2019 2021 forest management operating plan · 2019. 6. 11. · opaskwayak cree nation, sapotaweyak...
TRANSCRIPT
NISOKAPAWINO FORESTRY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
2019 – 2021 FOREST MANAGEMENT
OPERATING PLAN
February 28, 2019
Kevin Dudka, Forestry Superintendent
Mike Paddock, Operations Forester – Planning
Matthew Forbes, Operations Forester – Planning
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Format ........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Plan Review Process ............................................................................................. 2
2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................ 3
2.1 General ................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Community Information Meetings for the 2019 – 2021 FMOP ....................... 4 2.3 Province of Manitoba Consultation with First Nations .................................... 6 2.4 Public Issues and Concerns Table ....................................................................... 6
2.5 Other Ongoing Public Participation Processes .................................................. 6
3.0 WOOD SUPPLY ............................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Wood Supply Requirements ................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Hardwood Hog Fuel Requirements ........................................................ 8 3.2 Regulation of the Annual Allowable Cut ............................................................ 8
4.0 ACCESS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 11
4.1 General ................................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Summary of Access Development ...................................................................... 11
4.2.1 All-weather Roads .................................................................................. 11
4.2.3 Watercourse Crossings .......................................................................... 12
4.3 Road Management Planning .............................................................................. 12 4.4 Dickstone Road Licensing .................................................................................. 13
5.0 HARVESTING ................................................................................................................ 14
5.1 Summary of Wood Supply Sources ................................................................... 14 5.1.1 Softwood Harvest and Purchase ........................................................... 14 5.1.2 Third Party Operations ......................................................................... 14
5.1.3 Log Stockpile Sites ................................................................................. 15 5.2 Contingency Planning ......................................................................................... 16 5.3 Roadside Delimbing ............................................................................................ 16 5.4 Salvage Opportunity ........................................................................................... 16
5.4.1 Jack Pine Budworm Salvage ................................................................ 16
6.0 FOREST RENEWAL ..................................................................................................... 17
6.1 General ................................................................................................................. 17 6.2 Scarification, Site Preparation and Tree Planting ........................................... 17 6.3 Forest Regeneration Monitoring ....................................................................... 17 6.4 Stand Tending ..................................................................................................... 18
6.4.1 Vegetation Management ........................................................................ 18 6.4.2 Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Mitigation ................................................... 18
7.0 FOREST MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 19
7.1 General ................................................................................................................. 19 7.2 Pre-Harvest Forest Investigation Surveys ........................................................ 19
7.3 Forest Protection ................................................................................................. 19 7.3.2 Insect and Disease .................................................................................. 20
7.4 Integrated Resource Management .................................................................... 20
8.0 MANAGEMENT OF OPERATION............................................................................. 22
8.1 Sustainable Development Forest Practices Guidelines .................................... 22
8.2 Forest Management Planning and Operating Practices (FMPOPs) .............. 22 8.3 Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) ........................................................... 23 8.4 Environmental Management System (EMS) .................................................... 23
9.0 FMOP MONITORING AND REPORTING ............................................................... 25
9.1 General ................................................................................................................. 25 9.2 Forest Management Operating Plan Report .................................................... 25
9.3 EMS and SFM System Reporting ..................................................................... 26
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 30
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – SD AAC Levels on Open Crown Land for FML Area No. 2 ........................................10
Table 2 – Road Categories – Planning Criteria for FML Area No. 2.... ......................... Appendix 2
Table 3 – Planned and Projected Access Development for FML Area No. 2 ................ Appendix 2
Table 4 – Planned Road Development............................................................................ Appendix 2
Table 5 – Road Decommission Status ............................................................................ Appendix 2
Table 6 – Watercourse Crossing Information ................................................................. Appendix 2
Table 7 – Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU ....................................... Appendix 3
Table 8 – Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU ..................................................... Appendix 3
Table 9 – SFM Performance Indicators for the FML Area ...........................................................27
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Abbreviation Codes
Appendix 2: Roads
Table 2 Road Categories – Planning Criteria for FML Area No. 2
Table 3: Planned and Projected Access Development for FML Area No. 2
Table 4: Planned Road Development
Table 5: Road Decommissioning Status
Table 6: Watercourse Crossing Information
Appendix 3: Planned Harvest and Renewal Activities
Table 7: Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU
Table 8: Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Appendix 4: Public Participation
Invitation Letter and Schedule – Community Information Meetings
Newspaper and Radio Ads for Community Information Meetings –
Examples
Community Information Meeting Agenda
2019 – 2021 FMOP Community Information Meetings – Questions
and Concerns Raised
Questions and Responses from Public Concerns Table
March 2017 – February 2019
Appendix 5: Maps
FML Area No. 2
Saskatchewan River Forest Section Harvest Map
Highrock Forest Section Harvest Map
Nelson River Forest Section Harvest Map
FML Summary – Renewal and Tending
Forestry Road Inventory Status
Appendix 6: Harvest Block Information Sheets and Aerial Photos
(In Separate Binder)
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
The 2019 – 2021 Forest Management Operating Plan (also hereafter referred to as the Plan, Draft
Plan, or the FMOP), has been prepared as per requirements of Section 17 A (i) of the Forest
Management License (FML) Agreement dated May 4, 1989 between Canadian Kraft Paper
Industries Limited (CKP), Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation (NFMC) and the
Province of Manitoba.
NFMC arose at the finalization of the partnership agreement on July 6, 2018 between Nekoté
Limited Partnership (a new corporation representing seven First Nations Communities) and CKP.
This included shared forest management responsibilities on the FML. NFMC is responsible to
develop Forest Management Plans, manage renewal activities, maintain environmental
certifications, strengthen engagement with rightsholders and stakeholders and improve access to
employment and business development opportunities.
The preparation of the FMOP falls within the requirements of The Forest Act of the Province of
Manitoba. The contents of the FMOP conform to the “Manitoba’s Submission Guidelines for
Forest Management Operating Plans” (September 2015) developed by the Department of
Sustainable Development (SD) – formerly the Department of Conservation and Water Stewardship
(CWS) – Forestry Branch.
Effective January 1, 2003 the Forest Management Licence (FML) Area, FML Area No. 2, consists
of the area described in Section 8 (A) (i) of the FML Agreement, as confirmed by correspondence
received from the Deputy Minister, CWS, dated June 27, 2002. The decision by the province to
remove the Grass River Provincial Park (FMU 60) from the FML became effective March 31,
2009.
The Plan provides details of the activities proposed to be undertaken for the management of the
forest resource on FML Area No. 2 during the period of June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2021. The Plan
also provides for planned harvest areas for third parties operating within FML Area No. 2.
The Plan provides detailed information regarding access development, harvesting and forest
renewal activities planned for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 operating years. In addition, projections
of access development and harvesting activities are provided for the period 2021-22, and operating
areas proposed for 2022-23 and 2023-24 are identified.
The activities identified in the Plan fall under the direction of Manitoba Environment Act License
No. 2302 ER which was issued by Manitoba Environment on December 30, 1997 in approval of
the 1997 – 2009 Forest Management Plan (FMP), with subsequent revisions on October 8, 1998
and on January 11, 1999. SD - Environmental Approvals Branch has extended this license via a
license alteration made pursuant to clause 14(2)(b) of the Manitoba Environment Act, issued on
January 19, 2015. This extension provides for licensing of the forest management activities
contained in this FMOP through to December 31, 2019. As stipulated in the license alteration all
activities proposed in this FMOP will be conducted in accordance with the specifications, limits,
terms and conditions of Environment Act License No. 2302 ER as revised January 11, 1999.
2
A map that illustrates the area encompassed by FML Area No. 2 is provided in Appendix 5. The
mill facilities and offices are located at The Pas, Manitoba.
1.2 Plan Format
This Plan follows “Manitoba’s Submission Guidelines for Forest Management Operating Plans”
(September 2015) and covers a two-year operating period.
Long-term strategies for new operating areas including consideration of wildlife values have been
and are continually being developed by NFMC in conjunction with the IRMTs on a case-by-case
basis subject to priorities, in a separate but complimentary process to the FMOP preparation.
This year NFMC has again included as much in-block mitigation as is practical at this stage of
the planning process within the Plan. Details related to the proposed harvest blocks including any
identified mitigation are provided on individual harvest block information sheets (Appendix 6).
The Plan includes mitigation detail on 1:15,840 scale photographs of the proposed blocks, and
gross block boundaries, together with broad scale information about other resource values and
users, on 1:180,000 scale Forest Section maps. SD head office in Winnipeg will be supplied
with a digital copy of the entire Plan complete with 1:180,000 and 1:350,000 scale maps and
1:15,840 scale photographs, Regional offices will receive a complete digital copy as well with
the hardcopy maps and photographs for their region only.
1.3 Plan Review Process
It is expected the Plan will be reviewed by SD on a regional basis by the Branches of Forestry,
Wildlife, Fisheries (Water Stewardship), Lands, Parks and Protected Spaces, and Regional Support
Services through the Integrated Resource Management Teams (IRMT) in FML Area No. 2.
Further detailed review of the Plan information will occur with the IRMTs in conjunction with the
submission and approval process for work permits.
Further to the SD regional review, the SD Integrated Directors Group (IDG) will review the Plan
from a provincial perspective. The Director of Forestry will provide a response on behalf of all of
SD as a result of this process.
The Plan will also be made available to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
and with Transport Canada, with respect to the Navigation Protection Act, to facilitate their
consideration of activities in the Plan related to their mandates. NFMC will discuss
implementation of Plan activities with these agencies as required.
3
2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
2.1 General
NFMC recognizes the key role that public and stakeholder user group participation plays in forest
management on the FML Area. The Environmental Policy, Sustainable Forest Management
Policy, and the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Plan refer to public participation as a key
element in planning, implementation of operations, integration of non-timber values, monitoring
and reporting. A variety of mechanisms are used to accommodate the range of public knowledge,
varying interests and levels of involvement desired by participants, and to address both broad
community values and the site-specific concerns of individuals and groups.
For the preparation of the FMOP, the principle public participation process that provides input to
plan development is the community information meetings. Commencing in 1992, a public
communication program was initiated related to the 1993 FMOP preparation process. This
program has been continued for the preparation of all subsequent FMOPs. Over the past several
years the FMOP public participation process has been refined and further formalized, including
changes made in conjunction with the development and implementation of the SFM Plan. This
was done to provide a more structured opportunity to provide information about the plan to the
public and to offer the opportunity for feedback.
A Forest Resource Advisory Committee (FRAC) was established in 1996, now known as the
Sustainable Forest Management Committee (SFMC), to provide additional opportunity for public
participation to assist the organization in carrying out forest management responsibilities on the
DFA. The SFMC has provided a mechanism of advisement on the interests, values and concerns
of committee members relating to forest management planning, environmental licensing, and
operational activities occurring in the DFA. Committee members are provided with on-going
regular opportunities to be informed of forest management plans and activities and to provide input
on proposals. The SFMC has included representation from a wide range of interests across the
FML Area including:
• Towns, Municipalities and communities;
• Non-timber resource users;
• First Nations;
• Métis;
• Education and training;
• Province of Manitoba;
• Environmental Organizations;
• FML Area-related workers; and,
• Manitoba Timber Sale Operators.
Additionally, through the creation of NFMC, seven First Nations communities (Chemawawin Cree
Nation, Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, Misipawistik Cree Nation, Mosakahiken Cree Nation,
Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Sapotaweyak Cree Nation and Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation) have access
to a strengthened process of communication and relationship. Among other things, the Nekoté
Limited Partnership created a position (the Nekoté Liaison) to create and work with a network of
4
Community Contacts with the intention of having better provision of information and relation of
feedback in the FMOP development process.
2.2 Community Information Meetings for the 2019 – 2021 FMOP
Through a series of community information meetings held throughout FML Area No. 2, NFMC
provided an opportunity for other forest resource users and members of the public to become aware
of the forest management activities proposed and to discuss any interests or concerns that they may
have. These community meetings are consistent with the public participation provisions of the
Manitoba Environment Act License issued for the 1997-2009 FMP. For this FMOP community
information meetings were held between January 7th and February 25, 2017 in the following
communities ordered by date of meeting: Cranberry Portage, Flin Flon, Wanless, Opaskwayak
Cree Nation/The Pas, Wabowden, Thompson, Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation – Nelson House,
Snow Lake, Cormorant, Sherridon, Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation – Birch River, Chemawawin Cree
Nation – Easterville, Misipawistik Cree Nation – Grand Rapids and Mosakahiken Cree Nation –
Moose Lake. Attempts will continue to hold meetings in Pimicikamak Cree Nation – Cross Lake,
Sapotaweyak Cree Nation – Pelican Rapids, and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation – Pukatawagan.
Meeting minutes will be forwarded for inclusion with this submission once the meetings have
taken place.
Letters were sent to organizations, groups and individuals on the mailing list inviting them to attend
these meetings. These organizations represented a broad range of interests including other
members of the forest industry, other resource users, First Nations, Métis and community groups.
In addition to these individual invitations, an open invitation was extended to all members of the
general public to attend the meetings held throughout FML Area No. 2 through local newspaper
and radio ads.
A copy of the letter of invitation to the community information meetings and examples of
newspaper ads as well as meeting minutes can be found in Appendix 4.
These meetings provided an opportunity for people who have an interest in forest management
operations to learn more about activities proposed for each operating district on FML Area No. 2.
They were designed for those in attendance to discuss their interests and provide input into the
Plan prior to its submission to SD for approval. The meetings also provided an opportunity to
discuss road development, road closure, access management plans, traditional knowledge
concerns, local plant and wildlife knowledge and any local community issues relating to forest
management activities.
The purpose of the FMOP community information meetings is to:
• Inform the public of the specific forest management activities planned to be undertaken in
the forthcoming two “plan years”, project activities for a third year and forecast an
additional two years for a total of a five year period;
• Answer questions seek input and discuss interests and concerns that resource users and/or
the general public may have about the planned and projected activities;
5
• Discuss any further additional forest management concerns or interests that the attendees
may have; and,
• Document in the Public Issues and Concerns Table any expressed concerns or interests in
review of the plan proposals for consideration prior to plan completion and submission for
approval.
The community information meetings now include the following agenda elements:
• Update on the status of Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation;
• Information on the opportunity for the public to access the Company’s SFM Plan and a
summary of the 1997 – 2009 FMP at www.canadiankraftpaper.com;
• Progress update on activities included in the current FMOP;
• Presentation of the developing FMOP under consideration;
• Discussion of proposed road development and decommissioning activities;
• Question and answer period with recorded minutes;
• Opportunity for detailed review of planning materials (maps, etc.) and documented input
from participants;
• Discussion of any local plant and animal species of interest to the community;
• Other local community interests including non-timber values;
• Heritage values;
• Opportunity for sharing of Aboriginal forest values including traditional ecological
knowledge from participants;
• Presentation of ongoing public participation processes including the SFMC; and,
• Opportunity to be placed on the Company’s mailing list to receive future mail out notices
of upcoming meetings.
A copy of the agenda can be found in Appendix 4.
6
2.3 Province of Manitoba Consultation with First Nations
Given the mandate of the Crown to ensure that consultation with First Nations occurs for resource
management activities, SD has communicated that the Province of Manitoba will conduct its own
First Nation consultation regarding this 2019 – 2021 FMOP during the spring of 2019. Additional
conditions resulting from this consultation may be provided when the plan is approved. Note that
NFMC continues to hold its own communications with First Nations communities through NFMC
processes, the Nekoté Community Liaison, the community information meetings, SFMC,
Resource Boards and other processes.
2.4 Public Issues and Concerns Table
One of the key mechanisms developed through the SFM Plan process, which has ongoing
application to the FMOP, is the development and implementation of a Public Issues and Concerns
Table. This table provides a mechanism for documentation of issues brought forward by the public
for input, as applicable, to the planning process. Any such issues and concerns brought forward
are tracked for application to the development of the FMOP and any subsequent Forestry Road
Development Plans.
The Public Issues and Concerns Table includes:
• Documented issues and concerns arising during the Draft Plan presentation and the
question and answer session that remain open issues or require follow-up in the FMOP;
• Documented issues and concerns brought forward to Company staff in one-on-one
discussions following the Draft Plan presentation;
• Further documented input received in the form of one-on-one enquiries, letters, emails and
phone calls received from the public outside of the community information meeting
The updated Public Issues and Concerns Table is provided in Appendix 4 to the FMOP to
document the concerns identified during the community information meeting process and the
nature of the party concerned, as available. Issues and concerns that have been raised are addressed
by the NFMC Operations Foresters within the mitigation proposed for harvest blocks in the FMOP
or in the Forestry Road Development Plan as applicable.
Within the table, the response and action plan for each concern is documented including situations
where a difference in view may prevail. As noted, concerns brought forward throughout the year
will also be documented in the respective FMOP Public Concerns Table. This table is also
summarized annually to bring together all concerns raised and how they were addressed for
reporting in the SFM Annual Report.
2.5 Other Ongoing Public Participation Processes
In addition to community information meetings that are specifically orientated towards review of
the FMOP, additional meetings are held periodically, when invited to do so, with community-
based resource boards. Currently the resource boards that are in place include the communities of
Cross Lake, Nelson House, Norway House, OCN, Moose Lake, Cormorant, and Easterville.
7
The Company also undertakes communication on an ongoing basis with special interest groups,
individual stakeholders and through the SFMC. All meeting minutes of the SFMC can be found at
www.canadiankraftpaper.com.
Communication with user groups has been on-going for a number of years, including attendance
and presentations at association and group meetings, and one-on-one meetings and field trips with
individual resource users. These approaches are viewed as being very valuable to the planning
and mitigation process for the FMOP as they bring forward local values, knowledge and expertise
to assist in identifying and dealing with specific issues and areas of concern. Information gathered
through such meetings and field trips is documented and utilized in development of specific
mitigation plans.
The final approved version of the 2019 – 2021 FMOP will be made available (including maps) on
the CKP website. Local communities, First Nations and the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF)
will be advised when it is posted.
8
3.0 WOOD SUPPLY
3.1 Wood Supply Requirements
CKP currently operates an unbleached kraft pulp and paper mill at The Pas. The projected mill
consumption is 850,000 m3 of softwood chips in each year of the two years of the FMOP.
Acceptable softwood species for the use of the operations are black spruce, white spruce, jack pine,
and to a limited extent, balsam fir. This volume will be fulfilled from three primary sources: CKP
contract logging operations; Manitoba third party operator purchase suppliers; and, Saskatchewan
purchase suppliers.
Province of Manitoba timber sale operators within FML Area No. 2 hold timber volume rights as
regulated through their respective Timber Sale Agreements with the Province of Manitoba under
the Manitoba Timber Quota System. These operators may manufacture this timber in their own
mill facilities or sell the timber to other operations. For 2019 – 2021, there are sufficient blocks in
the plan to meet the volume requirements of the Quota Holders. A portion of this softwood volume
is expected to be available for purchase by CKP.
Wood supply sources for the CKP kraft pulp and paper mill and Quota Holders are described in
Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 respectively of the FMOP.
3.1.1 Hardwood Hog Fuel Requirements
As much power (electricity) is required in the papermaking process, the kraft paper mill operates a
power boiler to meet this requirement. The power boiler burns either waste oil or hog fuel that
produces steam which is then converted into electricity. When the sawmill was active, much of the
hog fuel requirement was met with the by-products of the lumber-making process – sawdust,
trimmings, etc. With the sawmill idle, CKP has had to supplement its hog fuel requirements with
other sources. Hardwood (poplar) on the licence area was identified as a viable option. As the FML
Agreement does not include hardwood harvest on the licence area, a request was made to the
Province to make hardwood available through purchase from third-party operators.
3.2 Regulation of the Annual Allowable Cut
The Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is the volume of wood that can be harvested each year on a
sustainable basis and is essentially equal to the volume of wood that grows from the forest base in
one year. Information related to the use of the SD Forest Inventory as a basis for the development
of the AAC, the calculation of the AAC, and its application to sustainable forest management is
provided in the FMP.
The AAC by Forest Management Unit (FMU) for FML Area No. 2 is presented in Table 1. AAC
figures provided in Table 1 are for softwood volumes. The softwood AAC figures include volumes
available for use by all operators in FML Area No. 2. Current softwood AAC figures provided for
all FMUs are based upon Level I Utilization according to the SD Forest Inventory that includes
only softwood stands. The FML Agreement does not include hardwood harvest on the licence area
and hardwood planning is the responsibility of SD. Therefore hardwood volumes could be
harvested by the Province of Manitoba timber sale operators from some FMUs in FML Area No.
2.
9
Calculated AACs provide for the overall regulation of the total volume harvested by all operators
within each FMU. The regulation of the AAC is determined and administered by SD as per their
policy “Harvest Control on Forest Management License Agreement Areas.” Wood volumes
planned for harvest in each FMU are provided in this FMOP (Appendix 3 – Table 7). Actual
volumes harvested from each FMU are then reported to SD in the Forest Management Operating
Plan Report. This information provides for the monitoring and regulation of the AAC by SD.
AACs are periodically updated with new provincial Forest Resource Inventories (FRI) completed
on a Forest Section basis. The FML is divided into three Forest Sections – Saskatchewan River,
Highrock and Nelson River. Both the Saskatchewan River (effective 2015-16) and Highrock Forest
Section (effective 2010-11) FMU AACs (excluding FMU 69) have been re-calculated and are
reflected in Table 1. The Nelson River Forest Section forest inventory is currently being finalized
and is anticipated to be effective for the 2020-21 operating year. Volumes listed are in m3 and
reflect the ‘Provincial 8’ log length’ standard of utilization for softwood.
As indicated in the FMP, the planning target in terms of AAC regulation is to plan and harvest
within the AAC for each FMU on an annual basis, recognizing that this target may not always be
feasible due to access limitations in some FMUs, timber salvage requirements and other operating
constraints (such as the practicality of harvesting a relatively small AAC from an FMU each year).
For these reasons, it may be necessary at times to exceed the AAC for particular FMUs in a given
year.
At this point there is no plan to exceed the AAC in any FMUs during the term of this Plan, but this
may change as the Plan unfolds and modifications become necessary. This process will be carried
out in compliance with Forestry Branch Circular Dir. 19, “Harvest Control on Forest Management
License Agreement Areas.” Where harvest will exceed the AAC by less than 10%, approval from
SD is not required and will not be requested. For any FMUs for which single year overcuts take
place, the simple average harvest volumes will be balanced with the AAC by the end of the current
cut control period. The current cut control period spans from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2020.
This FMOP will extend into the next cut control period, April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2025.
10
Table 1: SD AAC Levels on Open Crown Land for FML Area No. 2
Forest Section FMU Level 1
Softwood
Saskatchewan River
50 26,809
53 103,990
58 131,910
59 93,488
Sub – total 356,197
Highrock 67 379,371
68 62,206
69 168,132
Sub – total 609,709
Nelson River 83 195,550
84 180,330
85 129,610
87 130,900
89 38,920
Sub – total 675,310
Total FML Area No. 2 1,641,216
Source: SD Forestry Branch.
11
4.0 ACCESS DEVELOPMENT
4.1 General
Access development is necessary in the management of the timber resource to provide the on-going
wood requirements for the mill while balancing the harvest within the individual FMU AAC
volumes. This access development involves, but is not limited to, clearing of road right-of-ways,
upgrading of existing roads and the construction of new roads, watercourse crossings and rail
sidings.
Third-party operators on FML Area No. 2 also require access development to their operating areas
throughout FML Area No. 2. Third-party operators are responsible for the construction,
maintenance and management of their own access roads.
For consistency the access roads projected for use by third parties are described using the same
planning categories as those used for the CKP roads (Table 2).
4.2 Summary of Access Development
For planning purposes, roads are categorized as described in Appendix 2 – Table 2.
Access development activities related to all-weather road construction and main seasonal roads
planned for 2019 – 2021 are summarized in Appendix 2 – Table 3. Planned and projected access
development and previously established roads and rail sidings are illustrated on the maps provided
in Appendix 5.
4.2.1 All-weather Roads
For each planned and projected all-weather road to be established in 2019 – 2021, a description of
the schedule of road development activities and related information is provided in Appendix 2 –
Table 4. Information includes:
• Road Category
• Schedule of activity
o Right-of-way clearing
o Construction
• Location of watercourse crossings
4.2.2 Main Seasonal Roads
For main seasonal roads to be established in 2019 – 2021, a description of the expected use is also
provided in Appendix 2 – Table 4. Information includes:
• Road Category
• Plan and/or projection year(s) to be established
• Road distance
12
4.2.3 Watercourse Crossings
For each planned and projected watercourse crossing related to the planned and projected all-
weather roads (2019 – 2021), a watercourse crossing data form is provided in Appendix 2 – Table
6. Information includes:
• Crossing location
• Government contacts
• Site description
• Watercourse uses
• Proposed structure
• Mitigation
• Abandonment Plan
Watercourse crossings will be established in compliance with processes outlined by Fisheries and
Oceans Canada.
Before construction of a navigable water crossing, detailed information will be provided to
Transport Canada as required under the Navigation Protection Act.
4.3 Road Management Planning
To assist in the integration and management of non-timber resources, Forest Road Development
Plans (FRDPs) will continue to be developed in conjunction with SD as areas are developed for
harvesting and renewal activities. FRDPs can include the type of access (e.g. winter vs. all weather),
access control measures, and the closure of roads when Company operations are complete.
For new roads identified in this plan, FRDPs will be developed with the IRMTs.
As noted in Section 2.2 the community information meetings on this FMOP provided an
opportunity to generally discuss road development and management plans. Specific FRDPs will be
developed on an ongoing basis outside of the FMOP process.
A number of CKP-built roads have been identified which are or will soon no longer be required for
harvesting or renewal access. A list of the roads under review is included in the FMOP community
information meeting agenda included in Appendix 4. This road list was discussed at the community
information meetings. A strategy will be developed for these roads on an individual basis that could
include permanent or temporary decommissioning, transfer of responsibility or access restriction.
These proposed roads, along with already-decommissioned roads are illustrated on the Forestry
Road Inventory Status map provided in Appendix 5. These roads are also listed in Appendix 2 –
Table 5.
Specific details pertaining to the management of seasonal roads developed to access harvest blocks
and the management of specific harvest block roads are outlined in the Harvest Block Information
13
Sheets included in Appendix 6. Such road management prescriptions will be put in place in
discussion with SD.
4.4 Dickstone Road Licensing
An Environment Act license was issued on August 12, 2009 to construct a road linking the Chisel
Lake road with PTH 39. Road construction has been initiated and will continue to proceed as set
out by the terms of that license.
14
5.0 HARVESTING
5.1 Summary of Wood Supply Sources
5.1.1 Softwood Harvest and Purchase
For the 2019-20 and 2020-21 operating years, the planned volume of softwood in this FMOP is 0
m3, however the volume in contingency blocks is substantial at over 3.1 million m3. The planned
softwood volume is zero due to the large infestation of jack pine budworm occurring off the licence
area south of Grand Rapids – Section 5.4.1 and the plan to continue to salvage that timber for as
long as possible. The intention is to focus, to the extent feasible, on the timber at the highest risk
of loss, which, for the time being, appears to be the timber south of the FML due to the longer
infestation period. If, for some reason, this timber is no longer available or usable, a transition back
onto the FML will be necessary. The unknown timing and seasonality of this possibility and the
unpredictability of the jack pine budworm impacts on the FML, in addition to the uncertainty of
purchase wood sources and the need for operational flexibility for both CKP and Province of
Manitoba timber sale operators contributes to the high volume of contingency wood included in
this FMOP.
The harvest blocks proposed in this Plan including those for the third parties are illustrated on the
Forest Section Harvest Maps for the 2019 – 2021 plan period and the 2019-20 and 2020-21 plan
years (Appendix 5). General areas proposed for operation in years 4 (2022-23) and 5 (2023-24) are
also noted on the maps as projections.
Appendix 3 – Table 7 provides a listing of all contingency harvest blocks. Sufficient harvest blocks
are presented to match the full AAC level for most FMUs.
Further to the summary information provided in Appendix 3 – Table 7, more detailed information
is provided for each harvest block on the Harvest Block Information Sheets provided in Appendix
6. For proposed 2019 – 2021 contingency harvest blocks, each sheet provides forest resource
information as well as the mitigation strategy to be implemented to integrate other resource values
for the area. Detailed mapped information related to mitigation for the 2019 – 2021 contingency
blocks is illustrated on the individual 1:15,840 scale aerial photos (accompanying the Harvest Block
Information Sheets). The Harvest Block Information Sheet, together with the details mapped on
the aerial photograph provides the overall forest management and mitigation for each harvest block.
5.1.2 Third Party Operations
Province of Manitoba timber sale operators have individual timber allocation agreements with the
Province of Manitoba independent of CKP. Timber sale blocks are included on the maps provided
in Appendix 5. Timber volumes associated with timber sale operators are regulated through their
respective Timber Sale Agreements with the Province of Manitoba under the Manitoba Timber
Quota System.
CKP expects to purchase a portion of its softwood requirements from Province of Manitoba timber
sale operators. These purchase volumes will be obtained from harvest blocks included within the
listing outlined in Appendix 3 – Table 7.
Timber sale operations are market driven. They produce mine timber, lumber and tongue and
groove planks for flooring. Usually the desired material for these products is not found in just one
15
or two stands; therefore, to accommodate their needs, a number of blocks are shown on Athapap
Road in FMU 59 and other areas which, if completely harvested, would exceed the AAC. In reality,
these blocks will be harvested over several years. Supervision of the SD timber sale operators falls
to SD. The actual volume harvested will be limited to the available AAC by SD unless SD has
approved harvesting in excess of the AAC.
In compliance with the FML Agreement, reports detailing the volumes of wood delivered to the
mill from each FMU are provided to SD. SD tracks the volume of wood used by third parties and
supplies the information to NFMC for reporting. Total volumes of wood harvested and delivered
for 2019-20 and 2020-21 will be reported to SD in the Forest Management Operating Plan Report.
This information will provide the data necessary to monitor the regulation of the AAC.
5.1.3 Log Stockpile Sites
A large portion of the wood harvested in the FML Area occurs during the winter months. In some
instances, wood needs to be moved over a short period of time from the winter cut areas to stockpile
sites where logs will be processed and delivered to the mill at a later date. Stockpile sites that may
be utilized in 2019 – 2021 include:
Nelson River Forest Section
Massan Spur (Twp 76 Rge 02W)
Radar Spur (Twp 72 Rge 03W)
Pipun Spur (Twp 67 Rge 09W)
Wabowden (Twp 68 Rge 08W)
Birch Tree (Twp 77 Rge 03 W)
Highrock Forest Section
Blueberry (Twp 68 Rge 27W)
Jungle Lake Spur (Twp 71 Rge 23W)
Hobbit (Twp 70 Rge 27/28W)
Buzz Lake (Twp 65 Rge 16W)
Ballpark (Twp 69 Rge 7W)
Saskatchewan River Forest Section
Crossing Bay Km 51 (Twp 58 Rge 17/18W)
Crossing Bay DW-15 (Twp 56 Rge 21W)
Dolomite (Twp 64 Rge 20 W)
In addition, in some operating areas chipperwood may be consolidated for processing within
individual harvest blocks.
16
5.2 Contingency Planning
As part of the planning process it is important that allowance be made for potential factors which
are not fully known at the time the Plan is prepared to ensure access to the timber resource. Such
factors can include, but are not limited to: weather conditions, mill product markets, contractor
efficiency, effects of forest fire, insect and disease outbreaks, and operational factors such as
unforeseen mitigation requirements put in place as the Plan is implemented.
Several contingency areas have been included in the 2019 – 2021 FMOP in order to accommodate
for potential circumstances as described above. Blocks identified as contingencies are identified on
the maps provided in Appendix 5. A description of the purpose of the contingency blocks and the
1:15,840 photo is included in the Harvest Block Information Sheets provided in Appendix 6. Due
to the vast areas infested with the Jack Pine Budworm a category referred to as “Salvage
Contingency” was developed and has been included in this FMOP. It includes areas that were
identified as either moderately or severely infested with Jack Pine Budworm and are 60 years of
age or greater according to the provincial FRI. These areas were also netted down to reflect areas
that are reasonable to operate during the term of this Plan.
5.3 Roadside Delimbing
Operations will continue to roadside delimb where it makes sense from both an economic and
silviculture point-of-view.
5.4 Salvage Opportunity
5.4.1 Jack Pine Budworm Salvage
In July of 2015, forestry and fire crews travelling by aircraft north of Devils Lake noticed many
patches of red jack pine. Follow-up surveys conducted by SD determined the cause to be jack pine
budworm defoliation and estimated 3,000 ha of forest was heavily infested. In the spring of 2016,
at the request of SD the Company sent two contractors to salvage harvest the infected timber in this
area outside of the FML area. In July of 2016, SD conducted an aerial survey of central-northwest
Manitoba to determine forest health concerns. Initial findings determined the occupation of jack
pine budworm had expanded significantly north and west of the original infestation to Moose Lake.
This prompted SD to conduct an intensive aerial survey of the area which determined the total area
of infected timber to be 200,000 ha. Additional aerial surveys flown in 2017 and 2018 have found
the area infested to have expanded to 650,000 and 550,000 ha respectively.
Implications of such a serious outbreak are of major concern. Three years of repeated budworm
defoliation can kill mature jack pine. Dead stands of pure jack pine are a serious fire risk. Further,
jack pine budworm infestations are generally associated with drought conditions, increasing the fire
risk.
Consequently, with a large portion of harvest operations being planned in the Jack Pine Budworm
salvage area, the amount of harvest proposed on the FML for this Plan is significantly reduced.
Government consultation has been ongoing with communities impacted by the Jack Pine Budworm
infestation. CKP will continue to salvage timber in these areas as prioritized by SD.
17
6.0 FOREST RENEWAL
6.1 General
In compliance with Section 22, paragraph (F) of the FML Agreement, forest renewal activities to
be undertaken in 2019 – 2021 are presented in the Plan. Site specific details, in combination with
the reforestation treatment options selected, will dictate the year in which a specific forest renewal
activity will take place. As a result, forest renewal activities planned for 2019 – 2021 will occur on
sites that may be harvested in 2019 – 2021 or have been harvested in previous years.
Forest renewal activities planned for 2019 – 2021 are described in Appendix 3 – Table 8 for each
harvest block planned to receive forest renewal treatment in 2019 – 2021, a description of the
treatment(s) is provided by FMU. Information provided includes:
Scarification/site preparation - type of equipment and area (ha)
Planting - species, number of trees and area (ha)
Leave for natural treatments have been assigned to certain blocks
Vegetation management (herbicide) area (ha)
Not all basic renewal treatments for the FMOP are covered in Table 8 as planting and scarification
activities in 2019-2021 will depend to a great extent on the actual harvest areas that are cut in 2019-
2021. There are sufficient treatment blocks included to complete planned herbicide activities in the
entire planning period.
The silvicultural procedures that are scheduled in the 2019 – 2021 Forest Management Operating
Plan are fully described in the Forest Management Planning and Operating Practices (FMPOPs).
6.2 Scarification, Site Preparation and Tree Planting
Planned scarification, site preparation and tree planting areas are summarized in Appendix 3 – Table
8 and locations are presented on the Forest Section Maps (Appendix 5).
6.3 Forest Regeneration Monitoring
As of 2013, regeneration surveys are no longer conducted on harvested blocks in the Province of
Manitoba. Previously, a regeneration survey was conducted at 7 years following depletion and a
free-to-grow survey at 14 years after depletion. Now, the Province has consolidated silviculture
surveys into one survey depending on stand covertype: A year 10 free-to-grow survey for softwood
and softwood-dominated mixedwood blocks; and, a year 5-7 hardwood renewal survey for
hardwood and hardwood-dominated mixedwood blocks.
As hardwood stands on the FML are only harvested by third-party operators, forest renewal
including the hardwood regeneration survey is the responsibility of SD.
Free-to-grow surveys will be performed on blocks cut in 2009 or older to confirm they meet
government standards or to identify further treatments needed to achieve that status. A combination
of conventional ground surveys and aerial evaluation surveys will be used in the planning year.
18
Between the move of the free-to-grow survey from a year 14 to a year 10 survey, and the decision
of the only contractor conducting free-to-grow surveys in this region to discontinue their services
in 2013, a backlog of free-to-grow surveys has been created. As an interim measure, surveys were
conducted in-house between 2013 and 2016 to decrease the backlog.
Starting in 2017, free-to-grow survey work was again being contracted out to expedite reduction of
the backlog. Survey priority areas and plans for successive operating years have been identified.
6.4 Stand Tending
6.4.1 Vegetation Management
In order to ensure that conifer stands are not suppressed by excessive hardwood competition a
program to release stands by aerial herbicide is planned for fall of 2019 and 2020. An aerial
application of the herbicide glyphosate will be applied where hardwood competition is significant.
Areas planned for chemical release are summarized in Appendix 3 – Table 8 and locations are
presented on the Forest Section Maps (Appendix 5).
6.4.2 Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Mitigation
As described in section 7.3.2 sanitation procedures to mitigate dwarf mistletoe infections in
regenerating stands will be implemented as they are discovered. In 2019 – 2021 blocks will be
assessed for sanitation requirements and treated as required based on Pre-Harvest Forest
Investigation (PHFI) surveys, as described in section 7.2, and information gathered during ongoing
operations.
19
7.0 FOREST MANAGEMENT
7.1 General
Within the context of the Plan, forest management includes activities related to forest inventory,
forest protection, integrated resource management and forest renewal activities including stand
tending. The following is an overview of the proposed 2019 – 2021 forest management activities
for FML Area No. 2.
NFMC has assumed forest renewal responsibilities for all areas harvested after January 1, 1989
where the volume harvested was subsequently delivered to CKP. NFMC ensures that all areas
harvested by CKP contractor operations on FML Area No. 2 as well as by Province of Manitoba
timber sale operators who are included in this Plan and who sell their wood to CKP are reforested.
Forest renewal of any remaining areas harvested by timber sale operators is the responsibility of
the Province of Manitoba. In consideration of this agreement, it is NFMC's intention to ensure
complete reforestation, to the required provincial standards.
Actual forest renewal activities which occur in the Plan will be reported to SD in the Forest
Management Operating Plan Report.
7.2 Pre-Harvest Forest Investigation Surveys
In preparation for future harvest planning, NFMC undertakes Pre-Harvest Forest Investigation
(PHFI) surveys. As outlined in the FMPOPs, the purpose of the pre-harvest forest investigations is
to:
• Confirm suitability of area for harvest
• Determine silviculture renewal prescriptions and season of harvest
• Identify/confirm access requirements
• Identify any mitigation concerns
• Collect wildlife and habitat information
• Collect data to forecast wood flow
• Document unique and important features including vulnerable, threatened, rare and
endangered species
• Identify non-timber forest uses
• Identify forest health concerns
7.3 Forest Protection
The roles of CKP/NFMC and the Province of Manitoba with respect to forest protection are defined
in Clause 23 of the FML Agreement. In summary, Manitoba is responsible to provide forest
protection services including protection against fire, insects and disease on areas within FML Area
No. 2.
20
7.3.1 Fire Protection
A Fire Suppression Plan will be provided annually to SD prior to the start of each fire season. This
plan will provide details of the location, training and equipment of CKP/NFMC contractors. These
resources will be made available for prevention, detection and suppression of forest fires when
required. An up-to-date map of any in-bush timber inventories and stock pile sites will be provided
to SD with the Fire Plan.
CKP/NFMC will augment the fire detection operations of SD in areas of the FML Area in which
their personnel are working by immediately reporting all fires discovered by their personnel to SD.
For its part, the CKP/NFMC has and will continue to develop and enforce rules and regulations
regarding forest fire prevention for their employees in their work environment. They will continue
to apply the Forest Operation Modification Guidelines system, which determines forest operation
restrictions according to the fire hazard.
7.3.2 Insect and Disease
Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe is a parasitic plant infecting jack pine in some areas of the FML
Area. In areas of severe infection, large volume losses can occur before the stand reaches
merchantable size. In order to prevent the spread of this parasitic plant into regenerating pine
stands, sanitation operations may be performed during the harvesting and renewal operations on
high-risk sites. These control measures generally involve removal of infected pine within the block
boundaries and reducing the number of infected trees at the stand edge. Buffers of resistant species
may also be established along the periphery of harvest blocks to reduce the risk of infecting the
newly established stand. The requirement for disease sanitation may conflict with other forest
management goals, such as line of sight and understory protection.
A similar pest, eastern dwarf mistletoe, can infest black spruce. This mistletoe occurs in serious
levels occasionally in FMU 50 and is treated in a similar manner.
Request to exempt wildlife guidelines and to initiate follow-up manual sanitation will be identified
as conditions at the harvesting stage of operations. Occasionally effected areas are located during
harvest, in which case these requests could be made to the supervising CO. FMUs most likely to
be affected include 50, 53 and 58.
In addition, as with other identified insect and disease situations on the FML Area, CKP/NFMC
will notify SD of any identified incidences of the Mountain Pine Beetle where they are found during
PHFI surveys or other field activities.
When requested, CKP/NFMC will continue to communicate with SD to assist in prioritizing areas
for the provincial spruce budworm spray program in the Saskatchewan River and Highrock Forest
Sections.
7.4 Integrated Resource Management
The integration of non-timber resources will continue to be an important component of forest
management activities. Planning and operations staff work with a variety of operational guidelines,
21
SD staff and other resource users to ensure these values are considered within the context of forest
management planning and operations.
Directly tied to the development of the FMOP are the PHFI surveys discussed earlier. The purpose
of these surveys is to collect information pertinent to the development of the Plan including specific
information related to integrating non-timber resources.
A series of Standard Operating Practices (SOP) has been developed as part of an Environmental
Management System (EMS). Applicable SOPs have been reviewed with contractors to help protect
areas such as water and soil. The EMS is further described in section 8.2.
As described earlier, the public participation processes and the associated application of the Public
Issues and Concerns Table for documenting and tracking progress on expressed concerns provides
an important mechanism to assist in integration of other non-timber concerns within the FMOP
development process and following the process as well.
The management of access is an important aspect of protecting non-timber resources. FRDPs and
Road Decommissioning Plans will continue to be developed in 2019 – 2021 - Section 4.0. These
plans will be developed with the SD Regional IRMTs, will include road strategies for individual
roads or road systems and will incorporate community input as available and achievable.
NFMC will continue to work with SD on the development of strategies to mitigate woodland
caribou habitat concerns for the caribou herds in the FML Area. This will include working
cooperatively with the IRMT on an on-going basis.
As part of its management of harvest operations, 20-meter buffers will be retained along boundaries
of provincial parks and other types of Protected Areas. In addition, such potential concerns are also
addressed through the Project Tailgate Checklist process within the EMS where block boundaries
are reviewed with contractors.
CKP/NFMC support the work done by the Speleological Society of Manitoba in their efforts to
locate and mark the many sinkholes in the Grand Rapids and other areas and will work with our
contractors to raise their awareness of the importance of protecting sinkholes and cave entrances
from possible equipment damage.
CKP/NFMC continue to participate in a number of partnership initiatives related to integrated
resource management. These initiatives include: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation
– a Partnership between CKP and Nekoté, Forest Industry Association of Manitoba, the Forest
Practices Committee. Manitoba Silviculture Technical Committee and Forest Products Association
of Canada.
As in the past, CKP/NFMC representatives will participate in industry and association workshops
and seminars that focus on management practices addressing resource concerns relative to forest
management activities.
NFMC intends to pursue landscape level natural disturbance emulation through its harvest and
renewal strategy for ongoing operations and future plans.
22
8.0 MANAGEMENT OF OPERATION
8.1 Sustainable Development Forest Practices Guidelines
In development of mitigation for road development, harvesting and renewal activities, CKP/NFMC
makes use of appropriate guidance as provided by the SD guidelines/guidebooks. These have been
developed and reviewed periodically by the Forest Practices Committee, a committee with
representation from various branches of government, industry representatives, and, at times, other
environmental groups or stakeholders.
Guidelines/guidebooks utilized for the development of this FMOP include:
• Manitoba’s Submission Guidelines for Forest Management Operating Plans (2015)
• Forest Management Guidelines for Terrestrial Buffers (2017)
• Forest Management Guidelines for Riparian Management Areas (2009)
• Forest Practices Guidebook – Pre-Harvest Survey Guidelines (2014)
• Forest Practices Guidebook – Forestry Road Management (2012)
• Manitoba Stream Crossing Guidelines for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat (1996)
CKP/NFMC intends to remain involved in ongoing review and update processes for such guidelines
as they evolve to meet the needs of forest management for the province.
8.2 Forest Management Planning and Operating Practices (FMPOPs)
The legislation and government guidelines that pertain to the FML Area provide the overall legal
framework for implementing forest management.
The Forest Management Planning and Operating Practices (FMPOPs), developed in association
with the preparation of the 1997-2009 FMP to document the processes for implementation of the
Plan, document the processes and practices to be followed by the CKP/NFMC and contractors in
undertaking forest management activities on the FML Area. In addition, the Forest Management
Planning and Operating Practices Operators Guide (FMPOP-OG) (updated in 2012) was developed
for use in training and educating CKP/NFMC and contractor staff, employees and workers in the
key field components of the FMPOPs and for providing operational procedures for their
implementation. The FMPOP-OG is reviewed with contractors at the Annual Woodlands Meeting.
In addition, updated versions of the FMPOP-OG are attached as an appendix to the standard
contract issued to each contractor.
23
8.3 Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
The Canadian Standard Association (CSA) is a not-for-profit membership-based association
serving business, industry, government and consumers in Canada and the global marketplace. CSA
has developed over 2,000 standards for various industries. In 1996, a CSA forestry standard was
developed in Canada. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) refers to the way a forest is managed
to maintain and enhance the long-term health of forest ecosystems for current and future
generations. The CSA SFM standard requires CKP/NFMC to (a) seek comprehensive and
continuing public participation, (b) adherence at the local forest level to the best suite of broadly
accepted Canadian forest values generated to date, (c) ensure the CSA standard has system
requirements that are consistent with ISO 14001 and (d) practice continual improvement and
adaptive management.
The CSA SFM process was initiated locally in early 2003 and with the help of a CSA public
advisory committee, a CSA SFM Plan was completed in August 2004. The CSA SFM Plan includes
38 performance indicators that cover harvesting, road development, forest renewal, public
participation, compliance with work permit conditions and legislation/regulations. Some of the
indicators were established to provide baseline information and a basis for refinement of indicators
in the future. In October 2004 the CSA SFM Plan was successfully certified to the CAN/CSA
Z809-02 standard. Annual third-party audits are required to maintain this standard.
The CSA standard Z809-16 has replaced the Z809-08 which previously replaced the older Z809-
02 standard which the operation was initially registered under. CKP, through the SFM committee,
revised the SFM plan in 2018 to meet the new requirements.
The latest external surveillance audit on the CKP’s SFM System in meeting the requirements of the
CSA SFM Z809:2016 Standard was conducted in May 2018. The audit found that the management
system continues to be suitable and effective and was recommended for registration to CAN/CSA-
SFM-Z809:2016.
The implementation strategies that have been documented in the SFM Plan provide CKP/NFMC
with direction for working towards achieving the targets that have been established for each
indicator in the SFM performance framework.
A copy of the CSA SFM Plan and the audit summary can be found at www.canadiankraftpaper.com.
8.4 Environmental Management System (EMS)
Developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and recognized worldwide,
ISO 14001 is the international standard that provides the structure and third-party certification of
environmental management, including the specific requirements of an effective Environmental
Management System (EMS). Once an EMS has been developed, it forms the base level from which
the company can seek certification of its environmental performance.
The EMS is a method of organizing and managing environmental performance and provides a
structured process for continuously improving this performance over time. The foundation of the
EMS is the Environmental Policy, which is a statement of intentions and commitments with respect
to environmental performance. CKP/NFMC has identified significant environmental aspects that
are part of the operations and has developed procedures and tracking systems that will ensure
continual improvement around these areas. In summary, the EMS uses the continuum of
24
establishing a policy, planning, implementation, operation, checking, corrective action and
management review.
In November 2002, an EMS for the FML Area was successfully certified to the ISO 14001 standard.
To maintain this standard the operation is audited each year by an independent third party. The ISO
14001:2015 (third edition) standard is the current standard to which the EMS is conforming to.
The EMS includes Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) necessary to ensure conformance with
the EMS and CSA SFM objectives and targets. Standard Operating Procedures and other
operational control mechanisms (inspection forms, etc.) have been implemented to make sure that
activities are undertaken consistent with all applicable legal and guideline requirements for the FML
Area and the requirements of SFM. In addition, on-going and newly-developed programs such as
training seminars, development of guidelines, development of new systems (such as road
monitoring) and other processes are undertaken within the EMS and SFM Systems as part of the
commitment to continual improvement.
A key component of the EMS and the SFM System is the need to ensure that the requirements of
the EMS and SFM for the FML Area are communicated and documented with contractors and
suppliers to ensure that they understand the requirements of the EMS and CSA SFM that apply to
them. Annual review is undertaken with all relevant contractors with information on all key
concepts, issues, obligations and procedures of the EMS and SFM Systems that are appropriate to
contracted activities as documented on the Contractor Orientation Record (COR). Additional
follow-up with contractors occurs at the pre-work stage through a “tailgate” meeting and
completion of a Project Tailgate Checklist which includes review of pertinent FMOP and work
permit conditions for operation of the block. On-going inspections are undertaken throughout the
implementation of operations with results captured for follow-up and reporting using Operations
Inspections Forms. The Project Tailgate Checklist and Operations Inspections are of particular
relevance in the implementation of the FMOP and provide a framework for ongoing follow-up of
the activities which have been planned in this document.
The EMS is used as the system mechanism to ensure compliance with respect to planning and
operating in accordance with the specifications, limits, terms and conditions of the Environment
Act License No. 2302 ER.
Manitoba Timber Sale Operators are licensed independently and directly by the Province of
Manitoba. These operators are required to fully comply with all legislation, regulations and
government guidelines but are not subject to the EMS. However, a number of these operators also
conduct activities under contract to CKP/NFMC on the FML Area as contractors. In these roles
the operator is directed and managed under the EMS and SFM Plan.
25
9.0 FMOP MONITORING AND REPORTING
9.1 General
In compliance with FML Agreement and provincial requirements, NFMC maintains harvest,
renewal and regeneration records for the FML Area through a GIS program. These records are also
utilized by NFMC to maintain the forest inventory for the FML Area updated with respect to forest
management activities. Forest renewal monitoring and measurement includes the use of SD
certified free-to-grow surveys to track the success or need for further renewal work for all areas
harvested.
From the data collected for harvesting, and renewal, annual summaries are produced each year to
summarize harvest and renewal activity for a given harvest year.
The continuing operation of the SFMC is viewed as an important component of the overall public
participation and monitoring program of CKP/NFMC. Through on-going interaction with this
committee CKP/NFMC is committed to review planning and operations to seek input, review
findings and to take corrective action when necessary.
9.2 Forest Management Operating Plan Report
The Forest Management Operating Report is prepared and submitted to SD every second year in
conjunction with the completion of the FMOP period. The report details forest management
activities conducted on the FML Area during the FMOP period (i.e. preceding two operating years).
A key component of the report is to provide assessment and reporting on actual activities that were
conducted as compared to those planned in the FMOP for the same period.
Information presented in the Forest Management Operating Report includes:
• Manufacturing facility production
• Wood fibre supply in terms of harvesting and deliveries
• Regulation of the AAC
• Province of Manitoba timber dues and associated charges collection
• Forest renewal activities
• Access development
• Planning and reporting
A follow-up meeting is held between CKP/NFMC and SD to review the findings of the Report.
The Forest Management Operating Report is posted on the CKP website at
www.canadiankraftpaper.com.
26
9.3 EMS and SFM System Reporting
CKP/NFMC are committed to monitoring and measurement of environmental performance relating
to the EMS, including the measurement of SFM performance for the FML Area. Monitoring and
measurement of indicators (Table 9) of SFM for the FML Area is a crucial part of checking and
corrective action leading to continual improvement.
Assessment of the SFM performance indicators is undertaken according to the program outlined in
the indicator fact sheets provided in the SFM Plan. Measurements in terms of levels observed for
each indicator are recorded and compared to the target that has been established as part of the
performance framework. Findings are documented along with any variances from the target levels
in the SFM Annual Report. The resulting assessment of the performance indicators will be utilized
to identify where progress is being made towards achieving SFM Plan objectives. The SFM Annual
Report is posted to the CKP website at www.canadiankraftpaper.com.
All public participation programs conducted each year for the FMOP will be summarized in the
SFM Report. This summary will include a compilation of the concerns brought forward and the
respective response to each concern (Public Issues and Concerns Table). In addition, this summary
will indicate and reference the number of instances where plans were modified or jointly-developed
with other stakeholders or communities in response to public participation findings.
A number of the indicators, as listed in the table below relate to the development and
implementation of elements of the FMOP, including:
• Regulation of the AAC;
• Forest renewal success;
• Adherence to work permits and SOPs; and,
• The role of public participation.
27
Table 9: SFM Performance Indicators for the FML Area
Indicator Indicator Name
1 Forest cover composition of reforested cutover areas
2 Harvest levels in cubic metres as compared to the AAC
3 Abundance of residual stand structure
4 Amount and distribution of coarse woody debris
5 Woodland caribou habitat for priority herds
6 Staff awareness of current SARA and MESEA lists for DFA
7 Proportion of regeneration comprised of native species
8 Percentage of areas planted with stock from the same or approved government
seed zone
9 Percentage of harvest blocks subject to Pre-harvest Forest Investigation (PHFI)
surveys
10A Protected Areas and ASIs recognized in forest management plans (FMP and OP)
10B Protected Areas and ASIs recognized in forest management plans (FMP and OP)
11 Proposed all-weather roads reviewed for the potential for the occurrence of
heritage resources
12A Limit extent and duration of in-block seasonal roads and landings (%)
12B Limit extent and duration of in-block seasonal roads and landings (renewal)
12C Limit extent and duration of in-block seasonal roads and landings (road closure)
13A Amount of area in all-weather roads (Categories 1 & 2) in place at any given time
(%)
13B Amount of area in all-weather roads (Categories 1 & 2) in place at any given time
(closure)
14 Harvest blocks are regenerated as soon as possible
15 Provision of information on insects and disease to SD for the DFA
16 Company caused forest fires
17 Recurrence mistletoe infections in regenerating stands
18
Adherence to work permit conditions and the Company’s EPPs/SOPs guiding the
Company’s and contractor forestry operations on the DFA including those
pertaining to rutting, protection of non-timber values, and for operations adjacent
to watercourses including buffers and the handling and storage of fuels, lubricants
and herbicides
19 Proportion of watershed or water management areas with recent stand-replacing
disturbance
20 Condition of stream crossings and roadways in terms of erosion control
21 Net carbon uptake
22 Level of awareness of Woodlands staff of effects of unnecessary vehicle idling
23 Evidence the organization has co-operated with other forest-dependent businesses,
forest users, and the local community to strengthen and diversify the local
economy
24 Extent of local involvement in forest operations in the DFA
25 The Company’s understanding and practices based upon current and emerging
knowledge and recommended practices
26 Training and awareness opportunities for contractors on the DFA
27 Level of investment in training and skills development
28
Indicator Indicator Name
28A Training members of the Forest Resource Advisory Committees (FRAC) and the
SFM Committee
28B Training members of the Forest Resource Advisory Committees (FRAC) and the
SFM Committee
29 Access of the broad public to information on SFM, FMP and OP plans and related
public participation processes
30 Degree of satisfaction with the public participation component of the planning
process
31A Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
in general
31B Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
in general
31C Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
in general
31D Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
in general
32 Availability of summary information on issues of concern to the public
33 Evidence of co-operation with DFA-related workers and their unions to improve
and enhance safety standards, procedures, and outcomes in all DFA-related
workplaces and affected communities (Truck haul safety program)
34 Evidence of co-operation with DFA-related workers and their unions to improve
and enhance safety standards, procedures, and outcomes in all DFA-related
workplaces and affected communities. (Safety topics at annual meeting)
35A Evidence that a worker safety program has been implemented and is periodically
reviewed and improved (Contractors safety plans)
35B Evidence that a worker safety program has been implemented and is periodically
reviewed and improved (Staff safety program)
36A Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
for Aboriginal communities
36B Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
for Aboriginal communities
36C Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
for Aboriginal communities
36D Evidence of efforts to promote capacity development and meaningful participation
for Aboriginal communities
37A
Documentation of public participation process followed, community meetings,
concerns raised and strategies/mitigation developed to address concerns of local
Aboriginal and other communities and non-timber resource users within forest
management plans for the DFA (FMP, OP, Forest Road Development Plans)
37B
Documentation of public participation process followed, community meetings,
concerns raised and strategies/mitigation developed to address concerns of local
Aboriginal and other communities and non-timber resource users within forest
management plans for the DFA (FMP, OP, Forest Road Development Plans)
38 Percentage of Woodlands staff who have participated in Aboriginal, treaty rights
and cultural awareness sessions
29
In addition, the SFM System for the FML Area is assessed utilizing the EMS audit process. These
system audits will be utilized to determine the adequacy of the CKP/NFMC EMS and the SFM
System developed for the FML Area as compared to the requirements of the ISO 14001:2015 and
CSA Z809-16 Standards. The process improvement and management review processes within the
EMS will be applied to the review and continual improvement process as it applies to the SFM
System for the FML Area.
Procedures for identifying and resolving minor and major non-conformances on contractor
operations are identified in the EMS. This process includes discussion and documentation of the
consequences of non-conformance, including potential termination of the contract and/or fines. The
roles and responsibilities of contractors to meet SFM requirements are identified in the EMS
Manual. Any non-conformances will be addressed through corrective and preventative actions as
described in the process improvement procedure set out in the EMS.
The EMS continues to be used to monitor progress of CKP/NFMC with respect to planning and
operating in accordance with the specifications, limits, terms and conditions of the Environment
Act License No. 2302 ER.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
ABBREVIATION CODES
Appendix 1: Abbreviation Codes used in the Tables and Harvest Block Information Sheets
The following codes are utilized in the tables and the Harvest Block Information Sheets to conserve space as
required:
1. Season
W Winter
SP Spring
SM Summer
F Fall
2. Tree Species
BS Black Spruce
WS White Spruce
JP Jack Pine
BF Balsam Fir
L Larch (Tamarack)
TA Trembling Aspen
BP Balsam Poplar
WB White Birch
3. Scarification/Site Preparation Treatment
AC Anchor Chain
SF Shark Finned Barrels and Chains
RT Ripper Tooth Plough
DT Disc Trencher
NM No Mechanical Treatment (followed by planting)
NATREGEN Natural Regeneration following harvest
4. Stand Tending Treatment
CR - Chemical Release of Softwood
5. Harvest Block Name
AB Albe
AC Antler Corner
AF Affleck
AG Apeganau
AL Alberts Lake
AP Ashmal Point
AR Armit River
AT Atik
AX Axis Lake
BC Birch River
BE Bellsite
BF Buffalo Lake
BG Buckingham Lake
BI Big Island
BJ Bellsite Flats
BL Batty Lake
BM Big Muddy
BP Burntwood Penn.
BN Bluenose
BQ Barkman Lake
BR Bracken
BS Bess
BT Bignell North
BZ Buzz
CB Cross Bay
CC Clarke Creek
CE Cedar
CH Charles
CK Chitek
CL Claw Lake
CP Collins Point
CT Carrot
DA Dave Adams
DB Dawson Bay
DL Dismal Lake
DN Davidson
DO Dolomite
DP Dancing Point
DU Red Deer Dump
DV Devils Lake
DW Driftwood
EA Easterville
EG Egg Lake
EI East Island
ER Easterville Road
ES Easterville
ET East Arm
GA Guthrie Fire Salvage
GB Guthrie Fire Salvage
GD Guthrie Fire Salvage
GE Guthrie Fire Salvage
GF Guthrie Fire Salvage
GG Guthrie Fire Salvage
GM Gary Mosiondz
GO Gormley Lake
GR Grass River
GS Gostling Lake
GU Guthrie Green Blocks
GY Grassy Lake
HB Herblet
HC Homestead Creek
HG Hargrave
HL Hambone Lake
HM Hart Mountain Road
HO Hobbit
HT Hunting River
HY Halfway
IM Imperial
JL Joey Lake
JN Johnson Lake
JO Jonas Road
KI Kipahigan
KK Kaminis
KL Kaspryzk Lake
KN Kississing North
KO Kotyk
LA Landry
LB Liars Bay
LC Lucille
LE Leak Lake
LI Limestone
LK Leptick
LL Lost Lake
LN Landing North
LO Loonhead
LP Laurie Parker
LR Loreen Riemer
LU Laurie River
M Moose Lake
MA Moose A Blocks
MB Moose B Blocks
MC Moose C Blocks
MF Mafeking Sand Flats
MG Minago River
MH Mitchell
MI Mitishto
MK McKay Lake
ML McLaren Lake
MM Moose Mountain
MO Morrison Lake
MP Mossy Portage
MT Montreal Lake
MV Marvco
NA Naosap
NJ North Joey
NL Nichols Lake
NM National Mills
NO Novra
NP Nelson Lake
NS North Steeprock Lake
OB Budai
OF Jim Olfrey
OG Opegano
OL Ochre Lake
OP Opuskaw Bay
OV Overflow
OZ Osborne
PC Partridge Crop
PD Power Dam
PF Peter Pfund
PH Paul Hlady
PI Pine
PO Pork Chop
PR Prospector
PS Peterson Lake
PT Pothier
PU Payuk
QFG Quota - Frog
RA Roy Anderson
RB Rib
RC Rice Creek
RD Red Deer Lake
RK Rocky Lake
RL Radar Lake
RP Ripper's Point
RR Rancher's Road
RT Root Lake
RU Ruddock Lake
RW Raweeb
SB South Bog
SD South Ditch
SE Setting Lake
SF Sea Falls
SH Shoal River
SI Sipiwesk Landing
SL Spider Lake
SO Simonhouse
SP Springwater
SR Streak Lake
SS South Steeprock Lake
ST Spruce
SU Suwannee
SX Bacon Lake
TB Thirteenth Baseline
TD Talbot D Blocks
TF Three Finger
TM Talbot M Blocks
TP Thicket Peninsula
TR Bison (Taylor River)
TT Tippett Lake
TU Turnberry
TW Twin Lakes
VA Vamp
VE Velde
VL Virgin Lake Road
WA Waugh
WG Wedge Lake
WJ Whiskey Jack
WK Wabishkok
WL Woosey Lake
WM West Arm
WO Wapisu Lake
WP Wintering Peninsula
WS Westray
WT Walton Lake
ZZ Dyce
APPENDIX 2
ROADS
Table 2: Road Categories - Planning Criteria for FML Area No. 2 Category 1: All-Weather Road - Primary All-weather road constructed to access major long-term wood supply areas on an FMU scale.
Life expectancy of about 20 years or more. Category 2: All-Weather Road - Secondary All-weather road constructed to access operating area(s) of wood.
Life expectancy of about three years to 20 years. Category 3: Seasonal Road - Summer Access
Seasonal road (trail) stumped out to provide access within and between harvest blocks inside operating areas from primary and secondary roads. May also on occasion provide the access to the area in situations involving smaller operators and/or isolated blocks of wood.
Life expectancy usually one or two years but may be longer for access between harvest blocks or in situations described above.
Consist of stumped trails with little to no gravel or grade.
Category 3 seasonal roads are those bush roads that are on high ground allowing for vehicle (truck) access more or less year-round. Category 4: Seasonal Road - Winter (Frost) Access Seasonal road (trail) stumped out to provide access within and between harvest blocks inside operating areas from primary and secondary and winter ice roads. May also on occasion provide the access to the area in situations involving smaller operators and/or isolated blocks of wood.
Life expectancy usually one or two years but may be longer for access between harvest blocks or in situations described above.
Consist of stumped trails with no gravel or grade.
Category 4 seasonal roads are those roads, which at some point on the route utilize swamps and/or wet ground to such an extent that vehicle (truck) access requires frost conditions for travel. Category 5: Seasonal Road - Winter (Ice) Access Seasonal winter road built to access and deliver wood from operating area(s).
A given route may be utilized for a single winter season or on an annual basis.
A given route may include tramping of swamps and low drainage areas and ice crossings of lakes. Crossing over periodic areas of higher ground may require some stumping. Temporary winter crossings of creeks, streams and rivers will be made as required.
Category 5 winter roads are distinguished from Category 4 seasonal winter (frost) roads by including major crossings of
large swamps and/or lakes.
1.8
Table 3: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned and Projected Access Development for FML Area No. 2
2019
Forest Section Road
Kilometres Developed
ROW Construction
Watercourse Crossings
Type Location ID Year
HIGHROCK DICKSTONE ROAD 8.00 3.40 Bridge 2.0 2019 H-38
HIGHROCK CROW LAKE ROAD 12.10 5.50 Bridge 1.8 2019 H-42
Bridge 5.5 2019 H-43
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER NISKA ROAD 6.20 0.00
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER ATHAPAP WINTER ROAD 15.90 15.90
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER MOOSE LAKE WINTER ROAD 0.00 53.80
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BIGNELL ROAD 21.20 21.20
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER MOSSY PORTAGE WEST WINTER ROAD 9.70 9.70
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER MOOSE MOUNTAIN WINTER ROAD 17.10 17.10
90.20 126.60
Table 3: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned and Projected Access Development for FML Area No. 2
2020
Forest Section Road
Kilometres Developed
ROW Construction
Watercourse Crossings
Type Location ID Year
HIGHROCK DICKSTONE ROAD 12.30 10.10 Bridge 46.0 2020 H-40
HIGHROCK CROW LAKE ROAD 3.50 6.60 Bridge 12.1 2020 H-44
HIGHROCK BUZZ LAKE WINTER ROAD 10.40 5.50
NELSON RIVER THREE POINT LAKE ROAD 8.00 5.00
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER NISKA ROAD 0.00 6.20
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER EAST ARM ROAD 4.10 4.10
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER MAHIGAN ROAD 3.90 5.70
42.20 43.20
Table 3: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned and Projected Access Development for FML Area No. 2
2021
Forest Section Road
Kilometres Developed
ROW Construction
Watercourse Crossings
Type Location ID Year
HIGHROCK CROW LAKE ROAD 7.10 3.50 Bridge 15.6 2021 H-45
HIGHROCK DICKSTONE ROAD 0.00 12.30 Bridge 58.3 2021 H-41
7.10 15.80
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
ATHAPAP WINTER ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2019 0.0 15.9 40.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2019 0.00 15.90 15.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
BIGNELL ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2019 0.0 21.2 50.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2019 0.00 21.20 8.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
BUZZ LAKE WINTER ROAD Road:
HIGHROCK Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2020 27.7 38.1 30.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2020 27.70 33.20 15.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
CROW LAKE ROAD Road:
HIGHROCK Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2019 0.0 5.5 40.00 600 0
2019 5.5 6.4 40.00 200 0
2019 6.4 10.4 40.00 2000 0
2019 10.4 12.1 40.00 500 0
2020 12.1 15.6 40.00 1000 0
2021 15.6 22.7 40.00 3000 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2019 0.00 5.50 7.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
2020 5.50 6.40 7.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
2020 6.40 10.40 7.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
2020 10.40 12.10 5.00 3 Summer Seasonal Road
2021 12.10 15.60 5.00 3 Summer Seasonal Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
2019 1.8 Jumpover Creek Bridge H-42
2019 5.5 Jens Creek Bridge H-43
2020 12.1 Jumbo Creek Bridge H-44
2021 15.6 Unnamed Creek Bridge H-45
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
DICKSTONE ROAD Road:
HIGHROCK Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2019 38.0 46.0 50.00 1000 0
2020 46.0 58.3 50.00 2500 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2019 2.00 5.40 7.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
2020 35.90 46.00 7.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
2021 46.00 58.30 7.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road 20
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
2019 2.0 Grass River Bridge H-38
2020 46.0 North Star Creek Bridge H-40
2021 58.3 File River Bridge H-41
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
EAST ARM ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2020 7.9 12.0 50.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2020 7.90 12.00 8.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
MAHIGAN ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2020 1.8 5.7 50.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2020 0.00 5.70 8.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
MOOSE LAKE WINTER ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2019 0.00 22.30 15.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
2019 22.30 53.80 15.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
MOOSE MOUNTAIN WINTER ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2019 0.0 17.1 30.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2019 0.00 17.10 15.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
MOSSY PORTAGE WEST WINTER ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2019 0.0 7.6 30.00 0 0
2019 7.6 9.7 30.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2019 0.00 7.60 15.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
2019 7.60 9.70 15.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
NISKA ROAD Road:
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2019 0.0 6.2 50.00 0 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2020 0.00 6.20 7.00 2 Secondary All-weather Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Watercourse Crossings
Table 4: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Road Development
THREE POINT LAKE ROAD Road:
NELSON RIVER Forest:
Access Control:
Plan Year:
Control Location:
2019
Year ROW From ROW To ROW Width Softwood Volume Hardwood Volume
ROW Clearing
2020 0.0 8.0 40.00 800 0
From Width Year
Construct
To
Surface
Road Category Load
Road
Span
Life
Road Construction
2020 0.00 5.00 10.00 4 Winter Seasonal Road
Year Location Watercourse Crossing Type ID
Table 5: Road Decommissioning Status
ROAD NAME DECOMMISSION
STATUS
PROPOSED DECOMMISSION
LOCATION
Anvil Lake Road Complete
Albert’s Lake Road Complete
Bacon Lake Road Complete
Bah Lake Road
Complete (Temp)
2019-2021 Setting Lake Road entrance
Batty Lake Road 2019-2021 Origin off Limestone Road
Bruneau Road 2019-2021 Origin off Radar Lake Road
Buckingham Road Complete (Temp) Entrance
Cliff Lake Road Complete
Danielson Road Complete
Davidson Road Complete
Dolomite Road 2019-2021 Km 4
Duval Road (km 6-32) Complete
East Talbot Road 2019-2021 Origin at Crossing Bay Road
Egg Lake Road Complete
Goose River Road Complete
Grass River Road Complete
Halfway Road 2019-2021 Km 10
Hargrave Road Complete (Temp) Km 1
Herb Bay Road Complete
Herblet Road Complete
Imperial Road Complete
Jonas South Road
Complete (Temp)
2019-2021 Km 35 – McLaren Creek junction
Leak Lake Road Road Complete
Leak Lake Tower Road Complete
Limestone Road 2019-2021 Batty Bridge – Km 32
Little Atik Road 2021-2024 Origin off PTH 10
Long Lake Road
Complete (Temp)
2019-2021 Origin off Sturgeon Landing Road
McLaren Creek 2019-2021 Origin off Jonas South Road
Milk Lake Road (North) Complete Origin at PR 373 (Jenpeg Road)
Milk Lake Shortcut Complete Origin at PR 373 (Jenpeg Road)
Naosap Road (New) Complete Origin at Sherridon Road (PR)
Naosap Road (Old) Complete
North Joey Road Complete
Ochre Lake Road 2019-2021 Km 20
Okaw Road Complete Origin at Crossing Bay Road
Old Witch Road Complete
Paint Creek Road Complete
Partridge Crop Road Complete
Radar Lake Road 2019-2021 Origin off McLaren Creek Road
ROAD NAME DECOMMISSION
STATUS
PROPOSED DECOMMISSION
LOCATION
Sawlog Road Complete
Scatch Lake Road Complete
Setting Lake Road
Complete (Temp)
2019-2021 Entrance
Simonhouse Road (km 8-
17) Complete
South Joey Lake Road Complete Origin at PTH 6
Spruce Road 2019-2021 Origin at Talbot Road
Sturgeon Landing Road Complete
Sugar Road Complete Origin at Ochre Lake Road
Syme Lake Road 2019-2021 Origin at Sherridon Road (PR)
Talbot Lake Road 2019-2021 Origin at Crossing Bay Road
Thicket Creek Road 2019-2021 Km 12
Thompson Creek Road Complete
Thunderhill Complete Origin at Kississing North Road
Velde Creek Road Complete
Wabishkok Road Complete Origin at Sherridon Road (PR)
Westarm Complete
Wintering Peninsula 2019-2021 Origin off McLaren Creek Road
Table 6: Watercourse Crossing Information
FMOP WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section: Highrock FMU: 60 Twp: 65 Rge: 22
Operating Area: Simonhouse
Road: Dickstone South Road
Watercourse: Grass River
Operating Plan Map Reference I.D.: H-38
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
Manitoba Environment Act License No. 2896
Parks & Natural Areas Branch - PCGP 64921
Transport Canada reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) TC File
No. 7184-70-6-224, CEAR File No. 08-01-47696
Transport Canada reviewed under Navigable Waters Protection Act, NWPP File No. 8200-08-
10236
Fisheries and Oceans Canada notification
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography: 15840 Scale Aerial Photograph
Digital site level photographs
Estimated Watercourse Width: 26 m
Estimated Maximum Depth: 2 m
South Bank (1) - Slope: < 5% grade
- Soil type: Rock
North Bank (2) - Slope: < 5% grade
- Soil type: Silty Clay
WATERCOURSE USES
Possible Fish Present: Northern Pike, Walleye, White Sucker, Yellow Perch, Lake Whitefish
Known Boat Traffic: Canoe Route portage location
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type: Bridge
Lifespan: Long term (20+ years)
Construction Season: Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
Clear span bridge
I-beams on abutments, concrete deck panels.
Approaches will be minimally cleared of vegetation. Abutment will be raised to the level of the
south side.
Approaches will be armored with rock riprap.
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Minimal in-stream and stream bank disturbance.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Site will be decommissioned as per the Dickstone South Road Decommissioning Plan approved
under Environment Act License No. 2896 when forestry operations are complete.
FMOP WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section: Highrock FMU: 67 Twp: 68 Rge: 21
Operating Area: Herblet
Road: Dickstone North Road
Watercourse: North Star Creek
Operating Plan Map Reference I.D.: H-40
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Application upon OP Review
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography: 15840 Scale Aerial Photograph
Estimated Watercourse Width: 5 m
Estimated Maximum Depth: 2 m
North Bank (1) - Slope: Unknown - TBD
- Soil type: Unknown - TBD
South Bank (2) - Slope: Unknown - TBD
- Soil type: Unknown - TBD
WATERCOURSE USES
Possible Fish Present: Unknown
Known Boat Traffic: None
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type: Culvert or bridge depending on survey results
Lifespan: Long term (20+ years)
Construction Season: Will schedule construction to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high water
levels).
CROSSING DESIGN
Culvert or bridge.
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Approaches will be minimally cleared of vegetation. Erosion control measures will be
undertaken during and after construction. ABANDONMENT PLAN
Crossing will be removed at conclusion of harvest operations.
FMOP WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section: Highrock FMU: 67 Twp: 69 Rge: 20
Operating Area: Herblet
Road: Dickstone Road
Watercourse: File River
Annual Plan Map Reference I.D.: H-41
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans Application
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography: 1:15,840 Scale Aerial Photograph
Estimated Watercourse Width: 7 m
Estimated Maximum Depth: 3 m
North Bank (1) - Slope: Unknown - TBD
Soil type: Unknown - TBD South Bank (2) Slope: Unknown - TBD
Soil type: Unknown - TBD
WATERCOURSE USES
Possible Fish Present: Northern Pike, Walleye, Sucker, Perch, Whitefish
Known Boat Traffic: None
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type: Bridge
Lifespan: Long term (20+ years)
Construction Season: Winter
CROSSING DESIGN
• Clear span bridge
• I-beams on abutments.
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Approaches will be minimally cleared of vegetation. The abutments will be above the high water
mark. Erosion control measures will be undertaken during and after construction.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
The bridge will be removed and erosion control measures will be implemented as required when
all forestry operations are complete.
FMOP WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section: Highrock FMU: 67 ¼Sec: NE 7 Twp: 72 Rge: 27W
Operating Area: Hobbit
Road: Crow Lake Road
Watercourse: Jumpover Creek
Operating Plan Map Reference I.D.: H-42
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
Mathias Colomb Cree Nation
Manitoba Infrastructure
Manitoba Sustainable Development IRMT
AANDC
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography: 1:5000 Scale 2007 Digital Forest Inventory Imagery
On-ground crossing photographs
Estimated Watercourse Width: 0.6 m Estimated Maximum Depth: 0.5 m
Bank (W) - Slope: +5% - Bank (S) - Slope: +5%
- Soil type: Unknown - Soil type: Unknown
Comments: Beaver dam at start of watercourse 20 m upstream from crossing
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present: Unknown (Possibly forage fish)
Known Boat Traffic: N/A
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type: Bridge
Lifespan: Long-term (10+ years)
Construction Season: Will schedule construction to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high water
levels).
CROSSING DESIGN
Bridge
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Approaches will be minimally cleared of vegetation. Erosion control measures will be undertaken during and
after construction.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Agreement to be completed with Manitoba Infrastructure and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation to retain road
maintenance responsibilities prior to completion of harvest and renewal activities.
FMOP WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section: Highrock FMU: 67
¼Sec: NW 20 Twp: 72 Rge: 27W
Operating Area: Hobbit
Road: Crow Lake Road
Watercourse: Jens Creek
Operating Plan Map Reference I.D.: H-43
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
Mathias Colomb Cree Nation
Manitoba Infrastructure
Manitoba Sustainable Development IRMT
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography: 1:5000 Scale 2007 Digital Forest Inventory Imagery
On-ground crossing photographs
Estimated Watercourse Width: 10 m Estimated
Maximum Depth: 2.5 m
Bank (W) - Slope: >5% - Bank (E) - Slope: >5%
- Soil type: Unknown - Soil type: Unknown
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present: Northern Pike, White Sucker, Lake Whitefish, Cisco (Tullibee), Walleye
Known Boat Traffic: Recreational Fishing
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type: Bridge
Lifespan: Long-term (10+ years)
Construction Season: Winter. Otherwise will schedule to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high water
levels).
CROSSING DESIGN
Clear Span Bridge
Abutments and road grade will need to be built out onto floodplain to support weight of bridge and traffic
Only clean material will be used
Bridge will be designed/constructed so as to not obstruct boat traffic
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Erosion control measures will be undertaken during and after construction.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Agreement to be completed with Manitoba Infrastructure and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation to retain road
maintenance responsibilities prior to completion of harvest and renewal activities.
FMOP WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section: Highrock FMU: 67
¼Sec: NE23 Twp: 72 Rge: 27W
Operating Area: Collins Point
Road: Crow Lake Road
Watercourse: Jumbo Creek
Operating Plan Map Reference I.D.: H-44
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
Mathias Colomb Cree Nation
Manitoba Infrastructure
Manitoba Sustainable Development IRMT
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography: 1:5000 Scale 2007 Digital Forest Inventory Imagery
Estimated Watercourse Width: 3 meters (75 m floodplain)
Estimated Maximum Depth: Unknown
Bank (N) Slope: 5-10% Bank (S) - Slope: 5-10%
Soil type: Unknown Soil type: Unknown
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present: Northern Pike, White Sucker, Lake Whitefish, Cisco (Tullibee), Walleye, Cyprinids,
Sticklebacks, Johnny Darter
Known Boat Traffic: None. Adjacent recreational fishing on Kississing Lake
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type: Bridge
Lifespan: 5-10 years
Construction Season: Winter. Otherwise will schedule to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high
water levels).
CROSSING DESIGN Clear Span Bridge (60-80’)
Abutments and road grade will need to be built out onto floodplain to support weight of bridge and traffic
Only clean material will be used
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Erosion control measures will be undertaken during and after construction.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Agreement to be completed with Manitoba Infrastructure and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation to retain road
maintenance responsibilities prior to completion of harvest and renewal activities. Otherwise, crossing will be removed at conclusion of harvest and forest renewal activities.
FMOP WATERCOURSE-CROSSING DATA FORM
LOCATION
Forest Section: Highrock FMU: 67
¼Sec: SW36 Twp: 72 Rge: 27W
Operating Area: Collins Point
Road: Crow Lake Road
Watercourse: (Unnamed Creek)
Operating Plan Map Reference I.D.: H-45
GOVERNMENT CONTACTS
Mathias Colomb Cree Nation
Manitoba Infrastructure
Manitoba Sustainable Development IRMT
WATERCOURSE CROSSING SITE DESCRIPTION
Photography: 1:5000 Scale 2007 Digital Forest Inventory Imagery
Estimated Watercourse Width: 7 meters (20 m floodplain)
Estimated Maximum Depth: Unknown
Bank (W) Slope: 25-30% Bank (E) - Slope: 15-20%
Soil type: Unknown Soil type: Unknown
WATERCOURSE USES
Known Fish Present: Northern Pike, White Sucker, Lake Whitefish, Cisco (Tullibee), Walleye, Cyprinids,
Sticklebacks, Johnny Darter
Known Boat Traffic: None. Adjacent recreational fishing on Kississing Lake
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Structure Type: Bridge
Lifespan: 5 years
Construction Season: Winter. Otherwise will schedule to avoid critical periods (e.g. fish spawning, high
water levels).
CROSSING DESIGN Clear Span Bridge (60-80’)
Abutments and road grade will need to be built out onto floodplain to support weight of bridge and traffic
Only clean material will be used
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Erosion control measures will be undertaken during and after construction.
ABANDONMENT PLAN
Agreement to be completed with Manitoba Infrastructure and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation to retain road
maintenance responsibilities prior to completion of harvest and renewal activities. Otherwise, crossing will be removed at conclusion of harvest and forest renewal activities.
APPENDIX 3
PLANNED HARVEST AND RENEWAL
ACTIVITIES
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
50 SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
CT-203 7,000 0
CT-204 14,000 0
CT-205 25,000 0
CT-6 4,000 0
ER-1 1,500 200
ER-2 6,000 0
ER-3 1,000 0
MP-208 6,000 0
MP-209 22,000 0
MP-210 25,000 0
MP-212 22,000 0
MP-213 30,000 0
MT-1 5,000 0
OV-1 40,000 0
PH-6 1,000 0
WS-3 8,000 0
WS-7 3,000 0
WS-8 5,000 0
WS-9 3,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
53 SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
EAST ARM ROAD ROW 1,000 0
ET-1 2,000 0
ET-12 60,000 0
ET-14 40,000 0
ET-15 35,000 0
ET-2 55,000 0
ET-4 13,000 0
ET-8 85,000 0
ET-99 20,000 0
MM-1 70,000 0
MM-2 60,000 0
TD-54 45,000 0
TM-203 9,000 0
TM-204 3,000 0
TM-50 17,000 0
TM-51 14,000 0
TM-52 10,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
58 SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
MAHIGAN ROAD ROW 2,500 0
NISKA ROAD ROW 3,500 0
SR-1 55,000 0
SR-3 8,000 0
SR-4 55,000 0
SR-5 60,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
59 SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
AB-202 3,000 0
AT-1 30,000 10,000
AT-2 12,000 5,000
BT-10 2,000 0
BT-11 4,000 0
BT-12 65,000 0
BT-13 37,500 0
BT-16 7,000 0
BT-2 20,000 0
BT-3 25,000 0
BT-4 18,000 0
BT-5 6,000 0
BT-7 34,000 0
BT-8 4,000 0
HY-1 7,000 0
HY-17 2,000 0
HY-22 24,000 0
HY-32 5,000 0
HY-34 4,000 0
HY-44 500 0
HY-45 3,000 0
HY-46 2,500 0
HY-47 11,000 3,000
HY-48 800 0
LA-200 7,500 0
LA-203 20,000 0
LA-204 20,000 0
LA-205 18,000 0
LA-207 19,000 0
LA-208 4,500 0
LA-209 8,000 0
LA-210 14,000 0
LA-211 24,000 0
LK-14 500 0
LK-15 1,000 0
LK-16 1,500 1,000
LK-17 1,000 0
LK-18 1,000 0
LK-19 1,000 0
LK-2 2,000 1,500
LK-20 2,000 500
LK-21 1,000 0
LK-22 1,500 500
LK-23 8,000 0
LK-4 2,000 0
LK-5 1,000 0
LK-6 1,000 0
LK-7 1,000 0
LK-8 1,000 0
LK-9 1,000 0
MH-16 9,000 0
MH-18 1,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
59 SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
MH-19 4,000 0
MH-23 10,000 0
MH-31 3,000 0
MH-32 3,000 0
MH-35 3,000 0
MM-3 5,000 0
MV-14 3,000 0
MV-24 8,000 2,000
PF-10 2,000 0
PF-11 1,500 0
PT-10 4,000 0
PT-11 20000 0
PT-13 9,000 0
PT-15 4,000 0
PT-5 13,000 0
PT-6 3,000 0
PT-8 4,000 0
PT-9 13,000 0
QFG-1 6,000 0
RK-6 28,000 0
RT-10 8,000 0
RT-20 3,000 0
RT-21 3,000 0
RT-22 3,000 0
RT-30 22,000 0
RT-31 12,000 0
RT-32 22,000 0
RT-33 9,000 0
RT-34 4,000 0
RT-35 8,000 0
RW-10 14,000 0
RW-12 3,000 0
RW-13 8,000 0
RW-14 8,000 0
RW-17 16,000 0
RW-18 24,000 0
RW-6 12,000 0
RW-9 7,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
67 HIGHROCK
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
AL-10 20,000 0
AL-11 4,000 0
AL-12 10,000 0
AL-4 5,000 0
AL-5 8,000 0
AL-6 8,000 0
AL-7 4,000 0
AL-8 8,000 0
AL-9 9,000 0
BZ-19 1,000 0
BZ-2 2,000 0
BZ-20 9,000 0
BZ-22 4,000 0
BZ-23 8,000 0
BZ-25 14,000 0
BZ-27 45,000 0
BZ-40 22,000 0
BZ-41 45,000 0
HO-7 22,000 0
IM-18 9,000 0
IM-19 25,000 0
IM-24 4,000 0
IM-25 12,000 0
IM-26 25,000 0
IM-27 30,000 0
IM-28 14,000 0
IM-29 14,000 0
IM-30 16,000 0
IM-9 16,000 0
KN-1 18,000 0
KN-10 16,000 0
KN-2 50,000 0
KN-3 25,000 0
KN-7 12,000 0
KO-10 4,000 0
LC-1 12,000 0
LC-2 10,000 0
NA-38 7,000 0
NA-39 2,000 0
PU-10 14,000 0
PU-11 5,000 0
PU-12 22,000 0
PU-13 12,000 0
PU-14 10,000 0
PU-15 8,000 0
PU-16 8,000 0
PU-2 3,000 0
PU-4 6,000 0
PU-5 4,000 0
PU-6 8,000 0
PU-7 1,500 0
PU-8 600 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
67 HIGHROCK
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
PU-9 22,000 0
VA-8 12,000 0
WM-1 1,000 0
WM-30 5,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
68 HIGHROCK
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
RU-3 16,000 0
TF-12 20,000 0
TF-26 18,000 0
TF-29 4,000 0
TF-30 20,000 0
TF-34 5,000 0
TF-42 5,000 0
TF-51 9,000 0
WT-2 6,000 0
WT-3 6,000 0
WT-4 35,000 0
WT-7 4,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
83 NELSON RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
AX-16 10,000 0
AX-17 8,000 0
AX-18 6,000 0
JO-100 7,600 0
JO-101 23,000 0
JO-92 17,000 0
JO-98 7,000 0
KL-99 6,500 0
SE-97 10,000 0
SE-98 1,700 0
SI-14 9,000 0
SI-50 15,000 0
SI-60 6,000 0
SI-61 6,500 0
SI-62 7,500 0
SI-63 9,000 0
SI-64 9,000 0
SI-65 4,500 0
SI-8 4,000 0
TT-25 4,000 0
TT-26 3,000 0
TT-27 3,100 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
84 NELSON RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
JO-81 12,000 0
JO-82 20,000 0
JO-87 15,000 0
JO-90 16,000 0
JO-91 5,500 0
JO-93 13,000 0
JO-94 19,000 0
JO-95 14,000 0
LL-54 4,000 0
LL-55 30,000 0
LL-56 18,000 0
LL-57 24,000 0
LL-58 6,500 0
LL-59 9,000 0
TR-49 15,000 0
TR-50 10,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
85 NELSON RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
BG-5 17,000 0
BG-7 19,000 0
GS-1 10,000 0
GS-15 9,000 0
GS-3 20,000 0
GS-5 22,000 0
GS-7 14,000 0
Table 7: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation - Planned and Contingency Harvest Blocks by FMU (continued)
Forest Section FMU Harvest Block Softwood Volume (m³) Hardwood Volume (m³)
87 NELSON RIVER
Contingency Harvest Blocks 2019
GS-31 15,000 0
OG-100 50,000 0
TR-47 21,000 0
TR-48 13,000
Table 8: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification Site Preparation Planting Tending
Treatment Treatment Treatment Area Area Area Area Species # Trees
(Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
HIGHROCK 2019
67 FMU
AL-11 CR 252
AL-12 CR 126
BS-13 CR 98
BZ-1 1,500 BS 2
BZ-15 CR 89
BZ-16 CR 53
BZ-18 CR 120
BZ-19 CR 119
BZ-21 CR 152
BZ-23 CR 109
BZ-24 CR 115
BZ-26 CR 332
BZ-3 58,320 BS 63 CR 167
BZ-4 CR 98
BZ-40 CR 471
BZ-44 CR 719
BZ-5 CR 123
DL-8 CR 108
DL-9 CR 57
HO-10 CR 311
HO-11 CR 30
HO-12 CR 370
HO-13 CR 344
HO-14 CR 50
HO-15 CR 65
HO-16 CR 110
HO-17 CR 261
HO-18 CR 273
HO-19 CR 139
HO-21 CR 255
HO-27 CR 96
HO-28 CR 167
HO-29 CR 388
MI-12 CR 237
PU-7 58,320 BS 36 CR 148
ST-20 CR 131
ST-22 CR 278
ST-23 CR 125
ST-24 CR 164
ST-28 CR 156
ST-29 CR 276
Harvest Block
Harvest Block
Table 8: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification Site Preparation Planting Tending
Treatment Treatment Treatment Area Area Area Area Species # Trees
(Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
ST-30 CR 62
ST-31 CR 161
ST-32 CR 53
ST-34 CR 93
ST-35 CR 69
ST-36 CR 33
ST-5 CR 86
VA-5 CR 397
VA-7 CR 516
WA-2 CR 73
118,140 100 9,220 67 Total for FMU
68 FMU
TF-40 CR 62
TF-42 CR 196
TF-44 CR 119
377 68 Total for FMU
118,140 100 9,597 HIGHROCK Total for
NELSON RIVER 2019
83 FMU
SE-98 CR 69
SE-99 CR 49
SI-51 CR 165
SI-52 CR 62
SI-53 CR 233
SI-54 CR 33
SI-55 CR 77
SI-56 CR 132
SI-59 CR 126
947 83 Total for FMU
84 FMU
JO-65 CR 126
JO-67 CR 79
JO-86 CR 312
LN-11 CR 112
LN-12 CR 62
LN-27 CR 56
LN-29 CR 315
LN-3 CR 34
Harvest Block
Table 8: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification Site Preparation Planting Tending
Treatment Treatment Treatment Area Area Area Area Species # Trees
(Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
LN-33 CR 210
LN-7 CR 46
WP-59 CR 103
WP-62 CR 127
WP-65 CR 116
WP-71 CR 112
WP-83 CR 138
1,950 84 Total for FMU
85 FMU
BQ-71 CR 62
BQ-73 CR 131
BQ-75 CR 108
BQ-79 CR 170
BQ-81 CR 126
BQ-83 CR 252
BQ-91 CR 335
BQ-93 CR 109
BQ-95 CR 99
BQ-97 CR 90
NJ-7 CR 47
NJ-9 CR 28
VE-4 CR 153
VE-5 CR 286
VE-6 CR 70
WP-86 CR 151
2,217 85 Total for FMU
87 FMU
BQ-11 CR 179
BQ-36 CR 112
BQ-39 CR 267
BQ-4 CR 76
BQ-41 CR 121
BQ-45 CR 65
BQ-49 CR 95
BQ-55 CR 206
BQ-6 CR 189
BQ-63 CR 78
BQ-68 CR 244
BQ-69 CR 155
BQ-8 CR 61
GS-41 CR 214
Harvest Block
Table 8: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification Site Preparation Planting Tending
Treatment Treatment Treatment Area Area Area Area Species # Trees
(Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
NL-16 CR 31
2,093 87 Total for FMU
7,207 NELSON RIVER Total for
SASKATCHEWAN RIVER 2019
50 FMU
CT-202 CR 79
RB-30 CR 77
RB-31 CR 62
RB-33 CR 130
RB-34 CR 39
RB-35 CR 177
RB-37 CR 632
RB-38 CR 92
RB-39 CR 102
RP-2 CR 356
1,746 50 Total for FMU
53 FMU
BARIL SALVAGE-53 CR 424
DW-12 CR 184
DW-15 CR 450
DW-8 CR 60
ET-1 SF 51
ET-11 SF 515
ET-12 SF 884
ET-2 SF 781
ET-3 SF 58
ET-4 SF 147
ET-6 CR 910
ET-9 SF 139
MB-37 CR 86
MB-39 CR 63
MC-33 CR 91
MC-36 CR 96
MC-37 CR 78
MC-8 CR 122
PI-1 CR 897
PI-2 CR 1,248
PI-3 CR 1,386
PI-4 SF 35 CR 1,219
Harvest Block
Table 8: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification Site Preparation Planting Tending
Treatment Treatment Treatment Area Area Area Area Species # Trees
(Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
PI-5 CR 991
PI-6 SF 120 CR 606
TD-49 CR 78
TD-50 CR 340
TD-51 CR 411
TD-52 CR 254
TD-53 CR 103
TM-202 CR 35
TM-205 CR 392
TM-206 CR 47
TM-207 CR 268
TM-208 CR 302
TM-212 CR 18
TM-30 CR 78
TM-33 CR 97
TM-39 CR 72
TM-50 CR 268
TM-53 CR 185
2,730 11,855 53 Total for FMU
58 FMU
BARIL SALVAGE-51 CR 957
MO-201 CR 512
MO-209 CR 109
OL-101 CR 65
OL-102 CR 103
OL-42 CR 269
OL-53 CR 29
OL-72 CR 63
SR-1 SF 722
SR-2 CR 517
SR-3 SF 80
SR-4 SF 608
TM-211 CR 96
TM-48 CR 70
TW-27 CR 184
1,409 2,974 58 Total for FMU
59 FMU
AB-10 CR 195
AB-12 CR 158
AB-14 CR 186
AB-16 CR 194
Harvest Block
Table 8: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification Site Preparation Planting Tending
Treatment Treatment Treatment Area Area Area Area Species # Trees
(Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
AB-201 CR 95
AB-202 100 BS 60
AB-5 CR 90
AB-7 CR 120
AB-8 CR 91
ALK-1 CR 57
ALK-2 CR 54
BT-3 100 BS 579
DO-5 58,300 BS 58
DW-2 CR 112
DW-23 CR 66
DW-24 CR 117
DW-4 CR 73
DW-6 CR 107
HY-1 100 BS 71
HY-10 CR 92
HY-13 109,923 WS/BS 87
HY-14 CR 121
HY-18 CR 55
HY-19 CR 63
HY-20 CR 62
HY-21 8,100 BS 4
HY-22 67,068 BS 198
HY-24 CR 118
HY-25 CR 45
HY-26 CR 39
HY-27 CR 42
HY-32 100 BS 83
HY-34 100 BS 106
HY-40 2,835 BS 5
HY-41 34,020 BS 21
HY-42 66,744 WS/BS 40
HY-43 78,586 WS/BS 49
HY-45 100 BS 23
HY-46 100 BS 14
HY-47 100 BS 147
HY-48 100 BS 6
HY-5 CR 213
HY-8 CR 281
HY-9 CR 339
LA-201 CR 283
LA-202 CR 248
LA-207 CR 200
LA-209 CR 151
Harvest Block
Table 8: Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation Planned Forest Renewal Projects by FMU
Forest Renewal Treatments
Scarification Site Preparation Planting Tending
Treatment Treatment Treatment Area Area Area Area Species # Trees
(Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)
LA-3 CR 231
LA-4 CR 546
LB-6 CR 41
LB-7 CR 144
LK-4 CR 185
LK-6 CR 86
MH-12 THIN 24
MH-15 CR 35
MH-16 CR 200
MH-17 CR 96
MH-20 CR 70
MH-21 CR 83
MH-22 CR 304
MI-13 SF 6 CR 6
MI-14 CR 25
OF-1 134,928 BS 94 CR 160
OF-4 11,520 BS 8 CR 23
PT-10 43,448 BS 54
PT-11 SF 200 542,862 BS 498
PT-12 83,106 BS 51
PT-13 221,940 BS/WS 137
PT-3 100 BS 237
PT-6 CR 176
PT-7 CR 47
PT-9 96,811 BS 175
RT-10 47,239 BS 35
RT-5 CR 110
RT-8 CR 57
RT-9 CR 38
206 1,608,430 2,841 6,753 59
Total FML 2
4,345 1,608,430 2,841 23,329 SASKATCHEWAN RIVER Total for
4,345 1,726,570 2,941 40,132
Total for FMU
APPENDIX 4
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
An invitation letter to join the Sustainable Forest Management Committee was also included:
Newspaper and Radio Ads for Public Communication Meetings – Examples
STATION: NCI FM CLIENT: CANADIAN KRAFT PAPER TITLE: COMMUNITY MEETINGS RUN DATES: JAN 4 – 29 - SEE BELOW
Join Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation for their community information meetings to discuss the proposed
June 1st, 2019 to May 31st, 2021, Forest Management Operating Plan for Nisokapawino and Canadian Kraft Paper forestry
operations. Meetings will be held in various communities throughout northern Manitoba including;
(place insert here – listed below)
For complete dates and locations, visit Canadian Kraft Paper dot com and click the Sustainability tab.
JAN 4 - 7: Cranberry Portage on January 7th at the Legion Hall at 1pm and Flin Flon on January 7th at the Public Library.
JAN 7 - 8: Wanless, January 8th at 7pm at the Community Center and January 9th at 7 in Opaskwayak Cree Nation The
Pas.
JAN 9: Opaskwayak Cree Nation The Pas, tonight at 7pm at the Kikiwak Inn Constant Room.
JAN 10 – 14: Wabowden, January 14th at 1pm at the arena, and in Thompson January 14th at 7pm at the Best Western.
JAN 10 – 14: Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation Nelson House, January 14th at 7pm at the Gilbert McDonald Arena.
JAN 14 - 15: Pimicikamak Cree Nation Cross Lake, January 15th at 1pm at Pimicikamak Hall.
JAN 14 - 15: Snow Lake, January 15th at 7pm at Lawrie Marsh Hall Reading Room and January 16th at 7pm in
Cormorant.
JAN 16: Cormorant, tonight at 7pm at the Cormorant Lake School Gym, and tomorrow at 7pm at the Community Hall in
Sherridon.
JAN 17: Sherridon, tonight at 7pm at the Community Hall. Plus, more meetings coming up through the end of the month!
JAN 18 – 23: Mosakahiken Cree Nation Moose Lake, January 23rd at 1pm at the Community Hall.
JAN 23 - 24: Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation Indian Birch, January 24th at 1pm at Wuskwi Sipihk Community Hall.
JAN 23 - 24: Sapotaweyak Cree Nation Pelican Rapids, January 24th at 7pm at the Sapotaweyak Community Center.
JAN 25 – 29: Chemawawin Cree Nation Easterville, January 29th at 1pm at the Community Hall.
JAN 25 – 29: Misipawistik Cree Nation Grand Rapids, January 29th at 7pm at the Misipawistik Hall.
2019 - 2021 FOREST MANAGEMENT OPERATING PLAN COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING AGENDA
1. Welcome
• Attendance Sheet
• Review Agenda – Make Additions
• Public Input Form
• Mailing List
• Business Update
2. Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation (NFMC)
• Agreement signed July 6, 2018 between the Province of Manitoba, NFMC, and Canadian Kraft Paper Industries Ltd.
• Has the responsibilities of Forest management planning/reporting and renewal activities/operations on FML 2
3. Access to Information
• CSA Sustainable Forest Management Plan, Forest Management Operating Plan (FMOP), and
other information can be accessed by the public on CKP’s website at
www.canadiankraftpaper.com under the “Sustainability” link.
4. Forest Management Operating Plan (FMOP) Review
• Review progress of current FMOP (2017 - 2019 Plan)
• Review planned harvest and renewal for FMOP
5. Road Development and Closure
• Proposed development of access for the next 3 years
• Roads proposed for closure
• Concerns/issues by other resource users should be brought forward to Manitoba Sustainable
Development or NFMC
6. Traditional Knowledge Concerns
• Burial sites, plant gathering areas, ceremonial sites
• Confidentiality agreements can be applied if desired
7. Local Plant and/or Wildlife Knowledge
• Bat caves, sinkholes
• Caribou calving areas, mineral/salt licks
• Raptor nesting sites
8. Local Community Issues
• Wild rice Lakes, remote cottages or lodges
• Registered Trap Line impacts
• Bear hunting outfitters
• Eco-tourism
• Cross country ski trails, designated “SNOMAN” snowmobile trails
9. Sustainable Forest Management Committee (SFMC)
• SFMC is a public advisory committee
• Members review and advise on forest management activities
• New Members welcomed
• Membership is open to the public
• Members will learn more about forestry plans and the CSA SFM Plan
• Call Kevin Dudka at 204-623-8574 to find out more on joining SFMC
10. Other/Additional Items
Forestry Roads Under Review For Closure **Note: Bold type indicates roads scheduled for closure during the 2019/20 or 2020/21 operating years.
Road Location of Closure SASKATCHEWAN RIVER FOREST SECTION
Dolomite Propose closure at Km 4
East Talbot Propose closure at the entrance off Crossing Bay
Halfway Propose closure at Km 10
Little Atik Propose closure at the entrance off PTH 10
Long Lake Propose closure at the entrance off Sturgeon Landing Rd
Ochre Lake Propose closure at Km 20
Spruce Propose closure at the entrance off Talbot Road
Talbot Propose closure at the entrance off Crossing Bay
HIGHROCK FOREST SECTION
Batty Propose closure at the entrance off Limestone Road
Limestone Propose closure at Km 32, Batty Bridge
Syme Lake Propose closure at the entrance off Sherridon Road
North Kississing Transfer to MI from KM 13 junction with Duval/Hobbit Road
NELSON RIVER FOREST SECTION
Bruneau Propose closure at the entrance off Radar Lake Road
Jonas South Propose closure at Km 35
McLaren Creek Propose closure at the entrance off South Jonas Road
Radar Lake Propose closure at the entrance off McLaren Creek Road
Setting Lake Propose closure at the entrance off PTH 6
Bah Lake Propose closure at the entrance off Setting Lake Road
Thicket Propose closure at Km 12
North Jonas Propose closure beyond junction of Partridge Crop Road
Meeting Location: Meeting Date:
Would you like to be added to our mailing list? YES NO
Name ______________________________ Company/Organization ______________________________ Street/PO Box ______________________________ Town/Prov. ______________________________ Postal Code ______________________________ *Email Address ______________________________
*Email is preferred for mail distribution. Please indicate your areas of interest related to the forests. Timber Harvest Road Construction Other Wood Industry
Trapping Commercial Fishing Sport Fishing
Remote Outfitting Cottager Tourism
Wild Rice Non-Timber Resource Products
Hunting Snowmobiling Heritage Resources
Aesthetics Parks/Protected Areas Environment
Wildlife Water Quality Traditional Use
CSA/SFM or EMS Other
Do you have any comments on the NFMC/CKP Sustainable Forest Management Plan (CSA/SFM), FMOP proposal, or any other forest management or operational activities of NFMC or CKP? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Do you have any comments on any of the proposed road construction or road closure plans? If so, please indicate the name of the road along with your comments. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEETING QUESTIONNAIRE
What wildlife species do you want to see particular attention paid to in planning for sustainability and why. What is important habitat for these species? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What values, goods and services from the forest are important to you? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ How would you like to see NFMC work with your community on development of a long term Forest Management Plan? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please indicate how satisfied you were with this session of NFMC’s public participation process. Was your concern(s) adequately addressed? What did we do well? What needs improvement? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ We appreciate you taking the time to attend our community information meeting. Your comments and suggestions will help us in preparing the Harvest and Renewal Plan. For more information on NFMC/CKP Woodlands activities please visit the CKP website at www.canadiankraftpaper.com. You can mail, fax or e-mail the completed form to us at:
Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation P.O. Box 3726, The Pas MB R9A 1S3
Fax: (204) 623-4560 [email protected] Attention: Kevin Dudka
2019 – 2021 FMOP Community Information Meetings – Questions and Concerns Raised
Legend
[N] = Nisokapawino Forestry Management Corporation (NFMC)
[CKP]: Canadian Kraft Paper
[SD] = Sustainable Development
[P] = Public
Cranberry Portage Monday, January 7, 2019 13:00
[P]: Are your [harvest] contingency blocks over a three-year period? [N]: This proposed FMOP covers a 2-year period from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2021. Contingency
blocks can be harvested in either year 1 or 2 [P]: What percentage of your contingency blocks have a completed PHFI survey? [N]: We did some analysis on the last plan, but I can’t remember the exact number off the top of my
head. It was somewhere between 80-90%. In those instances where PHFI has not yet been completed, it is discussed at the work permit approval stage and completed then.
[P]: What is being done with the silviculture obligations while harvesting in the budworm salvage
(Interlake)? [N]: We are right caught up-to-date with our obligations there. We’ve done over 2,600 ha of
scarification. We’re also looking at trying something new – single-tooth ripper plow and ground seeding of Jack pine on some winter sites.
[P]: Both planting and scarifying? [N]: Both. Discussed rationale behind silviculture prescriptions (i.e. scarification or tree planting). [P]: Wondering if the rest of the area on the Bakers Narrows peninsula, east outside of the Provincial
Park, can be considered for selective harvest for fire control… (reference Cranberry Portage fire a couple years ago)… in regards to cabin owners they are all in the Provincial Park with the exception of 1 on the north bay. At our cottage association meeting we tabled a motion for me to ask CKPI if they could assist.
[N]: I was in a meeting in Winnipeg with a couple government staff to discuss the FireSmart program. So that’d be facilitated with them but we can assist with planning such as photography acquisition. There is funding from the feds, 10-15 million, for the province to match. Discussed more on the FireSmart program; Action Item for NFMC to follow-up with Bakers Narrows Cottage Association representative.
[P]: Are you proposing any harvest in around Elbow Lake? [N]: No, that’s in Grass River Provincial Park. The closest area would be harvest along the proposed
Dickstone Road which we’re showing as “future” – years 4-5. [SD]: When are you looking at establishment of the Crow Lake Road? That’d be an area you’d have
increased fishing pressure. [N]: We’re focusing on the budworm salvage ahead of Crow Lake Road, currently south of Grand
Rapids and then back on the FML. There are some unknows there regarding how much longer the budworm infestation will continue and how much salvage opportunity there is. There are benefits of the Crow Lake Road such as getting the winter road off the Kississing Lake ice.
[P:] That big patch of hog fuel you’re showing on Athapap Road (adjacent to LK-14), we cut the
softwood out of that years ago. Is it worth it to go back in and harvest the poplar? [N]: Unsure of how much poplar is left in there. For these maps we use the government inventory for
the hog fuel shapes. We will go in after and do a field survey to follow-up and see if what’s showing in the inventory is accurate.
[P]: What renewal standard are you using for those hog fuel blocks? [N]: The province has renewal responsibility on hardwood blocks. However, if there is a softwood
component we maintain that portion of the responsibility. Extended conversation regarding mixedwood stands and renewal treatments, including rationale to planting at lower density.
[P]: Is that (Batty, km 35) bridge on the Limestone Road being removed? [N]: Potentially, it’s a hot button issue, there’s lot of resource use on that road, wild rice, commercial
fishing… discussion on why roads are closed including provincial requirement, reduce environmental degradation, reduce hunting pressure, remove liability, etc.
[P]: What are you calling decommissioning? A berm or ripping the roadbed? [N]: We discuss with the province and come up with a decommissioning plan. This usually includes
removal at key locations such as major water crossings. Discussion on upcoming legislation changes to the federal Fisheries Act including restoration of the HADDs and impact to road decommissioning.
[P]: So you’d be looking at transferring the Limestone Road over to another user group to maintain? [N]: Yes, potentially. We have no near-term future harvest down that road so we have no use for it.
The Province requires us to close roads following completion of forest management activities. If other groups are interested in utilizing the road we’d want them to take over responsibility.
[P]: To my knowledge there is no protocol to transfer roads to the province in the current FMLA, I don’t see where they’d want to accept that liability. On the Limestone Road there are two spots of significant environmental degradation.
[N]: We want to remove our liability, but we acknowledge to resource use on the road. If there was no resource use we’d decommission the road.
[P]: I’d be concerned if transferred to MI (Manitoba Infrastructure) there should be something in there to say these culverts would be maintained. As a person who is a fisherman and hopes to be for a lot more years yet, I’d expect there to be a committment to maintain that fishery.
[N]: Yes. [P]: Is the railroad crossing still in at Little Atik (Road)? [N]: No, it’s been removed. [P]: Who will be growing your seedlings now? [N]: Yes, with Pineland being no longer, we will have to look at other options. We haven’t made a firm
decision yet. We’re looking at a couple different locations including PRT in Prince Albert, Coast to Coast in Alberta…
[P]: Does Pineland still have your seed inventory? [N]: Yes, and this upcoming spring’s planting stock which will be the last stock from there. We have
been a stanch supporter of Pineland and it’s unfortunate we have to look elsewhere. [P]: How far down are you putting in the Pothier Lake Road? [N]: Indicated on the map it’ll extend into FMU 57 slightly east of PT-9. In 3 years or so next time
we’re back in there we’ll look at accessing more wood past that point in FMU 57. [P]: Are all the maps on the website? [N]: Yes. Demonstrate how to navigate CandianKraftPaper.com website to access maps. [P]: That block north of the Sturgeon Landing Road between the highway and rail line (MV-24), that’s
nice pine, I’d like to use that for the (Leptick) sawmill. I look at it every time I drive by. [N]: Ok we’ve made a note of that.
Flin Flon Monday, January 7, 2019 19:00 No attendance
Wanless Tuesday, January 8, 2019 19:00 [P]: I’ve heard some of the whisper campaign saying that you’ll be burning railway ties soon? [N]: CKP has been looking at it several options, unsure of the current status however. [P]: A couple weeks ago, I saw they (CKP mill) were blowing pretty black smoke. [N]: Yes, that coincides with when they’re down for maintenance, we see that when they first start-up. [P]: How long do you have to harvest all of the budworm salvage? [N]: There’s over 500,000 ha of mature timber infected, we’re harvesting under 3,000 ha a year, So
that’d take about 180 years. [P]: So the trucks (on PTH 6/60/10 from the Interlake budworm salvage) coming up have a good
chance to transport the budworm? [SD]: That’s not how the budworm is transported, it’s transported by wind updraft which can carry them
a long distance to other areas. [P]: But they could also come up on trucks? [N]: Well this infestation map shows the budworm spreading north of Grand Rapids from the original
location of infestation, and CKP did not have log trucks moving up that way. [P]: You travel down to Swan River, through the bog, and up to Flin Flon, you see the bugs killing all
the trees. That’s trucks transporting bugs. I had some good conversations with Troy on that. [N]: Be that as it may, we’re salvaging the wood, hauling and renewing it so we believe it’s a positive. [P]: So is woodlands now a separate company like it was before? [N]: Explain the separation between NFMC and CKP including their respective roles and
responsibilities. [P]: Ok, but is it two separate set of books? [N]: Yes. [P]: So if it’s two separate companies, according to the CSA (SFM) standard, the pulp (CKP) side
needs a representative here at the meeting. [N]: We are transitioning to a dually-held certification, we are doing these meetings on CKP’s behalf,
we don’t think we need a CKP representative here to be compliant with the standard. [P]: Is it 3 years you have to salvage budworm timber? [N]: We think it’s closer to 1 year once the tree has died. [P]: What about cutting it for sawlogs? [N]: We have been doing a wood exchange with Edgewood in Saskatchewan that sees the sawlogs
go there. [P]: You can’t saw dry timber, it just turns to dust. [P]: A lot of those areas around Rocky Lake you’re showing in blue (future year 4-5 blocks), have
those not already been logged? [N]: No, the areas adjacent were logged in the 70s. [P]: You’ve got them in blue, and the rest of the area is hiding behind white, the real story isn’t being
shown here, the map does not show all the cutting from before. [N]: I’ve got some other maps I can show you with those harvest years. [P]: The 2005-06 federal report stated that sawmills are overlogging close to the mills. I’ve been here
since 1970 and the logging has never ceased in this area… [N]: Explain the FMU boundaries, how Annual Allowable Cuts are calculated within the FMUs, how
the company is regulated to stay within those harvest levels. [P]: It’s a question of determining if the government knows the speed of the bug (Jack pine budworm),
you should get approval to harvest more. [N]: Yes, like what they’re doing with the mountain pine beetle out west? [P]: Yes, like that.
[N]: Yes, we’ve been exceeding the AAC off the FML in the Interlake budworm salvage area. [P]: (In relation to the proposed Bignell Road location) What about the road along Namew Mine?
Can’t you extend that road instead? [N]: We looked at that, it’s a longer haul distance, and we’d still have to do significant road
development anyhow, so this route we’re proposing is better. [P]: That (Halfway) road, it’s been decommissioned how many times already? [N]: We’ve only been doing temporary closures on it during periods of inactivity. Just a berm at the
start of the road to restrict passenger vehicles. It’s an agreement we have with the province to do that. It’s also in our best interest to do that.
[P]: It’s in our best interest too. [N]: We’ll continue to do it. [P]: My attitude to taking that (highway) buffer zone (on RT-10), it should be looked at. I’ve been in
that block recently and there’s lots of blowdown, it’s a serious fire hazard. I’d be in favour of it. If we can get a meeting with the North and East Shore I think they’d agree. I’m all for forest management but it’ll be a big problem if we don’t do it.
[N]: We appreciate your support but in past meeting here we’ve heard both sides and there has been lots of opposition to that.
[P]: That S-turn at the East Shore turnoff, it’s a rock ledge with under 2’ of clay before bedrock, there’s a serious problem there. In Wanless there is 24’ of clay before you hit bedrock… You should harvest that block (RT-10). I’m talking to them right now, I’ve been taking lots of firewood in there and it’s in pretty serious shape… I think it’s time to take it.
[P]: Is the jack pine budworm a historic event, like once every 100 years? [N]: The right weather conditions will cause the population to explode, the last outbreak was in the
1980s. The speculation is that outbreak led to the 1989 fires. [P]: I have a different theory, from my past experience in logging, from when I was strip logging and
making furniture. When you cut and have the logs in piles, the worms get into the logs. Cutting has introduced those spruce bugs. When I worked for Gervais, we burnt over 400 piles, you can hear them in the piles. So strip logging is where you get a lot of these bugs.
[N]: Yes, I hear them in my firewood pile too. [P]: We’ve severely logged these areas… that’s the price we pay now [N]: Your opinion. [P]: That area (RT-30s adjacent to private land) has been severely over-logged, this map doesn’t
show the true picture. [P]: It takes at least 80 years to get a mature tree in the slow growing boreal forest around here [N]: Some of those areas were harvested in the the late 60s, that’s 50 years ago, it’s almost mature
again, we’ll be cutting it a second time and you’ll still be calling it a cutover. [P]: You have to follow the Canadian CSA standard, you have to listen to the communities [N]: We are listening right now. [P]: In the CSA standard I thought I read somewhere that you had to leave at least 35% of the natural
forest. You are not doing that. [N]: What do you mean when you say over-logged? What’s your definition? Explain the FMU
boundaries and how AACs are calculated. [P]: The Tolko maps I have, they show the muskeg areas… these maps you have don’t show them.
How am I supposed to understand where we’re looking on the map, to understand if that is an appropriate place to harvest?
[N]: We appreciate your comment, we’ve recorded it in the minutes. We can look at doing maps like that. We’re not here to hide information… explain constraints with GIS to allow for multiple layers to show, clutter on maps.
[P]: State history and experience in logging industry, including provinces worked in and equipment used.
[P]: I’d like to walk through the stands you plan to harvest, see with my own eyes, to make a judgement on behalf of the community to whether they’re acceptable. You think you have the right, just because it’s close?... Provided observation of back in the 70s when logging in the Bignell area there were herds of moose (7 bulls together), but now there are none as a result of over logging in the area.
[N]: I don’t believe that’s a function of logging as to why there’s less moose. [P]: If you open up the roads it allows people to hunt them [P]: That section right there (RT-10 highway buffer), you should cut that [P]: What about John Kolisnyk’s harvest (RK-5 strip harvest), have you done any research? [N]: There are some temporary/permanent sample plots, unsure of results. [P]: If we get the North/East shore in discussions, it should allow for harvest of that highway buffer. [N]: There was too much opposition expressed at the last meeting. [P]: Lots has changed in the past 2 years since that meeting. There is lots of blowdown from that wind
storm last summer. I bet 20-40% of that wood is down. That’s not good for bugs. [N]: That’s unfortunate to hear. [P]: (In reference to the proposed Athapap Winter Road) – Lepticks aren’t complaining that you’re
proposing that? [N]: No. Explain benefits of upgrading the road, talk about reduced feasibility of haul occurring on that
proposed road as a result of recent fires on Saskatchewan side. [P]: That Moose Lake area, I was cutting there in the 70s, that area is severely over-logged. [P]: What about that Landry Lake? Are you taking any wood out of there? [N]: Show Landry Lake area and proposed contingency blocks (LA-Blocks). Explain the jack pine
budworm is present in there the last 2 years as indicated by aerial surveys. [P]: What about Crossing Bay? [N]: Show East Arm operating area (ET/SR-Blocks). [P]: Again, this map doesn’t show the ’89 fires. [N]: Show printed map of 1969-Current Fires vs Harvest map indicating location of ’89 fires. [P]: See between the fire and harvest, look at how much area that is. [N]: This map almost shows a complete rotation. [P]: How healthy do these (hog fuel blocks around Wanless) areas look? [N]: Explain hog fuel blocks in area are based on the ’95 Saskatchewan River inventory and many are
overmature and falling down. [P]: For hog fuel, wouldn’t you take the unhealthy trees? [N]: Explain operability constraints if wood is overmature and there isn’t enough standing timber to
justify equipment costs. [P]: What happened to the leftovers after chipping? The debris? [N]: A couple of years ago we did a trial to try to utilize chipping debris as hog fuel. We did the trial in
the winter so we had issues with the hog freezing in the vans. Also there were too many contaminants (rocks/dirt) in the chipping debris to be used.
[P]: Are you looking at it again? [N]: Yes, with the new vibrating grates, we’re looking again at using chipper debris. Explain issues
contaminants caused with the old grates, having to frequently pull them to clean them. [P]: So the government is allowing you to burn those piles? [N]: Shortwood, limbs and tops, piles yes. But we haven’t been burning chipper debris, we’ve found it
smoulders and there are holdover fires that can happen in the summer. We’ve been pushing the chipper debris onto the roads.
[P]: That could be just as deadly, if that’s left for a couple years, it can become dry and a serious fire hazard. I’ve worked with a chipper for many years… it produces a lot of hog fuel… what’s the percent uplift you get from chipping?
[N]: Around 15% [P]: That produces a lot of hog. The most B-trains I’ve fed is 11 in 1 shift… [P]: You’re going to re-open the Little Atik Road to get to that hog fuel area? [N]: Yes. [P]: Geez, a lot of wood taken out of there. [P]: I only have one comment. I want this recorded in the minutes. I honestly believe the people who
are supposed to be policing this aren’t, as this area is severely over-logged. [N]: Ok, we’ve recorded that in the minutes. [P]: The only area I know of, back on the creek on the east side of the highway, I’ve heard there is a
salt lick, I don’t know its precise location. [N] We can follow up with the Province and see if they have a location. [P]: Are your trees supplied from the government? [N]: We have been purchasing them from Pineland. Discuss closure of the nursery. [P]: The purchase wood from Saskatchewan, do you plant trees for them? [N]: No, we either pay renewal dues or they plant their own trees. [P]: Why is your tree plant program so small? Is it because you can’t afford to buy more trees? [N]: No, it’s because we’re scarifying most of the blocks and there’s no need to plant them. Discuss
silvics of Jack pine stands and subsequent renewal treatments, harvest contactors ensuring adequate cone source for scarification.
[P]: What about success on those sites? [N]: Explain overall good success, delays in assessing success as germinants take a couple years to
appear. [P]: What’s the cost difference between planting and scarification? [N]: Can comfortably say about half the cost of planting. If planting is helicopter access it’s more of a
difference. [P]: Scarified blocks should grow in really well. [N]; Yes, that’s been our experience. [P]: That’s the trick, eyeball inspection for your herbicide. [N]: We’re getting into drone technology that’d allow us to better assess the areas we need herbicide
treatment. [N]: That’ll be good. [P]: So you’re spraying to give life to the plant? [N]: Yes, the conifer trees we’ve planted. [P]: When we were at a CSA committee meeting, they told us at anytime we could get a scientist in, I
recommend at the next meeting that is done (to discuss glyphosate). [N]: I genuinely think any question you have about glyphosate has already been researched. It is the
most researched chemical. [P]: I’m computer illiterate. We should get updated information from a scientist. [P]: You have to comply with the CSA standard, not the other way around with them complying with
you.
[P]: So is the government paying you to do that (herbicide) work (on the Athapap Road)? [N]: Yes. [P]: Is this to protect other growth? Why are you spraying government blocks? [N]: Same reason. Explain renewal responsibility on quota blocks. [P]: How come the government is just observing? They aren’t policing. [SD]: We do our own meeting as well. [P]: There are a couple fenced in areas, one on the Simonhouse Road and one on the Cheater Scale
(Root Lake) Road? [N]: Those are seed orchards, family test plots. [P]: I don’t think there has been any research done on those. [SD]: Yes, we have been doing surveys on them. [N]: Discussion on the Tree Improvement program. [P]: We’re supposed to be thinking about the future, future generations. On the East Shore Rocky
Lake), there’s so much big wood dying in there. You should create a wide buffer zone. If there’s a fire, it’d be devastating.
[N]: The cottage association has been discussing that. [P]: I’ve worked on forest fires… in the future that should be a recommendation, to look at those
areas… [P]: We have an obligation to our forests… over-logging… bring in all the bugs… state logging
experience in British Columbia/Nova Scotia… [P]: I don’t think I want to sit on that (SFM) committee again. [P]: You guys had good representation at the meeting, I would’ve liked to hear more from the
government.
Opaskwayak Cree Nation – The Pas Wednesday, January 9, 2019 19:00 [N]: Matt asked if anyone had checked out the website and no one had [P]: Where are the contingency blocks located? [N]: They are across the Forest Management License Area, shown in purple on the map. [P]: I see trucks with large wood heading towards The Pas from north of town, are you guys chipping
that wood? [N]: Possibly, we can chip up to about 18” diameter, but we also do wood exchanges with Spruce
Products in Swan River and Edgewood in Saskatchewan – if wood came from a hardwood allocation they can sell to whoever they like. We are aware of value added products like lumber from bigger wood and we do try to organize exchanges with other mills.
[P]: Isn’t there a regulation that prevents chipping big wood? [N]: No that’s always been the mindset here because for years we were trying to source bigger wood
for the sawmill but chipping larger wood is not illegal. [P]: So you’re harvesting the last stands of big white spruce, you don’t have to leave it? [N]: We will harvest bigger white spruce and there are not a lot of mature stands around but we do
maintain the white spruce. We want to harvest the stands before they get overmature and fall down.
[P]: What do you mean you maintain it? [N]: When we harvest stands that have a significant white spruce component we will plant white
spruce seedlings back into those areas. [P]: That Bignell area you’re showing there, didn’t you guys harvest that years ago? [N]: There was harvesting in that area in the 70s, 80s and 90s but the areas shown on the map are
outside and in between those previously harvested areas. [P]: What tonnage of hog fuel does the mill require? [N]: I believe it’s around 150 to 200,000 tonnes which is the same as the cubic metres but not all of
that would be hardwood harvest, we get a lot of our hog fuel from other sources like Spruce Products, we probably need around 30-50,000 tonnes of hardwood from harvesting but that number fluctuates depending on what’s available from other sources.
[P]: You’ve shown the Mitchell Road for closure in the past why not now? [N]: There are still blocks existing off the road. [P]: Do you have any plans on doing more decommissioning work beyond Cowan Bay where the
bridge was removed? [N]: No. [P]: You’re showing the Limestone Road for closure, are you proposing to close it at the Batty bridge? [N]: Yes we would look at decommissioning it beyond that point but there will need to be more
discussion on that as there is a lot of resource use occurring from that road. [P]: What kind of spray do you use? [N]: Glyphosate. [P]: How do you spell that? [N]: Spelled it out and gave person an information pamphlet on glyphosate. [P]: Does it affect wildlife? [N]: It doesn’t affect wildlife, only vegetation.
Wabowden Monday, January 14, 2019 13:00 [P]: How does the Jack Pine Budworm get from one area to another? [N]: They are moths at one stage of their life cycle so they fly and are carried on updrafts and wind
currents. [SD]: There was a previous Jack Pine Budworm outbreak in the mid-1980s [N]: Which was followed by a huge forest fire year in 1989. [P]: How many years can you harvest behind the Budworm? [N]: Science says mortality typically starts occurring after 3 consecutive years of infestation. We
looked at some areas this summer that it was their 4th year of infestation and we were seeing 20-30% mortality. We can use the trees after they are dead but only for a limited time before the wood deteriorates, we estimate about one year but it could be more or less depending how quickly other insects get into the wood after it’s dead. SD is monitoring the population at different stages and in different areas and they are indicating that the population down in the Devils Lake area is in decline while the population on the FML is on the upswing.
[P]: No way of controlling it? [N]: There is a chemical that kills it but it is very expensive, has to be applied at precisely the right
time or would be ineffective and would kill other insect species that are not being targeted. There’s too much area infested currently to consider spraying everything, the Province may look at something like that on a small scale in an area where the forest is of exceptionally high value. There’s no way we can get ahead of it with harvesting, we have been harvesting less than 3000 Ha per year, the infestation is around 550,000 Ha so it would take us 180 years to harvest that much area.
[P]: Km 12 of the Thicket Road (identified as a road decom point), is there a bridge there? [P]: The bridge was at Km 27 and it’s been removed, there’s a culvert at km 12, it’s a swampy area,
beavers have it blocked up. Km 9 is a swampy area too but it flows good there, I think Km 12 is a good spot to decommission.
[N] That’s great, thanks for the information. [P]: What do you do when you decommission, remove all of the culverts? [N]: No, we normally remove all of the bridges and we identify certain culverts for removal where there
is consistent flow and more potential beaver activity or other destructive impacts. The reasons we decommission roads are because in order to get approval to build a road we have to commit to decommissioning it when we’re done, to reduce the risk to public safety and to reduce the risk of environmental damage.
[P]: Some roads where you logged don’t have gates and others do, why is that? [N]: Normally SD specifies during the road construction permitting process whether they want the
road gated. [P]: People pick berries on the Bah Lake Road, there is no concern for safety, we used to pick berries
on the Thicket Road, we tried to get in a s far as we could. [N]: So you’d be getting in past the temporary decommission point at the start of the Setting Road? [P] Yes [N] So you’re going in with ATVs? [P] Yes [N] We can and have structured road closures to allow ATVs easy access but it’s up to SD whether
they approve it or not, we will make a note of that and discuss with SD when we are looking at decommissioning that road.
[P] People also berry pick on the South Jonas [N] Probably closer to the highway though I’m thinking? The decommission point in this Plan is Km
35. [P] Yes berry picking would be nearer the front. [N] Ok we will note that the South Jonas Road should also be decommissioned with accommodation
for ATVs for berry picking when the time comes. [P] Is scarification only used in Jack Pine forests? [N] Yes [P] When is spraying done? [N] The deciduous leaves have to still be out and the softwood has to be hardened off which is
usually around the end of August. [P] That’s also the best time for picking berries. [N] Which is why it’s good to communicate where you are picking so we can avoid it. We target areas
with a dense hardwood canopy, these trees have large crowns, usually spraying glyphosate stimulates more vigorous growth of berries and herbs on the forest floor because the canopy is opened up and more sunlight reaches them.
[P] How healthy are the berries when they’re full of chemicals? [N] The life of the chemical is 40 days so if you avoided picking a treated area for one year, the
chemical would definitely be broken down. [SD] Based on discussions with communities we removed areas close to the road from the spray
program for berry picking, we have the flexibility to remove areas from the spray program. [N] We apply glyphosate once in the life of the forest or about 80-100 years, farmers apply it on the
land 2-4 times every year. [P] Supposedly the chemical breaks down after 40 days. [N] Yes, I didn’t do the research myself so I’m believing the information that others are providing but
glyphosate has been very well studied by agencies other than the company that produces it. [P] Do Highways and Hydro use the same chemical? [N] Yes I believe so, it has proven to be the safest and most effective. [P] I noticed in the last 10-15 years there is an area that was sprayed near Kiski Creek that turned
black, not sure if Highways or Hydro sprayed it. [SD] I think that was a different chemical used there, a stronger one. [P] They should stay away from the water with the spray. [N] We buffer all standing water by at least 30 m. [P] If it did get into the water what affect would it have? [N] I’m not sure, I believe there is information in the information brochure we brought that speaks to
that. [P] It’s causing algae blooms in lakes. Amount of phosphate in the human body is 1300% higher
than it used to be. [N] There is no phosphate in glyphosate, that would be from fertilizer. [P] It is causing gluten issues in people. [N] I have gluten issues and have researched this and believe there are other contributing factors like
genetic modification of seeds/plants for example, though glyphosate could be one as well.
[P] I never knew of anybody that had all of these diseases that are so common now, cancer and Alzheimer’s. Monsanto is being sued right now for a lot of money by a former groundskeeper that has cancer because of glyphosate. We need to re-think what we are doing in the forest industry.
[N] We will still be using it for the near future, I believe using it according to the manufacturer’s instructions is key and we will continue to minimize its use. I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to these issues, not just glyphosate.
[P] Isn’t the hardwood regeneration a natural part of forest regeneration? [N] We are very selective about where we spray it, only spraying areas with very high levels of
hardwood competition and only using it once in a 100 year cycle.
Thompson Monday, January 14, 2019 19:00 [P] What is a shoe press? [N] Not exactly sure but it shortens up the drying time of the paper which will allow the mill to produce
more paper. [P] Can you use dead trees after a Jack Pine Budworm infestation? [N] We can to a point, at some point the wood will be deteriorated too much for us to make good
paper from, we figure about a year. Also the whole stand doesn’t die at once, we’re seeing 20-30% mortality right now in the areas that have been infested the longest but that will likely increase with time.
[P] Is there any way the Jack Pine Budworm infestation can be controlled? Natural predators?
Spraying? [N] There are natural predators that can have some impact on the population. There are chemicals
that can be used but they are very expensive, application has to be timed very precisely to catch the bugs at the right stage or it would be ineffective and there is such a large area infested that it wouldn’t be practical. We will never get ahead of it by harvesting, figured it would take 180 years at our current rate of harvest to cut it all. Fire would kill the infestation. Likely the trees will end up getting stressed to the point where they don’t produce pollen anymore which the bugs feed on, so there will be very little for them to eat and they will die. The Province monitors the status of the infestation and the information they have been collecting suggests the population may be declining in areas south of the FML while it appears to be on the upswing on the FML. The mature trees may or may not recover after the infestation ends.
[P] You say the firebreak around Thompson “could be” harvested, is there anything more concrete
that they will get harvested at a certain time? [SD] The Fire Chief is working on a plan to mitigate fire risk to the city. Would the Company relinquish
their right to the timber so it could be offered up as firewood. [N] There is no concrete plan to harvest from our perspective at this point and if it doesn’t make
sense for us to come and harvest it once it’s been figured out I don’t think we’d have an issue with signing off on it getting offered up as firewood. I have heard there are some different approaches under the Fire Smart program like selective cutting and leaving trees that are less susceptible to fire, it’s probably up to the community what kind of approach they want to take.
[P] Is there Jack Pine Budworm in any of these areas (in the firebreak area)? [N] No, I think the trees are mostly Black Spruce in these areas [P] Do the Winter Road Program and the Forestry Road Program ever work together to reduce the
amount of road created and cost incurred? [N] If we are going to the same place or close to it we certainly would, we would always prefer to use
an existing access rather than create a new one. Manitoba Hydro has been using our roads to access portions of the transmission line for construction and maintenance. Manitoba Infrastructure has taken over the maintenance of our North Jonas Road to facilitate access into Thicket Portage. In The Pas, the Regional Lands Manager has facilitated this type of cooperation between industries on a few occasions.
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation (Nelson House) Monday, January 14, 2019 19:00 No attendance
Snow Lake Tuesday, January 15, 2019 19:00 [P] When putting in the roads and cutting a few years ago you made a mess of one of the local
trappers’ trails. Person that made the statement wasn’t sure about the details but he had been told that it was a mess.
[N] I’m surprised by that because we had worked out a plan with the trapper to maintain his access and I hadn’t heard that there were problems. I’ll follow up with him and see what went on.
[P] Over by Herbtown there’s quite a mess of half-burned top piles. [N] Sometimes there are piles that are lit but then go out again, the person burning doesn’t spend a
lot of time at each pile. We do a followup inspection in late winter to ensure there are no hot spots and also to confirm that most piles burnt. It is deemed acceptable to leave some piles unburnt, I believe we need about 90% or 95% to be burnt. We’ve had comments back from trappers in other areas that they like those debris piles, they say they are good for marten sets as mice and voles are attracted to the piles and they attract the marten.
[P] You should have a machine go around and pile up the unburnt piles. [N] We do normally heap them up before they get lit but sometimes that doesn’t happen. [P] We (trappers) were paid compensation by Hydro for Bipole 3. [N] We don’t pay compensation, we try to work with other users of the land to mitigate or minimize
our impact on their operation. We have a commercial license to harvest timber no different than a trapper has a commercial license to harvest fur.
[P] You leave a lot of wood in those debris piles, you should chip that. [N] In some areas we are able to operate a chipper in the block and then a lot of that material does
get converted into chips but it’s difficult to operate a chipper and chip vans when there is rougher topography like there is in Buzz Lake. We did forward some treelength wood out to the stockpile near the highway and chipped it there.
[P] There’s big timber back in that Herb Lake Landing area (BZ blocks in the FMOP), it’s too big to go
through the chipper, that’s a waste. [N] If it’s too big to chip we do wood exchanges with sawmills like Spruce Products in Swan River
and Edgewood in Saskatchewan where we send them the big logs and they send pulp back. If we are harvesting an area with a sizable volume of oversize wood we would need to have a plan to deal with it.
[P] There was oversize left at the stockpile a few years ago, firewood pickers got it. [N] Yes, that happened, we paid the Crown dues on the wood and it got cleaned up by locals for
firewood. [P] Do you exchange wood with Leptick? [N] We buy his pulp but I don’t think we’ve ever sent him logs to my knowledge, he harvests his own
timber on his quota. [P] Does Leptick use his sawmill still? [N] I think so, he still harvests timber. [SD] Yes Leptick still operate their sawmill. [P] How come the sawmill shut down? [N] Poor market conditions, lumber market has been very volatile. [P] What about areas that have burned in forest fires, do you salvage them?
[N] We used to do it for the sawmill but the Papermill doesn’t like it, I think it messes up the chemistry in the paper-making process.
[P] The Dickstone Road has not been completed right through? [N] No still about 3 km to go plus the bridge to join it up. [P] You can get a bridge in there? [N] Yes. [P] There has been mining exploration activity recently near your green blocks on the map.
Determined the activity was taking place on the west side of BZ-42 close to Grass River - Wekusko Lake - Crowduck Bay north of the transmission line near the E-W township line.
[N] What’s the most important thing to mitigate for trappers? [P] The trails, we keep our trails narrow to minimize other people using them. [N] Is it necessary to leave trees standing along the trails? [P] Yes we put flagging tape on them to mark the trail. [N] If we leave a fringe of trees along the trail they might just blow over and then you’d have to be
spending a lot of time clearing fallen trees off of your trail. [N] Is the issue just not recognizing and being able to re-locate your trail following harvest? [P] Yes that’s the problem. [N] What about GPS? [P] We don’t use GPS. [N] Something we have done in other places is leave high stumps, like 4’ high, along the trails, then
they are visible and less likely to blow over. [P] That could work. [N] We’ll just have to make sure we work closely with the trapper ahead of time to get these things
sorted out. [P] The roads you’re talking about decommissioning, they’re all-weather roads? [N] Yes that’s right, winter roads decommission themselves when they thaw out. [P] Is that the only thing you’ll be doing to decommission the Dolomite Road is pull that one culvert? [N] Yes, the one crossing, there might be a couple of culverts there. [P] What road goes into Burntwood from Sherridon? [N] The Limestone Road. [P] What is your commitment for coming back if there are issues with the decommissioning of the
road? [N] We are responsible to repair or restore any breaches in the road decom for 2 years after the
Province approves the original work. After that the Province gives us a letter acknowledging that we have met our obligation and are no longer responsible for the road.
[P] Years ago I was on the trail into my cabin near Heyward Creek and I ran into some students
planting trees along my trail, right in the tire ruts, I don’t know why they were there. I dug up the trees they planted on the trail and re-planted them back in off the trail.
[N] Kudos to you for moving them, not sure why there would have been planters there, sometimes they do some strange stuff if there’s nobody there to give them direction. We don’t see any previous harvest there so it’s odd that they would have been there. It may have been a school group too with some trees to plant just looking for openings to put them in.
Discussing a Snow Lake Salvage block that was shown in the Silviculture Plan for chemical release.
[P] I think that area was salvaged after the 1989 fire. [N] I don’t think that block should be included, I’ll have to look into that.
Cormorant Wednesday, January 16, 2019 19:00 [P] How do you kill the Jack Pine Budworm? [N] There are chemicals that can be used but they are very expensive, application has to be timed
very precisely to catch the bugs at the right stage or it would be ineffective and there is such a large area infested that it wouldn’t be practical. We will never get ahead of it by harvesting, figured it would take 180 years at our current rate of harvest to cut it all. Fire would kill the infestation. Likely the trees will end up getting stressed to the point where they don’t produce pollen anymore which the bugs feed on, so there will be very little for them to eat and they will die. The Province monitors the status of the infestation and the information they have been collecting suggests the population may be declining in areas south of the FML while it appears to be on the upswing on the FML. The mature trees may or may not recover after the infestation ends.
[P] How do the trees recover and what happens, will it burn? [N] Older trees don’t recover as well as younger trees, some won’t recover, may survive for a while.
There is a higher risk of fire I think because of the increased amount of dead dry material. [P] How much wood is left in the RW blocks? [N I would estimate there’s around 150,000 m3 in there. [P] How many years would it take to cut that? [N] It would depend on a number of factors, how much equipment and manpower we wanted to put
on it. The Annual Allowable Cut volume is around 90,000 m3 but we wouldn’t likely try to harvest that much volume in a single winter season, more likely around the 50-60,000 m3 so 3 winter seasons.
[P] Why is there no moose around? [P] They all got shot. [P] What do you spray? [N] Vision Max which is glyphosate. It’s absorbed through the leaves to the roots of hardwood
competition and blocks transpiration which kills the tree. It is not harmful to humans, I wouldn’t go swimming in it or anything, but only affects vegetation.
[P] Is the Talbot Road going to be closed? We would like it to be closed. [N] It is on the list for potential closure. It’s already pretty grown in, not really wide enough for pickup
traffic only ATVs and snowmobiles. We would likely just dig out the approach at the front off the Crossing Bay Road. There was an outfitter that identified a few years ago that he didn’t want this road decommissioned.
[P] The community opinion should mean more than one outfitter. [P] You are closing the Dolomite Road? [N] It may be decommissioned, yes. The first 3 km to the garbage dump access will remain as is, we
would dig out the culvert crossing south of there on that muskeg crossing. Will that be an issue for you?
[P] No that’s good, it’ll keep some people out of there.
[P] How might the Company be able to help us? We would like to have more things for kids to do in
the community, there is not much for them right now? [N] We do have a donation program where we will donate funds to various communities in our area,
often for things that benefit children, but not huge dollar amounts. [P] What kind of benefits to the community would there be from harvesting the RW blocks? [N] There would be potential employment opportunities with operations right on your doorstep,
maybe people would be more likely to take an opportunity when it’s close by and then they find out that they want to stay with it beyond the local operation and could turn into a long term thing. The last time we proposed to haul wood through town we agreed to do some different things like some Catwork at the dump, road maintenance while hauling and immediately after, deliver a few loads of firewood into the community, have a safety person watching truck speeds as they come through town, etc. We could probably look at doing something similar but I have no authority to offer you anything right now and keep in mind we don’t have any definite plans to harvest these blocks this year or next but at some point we will.
[P] We also have our Resource Area that goes beyond the RW blocks, we should benefit from forestry in other parts of our Resource Area as well. Our Resource Area Agreement is different from other ones, it has special conditions, we can send you a copy.
[N] I would be interested to see the agreement. As far as community benefits for areas outside of the RW blocks, I don’t know, I suspect the answer will be employment opportunities but we can talk about it.
[P] We would like to schedule another meeting for Mayor and Council to meet with the Company and
discuss these things. [N] Ok. [P] We need contacts at the Company so we can keep the discussion going.
Supplied our business cards and Andrew’s number.
Attendee pointed out two sites where he knows there are old graves and an old portage location, none of which are in areas where we have or could have proposed operations due to them being in a Provincial Park or TLE selection area. He gave us his contact information.
Sherridon Thursday, January 17, 2019 19:00 [P]: (When discussing the proposed KN-Blocks and Crow Lake Road) Person has a cabin on the
narrows on Russick Lake. [N]: Ok, we’ve noted that. [P]: Sherridon has a reserve on Cree Lake and Sherlett Lake, it was to remain untouched from
logging and was given to the community as a protected area. Have you spoken to community council about this?
[N]: I’m unaware of the agreement, It is not something showing on our maps. I’ll have to ask some of the other staff on that. We’ll get a hold of community council.
[P]: Batty Road – you should be good to decommission that one. The other ones (Limestone Road),
good luck! People maybe upset about those. [N]: We acknowledge the resource use that is occurring on the Limestone Road and will have to
discuss further with those groups. Discuss rationale for closing roads. [P]: I’m here by request of Chief and Council of Mathias Colomb Cree Nation to express our
concerns. [P]: We do not want to see the Limestone Road closed, as we have interest in opening a sawmill. [P]: For me, I need access to Batty Lake, but you can pull the Limestone (Creek) Bridge. But that’s
just my opinion, the community wants the road kept open. [N]: We acknowledge the resource use that is occurring on the Limestone Road. But we’ve finished
forestry operations on the road. We have a requirement to decommission the roads once we’re done with them. If another group is interested in using the road afterward, they’d need to discuss with the Province on taking over responsibility. Discuss condition of Limestone Creek and Batty bridges.
[P]: How much does it cost to keep the road open? [N]: Explain road and bridge inspection requirements. [P]: You should talk to Chief and Council about this. [N]: Explain NFMC partnership. Nekoté’s liaison, Floyd North, has had contact with MCCN Chief and
Council. We’re in the process of re-scheduling and confirming a date for our meeting up there. [P]: Discuss Charles logging operation from 1999 to 2001 and potential to resume logging in area. [P]: When you go to MCCN, they want to hear about employment in logging. They don’t want to see
someone from Saskatchewan there logging. [N]: With the jack pine budworm salvage and with Pukatawagan being far from our mill, we have no
plans to resume logging in the near future.
Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation Thursday, January 24, 2019 13:00 [P]: Did you increase your woodlands staff after NFMC was created? [N]: Currently the same level of staff but we’re recruiting for one full-time permanent Forestry
Technician. We’re also looking to hire one summer student for treeplant supervision. The posting closes the middle of February. Further in the future we may be looking for more permanent full-time positions.
[P]: Are you still planning on opening the sawmill? [N]: Tolko right before the closure announcement did another feasibility study. It concluded at the time
it wasn’t feasible. Now also with the tariffs from the United States that reduces the feasibility. [N]: The reality is it’ll likely never happen. It would cost millions to re-open it. We quit calling that
space a sawmill, a lot of the equipment is outdated and some of it has been sold. [P]: Are you guys cutting within your forest area? [N]: The Jack Pine Budworm Salvage is currently outside of our Forest Management Licence Area.
We’re operating under the authority of a Timber Sale – same as quota holders do like Spruce Products. But we’re still harvesting winter blocks currently on our licence area.
[P]: So is this additional harvest to what you’re allowed? Is it twice as much harvest now? [N]: No, it’s the same amount. The fact that we’re harvesting in the salvage area means we’re not
harvesting as much on the licence area. That is what CKP is harvesting, about 400-450,000 m3 a year. The mill consumes twice that so the other half we get from purchase sources… a lot come from Spruce Products as well as places in Saskatchewan. We get lots of residual chips from these places, there ends/trimming from sawmills.
[P]: How much is the salvage harvest a part of your two-year plan? [N]: I’d say about 70% of our harvest is out of there. The rest is winter harvest closer to The Pas, in
the Halfway and Pothier Lake operating areas. But as far as the two-year plan, none of the budworm salvage is shown because this proposed plan is just for the Forest Management Licence Area. Explain contingency blocks.
[P]: What percentage of the forest is infected (with Jack Pine Budworm)? Because you have poplar in
that area too. [N]: Yes there is poplar and spruce in those areas. So only the infected Jack Pine stands are shown
on this map. I’m unsure of species composition and percentage. [P]: So you don’t have a forest inventory? [N]: That area does but it’s older inventory – 1980’s. It’s old because prior to us being there with this
salvage there wasn’t a lot of commercial activity. [P]: How do you know if you’re being sustainable if you don’t even know what’s there? Isn’t a forest
inventory a requirement? [N]: These forests are largely pine dominated which is why a lot of the map in that area is coloured.
As opposed to this area which is mostly spruce. You’re correct in this area we don’t have as good of a picture as we do on our licence area. But we still have been doing pre-harvest surveys to get an idea of the species composition. This salvage is unique.
[SD]: I’ve been keeping a close eye on the pine stands near Novra for the budworm. [P]: Are wildlife populations benefiting from this (budworm infestation)? And you’re cutting it down? [N]: I’m sure the bird populations are benefiting from this. [P]: Are there any other animals benefiting from this? You should know that information. [P]: So does this budworm attack spruce? [N]: It’s the Jack Pine budworm. But where we’ve seen severe infestation like in Devils Lake and
Moose Lake it’s eating some of the spruce needles as well. It’s not killing the spruce, maybe some top kill.
[P]: Further discussion of the entomology of the Jack Pine Budworm [P]: Has there been a timber supply analysis done on the Saskatchewan River Forest Section? [N]: No, not recently. It’s older Forest Resource Inventory from ’95. They are in the process of
acquiring imagery for the new inventory. Hopefully we receive that in about 2 years. [P]: How can you know if you’re doing sustainable harvesting if you don’t know what’s there? [N]: Even though the inventory in this area is a little outdated, there’s still wood supply modeling and
analysis that is used to generate the Annual Allowable Cut volumes. [P]: In other parts of the world, South America, I don’t think they use models like that. Deforestation.
The forest inventory should be up-to-date if you’re going to practice sustainable forestry. [P]: (To SD) What is your goal for frequency of updating the forest inventory? [SD]: It’s a large job. It is the province’s responsibility but there are limitations to how often the
inventories are re-done. The priority was to complete the southeast for the firewood quotas. We’ve been doing successful modeling using PSP data, etc…
[P]: So it’s a matter of not enough money? [P]: So it is a model. It is no certain information. I am skeptical about all that forestry stuff. State
suspicion of error in LP’s growth and yield curves for aspen. [P]: Is that (Red Deer) WMA designated? [N]: Yes it is. [P]: Is there logging allowed in there? [N]: No, no commercial activity, as stated in the Use of Wildlife Lands Regulation. [SD]: Actually that Red Deer WMA has 3 tiers of protection, some areas are allowed to have
commercial activity. [P]: When you guys have contingency blocks, do you do pre-harvest assessments? [N]: Yes, absolutely. The province won’t approve the blocks unless that is done. [P]: Those Overflow blocks (OV-1) are a high valued sweetgrass country. I’d be ashamed to see
these areas lost. [N]: Ok, I’ve walked some of the wood in there. It’s a lot of enclosed black spruce. Would there be
sweetgrass in those areas? Or just some of the block patches? [P]: No, all of those areas. When were you in there? [N]: Fall time. [P]: That’s why, you’re past the season. [P]: We’re actually doing consultation with the province on a protected area… [P]: Sweetgrass is very specific as to where it grows. Once you destroy the area, it is difficult for
sweetgrass to grow back. [P]: Also if you’re in there we would be concerned about people getting hit by logging trucks. [N]: Maybe what might be easiest is we could sit down with a more-detailed map and talk about this, if
you could tell us more about it. [P]: Could Craig go on a field trip with you? [N]: Yes. [P]: I’d like to talk to the band people first and actually find out where they harvest. [P]: The company should be hiring a First Nations person to collect field data and be responding
directly with First Nations concerns. There are weaknesses to looking at a GIS map… Going out in the field to find out where these important areas are…
[N]: That is one of the objectives of the partnership to be doing that. This is just the start of the partnership and working towards these objectives. I know this meeting does not serve your needs. We are here now because of the government requirement to do these meetings. When we’re here next time I guarantee the meeting will be a lot different.
[P]: WSFN has been working on a forest plan. I think developing a committee that addresses the First Nations needs is required here.
[N]: We have a process for that. Explain the process with the Nekoté Liaison and community contacts. It will be a little while to establish those pathways.
[P]: When something starts happening with that, it creates employment, community involvement. [P]: Are those (ER) blocks close to that high ridge? [N]: Yes, the highway follows along the high ridge and these blocks are right along the highway, we’d
still have a highway buffer on them though. [P]: Are those MP-blocks near Easterville? [N]: No, they’re a ways away. Show distance on map. [P]: The MP-blocks, are those caribou areas? [N]: Yes they are. We’ve been working with the province on that. That herd has recent collaring data, I
think 2-3 years back. We’ve developed a leave strategy based on the collar data, the kernels generated on that. I believe we’ve been working off of the 70% kernel. So I think about 50% of the blocks have been deferred for caribou habitat. If you’re interested we can look at a more-detailed map that shows the leave areas.
[P]: My recollection is some of those sites have spruce? [N]: Not a lot, I’ve done some walking in there, it’s all on those ribs, eskers, and is predominantly Jack
Pine, on poorer site classes. There’s some cedar in there though. [P]: Do you anticipate any hardwood or shrub competition coming back? That’s the concern with
caribou habitat – then moose move in, and you create linear disturbances for wolf predation. [N]: We don’t anticipate any hardwood competition. But if there is we’d address that with the
silviculture plan. There was some shrub, alder in there. [P]: Green or speckled? [N]: I can’t remember… green… both? I’d have to look at my field notes. [P]: You just use hog fuel. You don’t use Bunker C anymore? [N]: Not exclusively hog fuel. There’s still times they’re using Bunker C or waste oil during
planned/unplanned shutdowns. I think they have to run on oil first when they’re getting going again, before they can switch back to hog fuel.
[P]: Would you say 50-70 percent of the time? [N]: I’m not sure. We’ll look for those numbers in the CSA Annual Report because that’s the indicator
we use. [P]: It’ll be good for carbon credits. [N]: Yes that was a huge incentive with the recent legislation changes. [P]: What is the likelihood all those hog fuel areas will be harvested during the duration of the plan? [N]: Nowhere close to all of them. It’s like our softwood contingency blocks. The hog fuel depends on
the demand at the pulp mill which fluctuates. We get a lot of purchase hog fuel from sawmills which dictates how much we need to harvest additionally.
[P]: Are there some quota holders on your FML? – Do you include information on your map for them? [N]: Yes, we include blocks for them. An example is Leptick Sawmill which is on the Athapap Road
outside of Cranberry Portage, we show blocks for them. [P]: Tell the folks how you close the roads. [N]: Explain the Forest Road Development Plan process, how NFMC-SD agrees to decommissioning
before the road is constructed, close access at key points like water crossings as well as a berm at the front, how access is restricted for trucks but not necessarily ATVs.
[P]: You put signage up for safety? [N]: Yes we do. Then we still do road inspections for 2 more years to ensure the signage is still
visible. After 2 years we get sign-off from the Province.
[P]: (In response to item 6 on the agenda – Traditional Knowledge Concerns – “Confidentiality agreements can be applied if desired”) You should always treat this information as confidential, not the other way around. When you collect that data from an individual you should ask how and where that data can be used. Can it be used for education, shared with the public?
[P]: For gathering data you don’t have to look too close at the details, just the general areas, we don’t want to share with everyone where we gather medicine… I wouldn’t want to tell you where my ancestors are buried, we’ve made that mistake in the past and there has been damage…
[N]: I can appreciate that certainly, we have past examples of that being applied. [P]: An example, you get the data… 20 years down the road you lose the knowledge … you have the
shapefiles but don’t know how that data can be used. [P]: You should record with the data how it can be shared, within the confidentiality agreement. [N]: I agree. Between the new process with the NFMC partnership and we’re also looking at
upgrading our forest information software, we’ll be able to do a better job on that. [P]: Moose corrals – What’s that? [N]: I think it’s supposed to mean calving areas. [P]: I think that’s a made-up term. Someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. Who puts this in your
agenda? [N]: That might be out of our Forest Management Licence Agreement. I seem to recall that when
drafting this agenda years ago. The FMLA speaks to the public meeting process. [P]: You have Registered Trap Lines in that area. I’d like to have the opportunity to see if anyone
traps in there where you have contingency harvest. [N]: Yes, I can leave you with a map after the meeting that’d show that. [P]: We had someone always concerned about their trap line getting harvested. [N]: We can’t get the name of trapline holders from the Province, it’s up to us to ask the communities
for that information. Ideally we can identify the person who own the trapline and work with them directly. It’d be great if you could ask them and get us that information.
[P]: Who do you hire to do the tree plant work? [N]: We hire out of province, Outland Reforestation. [P]: That doesn’t seem right at all, why wouldn’t you hire the local First Nation instead of seeing
millions go out of province? [N]: We’ve been engaging to hire local planters, we’ve had some job posters in communities. In the
past we’ve had contractors from Moose Lake and Cross Lake doing tree plant, that was before my time though.
[P]: So you have plans in the future to hire at a local level? [N]: Yes. Explain the Nekoté-NFMC business documents and it’s principles. [P]: That’s why I ask, when we get planters working here, they’re from Ontario, Saskatchewan. [N]: There’s always been an opportunity but we haven’t been doing a good job at it recently. In the
past local contractors have done the work. We prefer to hire local when that option is available. That’s one of the principles of the partnership.
[P]: Can we get notification one month before the tree plant contact is tendered? [N]: Yes we can do that. [P]: Initiative to advertise in the local community [N]: Yes that’d be great if you could do that! [P]: So you’re using glyphosate? [N]: Yes
[P]: There’s a 3 million dollar lawsuit that was won by someone in California about the use of this stuff. And you’re spraying that near our drinking water and telling me it’s ok?
[N]: We have to leave buffers around waterways. [P]: So does rain wash it into the streams? [N]: Explain how glyphosate binds to soil and becomes immobilized. [P]: What about gravel/sandy areas? [N]: There’s still some organics, carbon, in those areas that’ll capture it. [P]: There’s a lot less in those areas. [P]: Keep in mind we’re spraying this in heavy poplar areas with helicopters flying low so it’s sticks to
the leaves. We also leave a 30 m buffer on water features. [P]: Where’s your requirement come from for the 30 m buffer? What guideline? [N]: Not a guideline, it’s right in our Pesticide Use Permit. [P]: What’s the scientific backing for that? [N]: Explain some of the scientific literature used. [P]: I don’t like the 30 m buffer… I feel it’s inadequate. [N]: In Alberta for example they have a 30 m buffer, but it’s not a strict 30 m buffer, they can still go in
and spray from the ground up to 5 m, 5 m is their strict buffer. Here it’s a strict 30 m buffer. [P]: Saskatchewan is stricter, we’ve been discussing with them, it’s 90 m. [P]: When you look at the buffer guidelines in Manitoba, they’re not scientific. Cite examples of
riparian buffer guideline using scientific literature from the Appalachian Mountain forests, terrestrial buffer guideline only has a 50 m duffer on den when a scientific study indicates 200 m is adequate. In Saskatchewan that buffer is 90-100 m on recreational fisheries.
[N]: Are you talking about harvest or herbicide. [P]: For harvest. In Manitoba it drops to 30 m. So someone’s science is out. Further explain
inadequacies of the Forest Practice Committee quoted as “half-assed”. [N]: Explain Pesticide Use Permit is issued by Environmental Approvals branch, not Forestry branch,
recommend individual write letter to branch. [P]: We both know that’s a waste of time. [P]: Industry is supposed to make change, if you’re not advocating for it how can we expect anything
to be different? [P]: You need to contract your scientific studies, you don’t have the resources to do it yourself. [P]: That’s why industry need to lead… [P]: Cite example of 100 m buffer on protected areas as part of Bipole III EAL, questioning the
scientific validity of that. [P] An example is First Nations do not like the use of chemicals. When we were discussing with
Hydro during the Bipole III planning, we requested we want to see mechanical treatment done. [N]: Yes and we’ve listened to that concern. That was raised at our meeting here two years ago. And
that’s why you don’t see any plans for herbicide in these areas. It was concluded there needed to be further discussion with the community on that.
[P]: A farmer sprays close to our community, by airplane… close to spawning streams, close to drinking water… but they don’t have to consult with us.
[P]: Would you be able to send us some examples of caribou mitigation? We will be meeting with
mining, The Province, it’d be great to have some examples of what other industries are doing. [N]: Yes, I don’t see why not. The Mossy Portage blocks where The Bog herd is would be a good
example. [N]: Yes that’d be the herd we’re interested in.
Chemawawin Cree Nation (Easterville) Tuesday, January 29, 2019 13:00 [P] You mention available opportunities for heavy equipment operators, do they need certificates? [N] Not necessarily, some jobs can be learned on the job, other jobs require more experience. [P] I know a person that has heavy equipment experience that is looking for work. [N] Let them know they can send their resumé to the email address or fax number on the information
sheet and we will distribute that to our contractors (made sure attendee had the Employment Ad for Contractors information sheet).
[P] (Referring to Jack Pine Budworm salvage area) that’s before you go into your planned area? [N] Yes, that’s a good point, we plan to harvest in the Jack Pine Budworm salvage area which is
outside of the Forest Management License (FML) area that we are submitting the Forest Management Operating Plan for. We operate in the salvage area under a Timber Sale agreement with Manitoba. Harvesting in the salvage area means we are harvesting less on the FML.
[P] What is the red area on the map? [N] These are areas that are infested with the Jack Pine Budworm and are mature, potentially
operable timber so we have identified them as “Salvage Contingency” so they are areas that we could potentially conduct a salvage harvest during the term of this FMOP.
[P] Do you guys do reforestation? [N] Yes we do, Kevin will be speaking about reforestation operations shortly. [P] Have you done any cutting at Mossy Portage yet? [N] No, not yet, we pushed an access trail in there a few years ago (indicated location on the map). [P] Have you seen the sasquatch there? [N] No. [P] Was the budworm around all the time? [N] Yes it’s always here and the population explodes when conditions are favourable and trees are
stressed. [P] How do trees get stressed? [N] Jack Pine naturally grows on dry sites and when conditions are abnormally hot and dry the trees
can be stressed by a lack of moisture. [P] Speaking of salvage wood, there’s probably a million m3 of driftwood on Cedar Lake, could it be
used for hog fuel? [N] It may be, would have to check the condition of the wood. We are very interested in discussing
this further. [P] You clearcut an area on Sugar Island and didn’t leave much of a buffer there, it is way too
narrow, you can see through it, you should inspect it. [N] On Cedar Lake it should have been a 100 m buffer, it’s possible the buffer or some of it may have
blown down, we’ll check it out. [P] There have been some big winds around Devils Lake blowing trees down. [P] Would Floyd (Nekoté Community Liaison) have the same information that you guys have? [N] Not yet, but in time he will be as familiar with our operations as we are.
[P] (Referring to the harvested area in the Jack Pine Budworm salvage area) You guys can’t go
further west? [N] We can, we are developing a winter road into this area (indicate JB-111 to 114 on the map) and
just started harvesting here last week and we are planning to construct an all-weather road south of Devils Lake this summer to access areas further west as well. These areas are more difficult to get to and there was infested timber close to existing access so we harvested it first.
[P] Are you going to cut all of the infested area? [N] No there’s way too much, it would take us 200 years to harvest that much area at our current rate
of harvest. We’re just trying to get what we can before it’s too far gone or burns. We can’t manage the pest with harvesting, the area is too big.
Misipawistik Cree Nation (Grand Rapids) Tuesday, January 29, 2019 19:00 [P]: Did you say your contractors are looking for people? How come they don’t come to Grand
Rapids? [N]: They may not come to the communities to advertise, but we are advertising for them when we do
these meetings. [P]: How long have you been down south of Grand Rapids cutting? [N]: Over 2 years. [P]: And you haven’t been here in our community asking us? [N]: We were here two years ago for the last public meeting and discussed the jack pine budworm
salvage and job opportunities. [P]: I don’t think they’re looking for people. [N]: We try to facilitate job advertisements for our contractors… explain process for how to apply, how
NFMC will circulate that to contractors. [P]: What kind of work are they looking for? [N]: List various heavy equipment operators such as feller buncher operator. [P]: Will they hire guys with no experience? [N]: Generally, they look for people with previous experience, but they have trained green guys. [P]: Shayne (CKP) offered to us last fall when we were on the field tour down there, he indicated
they’ll train people on the machines. [P]: They don’t come and look in Grand Rapids. [N]: You may be correct. [P]: I know of a few people who applied and never got hired. These weren’t green guys, they had
experience. [N]: Different times of year, our contractors may have not had any job openings at that time. [P]: Before we get going discussing, I would like to address the salvage operation. I speak on behalf
of the trappers and the community. Hydro, mining and now forestry have destroyed the land… we have been taken advantage of… our kindness will no longer taken for granted… CKP, the province is going to tell you “Thousands of acres are infested with jack pine budworm”… they’re going to tell you “fire attack crews identified the pest”… they are changing the landscape… we have a duty to protect… they’re going to tell us “the timber will die and blow down”… in nature, trees die to return to earth, with logging they do not…. Nelson River Logging, Moose Lake Logging, Intermountain Contracting… I’m sure they can show you a list of spill reports… we don’t want cutting on our traditional lands… we don’t want a ripple effect to continue north… there will be no logging… we also want a 10-15 km boundary between our trapline and the closest logging, if logging hasn’t already happened… we want proof of active salvage operations in Cormorant, Snow Lake… You can meet our demands now, or pack up your salvage operations… CKP, you’re no better than the budworm… at this time, I want to ask the elders and trappers to… say NO to cutting in and near our trapline area.
[N]: We appreciate and value your comment, that was very well spoken. We’ve tried to capture that adequately in the minutes. But to ensure it is would you be willing to provide that in writing to us?
[P]: Absolutely, I want to make sure our concerns are herd. [P]: You clear cut this way, that way. We’re surrounded by lakes on both sides. Between the
clearcutting and fires, there’s not much trapping area left. [N]: We appreciate the comment, we’re not going to force an opinion on you. We’re here as NFMC,
we’re just starting with the partnership to meet the objectives, not a lot of work has been done yet… we still have to communicate first.
[P]: Well the thing is all the money CKP is making off the salvage, you don’t see drivers fueling up their trucks, spending money on pop and chips at the Pelican gas station. There’s no economic benefit to the community.
[N]: NFMC is a partnership. Seven First Nations signed to be partners, Misipawistik Cree Nation is a partner… explain objectives of NFMC to strengthen understanding and involvement in forest
management, employment/business opportunities… we have a lot of work to do yet to meet these objectives. We understand the timing of this meeting is not good, we’re here because of a government regulation to do an open house meeting, we respect and understand your opinions.
[P]: That’s why I’m here, to express the concerns. People in the community could be scared to talk to you.
[N]: Yes it takes courage, well-spoken. [P]: I thought Swampy Cree was going to send someone to this meeting? [N]: Yes the Nekoté liaison Floyd North, he has had some communication with Heidi and other
councillors, there will be more meetings. [P]: That’s our concern, Chief and Council signed on this partnership and we, the community, were
left not knowing what was going on. [N]: Being part of the partnership doesn’t mean you have to say “yes” to what we’re doing. [P]: How are we supposed to benefit from the salvage wood? [N]: Explain objectives of partnership. [P]: You start logging first, then come to discuss, ask permission? [N]: Explain partnership wasn’t finalized at the time, forest operations had to continue to sustain paper
production at CKP… we respect everyone’s comments. [P]: We’ve gotten 1 truck load of firewood in 4 years? [N]: That’s something we’re looking at improving on with the partnership. [P]: Why is it you’re trying to start improving now when you’ve been cutting for 2 years? We feel like
the wool has been pulled over our eyes. Because you’re seeing the damage you’re doing? [N]: As foresters we don’t view a cutover as damage”. I respect as a resource user that might be your
view. Reiterate timeline for finalization of the NFMC partnership, how we’re looking to meet objectives and communicate better. Also explain rationale for salvage operations i.e. utilization of fibre before it is lost.
[P]: I’m speaking for the north side, non-Aboriginal, side of the river. I can appreciate and understand
the opinions and concerns expressed by these people… The government went ahead and signed this deal with the logging company (CKP) without the consultation of us… First we have to understand the history… in the past with Tolko we were bought off by good deeds, and then we fought to stop logging in Grand Rapids… Now, the leadership, Chief and Council, and mayor, signed this partnership and we the people are left here saying “Holy, now we’re part of this company?”
[N]: We understand that. We’ve had different receptions from other communities, some have shared the same concerns.
[P]: More general concern on previous logging history and current salvage operation south of Grand
Rapids [N]: Goals of partnership… we’re here to capture feedback… can’t forge a new relationship if we
aren’t meeting and discussing… [P]: I think the community stance is, we want CKP to shut down the salvage operations immediately…
I think that’s not too much to ask given how much timber has already been taken. [N]: We’re happy to sit down and identify what specific concerns you and the rest of the community
may have, if there are any. We can look at field trips. Honestly the answer is CKP will not be shutting down. We understand the general sentiment about no logging.
[P]: That’s the sad thing, when we community members are telling you we don’t want logging and nothing will change. What does it take? Do we have to do blockades?
[P]: Chief and Council work for us… they should be talking to us and asking us for our approval. [N]: The best path forward is to discuss … talk to leadership… discuss major issues of business and
employment. The alternative is no industry exists and no business or employment.
[P]: What about other communities? The budworm you’re showing on the map is all the way north. Are you cutting in Moose Lake? Snow Lake? Thompson? Are you doing there what you’re doing here? Why are you just doing it here?
[N]: That is a fair point, there are certainly other areas infected we’re keeping an eye on, such as Moose Lake. If we’re finding the budworm is progressing more there we’ll shift operations. But we’ve started salvaging where the budworm first appeared near Devils Lake, we’ve just been continuing to salvage in that area as that’s the area that’s been impacted the longest and we’re seeing the most dead trees. It also makes sense to have our contractors consolidated in one area.
[P]: Why do I have to dies while the forest is regenerating? Tell me that? [N]: Can’t argue that cutovers create a year 0 forest, but so do fires. [P]: Look at the maps, we have lakes on either side, forest in the middle, with the clearcutting we
have nowhere else to go. [N]: Good point. [P]: No, I don’t want you guys to do what you’ve done here in other places… you’ve had enough… no
consultation with us… you’re not even meeting us half way. [N]: Explain business development objective of NFMC partnership. I believe there is a solution there
somewhere… it won’t look like it does today… we’d like to try to improve things. [P]: Battle with Tolko… Ochre Lake… Heidi and leadership objected said “that’s enough” and Tolko
quit logging. What’s gone on in the south (salvage area) with the clear cuts is the same. One Kraft Paper operator asked “What is it about a clearcut that bothers you?” he didn’t understand that you’ve just destroyed millions of trees… species that use the trees…
[N]: Discuss personal experience with tree plant, how met his wife during treeplant, spent anniversary in regenerating cutover that they planted, how trees come back after harvest. I can appreciate your opinion… at the start of the partnership the partners/chiefs said “we need to be more involved”, to improve the existing relationship. We acknowledge things need to change, we just need to work towards the objectives, this is just the start…
[P]: In all of these communities, how many are active? Moose Lake Logging and Wabowden here? [N]: Yes both Moose Lake Logging and Nelson River Logging (Wabowden) are here. We also have
some active operations on OCN traditional territory right now. Explain benefit of having concentrated operations.
[P]: What about the wood I’m seeing travelling south on Hwy 6? [SD]: That would be either Arnold Reimer’s sawmill, or going to Dryden for fence posts. [N]: We’re forced to have this meeting now due to government regulation… today yes it appears to be
the same old maps, same old… we understand we have to change, to improve… build trust… to become mutually beneficial…
[P]: Don’t you think you should be trying to improve today? Tomorrow? Maybe we can agree to something?
[N]: Explain Nekoté liaison, late start communicating with communities, benefits of communication, how this is just the starting point.
[P]: You’re logging still… don’t you think you should’ve built that relationship first? [N]: You’re right… we’re working to improve things and meet the objectives of the partnership. [P]: Traditionally, things haven’t worked out. They just take what they want, we’ve tried to be
diplomatic… [P]: How do we fight back?... Protests?... Roadblocks? We can’t undo the damage that has already
been done. [P]: We’re handicapped by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision… we’re limited to fighting within
the trapline boundaries… they (CKP) are not inside of the trapline boundaries. [P]: But they’re still cutting within our traditional territory.
[P]: Is Kraft Paper making money?... more than Tolko was? [N]: That’s hard to answer, yes we have good production and markets are strong… CKP has been re-
investing it’s profits into the mill. Now that we’re our own company there is no one skimming money off the top. Explain the NFMC objectives of employment and training.
[P]: In the past, we used to get stumpage fees. In the salvage there is none of that. You’re not paying
dues on salvage? [N]: Yes we don’t pay the same dues… You’re saying the community used to get paid from
stumpage? [P]: Yes. [N]: Nekoté leadership said the old way of doing things is “not acceptable”… we’re looking to
change… not here to shove an opinion down your throats. [P]: Like Tolko did? [N]: More discussion on NFMC objectives, reiteration of how the timing of the meeting was bad and
it’s a government requirement. [P]: To harvest the salvage wood, do you need a permit? [N]: Yes, it’s off the Forest Management Licence area but we still need a permit. [P]: Are you trying to cut up north again (Ochre Lake-area)? [N]: No. [P]: I saw orange flagging off the Ochre Lake Road, someone is putting flagging up between Island
Lake and Round Lake. Was that you guys? [N]: We’ve done road inspections, we decommissioned the Sugar Road, but that shouldn’t be related.
Maybe mining? [P]: Could also be from the moose surveys. [N]: Do you want to talk about anything with the OP maps? I’m fine with having this sort-of
conversation. [P]: Is the budworm still spreading? [N]: Show map with spread of infestation. [P]: Can it be spread by logging trucks? [N]: No, it is spread by air currents. [P/N/SD]: General discussion on the budworm salvage south of Grand Rapids. [P]: Cutting on the west side of the highway, are you across the bogs near Pickerel and Chitek
Lakes? [SD]: They’re not that close, they’re pushing a winter road on that one ridge, into the original area of
infestation from 2015. We can measure on a map the distance. [P]: If this was not salvage… the stumpage fees, what is the total amount the Province waived? [SD]: I’d have to look at the numbers and get back to you. [P]: What an idea? 50 million? [N]: Nowhere near that much. Explain estimated volume harvested, current stumpage rate, estimate
on dues of $800,000. [P]: Are you planning on cutting up to the trapline boundary? [N]: No, actually we’re moving the other direction, south past Devils Lake. Show on map. [P]: What about road building down there for that? [N]: No road constructed yet. Show on map where the proposed road will be located. We’re tendering
that out. [P]: Well I think there is someone right here with lots of experience you should hire (ET
Development).
[P]: What’s your relationship with Reimer? [N]: Explain relationship, purchase pulp wood from him. [P]: Albert McIvor? [N]: CKP contractor, Nelson River Logging [P]: Moose Lake Logging, what’s his name? [N]: Jody Ehman [P]: How many employees work there? [CKP]: 6-7 [P]: Is the Talbot Lake area closed? [N]: The road is still open, we’re keeping a close eye on it to see if the budworm gets worse. [P]: Conversations diverged – discussion on entomology of Jack Pine Budworm; Ask about proposed
operations in the Streak Lake (ET/SR-Blocks) area, the trail network in the area. [P]: How bad is it (budworm infestation) there (East Arm/Streak Lake SR/ET-Blocks) compared to
here? [N]: As bad. [P]: So there’s a small window to get it then? [N]: Yes, if it hits it hard we will see operations shift back there at some point. [P]: What is the province saying about you salvaging the budworm timber? [N]: We’ll move to wherever it makes sense to salvage. [P]: So you’re calling the shots then? [SD]: We’re currently salvaging in the area most at risk as it has been infected for the longest. Have
you been in there recently to see the blocks? [P]: No, it’s too disheartening to see that… clearcuts… marten running around in fields… you’re lucky
to get 2 in a day. [N]: We should talk about the salvage contingency concept… explain salvage contingency concept on
draft Saskatchewan River Forest Section FMOP map… we wanted to make sure that was understood.
[P]: So would you come here to discuss or would you just go ahead and do it (harvest salvage contingency areas)?
[N]: We would be here first having a conversation… objective of partnership to have more effective communication.
[P]: The Supreme Court of Canada… you guys have to “consult”… not only that, we wanted to uphold
the international standard of “free, prior and informed consent” and to Tolko’s credit they agreed. Is it consent now that our leadership has agreed to with this partnership?
[N]: In respect to consultation, I just want to be clear, that is a government-to-government thing, we as NFMC do not do consultation. We do these public information meetings as part of engagement. Explain why we do these meetings, the desire to improve and change the dynamic, the objectives of the NFMC partnership.
[P]: Our concern is that government entered into an agreement and we weren’t made aware… when it comes to consultation, it didn’t happen… will it be the same thing is my concern.
[N]: That’s not the objective… this meeting is part of communication. Explain how we’re in the infancy of the partnership, development of the objectives, discuss how the objectives can be met.
[P]: I’m a councillor with Misipawistik Cree Nation. People were in an uproar years ago… the previous
council asked “What are you going to do?”… Tolko brought in maps… we brought in 2 foresters from Quebec to discuss… when Tolko left the room they spoke the truth and indicated some of the information was not explained correctly… We need to have a quorum at council… I don’t know all about the logging myself, but I’ll talk to some who knows about the logging, the history, I respect the trappers here today for sharing their concerns… I trapped for 4 years myself… there’s not a lot of trapping area here… I support their stance. You really need to listen to the local trappers… we’ve lost a lot… an example was on the South Dyke Road (Morrison Lake – MO-
Blocks 2012 harvest) they started cutting from the back where we couldn’t see, nobody knew what was going on. Once they got to the front we saw… Unfortunately, Heidi couldn’t be here today.
[N]: Thank you for your comments. We want to try and do something different, Floyd the Nekoté liaison has had some discussion with Heidi and is wanting to meet with council. Thank you everyone for your concerns. We would like to leave here thinking there is a chance to change things.
[P]: You guys have been logging here for a long time, and this is the first time you’ve asked, that’s a good thing.
[SD]: Discuss history of jack pine budworm salvage, original field tour in 2018, benefit of more meetings and field tours.
[P/SD]: General discussion on habits of jack pine budworm, how it’ll also attack regenerating forest stands which may benefit from thinning, transition into discussion on mountain pine beetle and differences from jack pine budworm.
[P]: It really comes down to money… the province doesn’t want to have to fight all those fires the
budworm might cause. [N]: We want to work with communities… Discuss FireSmart initiative and provincial funding available,
discuss NFMC silviculture contract opportunities. [P]: How much for a 5 gallon pail of cones? [N]: Yes we do have a cone collection contract upcoming. [SD]: That’ll be in the cutovers in the salvage area. [P]: (Discussing the Davidson Road closure) – No one is going in there with campers anymore so
that’s good. This fall on the Ochre Lake Road, I only saw 6 guys. [P]: Are you good with what was done (with the Sugar Road closure)? [P]: Yep, I’m the only guy in there in the winter… [N]: Ok, we’re glad everyone came out. [P]: Before I do the closing prayer… signing of the treaties… government discuss treaty with chief and
group of elders, my grandparents were witness to it… the government forced them to sign… today I see it’s a cycle, the members elected a chief to make decisions… proposal of logging in Treaty 5 territory, in the place we enjoy since the beginning of time… enjoy these areas with our families, and practice our traditions… I’m not supporting any of it… I’ll be one of the ones opposing, if it means roadblocks… God gave us this land to protect… According to Swampy Cree Tribal Council, logging, that’s their business… I’m going to pray to the Creator for this, the power to protect… that’s what we’re going to pray for and I’m going to do it in our language.
Mosakahiken Cree Nation (Moose Lake) Monday, February 25 19:00 [P]: Will you have a question period at the end? [N]: Better to ask questions as we go through the presentation as opposed to holding them until the
end. [P]: Is there some sort-of prevention to protect the rest of the forests (from jack pine budworm)? [N]: No. Explain cyclic population trends of jack pine budworm including why the population explodes
in numbers, fire risk, example of how Ontario is trying to manage the pest with insecticide, indicated that is not an option in Manitoba and the focus is on salvage operations.
[P]: Do they affect the whole tree or just the branches and needles? [N]: They start with the needles but that will eventually kill the entire tree if the bug has been attacking
the tree year after year… 3 years. [P]: Those areas in brown (on the jack pine budworm survey map), is that what’s infected? [N]: Not just the brown but the green, pink and red (explain year of survey to colour correlation). [P]: What stage does it (budworm infestation) have to be in to cut those areas (infestation in East
Arm-Streak Lake (ET-SR) operating areas)? [N]: Originally we thought we could cut ahead of the pest to cut it off, but wind updraft carry the bug
many kilometers. Eventually the budworm will eat themselves out of house and home, but no sign of that yet in the north here… we’re seeing lots of mortality in the Devils Lake area where we’re currently salvaging…
[N]: Discuss personal observations of budworm infestation in Moose Lake area, explain habits of pest how it defoliates trees and hinders ability for tree to produce food (photosynthesize), explain how multiple years of infestation will kill a tree, trees will look black/grey.
[N]: We’re keeping a close eye on that area (East Arm). We’ve had some of our field staff check it out this fall and it was bad. It is a question of how it will look next year – we will decide then if we’re shifting operations back there.
[P]: It looks kind-of scary, look at all the colour on the map! [N]: The bug is also present in young stands, not all the coloured areas on this map are mature forest.
Not all the areas will turn into dead forest, we’ll have to wait and see. [P]: Sometimes we have hot summers… is that related? [N]: Explain correlation between drought conditions, jack pine stress and pollen cone production, How
pollen cone production is one of the main indicators for budworm populations – food source. However, no significant evidence to suggest budworm populations are linked to climate change. Previous examples of budworm defoliation and severe fires – 1989 fires.
[P]: (In relation to the 1969-Current Fires vs Harvest Map) – The trees that burnt are they ready to be
harvested again? [N]: Not quite, this map shows fires as old as 1969 which would be 50 years old. We need at least 70
years old for jack pine and a little older for spruce. [P]: Where’s Little Limestone Lake on this map? [N]: Show location on Saskatchewan River Forest Section FMOP map. [P]: When you’re looking at coming back and harvesting near the community, will you be giving us
notification? [N]: This meeting serves as an opportunity to be notified and provide feedback. That’s also what the
Nekoté liaison will be helping with. [P]: We don’t have any local operations… we have Jody Ehman operating south of Grand Rapids,
when we need someone up here, we need to be let known, if someone else wants that opportunity for a contract.
[N]: That is one of the objectives of the Partnership – strengthened business opportunities and employment. Explain objective further.
[P]: (Concern about communication between Tolko and community in the past) [N]: I think the liaison will be effective in establishing communication… [P]: I’ve met Floyd before… we’ll have to meet again. [P]: 4 years ago we had cutting impacts on a trapline… “logged it out”… [N]: In the Driftwood area? [P]: No, on the Crossing Bay Road…(determined who the trapper was). [N]: We met with him, tried to work together to mitigate impacts… we left some residual structure,
buffers… we just have a commercial licence no different than a trapper so we try to share the resource…
[P]: The liaison should help to fix these concerns… [N]: Yes. [P]: Towards Bracken Lake… anything proposed there? [N]: Show jack pine budworm salvage contingency areas on Saskatchewan River FS map. [P]: What about East Talbot? [N]: Show on Saskatchewan River FS map. We’ll talk about road decommissioning later on. [P]: We can just wait for it (budworm infested stands) to burn down? [N]: That’s a possibility, we won’t be able to salvage all the areas. [P]: Is that Moose Lake there? [N]: North Moose Lake. Show location on Saskatchewan River FS map, location of causeway. [P]: (In relation to the Moose Lake Winter Road) – When? Within the duration of this 2-year plan?
Your operating plan states yearly. Why is this a 2-year plan? [N]: Explain move to a 2-year operating plan and the process… how one of the NFMC procedures is
to still do an annual update meeting in each Nekoté community every second year… Show visual of planned versus actual harvest (“OP Planned vs Actual Annual Harvest FML Example”) and rationale for high percentage of contingency – re. uncertainty of further harvest in budworm salvage south of Grand Rapids, forest fires, community concerns, etc.
[N]: I don’t think we’re likely to put that road in (within the 2-year plan)… but if we move budworm salvage operations and harvest enough timber it would be worthwhile, so it’s a possibility.
[P]: I’m a little bit confused, you say yearly but it’s a 2-year plan… you come here and say what you
“might” do, not what you’re actually going to do… [N]: It’s unfortunate it’s the way this process goes now, in the past we used to have definite plans.
When we had that we’d get a lot of feedback saying “well, you’ve already decided what you’re already going to do… so what does it matter?” Our current strategy is to include more areas so if there’s concerns, we still have enough areas in other places to put together a 2-year plan… Joel is also here from The Province to hear concerns.
[P]: Everything written on this meeting agenda… wild rice lakes, plant gathering areas, traditional
areas… it would be to the best benefit to the company if we finished land use planning… [N]: Has Mosakahiken finished their plan? [P]: Started, but not finished… it’d identify all traditional land use areas… it’d bring much protection to
the community. [N]: Discuss objectives of Partnership, how liaison would help make those connections between
traditional land use and forestry management planning… even if it’s partial it’s still better than not… requirement for the Organization of NFMC-CKP to get better at communicating, incorporating traditional land use values…
[P]: I’m looking here today… and I’m wondering, is there a company in Moose Lake? [N]: Yes, they’re harvesting in the jack pine budworm salvage area south of Grand Rapids right now. [P]: From what I see… that’s just Jody Ehman… No Moose Lake Logging [N]: Moose Lake Logging still exists… Jody is a sub-contractor. [P]: But they’re not here? [N]: No not currently. [P]: We talked to Ehman quite a bit… desire to return contractor operations to Moose Lake area,
provide more employment for Moose Lake members. [N]: They still have people from Moose Lake employed where they are right now. [P]: No one from the Board of Directors is here. [N]: No, I spoke with one of the Directors, I thought he would be here. [P]: Quoting the July 6, 2018 NFMC press release. I did not know they (Nekoté) did that (Signed a
partnership agreement). They should’ve come let us know first… they made a deal first and then tried to come talk to us…
[N]: I’m sure they were acting in the best interests of the community… under the belief of betterment… discuss benefits of Partnership in regards to strengthened business opportunities and employment for First Nations under Nekoté, how the Partnership is in the early stages and is working towards its objectives.
[N]: Elder that’s not the first time we’ve heard this concern. Just because your leadership has signed into this agreement doesn’t mean you have to agree with what we say. The Partnership is about communication… Explain benefits in regards to strengthened communication. We’ve heard from leadership “we want a voice that would be heard and a voice that would bring change.” The liaison will help with the communication… The liaison is meeting with all the communities to bring knowledge about the partnership….
[P]: It would’ve been nice to have seen the agreement… [P]: Young fellow I know, has had difficulty finding a job in The Pas… turned down because he didn’t
have a grade 12 education. [N]: That’s something identified by leadership as a concern. There’s desire on the company side to
help with that… to overcome that hurdle. [P]: In the workforce, you have those who can’t be inside in an office all day, like myself, I have to be
out walking… We have young people in the community who have tried to find work… this young man bought a grader… now Moose Lake Logging moved away… there’s politics there…
[P]: Third question, the trees, you take spruce, black and white, how do they use the trees? [N]: We take 3 main tree species – black spruce, white spruce and jack pine. It all gets chipped and
made into paper… we don’t sort tree species [P]: That’s what I’m getting at, the black spruce, they’re big, they’re wasted being made into paper…
they should be made into lumber, to build homes in the community. [N]: Explain current wood exchanges with Edgewood and Spruce Products Limited, infeasibility of
another sawmill opening. I hear you, but we don’t have a sawmill anymore… there are a couple of small sawmills around, Lepticks.
[P]: But you cut a lot of poplar? It represents 1/3 of the trees in Manitoba. [N]: Maybe in Manitoba, but I don’t think it that much on the FML. [P]: The poplar is being wasted… [N]: In the past, that may have been the case. [P]: Is that good management? [N]: Probably not… but if there’s not enough poplar in a block… explain operation constraints relating
to skid distances, log sorting… we also leave it standing in the block as residual structure. The province is really big on that, to provide line-of-sight breakup and wildlife cover.
[P]: We know that, but we still have no wildlife… no moose. [N]: That’s not good. [P]: Treeplanting – what do we get for seeding? From fallen trees? [N]: We collect seed form harvested trees.
[P]: You should get young guys from Moose Lake to do that. [N]: Explain current geographic location of forest harvest operations (Devils Lake), how we’re getting
members from Misipawistik and Chemawawin to do cone collection there, if operations resume in the Moose Lake area we’d look at doing that.
[P]: I think my questions are important… [N]: We agree. Leadership has identified the same concerns. We need to establish community
contacts for this to be successful. That’s we’re putting it back on you guys to help. [P]: I hope you guys live up to my questions. [P]: That road you were proposing through the community, are you still looking at doing that, near
Bracken? [N]: Show location on map, namely the Lamb Lake Road, not proposed as part of the 2019-21 FMOP.
We might look at that again in the future. [P]: Would you consider crossing Moose Creek on the ice? [N]: We don’t do ice roads often anymore, Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health has pretty steep
standards for log trucks across ice, I think it’s four feet of blue ice which flood ice would be double. It takes a long time to make that much ice, makes for a short operating season.
[P]: We didn’t run into too many problems before… [P]: Do you set-up meetings with Chief and Council? [N]: Not specifically, but we’ll meet with anyone interested, that asks. Probably more something the
liaison will be doing, meeting with Council. [P]: On the (NFMC) board – is it just chiefs? [N]: There are 4 Nekoté board members, none of them are chiefs. They were selected by Nekoté. [P]: But we don’t have anyone locally on the board… [N]: The chiefs chose not to put politicians on the board. They appointed people with a good cross
section of forest management backgrounds. [P]: Off the bat they should’ve consulted locally… [N]: Explain how the Partnership developed and need for initial process to start right away to keep the
mill facilities sustained. [P]: The (NFMC) board members elected, they have no knowledge of our traditional territories… it’s
someone else trying to make decisions for us… [P]: There’s no feedback to us… [N]: Explain roles and values of community contacts to provide local knowledge, how that was an
objective identified by Nekoté, how the Nekoté liaison is trying to meet with communities to establish that network.
[P]: We just got reinstated as a Resource Management Board in December, but haven’t had a chance
yet to have a meeting. [N]: The RMBs serve a specific purpose, we don’t want to horn in there. But we can attend a meeting
if invited. [P]: Isn’t FMU 53 tied in with the Forebay (selection)? [P]: Yes it is. [P/N]: Discussion on the 4 Nekoté-appointed board members, their backgrounds, community concern
that there is no local representation, someone who knows the local traditional knowledge values. [P]: There should be local people on that (NFMC) board. [N]: I don’t disagree but we as NFMC staff didn’t have any say in the decision, they were appointed by
Nekoté, but they might have been appointed because they need people with good forest management and business sense to get the partnership up and running
[P]: The chief made a mistake right away… we have an elder here who could’ve been on the board. We need a local person with the expertise…
[P]: In order to move on in the (meeting) agenda you first have to understand our concerns. [N]: Agree 100%, not to lose sight of the community contacts who will help with these concerns… I
will bring the concerns up at our next board meeting. [P]: I look forward to meeting the liaison officer. [P]: Being a chief doesn’t necessarily mean they know all the local traditional values. I’m not saying it
has to be me or him on the board, but someone local… [N]: That’s the goal of the liaison to make those connections, with those who know the area and their
values… [P]; The budworm is in East Arm? [N]: Yes, all the same pest. [P]: That’s not a big area you’re showing (hog fuel blocks in the Driftwood area). [N]: That’s based on government inventory. Trembling aspen, balsam poplar and white birch, we
haven’t done any field investigation so possibly it’s not there. [P]: Maybe that’s something (hog fuel) we could be selling from the community. [N]: Yes, that could be an opportunity. The liaison could help with that. [P]: Are you closing the Talbot Road at the entrance? [N]: Yes, we’d dig out the approach and put a berm at the front of the road. [P]: Confusion as to whether the Crossing Bay Road will be closed at entrance to Talbot Road. [N]: Clarified berm is on Talbot Road and the Crossing Bay Road will remain open, recognition of
resource use occurring on the Crossing Bay Road. [P]: Wasn’t there an old dump there? [N]: Yes at km 1. [P]: Is the East Talbot going to be closed? [N]: Yes. Show location on map. [P]: A couple years back, Tolko was doing some gravel-making… the fishermen asked Tolko if they
could gravel the road, they also notified the RMB. They (Tolko) didn’t fix it, they come there in our resource territory, use our resources… I don’t see why it was a problem… We will always have trappers, fishermen… could we look at fixing the road? You were part of those conversations, remember?
[N]: It makes sense if we’re in the area we could look at doing that. [P]: It’s something you should make a note of, to have a good working agreement, before signing
permits. [N]: Yes we could discuss… but I don’t see anything happening until operations shift back to the
(Moose Lake) area. [P]: Do you work with the mining industry on roads? [N]: We’d encourage if they’re looking at upgrading the road to discuss with us. We sign road use
agreements… The province helps notify us as we’re both applying for permits. [P]: We should be let known as the Resource Management Board. [P]: There’s a danger of killing moose on the Crossing Bay Road, Talbot, Williams Lake, most of the
animals are wiped out… [N]: You think the decommissioning of these roads will help? [P]: Well, think about it, you’re not cutting over there right now, why not close the (Crossing Bay) road
at the dyke (km 31 causeway)? We’re not using the road now… [N]: I think a lot of people would be upset if we closed the road there. [P]: I’d be one of those upset people. [P]: 20 years ago there were thousands of moose, we’re lucky if we have 100 left. [N]: It’d be hard to close the Crossing Bay Road when the road was in place for so long, since the
70s. [P]: Actually that causeway was constructed back in the 60s.
[N]: Ok. It’s hard once resource use is established. Now with new roads we have to decommission them right away.
[P]: I have much concern about the future of the wild animals… the young people now, they see a moose and they have to kill it, say it’s their “treaty right”. They’re abusing the rights. No respect.
[N]: We hear you. [P]: It’s unfortunate that we have to see it come to this… but we’re the ones who have to deal with it. [P]: Under the (forest management) licence agreement, road closures, it means no more activity?
Who’s obligated to clean-up the logging camps… there’s lots of old camps with garbage, oil pails, no one cleaned them up.
[N]: Nowadays with the work permits in the Company’s name we have to ensure camps are cleaned up, we can’t speak for old camps that weren’t ours. If there is garbage in our camps left behind we want to know about it. Before, the contractors used to get their own camp permits. Now, they’re in our name so we’re made aware of them. I’m not saying those weren’t logging camps that you saw but there are other activities occurring back there such as mining exploration that would have camps as well.
[N]: Are you talking about the Talbot Camp? [P]: Some other areas too… I drive around on our traditional lands, have seen it in other places. [N]: In the case of Moose Lake Logging’s camp they will be going back there, it’s a longer-term camp,
the work permit is still valid. [P]: That Davidson Road, what was done to decommission that? [N]: Explain dug-out front, restored ditch, berm, removal of a couple creek crossings further back. [P]: East Talbot, any timber left back there? A while back there was a big fire. [N]: Yes we have a couple roadside buffers proposed for harvest. [P]: How about the Okaw Road? [N]: There were some areas that were younger, about 60 years old, when we were in there before.
Now they would be old enough and we’re showing as jack pine budworm salvage contingency. Show location on map.
[P]: (On silviculture FMOP map) – What are those yellow areas? [N]: Areas proposed for aerial herbicide. They would’ve been planted or scarified right after harvest
about 10 years ago. [P]: We had tree planting going on here a while back, Outland didn’t hire anyone local. [N]: The Nekoté liaison and community contacts will help with job advertising. [P]: Outland only hires their own people, they don’t blink an eye at Moose Lake. [N]: Outland makes efforts to hire local, they specifically keep positions open with the hope of hiring
local. They’ve advertised in the past. [P]: There are young people interested from Moose Lake… this is why I question these things… we
need to get the young people involved. [N]: Outland would be more than happy to hire a few locals. [P]: Can I get the advertisement for the tree planting? [N]: Yes. [P]: You’re showing areas (of planned herbicide) on decommissioned roads, how do you get back
there? [N]: Our herbicide is done by aerial application with helicopters, it is very precise… every pilot is
licenced to spray the products they’re using. [P]: We used to have a local tree plant contractor, so what, we’re not doing that anymore? [N]: If there’s interest we would look at that. One of the objectives of the Partnership is better business
opportunities… treeplanting is a good example of an achievable start-up, you don’t have to buy a $500,000 piece of equipment. We want to set-up for success, start with a 100,000 tree contract to see how they do, have the proper support.
[P]: Need to talk to local people. [P]: So that’s where the liaison would come in? [N]: Yes, they would make those connections. What we’ve done in the past if people are interested
we’d ask them to come and do some work as a temporary employee, to get the experience and see if that’s something they like, before they invest any money into a business.
[P]: With the Partnership is there not training for communities so they can get contracts? [N]: Yes, that’s an objective we’re working towards… I have to report to the board the progress
towards these objectives… at the community level we need to establish contacts to make sure this works… that’s where we’re asking you guys for some help… we’re genuine in trying to meet these goals
[P]: We have 120-150 students in summer youth employment… helping young women…Is that
something you can help with? [N]: We’ve been working with Outland as they have a program that targets Indigenous youth…
discuss the Outland Youth Employment Program including history of success in Ontario, trying to do a first annual program in Manitoba, expectations…
[P]: Does CKP have sponsorship programs? [N]: Not specifically, but for apprenticeship we have something where someone will start in the Labour
Pool and work-up to various trades… [P]: Yes, that’s what I meant. [P]: How does someone apply for that (join the SFMC)? [N]: Contact Kevin Dudka, the Forestry Superintendent. The committee is open to anyone. [P]: Three weeks ago, at an elders meeting in The Pas, there was concern about the forestry… since
1967, the trees have been taken out of Moose Lake, at one time we received the stumpage… the only thing going to the community… they said “enough is enough” no returns to the community… have to talk to Council… there’s a letter coming… we think this is our territory and we want to get something back…
[N]: We get your message, we’ll await the letter.
PUBLIC ISSUES AND CONCERNS TABLE
March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2019
Venue Issue or Question Company Response
March 2017 phone call from Hobbit area trapper
Had heard that we were planning to re-open the decommissioned portion of the Duval Road for harvesting operations in the near future
Nothing imminent, blocks were included in the proposed operating plan as contingency, focusing on JP budworm salvage areas south of Grand Rapids in the near future and some winter areas closer to The Pas around Pothier Lake and Namew Lake, will let him know before we open the road to access these blocks – added Issue statement in Planner for each planned block in this trapper’s area
May 2017 phone call from City of Flin Flon councilor
Heard we were tripling our line capacity at the mill
No, we are taking a 30 day shutdown this fall to install a new super heater but that is for reliability improvement not production increase
July 2017 Phone Call Resident of the Flin Flon area called to let us know that some of the planted spruce trees in the Westarm area are turning orange, not sure if it’s a bug or stress of some kind, seems to be mainly on the new growth, not infecting jack pine, natural spruce or hardwoods
Thanked the individual for the information, mentioned we had crews in there surveying the regeneration this summer and would see if they noted anything like this in their surveys. Update: SD representative indicated that this is Spruce Needle Rust.
Aug 2017 personal communication
Bear outfitter asked if we were going to be decommissioning the Davidson Road this year? Will he be able to access the area with ATVs?
Yes planning to do the work before the middle of September Should be able to, there are things we could do to ensure ATV passage but Province has to sign the permit so should let the Province know your concerns as well – gave him SD Northwest Region Regional Forester’s name and phone number The road decommissioning plan was modified to accommodate ATV traffic. Called the outfitter on Aug 28 to advise that we had permission from the Province to maintain ATV access through the closure and we planned to perform the work between Sept 5 and 8
Sept 2017 initial phone call and several calls and e-mails over the following week
Road decom would not affect him, he appreciated the call, also raised a concern that we were logging near another bait of his in ARL-3 (hardwood block we were purchasing hog fuel from)
(Followup from previous discussion/communication) Called bear outfitter to let him know that we would be temporarily decommissioning the Halfway Road as we were aware he had baits in the area Sent him a map of the block and discussed over the phone to determine approximate location of the hunting stand, passed the information along to the contractor and the Province, contractor was able to locate the stand and leave some trees standing in the area and avoid disturbing his access trail – outfitter was satisfied
Venue Issue or Question Company Response
Sept 2017 phone call from Provincial politician
Expressed concern raised by a constituent about herbicide use in Flin Flon area
Forestry superintendent explained purpose and permitting requirements of vegetation management program. Application in Flin Flon area had been completed prior to the concern being raised.
Nov 2017 personal communication
Owner/operator of bear outfitting business approached harvest supervisor to express his concern of harvest operations in the jack pine budworm salvage area. Indicated the harvesting in the area is affecting his livelihood. He handed harvest supervisor a page of lat-long coordinates of his bear bait locations. Harvest supervisor gave him business card if he had any more concerns or would like to follow-up. Regional forester of northeast region was also present at time of discussion.
CKP Operations Forester cross-referenced provided lat-long coordinates of bear bait locations with CKP planned harvest operations. CKP has implemented a 200 m buffer on the one harvest block that has been permitted since where a bear bait has been identified. Discussion between bear outfitter and CKP is being mediated by SD. Discussion with SD has taken place regarding flexibility of buffer widths and connectivity of buffers on future harvest blocks in the area. CKP has created plans for future blocks with similar mitigation where bear baits are in or adjacent to the blocks.
Jan 2018 phone call from member of Kelsey Trail Sno-Riders
Wanted to get a landowner agreement signed to allow Snoman to utilize an existing trail across CKP property.
Got the agreement signed.
March 2018 phone call Rocky Lake resident wants to discuss possibility of FireSmart activities with other Rocky Lake cottagers, wondered if we had photos of what our cutovers look like May be interested in having someone from CKP participate in a later meeting to give a presentation and answer questions
Found photos that may be of interest, met with the individual, passed along photos, made maps of the area We can do that
March 2018 e-mail Snow Lake area trapper requested map of Buzz Lake-Wekusko operating area including block names and harvest years.
Indicated Operations Forester can provide map of area, map was mailed April 10
April 2018 meeting in Wabowden
Wabowden trapper expressed concern over spraying in his trapline on the South Jonas due to the high peak of the lynx population. He requested deferring the spray within his trap line until the lynx population crashes
Agreed to defer spray in his trap line for a few years until the lynx population crashes – will follow up with trapper in future years to check status
May 2018 text message
Person inquiring about harvest on the east side of Eden Lake north of Leaf Rapids, what year was the harvest?
Operations Forester – Planning replied indicating the harvest took place the winter of 2000, was a fire salvage operation, large fire year before
May 2018 personal communication
While out on the audit Shayne Elliott met with Interlake bear outfitter who asked if we could operate to the south of his bear stand as his hunters were still using stand
Shayne asked Intermountain Contracting to stay to the south of the road and they said no problem. We stayed out of the area until June 15th when bear hunting ended
Venue Issue or Question Company Response
July 2018 phone call Phone call from media person in Flin Flon regarding planned vegetation management (herbicide). Questions regarding the purpose and scope of the program. Questions regarding the use of glyphosate.
Andrew Forward responded to questions. Program is not in the immediate area of Flin Flon this year. Some small areas of planned activity in the Puffy Lake Area near Sherridon, and north of Cranberry Portage. Primary focus will be in Thompson area this year. Discussed the purpose of vegetation management and the regulations around the use of glyphosate in the Forest Industry.
July 2018 phone call Phone call from Flin Flon politician regarding planned vegetation management (herbicide). Questions regarding the purpose and scope of the program. Questions regarding the use of glyphosate. Asked what more should be done by CKP for public involvement.
Andrew Forward responded to questions. Program is not in the immediate area of Flin Flon this year. Some small areas of planned activity in the Puffy Lake Area near Sherridon, and north of Cranberry Portage. Primary focus will be in Thompson area this year. Discussed the purpose of vegetation management and the regulations around the use of glyphosate in the Forest Industry. Discussed the review of the program at the Operating Plan meetings and the discussion around glyphosate that tends to accompany that topic. Indicated that we would in the future look to identify a CKP point of contact identified with the Public Notice. Individual asked if he could put my contact info up on his Facebook page. I said he could.
September 2018 personal communication
Person from Rahls island came into the Woodlands office and asked if he could take the oversize logs at the pumphouse for firewood
No, Shayne gave suggestions on where to get firewood in the old cutblocks. Talk to locals about firewood. Gave the gentleman names of contractors with firewood and where to find firewood.
November 2018 e-mail
Email from Rocky Lake resident looking for forest stand age info near Rocky Lake East Shore subdivision for a presentation he wants to do for the cottage association
Emailed him a screen shot of a map with stand age info and an explanation to adjust the age to current day and take with a grain of salt as it is based on photo interpretation with minimal ground sampling
January 2019 phone call
Resident of Cormorant was talking to Mike A. who relayed to Andrew that he might have some concerns regarding our (FMOP) plans and would not be able to make the meeting in Cormorant tonight.
Matt phoned the individual to discuss - no specific concerns, was interested in plans near community. Discussed plans, including potential for truck haul through community. Matt provided contact information. Individual indicated he’ll follow-up with NFMC if he has any particular concerns.
January 2019 phone call
Outfitter was ok with it given that we were leaving a buffer and he recognized that we need to harvest wood to sustain the operation, said he would like a map of the proposed harvest area
Called Rocky Lake outfitter #1 to let him know that we are requesting a work permit for RT-10, leaving a minimum 70 m buffer on PTH 10 and not harvesting RT-7 Emailed him the RT-10 aerial photo WP proposal and link to the CKP website to see the FMOP maps, told him to call if he had any questions
Venue Issue or Question Company Response
January 2019 phone call
Outfitter was not satisfied with our attempt to compromise, he doesn’t think we should cut anything out of RT-10, affect tourism and natural beauty, doesn’t think the wood will fall down or burn anytime soon, doesn’t want a map of what we are proposing, at least leave 100 m
Called Rocky Lake outfitter #2 to let him know that we are requesting a work permit for RT-10, leaving a minimum 70 m buffer on PTH 10 and not harvesting RT-7
Feb 2019 phone call Rocky Lake East Shore resident called and talked to Andrew Forward. Wanted to relay that the people he has talked to support the proposed harvest activity in the area. There is concern about fire safety and he and others are trying to educate the cottagers about the cycle of the forest and recognize that as the forest becomes more mature it becomes a higher risk for fire.
Andrew thanked him for the information and talked a little about the harvest block RT-10 and the Fire Smart program and that perhaps there is some opportunity through grant funding for the Association to work with NFMC to develop a firesmart plan that would be cost effective to see fibre coming to the mill from those activities. Individual suggested that Andrew would get a call to attend an association meeting at some point in the future.
Feb 2019 personal communication
Rocky Lake resident expressed to Andrew in person that as a cottage owner at Rocky Lake he is in support of the activities proposed at block RT-10
Andrew discussed the concerns heard and the modifications under taken in previous iterations of this discussion with the individual. Individual seemed satisfied that the public is being heard and that appropriate actions are being taken to mitigate concerns that can be mitigated.
Feb 2019 personal communication
Wanless resident attended the Woodlands office and met with Kevin Dudka and Andrew Forward. He presented a letter from the Wanless Community Club that identified their desire to have him represent the club at the SFM Committee. He also demanded that all harvesting in the area south of Fiddlers corner, to the Root lake ridge, and the Saskatchewan border to somewhere on the other side of Highway 10 cease within 20 days and remain ceased forever because we are “overlogging”.
As individual had previously been asked to leave the committee because of his disruptive nature and lack of regard for the Ground Rules of the committee, Andrew informed him he would not be re-joining the committee. Andrew indicated that all information with respect to activities in the area of Wanless is available to people with interest, including him, and that company representatives would meet with him as long as there was productive intent to the discussion, but that the company would not allow him to rejoin the committee. The Community Club is welcome to send someone else. Andrew asked individual what “Overlogging” meant to try and determine what concern might exist that can be mitigated. After much wasted time, and circular discussion, he left.
APPENDIX 5
MAPS
APPENDIX 6
HARVEST BLOCK INFORMATION
SHEETS AND AERIAL PHOTOS
(In Separate Binder)