected and interested communities, including Aboriginal
communities, to become involved in the SFM public participation process;
d) acknowledge that Aboriginal participation in the public participation process is
without prejudice to Aboriginal title and rights, or treaty rights; and
e) establish and maintain a list of interested parties that includes
(i) those that chose to participate;
(ii) those that decided not to participate;
(iii) those that were unable to participate;
(iv) the reasons for not participating, if provided; and
(v) efforts within the organization to enable participation.
The list shall contain names and contact information.
5.3 Process: Basic operating rules
The organization shall demonstrate that
a) the public participation process works according to clearly defined operating rules
that contain provisions on
(i) content;
(ii) goals;
(iii) timelines;
(iv) internal and external communication;
(v) resources (including human, physical, financial, information, and
technological, as necessary and reasonable);
(vi) roles, responsibilities, and obligations of participants and their organizations;
(vii) conflict of interest;
(viii) decision-making methods;
(ix) authority for decisions;
(x) mechanisms to adjust the process as needed;
(xi) access to information (including this Standard);
(xii) the participation of experts, other interests, and government;
(xiii) a dispute-resolution mechanism; and
(xiv) a mechanism to measure participants’ satisfaction with the process; and
b) the participants have agreed to the public participation process operating rules.
5.4 Content
In the public participation process, interested parties shall have opportunities to work
with the organization to
a) identify and select values, objectives, indicators, and targets based on SFM
elements and any other issues of relevance to the DFA;
Page 2
b) develop one or more possible strategies;
c) assess and select one or more strategies;
d) review the SFM plan;
e) design monitoring programs, evaluate results, and recommend improvements;
and;
f) discuss and resolve any issues relevant to SFM in the DFA.
The organization and the public participation process shall ensure that the values,
objectives, indicators, and targets are consistent with relevant government legislation,
regulations, and policies.
5.5 Communication
a) provide access to information about the DFA and the SFM requirements
b) provide information to a broader public about the progress being made in the
implementation of this Standard
c) make allowances for different linguistic, cultural, geographic, or informational
needs of interested parties
d) demonstrate that there is ongoing public communication about the DFA, including
the public participation process; and
e) demonstrate that all input is considered, and responses are provided.
6. SFM Performance Requirements:
6.1 DFA-specific performance requirements
The organization, working with interested parties in the public participation process at
each stage, shall establish DFA-specific performance requirements that address the
SFM elements in Clause 6.3, as follows:
a) for each element, one or more DFA-specific values shall be identified;
b) for each value, one or more objectives shall be set;
c) for each value, one or more meaningful indicators shall be identified, including
core and locally selected indicators. Indicators shall be quantitative where
feasible;
d) for each indicator, data on the current status shall be provided, and one
appropriate target shall beset. Each target shall specify acceptable levels of
variance for the indicator and clear time frames for achievement.
e) one or more strategies shall be identified and elaborated for meeting identified
targets; and
Page 3
f) forecasts shall be prepared for the expected responses of each indicator to
applicable strategies, and the methods and assumptions used for making each
forecast shall be described.
The work shall be recorded and summarized in the SFM plan. During plan
implementation, measurements shall be taken for each indicator at appropriate times
and places. Measurement results shall be interpreted in the context of the forecasts in
the SFM plan.
6.2 SFM criteria — General
The organization, in conformance with the public participation process requirements of
Clause 5, shall address the discussion items listed under each Criterion below, and
shall identify DFA-specific values, objectives, indicators, and targets for each element,
as well as any other values associated with the DFA.
The indicators shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the core indicators
identified in this Standard.
6.3 SFM criteria, elements, and core indicators
6.3.1 Criterion 1 — Biological diversity
Conserve biological diversity by maintaining integrity, function, and diversity of living
organisms and the complexes of which they are part.
Element 1.1 — Ecosystem diversity
Conserve ecosystem diversity at the stand and landscape levels by maintaining the
variety of communities and ecosystems that naturally occur in the DFA.
Core indicators
• 1.1.1 — Ecosystem area by type
• 1.1.2 — Forest area by type or species composition
• 1.1.3 — Forest area by seral stage or age class
• 1.1.4 — Degree of within-stand structural retention
Element 1.2 — Species diversity
Conserve species diversity by ensuring that habitats for the native species found in the
DFA are maintained through time, including habitats for known occurrences of species
at risk.
Page 4
Core indicators
• 1.2.1 — Degree of habitat protection for selected focal species, including
species at risk
• 1.2.2 — Degree of suitable habitat in the long term for selected focal species,
including species at risk
• 1.2.3 — Proportion of regeneration comprised of native species
Element 1.3 — Genetic diversity
Conserve genetic diversity by maintaining the variation of genes within species and
ensuring that reforestation programs are free of genetically modified organisms.
Element 1.4 — Protected areas and sites of special biological and cultural
significance
Respect protected areas identified through government processes. Co-operate in
broader landscape management related to protected areas and sites of special
biological and cultural significance.
Identify sites of special geological, biological, or cultural significance within the DFA,
and implement management strategies appropriate to their long-term maintenance.
Core indicators
• 1.4.1 — Proportion of identified sites with implemented management strategies
• 1.4.2 — Protection of identified sacred and culturally important sites
6.3.2 Criterion 2 — Ecosystem condition and productivity
Conserve forest ecosystem condition and productivity by maintaining the health, vitality,
and rates of biological production.
Element 2.1 — Forest ecosystem resilience
Conserve ecosystem resilience by maintaining both ecosystem processes and
ecosystem conditions.
Core indicator
• 2.1.1 — Reforestation success
Element 2.2 — Forest ecosystem productivity
Conserve forest ecosystem productivity and productive capacity by maintaining
ecosystem conditions that are capable of supporting naturally occurring species.
Reforest promptly and use tree species ecologically suited to the site.
Core indicators
• 2.2.1 — Additions and deletions to the forest area
• 2.2.2 — Proportion of the calculated long-term sustainable harvest level that is
actually harvested
Page 5
6.3.3 Criterion 3 — Soil and water
Conserve soil and water resources by maintaining their quantity and quality in forest
ecosystems.
Element 3.1 — Soil quality and quantity
Conserve soil resources by maintaining soil quality and quantity.
Core indicators
• 3.1.1 — Level of soil disturbance
• 3.1.2 — Level of downed woody debris
Element 3.2 — Water quality and quantity
Conserve water resources by maintaining water quality and quantity.
Core indicator
• 3.2.1 — Proportion of watershed or water management areas with recent standreplacing disturbance
6.3.4 Criterion 4 — Role in global ecological cycles
Maintain forest conditions and management activities that contribute to the health of
global ecological cycles.
Element 4.1 — Carbon uptake and storage
Maintain the processes that take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in forest
ecosystems.
Core indicators
• 4.1.1 — Net carbon uptake
• 2.1.1 — Reforestation success
Element 4.2 — Forest land conversion
Protect forest lands from deforestation or conversion to non-forests, where ecologically
appropriate.
Core indicator
• 2.2.1 — Additions and deletions to the forest area
6.3.5 Criterion 5 — Economic and social benefits
Sustain flows of forest benefits for current and future generations by providing multiple
goods and services.
Page 6
Element 5.1 — Timber and non-timber benefits
Manage the forest sustainably to produce an acceptable and feasible mix of timber and
non-timber benefits. Evaluate timber and non-timber forest products and forest-based
services.
Core indicator
• 5.1.1 — Quantity and quality of timber and non-timber benefits, products, and
services produced in the DFA
Element 5.2 — Communities and sustainability
Contribute to the sustainability of communities by providing diverse opportunities to
derive benefits from forests and by supporting local community economies.
Core indicators
• 5.2.1 — Level of investment in initiatives that contribute to community
sustainability
• 5.2.2 — Level of investment in training and skills development
• 5.2.3 — Level of direct and indirect employment
• 5.2.4 — Level of Aboriginal participation in the forest economy
6.3.6 Criterion 6 — Society’s responsibility
Society’s responsibility for sustainable forest management requires that fair, equitable,
and effective forest management decisions are made.
Element 6.1 — Aboriginal and treaty rights
Recognize and respect Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. Understand and
comply with current legal requirements related to Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty
rights.
Core indicators
• 6.1.1 — Evidence of a good understanding of the nature of Aboriginal title and
rights
• 6.1.2 — Evidence of best efforts to obtain acceptance of management plans
based on Aboriginal communities having a clear understanding of the plans
• 6.1.3 — Level of management and/or protection of areas where culturally
important practices and activities (hunting, fishing, gathering) occur
Element 6.2 — Respect for Aboriginal forest values, knowledge, and uses
Respect traditional Aboriginal forest values, knowledge, and uses as identified through
the Aboriginal input process.
Page 7
Core indicator
• 6.2.1 — Evidence of understanding and use of Aboriginal knowledge through
the engagement of willing Aboriginal communities, using a process that identifies
and manages culturally important resources and values
Element 6.3 — Forest community well-being and resilience
Encourage, co-operate with, or help to provide opportunities for economic diversity
within the community.
Core indicators
• 6.3.1 — Evidence that the organization has co-operated with other forestdependent businesses, forest users, and the local community to strengthen and
diversify the local economy
• 6.3.2 — Evidence of co-operation with DFA-related workers and their unions to
improve and enhance safety standards, procedures, and outcomes in all DFArelated workplaces and affected communities
• 6.3.3 — Evidence that a worker safety program has been implemented and is
periodically reviewed and improved
Element 6.4 — Fair and effective decision-making
Demonstrate that the SFM public participation process is designed and functioning to
the satisfaction of the participants and that there is general public awareness of the
process and its progress.
Core indicators
• 6.4.1 — Level of participant satisfaction with the public participation process
• 6.4.2 — Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful
participation in general
• 6.4.3 — Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful
participation for Aboriginal communities
Element 6.5 — Information for decision-making
Provide relevant information and educational opportunities to interested parties to
support their involvement in the public participation process, and increase knowledge of
ecosystem processes and human interactions with forest ecosystems.
Core indicators
• 6.5.1 — Number of people reached through educational outreach
• 6.5.2 — Availability of summary information on issues of concern to the public
Page 8
7. SFM System Requirements
7.1 General
The organization shall establish and maintain an SFM system, as described in Clause
7.
7.2 SFM Policy
The top management shall define and maintain the organization’s SFM commitment
through policy statements and/or other documented public statements. The
statement(s) shall contain a commitment to:
a) achieve and maintain SFM;
b) meet or exceed all relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and other
requirements to which the organization subscribes;
c) respect and recognize Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights;
d) provide for public participation;
e) provide participation opportunities for Aboriginal Peoples with rights to and
interests in SFM within the DFA;
f) provide conditions and safeguards for the health and safety of DFA-related
workers and the public;
g) honour all international agreements and conventions to which Canada is a
signatory;
(h) improve knowledge about the forest and SFM, monitor advances in SFM science
and technology, and incorporate these advances where applicable; and
(i) demonstrate continual improvement of SFM.
The statement(s) shall be documented, communicated, and made readily available.
7.3 Planning
7.3.1 Defined Forest Area (DFA)
The organization shall designate a clearly defined forest area to which this Standard
applies. The organization shall define the geographic extent and the respective
ownership and management responsibilities for the DFA.
7.3.2 Shared responsibilities
The organization shall ensure that all parties necessary to address the SFM elements
for the DFA are involved in the process. The organization shall clearly describe the
respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved.
Page 9
Where there are parties operating within the DFA that are not interested in participating
and are not necessary for the achievement of the SFM elements, the organization may
proceed without their involvement provided that the objectives and targets can still be
achieved.
7.3.3 Rights and regulations
a) respect the legal rights and responsibilities of other parties in the DFA that are not
part of the certification applicant;
b) demonstrate that relevant legislation and regulatory requirements relating to
ownership, tenure, rights, and responsibilities in the DFA have been identified and
complied with;
c) demonstrate that Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights have been identified
and respected;
d) demonstrate that the legal and constitutional rights (including those specified in
the International Labour Organization [ILO] conventions to which Canada is a
signatory [such as “Freedom of Association” and “Protection of the Right to
Organize”]) and the health and safety of DFA-related workers are respected, and
their contributions to SFM are encouraged;
e) demonstrate that the acquired and legal rights of private woodlot owners to set
the values, objectives, indicators, and targets relating to their properties are
respected; and
f) establish and maintain procedures to identify and have access to all legal and
other requirements to which the organization subscribes that are applicable to the
DFA. This includes requirements related to ownership tenure, rights, and
responsibilities in the DFA.
7.3.4 Incorporation of public participation requirements
The public participation requirements specified in Clause 5 shall be incorporated into
the SFM system.
7.3.5 SFM plan
The organization shall document, maintain, and make publicly available an SFM plan for
the DFA. The SFM plan for each DFA shall include
a) a comprehensive description of the DFA;
b) a summary of the most recent forest management plan and the management
outcomes, including the conclusions drawn in the management review;
c) a statement of values, objectives, indicators, and targets;
d) the current status and forecasts for each indicator, including a description of the
assumptions and analytical methods used for forecasting;
Page 10
e) a description of the chosen strategy, including all significant actions to be
undertaken and the associated implementation schedule;
f) a description of the monitoring program;
g) a comparative analysis of actual and expected outcomes; and
h) a demonstration of the links between short-term operational plans and the SFM
plan.
7.4 Implementation and operation
7.4.1 Structure and responsibility
Roles, responsibilities, and authority required to implement and maintain conformance
with SFM requirements shall be defined, documented, and communicated within the
organization.
The organization shall provide resources essential to the implementation and control of
the SFM requirements, including human resources and specialized skills, technology,
and financial resources.
The organization shall appoint a specific management representative(s) who shall have
defined roles, responsibilities, and authority for
a) ensuring that the SFM requirements are established and maintained in
accordance with this Standard; and
b) reporting on the SFM requirements to top management for review and as a basis
for continual improvement.
7.4.2 Training, Awareness, Qualifications, and Knowledge
The organization shall identify training needs. It shall also ensure that personnel receive
training in accordance with the impact of their work on the DFA and their ability to
ensure that SFM requirements are met.
The organization shall establish and maintain procedures to ensure that personnel, at
each relevant function and level, have knowledge of
a) the importance of conformance with the SFM policy and with the SFM
requirements;
b) the environmental impacts, actual or potential, of their work and the benefits of
meeting the SFM requirements;
c) their roles and responsibilities in achieving conformance with the SFM policy and
SFM requirements, including emergency preparedness and response
requirements; and
d) the potential consequences of deviations from specified operating procedures.
Page 11
The organization shall ensure that its personnel are qualified on the basis of appropriate
training and/or work experience and have opportunities to gain new knowledge. The
organization shall also require contractors working on its behalf to demonstrate that
their personnel have the requisite training and awareness levels. The organization shall
continually improve its knowledge of the DFA and SFM and shall monitor advances in
SFM science and technology and incorporate them where and when applicable.
7.4.3 Communication
a) establish and maintain procedures for internal communication between its various
levels and functions;
b) establish and maintain procedures for receiving, documenting, and responding to
relevant communication from external interested parties;
c) make the SFM plan publicly available;
d) make publicly available an annual report on its performance in meeting and
maintaining the SFM requirements; and
e) make publicly available the results of independent certification and surveillance
audit reports, including, at minimum, the following information:
(i) a description of the audit process, objectives, and scope;
(ii) the scope of certification;
(iii) DFA and tenure description;
(iv) a list of the elements audited both off-site and on-site;
(v) the name of the certified organization and/or co-applicant(s) that were
audited, including their representatives;
(vi) the name of the certification body, lead auditor, and audit team members;
(vii) the dates the audit was conducted and certification completed;
(viii) a summary of the findings, including general descriptions of
nonconformities, opportunities for improvement, and exemplary
practices/positives;
(ix) a statement of corrective actions taken for current nonconformities;
(x) the status of nonconformities from previous audits;
(xi) the certification recommendation;
(xii) the number of sites visited on the ground and activities observed;
(xiii) the number of public participation members, government officials, DFArelated workers, and other interested parties that were interviewed;
(xiv) the date of the next audit; and
(xv) forest areas for the next audit.
Page 12
7.4.4 SFM Documentation
The organization shall establish and maintain information, in paper or electronic form,
that:
a) describes the SFM requirements and their interaction; and
b) provides direction to related documentation.
Organizations shall ensure that DFA-related workers and contractors have access to
documentation relevant to their responsibilities and tasks.
7.4.5 Document Control
7.4.5.1
The organization shall establish and maintain procedures for controlling all documents
(paper or electronic) required by this Standard to ensure that:
a) documents can be readily located;
b) documents are periodically reviewed, revised as necessary, and approved as
adequate by authorized personnel;
c) the current versions of relevant documents are available at all locations where
operations essential to the fulfillment of the SFM requirements and the SFM plan
are performed;
d) obsolete documents are promptly removed from all points of issue and use, or
otherwise prevented from unintended use; and
e) obsolete documents retained for legal and/or knowledge preservation purposes
are suitably identified.
7.4.5.2
Documentation shall be
a) legible;
b) dated (with dates of revision);
c) readily identifiable;
d) maintained in an orderly manner; and
e) retained for a specified period.
Procedures and responsibilities for the creation and modification of the various types of
documents shall be established and maintained.
7.4.6 Operational Procedures and Control
a) identify the operational procedures and controls needed to meet the SFM
requirements;
Page 13
b) establish and maintain documented procedures to cover situations in which the
absence of such procedures could lead to deviations from the SFM requirements;
c) stipulate operating criteria, including maintenance and calibration requirements;
d) communicate relevant procedures, controls, and requirements to employees,
suppliers and contractors; and
e) ensure that contractors working on behalf of the organization have the necessary
operational procedures and controls.
7.4.7 Emergency Preparedness and Response
a) establish and maintain procedures to identify the potential for, and response to,
accidents and emergencies in the DFA;
b) establish and maintain procedures to prevent and mitigate the associated with
accidents and emergencies;
c) review and revise, where necessary, its emergency preparedness and response
procedures, particularly after the occurrence of accidents or emergencies; and
d) where practicable, periodically test procedures.
7.5 Checking and Corrective Action
7.5.1 Monitoring and Measurement
a) establish and maintain documented procedures to monitor, on a regular basis, the
key characteristics of its operations and activities that demonstrate progress
towards SFM in the DFA. This shall include the recording of performance levels,
relevant operational controls, and conformance with the SFM requirements;
b) monitor the indicators for comparison against the forecasts;
c) establish and maintain a documented procedure for periodically evaluating
compliance with relevant legislation and regulations, and conformance with
relevant policies applying to the DFA. If non-compliances or nonconformities are
found, the organization shall address these through corrective and preventive
actions; and
d) assess the quality, validity, and meaningfulness of the locally determined
indicators and all of the targets.
7.5.2 Corrective and Preventive Action
The organization shall establish and maintain procedures for:
Page 14
a) defining responsibility and authority for identifying and investigating
nonconformity;
b) taking action to mitigate impacts; and
c) initiating and completing corrective and preventive action. Any corrective or
preventative action taken to eliminate the causes of actual and potential nonconformities shall be appropriate to the magnitude of the problem and
commensurate with the impact encountered.
7.5.3 Records
The organization shall establish and maintain procedures for the identification,
maintenance, and disposal of SFM requirement records. These records shall include
training records and the results of audits and reviews.
SFM requirement records shall be
a) legible;
b) identifiable;
c) traceable to the activity involved; and
d) stored and maintained such that they are readily retrievable and protected against
damage, deterioration, or loss.
Their retention times shall be established and recorded.
Records shall be maintained, in a manner appropriate to the system and to the
organization, to demonstrate conformance to the requirements of this Standard.
7.5.4 Internal Audits to the SFM Requirements
7.5.4.1
a) establish and maintain procedures for annual internal audits to ensure that they
conform to the SFM requirements of this Standard; and
b) provide information on the results of these internal audits to top management.
7.5.4.2
The organization’s internal audit program, including any schedules, shall be based on
the importance of the specific SFM activity and the results of previous audits.
Audit procedures shall cover the following:
a) scope;
b) frequency;
c) methods;
d) responsibilities and requirements for conducting audits;
Page 15
e) auditor qualifications; and
f) reporting results.
7.6 Management Review
The organization’s top management shall, at least annually, review the SFM
requirements to ensure that progress towards SFM continues to be suitable, adequate,
and effective. The information necessary to allow top management to carry out this
evaluation shall be collected. This review shall be documented.
In order to be adaptive, the management review shall address the possible need for
changes to policy, targets, and other SFM requirements, in light of audit results,
changing circumstances, and the commitment to continual improvement.
Page 16
APPENDIX B:
Performance Indicators for the Algonquin Park Forest DFA
(VOIT Matrix)
Algonquin Forestry Authority – "Value, Objective, Indicator and Target" Matrix
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
CAN/CSA-Z809-08 prescribed
component that guides
Sustainable Forest Management
planning.
A Defined-Forest-Area
characteristic,
component, or quality
considered by an
interested party to be
important in relation to a
CSA Sustainable Forest
Management element or
other locally identified
element.
A broad statement describing a
desired future state or condition
for a value.
A variable that measures or
describes the state or condition of
a value.
A specific statement describing a
desired future state or condition of an
indicator. Targets should be clearly
defined, time-limited, and quantified.
VARIANCE
CCFM Criterion 1. Biological Diversity
Conserve biological diversity by maintaining integrity, function, and diversity of living organisms and the complexes of which they are part.
Element 1.1 Ecosystem
Diversity
Conserve ecosystem diversity at
the stand and landscape levels
by maintaining the variety of
communities and ecosystems
that naturally occur in the DFA.
1.1.1 Forested
Ecosystems
1.1.1.1 To maintain a mosaic of
constantly changing yet everpresent forest types within
acceptable levels of the Bounds
of Natural Variation.
1.1.1.1.1 Ecosystem area by type
Maintain >= 75% of the natural
benchmark value by each term of
ecosite areas for the 100 year
planning horizon within the DFA for all
ecosites except ES15.
As stated in
target
For ES15 maintain >= 70% of the
natural benchmark value by each term
for the 100 year planning horizon
within the DFA.
1.1.1.1.2 Forest area by type
benchmark value by each term of
forest unit area for the 100 year
planning horizon within the DFA for all
forest units except PjCC.
As stated in
target
For PjCC maintain >= 70% of the
natural benchmark value by each term
of forest unit area for the 100 year
planning horizon within the DFA.
1.1.1.1.3 Forest area by seral
stage
10/26/2012
Algonquin Forestry Authority
Yellow Highlight = CSA Z809 Mandatory Core Indicator
Maintain non-forest ecosystems
(muskeg, brush and alder, rock) >
57,575 ha over time (2000 FMP
benchmark)
+/- 5%
benchmark value by each term of the
Pre-sapling, Sapling, T-Stage young
forest condition for the 100 year
planning horizon within the DFA
As stated in
target
Page 1 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
1.1.1.2 To maintain landscape
diversity by minimizing
landscape fragmentation
Element 1.2 Species
Diversity
Conserve species diversity by
ensuring that habitats for the
native species found on the
Defined Forest Area are
maintained through time,
including habitats for known
occurrences of species at risk.
1.2.1 Wildlife Species
Habitat
1.2.1.1 To maintain wildlife
habitat – coarse filter/long term
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
1.1.1.1.4 Total area (ha) by
even-aged forest unit in the old
growth development stage by the
start of each planning term.
Maintain >=75% of the natural
benchmark value of old growth for
each even-aged forest unit by each
term for the 100 year planning
horizon within the DFA
As stated in
target
1.1.1.2.1 Range of disturbance
patch sizes within the Bounds of
Natural Variation (BNV)
A distribution of disturbance areas
that will result in a patch size pattern
over the long term that shows
movement towards natural
disturbance frequency by size class.
Within the BNV
1.1.1.2.2 Degree of within stand
structural retention
All tree marking inspections will meet
the residual stocking and wildlife tree
retention criteria (if available) at final
inspection stage.
-5%
1.2.1.1.1 Degree of suitable
habitat in the long term for
selected focal species, including
species at risk.
To achieve levels of preferred wildlife
habitat for selected species greater
than or equal to 75% of the natural
benchmark SFMM run (NB level) by
term, except for black bear summer
and moose foraging habitat.
As stated in
target
Maintain >=4,000 ha by term for
black bear summer habitat.
All values >
natural
benchmark
levels are
acceptable
Maintain >=97,000 ha of moose
foraging habitat.
1.2.1.2 To maintain wildlife
habitat – fine filter/short term
1.2.1.2.1 Degree of habitat
protection for selected focal
species, including species at risk.
100% compliance with Area of
Concern prescriptions for the
protection of forest-dependent wildlife
species, including SAR (for OPU’s with
those values only) as assessed in
FOIP.
- 5%
Includes: SAR, OS, HN, RSH, NGH,
OH1, OH2, OH3, RAV, GHO, BAR,
CAV1, BARCAV, GHOCAV, NHOCAV,
CSCAV, MAFA, MCS, WRS, BBD
1.2.1.3 Retain ecological values
and functions associated with
sensitive brook trout habitat
10/26/2012
1.2.1.3.1 Brook Trout Lake and
Critical Fish Habitat AOC Integrity
100% compliance with Area of
Concern prescriptions for designated
self-sustaining brook trout lakes and
critical fish habitat as assessed in
FOIP.
- 5%
Page 2 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
1.2.2 Tree Species
Diversity
1.2.2.1 To maintain red spruce
in the DFA
1.2.2.1.1 Status of red spruce as
documented in Tree marking
records, Silvicultural Effectiveness
Monitoring records and the use of
local knowledge.
1) Maintain operational controls to
ensure the identification and
management of red spruce as
encountered within the
Recreation/Utilization Zone.
As reported
every 5 years
2) Maintain a map showing known
historic and present red spruce areas.
1.2.2.2 Quantify the status of
hemlock regeneration and
recruitment in the DFA.
1.2.2.2.1 Hemlock regeneration
and recruitment status
Review and report on the status of
hemlock regeneration and recruitment
in Algonquin Park by June 1, 2013.
N/A
1.2.2.3 To maintain the forest
of Algonquin Park with native
tree species.
1.2.2.2.2 Proportion of
regeneration comprised of native
species*
100% of regenerating tree species
comprised of native species.
- 1%
*Native tree species as defined in
Trees of Algonquin Provincial Park
(Friends of Algonquin Park, 2006)
Element 1.3 Genetic
Diversity
Conserve genetic diversity by
maintaining the variation of
genes within the species and
ensuring that reforestation
programs are free of genetically
modified organisms.
10/26/2012
1.3.1 Genetic Diversity
of Tree Species
1.3.1.1 To maintain genetic
diversity within the tree species
native to the DFA.
5 year reporting cycle – next report in
2017
1.3.1.1.1 Application of tree
marking guidelines
100% of sites where natural
regeneration is a preferred treatment
must retain appropriate leave trees as
a seed source or retain local genetic
reproductive material.
0
1.3.1.1.2 Proportion of seed used
in artificial renewal derived from
appropriate seed zone
100% of seed used on the DFA is
from the appropriate seed zone
and/or within transfer guidelines.
0
Page 3 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
Element 1.4 Protected
Areas and Sites of Special
Biological and Cultural
Significance
Respect protected areas
identified through government
processes. Cooperate in broader
landscape management related
to protected areas and sites of
special biological and cultural
significance. Identify sites of
special geological, biological or
cultural significance within the
DFA and implement
management strategies
appropriate to their long-term
maintenance.
1.4 .1 Algonquin
Provincial Park
Management Plan Zones
1.4.1.1 Protect the special
values represented by the
following four land use
categories defined by the
Algonquin Provincial Park
Management Plan:
- Nature Reserve
- Wilderness
- Natural Environment
- Historical
1.4.1.1.1 Identification and
protection of zone boundaries
100% compliance with zone boundary
locations.
0
1.4.1.1.2 Proportion of identified
sites with implemented
management strategies
100% of identified sites of special
biological and cultural significance in
the Algonquin Park Management Plan
and in Areas of Concern (AOCs) with
implemented management strategies
0
1.4.2.1.1 Protection of identified
sacred and culturally important
sites
100% compliance with identified sites
(CHS1, CHS2, CHS3 and APA Areas of
Concern) as assessed in FOIP.
- 5%
100% regeneration success
80% silviculture success
-10%
1.4.2 Other Sites of
Cultural Significance
1.4.2.1 Identify and protect
sacred and culturally important
sites in the DFA
CCFM Criterion 2. Ecosystem Condition and Productivity
Conserve forest ecosystem condition and productivity by maintaining the health, vitality, and rates of biological production.
Element 2.1 Forest
Ecosystem Resilience
Conserve ecosystem resilience
by maintaining both ecosystem
processes and ecosystem
conditions.
2.1.1 Resilient Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence
Forest Ecosystems
2.1.1.1 Assist those ecosystems
as required whose growth has
been impacted by fire, insect,
disease, and blowdown or
harvesting to regenerate or
otherwise continue along their
successional pathway.
2.1.1.1.1 Reforestation success
Free-to-grow time frames as
prescribed in FMP silvicultural ground
rules.
2017
10/26/2012
Page 4 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
Element 2.2 Forest
Ecosystem Productivity
Conserve forest ecosystem
productivity and productive
capacity by maintaining
ecosystem conditions that are
capable of supporting naturally
occurring species. Reforest
promptly and use tree species
ecologically suited to the site.
2.2.1 Healthy, Productive
Forests
2.2.1.1 To maintain the
ecological and productive
capacity of the DFA in order to
provide society with a
sustainable harvest of forestbased material and social
values.
2.2.1.1.1 Additions and deletions
to the forest area
No more than 2.0% of production
forest area harvested used for roads,
landings and aggregate pits.
+ 10%
(i.e. 2.2% max)
2017
2.2.1.1.2 Proportion of the
calculated long-term sustainable
harvest level that is actually
harvested
Make available 100% of the available
harvest area (AHA) in the 2010 FMP.
0
Do not exceed the calculated AHA
from FMP.
Annually report on proportion actually
harvested.
CCFM Criterion 3. Soil and Water
Conserve soil and water resources by maintaining their quantity and quality in forest ecosystems.
Element 3.1 Soil Quality and
Quantity
Conserve soil resources by
maintaining soil quality and
quantity.
Element 3.2 Water Quality
and Quantity
Conserve water resources by
maintaining water quality and
quantity.
10/26/2012
3.1.1 Soils of the
Precambrian Upland and
Ottawa Lowland
3.1.1.1 To maintain the living
substrate for forest stands.
3.1.1.1.1 Level of soil
disturbance
100% of area harvested in compliance
with FMP site impact guidelines as
assessed in FOIP.
- 5%
3.1.1.1.2 Level of downed woody
debris
All tree marking inspections will meet
the residual stocking and wildlife tree
retention criteria (if wildlife trees are
available) at final inspection stage.
-5%
-5%
3.1.2 Aggregate
resources
3.1.2.1 Effective and efficient
use of aggregate material used
for the construction and
maintenance of forest access
roads.
3.1.2.1.1 Compliance with FMP
operational standards for forestry
aggregate pits
100% compliance with operational
standards for forestry aggregate pits
as assessed in FOIP.
3.2.1 Algonquin Dome
Headwaters
3.2.1.1 Conserve the quality
and quantity of interior
waterways, wetlands and
catchment areas within the
DFA.
3.2.1.1.1 Proportion of water
crossings that are properly
installed and removed
100% compliance with water crossing
installation and removal requirements
as assessed in FOIP.
- 5%
Page 5 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
3.2.1.1.2 Compliance with
prescriptions developed for the
protection of water quality and
fish habitat
100% compliance with water quality
and fish habitat AOCs as assessed in
FOIP.
- 5%
3.2.1.1.3 Number of spills that
enter water bodies
Zero spills entering water bodies, as
recorded by Environmental
Management System Spill Incident
Form.
0
3.2.1.1.4 Use of salted sand for
winter road maintenance on
forest access roads
Phase out the use of salted sand on
interior roads by 50% by 2015 and
100% by 2020
0
3.2.1.1.5 Proportion of
watershed or water management
areas with recent stand-replacing
disturbance
Less than 20% of each Algonquin Park
tertiary watershed with recent (10
year) stand-replacing disturbance
0
Assess every 10 years– next report in
2020
CCFM Criterion 4. Role in Global Ecological Cycles
Maintain forest conditions and management activities that contribute to the health of global ecological cycles.
Element 4.1 Carbon Uptake
and Storage
Maintain the processes that take
carbon from the atmosphere
and store it in forest
ecosystems.
4.1.1 Forest Ecosystem
Carbon
4.1.1.1 To provide a predetermined rate of carbon
storage in the DFA.
4.1.1.1.1 Net carbon uptake
Maintain or increase projected forest
carbon stocks (carbon sink) from the
DFA over the next 100 years (to
2105).
0
Assess every 10 years – next report in
2020
4.1.1.1.2 Reforestation success
100% regeneration success
80% silviculture success
-10%
Free-to-grow time frames as
prescribed in FMP silvicultural ground
rules.
2017
10/26/2012
Page 6 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
Element 4.2 Forest Land
Conversion
Protect forestlands from
deforestation or conversion to
non-forests, where ecologically
appropriate.
4.2.1 Extent of the DFA
Production Forest Area
4.2.1.1 To minimize the
conversion of production forest
to non-forested area in the
recreation/utilization zone.
4.2.1.1.1 Additions and
deletions to the forest area
No more than 2.0% of production
forest area harvested used for roads,
landings and aggregate pits.
+ 10%
(i.e. 2.2% max)
2017.
CCFM Criterion 5. Economic and Social Benefits
Sustain flows of forest benefits for current and future generations by providing multiple goods and services.
Element 5.1 Timber and
Non-Timber Benefits
Manage the forest sustainably to
produce an acceptable and
feasible mix of both timber and
non-timber benefits. Evaluate
timber and non-timber forest
products and forest-based
services.
5.1.1 Timber Resources
5.1.1.1 To provide timber
resources from the DFA for
local industry.
5.1.1.1.1 Quantity and quality of
timber benefits, products, and
services produced in
the DFA: Long-term projected
available harvest volume by
product
1. Average annual volume of white
and red pine sawlogs for the next
100 years >117,635 m3.
2. Average annual volume of red pine
poles/treelength for the next 100
years >15,611 m3.
3. Average annual volume of
hardwood and white birch sawlogs
for the next 100 years >91,064
m3.
4. Make available 573,150 m3 of
forest products on an annual basis
– 275,650 m3 is in sawlog and
better products and 297,500 m3 of
pulp and composite quality
products.
0
Assessed during FMP development
(2010) and every 5 years during
implementation – next assessment in
2017
5.1.2 Recreation and
Tourism
5.1.2.1 To maintain or improve
the back-country qualities of
recreation and tourism
opportunities within the DFA,
through the reduction of sight
and sound evidence of AFA
operations.
5.1.2.1.1 Quantity and quality of
non-timber benefits, products,
and services produced in
the DFA: Number of documented
public complaints about forestry
impacts on back-country
recreation
5.1.2.1.2 Provision of
information with respect to
location of planned forest
operations on the AFA website.
10/26/2012
No documented public complaints
from interior users within the RU zone
with noted logging impacts.
Respond to all documented public
complaints from interior users within
the RU zone with noted logging
impacts.
Upload annual harvest schedule map
with primary haul routes on AFA
website, including seasonal updates
when possible.
+5
N/A
Page 7 of 13
ELEMENT
Element 5.2 Communities
and Sustainability
Contribute to the sustainability
of communities by providing
diverse opportunities to derive
benefits from forests and by
supporting local community
economies.
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
5.1.3 Cottage experience
5.1.3.1 To maintain the quality
of the cottage experience within
the RU zone of the DFA
5.1.3.1.1 Compliance with the
cottage/lease AOC’s.
100% compliance with cottage lease
AOC’s as assessed in FOIP.
- 5%
5.1.4 Cultural Heritage
5.1.4.1 To collect and preserve
knowledge.
5.1.4.1.1 Ongoing
research/assessment/support.
Demonstrate financial and/or in-kind
support for cultural heritage initiatives
beyond those mandated or required.
As budgeted
5.1.4.2 To assist in the
sharing/promotion of cultural
heritage information.
5.1.4.2.1 Establishment of
website linkages to information
(within the constraints of
confidentiality) and promotion of
cultural heritage events.
Provide information (publications,
website linkages) as allowed by
provincial guidelines/direction.
As budgeted
5.1.5 Natural and
Spiritual
5.1.5.1 To maintain a
wilderness-like experience for
users within the DFA
5.1.5.1.1 Compliance with Area
of Concern prescriptions which
schedule operations such that
there is a separation in time and
space between wilderness
recreation and forestry operations
100% compliance with applicable
AOCs in 2010 FMP Table 14 as
assessed in FOIP.
- 5%
5.2.1 Economic Value
Added
5.2.1.1 To maintain or enhance
the economic value added that
harvesting in the DFA
contributes to the provincial
and local economies.
5.2.1.1.1 Managed Crown Forest
area available for timber
production
Maintain the total production forest
area available for forest management
within the DFA.
- 5%
2010 FMP benchmark level = 481,478
ha
5.2.1.1.2 Level of investment in
initiatives that contribute to
community sustainability
AFA total direct program costs >$16.5
million annually
0
5 year average – next assessment in
2017
5.2.1.1.3 Level of direct and
indirect employment
Total direct employment (woodland
and mills) >2,500 people
0
Total indirect employment (woodland
and mills) >7,500 people
Assessed every 5 years – next
assessment in 2017
10/26/2012
Page 8 of 13
ELEMENT
Element 5.3 Fair
Distribution of Benefits and
Costs
Promote the fair distribution of
timber and non-timber benefits
and costs.
10/26/2012
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
5.2.1.2. To support production
facilities by providing affordable
wood fibre from the DFA.
5.2.1.2.1 Number of production
facilities (wood supply
commitment holders) that utilize
wood fibre from the DFA.
Establish a benchmark from 2012,
monitor trends and support facilities
over time.
0
5.2.1.3 To ensure that if wood
volume becomes available, local
production facilities will receive
first opportunity to receive the
wood volume.
5.2.1.3.1 Available wood volume
offered to local production
facilities (wood supply
commitment holders).
100% of sawlog and better product is
offered.
0
5.2.2 Qualified forestry
workforce
5.2.2.1 To ensure a competent
and trained forestry workforce
5.2.2.1.1 Level of investment in
training and skills development
100% of Algonquin Park forest
woodsworkers trained as per EMS
training matrix, as assessed during
EMS/SFM system registrar audits
-5%
5.2.3 Opportunities to
local Algonquin
communities
5.2.3.1 Encourage participation
of local Algonquins and increase
involvement of Algonquins of
Ontario communities/people in
the economic opportunities
provided by forest
management.
5.2.3.1.1 Level of Aboriginal
participation in the forest
economy: Percentage of total
volume harvested by Algonquins
of Ontario
communities/organizations/people
Maintain/increase the total volume
harvested by Algonquins of Ontario
communities per year from a
benchmark set in 2012 = 16%
0
economy: Percentage of
silviculture completed by
Algonquins of Ontario
Maintain/increase level of silviculture
program completed by Algonquins of
Ontario
communities/organizations/people per
year from a benchmark set in 2012 =
9%
0
economy: Percentage of total
direct program costs paid to
Algonquins of Ontario
Maintain/increase the total direct
program costs paid to Algonquins of
Ontario
communities/organizations/people per
year from a benchmark set in 2012 =
19%
0
5.3.1.1.1 Crown timber
stumpage paid to government
consolidated revenues
Maintain a revenue stream of
$750,000 per year of Crown stumpage
payments from the DFA
- 20%
5.3.1 Forest
management revenues to
the Crown
5.3.1.1 To provide Crown
timber stumpage revenue from
the DFA.
Page 9 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
5.3.2 Aboriginal benefits
5.3.2.1 Shared stewardship, comanagement for Algonquin
Aboriginal people
5.3.2.1.1 Increased participation.
As determined by the Algonquin
Treaty under negotiation
N/A
5.3.3 Recreation-based
social and economic
benefits
5.3.3.1 Support recreational
forest access benefits
5.3.3.1.1 Level of maintenance
of public forest access roads in
Algonquin Park
Continuation of the Public Access
Road Agreement between Ontario
Parks and AFA
N/A
CCFM Criterion 6. Society's Responsibility
Society's responsibility for sustainable forest management requires that fair, equitable, and effective forest management decisions are made.
Element 6.1 Aboriginal and
Treaty Rights
Recognize and respect
Aboriginal title and rights, and
treaty rights. Understand and
comply with current legal
requirements related to
Aboriginal title and rights, and
treaty rights.
6.1.1 Aboriginal title and
rights
6.1.1.1 To recognize Aboriginal
title and rights applicable to the
DFA.
6.1.1.1.1 Evidence of a good
understanding of the nature of
Aboriginal title and rights
Produce an Aboriginal Background
Information Report and Aboriginal
Consultation Summary associated with
Forest Management Plans.
N/A
Continue to participate in the
Algonquin Land Claim External
Advisors meetings.
Continue working towards a positive
working relationship to help resolve
Algonquin community/AFA issues
6.1.1.1.2 Evidence of best efforts
to obtain acceptance of
management plans based on
Aboriginal communities having a
clear understanding of the plans
Include Algonquin community
representatives on Forest
Management Planning Teams and
Forest Certification Advisory Groups
and LCC.
N/A
10/26/2012
Page 10 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
6.1.1.1.3 Level of management
and/or protection of areas where
culturally important practices and
activities (hunting, fishing,
gathering) occur
Include Algonquin community
representatives on Forest
Management Planning Teams and
Forest Certification Advisory Groups.
N/A
Algonquin initiatives in other resource
management projects such as:
Algonquin moose harvest
management plan, moose aerial
inventory project and fisheries
agreement.
AFA participation in Algonquin road
strategy meetings (as invited)
All potential white birch bark canoe
trees/patches identified during tree
marking communicated to Algonquins
Element 6.2 Respect for
Aboriginal Forest Values,
Knowledge, and Uses
Respect traditional Aboriginal
forest values, knowledge, and
uses as identified through the
Aboriginal input process.
6.2.1 Aboriginal
Consultation in the forest
management planning
process.
6.2.1.1 Involve Algonquins of
Ontario in the identification and
protection of Aboriginal values
and uses in the DFA.
6.2.1.1.1 Evidence of
understanding and use of
Aboriginal knowledge through the
engagement of willing Aboriginal
communities, using a process that
identifies and manages culturally
important
resources and values
N/A
Meet as required with those Aboriginal
communities expressing interest to
participate in forest management
planning.
Notify the Algonquin Negotiation table
of the certification process and its
outcomes
Element 6.3 Forest
community well-being and
resilience
Encourage, co-operate with, or
help to provide opportunities for
economic diversity within the
community.
10/26/2012
6.3.1 Local community
well-being and resilience
6.3.1.1 Provide opportunities
for economic diversity within
communities that derive timber
and recreation from the
Algonquin Park Forest
6.3.1.1.1 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
Report on activities/opportunities
taken/explored to strengthen and
diversify all aspects of the local forestbased economy.
N/A
Page 11 of 13
ELEMENT
Element 6.4 Fair and
effective decision-making
Demonstrate that the SFM public
participation process is designed
and functioning to the
satisfaction of the participants
and that there is general public
awareness of the process and its
progress.
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
6.3.1.2 Improve and enhance
safety standards, procedures,
and outcomes in all AFA related
workplaces and affected
communities
6.3.1.2.1 Evidence of cooperation with DFA-related
workers and their unions to
improve and enhance safety
standards, procedures, and
outcomes in all DFA-related
workplaces and affected
communities
Continue to administer the Algonquin
Park Contractor Safety and
Environmental Awards Program and
recognize achievements at the annual
Contractors Meeting.
N/A
6.3.1.2.2 Evidence that a worker
safety program has been
implemented and is periodically
reviewed
and improved
Maintain a Health and Safety
Committee and distribute Health &
Safety Committee Minutes.
Maintain the AFA Emergency
Response Plan.
N/A
Continue to administer the Algonquin
Park Contractor Safety and
Environmental Awards Program.
6.4.1 SFM Public
Participation Performance
6.4.1.1 To implement a public
participation process that is
supported by the participants.
6.4.1.1.1 Level of participant
satisfaction with the public
participation process
Achieve a satisfactory evaluation
(75%) from a minimum of two-thirds
of the Advisory Group members.
0
6.4.2 Forest worker
capacity and
opportunities
6.4.2.1 Promote capacity
development and meaningful
participation in forest
management in the Algonquin
Park Forest
6.4.2.1.1 Evidence of efforts to
promote capacity development
and meaningful participation in
general and for Aboriginal
communities
Continue to develop and maintain the
AFA website, including advertizing
procurement opportunities to the
public and aboriginal communities.
N/A
Continue to advertize and provide
consultation opportunities for FMPs
and Annual Work Schedules.
10/26/2012
Page 12 of 13
ELEMENT
VALUE
OBJECTIVE
INDICATOR
TARGET
VARIANCE
Element 6.5 Information for
Decision Making
Provide relevant information and
educational opportunities to
interested parties to support
their
involvement in the public
participation process, and
increase knowledge of
ecosystem processes and
human interactions with forest
ecosystems.
6.5.1 SFM Education
6.5.1.1 To maintain/increase
the knowledge and awareness
of SFM to the general public
6.5.1.1.1 Number of people
reached through educational
outreach
>45,000 people per year
-10%
6.5.1.1.2 Availability of summary
information on issues of concern
to the public
Maintain/update AFA website.
N/A
6.5.1.1.3 Forestry research
funding and/or in-kind assistance
$20,000 per year
- $5,000/yr
6.5.1.2 To recognize good
forestry practices within the
DFA
6.5.1.2.1 Certification status
Achieve registration to CAN/CSA Z80908 SFM standard by April of 2013, and
maintain.
+/- three
months
6.5.1.3 Promote and market
achievement of certification
6.5.1.3.1 Efforts made to create
awareness of certification
designation on the DFA
1. Make information available to the
public and clients and document.
N/A
Ensure Algonquin Park forest
management information continues to
be publically available on the MNR
eFMP website.
2. Advertise
10/26/2012
Page 13 of 13
APPENDIX C:
Public Participation Plan
T
TH
HE
EA
ALLG
GO
ON
NQ
QU
UIIN
N FFO
OR
RE
ES
ST
TR
RY
YA
AU
UT
TH
HO
OR
RIIT
TY
Y
P
PU
UB
BLLIIC
CC
CO
ON
NS
SU
ULLT
TA
AT
TIIO
ON
NP
PLLA
AN
N
C
CA
AN
N//C
CS
SA
A--Z
Z8
80
09
9--0
08
8C
CE
ER
RTTIIFFIIC
CA
ATTIIO
ON
N FFO
OR
R
S
US
STTA
AIIN
NA
AB
BLLE
E FFO
OR
RE
ES
STT M
AN
NA
AG
MA
GE
EM
ME
EN
NTT
SU
February 27, 2012
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background:
The Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) is seeking re-registration to the CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard to
demonstrate to the public and its customers that the forest is being managed on a sustainable basis.
The Algonquin Forestry Authority is currently registered to the CAN/CSA-Z809-02 standard, since
February 2008.
Public participation is a vital component of sustainable forest management. It provides an opportunity
for stakeholders and interested parties to be involved proactively in the management of a Defined
Forest Area (DFA) and to enhance their knowledge of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and of
other interests and values related to the forest.
AFA will maintain, and continually improve a public participation process that meets the requirements
of the CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard. The public participation process will respect existing authority for
decisions associated with the use and management of the Algonquin Park Forest and will not change
existing public policies, laws, and regulations established by governments.
1.2. Purpose of the Public Consultation Plan
The Consultation Plan is intended to provide clearly defined goals, procedures and schedules to ensure
an effective public participation process.
1.3. Principles of Effective Public Consultation
A number of authors have reviewed the public consultation process in resource management planning
in Canada and have attempted to identify methods to improve the effectiveness of the consultation
processes. Blouin, (1998) 1 identifies the following four cornerstones of effective public participation in
resource planning:
•
Equitable representation of all interests covering a full range of values, a commitment to
equitable solutions and no hidden agendas.
•
Access to relevant economic, ecological, social and cultural information.
•
Acceptance by all participants that the process is fair, open and effective. Respect for
diversity of opinions. Agreed-upon conflict resolution through dialogue, negotiation and
compromise.
•
Informed participants – education of all parties is key.
Mitchell and Parkins (2005) 2 recommend the use of professionally facilitated meetings and a clear
mandate to improve the effectiveness of a public advisory group.
The CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard states that effective public participation processes should
accommodate the public’s wide range of knowledge, different interests, and varying levels of
involvement with regard to SFM, as well as its differing cultural and economic ties with the forest.
To accomplish this, the CAN/CSA-Z809-08 (standard) suggests that the organization shall:
1
Blouin, G. 1998 Public Participation in Forest Management in Canada. Forestry Chronicle, 74(2), 224-226
2
R.E. Mitchell and J.R. Parkins. 2005. A Practioner’s Guide to Public Deliberation in Natural Resource
Management. Information Report NOR-X-407. Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre. 25 pgs.
1
•
Openly seek representation from a broad range of interested parties, including DFA-related
workers, and invite them to participate in developing the public participation process;
•
Provide interested parties with relevant background information.
The standard recognizes that Aboriginal forest users and communities require unique consideration and
recommends that the organization:
•
Contact Aboriginal forest users and communities affected by or interested in forest
management in the Algonquin Park Forest;
•
Encourage Aboriginal forest users and communities to become involved in identifying and
addressing SFM values;
•
Recognize Aboriginal and treaty rights and agree that Aboriginal participation in the public
participation process will not prejudice those rights.
To ensure effective public participation, the standard also recommends:
•
Operating rules that specify the resources that will be made available, including human
resources, physical resources and information.
•
Clearly defined expectations
•
Defined decision making methods and authority for decisions
These principles have been used in developing a terms of reference for the Forest Certification Advisory
Group (Appendix A).
1.4. Objectives of Public Consultation
The objective of the public participation process is to seek representation from a broad range of
interested parties during development of the SFM Plan. The principal role of public participation is the
development of values, objectives, indicators, and targets (VOITs) for the Algonquin Park Forest.
2
2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION PLAN
2.1. Introduction
The public consultation process outlined in this plan is intended to satisfy the requirements associated
with SFM concepts within the CSA certification standard. It includes broad public consultation during
the development of the criteria, indicators and measures of sustainability and allows for open
discussion and decision to occur, based on information being available and understandable by all
parties.
2.2. Goals:
The goals of the public consultation process are to:
•
Obtain public and stakeholder input into the identification and selection of values, objectives,
indicators and targets (VOITs);
•
Inform the public and stakeholders about the project;
•
Offer educational information to the public and stakeholders regarding SFM;
•
Meet the public consultation requirements of the CSA Z809 Standard.
2.3. Timelines:
Table 1: Timelines for Public Participation
Public Participation Processes and Key Outcomes
Expected Deadline
Initiate Re-registration Process
December 2011
Review/revise Public Consultation Plan
January 2012
Re-establish Advisory Group
December 2011
Update Terms of reference for the Advisory Group
January 2012
Review/revise preliminary Values, Objectives, Indicators and Targets
(VOITs)
January - March 2012
Review/revise (if necessary) SFM Policy
February 2012
Initiate Aboriginal Consultation Process
January 2012
Advisory Group Workshops
- SFM training
- Review Terms of Reference
- Review Public Participation Plan
- VOIT training, VOIT workshops
February 2012 through to
September 2012
Initiate Broader Public Consultation
- Establish website and post initial documents
- Advertise the website
February 2012
Review and Finalize VOITs
September 2012
Communicate SFM Progress
Ongoing
Review/revise SFM/EMS Integration
October 2012
Update SFM Plan
June-October 2012
SFM Plan Completed
October 2012
3
Expected Deadline
Re-registration Audit
November 2012
Ongoing Consultation
Ongoing
2.4. Issues, values and potential stakeholders
In order to seek representation from a broad range of interested parties during development of the
SFM Plan, AFA and CMC Ecological Consulting (CMC) staff completed a stakeholder analysis to identify
persons/organizations affected by or interested in forest management in the Algonquin Park Forest.
The stakeholder analysis is the basis for the public involvement process.
AFA and CMC staff conducted a preliminary review of the values, issues and stakeholders associated
with forest management activities within the DFA. This exercise resulted in an initial list of issues,
potential interest groups and stakeholders (Table 2).
Table 2: Preliminary List of values, issues and potential stakeholders
Values
Issues
Potential Stakeholders
(from discussions with AFA)
Fishing
Philosophy (logging)
Aboriginal communities
Tourism
Roads/Aggregate
Municipalities
Backpacking
Access
AFA Board of Directors
Canoe trips
Aboriginal (economic benefits)
LCC
Hiking
Old growth
DFA workers
Fall colours (Hwy 60)
Archaeological (cultural heritage)
Forest Industry
Camping
Wildlife habitat:
Algonquin Ecowatch
Hunting
· Brook trout lakes
Friends of Algonquin Park
Protection waterways (headwaters)
· Species at Risk
Wildlife viewing
Recreation (noise)
Algonquin Backcountry
Recreationalists
Old growth
Regeneration of mid-tolerant species
OFAH
Cultural/heritage
Hemlock recruitment
Archaeologists
Wilderness/remoteness
Researchers
Wildlife habitat
Headwaters protection/hydrological
impacts
Snowshoeing
Introduction of invasive species
Cross country skiing
Employment / economic
opportunities
Aesthetics
Transition forest region
Forest productivity
Soil productivity
Summer operating area
Landbase uncertainty – e.g. lighten
the footprint exercise
Aboriginal values/use (plants, birch
bark)
Commercial timber value
Education
Logging museum
Research
Crown revenue (stumpage)
Ecological integrity
Forest health, vigour, quality
Forest ecosystems
4
Hunt camps
A further review of the Algonquin Provincial Park Management Plan, the Algonquin Park Forest
Management Plan and the consultation summary from the planning process resulted in the
identification of an expanded list of potential issues and stakeholders and served to confirm the list
provided in discussions with AFA. Finally, a review of recent issues in the media surrounding logging
activity in the Park resulted in the further confirmation of the expanded list of issues, potential interest
groups and stakeholders and resulted in additional potential stakeholders (Table 3).
Table 3: Expanded List of Issues and Potential Stakeholders
Additional Issues
from Info Centres and
FMP Process
Interest Groups from Info
Centres
Expanded Stakeholder List
(from stakeholder analysis)
Roads Board
Noise
DFO
Tourist Industry
First Nations hunting in
Park
Cottagers (305 lease lots)
General Public
Municipal Government
Roads
Wildlife habitat modeling
Canoe Lake Leaseholders Association
Environmental Groups
Recreation Groups
Natural benchmark
modeling and target
setting
Forest Research Groups
Archaeologists
Hydro electric
Leaseholders
Forestry workers
Anglers/Hunters
Algonquin Park Residents Association
Cache Lake Leaseholders Association.
Smoke Lake Cottagers Association
Rock/Whitefish Lake Cottagers Association
Hemlock yield projections
Calcium depletion
Loss of species diversity
Down woody debris
depletion
Rock Lake Algonquin Park Residents Association
Algonquin Park Skiers Association
Youth camps (6)
Park Staff
Algonquin Snowmobile Club
Outfitters:
- Algonquin Outfitters
- Algonquin Eco-Lodge / Call Of The Wild
- Canadian Canoe and Kayak Trips
Wilderness Adventures
- Paddling Ontario Alliance
- Northern Wilderness Outfitters
- Out For Adventure Wilderness Tours
- Voyageur Quest
- Wolf Den Expeditions
- Captain Action Charters
- Canadian Wilderness Trips
- Boots Adventure Tours
- Mew Lake Yurts (Algonquin Provincial Park)
- Forest Tower Outfitters
- Northern Edge Algonquin Eco-Lodge
- Opeongo Outfitters
- Eco-Explorations
Portage Store
Hunt camps
The combined lists of values, issues and potential stakeholders were assembled into a Stakeholder
Analysis Chart to facilitate the selection of representatives for the public consultation process (Appendix
B). The stakeholder analysis represents an objective and transparent identification of stakeholder
interests for the DFA. It was completed by AFA and CMC on January 16, 2012.
5
2.5. Aboriginal consultation
First Nations hold a unique position in Canada and as such, have a legally protected right to participate
in the development and review of resource management strategies or plans in areas they assert to be
traditional territories, including Crown lands outside areas where treaties apply.
The CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard recognizes: that Canadian forests have special significance to
Aboriginal peoples, that the legal status of Aboriginal peoples is unique and that they possess special
knowledge and insights concerning SFM derived from their traditional practices and experience. The
standard concludes that Aboriginal forest users and communities require unique consideration in the
public participation process and should be given an opportunity to contribute their special knowledge to
the process of setting values, objectives, indicators, and targets.
The CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard states that the organization shall:
•
Demonstrate through documentation that efforts were made to contact and encourage
affected and interested communities, including Aboriginal communities, to become involved
in the SFM public participation process;
•
Acknowledge that Aboriginal participation in the public participation process is without
prejudice to Aboriginal title and rights, or treaty rights.
2.6. Greater public consultation
The CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard states that an organization shall
•
Provide access to information about the DFA and the SFM requirements;
•
Provide information to a broader public about the progress being made in the implementation
of this Standard;
•
Make allowances for different linguistic, cultural, geographic, or informational needs of
interested parties;
•
Demonstrate that there is ongoing public communication about the DFA, including the public
participation process; and
•
Demonstrate that all input is considered and responses are provided.
Media ads and websites will be used to provide information about the Algonquin Park Forest, the SFM
requirements and progress being made in the implementation of this Standard. The ads will also be
used to direct interested readers to the website for further information.
Newspaper ads will be placed in the North Bay Nugget, Pembroke Observer, Bancroft Times, Barry’s
Bay This Week, Bracebridge Examiner, Burk’s Falls Almagiun News, Eganville Leader, Haliburton County
Echo & Minden Times, Huntsville Forester and Mattawa Recorder.
Information about the Algonquin Park Forest, the SFM requirements and progress being made in the
implementation of this Standard will be posted on the AFA website. Background information regarding
the certification process and forest management in the Algonquin Park Forest will be posted on the site
along with a survey soliciting input to the SFM process.
6
2.7.
Forest Certification Advisory Group Consultation:
A representative group of interested parties will be selected from the list of potential stakeholders to
serve as the Forest Certification Advisory Group. The list of potential stakeholders was developed
through a review of values, issues and interest groups and a stakeholder analysis completed by AFA
and CMC. Approximately half of the selected members are original members from the Z809-02
certification, and half are new members.
The Advisory Group consultation process will begin with an introductory training workshop. The
purpose of these will be to assemble the group, review and approve the terms of reference, and to
provide information about the Forest, the CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard and Sustainable Forest
Management.
The Advisory Group consultation process will continue with a minimum of four facilitated workshops
dealing with the identification and selection of values, objectives, indicators and targets for the SFM.
The structure of the Advisory Group is outlined in the Advisory Group Terms of Reference (Appendix A).
The schedule for the public consultation schedule, communications, and the basic operating rules for
the public involvement process are presented in the TOR.
2.8. Internal and external communication
Internal communication will be carried out using existing AFA communication networks (e-mail and
regular meetings). Staff will be provided with updates on the SFM process and will be provided with
opportunities to comment on the Values, Objectives, Indicators and Targets (VOITs) associated with
the SFM Plan.
External communication will be made to the general public and interested parties through the following
means:
•
Newspaper advertisements (sample presented in Appendix C)
•
Use of AFA website to provide SFM information to the public (both on the registration process
and on progress).
•
Meetings and presentations with the Advisory Group
7
3. CONSULTATION SCHEDULE
An overview of the consultation schedule is presented in a Gantt chart in Figure 1. Specific timelines for individual tasks are detailed in Table 1. The
consultation schedule is also included in the Advisory Group Terms of Reference (Appendix A)
Activity Review/ revise Public Consultation Plan Re‐establish Advisory Group Update issues, values and potential stakeholders Update Advisory Group Terms of Reference Review/revise preliminary VOITs Aboriginal Consultation Broad Public Consultation Advisory Group Workshops Communicate SFM Progress Figure 1: Consultation Schedule Gantt Chart
1
Appendix A:
Advisory Group Terms of reference
1
A
Allg
go
on
nq
qu
uiin
n FFo
orreessttrryy A
Au
utth
ho
orriittyy
C
n
CS
SA
AR
Ree--rreeg
giissttrraattiio
on
Z
Z8
80
09
9--0
08
8
FFo
up
p
ou
Grro
orryy G
dvviisso
Ad
nA
on
Ceerrttiiffiiccaattiio
orreesstt C
T
Teerrm
mss o
off R
Reeffeerreen
nccee
JJu
ull 1
19
9,, 2
20
01
12
2
Algonquin Forestry Authority CSA Re-registration Z809-08
Forest Certification Advisory Group Terms of Reference
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. I
5.3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
5.3.2 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................. 3
5.3.3 GOALS .................................................................................................................................. 3
5.3.4 TIMELINES .......................................................................................................................... 4
5.3.5 PROVISIONS FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION....................... 4
5.3.6 RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 5
5.3.7 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................... 5
5.3.8 ADVISORY GROUP STRUCTURE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................................. 8
5.3.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 8
5.3.10 DECISION MAKING METHODS ..................................................................................... 8
5.3.11 AUTHORITY FOR DECISIONS........................................................................................ 9
5.3.12 A MECHANISM TO ADJUST THE PROCESS ................................................................ 9
5.3.13 ACCESS TO INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 10
5.3.14 PARTICIPATION OF EXPERTS, OTHER INTERESTS AND GOVERNMENT ......... 10
5.3.15 DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM........................................................................ 10
I
5.3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) is seeking re-registration to the CAN/CSA-Z809
Sustainable Forest Management Standard (SFM) to demonstrate to the public and its customers
that the Algonquin Park forest is being managed on a sustainable basis. AFA is currently
registered to the 2002 version of the CSA Standard, and is seeking re-registration to the 2008
version of the Standard. The SFM Standard gives AFA the opportunity to continually improve
their forest management performance while engaging interested parties in a focused public
participation process.
AFA is the Ontario Crown Agency responsible for sustainable forest management in Algonquin
Provincial Park. Responsibilities also include the harvesting and distribution of wood products to
mills in communities adjacent to the Park. AFA has offices in Huntsville and Pembroke and
employs a regular staff compliment of 21, which includes five foresters, nine forest technicians,
and a chartered accountant. The seasonal staff numbers up to 15.
For the purposes of registration, Algonquin Park constitutes the Defined Forest Area (DFA).
Algonquin Park is 7635 sq. km in size, and is comprised of all or parts of 40 townships. It is the
headwater for five major rivers, provides significant recreational opportunities and wildlife
habitat, and supplies forest products to the surrounding communities. The Park, which is located
between Georgian Bay and the Ottawa River in south-central Ontario, is biologically diverse
with more than 1,000 vascular plant species and more than 200 vertebrates.
The Park was established in 1893 when the Ontario Government of the day acted on a
recommendation of the Royal Commission on Forest Reservation and National Parks in
“reserving a portion of the ungranted Crown domain to be set apart as a Forest Reservation and
National Park”. At that time, logging had existed within the Park for about 60 years.
Algonquin Provincial Park is managed in accordance with an approved Park Management Plan.
The park is divided into seven different zones including a Recreation-Utilization zone (RU Zone)
were low intensity recreation and commercial timber harvesting are permitted. The RecreationUtilization zone comprises approximately 75% of Algonquin Park and is managed as the
Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit (the Forest).
Algonquin is a premier wilderness destination for canoeists. Each year about 300,000 people
make interior canoe trips in Algonquin; the total number of park visitors is about 950,000 people.
There are about 2,000 km of interconnected canoe routes with 1,950 interior campsites located
along waterway corridors. In addition there are three overnight backpacking trails in the Park
interior.
There are 305 cottages, 3 commercial lodges and 6 children’s camps in Algonquin that operate
under leases with the Province of Ontario. There are 65 temporary hunt camps located within
Clyde and Bruton Townships, and the Algonquins of Ontario hunt within the eastern portion of
the Park. Trapping is permitted on registered trap lines in the southern, eastern and central areas
of the Park.
1 of 10
About 75% of all park visitors reside in the Province. Other countries including U.S.A, Great
Britain, Germany and Japan are the most prominent origin of out of Province visitors. The
economic impact generated by Park and visitor spending, is estimated to exceed $30 million and
451 full time person-years of employment.
The forest industry supplied by fibre from the Forest is comprised of sawmills, hardwood veneer
mills, a pole plant and pulp mills, which are wholly or partly dependent on this vital source of
raw material. The Algonquin Park Forest provides approximately 45% of the volume harvested
annually from Crown forests in Central and Eastern Ontario. This wood supply supports mills in
communities such as Huntsville, Whitney, Madawaska, Killaloe, Pembroke, Eganville and
Palmer Rapids. There are 12 mills receiving part or most of their supply from the Park on a
regular basis while another 5-10 mills receive periodic supplies.
There are over 300 people employed in Algonquin woods activities and over 2,450 people
employed in the mills. In 2010-2011, the value of forest product sold by the Algonquin Forestry
Authority was $16.9 million. Contractors engaged from communities in the region were paid
over $14.7 million, and the AFA had a net income of $134,055 in its General Account. The AFA
is financially self-sufficient with no cost to Ontario taxpayers.
A number of forest products are produced because of the wide variety of tree species available in
the Forest. These include:
•
Hardwood lumber for furniture, flooring and crating
•
Softwood lumber for construction, paneling and finishing
•
Utility poles
•
Pulp and paper and packaging products
•
Oriented strandboard
•
Fuelwood
AFA has an environmental management system (EMS) registered to the ISO14001-2004
standard, which provides a framework for planning, implementing and monitoring sustainable
forestry operations in the Forest. The EMS addresses many of the CAN/CSA Z809 SFM system
requirements. In addition to the EMS, the AFA also measures indicators of sustainability as
required by the Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forest (FMPM). By
meeting the forest management planning requirements and having an approved forest
management plan, the AFA meets many, but not all of the CAN/CSA Z809 Public Participation
and SFM Performance requirements. The approved management plan and a functioning ISO
14001 EMS system, therefore contribute significantly to satisfying the requirements of the
CAN/CSA-Z809-08 SFM standard.
The standard requires AFA to seek comprehensive and continuing public participation including
an effort to work with Aboriginal peoples at the local community level. The purpose of the
public consultation process is to obtain input from interested parties. The input will be used to
confirm values, objectives, indicators and targets at the Algonquin Park Forest level, and to
formulate additional ones as required. These local values, objectives, indicators and targets are
then incorporated into the forest management planning and practices. The standard requires
2 of 10
locally appropriate targets, including thresholds and limits, be set through the public participation
process.
5.3.2 PURPOSE
A forest certification Advisory Group will be formed to provide input into sustainable forest
management. The Advisory Group will function in an advisory capacity to offer input, advice
and recommendations to the AFA regarding certification. It will be one method by which AFA
can share forest management information and obtain advice. Membership to the Advisory Group
is on an invitation basis and does not imply agreement with all the contents of the SFM plan and
activities.
The Advisory Group will be expected to work with the AFA and interact to:
•
Confirm values, objectives, indicators and targets and identify additional ones based on
the CSA SFM elements,
•
Assist in developing alternative strategies to be assessed,
•
Review the SFM plan,
•
Assist in designing monitoring programs, evaluate results and recommend
improvements,
•
Discuss and provide advice on issues relevant to sustainable forest management on the
defined forest area,
•
Liaise with member organizations and keep them informed about sustainable forest
management activities in the defined forest area and participation in the Advisory
Group,
•
Meet with internal and external auditors when the SFM system is audited, if requested,
•
Review the SFM Annual Report, and
•
Review the external audit report provided though the certification process
5.3.3 GOALS
The main goal of the public participation process is to seek representation from a broad range of
interested parties during development and implementation of the SFM Plan.
The SFM Plan is being revised to meet the requirements of the CAN/CSA-Z809-08 standard.
Registration to this standard is being sought by the AFA in order to continue to demonstrate to
the public and customers that the forests of Algonquin Park are being managed sustainably.
3 of 10
5.3.4 TIMELINES
Table 1: Timelines for Public Participation.
Expected Deadline
Initiate Re-registration Process
December 2011
Develop Public Consultation Plan
January 2012
Re-establish Advisory Group
December 2011
Develop Terms of reference for the forest certification Advisory Group
January 2012
Develop Preliminary Values, Objectives, Indicators and Targets (VOITs)
January - March 2012
Review/revise (if necessary) SFM Policy
February 2012
Initiate Aboriginal Consultation Process
January 2012
Advisory Group Workshops
- SFM training
- Review Terms of Reference
- Review Public Participation Plan
- VOIT training, VOIT workshops
February 2012 through to
September 2012
Initiate Broader Public Consultation
- Establish website and post initial documents
- Advertise the website
February 2012
Review and Finalize VOITs
September 2012
Communicate SFM Progress
Ongoing
Review/revise SFM/EMS Integration
October 2012
Prepare SFM Plan
June-October 2012
SFM Plan Completed
October 2012
Registration Audit
November 2012
Ongoing Consultation
Ongoing
5.3.5 PROVISIONS FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION
Internal communication will be carried out using existing AFA communication networks (e-mail
and regular meetings). Staff will be provided with updates on the CSA process and will be
provided with opportunities to comment on the VOITs associated with the SFM Plan.
External communication will be made available to the general public and interested parties
through the following means:
•
Newspaper advertisements.
•
A website designed for the purpose of providing CSA information to the public (both
on the registration process and on progress); or by utilizing the existing AFA Internet
site.
4 of 10
•
•
Meetings and presentations with the Local Citizens Committee, AFA staff, contractors
and stakeholders interested in participating in the process.
External communication will be reviewed and approved by the AFA prior to posting.
All documentation associated with the consultation process will be maintained on a
public input database for consideration by the Advisory Group and/or utilized in the
development/amendment of the SFM Plan. All input received during the public
consultation process will be responded to in a timely manner.
5.3.6 RESOURCES
Expenditures
AFA will provide the financial resources necessary to carry out the public consultation process
including the formation and implementation of the Advisory Group. Any expenditure by a
member of the Advisory Group will require prior approval from the General Manager or his/her
designate.
Meeting Expenses
AFA will reimburse expenses associated with Advisory Group activities and meetings. The
compensation will only apply to an approved member of the Advisory Group or his/her alternate.
Out-of-pocket expenses will include the following:
•
Mileage at a rate of $0.40/km
•
Meals
•
Accommodation if an overnight stay is required
Staffing
AFA staff will be carrying out the primary tasks in holding the public consultation and Advisory
Group meetings. A facilitator may be utilized at Advisory Group and/or public meetings at the
discretion of the AFA. If outside expertise is needed, the final decision to bring in outside
expertise will be up to the AFA and the costs associated with use of a technical expert or
consultant will be covered by the AFA.
5.3.7 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
This section outlines the organizational structure that will be used for the development of the
SFM Plan. AFA Chief Forester will be leading the CAN/CSA-Z809-08 registration process and
will be responsible for ensuring that the plan proceeds on schedule and that adequate resources
including training are provided. The final review and approval of the SFM Plan will be the
responsibility of the AFA General Manager. AFA has hired Tom Clark of CMC Ecological
Consulting to help facilitate the process and prepare background information and presentations to
the public. AFA will structure an Advisory Group to aid with the development of VOITs, and to
provide input and advice. The following sections outline the specific roles and responsibilities
associated with each of the aforementioned people/groups, as well as their membership.
AFA Chief Forester
Gordon Cumming R.P.F.
5 of 10
Responsibilities
•
Preparing agenda for Advisory Group meetings
•
Chairing Advisory Group meetings
•
Preparation of SFM Plan
•
Ensuring tasks are accomplished on time to meet the plan schedule
•
Implementation of SFM Plan
•
Participation in audits related to CAN/CSA-Z809-08.
Tom Clark, CMC Ecological Consulting
Responsibilities
•
Lead the implementation of the AFA CSA SFM Public Consultation Plan
•
Present Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan to Advisory Group
•
Assist with training and awareness activities associated with forest certification and the
Advisory Group
•
Accomplish assigned tasks on time to meet the plan schedule
•
Contribute agenda items for Advisory Group meetings
•
Provide impartial facilitation services at all meetings
•
Ensure conflicts of interest are identified and addressed and that members have played
no part in discussions or decisions regarding a conflict of interest topic
•
Ensure the views and values of all participants are respected
•
Review and provide input on VOITs
•
Internal and external communication
•
Discuss and help resolve issues relevant to SFM on the DFA.
6 of 10
Forest Certification Advisory Group
Table 4: Membership of the Forest Certification Advisory Group
Name
Affiliation/Interest
Member
Alternate
Barry Bridgeford
William Warren
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
Dana Shaw
Forest Industry
Bob McRae
Tourism/Friends of Algonquin Park
Nathan Mieske
Algonquin Park Forestry Contractors
Lacey Rose
Jeff Muzzi
Municipality – County of Renfrew
John Doering
LCC Member, Leaseholder, Recreationalist
Joe Yaraskavitch
Jay Nichols
Government (Ontario Parks)
Anne Mundy
General Public
Deborah Cumming
Environmental Group
Terry Mullin
Don McCormick
Tom Ballantine
Archaeologist/Cultural Heritage
Steve D'eon
Research
Shari Sokay
Anglers/Hunters and Groups
Emmett Godin
Ethan Huner
Algonquins of Greater Golden Lake
Irvin Yateman
Ethan Huner
Algonquin Nation Kijicho-Manito
(Bancroft)
Chief Richard Zohr
Ethan Huner
Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation
Clifford Bastein
Ethan Huner
Mattawa/North Bay Algonquins
Chief Doreen Davis
Larry McDermott
Sharbot Mishigama Anishinabe
Robert Craftchick
Ethan Huner
Whitney Algonquins
Dan Kohoko
Dave Commanda
Algonquins of Pikwakanagan
Chief Randy Malcolm Ethan Huner
Ardoch Algonquin First Nation
Responsibilities
•
Attend Advisory Group meetings or provide notice to the alternate. If two consecutive
meetings are missed, AFA has the option to contact the organization they represent and
ask for a new appointee
•
Respect the views and opinions of others
•
Participate in public consultation processes for SFM Plan if necessary
•
Contribute agenda items for Advisory Group meetings
•
Declare a conflict of interest if it arises and take no part in discussions or decisions
regarding the conflict of interest topic
•
Identify opportunities for improvement
•
Discuss and resolve issues relevant to SFM on the DFA
•
Provide input on values, objectives, indicators and targets
•
Provide input on monitoring programs and measures
•
Review draft and final SFM Plan
•
Participate in an external certification audit if asked.
7 of 10
Technical Experts/ Advisors/Government
Responsibilities
•
Participate in Advisory Group meetings at the request of the Chief Forester
•
Provide advice and information on the chosen topic
•
Participate in discussions with Advisory Group members based on his/her area of
expertise
Observers
Responsibilities
•
Will attend at the request of the Chief Forester with prior notification provided to the
Advisory Group
•
Observers are strictly there to watch the proceedings, but may request to participate in
a discussion. Approval is at the discretion of the Chief Forester.
5.3.8 ADVISORY GROUP STRUCTURE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Members are appointed by the organization they represent and/or are asked to become a
member by the AFA.
•
Members normally serve for a three-year period. AFA will re-establish membership
every three years
•
AFA General Manager is the final authority on membership
•
Open and effective communication is needed to ensure feedback between the
stakeholder groups represented by the Advisory Group members and AFA
•
All decisions will be made by consensus, as outlined in section 5.3.10.
5.3.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
For the purpose of the development of the VOITs and SFM Plan, a “conflict of interest” is
defined as a conflict between private interests and the official responsibilities of an Advisory
Group member. Each member of the Advisory Group will be responsible for reporting a conflict
or perceived conflict. The member may attend the initial introduction and discussion of the
issue, but cannot take part in the decision-making process for that issue. If advisable, a member
with a conflict of interest may be asked to leave the meeting during sensitive relevant
discussions. The Chief Forester has the authority to make the final decision on a potential or
perceived conflict of interest with a member of the Advisory Group.
5.3.10 DECISION MAKING METHODS
The Chief Forester will Chair all meetings. The facilitator will be responsible for ensuring that
meetings are orderly and that all members have an opportunity to express their views. Members
8 of 10
will be respectful of other members and visitors and will accept the diverse values, interests and
knowledge of the other parties involved. Discussions will remain focused on the topic at hand.
A quorum consisting of the 50% plus one of the active Advisory Group membership will be
required for any substantive decisions regarding the SFM plan or the public consultation process.
Decisions will be made by consensus. The following approach will be used by the facilitator to
seek consensus:
• Members should be satisfied that they have been provided with the necessary relevant
information
• Members will be provided with the opportunity to express their viewpoints.
Differences of opinion will be thoroughly discussed with an emphasis placed on:
• Attempting to understand conflicting viewpoints
• Clarifying any misinterpretations and focusing discussions on specifics
• Seeking to identify modifications that will move toward a mutually acceptable solution.
If consensus cannot be obtained, the group will be polled to see if at least 2/3 of the members
present can agree with the decision. Varying opinions will be recorded and forwarded to the
General Manager for action. Major outstanding issues will be revisited following the advice of
the General Manager and consensus will be re-attempted. If full consensus can still not be
achieved, final decision-making power lies with the General Manager. The decision and reasons
for it will be reported to the Advisory Group. Lack of consensus will be noted in the SFM Plan
with a brief explanation. Details of dissenting opinions will be recorded in the minutes of the
Advisory Group Meetings.
5.3.11 AUTHORITY FOR DECISIONS
AFA will be the final decision-making authority for the CSA SFM Plan content and system. The
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources maintains final decision-making authority for the forest
management plans (e.g. Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit Forest Management Plan FMP) as legislated by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. This includes any component of the
SFM Plan or system that is covered in the Forest Management Plan.
5.3.12 A MECHANISM TO ADJUST THE PROCESS
Any significant changes to the public participation process will be subject to the approval of the
AFA General Manager. Once re-registration is achieved, any proposed changes to the VOITs
will be subject to review by the Advisory Group. Any comments received regarding VOITs may
be taken into account in the next forest management plan, through liaison with the Planning
Team.
9 of 10
5.3.13 ACCESS TO INFORMATION
SFM information is meant to be available to anyone who requests access subject to the Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Any proprietary information will be
marked as such and its distribution controlled by the Chief Forester. Requests for information by
external interested parties will be documented (see Section 5.3.5). The Public Communications
Form may also be used to document external communications received on the SFM system and
VOITs.
5.3.14 PARTICIPATION OF EXPERTS, OTHER INTERESTS AND GOVERNMENT
The Advisory Group may at times find it useful to invite experts to discuss technical issues.
Government representatives may become regular participants in the process, or they may take
observer or technical support roles. Non-local interests may have a desire to provide input, and
the means of doing so must be agreed upon in advance. One approach is to design special ad hoc
forums for dialogues between non-local interests and local interested parties. Participation will
be governed by the guidelines for observers, technical experts and government representatives in
Section 5.3.7.
5.3.15 DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
A key role of the Advisory Group facilitator shall be to ensure that the principles of consensusseeking decision making are followed and that a consensus is achieved whenever possible. If a
consensus cannot be reached, then the varying opinions shall be recorded and forwarded to the
General Manager for action. Outstanding issues will be revisited following the advice of the
General Manager and consensus will be re-attempted. If full consensus can still not be achieved,
final decision-making power lies with the General Manager. The decision and reasons for it
will be reported to the Advisory Group. Lack of consensus will be noted in the SFM Plan with a
brief explanation. Details of dissenting opinions will be recorded for inclusion in the minutes.
10 of 10
Appendix B:
Stakeholder Analysis Chart
2
Algonquin Park Forest - Stakeholder Analysis
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
Government
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Ranking
Contact person(s)
Park Superintendent
2
Jay Nichols
1
Joe Yaraskavitch
3
Glen Watt
Phone no.
Email address
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
1
MNR
FMP
Ontario Parks - Algonquin Park
FMP
Ontario Parks, Planning & Research section
FMP
Ministry of Environment
FMP
Environment Canada
FMP
Environmental Commissioner
FMP
Ministry of Transportation
FMP
Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO)
FMP
Canadian Forces Base Petawawa
AFA
Ministry Of Tourism, Culture & Recreation
AFA
Ministry of Natural Resources
FMP
Ministry of Natural Resources - District Manager
FMP
MNR - Fish & Wildlife Branch
FMP
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
AFA
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
AFA
Ministry of Economic Development, Trade &
Tourism, Tourism Branch
AFA
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
AFA
Ministry of Agriculture & Food
AFA
Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Recreation
AFA
Ministry of Economic Development, Trade &
Tourism, Tourism Branch
AFA
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
AFA
Ministry of the Environment
AFA
Ministry of the Environment - Central Region
FMP
Ministry of the Environment, Eastern Region
AFA
Ministry of the Environment - Northern Region
FMP
8/27/2012
Interest
CONTACT INFO
Algonquin Park Forest Stakeholder Analysis
Page 1 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Ministry of the Environment - Southwestern Region
FMP
Ministry of Infrastructure &Transportation
AFA
MPP Nipissing-Timiskaming
FMP
MPP Haliburton - Victoria - Brock
AFA
MPP Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox
AFA
MPP Nickel Belt
AFA
MPP Parry Sound - Muskoka
AFA
MPP Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke
AFA
Ontario Parks, SE Zone
AFA
Ontario Parks, Central Zone
FMP
Ontario Heritage Trust
FMP
Samuel De Champlain Provincial Park
AFA
North Bay & District Health Unit
FMP
Forestry Health & Protection Section
FMP
Renfrew County & District Health Unit
FMP
Hastings & Prince Edward Counties Health Unit
FMP
Pineridge District Health Unit
FMP
Interest
Ranking
County of Renfrew
1
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
CONTACT INFO
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Bonnechere Provincial Park
North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority
Municipality
1
District Municipality of Muskoka
FMP
Sabine Local Roads Board
FMP
Admaston/Bromley Township
FMP
Bonnechere Valley Township
FMP
Algonquin Highlands Township
AFA
Bancroft & District Chamber of Commerce
AFA
County of Renfrew
AFA
8/27/2012
Lacey Rose
Page 2 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
East Nipissing Municipal Assoc.
AFA
District of Nipissing
FMP
Frontenac-Lanark-Lennox & Addington
FMP
Haliburton Highlands Chamber of Commerce
AFA
Mattawa Chamber of Commerce
AFA
Municipality of Dysard Et. Al.
AFA
North Bay Chamber of Commerce
AFA
Pembroke and Area Chamber of Commerce
AFA
Town of Deep River
AFA
Town of Laurentian Hills
AFA
Town of Mattawa
AFA
Town of Petawawa
AFA
Township of Bonfield
AFA
Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch & Raglan
AFA
Township of Calvin
AFA
Township of Chisholm
AFA
Township of Head, Clara & Maria
AFA
Township of Killaloe, Hagarty & Richards
AFA
Township of Laurentian Valley
AFA
Township of Madawaska Valley
AFA
Greater Madawaska Township
FMP
Horton Township
FMP
McNab/Braeside Township
FMP
Township of North Algona, Wilberforce
AFA
Township of Papineau/Cameron
AFA
Township of South Algonquin
AFA
Townships of Hastings Highlands
AFA
8/27/2012
Interest
Ranking
4
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
CONTACT INFO
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Ha old Lukasavitch,
Harold
L kasa itch Jim
Peplinski
Page 3 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Whitewater Region Township
FMP
City of North Bay
AFA
Village Of Burk's Falls
AFA
Village Of South River
AFA
Village Of Sundridge
AFA
City of Pembroke
AFA
Corporation of the Village of Bancroft
AFA
County Of Haliburton, Admin.
AFA
Haliburton County
AFA
Haliburton-Kawartha Lake-Brock
FMP
Hastings County
AFA
Huntsville/Lake Of Bays Chamber Of Commerce
AFA
Municipal Corporation of the Township of
Sebastopol
AFA
Town of Arnprior
FMP
Town Of Huntsville
AFA
Town of Kearney
AFA
Town of Powassan
AFA
Town of Renfrew
AFA
Township of Calvin Local Roads Board
AFA
Township Of Joly
AFA
Township Of Lake Of Bays
AFA
Township Of Machar
AFA
Township Of Perry
AFA
Township Of Sherborne, Et. Al.
AFA
Prince Edward - Hastings
FMP
Oxtongue Lake Ratepayers Association
FMP
8/27/2012
1
AFA
Interest
Ranking
Contact person(s)
2
Tim Whithey
3
Cliff Reeds
Phone no.
Email address
CONTACT INFO
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Page 4 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Interest
Ranking
Rotating
Phone no.
Email address
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Don McCormick
alternate
First Nations Communities & Economic
Development
Contact person(s)
CONTACT INFO
Terry Mullin
4
Indian & Northern Affairs, Comprehensive Claims
AFA
AFA
AFA
Antoine First Nation
AFA
Sharbot Mishigama Anishinabe
AFA
AFA
Whitney Algonquins
AFA
Algonquin Nation Kijicho-Manito (Bancroft)
ONAS
Urban Ottawa Algonquin First Nation
AFA
Ardoch Algonquin First Nation
ONAS
Makwa Community Development Corp.
AFA
Madadjiwan Economic Development Corp.
AFA
Algonquin Woodland Metis Aboriginal Tribe
FMP
Union of Ontario Indians
FMP
Archaeologist
First Nation
First Nation
Emmett Godin
Dave Commanda
First Nation
Clifford Bastein
First Nation
Dave Joanisse
First Nation
Chief Doreen Davis
First Nation
Chief Richard Zohr
First Nation
Robert Craftchick, RPF
First Nation
Irvin Yateman
First Nation
Paul Lamothe
First Nation
Chief Randy Malcolm
First Nation
Bonnie Sarazin
First Nation
Chief Clifford Bastien
First Nation
First Nation
1
Ontario Archaeological Society
FMP
AFA
AFA
Archaelogist, Cultural
Heritage
1
Tom Ballantine
2
Rory Mckay
3
Bill Allen
Geologic Survey Division, NRC
LCC
8/27/2012
1
Page 5 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
Algonquin Park LCC
B.
Source of
contact
Interest
Ranking
AFA
General Public
Phone no.
Email address
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Betty Coutu
AFA
AFA
Contact person(s)
CONTACT INFO
Tom Ballantine
LCC Member, cottage
leaseholder, recreationalist,
municipal politics (retired)
1
John Doering
1
Brent Connoly
Dan Strickland
Ron Tozer
Norm Quinn
Anne Mundy
Bill Dickinson - if not on AFA
BoD
Paul Stephen
FMP
Industry / SFLs
1
Tembec Huntsville
FMP
Tembec - Temiscaming
AFA
Bancroft Minden Forest Company Inc.
AFA
Ben Hokum & Son Ltd.
AFA
Etmanskie Lumber
AFA
GP Northwoods
FMP
George Stein Ltd.
FMP
Lavern Heideman & Sons
AFA
Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc.
AFA
McRae Lumber Co.
AFA
Thomas J. Neuman Ltd.
FMP
Nipissing Forest Resource Mgmt Inc.
AFA
Ontario Forest Industry Association
AFA
8/27/2012
Leonard Trader
4
Gerald Kroes
Marc Bouthillier
5
Ed Heideman
3
John McRae
Page 6 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
724583 Ontario Limited (Shaw Lumber)
AFA
Carson Lake Lumber Ltd.
AFA
Columbia Forest Products
AFA
Interest
Ranking
Contact person(s)
Forest Industry
1
Dana Shaw
2
Jack Phillips
4
Alf Van Dyke
Phone no.
Email address
CONTACT INFO
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
A.T.C. Panels Inc. Pembroke
Commonwealth Plywood Co. Ltd.
AFA
Domtar Forest Products
AFA
Fortress Specialty Cellulose Inc.
AFA
Freymond Wood Products
AFA
Georgia Pacific - Woodlands Division
AFA
Gulick Forest Products
AFA
Mattawa & Area Forestry Committee
AFA
Murray Brothers Lumber
AFA
Ottawa Valley Forest Inc.
AFA
Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc.
AFA
Forestry Contractors
Hec Clouthier & Sons Inc.
1
AFA
Briscoe Construction
A. J. Nagora Logging Ltd.
Behnke Logging & Trucking Ltd.
AFA
Brinkman & Associates Reforestation Ltd.
AFA
Heritage Reforestation Inc.
Bruce G. Jones Forest Products Ltd.
AFA
G. Visneskie Logging Ltd.
AFA
Jessup Bros. Forest Products
AFA
Dean Johnson Forestry Consulting
AFA
Longwood Forestry Ltd.
AFA
Ed Wunsch Forest Products
AFA
8/27/2012
Dale Visneskie
Glen Jessup
Dean Johnson
John Long
Page 7 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
R. D. Robinson Forestry Inc.
AFA
Pilgrim Construction
AFA
Tom Fisher Logging Inc.
AFA
Smiths Construction Co.
AFA
Tucker Logging & Construction
AFA
Walter Dombroski & Sons Logging
AFA
Florent & Son Grading
AFA
Joe Chartrand
AFA
Rick Fleguel Slasher Contractor
AFA
Ontario Resource Management Group
AFA
Walsh Contracting
AFA
Visneskie Trucking Ltd.
AFA
Ranking
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Bob Robinson
Don Pilgrim
Tom Fisher
Bob Lavallee?
Rick Fleguel
Dale Visneskie
305 lease lots in AP mainly outside of R/U zone
Cottagers
1
Algonquin Park Residents Association
AFA
AFA
AFA
Cache Lake Leaseholders Association.
AFA
Smoke Lake Cottagers Association
AFA
Rock/Whitefish Lake Cottagers Association
AFA
Cedar Lake Cottagers Association
AFA
Rock Lake Algonquin Park Residents Association
AFA
Aylen Lake Community Association
AFA
Aylen Lake Cottagers Association
AFA
Baptiste Lake Cottagers Assoc.
AFA
East Bay Elephant Lake Cottagers Association
AFA
Hay Lake Cottagers Association
AFA
8/27/2012
Interest
CONTACT INFO
1
Don Spring
Don Lloyd, Bruce & Sherry
Sandilands
Rob Keen
John Doering
Rachael McRae
Page 8 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
McKenzie Lake Property Owners Association
B.
Source of
contact
FMP list
Laurier Local Roads Board
FMP list
Merton Street Local Roads Board
FMP list
Murchison Local Roads Board
FMP list
FMP list
Ontario Private Campground Association
FMP list
District 11, Near North Trail Association
FMP list
District 7, Muskoka Snowmobile Region
FMP list
Paddling Ontario Alliance
Internet search
Algonquin Snowmobile Club
Internet search
Algonquin Park Skiers Association
Internet search
Canadian Recreation Canoe Association
Phone no.
Email address
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Interests of
contact
FMP list
Internet search
Canoe Ontario
FMP list
Haliburton County Snowmobile Association
FMP list
Haliburton Highlands Outdoor Association
FMP list
Hike Ontario
FMP list
Maple Leaf Snow Skimmers
FMP list
OFSC
FMP list
Snow County OFSC District 6
FMP list
Ontario Federation of Sleddog Sports
FMP list
Ontario Recreation Society
FMP list
Ontario Recreational Canoe Association
FMP list
Parks and Recreation Ontario
FMP list
Parks and Recreation Federation
FMP list
8/27/2012
Contact person(s)
Comments
1
Oak Ridge Trail Association
Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
Ranking
C.
AFA
Lake St. Peter Rate Payers Association
Recreation Groups
Interest
CONTACT INFO
Page 9 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Parks Canada - Cornwall Service Centre
FMP list
Pembroke Outdoor Sportmans Club
FMP list
Whitney/Madawaska Nighthawks Snowmobile Club
Inc.
AFA
Turners Camp
AFA
Wilderness Canoe Association
AFA
South Algonquin Fish & Game Club
FMP list
Paddle Canada
FMP list
Multi-Trek Canadian Explorers ltd.
FMP list
Benoir Lake
Friends of Algonquin Park
AFA
Canadian National Railway Properties Inc.
FMP list
Algonquin Eco-Lodge / Call Of The Wild
Algonquin Park Residents' Association
Canadian Canoe and Kayak Trips Wilderness
Adventures
Northern Wilderness Outfitters
Out For Adventure Wilderness Tours
Voyageur Quest
Wolf Den Expeditions
Captain Action Charters
Canadian Wilderness Trips
Boots Adventure Tours
Mew Lake Yurts (Algonquin Provincial Park)
8/27/2012
Phone no.
Email address
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Interests of
contact
Alf Beck
Glen Turner
Recreation
1
Barry Bridgeford
1
Don Spring
2
Richard Swift/Gord Baker
3
Miss Schenke
FMP list
FMP list
Algonquin Outfitters
Contact person(s)
Comments
1
Tulip Motor Inn
Voyageur Outfitting
Ranking
C.
FMP list
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
Tourism
Interest
CONTACT INFO
FMP list
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
FMP list
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
I t
Internet
t search
h
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Page 10 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
Forest Tower Outfitters
Northern Edge Algonquin Eco-Lodge
Opeongo Outfitters
Eco-Explorations
Algonquin Portage Store
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
FMP list
Rickwards
FMP list
Algonquin North Outfitters
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
FMP list
Internet search
and FMP review
Arowhon Pines
AFA
Barkwick Camp
AFA
Bartlett Lodge
AFA
Chocpaw Expeditions
AFA
Elephant Lake Lodge
AFA
Killarney Lodge
AFA
Kingfisher Canoe Centre
AFA
Lake of Two Rivers Store
AFA
Magnetawan Lake Access
FMP list
N.O.T.O.
AFA
Northern Edge Algonquin
AFA
Northern Wilderness Outfitters
AFA
Nosbonsing Tourist Association
AFA
Ottawa Valley Tourist Association
AFA
Pine Grove Point
AFA
Pine Ridge Park & Resort
AFA
Riverland Tent & Trailer Camp
AFA
RnR Outfitters & Guides
AFA
8/27/2012
Ranking
C.
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Internet search
and FMP review
Algonquin Ventures - Portage Store
Etmanskie Shell
Interest
CONTACT INFO
Nelson Montreuil
4
Sven Miglan
Page 11 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Silver Eagle Resort
AFA
Sobek Expeditions, Inc.
AFA
Valley Ventures
AFA
Voyageur Outfitting
AFA
Whiskeyjack Park Services
FMP
Yates General Store
FMP
Ontario Parks Association
FMP
Ontario Heritage Foundation
FMP
Wilderness Bound
AFA
Environmental / Naturalist Groups
AFA
CPAWS (Ottawa Valley)
AFA
CPAWS Wildlands League
AFA
Canadian Parks and Recreation Association
FMP
Northwatch
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Betty Coutu
Internet search
and news articles
Internet search
and news articles
Earthroots
AFA
Ecojustice
AFA
Algonquin Eco Watch
AFA
Canadian Nature Federation
AFA
Canadian Wildlife Federation
AFA
Muskoka Field Naturalists
AFA
Conservation Council of Ontario
AFA
Conservation Ontario
AFA
Ducks Unlimited Canada
AFA
Field Botanists of Ontario
AFA
8/27/2012
Ranking
C.
1
Bancroft Field Naturalist Group
Mississippi Valley Field Naturalists (MVFN)
Interest
CONTACT INFO
Mike Wilton
Clare Mitchell
Page 12 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Haliburton County Field Naturalists
AFA
Greenpeace
AFA
Ontario Nature
FMP
Nature Conservancy of Canada
AFA
Nature Canada
FMP
Forest Ethics
AFA
Huntsville Nature Club
AFA
Interest
Ranking
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
CONTACT INFO
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Ms. Carolyn Schultz or Anne
Bell
Jim Griffin
Heritage Canada
FMP
Wildlife Habitat Canada
AFA
World Wildlife Fund
AFA
Muskoka Nature Club
FMP
Muskoka Heritage Foundation/Trust
Internet Search
Muskoka Watershed Council
Rob Keen
1
AFA
Recreational Hunt Camps
AFA
OFAH - Anglers and
Hunters
1
Matt DeMille
John O'Donnell
FMP List
Barry's Bay Fish & Game Club
AFA
South Algonquin Fish & Game Club
AFA
Whitney Fish & Game Club
AFA
Algonquin Trappers' Council
FMP List
Percy Bresnahan, Stanley
Peckoskie
2
Dave Harper
Mainly in Development
Zone
Youth Camps
Camp Arowhon
FMP List
Camp Northway Wendigo
FMP List
Camp Pathfinder
FMP List
8/27/2012
Deboroah Cumming
AFA
OFAH
Bancroft Fish and Game Protective Association
Bill Dickinson
Tom Clark
Trees Ontario
Anglers/Hunters and Groups
Dan Strickland, Ron Tozer
Page 13 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Camp Tamakwa
FMP List
Camp Tanamakoon
FMP List
Turners Camp
FMP List
Taylor Statten Camps
FMP List
Buckeye Camp
FMP List
Call of the Wild
FMP List
Trapping
Interest
Ranking
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
CONTACT INFO
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Native Trapping Only
Algonquin Trappers Council
FMP List
Kawartha-Haliburton Trapper's Council
AFA
Minden District Trappers Association
AFA
North Hastings Trapper's Council
AFA
Ontario Fur Managers Federation
AFA
1
August Commanda
1
Steve D'eon
Prospecting - not applicable
Prospectors and Developers Association
FMP List
The Ontario Prospectors Association
FMP List
Research/Education
1
Canadian Forestry Service / MNR
AFA
Teacher (retired)
AFA
Ontario Forest Research Institute (OFRI)
AFA
Forest Research Partnership/CEC
AFA
MNR - Science and Technology Unit
AFA
Wildlife Research Station
AFA
Algonquin Fisheries Assessment Unit
AFA
Harkness Lab - MNR
AFA
Research
Bill Lawson
John Pineau
Murray Woods
Schools
Algonquin College of Applied Arts
FMP List
Hastings County Board of Education
FMP List
8/27/2012
Page 14 of 15
A. GROUP INFO
Group name
No. of
members
B.
Source of
contact
Nipissing/Parry Sound Catholic District School
Board
FMP List
Renfrew County Board of Education
FMP List
Renfrew County Catholic District School Board
FMP List
University of Guelph
FMP List
University of Waterloo - Huntsville
AFA
Nipissing University
FMP List
Queen's University
FMP List
Trent University
Interest
Ranking
Contact person(s)
Phone no.
Email address
CONTACT INFO
C.
Mailing address
Community
Postal
code
Comments
Interests of
contact
Robin Brushey
Murray Green
AFA
Haliburton County Board of Education
FMP List
Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board
FMP List
Muskoka Board of Education
FMP List
Near North District School Board
FMP List
Trillium Lakelands District School Board
FMP List
Near North School Board
FMP List
MISCELLANEOUS
Hydro One
FMP
Ontario Professional Forester Association
FMP
Ontario Forestry Association
FMP
Canadian Institute of Forestry
FMP
Reserve Forestry and Guiding
FMP
JDC Telecom
8/27/2012
FMP list
Page 15 of 15
Appendix C:
Sample Public Notice
4
APPENDIX D:
Advisory Group Terms of Reference
(contained within Appendix C)
APPENDIX E:
Advisory Group Minutes
Algonquin Park Forest Certification Advisory Group Z809‐08 Meeting #1 Hidden Valley Hotel, Huntsville Jan 31 / Feb 1, 2012 Revised March 9, 2012 Present: Shaun Dombroskie, Gord Cumming, Richard Zohr, Randy Malcolm, John Doering, Anne Mundy, Tom Ballantine, Joe Yaraskavitch, Barry Bridgeford, Danny Janke, Deb Cumming, Don McCormick, Bob Craftchick, Dave Commanda, Lacey Rose, Nathan Mieske, Dana Shaw, Irvin Yateman, Emmett Godin, Tom Clark. Regrets: Doreen Davis, Clifford Bastein, Steve Deon, Matt Demille, Don Spring Tuesday Evening 1. Introductions Gord welcomed all of the FCAG members. Approximately 50% new faces to advisory group. AFA thanked members for their input and time commitments donated to the advisory group. CSA is the standard with the greatest requirements for public consultation. A lot of good work has been done by the committee in the past. Some of this effort has also been incorporated in the preparation of the 2010‐20 FMP, the sustainable forest management plan approved by MNR. This first meeting is to step back and refresh some of the basics of the framework AFA operates under and the requirements of the CSA Standard. Values, Objectives, Indicators and Targets (VOITs) will be the focus of the discussions as we move along the path in the process. Gord went through the information binder provided to each group member. Gord also introduced the presentation material posted in the room that provides information about forest management in Algonquin Park. Gord introduced the facilitator Tom Clarke with CMC Forestry Consultants. An Ecologist, who understands the forestry business and forestry certification processes. Tom knows the Park having been an auditor on the last Independent Forest Audit. Gord handed it over to Tom to begin the meeting and Tom further introduced himself and his background. The floor was opened to the advisory group to provide introductions and share their backgrounds. New members introduced themselves as follows: Lacey Rose – Registered Professional Forester with the County of Renfrew. Past experience as assistant to the Ontario Parks Forester in Algonquin Park, and as Forest Management Plan author for the Bancroft‐Minden Sustainable Forest Licence Company. Nathan Mieske – Logging Contractor Supervisor with Bob Robinson Logging ‐ working in Algonquin Park. CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 1 Don McCormick – member of the AFA Board of Directors. Anne Mundy – representing the general public. Has previous experience with the certification process as she was previously with the AFA Board of Directors and an alternate on the FCAG for Terry Mullin. Emmett Godin – appointed to the group by Chief Patrick Glassford. Has past experience as a member of several Forest Management Planning teams, including Algonquin Park. Joe Yaraskavitch – Ontario Parks Forester – has some experience with the FCAG in the last round – will be the primary representative for Ontario Parks now, with Jay Nichols (Park Superintendent) as an alternate. Jay is also planning to attend whatever meetings he can. Dave Commanda – appointed by Bonnie Sarazin on behalf of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan. Has experience working in Algonquin Park as a Contractor Supervisor with Makwa Community Development Corporation. Robert Craftchick – has some previous experience with the FCAG during the last round. Also has past experience as a member of several Forest Management Planning teams, including Algonquin Park. Deb Cumming ‐ representing environmental group interests. Deb is the past Chair of the Muskoka Watershed Council. Also works with the Muskoka Heritage Trust and was the Chair of the environmental committee for Lake of Bays. Deb has been involved in a number of other environmental projects including long range planning for solid waste in Muskoka. Regrets ‐ Clifford Bastein – member of the Mattawa/North Bay Algonquins. Also has past experience as a member of several Forest Management Planning teams, including Algonquin Park. Regrets – Chief Doreen Davis – representing the Sharbot Mishigama Anishinabe Algonquin community. Regrets – Matt Demille Assistant Manager of Fish and Wildlife Services/Fisheries Biologist with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Matt has served notice that he will be replaced by another manager from OFAH at the next meeting as they are currently going through a reorganization. Bob Craftchick pointed out that the on pg 7of 10 of the Terms of Reference, a few corrections need to be made regarding Algonquin names/groups. ACTION – Bob to email Gord corrections. 2. Video: Jim Ferrell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service ‐ played to give group a national perspective on forests, legislation, reporting and forest certification. 3. Forest Management in Ontario and Algonquin Park ‐ the Planning Structure ‐ Gord Gord explained the legal framework and set the stage on how forest management is conducted within Algonquin Park by going over a schematic diagram. Discussed the 3 main pieces of legislation: the CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 2 Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Followed by discussing the variety of other legislation and legal requirements that the AFA operates under. Deb asked if the forestry agreement contains market projections based on demand from receiving mills? Danny answered by explaining that it is only focused on the supply end and allocation to receiving mills is based on volume determined from the FMP process. Danny further added that Forestry Agreements are a topic of discussion as the Province continues to have discussions on tenure reform. Gord continued to highlight the guiding documents provided on the display table that are followed during the preparation of a forest management plan (FMP). Table FMP‐13 was prepared with the 2010‐
20 FMP and has a lot of similarities to the CSA VOIT Matrix that is developed for the CSA certification process. FMP is a 10 year plan with two 5 year phases and approved by MNR. Open‐houses are scheduled to allow public to input on planned activities prior to implementation each phase. Annual Work Schedules are prepared yearly by AFA and reviewed and approved by MNR prior to April 1st each year. Monitoring and measuring the implementation of forest activities on the day to day bases is completed by AFA Operations Supervisors. Compliance reports are submitted as an operating unit is completed to the provincial FOIP program and becomes public record. Spot checks are completed internally by Monitoring and Measurement Supervisor on the implementation of forest activities and results are prepared in a report presented to the EMS/SFM Implementation Team. Internal Audits and Registrar administered audits are completed each year. ….Numerous checks and balances are in place to ensure the FMP is implemented as planned. Joe ‐ clarified that it’s the client mills that get wood from Algonquin Park that covers the cost of forest management and forest certification. In the end the mills are paying more ($/m3) for the additional checks and balances and auditing efforts born from certifying wood on managed forests. Through this CSA process, we need to be mindful of the cost incurred and be as efficient as possible. Don McCormick and John Doering ‐ shared their frustration with the lack of attention paid by the general public on products manufactured from trees harvested from certified forests. A group photo was taken and the meeting adjourned for the Day. CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 3 Wednesday, Feb 1 Tom and Gord began the meeting by getting started with the information binder. An acronyms page is included to help understand and follow along with terminology used in forestry. 1. Minutes of last Meeting: Past meeting minutes were reviewed ‐ May 10, 2011 meeting. No errors or omissions were identified. Tom B requested an update on the mills. Danny responded – 280,000 m3 harvested so far this year, total volume is going to be down this year. This is less than half of the sustainable allowable volume that is allocated in the plan. Ever since Portage closed there has not been a good alternative outlet for low grade timber (pulp). Hardwood sawlog demand is okay. Currently the markets are poor. Indicators from the US show slightly positive future trends. Gord – explained how an allowable cut is calculated and that wood supply agreements are updated after each FMP and recalculation of the sustainable harvest level. Don – asked for an explanation on stands that have species like poplar are treated when demand for poplar is low. Danny – some species are not in demand but we do not “cherry pick” trees. Forest prescriptions are followed and we harvest area based on what is marked by certified tree markers implementing the forest prescription. We have a section in the FMP that identifies utilization strategies CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 4 when market conditions are poor. We are currently implementing some of these strategies – for example – avoiding areas with high concentrations of unmarketable material. Gord – good example is in Kiosk where we temporally delay harvest of hemlock by ribboning and bypassing concentrated areas of undesirable species at this current time. We will go back and carry out silviculture at a future date in these areas when markets improve. With SAR habitat restrictions and timing restrictions there is a strong need to have all the available harvest allocated to provide the flexibility to move to areas and supply the wood to mills. This year, two mills (Carson Lake & Commonwealth) ran out of pine logs and had to wait until an October 15th timing restriction was off to access pine needed to meet volume commitments. We never cut the full allocated volume but we need all of the area allocated to be flexible. 2. 2010‐11 Annual Report Gord reviewed the 2010‐11 annual report. Refer to the report for details. INDICATORS – Discussion Items: 1.2.1.1.2: Tom C.‐ asked why during in 2005‐2006 there were more incursions in SAR habitat when, for example, species like wood turtle were not a Species at Risk? Gord – there were more species on the list (i.e. red‐shouldered hawk) that have since been removed from the list. Advancements made by AFA with (ARMS) in recent years to immediately report new values upon discovery at tree marking time and communicate the location to Operations field staff prior to harvest or access activities. This has helped reduce the number of non‐compliances associated with incursions into habitat within timing restrictions. 1.2.1.2.1: Joe – explained the pending non‐compliance associated with landing within a brook trout AOC. Joe explained that when we think about calculating this VOIT it would be better show it relative to the number of reports completed. Currently showing a % is misleading due the significance of some of these non‐compliances. High‐low significant non compliances are grouped together as part of the calculation. The current measure may be too strict? Don‐ suggested it could be better to base the measure as a ratio instead of a %? Barry – asked about species creep due to climate change? Lacey – there are two camps in the science community ‐ for progressively adapting tree species ‐ and to wait until the climate change occurs to plant different tree species. Change is not dramatic enough yet for different tree species to thrive. Joe – new module will be given out to planning teams for upcoming plans. Our strategy is to ensure we maintain a healthy diverse forest. A healthy forest can better adapt to any changes to the climate. Not a lot can be done in Algonquin Park because of the reliance on predominantly natural regeneration. CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 5 Lacey‐ why is there a 5% variance for some of these VOITs and 10% on others? Gord – it is a function of the advisory group’s decisions. This variance in variances will be reconsidered with the re‐assessments of VOITS. 3.2.1.1.3: Joe‐ what do you define as a spill? Danny – anything over 1 litre is tracked within our EMS. 3.2.1.2.1: Gord – test wells have been installed, however monitoring these test wells requires a licenced hydro geologist and long term data to account for many variables. Joe – aggregate pit test well is an inverted culvert at pit site. The MNR southern region hydro geologist assessed our current practices and provided input. New direction has been incorporated into the 2010 FMP and new mapping technology will be used to determine hydrologically sensitive portions of the brook trout AOC as required. 5.1.1.2.1: Danny – wood supply commitments are going to change this VOIT in the future and changes resulting from tenure reform. 5.1.2.1.1: Gord – reviewed public comments received ‐ explained the one public complaint at Scorch Lake was as a result of a breakdown in communication with the passing of the gate attendant. Letter was sent to the complainant and camping fees reimbursed and camper was very satisfied with AFA’s empathetic response. 5.3.1.1.1: Barry – does the crown expect a certain amount? Joe – no, a portion of crown stumpage ends up in the provinces general revenues account. Danny – crown sets the rate on residual value ‐ if the value goes up then the mills pay more. Proposed market based system through tenure reform will be an alternative to the current system. 5.3.2.1.2: Joe – Gord can you explain the reasons why we did not meet target for Algonquin Aboriginal tree marking? Gord – André Carle (largest contractor at the time) stopped marking in the park and is the main result why numbers dropped. Also, we are marking less overall area with the suppressed market conditions. Danny – tree marking is quite complex and not a lot of capacity in the certified tree marker pool. There is a real opportunity for aboriginals here. Richard – we need to become more aware. Robert‐ prefer to work outside of the park due to economics. When we worked in the park it seemed we were paid $10/ha less than when we were paid outside the park. Most communities do not have the capacity to do it. If would be different if we had the capacity and did not get the opportunity. This indicator is negative and should be revised. Richard – I look at this as an opportunity and if we did not have the target we would not know we had the problem. Danny – notice was given through request for proposals on the BID OPPORTUNITIES section on the AFA website. CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 6 3. Video 2: Forest Certification in Canada ‐ Peggy Smith Tom – asked for the groups thoughts on the recent CBC Marketplace segment on forest certification. Group‐ felt it had a negative tone and didn’t tell the whole story. Too much time spent in the grocery store with the toilet paper and not enough time clarifying the issues they were raising. Not enough time in a ½ hour show to do it justice. 4. Forest Certification and CSA System – Tom PowerPoint presentation delivered by Tom ‐ notes pages provided in binder. Deb – can auditors move from one certification standard to another? Tom – yes Gord – CSA certification helps AFA demonstrate to the public that the forest is managed sustainably………etc., market benefits are slow in coming. McRae Lumber is the currently the only client mill that has the additional Chain of Custody certification ‐ to help them maintain market share with some of their client pulp mills. Tom‐ FSC seems to be the best known certification body and spent time early on the marketing, whereas, CSA focussed more on standards development, not marketing. Gord – provided a quick overview of how the registrar conducts the audit and accesses records. Verification is made in the field and follow‐up on items and records is made back in the office. Audit reports are prepared and responses to any non‐conformance findings are made with 60 days. 5. Advisory Group Public Consultation Plan and Terms of Reference ‐ Tom Consultation Plan: Dana – questioned why CPAWS was singled out on the expanded stakeholder list? Lacey – suggest either we list all the environmental groups and not just single out one (CPAWS). Gord – will revisit these lists – they are a bit dated because they were originally constructed in 2006 ACTION – Gord asked the group to please review the values identified in tables 2 and 3, along with the VOIT matrix and let us know if we are missing anything. Algonquin EcoWatch – Gord ‐ AFA has an open door policy when it comes to talking to people about how we manage the Algonquin Forest. Algonquin is a special place ‐ it is owned by the people of Ontario. We have the duty to listen to and consider everyone’s concerns. We are happy to do that. AFA’s is including AEW in the CSA process through our broader consultation which will lead to a meeting with them, if requested. We are happy to spend time with them ourselves ‐ not sure if it would be productive as a group. The issues that AEW has raised with us about SFM in Algonquin Park will be discussed with FCAG as part of the VOIT analysis. The AEW issues were also raised (and addressed) through the FMP process. These issues, and subsequent decisions, and the reasons for them, are fully documented (copies in your binders ‐ issue resolution and individual environmental assessment letters). CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 7 If you have questions about these letters, or about the issues, we will be happy to address them at the appropriate time in the process, as each issue fits into the CCFM criteria. Please let us know if you have any comments or concerns. Joe – Algonquin Eco‐Watch will continue to be involved in other consultation processes for Algonquin Park e.g. Local Citizens Committee. Anne – when was the letter dated? January 2012 Danny – has sent a response letter. Don – sounds like they have higher level concerns and need to spend time at the political level. Gord – As a plan author I need to follow provincial direction. Barry – is there opportunity to evaluate the landscape guide (LG) based on this process? Gord‐ no – the LG was not available during the preparation of the long term management direction for the Algonquin Park 2010 FMP. The LG was phased in starting with 2011 FMPs in the southern region. Joe – we did incorporate as much of the LG direction as possible in the FMP. Post Meeting Note – Joe is correct. As stated in the District Manager’s Issue Resolution response letter – “The planning team has used the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM) in the development of the FMP. SFMM is a model that has been approved by the Director of Forest Management Branch for use in forest management planning. The planning team has diligently incorporated the science presented in the draft Landscape Guide relative to natural disturbance cycles, natural succession as well as old growth onset age and duration into the model”. The FMP has also incorporated the “Landscape Class” classification system for assessing biological diversity (from the LG). Landscape classes have been introduced as a new measure for assessing forest structure, composition and abundance. Lacey – LG actually offers more flexibility with long term targets than what was done in the Algonquin FMP. It is a similar approach with modeling within levels of natural variation, however the Algonquin FMP followed this natural trend more closely over time. The LG has targets set for each management unit set by the Province. The Terms of Reference was reviewed with the group. Tom – Please contact first if there are questions with anything along the process. I can be reached by phone 705‐645‐2580 or email [email protected]. ACTION ‐ Please identify any alternates by the start of next meeting. If necessary, technical experts can be invited to help the advisory group make informed decisions. CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 8 Robert – expressed some concern about decision making for observers. Gord suggested that in the example Robert was using, this would be more of a technical advisor which would be more of a group decision if this would be of value 6. Video 3: PEFC ‐ The World's Largest Environmental Movement 7. An Introduction to VOITs – Tom – PowerPoint presentation Gord‐ added that the defined forest area includes wilderness zones and natural zones which contribute to many of the landscape scale ecological indicators (e.g. wildlife habitat and old growth). This is way of assessing credit for these large “protected areas” in many of our CCFM criteria 1 VOITs. Bob – pointed out that the map displayed out in the Park Management Plan is not up to date. Road in the pan handle is incorrect. Joe concurred. Gord‐ the scoping analysis in the FMP will satisfy the requirements in the standard for evaluating strategies for many of the landscape level VOITs. Gord‐ emphasized the importance of keeping the VOITs to a manageable number. Careful consideration and meaningful measures must be used. Tom‐ used the existing VOIT matrix to look at a few examples. Gord – provided insight on the use of SFMM ‐ a planning tool used to model timber, habitat and forest condition overtime and is the tool used to evaluate forest management against the natural bounds of variation. It is also a tool used to measure many of these strategic planning indicators. Lacey‐ pointed out that the landscape guide has changed in a direction to model cover types overtime – more of a coarse filter approach. If we provide for a variety of habitat types across the landscape, this will satisfy the broad requirements of most wildlife species. Fine filter habitat direction is also provided through AOC planning. Provincial planning direction has moved away from a featured species approach. Gord‐ in the past, some of the members felt that AFA was telling the advisory group what the values were; not vice versa. We stepped back during the last certification process to address this issue. We now have an existing VOIT matrix that was built with advisory group consensus. This is a good template to move forward from. Together as a group we need to determine if there are any gaps. Tom – discussion around measuring structural retention to meet a new mandatory indicator and ideas were given to use existing monitoring systems that capture this requirement. The tree marking audit report is a good measure to indicate whether or not we are meeting this new VOIT. CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 9 8. Expectations of the Process Danny – provided a brief history on AFA’s registration to ISO 14001 and CSA Z809, and why AFA chose to the CSA standard. Clients recognize it is needed to demonstrate to the public that the forests of Algonquin Park are being sustainably managed. After another analysis AFA decided to continue with CSA because of the requirement for incorporating public involvement and the inclusion of a management system to achieve continual improvement. Gord – added that the ISO and CSA share the same system requirements and going with CSA provided a good fit and value for money spent. The CSA standard has a lot of technical rigour behind it and CSA being a Canadian standard provides the national recognition. It’s not good enough anymore to just do good forest management, we need to prove it! 9. Other Items Please review the values identified in tables 2 and 3 of the Public Consultation Plan and in the VOIT matrix and let us know if we are missing any values. Next Meeting is on the 01 March 2012. CSA Advisory Group Meeting #1 Page 10 Forest Certification Advisory Group Z809‐08 Meeting #2 Hidden Valley Hotel, Huntsville March 1st & 2nd, 2012 Minutes Present: Deb Cumming, Barry Bridgeford, Anne Mundy, Emmett Godin, Dana Shaw, Danny Janke, Terry Mullin, Joe Yaraskavitch, Irvin Yateman, Lacey Rose, Shaun Dombroskie, Nathan Mieske, Steve Deon, Tom Clark Regrets: Richard Zohr, Randy Malcolm, John Doering, Tom Ballantine, Bob Craftchick, Dave Commanda, Doreen Davis, Matt Demille, Don Spring, Clifford Bastein DAY 1: Thursday March 1 ‐ 10:00 am ‐ 11:00 pm ‐ Mill Tour – Tembec Huntsville 1:00 ‐ 5:00 pm ‐ Bush Tour – Brule Area – Arrowhon Pines Road 1 DAY 2 ‐ Friday March 2: 8:30 ‐ 3:00 pm Meeting ‐ 8:30 am ‐ 3:00 pm Algonquin Room Gord‐ provided an update that Shari Sokay will be the new representative for OFAH and is planning to join the group at the next meeting. Terry Mullin is filling in for Don McCormick at this meeting. Steve Deon – provided a career introduction to the group. Meeting 2 information package was handed out and members inserted it into their binder. Pages were overviewed by section. MNR LCC introductory handbook was highlighted to provide background to forest management conducted in Ontario. The Algonquin Park Forest Management Plan Long‐term Management Direction summary was introduced to group and emphasized. FMP Table 3 is also included to help provide the description of forest units. Page 1 of the proposed revised VOIT Matrix was provided to have in hand when Criterion 1is to be discussed – new mandatory indicators have been highlighted. 1. Approval of Feb Minutes Omissions: Tom Clarke and Emmett Godin names were not recorded in the attendance. Lacey – wondered why some individuals’ career backgrounds were included and others were not? Gord clarified that only new members to the group had their backgrounds included. Joe –identified a few other potential corrections – a SAR reference and a spelling mistake. Gord – indicated that he revised the Public Consultation Plan Table 1 and 2 following the environmental group discussion at meeting 1. Minutes were adopted by group and there were no objections. 2. Approval of Terms of Reference Tom – provided a brief revisit of the Terms of Reference. Terms of Reference were adopted. 3. Participatory Decision Making Tom provided a brief presentation on Participatory Decision Making. He emphasized that the group is not here to change public policy. Also, the standard recognizes the provincial forest management planning process (the FMP) and the direction it provides. The idea behind Participatory Decision Making is to start with a new topic and at the end to reach a decision point. There is going to be divergent thinking and it is encouraged. Understanding each other’s views is a key part of the process. 2 4. Review of AFA Certification Website Gord provided a brief overview of the Algonquin Forestry Authority website, and the Certification section of the website and how to access the public participation questionnaire. This questionnaire is to be used by those that wish to participate through the broad public consultation process. Some of the questions in the questionnaire were reviewed to provide the group a sense the values information that will be collected through this process. Terry – since this is new have you received any response to date? Gord – not much response yet ‐ one individual from Toronto requested a background information package. Steve – asked if there is a question on what peoples impression of Algonquin Park are based on? Is it based on personal experience or hear‐say? Gord – no, but could consider adding a question like that to questionnaire. This information can be partially determined from section 6 of the questionnaire. Joe – What is the direction for Aboriginal consultation through this broader process? Gord – as outlined in the in the Terms of Reference and Public Consultation Plan. Joe –do you keep track of “hits” to the website? Gord – yes a report is provided weekly and is spatially referenced. Gord also reviewed the “Bid Opportunities” section of the website. This section of the website is used to advertize all bid opportunities for work for the AFA. 5. 2010 – 2020 FMP Long Term Management Direction (LTMD) Gord – referred the group to the Summary of the LTMD that was distributed (Appendix H from the 2010 FMP). This provides a summary of the process involved when developing a LTMD, to decide on a Selected Management Strategy. Understanding this process and the Selected Management Strategy in the FMP will help prepare us to get through the VOITs that are in the CSA Standard. Gord delivered a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the development of the 2010‐2020 FMP LTMD. There was an emphasis that FMP Table 13 – Assessment of Objectives has a lot of common elements to CSA VOIT Matrix. The natural benchmark (or null run) is run to understand how the forest would grow without forest management/ fire suppression (human intervention). By removing fire suppression (i.e. extending the fire cycles to natural levels) older forests that are susceptible to fire are left to burn and return to a pre‐
sapling condition. Steve – how do you model for things like white pine blister rust? Gord – in the model a factor is applied (ha/yr ‐ based on science) to account for losses to insect and disease (and blowdown and fire). Deb – how are you determining the harvest level? Gord – the harvest level is an output of the SFMM model – after you have met all of the ecological constraints for things like wildlife habitat and old growth. 3 Joe – we use a combination of provincial and local statistics to develop natural disturbance rates for the SFMM model. There is discussion about incorporating natural fires in natural zones to encourage young pre‐sapling forest in area where logging is not permitted. Development of an Algonquin Park Fire Management Strategy is ongoing. Lacey –explain how you determined your minimum targets where the normal => 75% of the natural benchmark target was not used? Gord – in these rare cases (e.g. pre‐sapling forest landscape class and black bear summer habitat) the target was set at the highest level possible that could be sustained by the proposed management strategy which balances social, environmental and economic objectives. The planning team chose to take a consistent approach to ecological target setting as much as possible (=> 75% of the natural benchmark target) and deal with these anomalies on a case by case basis. Deb – what are the economic factors that are considered? Gord – available wood supply volumes (both total and at the species/product level) and level of employment and are some of the factors considered. Joe – the selection of wildlife species to model is normally provided by MNR. 19 species were modelled this time. Gord‐ several of the species modeled prefer old growth forest conditions ‐ some of these species were included from a list requested by Algonquin Eco‐Watch. Tom – emphasised that this is a course filter approach to demonstrating management of habitat for wildlife populations. It is important to know that it is up to the biologist to verify in the field the occurrence of these wildlife species and their population levels in these modeled habitats. Steve – the base model run is primarily modeling natural forest succession in the natural zones (fire suppression is active). Can we tease out the effect that fire suppression has of the sustainability of the natural zone forest? Gord – yes we can compare the SFMM results between the selected management strategy and the null run to see the effect of fire suppression. Joe – A lot of discussion on fire at planning team meetings. Approach that is gaining interest is with the application of prescribed burns within the natural wilderness zones. AFA also has mapped areas where natural fires could let burn in R/U zone areas where harvesting has occurred in the past. Danny – is there a wildlife management plan for the park on wildlife population numbers in modelled habitat (black bears/sq. km)? This would be very useful to validate modeling results. Joe ‐ no formal plan and no guide out there. Gord – hopefully Stand/Site Guide effectiveness monitoring will address this. Gord – we create a lot habitat from the management of forests, but, the missing link sometimes is the population numbers that are using the habitat. There are many other factors that affect populations, besides level of preferred habitat that we model. Joe‐ the mixedwood and spruce/fir forest unit SFMM modeled outputs have limitations because the pre‐
sampling forest is not created in the model after harvest – this area moves right to a sapling forest after a uniform shelterwood removal cut. Barry – is the age of old growth dependent on species? Gord – yes it varies by forest unit. Barry – was a baseline amount only determined on what is to be maintained in the RU zone? Gord – no, contribution 4 to the total old growth forest condition is being made from both the managed and the unmanaged forest. Deb – Does old growth supply get banked if not cut? Gord – no model assumes full utilization, therefore we currently are underestimating the level of old growth forest condition based on current utilization levels. Lacey – did you complete a scoping exercise to compare planned versus actual harvest level? Gord – yes. Dana – concerns over the years when wood is looked at and generalized as fibre. For a product like poles, the wood fibre is very specific…very unique. If red pine stands are preserved the product is gone. When we keep chipping away and preserving red pine stands it has an impact on the business. It is better to have local supply of poles than a supply from elsewhere. A lot of time you have Pr/Pw mixed in the stand. A high amount of light is needed to the forest floor to facilitate the growth of red pine. These mixed stands are not opened enough and provide the light conditions to facilitate the growth of red pine. Irvin – is there more opportunity to plant red pine trees? Gord – we have paid close attention to planting and tending red pine stands now, to dampen any future projected pole shortfalls that appear in the model. Also managing the red pine forest unit as a seed tree clearcut forest unit to ensure adequate light conditions. Barry – how do you factor in the disturbance effect on tolerant hardwood and other forest types? Wind damage? Gord – based on the best available science, natural disturbance numbers are calculated for each forest unit. Refer to the analysis package in the FMP for complete details. Lacey – graph on pg. 18 of Summary of LTMD shows disturbance frequency distribution by size class, are those related to the recent blow down events? Gord – yes , 1999 and 2006 events are reflected here and may have been lumped together as one disturbance due to their proximity. Barry – how frequently are the inventories updated? Gord – before each FMP all recent disturbance areas are updated and the rest of the forest is age updated. Discussion items included: Local and regional protected areas and integrated landscape management, Forest fragmentation and forest loss, Management in the context of natural disturbance regimes and patterns and the range of natural variation, Maintenance of populations and communities over time, Silvicultural regimes and tools such as plantations, pesticides (including integrated pest management and pesticide‐use regulations), Structural retention, and timber harvest practices (including clear‐
cutting), Locally available processes and methods for identifying sites with special biological and cultural significance. 6. Missing Values ‐ any identified? Joe – fisheries could be highlighted more in the VOITs due to their importance. Watched Video ‐ Wood is Good Lunch 5 Watched Video ‐ Patrick Moore ‐ Forest Management and Using Wood 7. VOITs ‐ Criterion 1 Gord – idea is to produce an updated VOIT matrix at every meeting after we work through each indicator. Gord’s focus so far has been on indicator revisions ‐ it hasn’t been on the objectives. Some of the new mandatory indicators are nested under current objectives. At the end of the process we want to have a nice flow of the elements listed in the VOIT Matrix. The wording in the VOIT Matrix is to be kept brief and more elaborate explanation will be provided in the SFM Plan text. Joe‐ does the new standard have the same criterion? Gord‐ same criterion and elements but additions are the mandatory indicators. Element 1.1 Ecosystem Diversity 1.1.1.1.1 Indicator: Ecosystem area by type Discussed ‐ Maintenance of populations and communities over time, Local and regional protected areas and integrated landscape management. Gord – the Selected Management Strategy SFMM model for the 2010 FMP had ecosystems tracked that could be extracted to use for this VOIT. Ecosystem definition was read for the group from the Ecosite Manual and from the CSA Standard definition included in the binder. New FRI and inventory updates are taking more of an ecosite approach. There is a strong correlation between forest cover and ecosite type. Lacey – Can FMP Table 1 listing forest, water, rock levels be used in the measure this indicator? Tom – Lacey’s suggestion is within the standard, but is a coarser scale than what Gord is suggesting. Tom – explained that the scale that we select to measure diversity indicators should be consistent if possible. Steve – suggested we go to a large scale also. Joe – suggested somewhere in between, hardwood forest ecosystem found to the west and pine forest ecosystem found to the east. Deb – what do you suggest be the scale, Gord? Gord – suggest we measure at a finer scale by 25 ecosite types – this way it is quantifiable and can be forecasted. Gord ‐ Went through and showed the group the work that was done to use SFMM to produce graphs to project levels overtime by ecosite type. It is a fine scale measure. Lacey – suggested that the work is done and we should move on. Gord ‐ this is a planning type indicator and we need to set variance based on long term projections in relation to the natural benchmark run (+/‐ 25% of the natural benchmark run). Ecosite 15 will need a slightly greater variance (+/‐ 30% of the natural benchmark run) to address the loss of this jack pine forest type in the unmanaged part of the park ‐ without disturbances jack pine areas are succeeding to other forest types. Felt that is important to be consistent with FMP and set minimum target levels the same for the SFM plan as much as possible. 6 Deb – is it important to set the variance consistently for all ecosite types? Gord‐ would prefer to revise the variance for this anomaly (ES15) rather than for all ecosites. This additional variance can be rationalized – and it is out of our control to address it. Biggest reason why levels are dropping is due to jack pine natural succession to other forest types in the natural zone. Deb ‐there is a paradox because the ecosites in the natural zone contribute to help us meet most of the planned objectives but does not help to meet all of the planned objectives. VOIT Matrix – Adjustment made to text under Target column following Irvin’s suggestion to add “s” to area to clarify the measure of ecosites by type. Lacey – suggested the terms “bounds of natural variation” and ‘’natural benchmark’’ be synonymous. 1.1.1.1.2
Indicator: Forest area by type Discussed – Forest loss, Management in the context of natural disturbance regimes and patterns of natural variation, Local and regional protected areas and integrated landscape management. Gord ‐ suggested that it is logical to use forest units as the measure of forest “type”, while displaying a map of Algonquin Park showing the distribution of the 12 forest units on the land base (reference FMP – Table 3). There is a strong correlation between Ecosites and Forest Units. All stands are lumped into their respective forest unit, forest unit descriptions are provided in FMP‐ Table 3. SFMM is modeled using forest units. Suggestion was made to the Advisory Group that the same modifications be made to variation level (+/‐30% of the natural benchmark value) for PjCC forest unit as is needed for Ecosite 15. 70% versus 75% minimum target level discussion: Gord‐ two ways of going about it, one is lowering the target, the other is maintaining the target but allowing greater variance. Lacey – suggested change the modelling term to 80 vs. 100 years for PJCC forest units? Gord – I did consider changing the term because that is the time (~80 yrs.) the level drops below the target level, but I decided not to in order to be consistent with the FMP approach. Steve – jack pine biological life cycle is on 80 year rotation. Trees begin to die due to nutritional issues. Steve – prefer to make them all 70%. Gord – doesn’t agree – why lower every target because of 1 anomaly? Dana – a lot of the Pj that is left to grow to an older age and harvested is of poor quality, too much rot. Lacey – learning quickly while working for the County that jack pine is not suited to grow on most sites due to being at the southern limit of the range. Gord – showed graphs of poplar and jack pine levels dropping in natural zones after 80 – 100 years due to lack of disturbance and natural succession. ACTION: Gord to ensure the correct wording is inserted in SFM plan text to describe the anomalies and the rationale for revising the variances for ES15 and the PjCC forest unit. 7 1.1.1.1.3 Indicator: Forest area by seral stage Discussed ‐ Forest fragmentation and forest loss, Management in the context of natural disturbance regimes and patterns and the range of natural variation Graph shown – Area by Seral Stage produced for the SFMM model. Seral stage is age class and is tracked overtime by the SFMM. Seral stage age ranges vary by ecosite (pre‐sapling, sapling, immature, mature, over mature seral stage classes). The issue that is creating a challenge for AFA (and the entire southern region) is the shortage of the pre‐sapling forest condition. Barry – how much early successional forest is browsed? Joe – not a complete stand would succumb to browsing, only small % is affected. Gord – suggested that landscape classes be the surrogate for seral stages and it is consistent on how we did it in the FMP. Plan is to take the same approach in Table 13 and built it into the VOIT Matrix. This is another mandatory indicator and there is a good correlation between seral stage and landscape classes. Landscape Classes definition was read from landscape guide. Gord – this approach also recognizes the inclusion of two stories created in uniform shelterwood forest units (T‐stage condition) and is beneficial habitat for wildlife. Old growth stage is at the top end of seral stages. They are not landscape classes per say, and would have their own separate targets. Deb – Pre‐sapling forest condition looks to be well below the natural benchmark levels? Gord – this issue is well explained in the FMP and will be explained in the SFM Plan text. There is not enough clearcutting being done in the Algonquin Park forest and restrictions are placed on existing clear cut forest units due to other values (i.e. SAR values). Suggested to the group we maintain the area target from the FMP (maintain >=6,400 ha by term for the pre‐sapling landscape class). Plan to actively create more pre‐sapling condition, operationally, by creating more group openings in shelterwood forest units. Deb – existing management strategy may be a miss and suggest that you might want to identify an alternative strategy that will address what appears to be a strategy that it is not favouring the promotion of the pre‐sapling stage condition. When can the long term strategy alternative be re‐opened and up for discussion? Gord – really the only alternative would be to promote more clearcutting in Algonquin Park and/or to create more clearcut forest units – this has many other implications. The Year 7 annual report (2017) will revisit strategic direction and will be the next opportunity. Tom – What you need to decide as an Advisory Group is to agree on the classification of age classes. According to the direction in the CSA Standard, the classes that Gord is suggesting is a good classification that works. The second decision is the group needs to agree on an area (ha) target amount of pre‐
sapling condition maintained in the forest each year. Deb – is the impediment to setting the target is the stigma around the use social/political sensitivity around implementing clear cuts? Lacey – it is a bit of a problem because there is not enough clear cutting... and only about 1% of the total land base is cut per year. People value old‐growth forest more 8 than pre‐sapling forests. Gord – strategically not as big of a problem because in the model when uniform shelter wood forest unit is implemented the sapling forest is created not a pre‐sapling condition, but on the ground the condition is fairly similar. This is a regional issue and natural disturbance patterns create way more pre‐sapling condition. Lacey – it is hard to get people to agree on the value of pre‐sapling forest and harvest more. Barry – is there an alternative term that could be used in place of the term clearcut? Lacey – I have heard them called ‘Liberation Cuts’ in other jurisdictions. Deb – empathetic and realize the need for a huge public education piece, but it seems like a strategy we need. Joe – suggested that somewhere we indicate an attempt to increase the amount of pre‐sapling area in the future. There is more pre‐sapling condition out there than what we are getting credit for and I believe that it is more of a modeling/inventory issue. Gord agreed. ACTION: Include wording in SFM Plan to identify strategies being implemented to increase the presapling forest component levels in the future. Steve –if you have a lot of SEM going on out there and collecting understory information will help determine levels of pre‐sapling condition in forest unit. Also pointed out that if you don’t adjust the target/variance to address these anomalies we could fail all the first three indicators right off the start. How was the 75% benchmark target set? Gord –doesn’t like the idea of lowering the target for all indicators to 70% because it lowers the bar for the SFM plan for one unique condition when most other indicators are fine, and we would also not be consistent with the FMP. Gord – the 75% target was carefully selected after much consideration on all aspects of sustainability by the planning team (this was discussed in the LTMD presentation). The details of the scoping and sensitivity analysis are in the supplementary documentation of the FMP. ACTION: Advisory Group to decide to either agree with Gord to be consistent with FMP and measure landscape classes against natural level to quantify this indicator over the long term. The other approach is to set targets around actual seral stages (as quantified in SFMM) over time. 1.1.1.1.4 Indicator: Total area (ha) by even‐aged forest unit in the old growth development stage by the start of each planning term Discussed ‐ Conservation of old‐growth forest attributes. Gord ‐ Changes in the new FMP have been made to include old growth assessments for all even‐aged forest units. Separate objectives have been set for each even‐aged old growth forest unit in the new plan. Each forest unit has been modeled to forecast old growth levels overtime in relation to the natural benchmark levels. Gord displayed these graphs. 9 Barry – every forest unit has old growth planned and forecasted? Gord – yes, the SFMM model has been constrained to ensure these levels are maintained over time. This old growth constraint in the model was the most sensitive ecological indicator, and had the most significant impact on wood supply over time. Joe – suggested revising to account for variance for no less than 25% below the target level. Often said that it goes above there is no problem. Suggest editing text in VOIT Matrix. This applies to many of the indicators. ACTION: Revise the variances to indicate ‐25% as the allowable variance (instead of +/‐ 25%) Gord – we are achieving a significant amount of old growth across all forest units in this plan compared to the last plan. Steve – is the jack pine forest units contributing to old growth stage because it could be preventing the amount of pre‐sapling stage jack pine? Gord – yes I agree ‐ this is the same for all of the clear cut forest units. It is a trade off ‐ old growth vs. pre‐sapling forest – society seems to prefer old growth. 1.1.1.2.1 Indicator: Range of disturbance patch sizes within the Bounds of Natural Variation (BNV) Discussed ‐ Management in the context of natural disturbance regimes and patterns and the range of natural variation, forest fragmentation and forest loss. Gord ‐ The indicator that speaks to forest fragmentation and range of Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation is consistent with indicator from the last plan. The “box and whisker” graph shown earlier in the LTMD presentation provided the results of area planned to be harvested in patch sizes to emulate the range of patch sizes created by natural disturbance produced using the NDPEG tool. The patch sizes planned in the FMP demonstrates movement toward the median patch size values in 5 of the 6 size classes needed on the landscape over the long term. 1.1.1.1.4. Indicator: Degree of within stand structural retention Discussed – Silvicultural regimes such as structural retention and timber harvesting practices (including clear cutting). Gord – explained degree of within stand structural retention is an indicator geared to boreal type ecosystems, where clear cut harvest systems are prominent. Province has put restrictions on size and shape of clear cuts (Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guidelines ‐ NDPE) and this indicator will be easily met for forest ecosystems where partial cutting is prominent (i.e. selection stand harvested by partial cutting system that we visited yesterday). Clear cut harvest system is prescribed on less than 5% of the total harvest area planned in Algonquin Park, and controls are in place through the NDPE Guide. Gord ‐ Suggested that this indicator be quantified through the use of tree marking inspections because of the connection to structural retention is covered off in the tree marking form under residual stocking and wildlife tree retention sections. Proposed to the group that the wording in indicator be “no tree 10 marking inspection failures associated with residual stocking and wildlife tree retention, at final inspection.” Final inspections are stated because if we do an inspection and it does not pass we do send the tree markers back to get it correct. Barry – there is a re‐inspection program after the marking but before the harvest? Danny – yes, there is a lot of re‐marking and re‐inspection that goes on. Joe – suggested the wording in VOIT Matrix be changed to positive wording. Gord – I agree. ACTION: Revise the wording on this VOIT to a positive context Given the time of day, Gord wrapped up and thanked all those for their help getting through the first Element in the VOIT Matrix and working through the first few mandatory indicators. 8. Other Items: The Algonquin of Ontario office on Riverside Drive in Pembroke will be the location of the next meeting on the 4th of April. Those arriving on Thursday can participate in a Pole Yard tour hosted by Dana Shaw, details to follow. Adjourn 11 Forest Certification Advisory Group Z809‐08 Meeting #3 Algonquins of Ontario Office, Pembroke April 3/4, 2012 Tuesday April 3 4:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm Pole Plant Tour – Herb Shaw and Sons ‐ Pembroke A.
B. C.
D. E. A) Dana Shaw (second from left) presenting poles manufactured from red pine trees managed in Algonquin Park to Advisory Group. B) Kevin Sarazin (right) peeling a red pine pole as he describes how the pole peeler operates to Tom and Lacey. C) Larry Rose (operating chainsaw) and Gary Sarazin (holding tape measure) demonstrate to the Group how a peeled pole is trimmed to final product specification. D) Dana (front‐left) explains how he completes his final assessment of the peeled pole before Darrell Leach (Cary‐Lift Operator) places on rack to be Wednesday April 4 air‐dried in the yard (E). 8:30 am ‐ 3:00 pm 1 Meeting – Algonquins of Ontario Office Wednesday April 4, 2012 Present: Deb Cumming, Barry Bridgeford, Anne Mundy, Emmett Godin, Danny Janke, Terry Mullin, Joe Yaraskavitch, Irvin Yateman, Lacey Rose, Shaun Dombroskie, Tom Clark (Tom), Richard Zohr, Randy Malcolm, John Doering, Tom Ballantine (Tom B), Bob Craftchick, Doreen Davis, Dan Kohoko (Algonquins of Pikwakanagan), Jerry LaValley (Algonquins of Pikwakanagan), Jeff Leavey (Observer), Dana Shaw, Shari Sokay, Steve D’eon, Gord Cumming. Regrets: Nathan Mieske, Dave Commanda, Don Spring, Clifford Bastein Richard‐ provided an introduction to the Algonquins of Ontario facility, began by sharing with the Advisory Group that every meeting begins with an opening prayer and closes with a closing prayer. The mural on the wall is a collection of advice from Elders to keep ourselves grounded through discussions at meetings. The centre piece is a collection of medicines from nature to help heal. Bob‐ feels that the Algonquins have been dictated to in other forums, felt that it is important now to take time to invite this Advisory Group to Algonquin culture, and stated that our prayer is part of Algonquin culture. Doreen ‐led the opening prayer. 1. Approval of March Minutes Everyone provided a short introduction and background for the new members. Tom‐ emphasised to the Group that we have a heavy agenda. Main focus today is working through Criterion 1 and 2 of the VOIT matrix. Went over the handouts provided and advised the group to insert pages into the binder under the Meeting 3 tab. Omissions: Joe – minor typos observed, pg. 5 missing a comma. Gord – comma addition has been corrected with the latest copy. Tom – new members can use past meeting minutes to follow along and catch up, emphasised that this Group is really building upon work from previous Advisory Group efforts putting together last SFM Plan. Wording in new Standard speaks to incorporating mandatory indicators and these new indicators will need input from members on how best to measure them. Mandatory discussion topics are also a requirement of the new standard. Meeting 2 Minutes were accepted by Advisory Group. 2. VOITs ‐ Criterion 1 and 2 Tom –the plan is to dive right into the VOIT matrix. If any new members have questions please ask. 2 Gord – Last meeting we covered the applicable background material prepared during the development of the Forest Management Plan (FMP). Parallels between the FMP and the SFM planning process were re‐emphasised. The Algonquins around the table are familiar with the FMP process through their experience on the planning team. We need to circle back on a couple of indicators under Element 1.1 & 1.4. Group was advised not to worry about the numbering of Indicators in the VOIT Matrix at this stage – the numbering will be finalized at the end of the process. The challenge is to look carefully at the VOIT wording and ensure they fit in under the appropriate Element. The Group was advised that the mandatory indicators have been highlighted in yellow and in most cases fit well under the old objectives. Element 1.1 Ecosystem Diversity: Maintaining Non‐forest Ecosystems Gord ‐ suggested that for this indicator an area target be set at >57,575 ha for non‐productive ground, over time (level derived from the 2000 FMP). The amount of non‐productive ground is not heavily influenced by forest management activities. This clause in the Standard is mainly intended for intensively managed areas to grow trees by perhaps draining wetlands ‐ not applicable to Algonquin Park. A table was presented to the Group that showed the level of non‐productive forest over time in the Park’s natural and management zone. Barry – which period in time would be more accurate? Do you think a recent period of time be more applicable? Gord – explained the change in area is mainly a result of a digital park boundary change forwarded by Land Surveyors office. Joe‐ cautioned the Group of the new forthcoming inventory update will likely change levels again (e.g. past photo Interpreter may have called it treed muskeg and new Interpreter may call it a spruce stand based on better quality imagery). Best to select an amount based on historical information that could be maintained over time and to be prepared for this anticipated change when new inventory is adopted. Deb – AFA has no control over amount? Gord – no, consistent with defined forest area approach. Joe‐ point here is that we have it in our forest and we maintain levels over time. Dan Kohoko – what are the implications of failing an Indicator? Gord – we are audited once a year, having either a Registration or Surveillance Audit. AFA’s achievements are measured and we as managers must submit commentary on failures to rationalize sustainability. Auditor ultimately decides whether or not forest sustainability has been compromised. Tom – auditors would be forgiving in a case where the area of non‐productive ground dropped below a set level due to changes made to an updated inventory. Bob‐ where is the balance when area is lost from changes made as a result of “Lighten the Footprint”? Gord – a final decision on “Lighten the Footprint” direction has not been made by MNR. Other than “allocation deferrals” that have been made in the 2010 FMP, we will be addressing this here. Lacy – need to allow a higher % variance, to allow for increased beaver activity flooding low‐lying productive forests? Joe‐ suggested a variance of +/‐ 20% 3 Jerry – how did we lose 17 ha of rock? Gord – change in the location of the digital Park boundary before development of the last FMP. Group suggested a variance of +/‐ 5% to allow for anticipated changes due to new inventory. Forest Area by Seral Stage Gord – proposed that using all of the landscape classes from the FMP (as discussed at the last meeting) is too much for this process. At the last meeting we discussed the lack of pre‐sapling forest issue and were undecided on this VOIT. Over the last month Gord spoke to Steve, Lacey and Joe about our options here and have decided to propose two indicators for seral stages – young and old forest. No need for indicators for immature/mature forest which contains most of area and will continue as a result of the type of management we do. Young forest – go with the “pre‐sapling/sapling/T‐stage” forest group target – able to meet the >=75% NB level. Old forest – go with >=75% NB of old growth level for each even‐aged forest unit. See description in VOIT Matrix. Steve – explain “T” stage? Gord – stands for “two‐story condition” – young forest developing under the shelterwood harvest system, has 2 stories – understory and overstory. There are wildlife habitat benefits to both of these conditions which are recognized in the SFMM habitat matrix. The group reviewed the pre‐sapling/sapling/T‐stage graph that was produced from the forest management planning process. Graph had a timeline of 160 years, this period used to forecast the forest condition and blue line is the natural benchmark trend. Steve – sounds like a good solution. Gord ‐ Showed Site Region 5E map having Seral stages for the region (provincial picture). Levels are consistent with what we have in Algonquin Park (area by seral stage present for Algonquin Park). Gord – that wraps up the first Element of 1.1. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Element 1.2 Species Diversity Gord – Showed a Course Filter /Fine Filter diagram. Illustration shows conceptual approach to managing the forest at large and small scales. The idea here is if we maintain landscape conditions, we maintain ecosystem diversity. The visual is a good introduction to next part of VOIT Matrix and into fine filter type indicators in the Standard. Fine Filter or forest management at small scales are site specific and are mainly dealt with through Areas of Concern (AOC) prescriptions – table FMP‐14 in the FMP. Degree of Suitable Habitat in the Long‐term for Selected Focal Species Gord – this course filter long‐term indicator is a similar approach to indicators worked through Element 1.1 ‐ same natural benchmark trend emulation approach. Showed graphs for selected wildlife species modelled during production of FMP. The variety of species uses a variety of habitat types. Additions to the list were suggested by Eco‐Watch and subsequently added. As a result, the list is a bit skewed to species that prefer an old growth condition. A few anomalies need to be discussed: Black Bear Summer Habitat: Black Bear summer habitat is best created through large disturbances such as wildfire or clearcuts. Neither event is common on the Algonquin landscape. The declining trend is 4 directly linked to the projected declines in the presapling forest condition (preferred black bear summer habitat). The modelling of the MWUS and SFUS forest units as uniform shelterwood limits the ability of the model to create this habitat condition. These forest units do contain preferred BLBE habitat, however this is not being created in the model because following the final removal cut, a sapling condition is created. The group shelterwood approach for intolerant tree species within these forest units will increase the presapling habitat on the forest, benefiting black bear foraging and result in movement towards the desirable levels of this pre‐sapling habitat condition. For these reasons the BLBE target was set at the highest level possible that can be sustained by the proposed management strategy which balances social, environmental and economic objectives. Recent research suggests that black bear densities in Algonquin Park range from 20 to 50 bears per 100km2, well within the averages for Ontario. This means Algonquin Park probably has a population of over 2,500 resident Black Bears. Moose Foraging Habitat: Forest management undoubtedly creates forage and browse for Moose. This is reflected both in the SFMM modelling for moose foraging areas as well as on the ground. Moose surveys in recently harvested areas of Algonquin often yield high numbers of moose. The SFMM modelling for moose forage indicates substantially higher levels of forage with forest management when compared to the natural benchmark run. For moose foraging desirable levels have met for all terms. The natural benchmark run is projected to drop dramatically over the first three terms, primarily due to the succession of preferred T and U stage moose foraging habitat in the SFMM model. The model is also unable to simulate disturbances or future U‐stage in selection forest units. This underestimates the amount of moose browse that would be available on the landscape in the natural benchmark scenario making it a weak indicator. As a result a straight line desirable level and target of 97,000 ha has been set which is within 80% of the current level over time. This level represents the highest level possible that can be sustained by the proposed management strategy which balances social, environmental and economic objectives. The 2012 Moose Aerial Inventory Report was reviewed in which the Algonquins participated in the data collection. Interesting note: population projections in the FMP are very similar to actual moose density numbers collected in the survey. Bob –as part of the Moose Inventory Report, there is a Hair Loss Survey. Asked if people are passing through the Park to report moose with no hair or showing hair loss. Gord – except for the two species mentioned, every other species preferred habitat modelled falls in‐
line above target level. Deb – seems skewed too much to promoting old growth condition? Pre‐sapling condition helps meet diversity and seems to me that there needs to be a drive to encourage and give more attention to address short‐fall? The level of pre‐sapling condition would increase if small clearcuts were created? Joe – model is a model and FMP Background Package explains the limitations of the model. Refinements in the model are being considered by MNR to address this modelling issue. Opportunities on the ground to create the pre‐sapling condition are being implemented where possible. Joe – model does not create more old growth just because we are modeling more old growth wildlife species. These species share a similar preferred habitat which is provided if we have 1 or 5 of these species. Shelterwood cutting is creating some pre‐sapling forest but model is not showing it. Model is not perfect, but we do recognize there is a shortage. University of Pennsylvania is having a Webex 5 session to bring awareness to a north eastern US shortage of pre‐sapling condition. Suggested to reflect a ‐25% variance and drop the (+/‐) in VOIT Matrix to communicate that it’s okay to go over but not under the 75% natural benchmark level and explanation can be given in the SFM plan text. Barry – does the Biologist verify the occurrence of these modelled species in the field? Gord – to a certain extent yes – moose and bear studies for example. Not so much with other species. Steve –
Canadian Wildlife Service provides large scale tracking, not at local scale and the Breeding Bird Atlas is another source. Joe – refinements are being made to the model for the next plan. Gord – there is a commitment in the Stand & Site Guide to complete more effectiveness monitoring to help make population linkages to forest conditions. Habitat Protection for Selected Species at Risk (SAR) Gord – 100% target set in the past with no variance, have missed the target in past. Gord showed trend included from SFM annual report. Explained the rigours involved with conducting forest management in this area. It is also a dynamic AOC, as soon as there is new sighting, boundaries are changed. Dana – there should be an allowable variance. Lacy – suggested that administration errors that end up being a non‐compliance and are not considered to impact species should not be included in the summary. Gord –would likely need some kind of confirmation process with a biologist. Joe – agree that there should be a variance, compliance discussion would acknowledge non‐compliance but considered a non‐issue. Dana – turtle restrictions currently in place have a dramatic impact on forest activities. Tom – what is the proposal, fixed number of non‐compliances? Presented as a ratio? Gord – it is important how we set this target up, it does trickle down through all the compliance‐based VOITs. Tom – seems to be agreement to continue with a % based calculation, and allow 5% variance for non‐
compliance. Habitat Protection for Selected Other Focal Species (Not SAR) Gord – current target 95% or better, 5% variance to conform to AOC prescriptions. Barry – who determines the number of inspections? Joe /Gord – explained in brief the compliance planning and the role of compliance inspectors, reporting deliverables and timelines associated with reporting. Gord – showing how the stats are prepared by Shaun at annual report time, for each compliance‐based indicator measured through inspections. Joe – suggested lumping the two indicators together and not separating them i.e. “Degree of habitat protection for selected focal species, including species at risk”. Tom – this could cut down the paperwork and it will have no material effect. Gord – agree. An explanation of Brook Trout (BT) AOC prescription was provided to give the Group a sense of the restrictions that are in place. 6 Video – The Natural Brook Trout Lakes of Algonquin Park Riparian Buffers Tom – riparian buffers are important because of the transition between water and land. Joe – suggest including a variance as well? Gord – it is the BT AOC area that we are assessing – not riparian buffers ‐ we need to find the right wording. A map was shown of the Park and the cumulative impact of AOC restrictions. The SFM annual report for this indicator was reviewed to show past conformance. Keeping a zero variance has affected our performance. Bob – are these all proven BT lakes? Galipos Lake has not had a speckled trout living in it? Joe‐ Brad reviewed and verified the list of lakes. Bob – lakes need to be looked at on individual basis. Barry – is the 500m boundary arbitrarily set without ground truthing? Yes – it is a standard 500m setback (modified zone). The geological survey information could help determine the real location of the boundary. Joe – a hydro‐geological model has been run but results need to be ground truthed. Richard – do activities include skidding or cabling in AOC? Gord ‐ no Tom – any objectives to a 5% variance? Steve – no, it is consistent with the others. Tree Species Diversity Red Spruce: Gord – suggested we keep in the matrix, confident that the new FRI work will capture some of these species. An updated map of red spruce verified locations was shown. Algonquin Park is at the extreme western range for red spruce. Red spruce tree occurrences are reported and this map is updated. A red spruce natural zone also exists. Training is completed with tree markers to help them distinguish from white spruce. Bob – elaborate more on the protection of red spruce. Is this species of spruce protected from harvest (i.e. no cut)? Gord – no, instances of red spruce are managed as encountered and red spruce regeneration is released if required, managing species to promote future growth and establishment. Tom – indicator here is keeping the status of the species updated on a map. Gord – we are also doing some red spruce planting and re‐establishing in suitable sites. Barry – is this species an alternative to planting undesirable species? Gord – no, planting them on good potential red spruce sites; it is a shade tolerant species. Hemlock Regeneration and Recruitment Status Gord – previous committee looked into the degree of browsing on hemlock regen to see effect on recruitment. Brian Harbord, a student at Lakehead University is re‐measuring old hemlock seedling plots. Pictures of Brian conducting field work were shown – hemlock regeneration and recruitment appears to be abundant. Suggesting this indicator that focuses on hemlock regen recruitment be kept, pending the outcome of Brian’s thesis. Jerry – is ground hemlock included? Gord – no it is a different species and not included. 7 Terry – if there is a problem, what can be done? Gord – depends on the problem ‐ could site prepare for more hemlock regeneration but don’t think there is an issue here. We are currently not harvesting much hemlock due to market conditions. It’s hard to do silviculture work when you are not harvesting the species. Hemlock now managed under group selection silviculture system which allows us to take advantage of creating openings that allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor to provide more ideal growing conditions. Old 1.1.1.1.3 Hemlock Presence VOIT – Propose to Remove from Element 1.1 Gord – this VOIT was proposed by Eco‐watch in last plan, suggesting to remove it from this plan. Provincial and local summaries both indicate hemlock levels are not declining. Gord reviewed hemlock levels in Algonquin Park ‐ the 7th largest forest unit in Algonquin Park ‐ representing 6.2% of the available production forest. Levels have also increased when compared to historical levels ‐ The Ontario Crown Land Survey (1858‐1893) composition of hemlock was recorded at 3.3% as opposed to 4.3% in the 2005 forest resource inventory for Algonquin Park. Also reviewed Rob Pineo e‐mail from 2007 (Development Team member for the provincial landscape guide in 2007, and FCAG member) ‐ We have 17% more mature + old area than LG projected median amount of hemlock in Algonquin Park – not an issue. Joe – have it covered already in Element 1.1 with all the other indicators – no need to separate it out. A map of Algonquin Park was shown of the locations of pure stands of hemlock. Tom – okay, no objections to removing it? Advisory Group – No. Proportion of Regeneration Comprised of Native Species (back to Species Diversity section) Gord ‐ not an issue in Algonquin Park forest. We rely heavily on natural regeneration, which limits opportunities for non‐native regeneration. The Native Trees in Algonquin Park book was shown to identify native tree species. Most significant non‐native population is the Scots pine in the development zone along Hwy 60 planted by MNR. One Scots Pine was identified by Area Forester in RU Zone and plans are under way to cut it down. Joe – in future could have a non‐native southern species growing as a result of climate changes. Suggested 1% variance agreed. Genetic Diversity Gord – certain aspects of Tree Marking form used to measure the natural regeneration component of this VOIT…specifically, Species Priority criteria. Local Seed Collected Gord – explained the Provincial Seed Zone protocol and referenced a map to show the Advisory Group that Algonquin Park is situated in Seed Zone 29. Steve – is the red spruce seed local? Gord – yes, obtained cones from a squirrel cache. 8 Tom – is Genetically Modified (GMO) tree seed being used in Region? Steve – GMO seed is not proven and attempts to produce modified trees were not successful and scientists continue to experiment. Identification and Protection of Zone Boundaries and Culturally Important Sites Tom B. ‐there is potential for improvement with the cultural heritage database. Gord – map locations are verified by boots on the ground and changes are made to map location during reconnaissance at tree marking and pre‐operation planning. Tom B. ‐ designation of site is made with Ministry of Culture. Joe – do not have a lot of input on what sites get these “borden numbers”. Tom B. – Ministry of Culture is very protective and these can be misleading designations. Tom B. ‐ Algonquins can highlight historical sites to help improve database. This is done during native values mapping during FMP development. Dan Kohoko ‐ do the woodsworkers know that they are working near a CHS? Gord – they know that they are working along a red line and only the Contractor Supervisor knows the distinction of red lines. Joe – woodsworkers and tree markers are trained and encouraged to report if they happen to find old camps, historic features. Zone Boundaries Joe – need to include all zones. Anne – don’t specify number, just keep generic…“zones”. Post meeting note – identified only those zones related to “Sites of Special Biological and Cultural Significance”. Gord – showed graphs , tables and the breakdown of management zones. Only 55% is actually available for forest management ‐ after AOC reserves are deducted (source: LTF Joint Board Report, Sept 2009). Agreement that “0” variance for the indicator is suitable. Video: Protected Areas ‐ Yolanda Wiersma Proportion of identified sites with implemented management strategies Gord – showed Appendix 1 of FMP: strategies for forest management for each of the zones in Algonquin Park and the strategies are covered off with this page of the Park Management Plan. Showed the AOC prescription that contains management strategies for each value and this Indicator points to having a strategy in place. Protection of identified sacred and culturally important sites Gord – potential archaeological locations (APAs) are determined by a model and are mapped and included with this VOIT. A 5% variance agreed. Tom – what is the difference between CHS2 and CHS3? Joe – varies by importance of site. Tom B. has taken initiative to categorize the Algonquin Park cultural heritage database during FMP development. 9 Gord – occasionally we have also hired Tom B. to verify potentially important locations prior to operations that involve ground disturbance. Doreen – working on collecting a Sacred Locations Map, and interested in open communications. Shared a personal example that occurred in Lanark Mazinaw, where a list kept by the community containing 177 known sites was shared in court to stop the development of a mine. Tom B – protocol is that archeologist must consult with local citizens, including the aboriginal community. Bob – there is never the resources available now to do the needed work to identify/locate all of the known sacred values/ sites. Outstanding Discussion Items for Criteria 1 Invasive Species Tom – began to ask group what invasive species they are aware of. Gord – touched upon the fish species which are invasive to lakes containing native species and the ‘no live bait’ policy in Algonquin Park. Scots pine was already discussed. Erosion & sediment controls – use of native seed only for this. Barry – is equipment cleaned prior to moving (i.e. prevent spread of purple loosestrife)? Danny – most local contractors work in Algonquin Park on regular basis not moving to and from infected areas. Joe – written in contract for work along Hwy 60 the contractor must wash equipment. Steve – is there any restriction on bringing in firewood into Park? Joe – rules are set by province and are applicable. Gord – Beech bark disease training session held and Area Forester attended to learn to identify and mitigate spread. Lacey – garlic mustard is being spread by hikers.. so clean your shoes! Steve – mountain pine beetle is a risk to pine, the Prairies are a big barrier, but there is a risk of it being transported through other modes of transportation. Criterion 2. Ecosystem Condition and Productivity Reforestation Success Gord – some of the core Indicators spoke to in Element 1.1 are also relevant to Element 2.1, a mandatory Indicator. In the previous VOIT matrix provided to the group we had 100% regeneration with no variance. Change was made to this previous version. Propose to have a target that recognizes both regeneration and silviculture success. So new revision proposed will have both regeneration and silviculture success with a variance. 10 Gord discussed the complexities of silviculture effectiveness monitoring (SEM), and setting associated targets. The Silvicultural Ground Rules (SGRs) were shown that are included in the FMP and followed during the implementation of the plan. The differences between intensive and extensive SGRs were explained. Challenge for the Foresters is ensuring the correct Forest Operations Prescription (FOP) label is on the stand, and up to date prior to measuring against regeneration standard. A lot of work is being done to ensure successful implementation of the SEM program. The variables that influence stocking levels prior to final removal were explained. Measurements are now taken to a “drop dead date” after final removal in shelterwood managed areas. All of these changes make it difficult to look to historical numbers to drawn meaningful conclusions. Past results for SFM Annual Report were shared with the group. Need to have internal discussion with AFA foresters prior to next meeting. Danny – a lot of timing restrictions and access strategies create a lot of challenges to regenerating these stands, and can affect silvicultural success. Steve – Poplar working groups are easy to regenerate, red pine is hard to regenerate. Challenging working groups influence success, may not be wise to lump all in one measure? On the other hand – could be very complicated setting individual working group/forest unit targets. Danny – requirement as part of Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement to keep $1.5 million to regenerate any liabilities, we are protected from budget cuts. Dana – turtle restrictions are having a large impact on regenerating pine forest. Gord – dealing with these constraints by using more expensive techniques ‐ hand scalping in restricted habitats, we are finding alternatives. This is resulting in fewer opportunities for natural regeneration and more artificial regeneration required. Tom – suggested to group to hold off until next meeting to allow Gord to discuss with Steve (Area Forester) to hear his concern on target and variance suggestions. Additions and Deletions to the Forest Area Gord – explained the only loss to productive forest is due to roads, landings and pits. During strategic planning a 2% is consistent with the SFMM model. Actual recent historic numbers = 1.6% area in roads /landings/pits. Barry – suggested changing wording to “no more than” 2%. Gord – agree. Tom – will the research conducted by FP Innovations on roads have an effect? Danny – the study will attempt to define ‘what is a road’? This needs to be answered for road density calculations. Gord – showed the calculation to determine the amount of road. Also showed FAM zone map. Steve – suggested measuring this Indicator over a 5 year time frame? Joe – as forest areas move around there will be no big change yearly, it is not that dynamic. Gord – agree reporting this on this Indicator every 5 years. 11 Proportion of the Calculated Long‐term Sustainable Harvest Level that is Actually Harvested Gord‐ proposing a big variance, concern of failing this target if we don’t accommodate economic /market fluctuations. Danny – not just markets, it is constraints on operations, weather, constraints caused by SAR habitat. We need all area allocated in order to be flexible and keep people employed. This year we are trying new methods to stimulate harvesting in underutilized areas in order to meet our mandate to maintain or increase employment. Gord – Historic Planned vs. Actual Harvest table was reviewed with the Group. May be better to go with a rolling average? Steve – are you allowed to go over annually? Joe – yes. Gord – as long as you don’t exceed the 5 year AHA level. Deb – set the target to meet demand and if demand is not there than it will show that you made it available. Joe – thinking along the same lines, that you set target to ensuring 100% is available for harvest. Danny – not sure how you would word that? Lacey – word the target to say that it not greater than 100%. Deb – demand each year would set the bottom target boundary. Advisory Group – agree. Dana – the % we are cutting right now is what it is. It is not bad to leave trees growing on the stump, in order to provide a cushion to allow for things like natural disasters. We need all of the available harvest area ‐ not “protecting” it from ever harvesting it if it’s not used ‐ it is protected when it is growing bigger on the stump. Contractors have millions of dollars tied up in equipment and they need to work, and need many options over the course of the cutting season to be able to keep working. Barry – can you carry‐over uncut area to next plan? Danny – yes but can never exceed the calculated available harvest area in the FMP. Outstanding Discussion Items for Criteria 2 Climate Change At a management unit level, sustainable forest management that maintains or increases forest carbon stocks and produces an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre, or energy from the forest, provides the largest sustained mitigation of climate change, while also providing many social and environmental benefits. Following landscape direction to manage a forest's age and tree species composition within a range of natural variation will maintain the above ground forest's carbon balance within an expected range of natural variation. This is consistent with the approach we are using in this SFM Plan. Joe – couple of things in MNR Practitioners Guide helps provide framework for planning teams that have an outline to incorporate climate change in thinking. Lacey – read through the whole document and it never really helped provide operational direction. Barry – what changes will influence forest growth? Joe – not too sure at this point, new modules are being prepared to help planning teams during FMP preparation; likely more insects, disease, wind 12 events…. Managing a diverse healthy forest is a good start to protect against impact. There will likely be a slow shift in management approach but no big immediate need for reaction (e.g. planting walnut today for tomorrow’s climate). Gord – reviewed the Landscape Guide excerpt on climate change and direction provided in guide to help forest managers. Climate change impacts on growth and yield, natural disturbance events (blowdown, insects and disease) will be revised in future models, as science progresses and new direction is provided – adaptive management. Barry‐ maybe there will be more pressure to use wood to dampen effect instead of relying on the use of alternative products with high fossil fuel emissions? Dana – with the adoption of a new bylaw in Toronto wood can be used in the construction of six storey buildings. Tom – yes the impact of using steel, concrete is having a negative effect on climate change and incorporating wood in building construction is a sustainable, green alternative. Video: Natural Disturbances ‐ Bill Thornton & Rod DeBoice Gord – there was one image of blowdown in the video ‐ that is the more common natural disturbance event in Algonquin Park. A historic map was shown, showing the location of recent blowdown events in Algonquin Park, and of those areas that were salvaged: 64% of the 1999/2006 blowdown area was salvaged and the remaining area was left to naturally recover. Irvin – was this salvaged blowdown area planted? Gord – yes, much of the area was planted and tended using funding from the provincial Forestry Futures Trust Fund. Historic graphs of natural disturbances were shown that shows how fire is no longer a big disturbance agent as it was in the past. Yearly Disturbance Maps from 2008–2011 were shown: most fires were started by recreational users and were very small in size. Insect and disease maps were also shown: budworm map shows successive years of feeding that has caused some tree mortality on the west side of the park. Barry – appears that spruce budworm has run its course? Steve – yes, for now. Biomass Utilization Gord – explained that it is not really relevant to us in the Park, shared FMP text on topic: In Algonquin Park it is anticipated that the use of unmerchantable volume will consist primarily of utilization of tree length to smaller top diameters and utilization of previously unmerchantable landing material. Increased utilization of tops and limbs that are normally left at the stump during tree length logging is not anticipated. Danny – explained that utilizing bio‐fibre is not really a feasible option at this point ‐ logistics and economics are not there. New bio‐economy industries that produce green power from woody biomass would be a welcome addition to help alleviate current market issues, however, current feed‐ in tariff pricing for green power in Ontario seems to be inhibiting the development of this sector. Bob – one restriction that is holding up the expansion of this market is that there is no capacity in the power lines to move power created from Bio‐energy plants. 13 Dana – there is currently only one plant in Cornwall and one in Ingleside for pellets that are being produced for markets in Europe? The Ontario government has not offered a viable solution to address this issue. Summary of Broad Public Consultation Received Gord – we are not getting a whole lot of certification website “hits”: 33 in total so far. Link will be distributed to Advisory Group members to try to share to more individuals. Gord – discussed recent correspondence with Algonquin Eco‐watch. Next Meeting: May 2nd – same time and location. Following meeting will be on June 11th in Huntsville. Adjourn Picture taken of Forest Certification Advisory Group shown at Meeting 3 in the Algonquins of Ontario office. 14 Forest Certification Advisory Group Z809‐08 Meeting #4 Algonquins of Ontario Office, Pembroke May 2, 2012 Present: Nathan Mieske, Barry Bridgeford, Shaun Dombroskie (minute taker), Lacey Rose, Richard Zohr, Shari Sokay, Bob Craftchick, Randy Malcolm, Emmett Godin, Bob McRae, Tom Ballantine, Deb Cumming, John Doering, Joe Yaraskavitch, Tom Clark, Gord Cumming, Ethan Huner, Danny Janke, Dana Shaw. Regrets: Dave Commanda, Clifford Bastein, Anne Mundy, Terry Mullin, Irvin Yateman, Doreen Davis, Steve D’eon. Ethan – led the opening prayer. A brief introduction was provided for the new members ‐ Ethan Huner and Bob McRae. Ethan is a standing “alternate” for the Algonquins and Bob has replaced Don Spring of the Friends of Algonquin Park. 1. Approval of April Minutes Tom C. – went over handout package and advised group to include in binder under Meeting 3 tab. Gord ‐ we have started posting the meeting minutes on our CSA Certification website. Suggestion was made to clarify Shaun as the minute taker. Tom B. – need to distinguish which Tom in the minutes. Bob C. – comfortable to post on website after minutes are approved by group. Not hearing any further discussion, the minutes were approved. 2. Outstanding Criterion 1 and 2 VOITs 2.1 Re‐forestation Tom C. – circled back on the regeneration/ success indicator. Drew attention to Target column and explained that silviculture success is based on the silvicultural ground rules in the FMP. Discussed differences between silviculture success and regeneration success. Gord – spoke to Steve, our east side Area Forester, who has more challenges to ensuring silviculture success remains high. Looked at historic numbers and set the Target and Variance for this indicator. New target captures both silviculture success and regeneration success. The Target is set to achieve 100% regeneration success and 80% silviculture success (both with a 10% variance). The old target for this VOIT was noted in a past audit report that it required attention by AFA. The 2009‐
10 annual report stated that 88% area assessed during the 2005‐10 term was a regeneration success and 81% was a silvicultural success. Gord ‐ In shelterwood forest units the final call is now made after the final removal cut. Assessing at this time should further improve success numbers. Preliminary assessments (stocking) are being made in the interim to intervene and help at achieving final success. Tom C. – the 88% reported does not mean AFA walked away from the other 12%? Gord – no, the areas that are not FTG are either retreated or just need more time to get there. 1 Tom C. – who sets the rule? Gord – the Province sets the standard. There may be some local variation on the standard. The regional MNR Silviculture Specialist completes a final review leading up to approval of the FMP. Joe – Target can be misleading, species proportions fluctuate overtime, and as a Planning Team we monitor FU proportions and the level of shifting that occurs over time, the balance needs to be maintained. Gord – having the correct forest prescription label on the stand is critical to assigning success and can be quite challenging as management progresses. Deb – are stands written off? Gord – no, stands are scheduled for re‐treatment if necessary and the assessment process starts over after retreatment date. Gord – showed 2009‐10 annual report summary of the last 5 years. Numbers are further complicated by including area depleted by harvest and by natural depletion (e.g. blowdown). These results were used to help set this target. Deb – seems excessive to summarize yearly, should be a 5 year rolling average? Gord – agreed with suggestion to report on target every 5 years. Joe – we could also set up target to be 100% silviculture success also, but with a 30% variance? Gord – looked at this and had the discussion, but prefer to state it the other way even though the outcome is the same. It’s really just optics but the 80% target is more realistic. Danny – spoke to people over the years that have been in the Park a long time. Silviculture success will come, however, many factors influence success, i.e. maybe not a good seed crop, heavy moose browse on hardwood, time of year it was logged,.. The trees will grow, it just takes time. Gord – we try to meet time frames set in the FMP so the modeling is realistic. Lacey – the terminology is hard for the layman to understand, may be misinterpreted by general public. There is no situation in Park where we would not be reforesting, other than some roads, landings and pits. Gord – agree clarification will need to be made in text. Gord – shared the video on natural regeneration with the Group. Natural regeneration is relied upon as much as possible in the Park. VIDEO ‐ Natural Regeneration Following Disturbance Gord – It is becoming more challenging to manage stands for successful natural regeneration in Algonquin Park. Logging/timing restrictions often prevent areas from being cut at the right time for natural regeneration to be successful. For example, winter‐logged stands often do not have enough ground disturbance for natural regeneration to establish and site preparation cannot be completed before seed fall. As a result, we are relying more heavily on artificial regeneration, which is a higher cost alternative. This is one of the reasons why renewal stumpage rates have been recently raised. 3. VOITs ‐ Criterion 3 and 4 Tom C. – Referred to Standard in binder, and reviewed content applicable to Element 3.1. 2 Gord – in many cases the new mandatory indicators fit well under existing objectives, but in some cases they don’t. As we work through the remaining Elements, we need to ensure the indicators are still a good fit under the old objectives, or create new objectives. Tom C.– Reviewed the objectives in Element 3. Gord – two new mandatory indicators under this element: level of downed woody debris (DWD) and level of soil disturbance. Element 3.1 Soil Quality and Quantity Level of Soil Disturbance Gord ‐ Level of soil disturbance is similar to the site impact guidelines indicator included in the old VOIT Matrix. The FMP includes an appendix that speaks to site impact guidelines and defines a rut. The tolerance is different than what we had previously as we included new provincial direction in the FMP. Actual methodology in Stand and Site Guide provides detail on how to measure. Richard – when ruts occur are they rehabilitated? Gord – yes, we have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that provides direction and detail to rehabilitate ruts where they occur. Bob C.– I like to see rutting in lower sites, to regenerate yellow birch. This creates microsites needed to get this mid‐tolerant species to establish. Gord – mineral soil exposure and rutting are different things. Do not need ruts to establish yellow birch, just mineral soil exposure. Danny – provided some background on operating during wet seasons. Sandy sites are not a problem. We have to carefully watch when we work on clay/loamy sites in the fall and when it rains or we get early snow. Last year a logging contactor was shut‐down for weeks due to wet weather. We need the flexibility in the allocation to work around this. Gord – there are also woodland pools that are sensitive sites that need to be carefully worked around. Table 14 ‐ Conditions on Regular Operations in the FMP provides more operational direction for working near values such as woodland pools and intermittent creeks. Richard – the indicator included by Eco‐Watch to do research on pits/water table has been removed? Gord –yes, the establishment of monitoring wells has been completed. One needs to be licenced to measure water in wells and interpret results which is beyond our scope. There has been extensive discussion and dialogue over the last 5 years. David Webster, the MNR Regional Hydrogeologist provided his professional opinion on the type of pits developed in the Park and does not see issues. Bob C. – Are wells being installed in existing pits? Danny – yes, but only on a small number of critical pits (a culvert pipe is installed vertically in the ground when a new pit is being developed, used to gauge where the water table is). The pit on the east side of the Park that was selected to carry out research is now in species at risk habitat and cannot be further developed. Bob C. – when designing an experiment, controls need to be in place. It’s hard to use the same area as a control when pit is already developed; putting in wells is a waste of money. At best you would need to collect data well in advance of pit development. Richard – has a study been done elsewhere? Gord – not aware of study on pits of our scale. Most research is for larger pits where results are not applicable. Joe – David Webster would concur that pits of less than 1 hectare active area have far less impact. Precautions are taken during approval process: 3 site plan maps are reviewed to ensure location is 120m away from water and 500m away from brook trout (BT) lakes. Ground water moves very slowly – 6 months to move 100 metres – so it would cool before it would recharge back into a water body. We are looking for a new location to carry out another small study. Gord – the Algonquin FMP direction for aggregate pits is above the Provincial standard. Deb – I hear the need to carry out costly planning and analysis before work is carried out in wood turtle (WT) habitat and I hear Dana showing frustration. I understand that the wood turtle is a species at risk, however, it seems to be negatively impacting almost every aspect of sustainable forest management? Is one species of turtle more important than another in the ecological chain? Is someone on top of this and trying to address all these issues? Danny – we have been told that MNR is moving away from a species level approach to more of an ecosystem based approach. This may help change the situation. AFA sees some positive movement to slowly help alleviate this situation locally. I think people at all levels recognize the impact. Dana – decisions are based on political science not on real science. With the introduction of LTF and then the wood turtle AOCs, the wood is more expensive. Contactors can’t work in the summer and have to work in winter (shorter season), but still have to make payments on equipment year round. It’s a scheduling nightmare for roads, until after October 15 timing restriction is off. After wood turtle timing restriction is off then we are into in‐stream water crossing construction restrictions until spring. How can you operate like this? Emmett – why are roads on the East side of the Park such good wood turtle habitat? Joe – habitat encompasses area 6 km up and downstream from where a wood turtle sighting has occurred, up to a 12 sq. km area restriction per turtle. This mapping includes roads that are within this area. This mapped habitat must be protected. Also there are restrictions on building roads through habitat to get to area beyond the habitat, so the affected area can be larger than the mapped habitat. Concerns have been raised to senior managers at the MNR. Deb – it is very hard to listen to the discussion related to the environment in which you work in. Danny – currently have a large area of WT habitat. AFA contributed funds to turtle research ‐ putting GPS antennas on blandings turtles to track movement. Gord – Park Biologist found through this research that the provincial direction was not adequate and a more stringent local restriction was necessary for the research area. We ended up with 2 prescriptions, one for the local research area and one for the rest of the park that followed provincial direction. Lacey – there is no science proving that logging has an impact. Deb – the wood turtle is coming up in discussion at every single meeting? Tom C. – the passing of Section 18 of Bill 55 2012 (An Act to implement Budget measures) may help to address SAR in FMPs and not in separate provincial direction. The problem with the SAR Act is with the way it was implemented. Level of downed woody debris (DWD) VIDEO ‐ Forest Based Bioenergy Gord – this is new mandatory indicator, more applicable to clearcut silviculture in the boreal forest and not really an issue in Algonquin Park. We are not full tree harvesting and we are topping and limbing at the stump – lots of DWD. A lot of research has been completed in the GLSL by MNR and AFA is 4 partnering in another study this summer. There is some discussion in the FMP also to address biomass harvesting and strategies for utilization in poor markets (results in more DWD). In clearcut situation there are controls to retain wildlife trees which eventually become DWD. Tom C. – need to word target to be clearer to include requirements in tree marking prescription of wildlife, mast trees “if available”. Compliance with FMP Operational Standards for Aggregate Pits Gord – Added this objective and target to element 3.1 to address effective and efficient use of aggregate resources. It is more appropriate here under “soil quantity” than where it was before under “water quality and quantity” (see monitoring wells discussion above on page 3). There is an active compliance monitoring program and lots of direction in FMP on this. Suggest set target at 100% with a 5% variance. The Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act requires a demonstrated need for aggregate. This is addressed in the FMP through the preparation of a site plan, a review by Ontario Parks and implementation of standard operating conditions. PowerPoint Slideshow – silvicultural systems and roads Renewal Slides: Danny – currently approximately 500, 000 trees are being planted in the Park this year. Trees are ordered 2 or 3 years in advance. Planted areas are checked out through SEM. Gord – planting mainly occurs on higher competitive sites or where natural regeneration is not feasible. Harvest Slides: Feller bunchers are commonly used and do a good job. Roads are narrow. Barry – where there are shallow soils does that change how you proceed with harvest? Gord – yes, shallow soils classed as site class 4 have limited tree growth potential and are labeled as protection forest stands in the forest inventory. There is 7400 ha or about 1.4% of the Park in this category. Access Slides: Gord – culvert installations are carefully completed. A greater use of portable bridges has turned out to be a good environmental practice. Element 3.2 Water Quality and Quantity Proportion of water crossing installed Gord – same VOIT as before. The group reviewed the latest Annual Report and past success to achieving this target. A lot of installations and removals that occur throughout the season. Tom C. – what was the cause of some of the past issues? Joe – perched culverts, erosion and sedimentation control not properly installed. Compliance with Prescriptions Developed for Protection of Water Quality and Fish Habitat Gord – same VOIT as before. The group reviewed the latest Annual Report and past success to achieving this target. The issue last year was as a result of having no approval before the activity. 5 Number of Spills that Enter in Water Bodies Gord – Reviewed the AFA Emergency Response Plan with the Group. Tom C. – how common is a spill in water way? Gord – not common, only one incident on record in 2003 ‐ the emergency response plan was activated and the spill was successfully contained and cleaned up. Explained the tracking system AFA uses to measure spill occurrences by size and location. Deb – Is there some link to size of spill? Is the +1 variance included for this indicator related to small spills also? Gord – this VOIT applies only to spills affecting water quality. Barry – suggest that a big spill is significant and having one spill may be too many? Suggest removing the +1 variance. Danny – have procedures and mechanisms in place to deal with clean up. Barry – do you have clean‐up teams? Gord – yes everyone is trained and can clean up a spill. Tom C – Group comfortable with Barry’s suggestion? Gord – we could accept a zero variance here. Group agreed. Use of Salted Sand for Winter Maintenance Gord – explained that indicator was requested by Algonquin Eco‐watch during the FMP process. Salted sand is used in road maintenance to prevent road sand from freezing to allow for application to ensure road safety. Eco‐watch raised concern about potential environmental impact. AFA agreed at the time to phase out use of salt in sand and a commitment was made in the FMP. Dana – need to be more flexible here, is there really a need to eliminate all use? Danny – salted sand mainly used on Lake Travers road. Pits are loamy and salt is blended in to prevent piles from freezing. Gord – I think Hwy 60 winter salt application has far more impact. Joe – we have asked FP Innovations to look into this during road review and Dana has good point. The content of salt is less than 1% when mixed with sand. July 2012 we anticipate having an answer on impact of using salted sand. Dana‐ salt is expensive. Contactors only use what they need to. Randy – should we be wording the indicator text differently? Text can be interpreted as though AFA is pouring salt on the road. Danny – past suggestion has been made to pave the Lake Travers road, but this may cause the need for more salt to be used. Dana ‐ there are reasonable instances where salt is needed, should be flexible here. Tom C. – when can this FMP direction be re‐visited? Danny – poor pits need more salt blended into the mix. We have limited options to develop good pits along Lk. Travers Road. There is a past instance where we bought sand with salt for an application, to ensure road safety. Deb – suggest we drop the “100% by 2020”. Bob C. – will this lead to an FMP amendment? Include a variance to help achieve target? Dana – text needs to be edited to state “salted sand” not salt. Joe‐ agree, we need to change wording. Emmett – when was the decision to eliminate the use of salt made? Gord – 2009 during FMP development. Emmett ‐ has there been a reduction since 2009? Danny – yes, purchase invoices for salt are less. Deb – consider still honouring the 50% by 2015 but drop the 100% by 2020. Gord – suggest we wait and see the FP draft report and decide on wording in September? Joe‐ agree with Deb, we can base decision on final report because will be in a partial FMP re‐write in 2015 ‐ can keep the 50% by 2015. Action: Advisory Group to decide on final wording after review of FP Innovation Draft Report. Proportion of Watershed or Water Management Areas with Recent Stand‐Replacing Disturbance Gord – this is a new mandatory indicator. Large forest disturbances can impact water quality. Showed a map to the group of watersheds in Algonquin Park where recent stand replacing disturbances occurred 6 (i.e. blow down, wind events, clearcuts). Minimal in scale – only 1.5% of total forested area affected. Tom B. – where have the biggest disturbances occurred – can see on map. Spatially located following NW‐SE pattern running along Cedar Lake through Lake Travers and heading down towards Petawawa. Gord – reviewed a summary table of area depleted by watershed. There was 4000 ha of naturally depleted area and 5000 ha of harvested area in the last 10 years (stand replacing depletions). Barry – is <20% a high allowance? Gord – should be set on research and we don’t have it. Barry – why not 10%? Gord/ Joe – were thinking to increase to 50%, but no science to direct us, so used a pre‐cautionary level of <20%. Need to consult with an expert to help set this target. Action: Joe to ask David Webster about the size of forest disturbances that can impact water quantity and quality in a watershed. Tom C.– reflected on the mandatory discussion items and appears that we have covered them off fairly well. Element 4.1 Carbon Uptake and Storage Net Carbon Uptake Tom C – read over content in indicator. Gord – shared videos to help explain carbon storage. VIDEO‐ Climate Change and Adaptive Capacity Gord – videos provide a good global perspective on the importance of sustainable forest management and climate change. Young forest is a better carbon sink than old forest. Tom C. – similar to VOIT we had before. Ontario has decided not to include this as a provincial FMP requirement. CSA standard has carbon storage included ‐ no other Certification Standard has it specifically required. Gord ‐ the SFMM model output was sent to Ontario Forest Research Institute (OFRI) to run through the FORCARB model to get the results for the Algonquin Park forest. Storage is directly affected by many factors including the age of forest, successional/disturbance patterns and growth and yield projections. Carbon levels decline till 2040 then storage increases over time. Two runs presented based on projected and actual harvest levels. The run based on actual harvest levels shows greater carbon stocks stored (less removal). Tom C. – reviewed the wording in Indicator with the Group. Gord –harvested wood products help store carbon for the long term. When you factor in harvested wood products you see a steady increase of carbon storage. Barry – do you think the government will make changes in building codes to include more wood in construction? Yes, Building Code changes are being made to include wood in up to six storey construction. Lacey – young forests store carbon, we know inventory reflects an old forest, FMP projections show movement to old forest, confused with the storage projection, should be moving down not up? Post meeting note – Gord reviewed average forest age in SFMM over next 100 years and it declines as a result of natural succession, natural disturbance and harvesting. Joe – target text needs to be worded to maintain or increase carbon stock and make link to graph produced by OFRI. 7 Reforestation Success Gord – this mandatory indicator is the same as indicator in above Element 2.1. Tom C – no need to have further discussion. Lunch – catered by Golden Lake Tom C. – provided another brief talk about Carbon. Gord – explained that there is a mandatory discussion item on carbon emissions from fossil fuels used in forest operations. Looked at detail from Ontario’s Forests and Forestry in a Changing Climate MNR, 2008. Emissions from transporting wood to mills and burning fossil fuels during manufacturing were estimated to be roughly 9% of the amount of carbon stored in wood products from Ontario (Colombo et al. 2007a). Copies of this report are available ‐ please see Gord for more information. Shared quotes from a report. Conclusions and adaptation techniques were highlighted, including the need for more all weather roads with projected shorter and warmer winters. Some adaptation techniques are difficult to implement when you rely so heavily on natural regeneration. Additions and Deletions to the Forest Area Tom C. ‐ began reviewing content in Standard. Gord – same as earlier indicator and no new change on this one. Element 5 Economic and Social Benefits 5.1 Timber and Non‐Timber Benefits Quality and Quantity of Timber Benefits, Products and Services Produced in DFA: Long‐term Projected Available Harvest Volume by Product VIDEO ‐ Wood Products – Everywhere for Everyone Tom C. – led group through content in indicator. Gord – the past indicator is now connected to this new mandatory indicator. Volumes are consistent with Table FMP‐13 targets. Not all products included in VOIT Matrix: only poles, Pr/Pw sawlogs, hardwood sawlogs and total pulp and total sawlogs and better. In some cases projected volumes have gone up due to increased yield curve projections. Other products have gone down because of increased ecological constraints like old growth (e.g. Pr poles). This is all linked to the long‐term wood supply model (SFMM). For example, red pine is projected to decline bottoming out in 2040 ‐ this low point was used to set target at > greater than this point. Target is based on what FMP can produce. Question to Group is: do we set Target low and meet it, or set high and not meet it? Richard ‐ Is target sufficient to support local industry need? Gord – no, demands are greater than Target for some products e.g. poles. Danny – current demand is approximately 17,000 tonnes of poles per year, market dictates. It is good to continue to measure this Target. Dana‐ graph shows a decline in Red Pine ‐ is this because of a projected loss of landbase through the introduction of LTF? Gord – no, LTF has not been deducted from landbase for this projection. Declines 8 are a result of ecological constraints like maintaining old growth. Joe – currently no affect on volume, just an increased cost. Gord – I’m torn on the approach? Market conditions influence this Indicator. With a 25% variance we would pass all except white birch / hardwood sawlogs. Joe – is that what we want to produce or do we want to make it available? Gord – maybe there should be long‐term level to sustain and a short‐term level to produce? Danny – could base on average annual volume? Bob McRae. – restrictions to access area create challenges and complexity. It is an even more complicated world when we introduce markets, and how they influence production. Dana – another example that complicates production is through constraints like LTF where wood is tied up and not available to be allocated. Danny – every time you reduce your wood basket you lose operational flexibility. Bob M. – the Province needs to rely on industry to get out of debt. Joe – legislation is planned to be revised to help. Gord – until a final decision on LTF is made, we are in limbo and have uncertainty. Joe – in indicator, word “produced” can be interpreted as make available? Gord – what does produce mean? Gord – if we take the lowest level we can sustain, then, we could set another target in what is actually utilized? Deb – not sure how you articulate a production target that is out of your control, production target = meeting demand? Lacey – can’t make people cut it if it’s not worth anything; it is growing on the stump and available. Volume available in FMP but the question will always be is how accessible is the wood? Gord – post meeting note‐ the market dictates what is produced, and this is beyond the control of the forest manager. However, this is the mandatory indicator wording: “produced” ‐ this is a problem with the standard. The forest manager can only control what is available – so set the targets around this – the long term minimum sustainable volume for each of these product groups, as drafted. Amount of Available Harvest Volume Utilized (short term) Tom C. – this not a mandatory indicator and has been carried forward from last matrix. Lacey – not a very meaningful Indicator with that big of a variance (50%)? Joe – suggest to remove and take out? Danny – when I look at the AFA Act, to maintain or improve employment, we should consider keeping it. Lacey – maybe consider % of wood utilized by local communities? Gord – the next element speaks to what you’re suggesting, the social/employment benefits. Decided to remove this VOIT. Quantity and Quality of Non‐timber Benefits, Products, and Services Produced in DFA: Number of documented public complaints about forestry impacts on back‐country recreation Tom C. – this mandatory indicator has been expanded with the addition of the old indicator inserted after “:” after the DFA. Barry – written comments (i.e. letters) are not always included in the “Experience Comment Form”. Joe ‐ clarified how the system was supposed to work – comment form is available on Ontario Parks website. Overall it has not been well implemented. System was supposed to capture all user comments and then the forestry related ones would get sent to AFA. Need to change the name of the form to remove “Forestry” from the title. Also, all complaints need to be documented for the old VOIT to work. This was supposed to be more of an Ontario Parks comment system that would provide relevant forestry related comments to AFA. 9 Barry – system set‐up did not go as planned. Joe – back of your permit, allows for comment. Don’t want to re‐enter track all comments even those that are positive. Hesitate to enter all comments into a database. Gord – AFA wanted a rigorous system that documents facts, not hearsay. This was one of the drivers for setting up the system. If Ontario Parks does not have the resources to properly implement this system then we need to change the system. Tom B. – the name of the form is not right. Dana – it is set up to bait people in putting in forestry comments. Lack of complaints is positive and reflects a good job being done. Tom B‐ agree with Dana, how is the addition of the Schedule of Operations map on the AFA website worked for Backcountry Recreationalists experience? Barry – it has improved. Barry – read the history on discussions with OP and suggested that ideas proposed by Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists (ABR) were not included. Tom C. – change target to numbers, than %? Joe – Ontario Parks ended up building something that we don’t feel we need. Emmett – remove the “Forest management” from form. Ethan – interior user travelling in backcountry usually will not see forest management, but a healthy forest. Barry – form needs to distinguish between front country and back country. Gord – the focus here is on back‐country where operations may be present. Barry – log truck can impact you on Hwy 60 on your way to the park, not necessarily in back country. Lacy – trucks could be from outside the park and not even associated with logging in Algonquin Park. Barry – still legitimate complaint, but not handled in this system. Gord – it’s hard to properly address a complaint when facts are missing. Nathan – was the form used for incident on Rock Lake Road? Dana – a lot of complaints? Joe – no, not many using the form, complaints from Rock Lake area were handled outside this system. Barry – gate protocol and having the map at a gate helps. Joe – maps are available on website and at gate. Deb – seems to me communication is an important piece, and responding to complaints is measureable. Suggest that 100% of all complaints are responded to, would be a reasonable indicator. Emmett– not everyone is offended by hearing a chainsaw, truck. If a camper still chooses to go close to an approved operations than he/she does not have a valid complaint about logging noise. Barry – still need some mechanism, and measure, we suggested to name it “backcountry incident form”. Dana – out of all the 120,000 camper nights per year in Algonquin Park how many people complained? Gord – showed attendance level and level of complaints = 0.0004 % people had a documented complaint about logging noise. Joe – agree with Deb. Joe – as a minimum, we should take “forestry” reference out of form. Gord – AFA received a best management practice from the Surveillance auditor on our correspondence to valid complaints about logging noise. Barry – form was never intended to single out forestry. Tom B. – looked at blog posts on ABCR website and did not see serious complaints. Barry – not related to logging, a generator was running? Could have been a researcher? Provision of information with respect to location of planned forest operations on the AFA website. Barry – can we add detail to this target to specify spring/fall updates for harvest areas and roads to be posted? Gord – explained that markets change quickly and affect where we go and the schedule varies, it is a challenge and much work to maintain a map like that – and accuracy is limited. We have agreed we will attempt to do this, just do not see the need to specify this in the VOIT. Explained the declaimer included in the map legend for the Group. 10 Danny – so much change with weather, mill delivery schedules, markets, etc. Barry – so the plan changes within an AWS season? Danny – yes, changes occur sometimes immediately. Gord – so many variables that influence exact operation location. Gord – there are concerns over the real value of the map with so many variables, compared to the work that goes into maintaining it. Lacey – season does not mean too much, it’s just a guide. Tom B. – can updates be posted? Gord – once in spring and in fall map can be updated. Tom C. – will you accept that seasons on map are subject to change, and not include season in VOIT Matrix. Barry – can accept to not include the word “seasonal”. Compliance with Cottage/Lease AOCs Gord – carried over from previous VOIT Matrix. Bud – no concerns or proposed changes. Some lease holders want to know when the loggers will be back to cut some hazard trees around their cottage. Add a 5% variance to be consistent with other compliance based targets. Cultural Heritage Tom B. – AFA in past has complied and contributed, they are in full compliance. Richard – access to information and ensuring it is kept safe is my interest. Gord – showed annual report track record for this VOIT and links to other cultural heritage websites from AFA website. Bob C. – never approached AFA about including our website link and could help bring more attention to Algonquin culture. Tom B. – drove to Golden Lake and saw the sign to new centre, and a website link. Ethan – could we get into posting interpretative signage? Danny – Algonquins can bring forth a proposal to AFA if they wish and a decision will be made by the AFA Board. Natural and Spiritual AOC Prescriptions Tom C – quickly discussed content in indicator. Group agreed that this indicator an appropriate one to keep. Element 5.2 Communities and Sustainability Managed Crown Forest Area Available for Timber Production Gord – carried forward from previous VOIT Matrix. Tom C. – three objectives in this element. Reminded the group that this is not a landuse discussion. Dana – suggest the Board re‐visit the LTF issue. Danny – the proposed Park Management Plan amendment‐ it is ready for Public review, now up to Minister. Joe – if LTF is approved we would fail? Gord – yes I think so. Lacey – production forest area has a big link to economic and sustainable communities ‐ may fail with LTF, but it is a good indicator. Number of Local Production Facilities Tom C. – non‐commitment holders may receive wood, commitment holders have first chance. Smurfit (Portage) and Grant have dropped off the map since last time we looked at this. Dana – where does Thurso fit. Danny – Thurso is a non‐commitment holder. Tom C. – is wood going to other folks that are not considered local: Quebec, States? Lacey – wood that goes to communities having mills that employ people from a local community is what I think is implied here. Gord – with new future tenure 11 arrangement do we need a new phrase for “commitment holder”? Commitment Letters are all we have to go by. Danny – hope “Commitment Holders” can be kept? Dana – I hope so too. Danny – what is local? Gord – need to recognize facilities outside “local” and need to recognize these in order to do good forest management – need a home for low‐end fiber, not just sawmills. Tom C.– need to define local as Advisory Group, what do we consider as local. Gord – suggest take local out of this indicator and include local in next indicator. Joe – agree with Gord’s suggestion. Tom C. – may change the word “commitment holder” to something else through tenure and change text accordingly. Gord – benchmark should be based on the number we have today. Available wood volume offered to local production facilities Dana – is the surplus wood (not committed) offered to only commitment holders? Danny – no. Tom C.– would all the commitment holders receive an offer. Danny‐ yes. Nathan – it will go locally first? Danny – no, veneer offered locally but some purchased in Quebec. Nathan – is it based on price? Danny – yes. Barry – is there a set time limit to express interest. Danny – yes, we expect an answer usually within two weeks of our offer. Deb – nothing in here that AFA has a right to market, under timber benefits ‐ sell pulp where you can sell pulp? Randy – indicator put in to protect local sawmills, wondering if we have to change the text? Instead of “local” use “communities in near vicinity” ‐ allowing some flexibility to then go elsewhere. Livelihoods of local people near the Park need to be looked at first. This is what Jeff Muzzi was intending when he included this Indicator last time. Dana – there is open market wood in FMP? Danny – yes, not all wood that is committed. Dana – when wood is cut then offered to non‐clients do you make clients aware. Danny – yes. Clients have a couple weeks to make decision. Tom C. – this is consistent with how Minister is going. Level of Investment in Initiatives that Contribute to Community Sustainability This is a new mandatory indicator. Gord – propose to use direct program cost expenses as presented in AFA Annual Report. In report it is 15 million for 2011‐12. Nathan – maybe set target higher instead of using the low point for target setting? Danny – we need number that is achievable. It is a direct reflection of volume harvested. Gord – any alternative suggestions? Deb – suggest setting a target that is a % of revenue ‐ program costs relative to revenue. Joe – agree with Nathan. Danny – we are a not‐for profit style accounting agency so a % of revenue target may not be suitable. Danny – comfortable with a 5 year average, >16.5 million annually. Level of Direct and Indirect Employment Gord – showed a Table of historic actual numbers of those employed from Algonquin Park forestry. Woodland refers to Algonquin Park. Joe – mill numbers may be overstated. Barry – how meaningful is indicator if it is not pro‐rated for just Algonquin Park wood in mills? Gord – still a good measure ‐ without Algonquin Park wood some of these facilities would not survive. Tom C.– could split direct and indirect in Target. Danny – you always want to innovate and mechanize and must think about that when looking at the indicator, number will go down as a result. Action: Gord – will clarify some questions with the numbers and prepare new table before next meeting. 12 5. Broad Public Consultation Received Gord – the minutes of the Advisory Group meetings are being posted on the AFA Certification website. An updated version of the VOIT matrix will also be posted soon to show public where we are at. There were 21 hits on the AFA Certification website this week, 138 hits total to date. We have eight completed surveys that have been submitted. Gord informed everyone at the AFA Contractors Meeting on April 26th about the survey, and Joe is planning to tell the Local Citizens Committee about it. 6. Location and timing of next meeting Huntsville, Hidden Valley Resort. June 11th –8:30 start. Please let Gord know if you need a room the night before on the 10th. This will be the last meeting until fall. Ethan – led the closing prayer. 7. Opportunities for improvement – none brought to attention. Adjourn 13 Forest Certification Advisory Group Z809‐08 Meeting #5 Hidden Valley Resort, Huntsville June 11, 2012 Present: Barry Bridgeford, Shaun Dombroskie (minute taker), Lacey Rose, Richard Zohr, Bob Craftchick, Randy Malcolm, Emmett Godin, Bob McRae, Tom Ballantine, Deb Cumming, Irvin Yateman, Keith Fletcher (observer) Joe Yaraskavitch, Tom Clark, Gord Cumming, Terry Mullin, Danny Janke, Dana Shaw, Dan Kohoko, Larry McDermott Regrets: Clifford Bastein, Anne Mundy, Steve D’eon, Ethan Huner, John Doering, Shari Sokay, Nathan Mieske Tom C.– introduced Larry McDermott (alternate for the Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation) and Keith Fletcher (AFA ‐ observer) Bob C. – led the opening prayer 1. Approval of May Minutes Tom – started by advising the group to insert Meeting 5 handouts into the binder. Dan K. – being a relatively new member, Dan asked for an explanation to better understand the CSA certification process to date. Gord – currently the AFA is going through the re‐certification of the Algonquin Park Forest to the 2008 version of the CSA Standard. We are in the process of making changes to the VOIT Matrix, which is a very important section included in the CSA SFM Plan. This will be the last meeting before the summer. Over the summer the draft Plan will be prepared. In the fall we will get together and review the draft. The final Plan will then be prepared in time for the Registration Audit in November. Dan K. – is there a big economic impact if certification is in place or not? Gord –no, having certification is not a big economic driver, it is however, driven by AFA to demonstrate to the public that we are practicing sustainable forestry. Some client mills have acquired Chain of Custody certification so they can use AFA’s CSA certification and market their products as certified forest products. 2. Outstanding Criterion 3 and 4 VOITs Salted Sand Tom – circled back to an action item on the use of salted sand. Gord – updated Group that this Thursday FP Innovation will be conducting their last field session before the draft Road Review Report is prepared and submitted in July. We will wait to see if there is any commentary in this report on environmental impacts of using salted sand for winter road maintenance. 1 Level of Natural Depletion within a Watershed Gord – shared Joe’s correspondence with David Webster, a Senior Hydro‐Geologist with the MNR. He replied back to say that there is not a whole lot of science we can rely on to help answer the question on whether or not 20% of a water shed with a stand‐replacing disturbance would have an effect on water quality and quantity. He commented that having 80% forest coverage is a safe amount. David found it also reasonable to set a 10 year time horizon to allow time for the disturbed area to regenerate. In addition, Karen Hartley, with Parks and Protected Areas was consulted on the topic and shared that 30%‐50% forest cover is a threshold level for forest cover within a watershed as a guide in Southern Ontario ‐ but this is for developed landscapes in southern Ontario that might have between 7% to 30% forest cover remaining and dominated by agriculture and urban areas. Karen went on and suggest that we use the range of natural variation model outputs to help set the target. Gord assured the Group that this natural benchmark approach is consistent with how we have planned and we can be comfortable with the 20% target. Direct and In‐Direct Employment Numbers Action item from last meeting ‐ prepare a new table showing direct and in‐direct employees that work in the Park. Gord – with Amy’s help an updated table was prepared. To clarify ‐ the total number of employees include those that work in Algonquin Park. The updated numbers were reviewed. Bob M.– the numbers are low right now and are a sign of the time. Terry – pointed out that some may be there for the season (tree markers) or for a short time in the season (tree planters). A lot of past targets were built on strong markets, suggested in the VOIT Matrix that the Target be set at >2500 woodland and mill employees. Barry – not really hard numbers when you consider the in‐direct job numbers because they are not reflective of proportion of jobs tied specifically to Park wood. Joe ‐ In the FMP there is a section that presents economic multipliers for direct and in‐direct jobs created when harvest levels are realized. If you really want more detail you can look in to this section of the FMP. Terry – maybe the Target level is too high? Danny – silvicultural employee numbers have increased and going forward this number should continue to increase. Work‐share programs at sawmills appear to be ending which should help as well. Bob M. – speaking of people numbers, the Tourist Impact section in the LTF Report that the Ministry presented was not accurate and are not hard numbers either. The numbers AFA is proposing here are better than those estimates. Joe – if mills like Murray’s did not top up with wood harvested from the Park then eventually 244 employees would be temporarily out of work. Lacey – how are you determining indirect jobs? Gord – we really only have direct jobs presented? Bob C.– can you re‐word Target to address both direct and indirect? How do we know that the market downturn is not related to a global trend which is beyond our control? Gord – propose we apply a ratio and present indirect numbers relative to 2500 direct employees? Deb‐ direct employment is pertinent. In‐direct employment is really not as important. Gord – advised to the Group that they will be separated within the Target and will not roll them in together. Action: Gord to present revised direct and in‐direct employee target numbers to the advisory group at the fall meeting. Carbon Storage Gord – following up on Joe’s suggestions to change this VOIT wording, updated wording was shared with respect to the Carbon Storage VOIT. The model forecasts net carbon uptake and can measure carbon 2 stocks over the long term. Suggested we assess this VOIT every ten years and update the projection with each new FMP. Bob C. – what effect do old growth forests and reserves have on storing carbon? Gord –generally speaking, these have a negative effect on carbon sequestration ‐ an over mature forest state is not as good as a young forest is at sequestering carbon. Bob C. – Target may be hard to achieve based on our current forest state. Gord –Lacey had a similar concern, however, the SFMM model has a lot of natural succession happening and the average age of the forest is becoming younger over the long term and contributing to more carbon sequestration. A post meeting comment was inserted in Meeting 4 minutes regarding this. Video – Carbon and carbon sequestration SAR Habitat and Sensitivity around Protecting the Location of Habitat Gord – In order to protect the location of SAR habitat we needed to modify the minutes to maintain confidentially. Bob C. – expressed discomfort that there is no representative from the Biologist community on the Advisory Group to help us through some of these discussions. Bob M. – why do we not have signs up along the roads and highways to warn drivers of turtles on the road in order to give notice to drivers so that they can adjust their speed? Joe – if the fencing works as intended the turtles won’t be on the road. I think campers are also made aware at the gate. Video – Turtles of Ontario Bob M. –can the fence be placed closer to the road? Joe – having the fence closer to pond encourages nesting in natural sandy openings away from the shoulder of the road. Bob C. – do they go to a particular nesting place each year? I know of a sandy bank that I observed turtles laying eggs year after year? Tom C. – road shoulders are an ecological trap (same preferred conditions as natural sandy openings) and travel corridors for predators who get their fill going from nest to nest. Bob C. – predators that prey on eggs are in the bush too. Dana – what is the cost of turtle fencing? Joe – it is manageable for drift fencing approximately $1,000/km versus $50,000/km for permanent fencing. Bob M. – does not seem to be used much outside the park, maybe there are alternative solutions? Joe – eco passages help and we have a couple in the park. Bob M‐ I see this as a tremendous cost to Ontario in delays and maintenance. It may be better to spend money now to install a permanent solution. Tom C.‐ in a current MTO project, snake fencing has been installed along snake travel corridors. Wood Allocation/Local Production Facilities Gord – clarified Element 5.2 around the indicator that speaks to the number of production facilities that utilize wood from DFA. Indicator 5.2.1.2.1 speaks to all production facilities and I think is a good indication of overall utilization of park wood and the markets as a whole. The next Indicator 5.2.1.3.1. speaks to the level of utilization by commitment holders. This Target is set up to offer 100% of sawlog and better products to ensure local mill’s interests are respected and commit to giving local mills first chance at the wood. Now there are two Indicators instead of one. Bob C. – recent document passed in Provincial Legislature where AFA will not be exempt from tenure reform. Danny – with respect to Wood Supply commitment holders the Province is reluctant to honour these commitments and sees value to tender at least 25 % of wood being harvested off the licence. Bob C. – how do we protect local mills? I’m a little uncomfortable with the whole tenure reform model. Gord – in the VOIT Matrix we have the text in place to satisfy provincial direction and protect local mill 3 interest. Joe – main driver is to get the wood back to work. Legislation intent is to prevent hording wood by local mills that are not operating. The available wood would then provide an opportunity for someone else. Tom – is the AG okay with edits made by Gord? I think it is a good balance. Joe – 1974 Master Plan does show a map where a commitment was made to regional mills. This is the only historical reference in a Park document, and the only reference to a commitment of wood to local or regional mills in any Park plan. Meeting 4 Minutes were approved by the Advisory Group. 3. VOITs ‐ Criterion 5 and 6 Level of investment in training and skills development. Gord – what we propose is that the ongoing training of woodworkers as per the EMS Training Matrix be the measure for the Target. Shared the EMS Training Matrix and explained it to the Group. It is often a challenge to have a fully trained workforce and keep records up to date. Target presented is quantifiable and measureable. Dan K.– had a general question on VOITs. For Element 1.1 the ecosystem diversity VOIT the level of variance states 25% range in movement? Is that not built into the Target? Joe – concept of natural benchmark trend was adopted from FMP. You’re correct in saying variance is built in to target. Action: Gord to look to providing more clarity in text for the natural benchmark VOITs in Element 1. Level of Algonquin participation in the forest economy Gord – this VOIT has been brought forward from previous Matrix. The target has been updated to reflect recent historical Algonquin involvement and contributions. Main Algonquin employer has been Makwa with some work also completed by Madadjiwan. Bob C.‐ Preference is to replace the word Aboriginal with Algonquin and remove the text (from a benchmark set in 2012 =16%). Only currently two communities harvesting in the Park to date. Some additional communities would like to share the resources and participate. As other Communities develop capacity the number could be ever changing. Suggested a sliding scale measured approach. Tom C.– can you propose a variance? Randy – shared concerns and expressed the need to differentiate an individual community. A suggestion was made to single out individual community and measure separately. Richard – would like to see a better overall level than 16%. We should commit to do better. Gord – AFA has a procurement section on the website at http://www.algonquinforestry.on.ca/bid.htm Tender packages are made available to search and stimulate interest. AFA deals with the outcome of the bid process and implement activities accordingly. Gord – prefer to follow the wording in the national Standard. Bob C. – can we make reference to Algonquin as the Aboriginal people in the text? Algonquins are the people. Joe – looks like the word Algonquin is referenced in the Objective column. Bob C. – reemphasized that the Algonquins are just asking to be recognized. There needs to be a statement within context of Algonquin Park that the only Aboriginals known are the Algonquins. Deb – suggested that clarification be made in the Preamble of the SFM Plan. 4 Action: Ensure there is wording in the SFM Plan text that the term Aboriginal in Algonquin Park refers to the Algonquins of Ontario Tom C.– proposal here is that reference to ANR be changed to the Algonquins of Ontario? Randy – agree with Bob C. Deb – math is within the context of % of harvest, a lot of variation in harvest if levels are down than numbers are down. Suggest a rolling average? Also the two VOITs cover off Silviculture and Harvest but not Road construction? Joe ‐ % is linear, if the harvest doubles than the Algonquins would harvest twice as much. Tom C.– Deb proposed that we include all activities. Joe – most cases the harvest Contractor is the Road Contractor. Gord – suggest three VOITs be included under Element 5.2; one for harvest volume, silviculture completed and $ amount tracked. Gord – the VOIT speaks to levels, not capacity. Gord – suggested that the $ amount tracked for Annual Report, which was not part of last matrix be included as part of this VOIT Matrix? Richard – agreed. Action: Add another VOIT to the matrix that tracks expenditures to Algonquin communities/organizations/people. Richard – suggest we add “communities” in front of organizations/people. Bob C. –Development Corporations work at arm’s length from the Community. Emmett ‐ % can be misleading unless we tie it to jobs, or volume. Danny – marketplace is very cyclical which prevent us from committing to jobs/volumes. Emmett ‐ more meaning when tied in but need to have it in a way that can be presented to an auditor. Terry – last plan VOITs were tied in to volume (numbers) and we failed? Randy – could also reference in SFM text the procurement protocol and how to get involved. Action – identify AFA procurement website address in the SFM Plan text Element 5.3 Crown Timber stumpage paid to government and consolidated revenues. Gord – Provincial stumpage revenues are down due to markets ‐ the target has been adjusted to reflect current reality. Suggested $750,000/year with a 20% variance? We are relying on variance to meet this one for 2011/12. We have some control but it is primarily market driven. Terry – do you need a dollar figure? Danny – if economy is doing well, the Crown will adjust stumpage. Emmett – how do you determine the price for stumpage? Gord – MNR monthly stumpage matrix is prepared to show current charges. Joe – we can provide a link to the stumpage matrix website? Link: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_092171.html Gord – suggested we do away with the rolling average – not needed with the new revised target. Increased Participation (Treaty) Gord – should we keep this in because it is really outside the scope of this exercise? AFA cannot report on it. The Algonquin’s support keeping it in the Matrix. Interior Visitor Days per Year 5 Deb/ Lacey – why is this one in here? Gord – agree that there are so many other factors that influence visitor days? Can remove or open to suggestions? Deb – it has been covered previously in the Matrix. Barry‐ agree it could be removed because it is handled earlier. Danny – recreation does benefit because of synergy, for example, maintaining access roads on east side facilitates access to Lake Travers. Bob M. – Rock Lake road is also jointly maintained to facilitate recreational access. Action: Review wording of indicator and replace with an alternate Indicator that highlights road maintenance to facilitate recreational user access. Lacey – suggest an indicator to add that would promote forest management awareness? Gord – there is a mandatory VOIT along those lines that we will discuss in section 6 of the Matrix. Element 6.1 Evidence of good understanding of the nature of Aboriginal title and rights. Tom – began by reviewing the Element within the Matrix. Lacey – in fairness to Bob C. can we delay until he returns to the table? Tom – agree. Dana – what will be the effect on tenure following new Provincial direction? Danny – new direction is that 25% of the allocated volume will be put out for tender, the whole Province will go this route. Tom C. – Quebec and BC have gone this route, Ontario is playing catch up. Danny –there may also be interest to have more Aboriginal involvement on Boards. Group skipped ahead to Element 6.3 to wait until Bob C. returned back to the room. Element 6.3 Evidence that the organization has co‐operated with other forest dependent businesses Gord – Do we need the word “forest” to single out those communities or remove and broaden this Indicator out? The premise is very timber focused, the Standard suggested an example and how we are assisting other communities to respect other activities (i.e. timing restrictions). Suggest adding Recreation dependant businesses too? Lacey – not sure about this indicator. Element speaks to forest community well‐being and resilience, that the AFA is to encourage, co‐operate with, or help provide opportunities for economic diversity within the community. Dana – does it infer AFA place wood on open market?, there is a lot of opposition to these foreseen changes. Those that are influencing the tenure system are those trying to correct problems that originated from the north. Most SFL holder’s don’t agree to change. Sawmill and Logging companies have made investments on crown licence areas and are oppose a tendered sales approach. Ministry is looking for Tenure System that can provide more jobs, but it is a long way from getting resolved. Barry – seems to not mesh in this location in table? Dana‐ there are many business to business relationships wood is already being moved to non‐
commitment holders. Bob M. – the difference is we deal with a lot of pulp in this area, we can produce a lot and could accept to share 25% of the open‐market volume if it is pulp. Lacey – is this Indicator not an effort being made to improve communities? Barry – what is the scale of the community, how large and who does it encompass? Lacey – most of the communities surrounding the Park are dependent on harvesting? Emmett – is 25% of the volume only of low quality? Joe – no volume includes everything. Danny‐ % could be as high as 60%, 20% is relevant to this indicator at this time. Bob M. – providing community opportunities that stimulate the economy can be realized if more wood burning was allowed in the Province. Dan K.– Co‐generation plant is one idea, a finger jointing plant is another, both ideas 6 accumulate wood that is a by‐product from local mills. Dana – secondary manufacturing plant is a good idea that would complement current industry. Bob M.‐ secondary manufacturing plants have helped elsewhere in the Province. A Co‐gen Plant would help us all as well. Dana – I have to complement the work being done in Renfrew County, it has been great. Barry‐ maybe this VOIT is not measurable just keep a record? Lacey – should get credit with efforts that you make. Joe – comments back from meeting can be included in record. Barry – “Evidence of“ sounds like bookkeeping, filing documentation. Lacey – sounds to me more qualitative reference in report and not based on numbers that are measured. There is a linkage to the Local Citizens Committee here also. Action: Revise target to report on activities/opportunities taken/explored to strengthen and diversify all aspects the local forest‐based economy. Timing Restrictions Gord – cooperate with other users in Park, we do that on a day‐to‐day basis and we can build a measureable indicator around that. Showed a map of Algonquin Park showing only that only 15% of the total park area is not under some sort of operational restriction that is applied to accommodate other values/users. Evidence of Co‐operation with workers to enhance safety standards Barry – what would an auditor look for as evidence? Gord –attendance list and pictures of award winners for example. Danny – words in the Indicator “and affected communities” what does that mean? Tom ‐ Could be like the Nipissing Forest example in Restoule – safety issue of hauling through town. Evidence that a worker safety program has been implemented and is periodically reviewed and improved Lacey – why is this included twice? Danny – AFA has a Joint H&S committee and representatives from each office. Safety audits are forwarded from the contractors to AFA. Element 6.4 Level of Participant satisfaction with public participation process Gord – idea is to fill out a “Satisfaction Survey” (distributed) and assess your satisfaction with your involvement in the certification process. Asked that each member forward a completed survey and the results will be used to gauge the level of Advisory Group satisfaction. Gord – suggested that 75% (more than 2/3) be the level set in Target. SFM Public Participation evaluation by the broader public Gord –reviewed the comments around the broad public participation process. All were fairly straight forward replies. Bob C. – Returned to meeting. Element 6.1 Evidence of a good understanding of the nature of Aboriginal title and rights 7 Tom C.– understand that the Algonquin background information report requirements may be changing. Bob C. shared his frustration with quality of the document, would like to see more resources spent to improve its quality. Joe‐ I was the main author of this section of the FMP for Algonquin Park. Richard – adequate dollars are not available to properly list native values and properly prepare background report. Joe – Indicator here is providing evidence that AFA has an understanding? Gord – yes, the existing documents from the FMP process provide evidence that AFA has an understanding of Aboriginal title and rights. Danny is also participating in meetings for the Algonquin land claim. Barry – this 6 pg. background information document is not intended to be an exhaustive study? Gord reviewed the Aboriginal background document with the Advisory Group. Richard – there is a statement in the document that explains that there are inadequate funds. Joe – yes. Danny – question the relevance of a Sept 1 & Oct 1 Hunt map. The hunt is now controlled via a tag system, compared to when the protocol was first put in place, and could last until sometime after Xmas ‐ there could be a better way to communicate active operations, possibly sit down together? Bob C. – it is hard to explain to our community the restrictions being placed on access. Joe – the summary in the background package documents a very thorough consultation with the Algonquins. How do you propose to have a better understanding? Emmett‐ AFA can have an understanding but still works under the direction of the Ministry. Randy – our treaty is not here yet; work can begin now to accommodate interests? Richard – we ask to continue to work towards resolving issues and accommodate. We know the issues, some will be addressed through the Treaty some can be addressed through working relationships. At the end of the day we can then say that we have a mechanism in place to resolve differences when they arise. Richard –having a committee could be a door in to communicate and resolve issues: some concepts to discuss may be aggregate use, access control…..etc. We can invite someone like AFA’s General Manager and sit on a committee meeting and resolve issues. Richard –our community asked for a protocol to manage issues four years ago and it did not go anywhere? Emmett – noticed that after the FMP was approved there has been little communications since? Barry‐ is the Land Claim process going to resolve these issues now? Scope that you are proposing are short term (in‐lieu of) a signed Treaty? Richard – Treaty would speak to a process but not tell us how to implement. We can start doing the leg work now. Bob C. ‐ it is realistic to want to wait until there is a Treaty? If you cannot come to terms on these small issues now, our Community may question efforts made to date and wonder if they sent the right representatives to negotiate a Treaty. Richard – Algonquin’s are concerned about access, aggregate not specifically related to the Algonquin Park landbase, but the regional landbase as a whole. We can develop the framework but the challenge will be to implement it. Tom C. – does AFA have to be part of it? Bob C. – yes, looking for AFA to be a member at the table, not just in a supportive role. Danny – is the indicator here that a meeting will be held and we will attend? We need a target to measure and MNR would have to be there too. Emmett– AFA’s decision making is limited. Richard – all I’m suggesting is working towards having a working relationship. Action: Add target to continue to work towards a positive working relationship to help resolve Algonquin community/AFA issues 8 Bob C. – Aboriginal Title not Treaty Rights and my version of entitlement is different than anyone else’s. Dan K. – we know what we will be assigned will not be the same as what it was like when first contact was made. We are looking for good participation, looking for accommodation, and don’t want to trump any others interest. Documents out there may not go back far enough to the basic premise of what Algonquin’s originally valued. Larry – Algonquin Title and Rights that exist now can be learned. My experience under FSC Standard, is that there is language within the Standard where we allow ourselves to step back. Allows us to understand the framework built around those rights. There needs to be a process where there is education, then you can breakdown and view Algonquin Title and Rights at a larger scale. I think teaching “Algonquin Title and Rights 101” could help bring a new level of understanding. Irvin – suggested in the text to separate Algonquin Title and Rights from Algonquin Treaty Rights. Randy ‐ I read it as two different types of Rights. Bob C. – the Treaty is going to be brought into our Constitution. Richard – it is important to start to develop protocols and mechanisms to deal with the fallout of a signed Treaty now, and start the dialogue, if you’re willing? Evidence of best efforts to obtain acceptance of management plans based on Aboriginal communities having clear understanding of the plans Richard – don’t assume that just because the Algonquin’s are at the table we agree. We need to look to see if what is being planned will have an effect on the overall land claim process. Zoning or content in plan may affect future zoning. Danny – VOIT speaks to best efforts. Joe‐ this VOIT speaks to management plans not just the FMP process? Gord‐ we have Algonquin’s at the table during the preparation of the FMP and the CSA Plan. Richard – you are not taking in consideration the best interest of the ANR if the Plan is not taken back to Algonquin’s of Ontario table to review and sign off as a Community. Terry – can you share a time frame on this process you are proposing? Richard – no, timeframe we will try to fit it in our schedule and accommodate. Joe – an individual community consultation process was offered during the development of the FMP. All 10 communities were invited and get involved in a customized consultation process. Richard – you would have real Algonquin support if you have the ANR sign off on the plan. Level of Management and/or protection of areas where culturally important practices and activities (hunting, fishing and gathering) occur. Gord –shared edits made to Matrix with the Group that focuses on targets that can be measured. Bob C. – there is no moose hunting agreement ‐ we choose to share our Moose Management Plan with MNR. Joe – Gord can remove the word “agreement” and adjust the wording to recognize that Algonquin’s prepare the plan. Is there a Fisheries’ Management Plan? Randy – not one started ‐ have met to start the work. It is more important that we meet once a year, discuss issues and how we resolve issues. All forms of harvesting affect the road strategy. It is a two‐way street. Bob C. – questioned the text that refers to all potential birch bark trees? Suggested we need to specify white birch trees not yellow? Suggested to add the text “white” and “canoe quality” to Matrix. These birch trees are rare, 1 of 10 000 trees, that are of canoe building quality. 9 Evidence of Understanding and use of Aboriginal knowledge through the engagement of willing Aboriginal communities, using a process that identifies and manages culturally important resources and values Bob C.‐ sought clarification on Objective text “other Aboriginal” groups? Randy – new terminology to use now is the Algonquin’s of Ontario. Bob C. – lines on maps to distinguish other Aboriginal communities were drawn by European’s. Evidence of Algonquin feet on the ground is proof where the Algonquins were? Gord – edited text to now reference Algonquin’s of Ontario. Continuing, Element 6.4 Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation in general and Aboriginal communities Tom – any issue or concern? Randy – commented to include website procurement opportunities reference in SFM plan text. Element 6.5 Number of people reached through educational outreach Tom C.– Target set at >4500 people /yr? How did you come to that number? Gord – we keep track of outreach sessions and put attendance numbers to these events. Dana – how many people go to the logging museum? Bob M. – approximately 50,000 visitors go through the logging museum in one season. Gord – it certainly has been a great venue that brings awareness to forest management in Algonquin Park. Terry – do you know how many people have received Junior Ranger booklet? Danny – should add logging museum attendance to number in table. Deb – museum may be attracting new interest and it is important to capture. It is passive, rather than proactive, should still receive credit. Danny –we have been attracting global attention from visitors from China, Ireland and Germany. Action: Add Logging Museum annual visitation numbers to the educational outreach summary Tom C . – other thoughts to add or measure? Barry – is there a way to ring the bell louder? Lacey – shared lots of ideas ‐ suggested to display any research on the AFA website and consider revamping website by making it more attractive and giving it a more modern look? Share good stories of Algonquin Park forestry. The reality is you’re competing against anti‐logging, environmentalists that have the means to shed a very dim light on all the positive aspects to managing a healthy forest. Also suggested creating a Facebook page? Danny – offered to the Group to forward website suggestions/ future upgrades. Action: AFA to consider more active website maintenance and updates. Present to advisory group what will be done at the fall meeting. Forest research funding and /or in kind assistance. Gord –reviewed research expenditures to date with the Group. Deb – do you mean total of cash and in kind together? Gord – yes. If so, remove “expenditure” to clear up text. Promote and market achievement of certification Tom C.‐ what has AFA done to demonstrate that the certification is being promoted? Gord‐ not enough according to the last Surveillance Audit, there was an OFI in the last audit to do a better job promoting the achievement of the CSA Standard. There is the CSA logo, but there are marketing restrictions. Tom C. – suggested we could put the logo on AFA ½ tons? 10 Action – AFA to identify more opportunities to market CSA certification. 4. Broad Public Consultation Received Gord – there are eight completed surveys and the due date is set for June 29th. We solicited the public in three different newspapers papers. Larger environmental groups contacted. Not a whole lot of feedback has been received. Criterion 5 – Mandatory Discussion Item Proportion of goods and services sourced from local communities (to the extent that they are reasonably cost‐competitive) Gord – discussed with AFA Accountant Tim Doyle ‐ If you exclude the stumpage payments to Queens Park, I would suggest that over 90% of our expenditures are local. Payments to contractors, employees, vehicles and fuel etc are all sourced locally. Bob C – how do we go about making a request for support from the AFA? Danny – prepare a proposal and I can present it to the Board. 5. Other Items: Location and timing of next meeting: Mid‐September – not sure on location yet Opportunities for improvement: None suggested Upcoming Events: Loggers’ Day at the Logging Museum on the 28th of July from 10am‐3pm. Meet the Researcher Day at the East Beach Pavilion from 9:00 am – 3:00 pm on August 2nd Lacey – advised of a TedX event happening in September. Talk on Algonquin Park related topics including forestry and only 100 seats are available and you have to apply to attend. Link: http://tedxalgonquinpark.blogspot.ca/ Bob C. – led the closing prayer. Adjourn 11 Forest Certification Advisory Group Z809‐08 Meeting #6 Hidden Valley Resort, Huntsville Thursday September 27, 2012 8:30 am ‐ 3:00 pm Minutes Present: Gord Cumming, Irvin Yateman, Shari Sokay, Dana Shaw, Tom Ballantine, Tom Clark, Barry Bridgeford, Terry Mullin, Danny Janke, Shaun Dombroskie (minute taker), Emmett Godin, Lacey Rose, Joe Yaraskavitch, Anne Mundy, Deb Cumming, Steve D’eon, Nathan Mieske, William (Bill) Warren (ABR Observer), Dan Kohoko, Bob McRae Regrets: Clifford Bastein, Doreen Davis, Ethan Huner, Richard Zohr, Bob Craftchick, Randy Malcolm, Larry McDermott Approval of June Minutes Tom C.– advised the group to insert their handout in the binder. The handout includes the SFM draft plan and the minutes from the June meeting. Barry B. – introduced Bill Warren (ABR alternate) that will be attending the meeting today. Tom C.– went through the minutes and solicited the group for any errors and omissions. Reviewed action items and provided commentary from the discussion in June to refresh memories. Reviewed actions items that were mainly directed to Gord to include when editing the draft plan. Advised the group that there will be an opportunity to see how the edits affected the VOIT Matrix throughout the day. Tom – Reviewed the VOIT matrix in unison with the minutes to verify if actions made in minutes have been addressed by Gord during the preparation of the draft SFM Plan. Advised the group that each individual will have opportunity later to provide general comments and agreement/disagreement with the SFM Plan. Gord – went through and showed the Advisory Group where edits were made to address actions, as follows: Salted Sand Gord ‐ Action for Advisory Group to review outcome of FP Innovation Roads Review study related to salted sand. We have a target to reduce the use of salted sand by timeframes committed to in the FMP. FP Innovation provided comments that there is a big difference between the use of road salt vs. salted sand. Danny – elaborated on the comment in report, that AFA use is less than 1% salt in winter road sand. FP made suggestions to address storage of sand and management of sand piles which AFA agrees with. Lacey‐ why was this in the FMP? Gord – an individual stakeholder concern was raised when the Page 1
FMP was being prepared. To alleviate the concern commitments were agreed upon and incorporated in the FMP. AFA will honour these commitments and put them in this SFM Plan also. Emmett ‐ can AFA manage based on this constraint? Danny – Yes ‐ by encouraging operators to work on sides of pit where there is more rock (less loam). Some change is needed to find better ways to store and use sand. Steve‐ suggested a text edit insert “salted sand” in the target to replace “salt” in Matrix. Direct and Indirect Employee Numbers Gord – we initially had only direct employment numbers in the target but wanted to show indirect as well. Used a multiplier of 3 (indirect jobs) to 1 (direct job) from an Ontario Forest Industry Association publication. Bob M. – there is a basic economic misconception on the real benefit of the manufacturing industry to society. Tom C. – it gets complicated when you try to incorporate seasonal employees (counted for 12 months of work). Lacey – it’s definitely not an overestimate 30 wood producers provide 700 direct jobs just in the Renfrew County alone! Terry M.– some might have difficulty to accept the number, because some mills only take 10% wood from AP. Joe Y.– but if they did not get that 10% they could shut down. Deb‐ references people not jobs that are partially or fully employed. Tom C.– people is a much more coarse statistic and close to real as we can get. Gord – suggested that he will make it clear in SFM plan text that this includes seasonal workers. Emmett – even though some may work seasonally it is their main source of income for the year and it keeps them in the area. Bob M. – at sawmills money is spent on bearings and parts. These suppliers are indirectly employed as well. Steve‐ that is intended to be captured in the indirect multiplier of 3. Forested Ecosystems At the last meeting Dan K‐ brought up that the old natural benchmark wording in the VOIT matrix on page 1 was a confusing target/variance . Gord – adjusted the wording to clear up the confusion. Removed variance and reworded the target for ecosite 15. Clarified that the variance is now built into the Target. Algonquin’s of Ontario Reference Gord – referred to pg 15 of the plan. Explained that the CSA standard uses the term Aboriginal and explained that a reference has been made in the text that the term Aboriginal generally refers to Algonquin’s of Ontario. Danny – suggested we need clarification that does not exclude other traditional Aboriginal interests in Algonquin Provincial Park. Joe – There is a portion of the Park that is not within the land claim area. Danny – need to cover off that there may be others that have an interest in the DFA? Irvin – could this be interpreted as inviting others to the Algonquin territory? Gord – no, just need an additional statement to clarify, a non‐exclusion statement. Action: Gord to present the wording to the Algonquin advisory group reps prior to finalizing the SFM Plan text. Level of participation of Algonquin’s/forest economy Gord – reminded the Group that this VOIT has been broadened to 3 categories: volume , silviculture and direct program cost are tracked and reported on. Joe – suggested to omit the word “Aboriginal” from the expansion text because already stated in the description. Deb‐ asked if this is referring to a line item that is direct program cost found on a balance sheet? Gord‐ yes. Deb‐ suggested the word “spent” be changed to “allocated to”? Danny – suggested the phase “paid to” could also work. Procurement website address Tom – read out action item on pg 5 of minutes. Gord – showed on pg 104 of the SFM plan text where Page 2
the AFA procurement website address was inserted. As an added feature the address is hyperlinked right to the AFA website. Level of Maintenance of Forest Access Roads Old indicator (user days) was not a good indicator. A new target was drafted to replace old one. Danny – on east side of the Park there is an agreement between Ontario Parks and AFA to maintain public roads for park visitors. Road maintenance is kept up until Thanksgiving weekend. Joe – remove “annual” because agreement can vary from one to five years. Danny – did the wording on the interior park user logging complaint form get changed? Joe‐ no, the wording did not change. Joe – refreshed the discussion on the topic covered off at an earlier meeting. Ontario Parks (OP) does not want to be going through the database every year and maintaining the stats. Those complaints directly related to logging are forwarded to AFA through other means. Gord – explained the intent and the system in place to handle complaints. Suggestions from the Advisory Group to change the OP’s form and tracking system are directed to OP, not AFA. Concerns still exist over the title of the form “Forest Management‐Recreational Experience Comment Form”. Nathan – allowing one complaint is very low given the level of recreational use in Algonquin Park and could be setting up AFA for failure? Bob M‐ sometimes the complaints are related to road maintenance. The roads are too dusty, too rough. Joe – suggested that the variance of 1 is too strict. Should be realistic and set number to 10? Danny agreed. Steve – let’s look at setting variance for substantial complaints with logging activities. Tom C.– does the Group want to change the word “complaint”? Lacey – leave it the way it is? Steve – suggested to change the word “documented” to “substantiated”. Deb – agree with Lacey to leave the wording. Barry – define the word substantial? ‐ prefer to leave wording as is. Steve – agree to leave documented. Joe – better to have a number than percentage? Barry – sought clarification about the target and variance of public complaints, and suggested that the variance be 5 but not 10. Gord‐ agreed with 5. Group agreed to change the variance from one to five logging complaints/year. Evidence to Diversify Local Forest Based Economy Tom C.‐ Pg. 11 of VOIT Matrix. Gord – clarified and explained the intent of the wording, and how it will be tracked. Anne – suggested adding the word “of” to the target. Level of Involvement and Positive Working Relationship with Algonquins Gord – added to target: “Continue working towards a positive working relationship to help resolve Algonquin community/AFA issues”. Gord – showed pictures of the harvest of birch bark to build a canoe from last summer. Advisory Group Satisfaction Summary Tom C. – Action on Pg. 7 of last meetings minutes ‐ Group was asked to provide feedback through a satisfaction survey. Gord –Element 6.4 was reviewed and the results from the survey were visited with the group and the overall satisfaction score was 9 out of 10. Logging museum visitor numbers were added to VOIT 6.5.1.1.1 – 42,000 visitors attend the museum/year, 950 on loggers day. Terry – the level of attendance all depends on weather. Page 3
AFA Website Danny – discussed how AFA is going to move forward with changes. Comments made by the Advisory Group were shared with AFA staff. Agree we need to improve. We have also sent an invitation to our staff for input. Currently going through the process of deciding what we are going to change and what we want to show. AFA’s Information Supervisor has investigated software that can be used to improve. We need to decide on level of website maintenance we are prepared to dedicate resources. Lacey – thanks for considering. Marketing Gord – contacted QMI and received the marketing guidelines. We are using what we can on our SFM Plan, website etc. If we want to broaden the use there are charges/fees associated. We are going to look into it from a cost/benefit perspective. Bob M. – McRae Lumber put the Ontario Wood symbol on chip trucks. Bud – what is certification to the public? They don’t know or do not have a clue? Tom C. – I agree we are not good salespeople at selling certification, you are right to some degree the public may not have a clue, but corporations like Home Depot do. Dana‐ it is assumed now that all wood is certified. Bud – the lowest price wins over the customer, not the certification. Terry‐ if people are committed to sustainability people will buy accordingly. Lacey – if you use the slogans like “local” or “sustainable managed forest” it is more relatable to the local consumer than “certified”. Bob M. – the Lacey Act being focused on more closely in the States requires the sale of legal wood. Tom C.– Chain of Custody audits challenges claims made by companies by tracing the origin of wood back to the stump. Challenge those that you suspect are making false claims and reputable companies will provide the proof and trace back products to the forest. Bud – I see it is very appropriate for Algonquin Park forest. Gord – I agree we need it for social license. Broad Public Consultation Tom C.– presented the Broad Public Consultation survey results which is now included as an appendix of the SFM Plan. Only 11 respondents, this number is down compared to survey conducted in 2007. It is a small sample and difficult to extrapolate or draw meaningful conclusions. Tom C. – it can be hard to solicit feedback from surveys. Barry – maybe the survey was too daunting? Maybe people found that the survey terminology too difficult? Maybe suggest marketing it more aggressively? Gord – during one of the first meetings the survey template was shared with the Advisory Group for input prior to making it available and comments were addressed. Lacey – society may be over consulted? Deb – if there were more respondents, it would be interesting to compare results between those that are residents and those that are non‐residents? Deb – maybe next time consider an incentive, draw for a weekend in Algonquin Park for example? Tom C. – good point in conclusion that people did think certification is useful and important. Shaun – concluded that nothing new was learned from the broad public consultation to change or add to the VOIT Matrix. Barry‐ expressed his general opinion on the disconnect between rural and urban residents. Gord‐ we have tried our best to solicit public input. The SFM Plan Gord – reviewed sections of the Plan text with the Advisory Group; consultation requirements, performance requirements, and system requirements. Explained that the system requirements section Page 4
of the text was easily prepared with the help of having an Environmental Management System already in place. Many elements of the system AFA operates on a day to day basis and system requirements did not change much from the last standard. Gord has included more figures within the plan. There are many references to the 2010‐2020 FMP within the SFM Plan ‐ the FMP can be accessed online. Appendices Gord ‐ There are a lot of appendices, a total of 274 pages. Gord reviewed the appendix of the plan with the Group in detail. Lunch Bob M. – may be a need for one pager on the importance of forestry in Algonquin Park. For example, the benefits of removing diseased trees, carbon storage, to trumpet and be proud of our success as a preamble to the Plan? After reading Ron Tozer’s book on birds, some species populations go up some go down but forest management is quite beneficial to bird populations. There is still need for an economical wood supply. The forest sector is going through hard times. Not enough attention is paid to the manufacturing sector in this Province. People like Frank McDougall used to come out and visit our businesses. Those in senior positions in government don’t seem to know what they are doing. The United States are going to use trade action and subsidies to do whatever they can to help their own economy? What are we doing? Dana – Bob’s son Jamie gave a great presentation on the importance of logging in Algonquin Park and how proud he is of the AFA forest certificate at the TEDx event. Deb – the biodiversity piece is important for society to understand ‐ the connection between biodiversity and forest management. Tom C. – it could create added visibility and enhance the Plan to the reader and society. Gord will draft a preamble for the SFM Plan to capture this. Round Table Discussion ‐ Acceptance of the SFM Plan by the Advisory Group/General Agreement/Disagreement Deb Cumming: Notes from meeting 2 say that the SFM needed to address the pre‐sapling issue ‐ suggested to make a stronger point for strategies in Plan text. Pre‐sapling is an issue but not clear on how we are we going to make it better. Gord – pre‐sapling condition is underrepresented in the SFMM model. There are some modeling issues here. Gord – can add more text to strategies explored to address the model. We are dealing with it operationally. Deb‐ the point that turtle habitat restrictions are compromising the growth of pine forest could be more strongly stated. In VOIT 2.2 forest ecosystem productivity ‐ climate change and its effect on forest could be expanded upon. Try to make it clear that AFA does not control demand ‐ better verb is “make available”. Deb – agrees with the plan. Terry Mullin – need to ensure we have realistic targets and not ones that are beyond our control ‐ I agree with the plan. Tom Ballantine – VOIT 1.4.2.1.1 ‐ there is a disconnect between the plan and the matrix variance level. Tom B.‐ agreed to retain the ‐5% variance now that I understand the methodology. Agrees with the plan. Bud – this forest certification process is applicable for Algonquin Park and I support it. Barry Bridgeford – few changes to text were proposed with respect to backcountry recreation VOIT. After the text upload harvest map, would like to add “annual” and “seasonal updates when possible”? Page 5
Gord –I can add wording to accommodate. Barry‐ agrees with the plan. Irvin Yateman ‐ what you are going to write down to reference other communities? Danny‐ will explain that we’re not excluding other communities. Deb‐ suggested one good sentence to acknowledge that Algonquin’s of Ontario have prime interest and 2nd sentence indicating that we are not excluding others. Emmett Godin – does anyone know the mileage marker on Hwy 60 where the land claim boundary is located? Dan K. – near Tea Lake. Irv – thought it was water shed boundary, wherever that is. Shari Sokay ‐ is concerned over the low level of pre‐sapling stage on the land base ‐ concurred with Deb on this. Agrees with the plan. Dana Shaw ‐ impressed when I look around the table at all the stakeholders and how everyone has worked together. We have demonstrated the level of work that is done to protect values. Clients value the Park also, and are interested in economical wood products. Protecting values means restrictions. Loggers respect restrictions. Some people do not have an interest in logging in the Park. Every 5 years more restrictions are added until wood supply becomes uneconomical – recently LTF, then SAR….. Protection should be based on science. Seasonal restrictions are difficult to manage ‐ construction and usage during times when you only have a narrow window of stands we can go to. Wood gets expensive and specialty product volume is reduced. Government is not showing they are here to help. Lacey Rose – our advice was taken and incorporated in the Plan. The FMP process covers most of the performance requirements. Same concerns as Dana – the park is overprotected ‐ but we are here and the Algonquin Park wood basket is important. We can’t change items that are really affecting the economics. Try to market your hard work here though some of the suggestions brought fourth. Emmett‐ will there be a press release of the AFA award? Gord – we are just waiting for the photo. Joe Yaraskavitch – good work overall. This is a bit of a duplicate process after going through and preparing the FMP. Good linkages to the FMP. Happy to be part of a good committee and agrees with the plan. Anne Mundy ‐ nothing else really to add. Very impressed with the document and agrees with the plan. Steve D’eon ‐ speaking from science group ‐ silviculture is based on science. Some of the wildlife stuff is not science based to the level needed. Salted sand is another example of decisions with no science. Big picture VOITs (i.e. the biodiversity VOITS) are good. Should add some detail on exotic forest pests ‐ beech bark disease is looming. Study needed to know level of mast production as composition of beech is reduced. Reemphasized to the Group that All of us are responsible to actively promote the Sustainable Forest Management Status of Algonquin Park and the associated benefits. Agrees with the plan. Nathan Mieske‐ I agree with the plan. Dan Kohoko‐ we are not opposed to the SFM Plan. We are looking for some significant economic opportunity. We will provide input and some suggested wording for the SFM Plan related to carbon credits. Agrees and supports the plan. Bill Warren (ABR Alternate)– impressed on how far you have come through these meetings. Page 6
Tom C. – summarized by suggesting we have achieved consensus amongst members to move forward with the SFM Plan ‐ with edits brought forward. Gord‐ need to finalize the SFM plan by the 19th in time for the Internal Audit. Tom C.– changes made will be sent to all as a Final Plan. Update of Roads Report ‐ Joe Joe provided an update on the FP Innovations independent roads review. Two interested parties had concerns about roads during the FMP process which resulted in a commitment to conduct this review. The draft report has been completed and presented to the Algonquin’s and LCC. General comments back from the consultants indicate that road management/aggregate standards and practices in Algonquin Park are good but there will be some recommendations. Bob M‐ recognize that we have to go around values ‐ but using old roads makes sense and uses less aggregate. Continue to use old roads. Industry cannot bear more costs to continually move/re‐align roads. Gord – FP Innovations is a reputable organization and agree it is a good news story. Danny‐ it will be a public document once finalized. Lighten the Footprint ‐ Joe We are in stage two consultation of the Park Management Plan amendment wording regarding the proposed new mapping and zoning. 82 public submissions have been received to date. Comments were polarized – for and against the proposal. Comments will be analyzed and summarized and sent to Ministers office. Figure 1 in appendix C of the Joint Board Report– shows the area currently available for forestry = 55%. This LTF proposal will drop it to 51%. Steve – with so few complaints about logging, why do we need bigger reserves? Dana – a socio‐economic study is needed to complement the document – analyzed at the product level (not just total volume). Danny‐ the AFA Board has three issues with the proposed amendment: 1) LTF was implemented before SAR legislation was implemented, 2) some of the wording in the amendment proposal is not consistent with the Joint Board Report that was accepted by the Minister and, 3) The potential impacts on the FMP strategic direction and CSA SFM Plan. Ontario Parks is aware and the Minister is aware of AFA’s concerns. Canadian Forest Management Group Achievement Award ‐ Gord Gord – shared highlights of the CIF Awards banquet. This award, presented to AFA by the Canadian Institute of Forestry (CIF) at the 2012 National Awards Banquet in Quebec City on September 19th, recognizes groups or teams who have made significant, unique, and outstanding contributions to forest management in Canada. It appreciates the interdisciplinary nature of forest ecosystem management by recognizing the many groups that are required to come together in the process. The award has the objective of encouraging excellence in leadership in group contributions to Canadian forest management. When receiving this award Danny commented: “Conducting forest management in Algonquin Provincial Park is a unique and challenging environment, and would not be possible without the dedicated and skilled team of woodsworkers, AFA staff, public advisory groups and Board members that have contributed so much over the years”. Page 7
Proposed Plantation Thinning in Development Zones ‐ Joe Joe advised that four areas of red pine along Hwy 60 and one near Basin are in need of a light thinning – in development zone – Class Environmental Assessment for Parks is required – there will be public consultation process – work would be done in the winter – not sure if it will happen this year or next. The thinning is primarily needed for the promotion of natural regeneration in the understory. We are going to present this work to the public and not leave buffers so public can see. It was suggested that this is a good opportunity to put up some signs and educated the public – especially adjacent to the logging museum. 2011‐12 Annual Report Meet back in February to review. Adjourn Danny‐ thank you to everyone in the room, to all the time devoted to this important initiative. Thanked Tom C. for keeping these meetings on track and Gord for all the work and commitment to prepare the new SFM Plan and Reports. Page 8
APPENDIX F:
Public Input Summary/Public Survey Results
Broad Public Consultation Survey Results
CSA Z809 - 2008
Prepared by: Shaun Dombroskie and Gord Cumming
8/1/2012
Table of Contents
Survey Overview and Structure ......................................................................................................... 3
Survey Questionnaire Format ............................................................................................................ 3
Survey Results ................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1. Respondent Information ......................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Forest Dependent Values ......................................................................................................... 4
3.2.1. Ecological and Environmental Values ................................................................................. 4
3.2.2. Recreation and Outdoor Values......................................................................................... 5
3.2.3. Aesthetic and Visual Values .............................................................................................. 6
3.2.4. Cultural and Spiritual Values ............................................................................................. 7
3.2.5. Socio-Economic and Community Values ............................................................................. 8
3.2.6. Activities ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Impressions of Forestry Activities in Algonquin Park ................................................................... 9
1 List of Figures
Figure 1 - Interest group participants summary .................................................................................. 4
Figure 2 - How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to ecological and
environmental values ....................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 - How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to recreation and
outdoor values ................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4 - How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to aesthetic and visual
values ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 5 - How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to cultural and spiritual
values ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 6 - How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to socio-economic and
community values ............................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 7 - Activities the respondents participate in while visiting Algonquin Park. ................................... 9
Figure 8 - How participants ranked their impressions of forestry activities in Algonquin Park – part 1 .... 10
Figure 9 - How participants ranked their impressions of forestry activities in Algonquin Park – part 2 .... 11
Appendices
Appendix A: Public Values Questionnaire
2 Survey Overview and Structure
The opportunity for the broader public to engage in the planning process was made through a public
values survey available on the AFA website at http://certification.algonquinforestry.on.ca/Survey2012.html. The
time period in which responses were to be received was from the 31st of January to the 29th of June
2012. The survey was designed to gather information on the values important to the broader public that
have experienced or live near Algonquin Park.
The broader public was invited to participate in the survey through the following media:
•
•
•
Newspapers; (The Pembroke Daily Observer, North Bay Nugget, Barry’s Bay This Week,
Haliburton Echo, Minden Times, Huntsville Forester, Bracebridge Examiner, Almaguin News, The
Mattawa Recorder, The Eganville Leader and Bancroft Times)
Online Website; http://www.algonquinforestry.on.ca/,
Public Meetings; (LCC Meeting, Whitney; Contractors Meeting, Barry’s Bay, Advisory Group
Meetings)
Respondents submitted completed surveys electronically. A downloadable version was also available that
could be printed, completed by hand and returned by fax or mail. A copy of the survey is attached in
Appendix A.
Despite media and word-of-mouth advertizing, response to the survey was limited. A total of 11
responses were received and the results are summarized in Section 3. In 2007, when the previous survey
was conducted, a total of 54 people responded. The decline in responses may be an indication that the
Sustainable Forest Management System in Algonquin Park is working, resulting in greater public
awareness of sustainable forest management in Algonquin Park and fewer issues and/or concerns.
Survey Questionnaire Format
The first part of the survey invites participants to share personal information and to align themselves with
as many interest groups that they can relate too.
The second part of the survey consists of many statements listed under six values categories and they
include; (1) Ecological/ Environmental, (2) Recreation/Outdoor, (3) Aesthetic/ Visual, (4) Cultural/
Spiritual, (5) Socio-Economic/Community and (6) Activities. It is designed to gather information about
what people who elect to complete the questionnaire value in Algonquin Park so that AFA can consider
them during the development of the sustainable forest management plan. Participants were invited to
rank each of the value statements in terms of importance (with 1 = not important and 4 = extremely
important). Within each category participants were asked to prioritize the statements selected as
extremely important by indicating the order in the priority column (with 1 = most important and 3 = third
most important). The ranking of importance and priority was not completed on all surveys.
The small sample size (11 respondents) and the small number of returned surveys that were fully
completed (27%) created analytical challenges and limited the ability to draw meaningful conclusions and
allow for full incorporation of broad public opinion into the SFM Plan. Participant responses within each
category were reviewed to determine if the majority of respondents selected the statement as high
importance (very important, extremely important) or low importance (not important or somewhat
important).
3 The third part of the survey asked for participants to indicate the activities they enjoy doing while visiting
Algonquin Park. A tally of all responses was summarized to determine the most common activity partaken
by respondents.
The final part of the survey invited participants to give their impression of forest management conducted
in Algonquin Park. For each statement in the section respondents ranked the statement based on their
opinion on a scale from 1 to 5 (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Survey Results
3.1. Respondent Information
All of the respondents were Ontario residents, where (73%) indicated having a permanent address that is
greater than 50 km from Algonquin Park near large communities such as Ottawa and Toronto. The
remaining 27% of respondents indicated that they reside in nearby communities such as Dorset, Highland
Grove and Huntsville. Close to a third (36%) of the participants identified themselves as cottagers and
16% identified themselves as the general public. The remaining breakdown can be seen in Figure 1.
Note: Individual respondents may represent more than one interest group.
4%
4%
4%
8%
36%
8%
16%
4%
Cottager
Naturalist
Municipal Government
Outfitter
Ecotourism Operator
8%
8%
Environmental Group
General Public
Recreation Group
Angler
Park user ‐ canoeing, camping
Figure 1 ‐ Interest group participants summary
3.2 Forest Dependent Values
3.2.1. Ecological and Environmental Values
Survey participants were asked to rank the relative importance of ten statements which related to
ecological and environmental values provided by the Algonquin Park Forest. Most of the ecological and
environmental values statements were ranked as highly important by the respondents. Most notably is
that 91% of the respondents believed “having Algonquin Park for its ecological and environmental value,”
4 “clean water and waterways within Algonquin Park,” and “maintaining old growth forests within
Algonquin Park,” is extremely important (Figure 2).
Figure 2 ‐ How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to ecological and environmental values
3.2.2. Recreation and Outdoor Values
Six value statements related to recreation and outdoor values were presented in the survey. Most notably
thirty-seven percent of the respondents believed it is somewhat important to “separate forestry and
recreation activities in time and space”. This is down from a previous survey conducted in 2007 where
the majority of respondents at that time ranked this value as extremely important. The remaining values
were ranked highly important to the majority of participants (Figure 3). Having Algonquin Park for its
recreation/outdoor experience value ranked the highest with 82% indicating it as being extremely
important.
5 Figure 3 ‐ How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to recreation and outdoor values
3.2.3. Aesthetic and Visual Values
Five value statements were presented that are associated with the aesthetic and visual value of
Algonquin Park. The majority of respondents again ranked “the beauty of Algonquin Park along interior
canoe routes,” as extremely important during this survey (Figure 4). The “contribution of the forest to the
aesthetics of Algonquin Park to its aesthetic/visual values,” was also considered highly important by the
participants. Almost a third of those surveyed believed that the “beauty of Algonquin Park along major
transportation corridors,” is of lower importance. Results from this survey are similar to the results
compiled in 2007.
6 Figure 4 ‐ How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to aesthetic and visual values
3.2.4. Cultural and Spiritual Values
Survey participants were asked to rank the relative importance of six statements which referred to the
cultural and spiritual values provided by Algonquin Park. Results are similar to the 2007 survey in that
having Algonquin Park “as a place for rest and spiritual experience” was a highly ranked value along with
the desire to protect Aboriginal and other historic sites (Figure 5).
The lowest ranked statements were associated with the “importance of forestry for local communities,”
and “respect for traditional Aboriginal beliefs and ways of life” and this result is similar to results from the
2007 survey.
7 Figure 5 ‐ How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to cultural and spiritual values
3.2.5. Socio-Economic and Community Values
There were five socio-economic and community value statements presented to the survey participants.
“Having Algonquin Park for its socio-economic and community value,” was believed to be highly
important by the respondents (Figure 6), as was Algonquin Park’s economic contribution to local
communities. This is similar to survey results summarized in 2007. Again the value of the “existence of
smaller local cities/ towns close to or adjacent to Algonquin Park“ was considered by approximately half
of the respondents to be of lower importance.
Figure 6 ‐ How participants ranked the relative importance of statements related to socio‐economic and community values
8 3.2.6. Activities
Survey participants were invited to indicate the types of activities they participate in within Algonquin
Park from ten categories. The “nature study” category was the most popular group of activities chosen.
Approximately one third of the respondents indicated that they draw, paint, photograph and view scenery
and wildlife in Algonquin Park. The popularity of canoeing (11%) and camping (5%) activities was lower
with the majority of respondents from this survey compared to the popularity of these activities with the
majority respondents from the 2007 survey. In 2007, over 75% of the respondents participated in
canoeing and camping activities. The reason for the decline in popularity of these more physically
involved activities may be related to the age demographics of the respondents given that 60% of the
respondents indicated being within the ages of 61-70. A summary of all the activities that the
respondents participate in while in Algonquin Park are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 ‐ Activities the respondents participate in while visiting Algonquin Park.
3.3 Impressions of Forestry Activities in Algonquin Park
The final portion of the survey invited participants to share their impressions of forestry activities that
occur in Algonquin Park. For each statement in this section, participants were asked to indicate their
opinion on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 equaled “strongly disagree”, 5 equaled “strongly agree”).
The results indicate that there has been some change in broad public opinion from results complied from
the 2007 survey. The most notable results that are similar to the survey conducted in 2007 are that
respondents still strongly agree that “forest access roads should be minimized and decommissioned as
9 much as possible within Algonquin Park,” and “AFA has a responsibility to educate the public with respect
to forest management practices in Algonquin Park,” 82% and 91% respectively (Figure 8 and 9).
Figure 8 ‐ How participants ranked their impressions of forestry activities in Algonquin Park – part 1
There is still less agreement with the majority of respondents that the “forests of Algonquin Park are
being managed sustainably.” Only 36% agreed, while 46% of respondents either had no opinion or did
not agree or disagree. Other notable statements where there is less agreement or lack of opinion
amongst respondents are that “partial cutting systems are predominantly used in Algonquin Park,” and
that “Algonquin Park contributes significantly to the socio-economic well-being of local communities.”
10 Figure 9 ‐ How participants ranked their impressions of forestry activities in Algonquin Park – part 2
The most notable results that are different from the survey conducted in 2007 are that respondents this
time are in higher agreement that “Algonquin Park offers a wilderness experience for those who are
seeking it,” “forest practices should be based on the current forest scientific research,” and “forest
management plans should balance environmental, social and economic values.” Respondent’s level of
agreement dropped during this survey by 17% from 90% agreement that “regular updates about forest
management progress in Algonquin Park should be provided to the public.”
Seventy three percent (73%) of respondents agreed that forest certification will enhance the
management of Algonquin Park’s forests.
11 APPENDIX A
Public Values Questionnaire
12 Algonquin Forestry
Authority
Public Values
Questionnaire
Part A: Personal Information Section
(all information collected is confidential)
Note:
= M andatory fields
First Nam e :
Phone:
Last Nam e :
Fax:
Street Address :
Em ail:
City :
Gender:
Please select......
Province/State :
Age:
Please Select ......
Postal / Zip Code :
Country :
Canada
Next
Page 1 of 10
Algonquin Forestry Authority: Public Values Questionnaire
Part B: Interest Group Information
Please choose as many categories as they apply to you!
Interest Group
Comments or Details
Local Resident
Ontario Resident
Canadian (non-Ontario) Resident
US or International Resident
Aboriginal
Researcher
Provincial Governm ent
Municipal Governm ent
Environm ental Group
Forest Industry
Recreation Group
Labour Union
Naturalist
Group Cham ber of Com m erce
Econom ic Developm ent
Archaeologist
Trapper
Angler
Hunter
Outfitter
Cottager
Ecotourism Operator
General Public
Other (please specify)
Previous
Next
Page 2 of 10
Part C: Forest-Dependent Values Section
This section is designed to gather inform ation about what you value in Algonquin Park so that we can
consider these values in our sustainable forest m anagem ent plan. This section will help us determ ine
which values are m ost im portant to you.
Forest certification under the CSA Standard respects existing authority for decisions associated with the
use and m anagem ent of the Defined Forest Area (Algonquin Park). Certification does not change existing
public policies, laws, and regulations established by governm ents and will not alter the existing Forest
Managem ent Plan, the existing Park Managem ent Plan, or provincial decisions regarding areas of park
where low intensity recreation and com m ercial tim ber harvesting are perm itted.
Please rank each of the following value statem ents in term s of whether it is:
1. Not Im portant
2. Som ewhat Im portant
3. Very Im portant
4. Extrem ely Im portant
5. No Opinion
Also, within each category, for those values that you have indicated are extrem ely im portant (4), please
prioritize your three m ost im portant values by putting the corresponding num bers in the “priority” colum n.
(A 1 would indicate that this value is the m ost im portant, a 2, the second-m ost im portant and a 3, the thirdm ost im portant).
Previous
Next
Page 3 of 10
1. Ecological/Environmental Values (terms in bold are defined below)
Please Check One
I believe that ...
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
No
Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
Priority: rank your top 3 from the
“extremely Important’ column (with
1 being most important)
having Algonquin Park for its
ecological/environm ental value
is
preserving the function and
variety of ecosystems within
Algonquin Park is
conserving healthy populations
and habitat for wildlife and fish
species within Algonquin Park
is
m aintaining the existing
diversity of plants, anim als and
other living organism s within
Algonquin Park is
clean water and waterways
within Algonquin Park is
clean air within Algonquin Park
is
conserving healthy soils within
Algonquin Park is
m aintaining a healthy forest by
growing and tending trees
m aintaining old growth forest
control of forest pests, fire and
diseases wherever possible
Definition of Terms
Ecosystem - a com m unity of living and non-living things interacting with each other. Ecosystem s
com prise plants, anim als, m icro-organism s, water, soil and people.
Diversity - the variety of species within a given area.
Tending - the m aintenance of trees and the activities undertaken to im prove their growth (weeding,
thinning, etc.).
Previous
Next
Page 4 of 10
2. Recreation / Outdoor Experience Values
Please Check One
I believe that ...
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
No
Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
recreation / outdoor experience
value is
outdoor recreation along the
Highway 60 corridor and
cam pgrounds within Algonquin
Park is
outdoor recreation in the interior
of Algonquin Park is
the separation of forestry and
recreation activities in tim e and
space is
just spending tim e outdoors in
Algonquin Park is
Algonquin Park’s contribution to
outdoor recreation opportunities
in Ontario is
Previous
Next
Page 5 of 10
3. Aesthetics / Visual Values
Please Check One
I believe that ...
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
No
Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
aesthetic / visual value is
Algonquin Park’s contributions
to the beauty of the surrounding
local com m unities is
the beauty of Algonquin Park
along m ajor transportation
corridors is
the beauty of Algonquin Park
along interior canoe routes is
the contribution of the forest of
Algonquin Park to its aesthetic /
visual value is
Previous
Next
Page 6 of 10
4. Cultural / Spiritual Values
Please Check One
I believe that ...
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
No
Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
cultural/spiritual value is
respect for Aboriginal traditional
beliefs and way of life is
protection of Aboriginal sacred
sites and artefacts is
protection of historical sites and
artefacts in Algonquin Park is
Algonquin Park as a place of
rest or spiritual experience is
for the culture of m any local
com m unities, forest
m anagem ent in Algonquin Park
is
Previous
Next
Page 7 of 10
5. Socio-Economic / Community Values
Please Check One
I believe that ...
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
No
Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
socio-econom ic/com m unity
value is
Algonquin Park’s econom ic
contribution to local
com m unities is
the existence of sm aller local
cities / towns close to or
adjacent to Algonquin Park is
em ploym ent and econom ic
diversity in local com m unities is
population stability in local
com m unities (absence of large
population fluctuations) is
Previous
Next
Page 8 of 10
6. Activities
Please indicate all the outdoor activities that you participate in, in Algonquin Park by placing a checkm ark
in the box beside the activity.
Activities
Activities
Activities
NATURE STUDY
CAM PING/SW IM M ING
BOATING
Drawing/Painting/Photography
Car Camping (tent)
Canoeing
Scenic Viewing
Car Camping (RV, Camper/trailer)
Kayaking
Wildlife Viewing
Visiting summer cottage
Other boating
CYCLING
Picnicking
FISHING
Cycling
Swimming
Sport Fishing
Mountain Biking
Beach activities
Fishing for food
Bike Touring
NON-M OTORIZED W INTER
ACTIVITIES
OUTDOOR W ORK ACTIVITIES
Telemark/Backcountry skiing
Forest Management
Walking
Snowshoeing
Guiding / Outfitting
Day Hiking
Dog Sledding
Tourist Lodge Operator
Jogging/Running
Cross Country Skiing
Other Tourism Work
Trail Running
Winter Camping
Scientific Research
HIKING / JOGGING
Overnight Backpacking
Orienteering
OTHER (Specify Below )
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Meditating
Other Forestry Work
HUNTING / GATHERING
Hunting
Trapping
Berry Picking
Previous
Next
Page 9 of 10
Part D: Forest Management and Values Section
1. Impressions of Forestry Activities in Algonquin Park
The following are statem ents about forest m anagem ent in Algonquin Park. For each statem ent, please
indicate your opinion on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 m eans that you strongly disagree and 5 m eans that
you strongly agree and 6 represents no opinion.
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
4
Strongly
Agree
No
Opinion
5
6
Forest Management Plans should balance environmental, social and
economic values.
Forests within Algonquin Park are managed to ensure healthy populations of
trees, plants, animals and other living things. Natural resource values are
being protected throughout Algonquin Park.
Endangered species of plants and wildlife are protected in Algonquin Park.
The forests of Algonquin Park are being managed sustainably.
Forest management practices should include harvest operations that emulate
the natural disturbances required to establish and maintain forests.
Partial cutting systems are predominantly used in Algonquin Park.
Forest access roads should be minimized and decommissioned as much as
possible within Algonquin Park.
Algonquin Park contributes significantly to the socio-economic well being of
local communities.
Algonquin Park offers a wilderness experience for those who seek it.
Regular updates about forest management progress in Algonquin Park
should be provided to the public.
The Algonquin Forestry Authority has a responsibility to educate the public
with respect to forest management practices in Algonquin Park.
Forest practices should be based on the results of current forest scientific
research.
Forest certification will enhance the management of Algonquin Park’s forests.
Please use the space provided below if you have any additional values, comments or concerns.
Comments/Concerns:
Note: If you require more space for comments, please email them to [email protected]
Previous
Next
Page 10 of 10
Thank you for your submission.
Ok to submit?
Yes
If not, please select “previous” to review your submission .
Previous
APPENDIX G:
Management Review Summary
EMS/SFM System
Management Review # 10
November 17, 2011
Minutes
Location:
Time:
Attending:
AFA Pembroke Boardroom
9:00 - 4:30, lunch will be brought in
Danny Janke, Gordon Cumming, Shaun Dombroskie, Bill Hubbert,
Jeff Leavey, Ed Wales
The EMS Implementation Team reviewed the following in order to assess opportunities for
improvement and the need for changes to the EMS/SFM system:
1.
The results of internal and independent audits and evaluations of compliance with legal
requirements and with other requirements to which AFA subscribes:
2010 Re-registration Audit Action Plan & Status (EMS and CSA)
•
•
•
•
Had one non-conformance (overdue CPPA items)
We have addressed this non-conformance. No CPPA items that are in our control are
overdue at this time.
Action Item: CPPA # 911 will be closed off as this in not in our control and has been
extended 3 times.
Status of the "Areas of Concerns" and "Opportunities for Improvement" were
discussed (see the attached 2010 surveillance audit findings summary)
2011 Internal Audit - Results/Action Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reviewed the attached 2011 Internal Audit Action Report
Debriefing meetings will take place with staff over the next few weeks
The non-conformances have been put into CPPA
The report will also be reviewed at the next staff meeting in December
The Finding # 2010-07 of the 2010 audit was completed and the training records on
the intranet site have confirmed this
Action Item: As part of the review Jeff will revisit the wording in the Road &
Landing Construction SOP relative to drainage pipes, and bring any recommended
change back to the Implementation Team. Jeff will also review the standing
operating condition of piling wood outside landings to see if any changes are
needed.
OFI # 7 of this year's (2011) audit has been followed up on, and is no longer a finding
IFA Status Report
•
•
•
•
New IFA coming in fall of 2012
Recommendation # 3 (Ontario Parks responsibility) of the last audit still outstanding
Recommendation # 6 (Ontario Parks responsibility) of the last audit is partially
complete
AFA's Recommendations have all been completed
Page 1 of 6
ERP Testing Review
•
•
•
•
2.
Follow-up actions from 2010 management review:
•
3.
Reviewed the value of the testing from the winter testing. Some of the questions on
the testing may need change, but generally are ok
Discussed the option of mock testing but there are some time, logistics and money
constraints
Discussed the fact that actual emergency incidents function as well or better than
tests - as long as the required follow-up and review of the incident is completed
Action Item: Bill will follow up with Dave Peters to ensure that the last accident at
Robinsons was reviewed, and what is the status of any recommendations made
The minutes were reviewed and all action items have been completed
Communication(s) from external interested parties, including complaints:
CPPA Public Inquiries/Complaints Summary
•
•
•
4.
Reviewed the different inquiries / complaints over the last year
Two incidents of hauling issues on Shirley Lake Road
Request for more information on haul routes by Algonquin Backcountry
Recreationalists will be accommodated with the next version of the Schedule of
Operations website map
The environmental performance of the organization, including compliance to legislation
and the AFA SFM Policy:
Review of Annual Infraction Summary (penalties)
•
No penalties last year
Review of Municipal Legal Requirements - every 3 years only
•
Not required this year - next review will be conducted in 2012
Compliance to SFM Policy
•
•
5.
Gord distributed copies of the SFM policy and Danny led a review of the policy
Action Item: Danny will need to review the signature of the Chair, Board of
Directors on the Policy, if Hugh's term as Chair is not renewed after December 2011
The extent to which objectives and targets have been met:
Environmental programs
•
•
•
The programs were renewed
The Environmentally Friendly Fluids program will be closed as we are in agreement
with Bill's recommendation. Everyone should be aware and communicate any new
opportunities that develop over time
Action Item: AFA will update the contractors at the next Annual General Contractor
Page 2 of 6
•
•
•
•
•
•
meeting in the spring on the status of this EP
Reviewed this year's data of Location of AOC's / Boundary Lines Program. Reserve
lines continue to show a high level of conformance to FMP prescribed width. The
value of this program was reviewed and the decision was to close the program. AFA
has enough other operational controls in place, and this was no longer scored a
significant aspect in the 2011 risk assessment. Therefore, AOC measurement data no
longer has to be collected in the Palm Pilot
Action Item: Gord will close this program.
Reviewed the data to date of the Long Skidding Program. About half of the
budgeted amount for this program has been spent to date. More data will be
collected this winter
Action Item: Subject to Board approval, Danny will budget $9,000 for more research
in the 2012/13 budget.
Reviewed the data of the Roads and Water Crossings Program. On average we have
about 84 % of the AOC water crossings on tertiary roads as portable bridges (93% this
year). We seem to have more crossings per kilometer of tertiary road built this year,
but this is partially a result of access is being created for renewal purposes (crossings
installed with no associated road construction activity reported. In 2010-11, 29% of the
total road construction activity was new roads and 71% was re-construction of old
roads. A total of 57.1 km of road was reported as decommissioned. As this is a good
program, we will keep it ongoing
Data collected from the tracking of spills on operations was also reviewed. Total
number of reported spills has been dropping since 2008-09 which is a sign of
continual improvement
Need for new environmental programs?
•
•
•
From the risk assessment, the implementation team decided to create a new
environmental program on the protection of regeneration. This was a result of the
location of skid trails and the improper felling techniques being ranked as high risk
Action Item: Jeff will take the lead on developing the new program.
Action Item: Jeff will also be reviewing the high ranking of the information /
communication aspect during the risk assessment with staff
Review of VOITS/SFM Annual Report
•
6.
The VOIT matrix was reviewed, along with the VOIT comments from the internal
audit
The status of corrective and preventive actions:
CPPA Annual Summary - FOIP and Part B reports
•
•
The attached CPPA annual summary was reviewed
Non-compliances in FOIP were reduced, but the number of internal EMS
non-conformances went up. This is a good news story as we are finding the issues
first and dealing with them.
Long-term trends
•
No long-term trends were easily identified
Page 3 of 6
•
•
•
•
•
Makwa has the greatest number of CPPA items but overall has been improving
Not finishing off the water crossings installations seems to be a trend (center strips,
rails & signage)
Supervision oversight/absent seem to be a trend relative to non- conformances
within AOC's
Training record issues and fuel tanks (labels/nozzles) increased from last year
Discussions also centered around continual improvement and will we ever get there?
Staff and contractors are asking how many audits do we need, and are getting
frustrated with small ticket items. It is a positive sign that small ticket items are now
the focus, not big ticket items. Suggestion that perhaps we should refocus some
internal audits & spot checks on bigger ticket items. Also suggested that audits
should be more system audits (how is the system working) and less compliance
audits. If the system is working, compliance will be strong.
Cause Analysis effectiveness
•
7.
Generally they are effective, but there are a few exceptions. Time will tell as followup/effectiveness review is completed as scheduled in CPPA
Changing circumstances, including developments in legal and other requirements related
to environmental aspects and updates to risk assessment if required:
Impacts of changing circumstances on the EMS
•
•
Shaun gave an overview of some of the changes in legal and other requirements
which have an impact on the EMS. These have already been communicated to staff
through revision notices
A new consultant (Anderson & Yates from Newfoundland) has taken over from
Birchwood Consulting to keep AFA updated on changes to legal and other
requirements - seems to be working well
Review of significant aspects and 2011 risk assessment
•
•
8.
Covered this under item #5 when we talked about the risk assessment
This has also been reviewed at previous staff meetings (see staff meeting minutes)
Review the ongoing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the EMS/SFM System
including the scope and resource requirements to ensure the EMS/SFM System will
continue to adequately function:
Compliance Monitoring and the EMS
•
There are still some communication issues between Ontario Parks and AFA relative
to the new compliance direction. “Communication is Key” and this applies to both
organizations
EMS Spot Checks - effectiveness and impact on internal audit procedure
•
•
The benefits and other options to completing the internal audits with AFA staff was
discussed
It was agreed that we would do the internal spot audits with different Operation
Page 4 of 6
Supervisors accompanying the Monitoring and Measurement Supervisor in the new
year. This will allow staff to see other operations and also serve as a valuable
training opportunity to better understand the EMS.
New version of the standard - CSA Z809-08 - migration plans
•
•
9.
Advances in Science & Technology:
•
•
10.
More time needed for operation planning
Better utilization of trained staff (e.g. SEM)
Overall assessment of progress towards SFM - ensure it continues to be suitable, adequate,
and effective:
•
•
•
14.
No changes to the Defined Forest Area. The uncertainty around the Lighten the
Footprint Report is still looming
Recommendations for improvement:
•
•
13.
We do a lot of monitoring and need to use this information to focus resources where
we can make the biggest and fastest gains
Changes in Defined Forest Area:
•
12.
Discussed the progress we made this year using new technology
Gord gave a presentation on how we can use the new Flex Viewer tool and the
systems we created to run live reports on forest management activities (i.e. SEM,
FOPs, silviculture, accessing new digital imagery)
Lessons learned from experience:
•
11.
Gord gave a update on the progress to-date getting ready to be audited to the new
standard next fall
Significant public consultation will occur during 2012 to revise VOITs and SFM Plan as
necessary
Progress towards SFM is generally assessed through annual reports
The Annual Report of the 2010-11 CSA will be completed in the next month and will be
presented to the CSA Advisory Committee in the new year
The Annual MNR Report was submitted on November 15, 2011 and also assesses FMP
targets.
2011-2012 Annual Monitoring Plan:
Monitoring priorities for 2012
•
This will be flushed out as we complete the 2012-13 AWS due on Dec 31. As AFA
prepares the Annual Monitoring Plan we will review the priorities.
Page 5 of 6
15.
Training:
Review 2011 training conducted
•
•
Gord reviewed the 2011 training sessions that are posted on the intranet site.
(Missing from the list is Tree marking Training (Level 2), and other in-house training
such as EMS, SEM)
Need to better utilize people that have been trained (sometimes we have a habit of
moving some individuals around too much and then we need to train new people)
Plans for 2012
•
•
•
16.
Will do some new internal training on the new technology tools
Need to consider the timing of training (spring break-up would be ideal)
Subject to Board approval, we will put the same training dollars in the 2012-13 budget
as last year
Other
•
•
Larry Rosebrugh will be the Operations Supervisor attending the Management
Review next year
No other items where brought up
Attachments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SFM Policy
Environmental Program summaries
VOIT summary
CPPA annual summary
2010 surveillance audit findings summary
2010 Management Review minutes
2011 Internal Audit Action Report
CPPA Public Inquiries Report
Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX H:
Forest Management Plan (FMP) Summary
7.0 Summary of the 2010-2020 Forest Management Plan for
the Algonquin Park Forest
Location
The Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit is located within Algonquin Provincial Park, part of
the Southern Region Administrative Unit of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) as
depicted on the summary map below.
Map 1 Algonquin Park Forest and MNR Southern Region
An index to the environmental assessment components of this Forest Management Plan can be
found prior to Section 1 at the beginning of the Plan. The index identifies the location in this
Forest Management Plan of specific sections that address each of the environmental
assessment components.
Public Contacts
The public contacts for the Plan are:
Joe Yaraskavitch, Ontario Parks, (613) 732-5550
Gord Cumming, AFA, (705) 789-9647 ext. 30
Tom Ballantine, Local Citizens Committee, (705) 447-3253
2010-2020 Algonquin Park FMP Summary
Page 1 of 10
Management Responsibility
One of the major provisions of the 1974 Algonquin Park Master Plan relative to forest
management, was establishment of the Algonquin Forestry Authority (A.F.A.) which is a Crown
agency established by the authority of Bill 155 "An Act to Incorporate the Algonquin Forestry
Authority". This act terminated Order-In-Council timber licences held by fourteen companies
and vested in A.F.A. the responsibility of licensee. The Algonquin Provincial Park Management
Plan (1998) establishes the framework for all activities within the Park and this Forest
Management Plan (FMP) is written in accordance with this Plan and other relevant provincial
guidelines and manuals.
Algonquin Provincial Park is administered by Ontario Parks, a branch of the Provincial Services
Division (MNR). Map 1 illustrates the Park in relation to Southern Region of the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources.
A.F.A. has offices in Huntsville and Pembroke and day-to-day relationship with the Ministry is
with the Ministry's Ontario Parks Office at Whitney. The General Manager of the A.F.A. reports
to a Board of Directors, whose Chair reports to the Minister of Natural Resources.
A.F.A. is party to the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement with the Minister of Natural Resources
which specifies that the Minister agrees to offer five-year licences to the A.F.A. for a twenty-year
period commencing April 1, 2002. The agreement further specifies the companies to which the
A.F.A. will sell Crown timber produced from the Algonquin Park Forest. These supply
agreements are reviewed every ten years in conjunction with a new FMP and are based on
what the Algonquin Park Forest can sustainably supply. The Minister of Northern Development,
Mines and Forestry approves in writing the volume for each company. More details about the
administration of the forest can be found in section 2.1 of the Plan.
Local Citizen’s Committee Participation
A member of the local citizen’s committee (LCC) has participated in the preparation of the FMP
as a planning team member and LCC members attended all information sessions and formal
issue resolution meetings. The proposed management strategy, long-term management
direction and FMP were presented to the committee and input was requested on these products
as well as the background information.
The LCC has prepared the following brief statement of agreement with the FMP:
“The majority of the LCC is in support of the FMP as developed, with one member having been
engaged in issue resolution over sections of the LTMD related to wildlife habitat modeling, old
growth and target setting decisions”.
The LCC report can be found in the supplementary documentation section 6.1.16 of the Plan.
Long-term Management Direction Summary
The Long-Term Management Direction (LTMD) for the forest provides guidance for the levels of
access, harvest, renewal and tending activities required to achieve the desired future forest and
benefits. In the development of the LTMD, management objectives and indicators are identified
and analytical methodologies, models and tools regarding forest regulation, social and
economic assessment, wildlife habitat supply and landscape management are used. This is
Page 2 of 10
discussed in Section 3 of the FMP, which references supporting details in the supplementary
documentation to the Plan.
The long-term management direction provides a means of assessing the sustainability of the
management strategy through the measurement and monitoring of indicators that have been
developed for each management objective. It is expected that a balanced achievement of the
quantitative and qualitative biological, social and economic objectives, will result in the desired
long-term future forest condition and benefits.
Plan Objectives and Indicators
As required by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, management objectives for the Algonquin
Park Forest must be compatible with the sustainability of the Crown forest, and indicators of
objective achievement must be identified. In addition, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act
requires that each FMP contain management objectives relating to:
(a) Crown forest diversity, including consideration for the conservation of natural landscape
patterns, forest structure and composition, habitat for animal life and the abundance and
distribution of forest ecosystems;
(b) Social and economic factors, including harvest levels and a recognition that healthy forest
ecosystems are vital to the well-being of Ontario communities;
(c) The provision of forest cover for those values that are dependent on the Crown forest; and
(d) Silviculture for the harvest, renewal and maintenance of the Crown forest.
Table FMP-13 (located in Section 9.0 of the FMP) summarizes management objectives,
indicators, desirable levels and associated targets and presents an assessment of achievement
of desirable levels for each objective, for those which can be assessed at this time. The
management objectives, indicators, desirable levels and targets were developed with input from
the Algonquin Park LCC (through the Desired Forest and Benefits meeting), the planning team,
and MNR advisors. Sources of information considered in their development included, but were
not limited to: the previous FMP; background information; forest management guides and
policies; Reports of Past Forest Operations; the CSA Z809 SFM Plan for the Algonquin Park
Forest; MNR forest management planning direction and training, and scoping investigations for
the 2010 to 2020 FMP.
For each management objective, at least one indicator of objective achievement was
developed, along with an associated desirable level(s) and target(s). Some objectives have
multiple indicators to measure achievement. A desirable level is a specific number, a range or a
trend for an indicator, to be achieved and maintained over time. As with desirable levels, targets
are specific numbers, ranges, or trends, with a timeframe for achievement. The establishment of
targets for each objective reflected a balancing of objective achievement and considered:
(a) Social, economic and environmental considerations;
(b) The associated indicator and its desirable level;
(c) The current forest condition; and,
(d) The short-term (10 years), medium-term (20 years) and long-term (100 years).
The rationale used in setting desirable levels and targets is summarized in the Analysis
Package (section 6.1.6 of the supplementary documentation).
Page 3 of 10
Modeling with the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM) assisted in quantitative scoping
investigations and the development of the long term management strategy (see section 3.6 of
the FMP) that balances the achievement of management objectives over time. There are a total
of 39 objectives and 251indicators in this FMP. Of the 251 desired levels established, 236 have
been achieved, resulting in an overall 94% level of objective achievement.
The Long Term Management Direction
The Long-Term Management Direction is represented by the types and levels of access,
harvest, renewal and tending activities required to manage forest cover, in a manner that
balances the achievement of management objectives over time. The MNR approved Strategic
Forest Management Model (SFMM) is used to develop the LTMD.
The development of the LTMD is an iterative process whereby results are examined and SFMM
inputs adjusted as required to improve the model’s ability to meet management objectives. This
process commonly involves adjusting volume targets, harvest flow policies and targets for the
forest diversity indicators – forest unit area, old growth, mature forest and wildlife habitat. As
each case is run the resulting harvest volume, forest diversity indicators, silvicultural
expenditures and the silvicultural treatment program are examined. The process continues until
the planning team is satisfied that no further significant improvements can be made, that on
balance objectives have been achieved, and that the solution is practical and can be
implemented. The modeling process that led to the LTMD is described in section 3.6 and 3.7 of
the Plan.
The outputs of forest modeling for the Management Strategy provide the source for the long
term (100-year) projections of quantifiable objectives and are documented within the Plan in the
following tables:
(a) Projected Forest Condition for the Crown Productive Forest (Table FMP-7);
(b) Projected Habitat for Selected Wildlife Species (Table FMP-8);
(c) Projected Available Harvest Area by Forest Unit (Table FMP-9); and
(d) Projected Available Harvest Volume by Species Group (Table FMP-10);
These tables can be found in section 9.0 of the FMP.
Planned Forest Operations for the 10-year Plan Term
Silvicultural Systems, Forest Units and Silvicultural Ground Rules
Silvicultural systems employed on this management unit are primarily selection and uniform
shelterwood. Both of these systems rely heavily upon natural regeneration and the first and
most important aspect to implementation of these management systems requires trained tree
markers to identify the trees to be retained and removed, while taking into account other
resource values such as wildlife habitat, aesthetics and species diversity.
In some instances, planting, spacing and releasing trees from competition is required. The
majority of the artificial regeneration, site preparation and cleaning is carried out in the pine
forest units.
The selection system is an uneven-aged silvicultural system where mature and/or undesirable
trees are removed individually or in small groups over the whole are. Selection managed
forests are often referred to as “continuous” forests since management can be conducted on
regular cutting cycles. The cutting cycle is 25 years in Algonquin Park. Tree species managed
under this system are generally shade tolerant such as sugar maple, beech or hemlock.
Page 4 of 10
The uniform shelterwood system is a method of harvesting in which mature trees are
removed in a series of two or more cuts for the purpose of obtaining natural regeneration under
the shelter of the residual trees. Canopy openings are distributed fairly evenly throughout the
regeneration area. Numerous mature trees per hectare are also retained after a final removal
cut to provide structural diversity and important wildlife habitat. Shelterwood is also an
appropriate management system for tolerant hardwood stands that, due to past cutting history
or limited site potential, have insufficient quality to be managed under the selection system.
Forest units managed under this system include white pine, mixedwood, hardwood uniform
shelterwood, red oak, spruce-fir and lowland conifer.
The clearcut system is used for those tree species that are intolerant of shade and thus need
abundant sunlight to regenerate and grow. This system involves the removal of the majority of
the mature trees in a single harvest, and is necessary in order to maintain forest diversity and to
emulate natural disturbance patterns. The Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guideline
requires the maintenance of some residual trees to be left after the harvest. Residual patches of
uncut areas are often maintained as well. Species managed under the clearcut system are
poplar, white birch, jack pine and black spruce. Red pine is managed under the seed tree
system, which is a modification of the clearcut system.
Each stand is assigned to a Forest Unit based on species composition, stocking and
management history. A Forest Unit is a classification system that aggregates forest stands for
management purposes that normally have similar species composition and develop in a similar
manner (both naturally and in response to silvicultural treatments). All stands within a Forest
Unit are managed under the same silvicultural system but may be managed with different
treatments (e.g. planting, site preparation, tending) and may have different objectives in terms of
future forest conditions. The management strategy for each Forest Unit is indicated through the
Silvicultural Ground Rules (table FMP-5).
Each stand to be harvested is assigned a Silvicultural Ground Rule (SGR). Each SGR describes
the components that make up an individual SGR, including a description of the current and
future stand conditions, renewal treatment options and the regeneration standards that are to be
met. Each SGR is intended to describe the harvest, renewal and tending activities that will be
carried out on a given stand to allow the current Forest Unit, following harvest, to succeed to the
Future Forest Unit, whether it is similar to the pre-harvest stand or a different Forest Unit.
Planned Harvest Operations
Results of the long term strategic planning were used to plan operations for the ten-year term of
this Plan. The following table summarizes the harvest operations that are planned (i.e. in detail)
for the first five-year term (2010-2015), and those which are proposed (i.e. less detail) for the
second five-year term (2015-2020) of the FMP. The allowable harvest area and percentage of
the total 10-year available harvest area for each of the 3 major silvicultural systems is listed
below (See section 4.3 of the FMP for more details):
Silvicultural
System (i.e.
Harvest
System)
Clearcut
Shelterwood
Selection
Total
10-year
Available
Harvest
Area (ha)
% of
10-year
Available
Harvest
Area
7,037
54,424
72,758
134,219
5.2%
40.5%
54.2%
100.0%
Available Harvest Area
by Silvicultural System
Clearcut
5%
Selection
54%
Shelterwood
41%
Page 5 of 10
Harvest Area and Volume by Forest Unit and Species Group
The estimated available harvest area for the 10-year plan term summarized by principal forest
unit, and the harvest volumes (m3) associated with these harvest areas by the principal species
group are listed below:
Forest
Unit
INTCC
PjCC
PrCC
SbCC
HDUS
MWUS
LCUS
OrUS
PwUS
SFUS
HeSEL
HDSEL
Total
Available Harvest
Area (Hectares)
5,561
500
620
500
8,881
12,098
548
1,995
22,956
9,471
10,384
63,252
136,766
Species
Group
PWR
SPF
TOL
OC
PO
BW
Total
Available Harvest
Volume (m3)
2,038,133
797,853
2,957,165
653,807
1,000,135
389,046
7,836,139
Planned Road Access
The forecast (10 year) road construction summarized for the two main road classes (primary
and branch roads) that are needed to access harvest and renewal operations over the 10-year
term are listed below. Operational (i.e. tertiary) roads are not listed. (See section 4.5 of the FMP
for more details).
Road Classification
New Construction
(km)
Primary
13.1
Branch
44.5
Total
57.6
Reconstruction of Old Road
(km)
20.2
273.0
293.2
Total
(km)
33.3
317.5
350.8
Approximately 84% of the proposed primary and branch road construction is actually reconstruction of old existing roads from previous harvest cycles. New primary road construction
is required to relocate existing access from past harvest cycles in order to avoid ecologically or
socially sensitive areas. The re-use of existing roads in areas of planned operations helps to
minimize the impact of forest operations on the environment. Approximately 600 km of road was
removed from active service during the previous plan (2005-2009).
The Road Use Management Strategies for each proposed Primary and Branch Road are
located within supplementary documentation 6.1.12. Generally speaking, interior roads within
Algonquin Park are closed for public travel in order to protect Park values. The proposed
Primary and Branch Road locations associated with the 2010 FMP are also indicated on the
Composite and Summary Map (supplementary documentation 6.1.2).
Planned Forest Renewal and Tending Operations
The forecast (10 year) renewal and maintenance activities that are required to meet the plan
objectives are listed below by renewal activity type. These renewal activities will be carried out
on the current planned harvest areas as well as areas harvested during past plan terms.
Page 6 of 10
Artificial regeneration refers to tree planting and seeding. (See section 4.4. of the FMP for more
details). Natural regeneration is by far the dominant treatment type and is practiced almost
exclusively in selection management areas with high rates of success. Artificial regeneration is
used to supplement natural regeneration where required in shelterwood and clearcut
management areas. The majority of the proposed tending is stand improvement work planned
for HDSEL Forest Unit harvest areas.
Renewal Activities
Natural Regeneration
Artificial Regeneration
Total Regeneration
Retreatment
Supplemental
Total Tending
Forecast Treatment
Area (ha)
95,438
2,866
98,304
0
0
33,154
Area of Concern Prescriptions
The forest contains many timber and non-timber values. Some non-timber values have the
potential to be negatively impacted by forest management operations. The areas around these
values are termed Areas of Concern. An area of concern (AOC) may be used to protect a
social value such as a canoe route or an archaeological site, or an ecological or environmental
value such as a stream or significant wildlife habitat feature (e.g. a great blue heronry, a hawk
nest or a moose aquatic feeding area). The FMP includes AOC prescriptions for many different
values. These prescriptions may include a no-cut buffer zone (a reserve), an area with access
restrictions, and/or a modified management area wherein there may be restrictions on the timing
of harvest or silvicultural activity, the method of harvest, or the types of trees that can be
harvested. Some prescriptions are developed from the direction in a forest management guide
and others are developed at the planning team level. A few examples of the many AOC
prescriptions follow. Refer to table FMP-14 for complete AOC prescription details and table
FMP-23 for associated conditions on roads.
Example 1: A coldwater lake receives a minimum 30 m no cut reserve with an additional 0-45
m modified zone (based on slope) with selection cutting only and restrictions on mechanical site
preparation. In addition, no roads or landings are to be constructed within 120 m of waters
without approval of Ontario Parks. Timing of stream crossings that involve in-water construction
is also restricted to minimize risk to fish populations.
Example 2: A portage on a canoe route receives a 60 m no cut reserve on either side of the
trail with another 60 metres of partial cutting only (selection or shelterwood) out to 120 m. In
addition, no roads or landings are to be constructed within 120 m of portages without approval
of Ontario Parks.
Example 3: An active red-shouldered hawk nest receives a 50 m radius no cut reserve with
no new access roads allowed. Outside this 50 m radius is a further 150 m wide zone in
which uniform canopy closure is maintained above 70%, road construction requires Ontario
Park’s approval and operations must occur outside the nesting period to avoid disturbing the
young birds. Outside of this 200 zone an additional 150 metres of modified area exists where
forest canopy closure must continue to be maintained above 70% but roads may be
constructed.
Operational prescriptions for areas of concern and silvicultural ground rules for regular
operations have been prepared in accordance with the applicable forest management guides.
Page 7 of 10
There are no AOC or silvicultural prescriptions that are exceptions to the guides. Operational
prescriptions for areas of concern have been prepared consistent with the Endangered Species
Act to protect habitat related to species at risk known to exist on the forest. (See section 2.2.5.1
and 4.2.1 of the FMP for more detail).
Issues
A summary of the major issues encountered and addressed during the preparation of this Plan
to date can be found in supplementary documentation section 6.1.17 of the Plan, and includes
the following:
•
Direction was received on protecting preliminary priority areas from the “Lightening the
Footprint” process (i.e. no forestry allocations within) – this required extra planning effort
to accommodate. As this process continues to evolve at the time of FMP submission,
more work will need to be completed to reconcile the FMP with the final LTF outcome.
•
Nine of ten Algonquin of Ontario communities have been participating as members of
the planning team. This has increased the size of the planning team and resulted in
some delays in the planning process. At the beginning of the planning process there
was a ‘learning curve’ for all related to the FMP process versus the Land Claim process.
Significant time was spent discussing Steering Committee membership, Lightening the
Footprint direction and non-derogation clause wording in the FMP Terms of Reference
for this Plan.
•
The main concern of the Algonquin representatives relates to access in Algonquin Park
and the majority of communities’ wish for all roads to be left open after forestry
operations are complete. Roads facilitate their hunting, fishing and cultural activities.
Road access conflicts with Park objectives of remoteness, visitor solitude and protection
of fragile resources (i.e. species at risk, brook trout) and there are safety and liability
issues with watercrossings. Road access is however also necessary to accomplish
forest management objectives, including silvicultural effectiveness monitoring and
manual tending. Through discussions on Native values mapping and identification of
priority roads, AFA and Ontario Parks have been working with each community on areas
of importance to them. The primary road system is usually driveable and available for
access for these activities. Branch and operational roads are only driveable for short
periods of time but as access in one area closes, another area opens up.
•
Significant time was spent by the planning team discussing area of concern
prescriptions. Larger areas of concern for Species at Risk was a significant discussion
item – timing and/or road restrictions over a large part of the landbase does cause
concern for feasible/economic forestry operations. Meeting the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act will be a major issue during plan implementation.
Public input has generally been light during the process and in many cases very positive in
support of forest management in Algonquin Park. Many comments were received at the first
Information Centre reminding the planning team of the economic importance of forestry to their
communities.
There have been two Issue Resolution requests during development of this FMP. An
environmental group requested Issue Resolution on a number of items associated with the
LTMD component of the FMP. This group has proceeded through the Plan Author, District
Manager and Regional Director stages of Issue Resolution. Their concerns relate to modeling
of wildlife species habitat and natural benchmark trend levels (specifically pileated woodpecker),
old growth levels and distribution (particularly white pine), and the planning team choice of
Page 8 of 10
natural benchmark trend levels to be emulated (they are critical of the 75% desired level). On
October 30th 2009, the Regional Director responded by providing further clarification on these
issues and concluded that the requested alterations to the Plan would not be required. The
Regional Director also advised that if they still have concerns they may pursue an Individual
Environmental Assessment request with the Ministry of the Environment. Another individual has
gone through District Manager and Regional Director stages of Issue Resolution during the
Draft Plan review stage. Concerns were similar to the first request and included road density,
SFMM modelling and Yield Comparisons, and financial motivations of the Draft FMP. On April
13, 2010 the Regional Director responded to this Issue Resolution request - again further
clarification was provided on all topics raised. However the recommendations offered by the
requester were not accepted. The Regional Director also advised that if the person still has
concerns they may pursue an Individual Environmental Assessment request with the Ministry of
the Environment. See supplementary documentation section 6.1.15 of the Plan for a more
complete summary of these Issue Resolution requests.
Public Consultation
Public inspection of the MNR approved FMP is scheduled from late April to late May 2010. The
public may submit an individual environmental assessment request during that 30-day
inspection period.
Summary Map
Proposed harvest, renewal and tending operations, locations of existing and new primary and
branch road construction for the 10-year term are shown on the attached map (Appendix 1).
The map also contains an index map showing the location of the management unit within the
province.
Page 9 of 10
Appendix 1: Plan Summary Map
Page 10 of 10
Klock's Road
Daventry Road
Brent Rd
Mud Lake
Bissett Rd
Kiosk Rd.
LL A
AU
UD
DE
ER
R
Mackey Rd
Little Thompson Lake
Thompson Lake
Lauder Lake
Whisper Lake
Wildgoose Lake
Brain Lake
Widgeon Lake
Stretch Lake
Kioshkokwi Lake
Keswil Lake
North Martin Lake
Lena LakeShada Lake
Shad Lake
Fassett Lake
Manitou Lake
Leatherleaf Lake
W
W II LL K
KE
ES
S
Kakasamic Lake
Mattowacka L.Kakasamic L.
Nebanawbaig LakeWaterclear Lake
Scud LakeClub Lake
Parisien LakeBig Swamp Lake
Maple Lake
MacGibbon Lake
Ratrap Lake
Dahinda Lake
Boggy Lake
Erables Lake
North Sylvia Lake
Arrow LakeBeaverly Lake
Lorne Lake
B
TT Y
BA
A LL LL A
AN
NSisco
YN
NE
E
Lake
Ewayea Lake
Cayuga Lake
Biggar Lake
Spa Lake
Meda Lake
Pauwatine Lake
Jeepi Lake
Craig Lake
Basil Lake
Axton Lk Rd Nahma LakeStranger Lake
Axton Lake
Nokomis Lake
Sally Lake
Ozawabrek Lake
P
PA
AX
X TT O
ON
N Wabanah Lake
Loughrin Lake Kelly Lake
Linnet Lake
B
B II G
GG
GA
AR
R
Loontail Lake
Kabevun Lake Towinee Lake
Wolfland Lake
Winifred Lake
Grass Lake
Hag Lake
Shag Lake
Hiah Lake
Junco Lake
Hayes Lake
Robinson Lake
Remona Lake Lake Isis
Perley Lake
Whiskyjack Lake
Gipsy Lake
Manta Lake
Hogan Lake
Peace Lake
Waterthrush Lake
Grosbeak Lake
Spiza Lake
Bishop Lake
Chippy Lake
B
B II S
SH
HO
OP
P
Deer Yard Lake
Sandfly LakeHemlock Lake Inez Lake
Clemow Lake
Woodcock Lake Mallic Lake
Dusk Lake
Wonassay Lake Dody Lake
Wasun Lake
Ray Lake
Petit Lake
McNorton Lake
Dawn Lake
Barron Lake
Little Crow Lake
Shadfly Lake
Thomas Lake
Nool LakeMud Turtle Lake
Sundassa Lake
Little Crooked Lake
Poplar Lake
Lake Lavielle
Inbetween Lake
N
N II V
VE
EN
N
William Lake
Little Dickson Lake
Quzel Lake
Squirrel LakeUsk Lake
Beech-drops Pond
Wenda Lake
Carcajou Bay
Upper Spectacle Lake
Lower Spectacle Lake
McDonald Lake
Carcajou Creek
Loonskin Lake
Jocko Lake
Bootee Lake
Batise Lake
Feely Lake
North Bonnechere River Gross Lake
Kago Lake
Teal Lake
Jenkins Lake
East Alder Lake
Wabe Lake
Sparrow Lake
Swamp Lake
Dickson Lake
Osprey Lake
Brigham Lake
Carcajou Lake
D
D II C
CK
KS
SO
ON
N
Togo Lake
D
DE
EV
V II N
NE
E
B
BO
OW
WE
ER
R
C
C LL A
AN
NC
CY
Y
B
BU
U TT TT
M
M cc LL A
AU
UG
GH
H LL II N
N
Phase 2 Proposed Areas (2015-2020)
Renewal and Tending
Norms Lake
M
MA
AS
S TT E
ER
R
Clover Lake
Pogonia Lake
Basin Lake
Phase 1 Planned Areas (2010-2015)
Phase 2 Proposed Areas (2015-2020)
Grove Lake
Indian River Rockpine Lake
* All areas planned/proposed for harvest and past harvest areas
are also proposed for renewal and tending activities.
Reserve Lake
Zigzag Lake Whitebark Lake
Roads
East Bear Lake
Grass-pink LakeRichards Lake
G
GU
U TT H
HR
R II E
E
Phase 1 Selected Areas (2010-2015)
Number One Lake
Blanco Lake
Wet Lake Mallard Lake Barron Canyon Rd
Rouge Lake
Walker Lake
Robiscow Lake
AP-30 Sec Lake
Steer Lake
Sipple Lake
Turquoise Lake Log Canoe Lake
Little Sec Lake
Turcotte Lake
Little Tarn Lake
Guthrie LakeGorse Lake
Aurora Lake
Harvest
Barron River
Stratton Lake
St. Andrews LakeSt. Francis Lake
Tarn Lake
Koko LakeOnagun Lake
Foys Lake
Alluring Lake
Bonnechere River
Longer LakeLonely Lake
Warbler Lake Blowdown Lake
Murdock Lake
Redpole Lake
Nepawin Lake
Cat Lake
Tamarack Lake
Tim River
Frog Lake
Wapiti LakeSaw-whet Lake
Three Island Lake
Kagh Lake
Cop Lake
Animoosh Lake
Bad Lake
Shippagew
Lake
Alice
Lake
Devine Lake
Woodpecker LakeRedrock Lake
Stag Lake
Slot Lake
Vanity Lake
McGuire Lakes
Prong Lake
Merchant Lake
Rays LakeProulx Lake
Cony Lake Goat Lake
Ranger Lake
Blue LakeSpatterdock Pond
Highdam Pond
Trap Lake
Bonfield Lake
Diver Lake
Lee Lake
Mire Lake
Cross Corner LakeChickaree Lake
Sittingman Lake
Baldwin Lake
Wright Lake
Fairy Lake
Big Bob Lake
Floating Heart Lake
Mowat Lake Sorrel Lake
Big Trout Lake
Hidden Lake
Indian Pipe Lake
Jackson Lake
Dymond Lake
Little Butt Lake Rosebary Lake
Nick Lake
Little Hogan Lake
Chibiabos Lake
Longbow Lake
Happy Isle Lake
South Vanity Lake
McLachlin Depot Lake
Vireo Lake
Tadpole Lake
Cottontail Lake
Mocking Lake
McKaskill Lake
Ponemah Lake
Tim LakeShawshaw Lake
Round Island Lake
Chewink Lake
Pinay Lake
Music LakeMama Lake
Adrienne Lake
Trout Lake Bonasa Lake
Ana LakeCanty Lake
Shiner Lake
Mountain Lake
Betty Lake
White-throat Lake
Pezheki LakePugawagun Lake
Bower Lake
Dove Lake
Little Pugawagun Lake
Marshy Lake
Mudville Lake
Dan Lake
Wabeno Lake
Langford Lake
Notagan LakeLittle Trout Lake
Roundbush Lake
Shrew Lake
Tim Lake Rd Gaitche Lake
NL #9
Shah Lake
Mubwayaka Lake
Secret Lake
Presto Lake
Pandion Pond
Queer Lake
Wilkins Lake
Otterslide Lake Castor Lake
Tip Up Lake
Robitaille Lake
Rail Lake
Shirley Lake Border LakeBig Red Lake
David Lake
Error Lake
Little
Mykiss
Lake
Breezy Lake
Alsever Lake
Ryan Lake
Opeongo Lake
Southworth Lake
Little Otterslide Lake
Chipmunk Lake
Spot Lake
Pine Lake
Bijou Lake
Misty LakePocket Lake
Sugarmaple Lake
Little Misty Lake
Ralph Bice Lake
Dea Lake Fog Lake
Marmot Lake
Hailstorm Lake
Opeongo River Mykiss Lake
Mack Lake
Kinglet
Lake
Hawkins Lake
Bridle Lake
Curlew Lake
Cameron Lake
Ugh Lake
Swallow Lake
Owaissa Lake
Jewel Lake
Nosa Lake
O'Neill Lake
Timberwolf Lake
Wenona Lake Muslim Lake
Aylen River
Robin Lake Shallnot Lake
He
Lake
Crossbill LakeFools Lake
Bandit Lake
Alfred Lake
Magpie Lake
Canada Jay Lake
McIntosh Lake
Forest Tower Rd
North Madawaska River
Deacon Lake
Moccasin Lake
Hambone Lake
Kitty LakeFarm Lake Crotch Lake
Treefrog Lake
Tattler Lake Booth Lake
Hunter Lake
Ceres Lake
Penaish Lake Whitegull Lake
Larry Lake
Barkley Lake
Hartley Lake
Sunbeam LakeJay Lake
Shall Lake
Magnetawan Lake
Wye LakeJubilee Lake Cranebill Lake
Rumley Lake
Dutchboy Lake
Vanishing Pond
Von Lake
Straight Shore Lake
Little Minnow Lake
Birdie Lake
Juan Lake
Daisy Lake
Omemei
Lake
AP-34
Little Vesper Lake
Beth Lake Aster Pond
Burnt Island Lake
Wry Lake
Cob Lake
Ink Lake
Alder Lake
Minor Lake
Billy Lake
Dolly LakeSawyer Lake Tony Lake
Onaway Lake Hiram Lake
Willow Lake
Lilypond Lake
Little Eagle Lake
Oram Lake
Baden-Powell Lake
Amyoa Lake
Godda Lake
West Dolly Lake
Wigwam Lake
Fauquier Lake
Weir Lake
Duckpond Lake
Eel LakeSunny Lake
Bartlett Lake
Redfox Lake
Vesper Lake
Moray Lake
Mole Lake
Casey Lake
Chit Lake
Brûlé Lake
Bluejay Lake
Zenobia
Lake
Tom
Thomson
Lake
Iris Lake
Salvelinus Lake Rain Lake
Bear Lake
Blackfox Lake
Sandmartin Lake
Hot LakeIshkuday Lake
Band Lake
Washa Lake
Croy Lake
Littledoe Lake
Chick Lake
Raja Lake
Boot Lake
Pathfinder Lake
Edwin Lake
Islet Lake
Baby Joe Lake
Linda Lake
Apukwa Lake
Bailey Lake
Falcon Lake
Titmouse Lake
Potter Lake
Fawn Lake
Ojibway Lake
Sproule Lake Hermit Lake
Furrow Lake
Segwun Lake
Mackinaw LakeWeed Lake
Kite Lake
Groundhog Lake Little Oxtongue River
Brown Lake
Costello
Lake
Hwy 518
Shanty
Lake
Little Joe Lake Sims Lake Owl Lake
Bluebird Lake
Sunday Lake
Kathlyn Lake
Long Thin Lake
Eos Lake
Fern Lake
Brewer LakeLittle McCauley Lake Airy Lake
Little Rock Lake
Polly Lake
Sasajewun Lake
Loft Lake
Tepee Lake
Amikeus
Lake
Aylen L. Rd
Olive Lake
Bluff Lake
Suntan Lake
Pond Lake
Raven Lake
Ring-neck Pond
Bat Lake
OGorman Lake Wee LakeNorth Clyde Lake East End Lake
Lake St. Anthony
Longspur Lake
Rain Lk Rd
Joe Lake Maiden Lake
Rainbow Lake
Eucalia Lake
Whitney Lake Milon Lake
Lay Lake
Stutter Lake
Jack Lake Mew Lake Lake of Two Rivers Kearney Lake
Norway Lake Fork Lake
Wolf Howl Pond Bruce Lake
Lady-Slipper Lake
West Smith Lake
Pog Lake AP-17
Canisbay Lake
West Otterpaw Lake
Bud Lake
Starling Lake
West Rose Lake
Pincher LakeTern Lake
Little Eastend Lake
Jean Lake
Bob Lake
South Snowbird Lake
Leaf Lake
March Hare Lake
Lark Lake
Jake Lake
McCraney Lake Cashel Lake
Provoking Lake
Rose Lake
Trail Lake
Source LakeAP-11
AP-10Madawaska River
Hwy 60
Sunset Lake
Snowshoe LakeBig East River
Grant Lake
Fisher Lake
Major L. Rd
Canoe Lake
Pinetree Lake
Red LakeMermaid Lake
Faya Lake
Splash Lake
Clara LakeLulu Lake
Whitefish Lake
Found Lake
Samos LakeFloss LakeGuide Lake
Ouse Lake
Kortright Lake
Coon Lake
Red Wing Lake
Cache Lake
Clarke Lake
Lupus Lake
Tanamakoon Lake
Fly Lake
Speckledtrout Lake
West Harry Lake
Oxtongue River
Longairy Lake
Drummer Lake
Gordon LakeSylvia LakeFraser Lake
Hood Lake
Little Island Lake
Fin Lake
Gill Lake
Mossy LakePanther Lake
Gnat Lake
Tonakela Lake
Whitecat Lake
Kootchie Lake
Rosepond Lake
North Oak Lake
David Thompson Lake
Head Lake
Norah LakeOak Lake
Blueberry Lake
Hwy 60
Hilliard Lake
Namakootchie Lake
Mosquito
Lake
Grape Lake
Harness Lake
Delano Lake
Smoke Lake
Dace Lake
Kenneth Lake
Eu Lake
Rock Lake
Hope Lake Tea Lake
Marion Lake
Whitespruce Lake
South Canisbay Lake
Martin
Lake
Midget LakeKingfisher Lake
White Lake
Aubrey Lake
Minnow Lake
Lawrence Lake
Ahme Lake
Coot LakeSwan Lake
Miry Lake
Paddy Lake
Hay Creek Rd
Pardee Lake
Dale LakeMaggie Lake
Guskewau Lake
Little Smoke Lake
Mohawk Lake
Rod and Gun Lake
Westward Lake
Galeairy Lake
Scott Lake
Plough Lake Kirkwood Lake
Claude Lake
Phipps LakeFounders Lake
Norman Lake
Farm Bay Lake
Wisp Lake
Little Hardy Lake
Bena Lake
Ling LakeCradle Lake
Night Lake
Lake Louisa
Slim Lake
Skunk Lake
Mildred Lake
Mikado Lake
Upper Head Lake
Maple Leaf Lake
Pondweed Lake
Minto Lake
Ragged Lake
Bonnechere Lake
Prottler Lake
Pen Lake
West Frog Lake
Bluebell Lake
Cecil Lake
North Lemon Lake
Small Lake
Big Porcupine Lake
North Grace LakeFlorence Lake
Hilly Lake
Heron Lake
Eleanor Lake
Flossie Lake
Fen Lake
McGarvey Lake
Frank Lake
Little Coon Lake
South McGuire Lake
Harry Lake
Ermine Lake
Shawandasee Lake
County Rd 8
Stringer Lake
Gale Lake
Lower Dwyer Lake
Loader Lake
Welcome Lake
Hobo Lake
Timber Trail Road
Whatnot Lakes
Rence Lake
Little Clear Lake
Clydegale
Lake
Park Lake
Teardrop Lake
Upper Dwyer Lake
Hwy 523
Dividing Lake
Galipo River
Curve Inn Rd
Silver Lake
Harder Lake
Cauliflower Lake
South Misty Lake
Timber Trail Road
Hollow River
Pipio Lake
Camp Lake Little Cauliflower LakeBills Lake
Law Lake
Crystal Lake
Averys LakeDry Lakes
Hwy 127
Hay Lake
Little Canoe Lake
North Galipo Lake
Limberlost Rd
East Galipo Lake
West Galipo LakeLittle Galipo Lake South Moccasin Lake
South Galipo Lake
Frost Lake
Little Hay Lake
Martins Pond
Upper Redstone Lake
Little German Lake
Little Longer Lake
German Lake
Stephen Lake
Paxton LakeMujekiwis Lake
Legend
Ignace Lake
Opalescent Lake
Bucholtz Lake Ooze Lake
Berm Lake
Cork Lake
Highfalls Lake
Cardinalis Lake Spoil Lake
Johnston Lake
Marie Lake
Length Lake
Grand Lake
Little Carcajou Lake
Shrike Lake
Shangashi Lake
North Branch Lake
White Partridge Lake
Hillcrest Lake
Hardwood Lake
Rowan Lake
Lost LakeGreenleaf Lake
Coy Lake
Spoor LakeFrontier Lake
S
S TT R
RA
ATT TT O
ON
N
Little Borutski Lake Borutski Lake
B
BA
AR
RR
RO
ON
N
Paul LakeMilk-vetch Lake
Skylark Lake
Big Crow Lake
Lake La Muir
Forbes Lake
Brawny Lake
Keneu Lake
FF R
RE
ES
SW
W II C
CK
K
Gormire Lake
Redpine Lake
Kaween Lake
Crow River
Smith Lake
McManus Lake
Bill Lake
Wagtail Lake
Eustache Lake
Moon Lake
Lake Lavieille
Beaverlea Lake
Jacks Lake
W
WH
H II TT E
E
Farncomb Lake
West Thrush LakeOldcamp Lake
Lizz Lake
Thrush Lake
Grizzly Lake
Little Grizzly Lake
AP-38
Mathews Lake
Edgar Lake
Okahan Lake
Lavaque Lake
Abbe LakeLittle Woodcock Lake
A
AN
NG
G LL II N
N
FMP Summary Map
Louie Lake
Foote Lake
Whitson Lake
East Bruce Lake
Pretty Lake
Minjekawon Lake
Pauguk Lake
Finch Lake
Rorke Lake
First Term
Wylie Rd
Keon Lake
Sloan Lake
Notsolong Lake
Square Lake
Lake Travers
Louie Lk Rd
Duff Lake
Coveo Lake
Emma Lake
Clouthier Lake
Siskin Lake
Gillies Lake
Songean Lake
Mackenzie Lake
Charles Lake Foy Lake
Sunfish Lake
Calumet Lake
Cuckoo Lake
Pugwa Lake
Mudcat Lake
Philip Lake
Bird Lake
B
BR
RO
ON
NS
SO
ON
N
E
ED
DG
GA
AR
R
Francis Lake
Kildeer Lake
Little Madawaska River
Bates Lake
Cinderella Lake
Catfish Lake
Macoun Lake
North Cuckoo Lake
Wehawe Lake
Wasp Lake
Lynx Lake
Plumb Lake
Burntroot Lake
Kennedy Lake
Whistle Lake
Snowbird Lake
Hiawatha Lake
Browse Lake Chemung Lake
Redhead Lake
Gibson Lake
Ground Lizard Lake
Sahwa Lake
South Osler Lake
Little Redhead Lake
Coldspring Lake
Creation Lake
Vulture Lake
Yellowbird Lake
Minnehaha Lake
Squawk Lake
Beaverpaw Lake
Zema Lake
Pemican Lake
Lawren Harris Lake
Pukina Lake
Miskodee Lake Wendigoes Lake
Narrowbag Lake
Folly Lake
Waymuk Lake
Lister Lake
Kagagee Lake
McIntyre Lake
2010 - 2020 Forest Management Plan
Wylie/Bronson Rd
Moosehaunt Lake
Petawawa River
Southwind Lake
Nenemousha Lake
Osseo Lake
Owenee Lake
LL II S
S TT E
ER
R
Gash Lake
O
OS
S LL E
ER
R
J.E.H. MacDonald Lake Behan Lake
Bouillon Lake
Charr LakePishnecka Lake
Pipe Lake
Bopeep Lake
Osler Lake
Calm LakeBurt Lake
Little Nenemousha Lake
Lantern Lake
Luckless Lake
Esker Lake
Twosound Lake
Ducknest Lake
Snipe Lake East Plover Lake
Plover Lake
Radiant Lake
Ravenau Lake
Devil Lake
Birchcliffe Lake
Clamshell Lake
Menona Lake Shoal Lake
17
Upper Cartier Lake
Opaque Lake
North Rouge Lake
Blackbass LakeWren Lake
Otterpaw Lake
Gerald Lake
Rockery Lake
Alco Lake Cap Lake
Big George LakeWee George Lake Bukadawin Lake
Deerhorn LakeLost Coin Lake
Gum Lake
Mishimokwa Lake
Acanthus Lake
Varley Lake
Big Thunder Lake Elsie Lake
Wahwahtaysee LakeOne Mile Lake
Beau Lake
Belle Lake
Upper Kawa Lake Punch Lake
Skuce Lake
Tillie Lake
Kawa Lake Totem Lake Judy Lake
North Raven LakeLittle Nadine Lake
Little Osler Lake
Sinclair Lake
Coral-root Lake
Sawbill Lake
Nadine Lake
Manabezi Lake
Mangotasi Lake
Hornbeam Lake
Yenadizze Lake
North Tea L.
Glacier Lake
Camp Five Lake
Reed Lake
Hogsback Lake
Algonquin Park Forest (MU #451)
Deep River
Kellys Lake
Parkline Lake
Fitz Lake
Carl Wilson Lake
Lismer Lake
Namea Lake
Wib Lake
Lost Dog L.
Solitaire Lake
Little Wabimimi Lake
Wabimimi Lake
Kabibonoka Lake
D
DE
EA
AC
CO
ON
N
Cedar Lake
FF II TT ZZ G
GE
ER
RA
A LL D
D
North Depot Lake
Chalk River
Tayler Lake
Chateau Lake
Kaw Lake
Bissett Lake
Merganser Lake
Maskwa Lake
Lazy Lake
Little Lake
Owlet Lake
North River Lake
Ghost Lake
Rana Lake
Pan Lake
Peboan Lake
Shingeris Lake Bluebill Lake
Chela Lake
Gull Lake
Spotter Lake
Mouse Lake
Kije-Kwe Lake
Minnewawa Lake
Three Mile Lake
Keewaydin Lake
Round Lk Rd
P
PE
EN
N TT LL A
AN
ND
D
Chattahoochee Lake
B
BO
OY
YD
D
Tecumseh Lake
Hwy 17
Big Bissett Lake
Allan Lake
North River
Boyd LakeGilmour Lake
Brant Lake
Sable Lake
Loxley Lake
Aura Lee Lake
Cauchon Lake
Little Loxley LakeLaurel Lake
Little Cauchon Lake
Little Cedar Lake
Bug Lake
Windermere Lake
Gouinlock Lake
Ironwood Lake
Dendroica Lake
Whitebirch Lake Mink LakeAscalon Lake
Windigo Lake
Corbeau Lake
C
CA
AM
ME
ER
RO
ON
N
Hurdman Lake
Little Goosander Lake
Goosander Lake
Little Mink Lake
Amable du Fond River
Unktahee Lake
Villeneuve Lake
West Corbeau Lake
Reindeer Lake
Balsam Lake
Muir Lake
Snow Lake
Dumond Lake
South Long Lake
White Pine Lake
Primary Road (Existing)
Turners Lake
Upper Pine Lake
Branch Road (Existing)
McDonalds Pond
Lower Pine Lake
McKenzie Pond
Argue Lake Dodge Lake
Pine River Rd
Basin Road
Selected Primary Road Corridor (10 Year)
Selected Branch Road Corridor (Phase 1)
BeechNut Rd.
Gunn's Rd
Turner's Road
Selected Branch Road Corridor (Phase 2)
Hwy 62
P
PR
RE
ES
S TT O
ON
N
Nature Reserve, Historical, Natural Environment,
Wilderness and Development Zone
Lakes
Round Lake Centre
H
HU
UN
N TT E
ER
R
S
SP
PR
RO
OU
U LL E
E
Paugh Lk Rd
M
M cc C
CR
RA
AN
NE
EY
Y
C
CA
AN
N II S
SB
BA
AY
Y
A
A II R
RY
Y
60
P
PE
EC
CK
K
This map should not be relied on as a precise indicator
of routes or locations, nor as a guide to navigation.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and
The Algonquin Forestry Authority shall not be liable in any
way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any
information on this map.
1:420,000
Madawaska
Barry's Bay
Whitney
0
3.75
7.5
15
22.5
Kilometres
30
N
N II G
GH
H TT II N
NG
GA
A LL E
E
FF II N
N LL A
AY
YS
SO
ON
N
LL II V
V II N
NG
GS
S TT O
ON
NE
E
LL A
AW
WR
RE
EN
NC
CE
E
C
C LLY
YD
DE
E
E
EY
YR
RE
E
Hwy 60
Madawaska Lake
Dwight
Crossbar Lake
Hwy 62
Little Branch Lake
Clyde Lake
Yorkend Lake
Cranjelly LakeBillings Lake
Little Billings LakeWatson Lake
Nearline Lake
North York River Lostwater Lake
Stubby LakeFlying Fisher LakeLittle Marquardt Pond
Skinny Lake
Marquardt Pond
Hwy 35
Algonquin
Forestry
Authority
Hwy 117
Dorset
Rabbit Lake
Gull River
Weepine Lake
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2009.
Maynooth
Scorch Lake
B
BR
RU
U TT O
ON
N
Bowen Pond
Byers Lake
Longboot LakeUpper Minnow Lake
South Boot Lake
Big Rock Lake
High Falls Pond
South Little Mink Lake
Little Percy Lake
Fourcorner Lake
Peterson Road
Kingscote Lake
NOTES:
North American Datum 1983
Universal Transverse Mercator (6 degrees) Projection
Zone 17. Central Meridian 81 degrees West.
Revised: February 26, 2010.
Base features from Digital Forest Resource Inventory
and Digital Ontario Basemaps
Produced by Algonquin Forestry Authority.
APPENDIX I:
AFA SFM Policy
INTRODUCTION
The Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) is the
Ontario Crown agency responsible for
sustainable forest management in Algonquin
Provincial Park. AFA responsibilities also include
the harvesting and distribution of wood products
to mills in communities within the region.
VISION
To achieve the highest standards of sustainable
forest management practices, in order to
maintain Park values for future generations.
MISSION
To ensure the long-term health of Algonquin’s
forests while producing a sustainable supply of
forest products for the forest industry of the
region.
COMMITMENTS AND STRATEGIES
1. Sustainable Forest Management:
•
Conform with requirements of the
international standards ISO 14001 and
CSA Z-809
•
Manage Algonquin’s forests in a
sustainable manner consistent with
requirements of the sustainable forest
management plan. This includes:
1. Conserving biological diversity;
2. Conserving forest ecosystem
condition and productivity by
maintaining the health, vitality and
rates of biological production;
3. Conserving soil and water
resources;
4. Maintaining forest conditions and
management activities that
contribute to the health of global
ecological cycles;
5. Providing multiple benefits to
society; and
6.
•
•
•
Accepting society’s responsibility
for sustainable development
Locate forest operations away from
recreational features (campgrounds,
canoe routes, portages, hiking trails)
during peak periods of usage
Maintain aesthetic qualities of the forest
landscape
Avoid insecticide and herbicide use
whenever possible
2. Com pliance with Laws:
•
Meet or exceed all applicable laws,
regulations, policies, standards and
other requirements to which AFA
subscribes
•
Prevent pollution using processes,
practices, materials or products that
avoid, reduce or control pollution
•
Continuously evaluate compliance with
current laws and regulations, and the
prevention of pollution
•
Periodic independent audits shall ensure
that operations are consistent with
established policies and objectives
3. Public Participation:
•
Provide opportunities for public
consultation on sustainable forest
management practices in Algonquin
Park
•
Establish a public advisory committee to
provide input on sustainable forest
management
•
Facilitate public review and input on the
Forest Management Plan and work
schedules and respond to comments in
a timely fashion
•
Effectively communicate forest
management practices in the Park to
the public
•
Make public the results of independent
audits and ongoing assessments in
annual reports
4. Aboriginal Rights and Participation:
•
Respect Aboriginal and treaty rights
•
Provide participation opportunities for
Aboriginal peoples with respect to their
rights and interests in sustainable forest
management
•
W ork co-operatively with local
Aboriginal communities to identify and
implement ways of achieving a more
equal participation by Aboriginal
communities in the benefits provided
through forest management planning in
Algonquin Park
5. Health and Safety:
•
Provide conditions and safeguards for
the health and safety of workers and
the public
•
Establish and communicate safe
working habits to employees of the AFA
and its contractors
•
Organize training programs for AFA
employees and assist contractors in
their training programs
•
Maintain and communicate emergency
response plans and procedures
6. Continual Improvement:
•
Improve knowledge about the forest
and sustainable forest management and
monitor advances in SFM science and
technology and incorporate them where
applicable
•
Participate in research projects that
contribute to the health of the forest
ecosystem and productivity of the
forest
•
•
•
•
•
Establish partnerships with private
sector and other scientific institutions
and partnerships to promote forestry
education and awareness
Effectively communicate new
procedures and responsibilities to
employees, contractors and
woodsworkers in a timely fashion
Ensure sufficient monetary funds are
budgeted to train personnel
Participate in the development of new
standards and guidelines
Regularly review the Sustainable Forest
Management Policy and update as
required
222 Main Street West
Huntsville, ON P1H 1Y1
Tel: 705-789-9647
Fax: 705-789-3353
huntsville.office@ algonquinforestry.on.ca
84 Isabella Street
Pembroke, ON K8A 5S5
Tel: 613-735-0173
Fax: 613-735-4192
pembroke.office@ algonquinforestry.on.ca
www.algonquinforestry.on.ca
ALGONQUIN
FORESTRY
AUTHORITY
SUSTAINABLE FOREST
MANAGEMENT POLICY
APPENDIX J:
Ecosite Area Projection Graphs
Ecosite 11
Natural Benchmark
Desirable Level @ >= 75% NB Term Trend
PMS 7.1
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20 000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Algonquin Park Forest - 2010 LTMD
ES11
Ecosite 12
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
14,000
12,000
Area (Ha)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES12
Ecosite 13
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
2,500
2,000
Area (Ha)
1,500
1 000
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES13
Ecosite 14
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20,000
,
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES14
Ecosite 15
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
2,500
2,000
A
Area (Ha)
1,500
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
Time Period
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
ES15
Ecosite 16
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
14,000
12,000
Area (Ha)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES16
Ecosite 18
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20 000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES18
Ecosite 17
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
60,000
50,000
Area (Ha)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES17
Ecosite 19
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
900
800
700
Area (Ha)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES19
Ecosite 20
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
Area (Ha)
6,000
5,000
4 000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES20
Ecosite 21
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
18,000
16,000
14,000
Area (Ha)
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES21
Ecosite 22
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
Area (Ha)
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES22
Ecosite 23
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
3,500
3,000
Area (Ha)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES23
Ecosite 24
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
700
600
Area (Ha)
500
400
300
200
100
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES24
Ecosite 25
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES25
Ecosite 26
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
Area (Ha)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES26
Ecosite 27
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
40,000
35,000
30,000
Area (Ha)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES27
Ecosite 28
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
140,000
120,000
Area (Ha)
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES28
Ecosite 29
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
120,000
100,000
Area (Ha)
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES29
Ecosite 30
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
35,000
30,000
Area (Ha)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES30
Ecosite 31
ES31
PMS 7.1
4,000
3,500
3,000
Area (Ha)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES31
Ecosite 32
ES32
PMS 7.1
3,000
2,500
Area (Ha)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES32
Ecosite 33
ES33
PMS 7.1
9,000
8,000
7,000
Area (Ha)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES33
Ecosite 34
ES34
PMS 7.1
3,000
2,500
Area (Ha)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES34
Ecosite 35
ES35
PMS 7.1
6,000
5,000
Area (Ha)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ES35
APPENDIX K:
Forest Unit Area Projection Graphs
INTCC
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
60,000
50,000
Area (Ha)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
INTCC
PjCC
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
4,000
3,500
3,000
Area (Ha)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
PjCC
PrCC
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
Area (Ha)
6,000
5,000
4 000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
PrCC
SbCC
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
Area (Ha)
6,000
5,000
4,000
,
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
SbCC
HDUS
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
80,000
70,000
60,000
A
Area (Ha)
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
Time Period
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
HDUS
MWUS
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
120,000
100,000
Area (Ha)
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
MWUS
LCUS
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
8,000
7,000
6,000
Area (Ha)
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
LCUS
ORUS
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
18,000
16,000
14,000
Area (Ha)
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ORUS
PWUS
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
120,000
100,000
Area (Ha)
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
PWUS
SFUS
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
60,000
50,000
Area (Ha)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
SFUS
HeSEL
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
HeSEL
HDSEL
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7.1
250,000
200,000
Area (Ha)
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
HDSEL
APPENDIX L:
Pre-sapling/Sapling/T-stage Area Projection Graphs
Presapling, Sapling, T-Stage
Natural Benchmark
e.g. Desirable Level @ >= 75% NB Term Trend
PMS 7
140,000
120,000
Area (Ha)
100,000
80,000
60 000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Presapling-Sapling-Tstage
APPENDIX M:
Old Growth Area Projection Graphs
IntCC Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
40,000
35,000
30,000
Area (Ha)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
INTCC OG
PJCC Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
1,200
1,000
Area (Ha)
800
600
400
200
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
PJCC OG
PRCC Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
3,500
3,000
Area (Ha)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
PRCC OG
SBCC Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
6,000
5,000
Area (Ha)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
SBCC OG
HDUS Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20 000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
HDUS OG
MWUS Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20 000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
MWUS OG
LCUS Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
6,000
5,000
Area (Ha)
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
LCUS OG
ORUS Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
14,000
12,000
Area (Ha)
10,000
8,000
6 000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
ORUS OG
PWUS Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
45,000
40,000
35,000
Area (Ha)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
PWUS OG
SFUS Old Growth
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
25,000
20,000
Area (Ha)
15,000
10 000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
SFUS OG
APPENDIX N:
Wildlife Habitat Area Projection Graphs
Barred Owl
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
350,000
300,000
Area (Ha)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Barred Owl
Bay-breasted Warbler
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
90,000
80,000
70,000
Area (Ha)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Bay-breasted Warbler
Black-backed Woodpecker
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
30,000
25,000
Area (Ha)
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Black-backed Woodpecker
Black Bear (Summer)
Natural Benchmark
Target @ >= 4000 ha
PMS 7
16,000
14,000
12,000
Area (Ha)
10,000
8,000
6 000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Black Bear (summer)
Black Bear (foraging)
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
90,000
80,000
70,000
A
Area (Ha)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
Time Period
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Black Bear (foraging)
Blackburnian Warbler
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
350,000
300,000
Area (Ha)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Blackburnian Warbler
Boreal Chickadee
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
35,000
30,000
Area (Ha)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Boreal Chickadee
Broad-winged Hawk (breeding)
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
400,000
350,000
Area (Ha)
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Broad-winged Hawk (breeding)
Lynx (denning)
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
120,000
100,000
Area (Ha)
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Lynx (breeding)
Hermit Thrush
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
Area (Ha)
60,000
50,000
40 000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Hermit Thrush
American Marten
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
160,000
140,000
Area (Ha)
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Marten
Moose (foraging)
Natural Benchmark
Desirable Level & Target @ >= 97,000 ha
PMS 7
160,000
140,000
120,000
Area (Ha)
100,000
80,000
60 000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Moose (foraging)
Moose (winter)
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
65,000
60,000
Area (Ha)
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Moose (winter)
Northern Flying Squirrel
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
250,000
Area (Ha)
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Northern Flying Squirrel
Pine Siskin
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
120,000
100,000
Area (Ha)
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Pine Siskin
Pileated Woodpecker
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
300,000
250,000
Area (Ha)
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Pileated Woodpecker
Ruby-Crowned Kinglet
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
60,000
50,000
Area (Ha)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Ruby Crowned Kinglet
Red-eyed Vireo
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
450,000
400,000
350,000
Area (Ha)
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Red-eyed Vireo
Ruffed Grouse
Natural Benchmark
PMS 7
80,000
70,000
60,000
Area (Ha)
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
Time Period
Ruffed Grouse
APPENDIX O:
Harvest Area Historical Utilization
MANAGEMENT UNIT NAME: Algonquin Park Forest
PLAN PERIOD: April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010
ANNUAL REPORT: April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010
AR-7: Summary of Planned and Actual Harvest Area
Area (ha) - Annualized
ACTUAL HARVEST
Past Plans
PLANNED HARVEST
Past Plans
Forest
Unit
INTCC
PjCC
PrCC
SbCC
HDUS
MWUS
LCUS
OrUS
PwUS
SFUS
HDSEL
HeSEL
Total
Note:
Final Numbers - including Bridging area harvested in 2010-11
Current Plan 2005-2010
Projections
Planned
1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 Harvest
Actual Medium-Term
Harvest
2025
Long-Term
2105
2,387
72
217
0
1,027
0
82
0
1,704
1,313
9,161
726
336
27
43
0
1,114
1 704
1,704
66
0
1,996
1,050
8,099
585
445
92
69
30
865
1 203
1,203
51
135
1,914
366
6,607
486
1,101
52
144
0
751
0
24
0
1,042
418
3,651
250
221
47
37
0
598
771
45
0
1,702
329
3,518
251
269
60
54
12
739
926
20
82
1,277
182
4,196
364
577
72
72
38
888
1 099
1,099
88
149
2,181
896
6,278
1,019
95
40
113
0
487
893
12
26
1,536
297
3,524
510
325
10
50
34
1,016
1 370
1,370
51
163
2,715
691
954
5,749
136
8
43
22
949
982
177
141
3,453
922
1,024
7,555
16,688
15,020
12,264
7,433
7,519
8,181
13,357
7,534
13,128
15,412
2010-11 actual bridging harvest area is included (1839.2 ha)
APPENDIX P:
Algonquin Park Tertiary Watersheds and Disturbances
Algonquin Park Forest (MU #451)
Bissett Lake
CAMERON
Kioshkokwi Lake
Gilmore Lake
BOYD
Cauchon Lake
PENTLAND
C
C ee nn tt rr aa ll O
O tt tt aa w
w aa -- D
D uu m
m oo ii nn ee
North Rouge Lake
FITZGERALD
Manitou Lake
DEACON
U
U pp pp ee rr O
O tt tt aa w
w aa -- K
K ii pp aa w
w aa
OSLER
WHITE
FF rr ee nn cc hh
BARRON
ANGLIN
Gull
Magnetawan
Grand Lake
Muskoka
Lake Lavieille
FRESWICK
Sec Lake
White Partridge Lake
NIVEN
PAXTON
MASTER
BISHOP
Dickson Lake
DICKSON
GUTHRIE
C
C ee nn tt rr aa ll O
O tt tt aa w
w aa -- B
B oo nn nn ee cc hh ee rr ee Basin Lake
Big Trout Lake
DEVINE
Tim Lake
M
M aa gg nn ee tt aa w
w aa nn
French
STRATTON
P
P ee tt aa w
w aa w
w aa
Burntroot Lake
BOWER
East Arm
North Arm
Trout Lake
BUTT
CLANCY
Opeongo Lake
Shirley Lake
Ralph Bice Lake
Central Ottawa - Dumoine
McManus Lake
Hogan Lake
BIGGAR
Central Ottawa - Bonnechere
Lake Travers
Catfish Lake
North Tea Lake
Watersheds
Whitson Lake
Radiant Lake
LISTER
BALLANTYNE
Legend
EDGAR
Carl Wilson Lake
Erables Lake
McLAUGHLIN
South Arm
PRESTON
Alsever Lake
Algonquin Park
Watersheds
Crooked Chute
BRONSON
Cedar Lake
WILKES
2010 - 2020 Forest Management Plan
Big Bissett Lake
LAUDER
Wilkins Lake
Petawawa
Upper Madawaska
Upper Ottawa - Kipawa
Natural Disturbances (Blowdown)
Harvest Distrubances
Nature Reserve, Historical, Natural Environment,
Wilderness, and Development Zones
Township Boundary
License/MU Boundary
Burnt Island Lake
HUNTER
SPROULE
McCRANEY
Lake of Two Rivers
McCraney Lake
This map should not be relied on as a precise indicator
of routes or locations, nor as a guide to navigation.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and
The Algonquin Forestry Authority shall not be liable in any
way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any
information on this map.
C TT
RRII C
SSTT
I
I
U
U pp pp ee rr M
M aa ddDDaa w
w aa ss kk aa T YY
N GG
NN T
SSII N
OOUU
S
S
II
C
C
P
P
NN
NNII
Rock Lake
TTOO
UURR
B
B
LLII
NIGHTINGALE
HHAA
Lake Louisa
CANISBAY
M
M uu ss kk oo kk aa
PECK
Smoke Lake
FINLAYSON
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SCALE 1:450,000
AIRY
0
3.5
7
14
21
Kilometres
28
Galeairy Lake
Pen Lake
LIVINGSTONE
LAWRENCE
Cauliflower Lake
CLYDE
EYRE
Madawaska Lake
BRUTON
Algonquin
Forestry
Authority
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2011.
G
G uu ll ll
Kingscote Lake
NOTES:
North American Datum 1983
Universal Transverse Mercator (6 degrees) Projection
Zone 17. Central Meridian 81 degrees West.
Revised: April 26, 2012.
Base features from Digital Forest Resource Inventory
and Digital Ontario Basemaps
Produced by Algonquin Forestry Authority.
APPENDIX Q:
Native Background Information Report
And
Native Consultation Summary
Supplementary Documentation 6.1.8
A Summary of the Aboriginal Consultation Approach for each Aboriginal Community
The following is a summary of Aboriginal involvement in the production of this forest management
plan. The primary means of consultation was through the representative of each Algonquin
community on the FMP planning team. Nine of ten communities participated on the planning team.
No communities requested the ‘custom consultation’ as identified in the planning manual. Through the
course of the FMP development only one Algonquin community changed their representative on the
planning team.
(a)
a list of the Aboriginal communities, and the primary contact person for each community;
Algonquin Nation Kijicho-Manitou
Antoine First Nation (FN)
Bonnechere Algonquin FN
Mattawa/North Bay Algonquin FN
Ottawa Algonquin FN
Shabot Obaadjiwan FN
Snimikobi (Beaver Creek) AFN
Whitney Algonquins
(b)
Chief Kirby Whiteduck
Chief Patrick Glassford
Chief Katherine Cannon
Chief Dave Joanisse
Chief Richard Zohr
Chief Clifford Bastien
Lynn Clouthier
Chief Doreen Davis
Chief Randy Malcolm
Bob Craftchick
a list of the communities’ representatives on the planning team and local citizens committee;
Planning team:
Chief Richard Zohr
Chief Clifford Bastien Jr.
Robert Craftchick
Chief Dave Joanisse
Emmett Godin
Steve Sarazin
Chief Randy Malcolm
Irvin Yateman
Chief Doreen Davis
Whitney Algonquins
Antoine First Nations
Makwa Community Development Corporation
Snimikobi (Beaver Creek) AFN
Algonquin Nation Kijicho-Manito (Bancroft)
Shabot Obaadjiwan Algonquins
Local Citizens Committee:
Chief Patrick Glassford
(c)
a summary of correspondence provided to each community;
There was a large amount of correspondence provided to each community during FMP development.
Members of the planning team were provided with numerous emails, background reading/information,
meeting agendas and minutes throughout the entire process – this is not itemized in this section
(planning team meeting agendas and minutes are available for review). As well there was ongoing
correspondence related to other non-FMP items which are not included here. The following text
summarizes the more important or key FMP correspondence items provided to all communities.
The initial correspondence related to this FMP was sent on April 27, 2007. It was a letter from John
Winters to Chief Kirby Whiteduck and Jim Hunton, Jp2g Consultants Inc., (to be forwarded on to all
communities). This letter was the announcement of the start of the FMP process and asked each
community to consider their preferred consultation approach, nominate a planning team member and to
begin the production of an Aboriginal Background Information Report.
Throughout the summer/fall of 2007 confirmation letters were sent to the members of the planning
team from each community.
On July 20, 2007 a reminder letter was sent that mirrored the April 27, 2007 letter – this was sent as
some communities had not responded to the April 27, 2007 letter.
During the fall of 2007 various emails and phone calls occurred between Ontario Parks staff and
Algonquin members of the planning team to discuss content of Aboriginal Background Information
Reports and Values mapping and preferred consultation approach. Emails were sent advising of FMP
training modules.
On October 25, 2007 a follow up letter was sent to the July 20, 2007 letter advising that so far 6
communities has accepted a seat on the planning team and we encourage the other 4 communities to
become involved.
On November 13, 2007 the Ottawa Algonquins formally declined appointing a Planning Team
member.
During December of 2007 and Jan-March of 2008 conference calls, correspondence and meetings were
undertaken with each community regarding the content and production of the Aboriginal Background
Information Reports and Values mapping.
In February of 2008 the Ottawa Algonquins were contacted to discuss that even though they were not
on the planning team, they could still prepare an Aboriginal Background Information Report.
On March 1, 2008 an Open letter was sent to all Algonquin communities advising of Stage 1 –
Invitation to Participate in the FMP process. Many of the messages from the April 27 and July 20
2007 letters were repeated.
In April 2008 the Algonquin communities were sent a request to complete/verify a Socio-economic
and demographic profile for their community.
2
On March 9, 2009 an Open letter was sent to all Algonquin communities advising of Stage 2 – Review
of Long Term Management Direction.
On June 15, 2009 an Open letter was sent to all Algonquin communities advising of Stage 3 Information Centres: Review of Proposed Operations and the opportunity to have additional
consultation with each community at their request. On July 7, 2009 a reminder notice was sent.
On July 13, 2009 a letter was sent to Algonquin Forest Management Planning team members enclosing the Proposed Operations Summary map (revised July 9, 2009)
A notice was sent to all communities on October 26, 2009 to advise of the Information Centres taking
place from December 1-7, 2009 and to invite them to review and comment on the draft Forest
Management Plan.
At the commencement of each of the above stages, the Algonquins were provided with various
‘products’ available at these stages for their community review and comment. These ‘products’
included proposed operations composite maps, primary and branch road planning maps and summary
packages.
As discussed at the October 28, 2008 Algonquin Park Forest Management Planning Team Meeting,
each Algonquin representative on the planning team was given a copy of the primary road system map.
Each community was asked to identify the sections of road that are important to their community. This
was identified as Action Item Oct0802 in the meeting minutes. These maps are referred to as "Priority
Roads Maps". The purpose of these maps was to enable discussion around Algonquin road use and
forest management activities in the next forest management plan.
A total of five communities submitted their maps identifying the roads that are important to them.
Branch road planning information was later provided spurring discussions on the timing and
driveability of ‘priority’ roads. The primary road system is usually driveable and available for access
for these activities while branch and operational roads are only driveable for short periods of time but
as access in one area closes, another area opens up. AWS maps were provided to each community to
show water crossing installations and removals to further illustrate this point. This approach was
deemed to be an acceptable means of communication by the planning team representatives.
All proposed primary and branch road corridors are of interest to Algonquin communities. The
Mattawa/North Bay and Antoine Algonquins are generally satisfied with the roads as discussed.
The Annie Bay dam is scheduled to be replaced with a weir structure that would not have a driving
surface over it as it currently does. The Algonquin communities are opposed to this replacement as
they feel it would limit their access to the area despite the fact that the lower portion of Cameron Lake
road, and the Shirley Lake Road remain open.
On September 24th, 2009 a field trip was conducted with Algonquin community representatives from
the planning team to view and discuss access issues and water crossing removals.
3
On October 9, 2009, draft FMP sections 6.1.7 and 6.1.8 were sent to the Algonquin community
representatives along with the preliminary Report on Protection of Identified Aboriginal Values. The
representatives were asked to review and comment on the documents in order to finalize for the public
review period. No formal comments were received.
In November, 2009, a potential canoe-grade white birch area was found by the AFA. The location and
other pertinent information were provided to the Algonquin communities.
A supplemental notice went out on January 20th, 2010 to inform everyone of a two week extension to
the public review period due to technical difficulties which rendered the electronic version of the draft
FMP inaccessible.
At the suggestion of Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs staff, a copy of the draft FMP was placed in the
Algonquins of Ontario office to help facilitate review by the many Algonquin people utilizing and
visiting that office.
(d)
a summary of additional communication efforts with each community;
There were a number of additional communication efforts with each community throughout the FMP
process. The following is not an exhaustive itemized list but a summary of the highlights.
Efforts were made to assist individual communities with mail outs and newsletters to advertise the
FMP process. Sample text and comment forms were provided. Numerous conference calls and
meetings at community offices were held to discuss the Aboriginal Background Information Report
production. Planning team members were notified of FMP training opportunities and other forestry
related training (tree marking course, compliance course). Training material from sessions was
provided to Algonquin planning team members when they were unable to attend. Archaeological
potential area mapping was provided to all communities for their review and comment. Planning team
members were given the opportunity to review and update the Social and Economic Profile for their
community. In September of 2008 Ontario Parks assisted with a community meeting held in
Algonquin Park to promote the FMP process and help gather values for that community. A flight was
arranged by Ontario Parks using MNR aircraft for one community to view a portion of the Park from
the air to aid in their values mapping/identification. Planning team members were invited to training
sessions on white birch bark collection and suitable tree identification. Ontario Parks and AFA
continue to provide notification along with a map when potential birch bark trees are found during
operational activities. All communities were provided notification of Annual Work Schedule approval
and more recently provided a map of all watercrossings to be installed or removed in the Annual Work
Schedule. In January 2010, funding was offered to all communities to cover off their 2009 values
collection field work for the purpose of completing/complementing their Aboriginal Background
Information Reports. Three communities were provided with this funding to date.
(e)
a summary of comments or input received from each community, and planning team responses;
During the planning process the primary means of consultation/input was through the representative of
each Algonquin community on the FMP planning team. Nine of ten communities participated on the
4
planning team. The Algonquins provided comments/input on all components of the FMP and as a
planning team a solution was reached on these components and included in the FMP. The planning
team meeting minutes capture these topics. Examples include the inclusion of strategies to identify
and manage for white birch for canoe grade bark.
The main concern/comment of the Algonquin representatives was related to access in Algonquin Park;
the majority of communities wish for all roads to be left open after forestry operations are complete.
Roads facilitate their hunting, fishing and cultural activities. Road access conflicts with Park
objectives of remoteness, visitor solitude and protection of fragile resources (i.e. wood turtle, brook
trout) and there are safety and liability issues with watercrossings. Through discussions on Native
values mapping and identification of priority roads, AFA and Ontario Parks have been working with
each community on areas of importance to them. The planning team agreed to objectives that protect
Park values but also allow the use of priority roads by Algonquins. Discussions on this topic will be
ongoing throughout the implementation stage of the FMP.
Another main point of contention with the Algonquins was the approval of the Terms of Reference
with a section added regarding Lighten the Footprint. A number of the Algonquin representatives and
their communities do not support the Lighten the Footprint direction but do approve the Terms of
Reference. The Terms of Reference now includes an addendum to reflect this.
On October 15, 2009, a member of an Algonquin community expressed concern that the FIPPA
process may allow the public to access confidential Aboriginal values information if requested. As a
point of clarification, under EA Condition 10, any values deemed confidential by the communities may
be kept out of the public copy of the FMP and FIPPA requests for such information will be denied.
In November 2009, a member of one Algonquin community requested a community meeting with
Ontario Parks and the AFA to learn about Lighten the Footprint, the Endangered Species Act, and the
Forest Management Plan and the potential impacts these would have on local loggers and field
workers. The meeting has not yet taken place due to scheduling issues with all community members.
(f)
a summary of participation at public information centres and special information centres for the
community; and
There were no requested special information centres. Algonquin community members did attend the
Stage 3 and 4 Public Information centres – total numbers are not available as community members are
not asked to identify themselves. Algonquin community planning team representatives did attend and
work at all six Stage 3 Information Centres and were suitably identified and represented the planning
team at the session.
Two Algonquin community planning team representatives attended the second Information Centre
(Stage 4) in Barry’s Bay as participants.
(g) a summary of the implementation of the consultation approach for each Aboriginal community,
where applicable.
5
No communities chose the ‘custom’ consultation approach. Nine of ten communities held a seat on the
planning team, one Algonquin member was on the LCC and all communities participated in the
standard public consultation opportunities.
6
Supplementary Documentation 6.1.7
Aboriginal Background Information Report
2010-2020 Forest Management Plan
Algonquin Park Forest
The requirements for forest management planning include the preparation of an
Aboriginal Background Information Report. The contents of this report are identified in
Section 4.6.1 of the Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM). In general terms, the
report is to identify, for each Algonquin community, past and current resource use and
recent forest management-related concerns, including an Aboriginal values map.
Specifically the report is to contain:
a) a summary of the use of natural resources on the management unit by Aboriginal
communities, in particular hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering;
b) forest management related problems and issues for those Aboriginal communities;
c) an Aboriginal values map which identifies the locations of natural resource features,
land uses and values which are used by, or of importance to, those Aboriginal
communities (i.e. areas used for traditional and recreational activities, boundaries of
traplines, fuelwood areas, historical or cultural sites etc.); and
d) a summary of the negotiations between MNR and Aboriginal communities.
It should be noted that the portion of Algonquin Park in the Ottawa River watershed has
been the subject of comprehensive land claim negotiations between Canada, Ontario and
the Algonquins since 1992. Some input from the Algonquins during the FMP process is
also applicable or perhaps more applicable to the land claim process (i.e. beyond the
scope of the FMP).
There are 10 recognized Algonquin communities identified as having an interest in
Algonquin Park (see Sup Doc 6.1.8 for more information). Nine of the ten had
membership on the Planning Team for this FMP and were involved in preparing a
specific Aboriginal Background Information Report as required by the FMPM. At this
time three communities have submitted their final reports and the other communities
continue to work on theirs. Three reports are on file from previous FMP efforts in
Algonquin Park. Identification of Aboriginal values is of course a continual work in
progress.
While these specific reports have been completed and copies are on file at Ontario Parks
and Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) offices, the Algonquin communities have
requested that their entire report be kept confidential due to the sensitive nature of some
of the information contained in those reports. The following text will be a general
summary of information that was received related to the various components of the report
format as specified in the FMPM. Each individual Algonquin community would be
1
pleased to discuss their Background Information Reports with any interested member of
the public and possibly make portions of their reports available on a case by case basis.
Brief history: During the last 10,000 or more years, aboriginal people are known to have
occupied, lived on and used the Ottawa River watershed and its resources.
Archaeological sites date back to this time and possibly thousands of years earlier. The
first recorded European contact in the Ottawa Valley occurred in 1613 when Samuel de
Champlain encountered the Algonquins who were controlling the Ottawa River waterway
and were collecting tolls from all who were allowed to pass. Historical records show that
the Algonquins have been asserting their claim to Aboriginal title since at least 1772.
Since the 1700’s, the Algonquins were known to spend the majority of the year
occupying the different parts of the Ottawa Valley hunting, fishing, trapping and
gathering among other things. These activities necessitated use of timber and other
resources. Many of the Algonquins during this period congregated during the summer
months at the catholic mission at the Lake of Two Mountains near Oka, Quebec. As the
fur trade industry waned, many of the Algonquins eventually also made their summer
residences in the areas of the Ottawa Valley that they annually frequented. Some of these
Algonquins who had occupied lands which are now within Algonquin Park from early
fall to late spring on a yearly basis now began to remain in those areas year round. Some
of the first Surveyors traveling through the area now known as Algonquin Park record
meeting with the Algonquins and Nipissings. An extensive historical research report on
the Algonquins commissioned by the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat was completed
by Joan Holmes and Associates Inc. in 1983. The part of her report covering the period
1900 to 1980 provides ample evidence of Algonquin use of Algonquin Park for hunting,
fishing, trapping and gathering purposes.
Use of the timber resource would have been confined to that required to support
subsistence activities such as that required for fuelwood, shelter, canoe and tool making.
The Algonquins are widely known for their skill in making birch bark canoes, a skill
which remains within the community to this day.
a) a summary of the use of natural resources on the management unit by
Aboriginal communities, in particular hunting, fishing, trapping and
gathering;
The Algonquins of Ontario have a long history of use of the Algonquin Park area, it is
their homeland. The Algonquins continue to use the natural resources in the Park today
for many of the same historical activities. The 10 local Algonquin communities use the
Park to some degree, some more than others depending on geographic proximity. Their
uses are all very similar.
These include moose and deer hunting, small game hunting, fishing, trapping, birch bark
collection, gathering of food and water, medicinal plants, firewood, other gathering
(spruce roots and gum, mushrooms etc.), berry picking and practicing of cultural
ceremonies and activities. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list. More recently many
Algonquins recreate in the Park and some Algonquins are now actively involved in all
2
aspects of forest management activities in the Park such as tree marking, silviculture,
road building and logging. During the 2008-09 fiscal year over 76,600 m3 of wood was
harvested by Aboriginal contractors, over 660 hectares were tree-marked and over $3.3
million was paid directly to these contractors for their work.
When the current system of registered traplines was established in 1958, several trappers
from Pikwàkanagàn were granted licences and traplines in the eastern and central
portions of the Park. There are currently 19 traplines held by Algonquin trappers.
While there is a continuous record of periodic hunting, fishing and gathering activity by
Aboriginal people in the management unit, this use has risen significantly since the mid1980s when the Algonquins began to assert their rights in the territory. This increased
use is directly related to claims of Aboriginal Right and Title which are the subject of
ongoing comprehensive land claim negotiations. The increase in hunting and fishing use
has resulted in a major increase in travel on the interior logging road network within the
Park. Since 1992, Ontario and the Algonquins have negotiated towards an “Agreement
on Hunting”, which provides for necessary conservation and public safety provisions
while allowing for an orderly Algonquin hunt to continue while the land claim is being
negotiated. Over the same period there has been a significant increase in Algonquin
fishing activity, both winter and summer, throughout the management unit. There is no
similar agreement on fishing.
b) forest management related problems and issues for those Aboriginal
communities;
There are some forest management related problems and issues identified by the
communities. These problems and issues include: logging and trucking activities during
hunting times, breaching of roads at watercrossings, availability of fuelwood, protection
of birch trees, ‘equal’ harvesting rights/wood allocations/forestry opportunities for every
community and more ‘decision making’ roles for the communities.
Through ongoing dialogue these problems and issues will continue to be addressed. The
breaching of roads at watercrossings seems to be a focal point for many of the
communities as road access is preferred. However for safety and liability reasons and
protection of other Park values (species at risk, solitude, brook trout lakes) removal of
watercrossings and access control are key measures to meet Park objectives and various
standards, manuals and legislation.
Concerns were noted around timber harvesting activities (all aspects including cutting,
tree marking, silviculture, hauling, road building, etc) held during the Algonquin moose
and deer hunt. Speeding log trucks and volume of log trucks are once again a major
concern with many Algonquins.
Breaching of forest access roads was once again an issue that came up repeatedly over the
course of the last Forest Management Plan. Algonquins are very concerned over the
3
forest management practices being conducted in areas where they engage in hunting and
gathering. The breaching of roads is an ongoing issue in relation to being able to access
areas for their pursuits.
In recent years a number of issues have emerged relating to Algonquin access on interior
logging roads for hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering activities. These include such
issues as safety, construction and maintenance strategies, removal of bridges and culverts
to address environmental and liability issues and winter maintenance.
At the same time, recent independent forest audits of AFA operations have identified
issues relating to water crossing construction, monitoring and maintenance. Algonquin
Park has also been revisiting strategic park planning and operational issues relating to the
management of the interior road network. At times the implementation of the road
planning decisions has been at odds with Algonquin interests in accessing resources.
Algonquins expressed concern over the protection of white birch. The Algonquins agree
that the protection of both pure stands of white birch as well as dominant individual white
birch is required during the implementation of the next FMP.
Many communities wish to obtain a direct allocation of timber from Algonquin Park
and/or a harvest allocation, better access to employment opportunities in both forestry
and Park management and a greater decision making role overall. The latter point may
be best addressed through the land claim process. One community has been very
successful in acting as a harvesting contractor for the AFA – this is a difficult business to
establish and prosper. Discussions will continue with each community to match skill sets
to opportunities.
c) an Aboriginal values map which identifies the locations of natural resource
features, land uses and values which are used by, or of importance to, those
Aboriginal communities (i.e. areas used for traditional and recreational
activities, boundaries of traplines, fuelwood areas, historical or cultural sites
etc.);
The Algonquins have consistently expressed their commitment to preserving and
protecting the environment. Most communities have compiled information on the
historical, as well as current, use of the land claim area by Algonquin people. Much of
the information gathered is familiar to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and has
been considered for this Forest Management Plan. There are many Aboriginal values
which are generally biological in nature, are common knowledge and are included in the
FMP Values Mapping (Sup Doc 6.1.2). Some of these values include hunting and fishing
areas, trapline areas and wildlife wintering areas.
There are no maps accompanying this report due to confidentiality concerns however
values have been mapped and will be protected as specified by the communities. Moose
4
and deer hunting primarily occur on the north and east side of Algonquin Park. The
entire portion of Algonquin Park within the land claim area is important to the Algonquin
communities for the above activities. Note that many registered archeological sites
(Borden sites) protect Aboriginal values. The cultural and archaeological sites identified
are from various archaeological and historical surveys conducted for Algonquin Park.
The body of knowledge concerning prehistoric resources in Algonquin Park is incomplete
and lacks detail. The AFA and MNR are interested in obtaining any documented
information on any additional known sites of archaeological or historic significance. The
vast majority of known sites are located in shoreline or other areas that are reserved from
logging activity. Current guidelines for the management unit specify that all known
historical or archaeological sites will be identified as Areas of Concern and reserved from
harvest, renewal, tending or road construction activities. Discussions are continuing with
Algonquin communities with respect to further identification of known sites.
Archeological potential area mapping is included in Sup Doc 6.1.2. All communities
reviewed the results of the archeological predictive modeling for this FMP and are in
agreement with the area mapped.
Aboriginal values maps also portray the following features;
• high potential gathering areas for birch and cedar,
• potential timber allocations,
• fuelwood collecting areas,
• medicinal plants and berry collecting areas,
• traditional hunting, fishing and campsite areas,
• moose and deer harvest locations,
• trap zones,
• archaeological sites,
• sacred and cultural sites,
• historical sites,
• area for future economical use and potential cultural/tourist development sites.
Regarding Confidentiality of Cultural Resource Sites: The Algonquins identified an issue
relating to confidentiality of known cultural resource sites. To address this matter it was
agreed that sites identified by the community as part of the Aboriginal values mapping
will not be displayed on the public values map in the plan. Rather, these sites will remain
with the parties on internal maps so that they may be identified and appropriate protection
provided during forestry operations.
d) a summary of the negotiations between MNR and Aboriginal communities.
Sup Doc 6.1.8 contains a complete summary of consultation with each community. All
10 communities were invited to sit on the Planning team, given a choice regarding their
preferred consultation approach, and had the opportunity to prepare an Aboriginal
Background Information Report. Opportunities were given to review all FMP
5
components as they were prepared. Primary and branch road planning maps were
provided to each community for their input.
Access and water crossing removals may be the most important topic for the Algonquin
people and many opportunities were provided to discuss this topic including a joint field
tour to show and discuss specific details. However, the legal and policy reasons for
removing watercrossings are largely not agreed to by the Algonquins leading to issues.
Each community had been asked to provide maps of ‘priority’ roads used by their
community and discussions ensued regarding preferred access. It was agreed upon that
the primary road system is usually driveable and available while branch and operational
roads are only driveable for short periods of time but as access in one area closes, another
area opens up. AWS maps were provided to each community to show water crossing
installations and removals to further illustrate this point and to give advanced notice of
road closures.
Another main point of contention with the Algonquins was the approval of the FMP
Terms of Reference with a section added regarding Lighten the Footprint. A number of
the Algonquin representatives and their communities do not support the Lighten the
Footprint direction but do approve the Terms of Reference; this is recorded in a new
addendum to the Terms of Reference.
In the background of forest management planning and implementation is the issue of
Aboriginal rights and the current ongoing land claim negotiations. Many comments,
concerns, and issues raised were very reflective of this fact.
The Algonquins identified white birch as being of particular cultural importance and feel
that it is not adequately protected. A workshop/training session was held jointly with
Ontario Parks, AFA, and Algonquin communities to learn about the identification and
protection of canoe-grade white birch. As suitable trees or stands are found by the AFA
the trees are marked to stay and the location reported to the Algonquin communities.
The Algonquins feel that they are still not receiving “a more equal participation in the
benefits provided through forest management” in this Forest Management Unit and that
this requires more effort on behalf of Algonquin Park “management” to include the
Algonquins.
In terms of successes the Algonquins were also involved in other Forest Management
Groups such as the CSA Advisory Committee, the LCC, and the Independent Forest
Audit. Algonquins have been involved in harvesting, silviculture, tree marking and road
building, and were able to partake in various training opportunities including tree
marking and identification of canoe-grade white birch.
6
APPENDIX R:
2010-11 MNR Algonquin Park District Report
For Class EA Condition 34
MNR District Report
for
Forest Management Class EA Condition 34
(Replaces direction on T&C 77 reporting in the “Annual Report Preparation and Review
Protocol”, version 2, Nov 05, 2002)
District:
Algonquin Park
District Manager:
Mr. Jay Nichols, A/Park Superintendent
Management Unit(s):
451
Fiscal Year:
2010-2011
Submission date:
February 29, 2012
District Contact Person:
Joe Yaraskavitch
Table A - Condition 34 (formerly T&C 77) District Report
District: Algonquin Park
Communication
Efforts to increase
Awareness and Explore
Potential Opportunities
Management Unit(s): 451
Fiscal Year: 2010-2011
W/Aboriginal Communities
• Dialogue continued with Algonquin Forestry Authority, Algonquin Communities and
MNR in implementation of Condition 34.
• Extensive communications with Algonquin Communities most notably those who
harvested wood this year: Algonquins of Pikwakanagan- Makwa. The Mattawa- North
Bay Algonquins and Whitney Algonquins did not harvest wood this year. The Whitney
Algonquins were involved in road construction, hauling and other activities.
• Opportunities discussed for Algonquin involvement in harvesting, silvicultural
contracting, road maintenance and construction.
• All communities were advised of the approval of the 2010-11 AWS and provided maps of
all proposed activities – specifically water crossing installations and removals.
• All communities were advised of the location of canoe grade white birch trees discovered
during tree marking operations during this year.
• Nine Algonquin communities (Antoine First Nation, Mattawa/North Bay Algonquins,
Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation, Whitney Algonquins, Algonquins of Greater Golden
Lake, Algonquins of Pikwaganagan, Snimikobi (Ardoch) Algonquin First Nation,
Algonquin Nation Kijicho-Manito (Bancroft) and Shabot Obaadjiwan) were actively
involved in the 2010 FMP planning process, with a member from each community sitting
on the Planning Team. The FMP was not fully approved until October 2010.
W/Forest Industry
AFA (plan author and sole license holder) led all discussions concerning harvesting
opportunities and was involved in Condition 34 meetings and discussions.
Harvesting
Opportunities and
Results
Licencing and Allocation
• Nil.
Harvesting Contracts (without licence)
• Makwa (Pikwakangan) harvested approximately 57,904 m³ during 2010-2011.
• Harvest contractors, including road construction etc., employ approximately 25
Aboriginal employees.
Other Forest
Management
Opportunities and
Results
Approximately 920 ha of tree marking, 146 ha of hardwood stand improvement and 392 ha of
manual cleaning and pre-commercial thinning were completed by Aboriginal contractors
during 2010/2011.
The following opportunities are occurring or available:
•
•
Opportunities to quote on other silvicultural jobs which may arise during the
course of the plan
Data collection
A number of Algonquin representatives have attended various FMP training and meetings.
One Algonquin member continues to be a member of the Local Citizens Committee.
Algonquins also participated in aerial moose inventories, nursery creek surveys, moose
aquatic area and stick nest surveys and fish stocking.
Ontario Parks employs a number of Algonquins as full time, seasonal and summer student
staff. The full time and seasonal staff is involved in forest compliance activities and all
aspects of the forestry program in addition to Park operations duties. Summer students were
involved in species at risk research and monitoring, white tail deer migration studies and trail
re-routing.
•
Commitment by AFA/MNR to notify communities of any training opportunities in
forestry (eg tree marking, compliance, scaling, fire training etc) and to offer/sponsor 1-2
individuals from each community on such courses.
Education and/or
Training Initiatives
•
•
The AFA holds various training sessions that Native contractors attend such as tree
marking, careful logging, water crossings and other on site training.
•
The Algonquins continue to make significant strides in becoming involved in operational
forestry in Algonquin Park. However economic conditions tempered the forest industry
overall resulting in somewhat lower levels of achievement this year. Aboriginal expertise,
knowledge and capacity is building each year.
•
Significant effort was expended by the nine communities, MNR and AFA on developing
the 2010-2020 FMP. All communities regularly attended planning team meetings, public
information centers and their own community meetings.
•
Negotiations on implementation of Condition 34 occur against a backdrop of the
Algonquin land claim negotiations, wherein Algonquins are asserting fundamental issues
relating to Aboriginal right title and interest in the territory. While constant effort is
required to separate issues and processes, Algonquins often measure results against their
expectations flowing from the land claims process. Dialogue is productive and cordial,
and the Algonquins can be expected to capture any gains made in the FMP process.
Forestry and other economic issues remain high on the Algonquin agenda in land claim
negotiations.
Other Related Comments
Date Submitted:
Feb. 29, 2012
Ontario Parks sponsored one Algonquin to attend the Provincial Scaling course and paid
the course registration fees of $1,072.
District Manager: Jay Nichols, A/Park Superintendent
Contact Person: Joe Yaraskavitch.
Table B - Condition 34 District Report
Forest Management Planning Process
LCC
Active
Member
Algonquin Park
non-Active
Member
FMP Team
Active
Member
non-Active
Member
Information
Report on File
Yes
No
Industry Jobs
$$ value of Contracts, Thinning, etc.
Type of
Licence
(Overlapping,
Other)
Wood Allocations (Cubic Metres)
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
Industry
07/08
08/09
09/10
M.N.R.
10/11
08/09
09/10
# of Aboriginal people working in
mills and bush operations
10/11
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
Management
Unit
Whitney Algonquins
1
Mattawa/North Bay
Algonquins
Algonquins of
Pikwakanagan
Antoine Algonquins
1
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
Bonnechere Algonquin
First Nation
Algonquins of Greater
Golden Lake
Snimikobi (Ardoch)
AFN
Algonquin Nation
Kijicho-Manito
(Bancroft)
Shabot Obaadjiwan
1
Total
Access to Opportunities
Native
Background
Member of
First Nations and other
Aboriginal groups by
MNR District
Access to Resources
1
Contractor
15-bush 10-bush 10-bush
Contractor
10bush
N/a
n/a
n/a
10-bush
15bush
15-bush
15-bush
$1072 25-bush
25bush
25-bush
25-bush
1
1
Yes
1
Yes
1
1
9
5
$3.72
million
$3.36
million
$2.91
million
$2.88
million
$15555
$27,000

Appendices - Algonquin Forestry Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

Captain Geech

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Get Your Kicks this Fall with LWYSA!

Retail Leasing Brochure Here

Providence at Harbour Club

Northstar MLS Matrix Page 1 of2 http://matrix.northstarmls

Aseel , Dania , , Dania , , Dania , Jumana , Muna , Ru`a Alain Sara

Wild, Wet and Untamed - VirginiaLiving.com

For Immediate Release: March 23, 2011

FOOTBALL SEASON IS FINALLY HERE!!! ENJOY