independent forest audit - french-severn forest · audit team members and their qualifications are...

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2012

349 Mooney AvenueThunder Bay, OntarioCanada P7B 5L5Bus: 807-345-5445www.kbm.on.ca

French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... iii 2.0 Table of Recommendations ........................................................................................... 1 3.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Audit Process .......................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Management Unit Description .................................................................................................. 2 3.3 Current Issues ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit ............................................................................ 5

4.0 Audit Findings ................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Commitment ........................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement ........................................................................ 5 4.3 Forest Management Planning ................................................................................................... 6

Forest Management Plan .............................................................................................................. 6 4.4 Plan Assessment and Implementation ...................................................................................... 9

Plan Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 9 Areas of Concern .......................................................................................................................... 9 Silviculture ................................................................................................................................. 10 Access ....................................................................................................................................... 12

4.5 System Support .................................................................................................................... 13 4.6 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 13

Compliance ................................................................................................................................ 13 Silviculture ................................................................................................................................. 13 Annual Reports .......................................................................................................................... 14

4.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Sustainability...................................................... 15 Achievement of Management Objectives ...................................................................................... 15 Forest Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 16

4.8 Contractual Obligations ......................................................................................................... 17 4.9 Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation .............................................................. 19


KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. ii

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 20

Appendix 2 – Management Objectives Tables ..................................................................................... 28

Appendix 3 – Compliance with Contractual Obligations ........................................................................ 31

Appendix 4 – Audit Process ............................................................................................................... 37

Appendix 5 – List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................... 42

Appendix 6 – Audit Team Members and Qualifications ......................................................................... 44

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Table of Recommendations..................................................................................................... 1

Table 2. Examples of Field Level Objectives from the 2004-2024 French-Severn FMP ............................ 15

Table 3. Summary and Analysis of Silviculture Success ........................................................................ 17

Table 4. Summary of the Status of the 2004 FMP Objectives ............................................................... 28

Table 5. Compliance with Contractual Obligations ............................................................................... 31

Table 6. Summary of Progress on Actions to Address the 2006 IFA Recommendations .......................... 33

Table 7. IFA Procedures Selected by the Audit Team ........................................................................... 38

Table 8. Audit Sampling Intensity for the French-Severn Forest ........................................................... 40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the French-Severn Forest ..................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Forest Composition of Crown Portion of Forest by Forest Unit .................................................. 4

Figure 3. Stop 10 on the Ranger Bay Road, Blair Township. ................................................................. 12

Figure 4. Graph of Silvicultural Expenditures and Account Balance over the Audit Period. ...................... 18


KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

All Crown forests in Ontario are required to be audited at least every five years; the requirement for independent audits arising from MNR's Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management

on Crown Lands in Ontario (2003). Regulation 160/04 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (S.O. 1994,

c. 25) (CFSA) sets out the specific requirements for conducting the audits.

This report documents the results of the Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the French-Severn Forest (the

Forest) conducted by KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. (KBM) covering the five-year period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2011. Two forest management plans are included in the scope of this audit. Specifically,

implementation of the last three years of the 2004-2024 FMP, and planning and approval of the 2009-2019 FMP as well as its implementation for the first two year period of its term. During the audit term

the Forest was managed under a Sustainable Forest Licence held by Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc.

(Westwind). The principal auditees were Westwind and MNR Parry Sound District.

Based on the audit, seven recommendations were made. Recommendations arise from the audit team’s observations of material non-conformances, or may be developed to address situations in which the audit

team identifies a significant lack of effectiveness in forest management activities. Two recommendations

centre on consultation with Aboriginal communities; one dealing with the need for improvements in MNR’s record-keeping practices and the other with opportunities for Aboriginal communities to benefit

through forest management planning. Two recommendations address deficiencies in the approach to preparation of exceptions and to direction provided in implementation manuals. Three recommendations

focus on issues associated with the renewal program and one recommendation deals with ensuring that the content requirements of the Year 10 Annual Report are met. All audit recommendations must be

addressed through audit action plans.

Regenerating white pine on competition-prone sites is proving to be difficult and expensive as

regeneration practices are relying more on artificial methods, rather than natural seeding. In addition, the ability to evaluate regeneration status of white pine harvest blocks is being complicated by the

prolonged period between initial harvest and final assessment of free-to grow. As a result, the audit

team was unable to definitively assess the success of the white pine renewal program.

The minimum balance within the Forest Renewal Trust Account fell below requirements during two years of the audit term, as Westwind continued spending on renewal when renewal revenues had declined due

to decreasing harvest levels. The minimum balance was restored; however, this was accomplished by

significantly curtailing spending on silviculture during that time. This approach is not a long term solution. A successful renewal program requires stable funding, although this is presently difficult due to

the ongoing financial challenges faced by the forest industry, low harvest levels and the funding formula for renewal. MNR’s current tenure and pricing review may assist in addressing some of these issues.

The audit team concludes that management of the French-Severn Forest was generally in compliance

with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and

that the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sustainable Forest Licence held by Westwind Forest Management Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed

through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends that the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence 542411 for a further five years.

Rod Seabrook EP(EMSLA)

Lead auditor on behalf of the audit team


KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 1

TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 1. Table of Recommendations

Recommendation on Licence Extension

The audit team concludes that management of the French-Severn Forest was generally in compliance

with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sustainable Forest

Licence held by Westwind Forest Management Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends

that the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence 542411 for a further five years.

Recommendations Directed to SFL Holder/MNR District

1. MNR should make improvements in record keeping procedures for Aboriginal consultation to ensure

that records are complete.

2. MNR, in collaboration with Westwind and interested Aboriginal communities, should undertake a study to identify barriers and opportunities to Aboriginal community participation in the economic

benefits provided through forest management planning. Such a study should take into consideration a community’s willingness and capacity to participate and should identify innovative ways to participate.

3. MNR and Westwind should ensure that planning of exceptions to guide direction meet all FMPM

requirements.

5. Westwind should report the results of the stocking assessments it carries out in the white pine forest units in its annual reports beginning with the 2011/2012 AR.

6. Westwind should complete its review of an appropriate regeneration assessment method for the white pine forest units and make any changes in time for the 2012 field season.

7. Westwind should maintain a ledger of areas on which regeneration assessment is due that enables

comparison with its assessment work and its assessment obligations. This should be in place in time for the next IFA.

8. Westwind should ensure that the content requirements of future Year 10 Annual Reports are met.

Recommendations Directed to Corporate or Regional MNR

4. Corporate MNR should review the process that permits exceptions to guide direction to ensure that

forest management plans set out clear objectives in addition to a rationale, that exceptions monitoring

programs are rigorous and that the results of implementing exceptions contribute meaningfully to the knowledge base of forestry.



INTRODUCTION

3.1 Audit Process

Independent Forest Audits (IFAs) are a requirement of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (S.O. 1994, c. 25) (CFSA); every forest management unit in Ontario must be audited by an independent audit team at least once every five years.

KBM Forestry Consultants conducted an independent forest audit on the French-Severn Forest for the

five-year period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2011. The audit assessed implementation of the 2004-2024 Forest Management Plan (FMP) for the period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2009 as well as the planning

and approval of the 2009-2019 FMP and the first two years of its implementation (i.e. April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2011). The on-site portion of the audit occurred from September 19-26 inclusive, with

document examination and interviews taking place prior to, during, and subsequent to this period.

IFAs are governed by eight guiding principles as described in the Independent Forest Audit Process and

Protocol. Recommendations arise from audit team observations of material non-conformances, or may

be developed to address situations in which the audit team identifies a significant lack of effectiveness in forest management activities. All recommendations made in this report are correspondingly described in

full in Appendix 1 and summarized above in Section 2. Reviews of the achievement of objectives and contractual obligations are summarized in Appendix 2 and 3 respectively.

More detailed information on the audit process is provided in Appendix 4. A list of acronyms is presented

in Appendix 5. Audit team members and their qualifications are presented in Appendix 6.

3.2 Management Unit Description

The following description of the Forest is based primarily on material included in the 2009-2019 FMP for the French-Severn Forest.

The French-Severn Forest is located entirely within the Parry Sound District, in the southern Region of the MNR. The Forest extends from the eastern shore of Georgian Bay eastward to the boundary of

Algonquin Park and the Bancroft-Minden Forest (Figure 1). The Forest is considered to be part of the

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest, which is characterized by deciduous species such as sugar maple, yellow birch, beech and coniferous species such as eastern hemlock, eastern white pine, and red pine.

Figure 2 illustrates the composition of the Crown portion of the Forest by forest unit. Nearly 50 per cent of the Forest is comprised of the hardwood selection forest unit and the hardwood uniform shelterwood

forest unit. The three white pine forest units account for approximately 20 per cent.

The major communities located in the Forest are Parry Sound, Huntsville and Bracebridge. The Forest is bisected on a north-south line by Highway 11, and along the Georgian Bay coast, Highway 400 runs

north to Parry Sound and continues as Highway 69 to the French River and northward. The Forest is easily accessed by a variety of municipal, provincial and private roads as well as hiking, snowmobile and

all-terrain vehicle trails.

The area within the French-Severn Forest boundary exceeds 1.25 million ha. Westwind manages approximately 1/3 of this area. The ownership of the management unit is 55% Provincial Crown, 2%

Federal and 43% private.



Figure 1. Location of the French-Severn Forest

Significant changes to the administrative and licensing arrangements for the French-Severn Forest occurred around the time of development of the 1999 -2019 FMP. Previous to that there were two 1994-

2009 FMPs developed in the Parry Sound District; one each for the former Bracebridge and Georgian Bay

Crown Management Units. Around the time of the 1999-2019 FMP, these former management units were converted to a single sustainable forest licence area.

There was no existing single forestry company operating within the area boundaries that had the capability or was positioned to assume compliance and management planning responsibilities. Westwind

Forest Stewardship Inc. was formed to deliver management planning, compliance and silviculture on the Forest. The 1999-2019 FMP was developed by MNR in cooperation with the then newly formed Westwind.

The 2004-2024 FMP represents the first FMP developed by Westwind.

Westwind is a not-for-profit, community-based forest management company that does not harvest timber but holds the Sustainable Forest Licence (SFL#542411) for the Forest. It is described as community-

based and is governed by an eight member Board of Directors, three of whom represent forestry companies. One Board position available for First Nations remains vacant. The SFL which Westwind

holds is for a twenty-year period and includes all tree species on 5,455 square kilometres of Crown land,

3,453 square kilometres of which is considered productive forest.



Figure 2. Forest Composition of Crown Portion of Forest by Forest Unit (Source: 2009-2019 French-

Severn Forest FMP)

1. HDSEL: tolerant hardwoods selection (mostly on east side of unit)

2. HDUS: tolerant hardwood shelterwood;

3. PWUS: 3-cut white pine shelterwood;

4. PWUS2: 2-cut white pine shelterwood;

5. PWST: white/red pine seed tree clearcut;

6. OR1: red oak shelterwood;

7. HE1: 3-cut hemlock shelterwood;

8. MWUS: mixedwood spruce shelterwood;

9. LWMW: lowland mixedwood clearcut;

10. MWCC: mixedwood clearcut;

11. SF1: spruce-fir mixedwood;

12. PJ1: jack pine clearcut

13. INT: intolerant hardwood clearcut.

3.3 Current Issues

The IFAPP requires a review of High Priority Aspects (HPAs) of the auditees’ systems or activities. These

are areas of potential focus during the audit related to key issues or management challenges arising during the audit term. Three HPAs were included in the Audit Plan, as follows:

1. Lower than expected yields/stocking of tolerant hardwood selection stands: During the term of

the 2009 FMP, Westwind stated that they were encountering previously managed maple stands

that had stocking levels (basal area) that were lower than what was expected in the FMP. The yields in the FMP reflect growth and yield information supplied by MNR growth and yield studies.

According to Westwind, the lower realized levels are having an effect on operations, as well as renewal revenues.

2. State of Forest Renewal Trust Account (FRT): During two years of the audit term the FRT fell considerably below the minimum balance requirement of approximately $1.5 million. Westwind

submitted a two year recovery plan to MNR that was supported by the Region and District. Westwind was successful in bringing the FRT back above minimum balance by March 31, 2009

according to the plan. However, this was at a cost of having little silvicultural treatments outside of tree marking and stand improvement, with particular concern expressed by Westwind

INT15%

SF13%

HDUS24%

PWUS8%

HDSEL22%

OR13%

HE12%

MWUS1%

PWUS26%

PWST7%

MWCC3%

LWMW2%

PJ14%

INTPJ1SF1LWMWMWCCPWSTHDUSPWUSPWUS2MWUSHE1OR1HDSEL



regarding the white/red pine component of the Forest managed under the shelterwood

silviculture system.

Westwind also expressed concerns related to the impact of the new Stand and Site guide requirements

for Species at Risk, in particular Blanding’s Turtle, and how these new rules may affect the ability to

manage portions of the Forest. The full extent of the potential impacts of these new guide requirements on forestry operations and the ability to manipulate forest cover and meet forest management objectives

has not yet been determined, as the requirements are only now being implemented.

3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit

KBM used several different strategies for encouraging input to the audit process. Letters, including a one-page survey, were mailed to numerous stakeholders advising of the audit. The survey was also

available to the general public on the KBM website (www.kbmrg.on.ca). A summary of the methods and

input is provided in Appendix 4.

4.0 AUDIT FINDINGS

4.1 Commitment

The IFAPP allows that if the management unit being audited is currently certified according to CSA, FSC

or SFI standards, all commitment procedures, for either the company or the MNR, are not required to be

completed unless an issue arises in relation to the company or MNR that causes the auditor to question whether this criteria is in fact being met. No such issues arose during the audit.

4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

The Local Citizens Committee (LCC) Terms of Reference (TOR) met the requirements of the 2004 FMPM

and incorporated suggestions for improvement from the previous IFA. The TOR included suggested numbers of meetings that should take place during both FMP writing and non-FMP writing stages. The

First Nation position, previously vacant on the LCC, has been filled.

There were a number of members on the LCC who had been active for two plans prior to the 2009 French-Severn FMP. Such experience is valuable; however, this lead to a lack of interest (or

complacency) surrounding forest management activities on the Committee.

MNR recognized seven Aboriginal Communities in or adjacent to the French-Severn Forest management

area with which they had a legal duty to consult; Dokis First Nation, Henvey Inlet First Nation,

Magnetawan First Nation, Shawanaga First Nation, Wasauksing First Nation, Wahta Mohawks and Moose Deer Point First Nation. The Algonquins of Ontario have a portion of their land claim area within the

French-Severn Forest and thus MNR acknowledges that they have an interest in the Forest but do not consider them in or adjacent to the Forest.

Each Aboriginal community that participated in an interview reported that they had an excellent working

relationship with MNR-Parry Sound Office and the Resource Liaison Officer in particular. However, likely due to the high turnover in staff within both the Aboriginal communities and MNR, all communities were

unaware of the various reports that were to be completed in a collaborative way. A common response from all Aboriginal communities interviewed was that although MNR may be following all the required

regulations, the regulations themselves are inadequate, treating Aboriginal communities like a stakeholder and not acknowledging their occupation and special interest in the territory. Furthermore,

although it is recognized that the forestry economy is depressed and has not recovered since the

recession, the Aboriginal communities felt that they were not provided with adequate opportunities to participate in the benefits of forest management planning. A recurring theme with all communities was

that the lack of financial and human resources and human resource capacity limits their ability to fully engage in the consultation process and take advantage of potential benefits.



As per the 2004 FMPM requirements, MNR sent letters to the seven Aboriginal communities six months

prior to the commencement of the formal public consultation process, inviting them to participate in the preparation of the FMP and to develop a specialized consultation approach. None of the communities

have developed a specialized consultation approach at this time. Positions on the planning committee

were offered to all seven communities; however, only representatives from the communities of Magnetawan and Shawanaga elected to participate on the committee. A representative from

Magnetawan also had some involvement in the LCC.

Although the Aboriginal communities interviewed reported satisfactory communications with MNR, review

of the record provided to the audit team indicated that there were some required consultation letters and public notices missing. This is likely the result of poor record keeping rather than a failure to meet the

requirements. Building relationships with Aboriginal communities appears to be a priority of MNR; the

audit team can only assume that the letters were completed and sent but the high turn-over of MNR staff may have resulted in misplaced correspondence. Improvements in record keeping will ensure that the

record is complete even when there is staff turnover.

Recommendation 1: MNR should make improvements in record keeping procedures for Aboriginal

consultation to ensure that records are complete.

MNR and Westwind reported on a number of steps taken to improve opportunities for Aboriginal communities to participate in the benefits provided through forest management planning. Despite these

reported efforts, Aboriginal community leaders interviewed felt that they had not enjoyed economic benefits related to forest management. EA Condition 34 requires MNR to negotiate with Aboriginal

peoples for their more equal participation in the benefits of forest management planning; however, there appears to be a gap between economic opportunities that Aboriginal communities are able to take

advantage of and those that have been offered. Given this apparent gap, it is recommended that a joint

study be conducted to determine ways in which Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the French-Severn Forest can better benefit. The study should assist in focusing discussions between MNR,

Westwind and the communities regarding EA Condition 34.

Recommendation 2: MNR, in collaboration with Westwind and interested Aboriginal communities,

should undertake a study to identify barriers and opportunities to Aboriginal community participation in

the economic benefits provided through forest management planning. Such a study should take into consideration a community’s willingness and capacity to participate and should identify innovative ways to

participate.

Métis communities have asserted Aboriginal rights in the French-Severn Forest. There are Métis

community councils with territory overlapping the boundaries of the management unit. Also, the Métis

Nation of Ontario, an organization created to represent Métis people and communities in Ontario that are a part of the Métis Nation, has developed a governance structure and consultation protocols for the

Georgina Bay Traditional Territory, which overlaps with the management unit. Pursuant to these protocols, the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) wishes to be consulted based on the organization of their

regional rights-bearing community. In keeping with the direction provided in the FMPM regarding the involvement of Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the management unit whose traditional use may

be affected by forest management planning, it is suggested that MNR consult within the Métis

Community Councils and MNO to determine the most appropriate way to engage the Métis.

4.3 Forest Management Planning

Forest Management Plan

Planning Team

The established FMP planning team and terms of reference was in compliance with requirements of the

2004 FMPM. Included in the FMP planning team TOR was a detailed risk list and risk matrix which outlined the likelihood of particular forest management issues delaying the planning schedule. Survey



results, interviews with MNR staff and members of the LCC show that the planning team had sufficient

representation of interests, skills and resources in developing the forest management plan.

2009 FMP Development and Content

The development of the 2009-2019 Forest Management Plan met the requirements of the 2004 FMPM.

The document is thorough and well written, with very few (91) required alterations. The list of required alterations should be updated to explain how the alterations were implemented in the development of the

next plan.

The foundation of any forest management plan is the forest resources inventory (FRI). Ontario’s forest managers rely upon these data and computer simulation (e.g. SFMM) as part of a decision support

system in setting objectives and determining forest sustainability. A systemic problem is that Ontario’s standard FRI and most of the decision support systems are designed for even-aged forests common in

Northern Ontario. The standard tools are not particularly well suited for the uneven aged forests in

Southern Ontario. This underlies the problems identified in previous audits over the adequacy of the FRI and the determination of allowable harvest areas in excess of actual utilization.

The gap between allowable harvest area and utilization was seen as a significant problem during the previous audit. The auditors recommended that this gap be shown as a surplus but the forest managers

disagreed. By calculating a relatively high allowable harvest area, operators are given more choices to select feasible operating areas, thus hedging against the uncertainty associated with the FRI and market

conditions. There is always the risk that such an approach could lead to “high grading,” leaving even

more difficult conditions for future generations, but there is no evidence that this has occurred in the documentation or in the field; the stands that had been selected for harvest do not appear to have

exceptionally high values relative to the average condition of the Forest. In fact, some areas will benefit from being by-passed in this term, allowing the stand to gain volume and value.

A declared or undeclared surplus of area and volume (i.e. the gap) could give the impression that

economic opportunities are foregone. However, the decision support and reporting systems mandated by MNR through the FMPM do not easily differentiate between an available harvest area and an economically

feasible harvest area.

Failing to meet the forecasted rates of harvest means that socio-economic objectives and forest

composition/structure objectives may appear to be compromised. The achievement of socio-economic objectives is largely driven by forces beyond the control of forest managers (e.g. the collapse of housing

markets). The lower than forecasted harvest rates will affect the rate at which the forest composition

and structure objectives are realized, but does not necessarily lead to undesirable outcomes in the long run.

The planning team responded to this problem and some of the previous IFA recommendations (see also Appendix 3) by doing additional analyses and sensitivity tests. The plan author made an extra effort to

thoroughly explain the analysis, trends and implications of some of these systemic problems. These

commendable efforts led to reasonable outcomes (i.e. allowable harvest area) and strategies given the tools at hand.

Ontario is developing an enhanced forest inventory (eFRI) that features high resolution multi-spectral digital aerial photography. This is a significant advancement from the standard panchromatic black and

white aerial photography associated with the traditional FRI. In addition, the eFRI classification

recognizes both even-aged and uneven-aged stand conditions. The imagery is already available to the SFL-holder, although it requires investments in new computers and software. The complete eFRI will be

available by 2014, well in advance of planning for the 2009-2019 FMP.

These new data should lead to improved planning and operations. MNR should review its decision

support system requirements to take advantage of the new eFRI and the unique challenges of Southern Ontario forest conditions.



Operational Planning

MNR updated values information during the planning process. Approximately $71,000 was budgeted for values collection in the two years (2007 & 2008) as the FMP was being prepared. The principal method

of values updating was through aerial moose aquatic feeding area (MAFA) surveys, with the focus being

on areas of proposed operations. New stick nests observed during the MAFA survey were added and nests no longer standing were deleted. MNR has run a stick nest survey project for several years in

which stick nests identified during winter tree marking are verified by an on-the-ground surveyor during the snow free season. Surveys of lakes to determine the presence of self-sustaining brook trout

populations were also conducted, as were stream surveys, once again focused on areas of proposed operations. Screening was also done for species at risk. Approximately 50% of the proposed allocation

was considered to have a medium to high likelihood for the presence of species at risk and 20% was

considered high for eastern massasauga rattlesnake, Blanding’s turtle and whip-poor-will. Winter deer habitat mapping and deer browse surveys were also conducted. Values information was provided to

MNR’s Natural Resource Values Information staff in Parry Sound for entry into the NRVIS database.

Area of concern planning was conducted and prescriptions were prepared to address protection of a

range of forest values. Prescriptions were typically based on direction provided in associated MNR

management guides. Resource Stewardship Agreements were signed with five registered resource-based tourist operators and three AOC prescriptions were prepared.

One exception to guide direction was developed for MAFAs. Departure from guide direction is permitted, provided a rationale is given and a monitoring program developed and implemented. The audit team

found that no rationale for the exception was provided and the monitoring program was not adequately explained. The audit team does not take issue with forest managers challenging guide direction provided

that exceptions meet the requirements of the FMPM. In addition, the audit team believes that requiring

clearly stated objectives as part of the documentation for exceptions, in addition to the requirement for a rationale and monitoring program, should assist in understanding what the intent of the exception was

and provide a measure against which to evaluate the success or failure of implementing the exception (Appendix 1).

Recommendation 3: MNR and Westwind should ensure that planning of exceptions to guide direction

meet all FMPM requirements.

Recommendation 4: Corporate MNR should review the process that permits exceptions to guide

direction to ensure that forest management plans set out clear objectives in addition to a rationale, that exceptions monitoring programs are rigorous and that the results of implementing exceptions contribute

meaningfully to the knowledge base of forestry.

Several species at risk are discussed in the 2009–2019 French-Severn FMP; specifically: eastern fox snake, eastern hog nosed snake, Massasauga rattlesnake, milksnake, ribbon snake, Blanding’s turtle,

map turtle and spotted turtle. AOC prescriptions were documented for these species. Timing restrictions for any work being conducted in the presence of these species was implemented. Confirmed or

suspected habitat used for gestation, oviposition or hibernaculum for any of these species was also protected and reserves were set. No roads were permitted in the reserves unless no other feasible

options existed and approval from the MNR District Manager was obtained. The French-Severn Forest

FMP met the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

The French-Severn Forest is well accessed and no new primary roads were planned. Proposals for three

new branch roads followed the planning process.

Harvest area selection criteria were well documented and designed to help address the challenges of low

harvest utilization on the Forest. There was a significant amount of age class substitution relative to

other forest management units, but given the problems described above with the current FRI and decision support systems in use, the various aspects of operational planning appear to be well executed.



Annual Work Schedules

Annual Work Schedules (AWSs) were developed in a manner consistent with the operational planning elements of both the 2004-2024 and 2009-2019 FMPs. MNR addressed the concerns related to one of

the High Priority Aspects identified in 3.3 (variable harvest rates over the past two decades) by working

hard on all aspects of operational planning. Forest Operations Prescriptions (FOPs) were prepared for each stand and were consistent with the FMP. Interviews and field observations revealed that

prescriptions were made by a registered professional forester. These prescriptions were consistent with the FMP objectives and appropriate for the site conditions.

4.4 Plan Assessment and Implementation

Plan Assessment

The conditions observed by the audit team in the field were consistent with descriptions of current forest conditions in the plan. Operations were also found to be consistent with the strategies outlined in the

plan.

Areas of Concern

A sample of AOCs was viewed in the field – specifically warm water fisheries, cold water fisheries, deer

wintering habitat, an osprey nest, hawk nests, and heronries. All prescriptions were appropriately

marked and implemented as required and there was no evidence of trespass into the AOCs.

Harvest

Harvest operations were consistent with the FMP, legislation and applicable guidelines. Harvest

boundaries were properly laid out and respected by the operators. Tree marking guidelines were applied on most sites and were effective at ensuring that the strategies were implemented and operations

followed the plan.

Harvest operations were also completed with little disturbance to the site. Extra care was exercised on

sensitive sites near unmapped springs and vernal pools. On several skid trails in steep terrain berms

were built across the trail to reduce erosion.

There was very little damage to residual trees. Some rub trees along skid trails could be removed in the

final stages of the harvest to further improve the appearance of the stand and to help maintain the health of the residual trees.

Utilization was excellent given the terrain, forest conditions and market challenges. All of these observations are a result of the high skill levels and experience of the operators. According to the SFL

representatives, many operators are certified tree markers.

The most common silvicultural system was the selection system in tolerant hardwoods followed by shelterwood in hardwoods and white pine forest types. There are very few clearcuts on the Forest. Tree

markers identify group selection openings in a manner consistent with plan objectives and these are cut to encourage regeneration of black cherry and other mid-tolerant hardwoods. The locations of group

selection openings were mapped using a GPS to facilitate monitoring.

One site dominated by white pine was strip cut, site prepared by ground spraying and planted with white pine and spruce. The quality of this reforestation project was poor; however, this was the only exception

to an otherwise highly effective system of management and operational control. The low performance on this project was in part result of “rushing the job” under Forestry Future Trust stimulus funding for a

beleaguered forest renewal sector in 2009. The Forestry Futures Trust Committee might consider

evidence of planting and tending quality assurance programs before releasing funds for these types of projects. Should this project area not meet FTG requirements, the SFL holder will be responsible for re-

treating the area.



Silviculture

The French-Severn Forest is located in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest Region, where partial

cutting systems are the norm and where the silvicultural treatment is often effected by the harvest

operation. It is difficult to discuss the silviculture without discussing the harvest, and vice versa.

There were no silvicultural compliance issues encountered in the field. A FOP was prepared for all of the silvicultural treatments except the salvage of blowdown. A tree marking audit was carried out at each

location where tree marking was done. In every case, the locations corresponded with the AWS and the

Forest Operations Information Program confirmed that operations were conducted in accordance with the tree marking and the FOP. Logging damage appeared to be well within damage standards in every case.

It was obvious that Westwind staff and the overlapping licensees’ workers are competent and care about the Forest in which they work. Both Westwind’s staff and its overlapping licensees’ loggers should be

commended for their high standard of care and commitment.

Two silvicultural issues emerged during the audit, neither of which is unique to the French-Severn Forest.

The first is the large area of tolerant hardwood HDSEL harvest allocations that were found to be not

ready or not suitable for selection management and that were transferred to the HDUS forest unit for shelterwood removal cutting instead. This issue was being addressed by a collaborative study between

Westwind, Tembec and MNR (2009/2010 Tolerant Hardwood SEM Project, Southern Science and Information Unit). Now at the draft stage, the report is expected to confirm that many tolerant

hardwood stands managed under the selection system in the past are no longer suitable for the same

treatment because of low stand stocking and/or poor tree quality. Of those that are suitable, most will not be ready for cutting at the end of their expected 20-year cutting cycle and an additional seven years

would be needed, on average, to reach their ideal pre-harvest basal area.

The draft report discussed the possible causes of this phenomenon but did not arrive at a final conclusion. It stated that an overestimate of growth and yield and top dieback were probably not the

cause, but that the past application of selection cutting on unsuitable sites and logging damage might be

at fault. It suggested a range of corrective actions, from not cutting these allocations now and extending the cutting cycle, to allowing the cut to proceed and accepting a lesser yield. The audit team felt that

both strategies would work silviculturally but that both would create issues of wood supply and/or operability for the overlapping licensees who hold these allocations. However, the audit team is confident

that Westwind and MNR are on the right track and that no recommendations are needed on this issue.

Slower than expected growth rates are not a new problem in tolerant hardwoods, nor are they unique to

the French-Severn Forest. A study on the adjacent Minden Crown management unit identified the same problem in 1990, attributed it to hardwood decline and offered an extended cutting cycle as the solution.

Today, most FMPs in the Region have extended their cutting cycles to deal with this problem. In their allowable cut calculations, the Bancroft-Minden Forest and Ottawa Valley Forest FMPs both use a cutting

cycle of 40 years in Phase 1. The Mazinaw-Lanark Forest and the Algonquin Park Forest Phase 1 cutting cycles are 30 years and 25 years respectively.

This suggests a range of growth rates or cutting regimes across the Region, which really isn’t the case.

All of the Southern Region SFLs use the silvicultural guides to determine cutting regime and most of them

use 25 years as the cutting cycle in future FMP terms. They are simply extending the normal phase by one cutting cycle to give their past selection cuts more recovery time.

White pine regeneration is the second issue, which is not new to the French-Severn Forest. Problems

with white pine regeneration were identified as a concern in the 1999, 2004 and 2009 FMPs and in the 2009 Year 10 AR. This was confirmed by the white pine FTG assessments carried out by Westwind

during the audit period, in which fewer than 60% met the FTG standard. Competition and the difficulty



of controlling competition have been identified repeatedly as the underlying problems on all but the

shallowest of sites.

The crux of the question is whether the silvicultural activities carried out in the white pine forest units will

eventually allow cutovers to meet the FTG standards. The audit team found no default on the part of the

licensee with respect to its silvicultural obligations but, still, the audit team was unable to identify a definitive solution.

There are three reasons for this:

o There has been significant change in pine silviculture in recent years. The current FMP no longer relies on natural regeneration after shelterwood cutting and focuses more on artificial

regeneration. FTG assessments in some situations are now made after the final removal cut

and any post-removal follow-up treatment. Most final removals won’t be made until Phase 2 of the FMP, which means little of the current practice has been assessed.

o Most of the failures reported in the past occurred in areas assessed after the seeding cut and

before the first removal cut. The current SGRs call for these areas to receive further

treatment, such as chemical tending/site preparation and in-fill planting. Areas assessed as past failures may yet be turned into successes.

o There is some debate among experts about how best to measure and judge regeneration

success in white pine. The 2009-2019 FMP uses the traditional FTG stocking method and a 30% standard, while at the same time MNR is promoting its STARS methodology, which uses

site occupancy as the measure of success. Westwind is currently examining the pros and cons

of each.

Stop 10 on the field audit (the Ranger Bay Road) is a good example of the difficulties and the

complexities associated with this issue (Figure 3). Both photos were taken at Stop 10; the photo on the left has a white pine understory that meets the stocking but not the height requirement for FTG. The

photo on the right has a competitive maple understory that so far has prevented successful white pine

establishment. Stop 10 is a white pine block being managed under the three-cut shelterwood system. The soil is a variable depth, water-worked silt loam over low-profile, ridgy granitic and gneissic bedrock.

The block is a maze of very shallow-soiled microsites that are well stocked with white pine regeneration and deeper micro-sites that are choked with red maple and bracken fern. This is a common condition

and Stop 10 is a typical example.

The block was subject to uniform shelterwood seeding cuts in a patchwork of cutting and treatments from 1983 to 1989, when the area was part of the Parry Sound Crown management unit. Parts of the

block were mechanically site prepared in 1983, planted in 1984, and had two brush saw release treatments in 1983 and 1989. Other parts received basal bark release treatments in 2001 to 2003 using

Forestry Futures Trust funding. In 2009 the block had its first removal cut, turning it from a Class Z to an SFL Class X responsibility and making Westwind responsible for meeting the silvicultural standards. Class

Z Lands are defined in the licence as areas harvested prior to April 1, 1995 on which no Eligible

Silviculture Work has been initiated using funds made available to the Licence Area from either the Special Purpose Account or the Forest Renewal Trust, but on which a tending treatment may be required

to bring the area to free-to-grow status. Class X Lands are defined as areas harvested on or after April 1, 1995.

If it were assessed today, Stop 10 would not meet the FTG standards for the PWUS forest unit, but it

remains years away from final assessment. Today, the block is planned for aerial site preparation/tending, followed by in-fill planting. Its FTG assessment will be due in 2017.



Figure 3. Stop 10 on the Ranger Bay Road, Blair Township.

This array of treatments over the years shows just how difficult and expensive it can be to regenerate

white pine on difficult sites. Adherence to the silvicultural guides (as was done at Stop 10) hasn’t yet

brought about silvicultural success, which brings into question the applicability of the shelterwood system and the white pine guide on competition-prone sites like these. It was fire that put white pine on the

Georgian Bay landscape in the first place and MNR’s response to 2006 IFA Recommendation #17 has done little to bring it back.

The audit team is concerned about the adequacy of white pine regeneration but was unable to determine conclusively that the silvicultural standards were not being met. Completing actions necessary to address

Recommendation 7, below, should assist in providing a more definitive answer at the next IFA.

Financial problems compound the silvicultural problem. Repeated treatments like those at Stop 10 can easily cost more than the renewal revenues the white pine harvest is able to generate. This brings into

question the feasibility of the current model in which the forestry sector carries most of the financial costs of forest management, including endangered species protection.

Stop 12 on the field audit was the exception to the rule. It too was a complex of very shallow micro-sites

and deeper, competition-prone silt loams but it was disturbed by blowdown and salvage rather than the usual extended shelterwood methods. Stop 12 received a uniform shelterwood seeding cut in 2002

followed by a heavy blowdown in 2006. It was salvage cut immediately, aerially sprayed in 2007 and planted with 1,051 trees/ha of white pine, red pine and white spruce. It differed from the usual

shelterwood regime in that the first removal cut (the salvage) followed immediately after the seeding cut and was much heavier. It was also more successful than any other white pine sites that the audit team

visited.

Access

Road construction, maintenance and water crossing installations and removals conducted during the audit period were viewed. Water crossing installations were well done with attention paid to minimizing

associated disturbance. There is an ongoing issue with decommissioned water crossings being reactivated by other forest users. An example was viewed in which the decommissioning work associated

with a portable bridge removal appeared to have been properly done but a new deck had been built by

other users to regain access. Unauthorized work of this nature is an MNR enforcement issue and beyond the scope of this audit.

Invoices for road work conducted under the Road Maintenance Agreement between MNR and Westwind were checked. Work conducted included culvert replacement, ditching, gravelling, grading, drilling and

blasting, crushing, bridge repair, and winter maintenance. The invoices were consistent with the



summary reports of expenditures and the work listed in the invoices was consistent with the condition of

roads viewed in the field.

4.5 System Support

MNR and Westwind have sufficient human resources, training and information systems in place to deliver

an effective forest management program. Maintenance of these systems is a serious issue for Westwind given the protracted market failure for forest products. These conditions make it hard for the

overlapping licensees to afford the management fees that keep the systems that support forest management in place. Training programs have also been cut back in response to these market

conditions.

The Forest Information Management (FIM) portal, an online data exchange system, helps to ensure

document control. The audit team made use of the portal to access documents and the Geographic

Information System data shared by MNR and the SFL holder in the site selection and document review portions of the audit.

These systems are constantly evolving. Problems identified by Westwind in ownership layers used in developing the planning inventory for the 2009-2019 FMP have been corrected by MNR under its Land

Tenure Information Integration Initiative. MNR is also committed to working with Westwind to

continually improve information in NRVIS and other data sets used to develop AOCs.

4.6 Monitoring

Compliance

Both MNR and Westwind developed compliance plans and implemented them in an effective manner.

Overall compliance is high; again reflecting the use of skilled operators. The audit team found the conditions in the field matched those reported in the online Forest Operations Inspection Program.

Ontario’s approach to compliance monitoring, reporting and enforcement has been effective in maintaining high standards of forestry practice. The audit team shares a concern expressed by Westwind

that an increased reliance on online training may limit the peer learning from operators that is best achieved in hands-on field settings. Online training systems are continually improving and are becoming

standard practice for professional development. Future audits will determine if the concerns over new

training methods are warranted.

MNR maintains proper oversight of the compliance and monitoring programs although there are

opportunities for improvement. Some compliance reporting issues occurred in 2009 when Westwind staff was laid off as result of the market downturn. Although the inspections were made, the reports were

delayed. The challenge in maintaining the compliance program is the same as that which threatens the

entire management system under the protracted market depression affecting Canada’s forest sector.

Interviews with MNR staff were consistent with field observations of a competently run forest

management program by Westwind and a cadre of responsible overlapping licensees. There were some issues over unauthorised hauling of logs and some problems with new operators in meeting utilization

standards and safety issues, but these were the exceptions to a good compliance record.

Silviculture

A concern was also raised about what standards should be used in monitoring the group selection system

(referred to as group openings). Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring has been a significant problem in

Ontario in general and is even more of a problem under the selection system. A case in point is the lower than expected yields in the return harvest under the selection system described in this report.

Corporate MNR is well aware of this problem and the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Guidelines (2002) are currently under review; as a result, no recommendation is required at this time.



The FMPM requires the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring (SEM) program to assess the success of

renewal activities in achieving the standards specified in the SGRs. It does not specifically require the reporting of other survey types where there is no silvicultural standard or stated plan objective.

Westwind has done a large number of stocking assessments in recent years (over 11,000 ha) and the

company shared its findings with the audit team. Westwind uses these surveys not to determine success, but to determine further treatment needs before removal cutting.

White pine regeneration is an issue on the French-Severn Forest and it has been for decades. The audit team felt that the reporting of these surveys in the AR would help other interested parties understand the

issue better.

Recommendation 5: Westwind should report the results of the stocking assessments it carries out in

the white pine forest units in its annual reports beginning with the 2011/2012 AR.

Westwind is lagging behind in its white pine regeneration assessments. If the choice of an approved methodology is one of the barriers, this should be settled soon. The present version of STARS uses FTG

stocking as the measure of success and is compatible with the SGR-FTG standard for white pine. Westwind needs to settle on an assessment methodology for its white pine FTG surveys and catch up

with its assessment obligations.

Recommendation 6: Westwind should complete its review of an appropriate regeneration assessment method for the white pine forest units and make any changes in time for the 2012 field season.

The Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario (SEMMO) requires FMP-SGRs to provide a timeframe by which stands must reach FTG and be assessed. Together, the 2004-2024 and 2009-2019

FMPs forecast an assessment requirement of 8,587 ha for the white pine forest units during the five-year audit period. ARs for the audit period show that only 781 ha of pine shelterwood cuts were assessed for

FTG during the same five-year period. The Year 10 AR acknowledged that survey levels were well below

FMP projections, particularly in the conifer (white pine) shelterwood FUs. It attributed this to an ongoing dialogue between industry partners regarding survey methods and to a disagreement with certain

aspects of the Silviculture Treatment, Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) methodology.

Recommendation 7: Westwind should maintain a ledger of areas on which regeneration assessment is

due that enables comparison with its assessment work and its assessment obligations. This should be in

place in time for the next IFA.

Annual Reports

The annual reports were well written and included a novel method for reporting of field level or tactical

objectives that support the strategic objectives of the 2004-2024 FMP. This approach emerged in response to the FSC certification audit process but was abandoned under the 2009-2019 FMP so as to

have reporting align with the 2004 FMPM requirements. The field level objective reporting deserves reconsideration as a way of improving monitoring across the Province. The current suites of indicators

are useful but for many indicators the response to management actions takes a considerable period of

time before it can be reliably detected. In addition, some indicators are objectives to carry out actions rather than outcomes of strategies. The current focus on outputs is useful under the 2009 FMPM but

understanding the effectiveness of a forest management system also requires the monitoring of inputs such as the number of trees planted.

The FMPM requires that MNR staff review the Yr 10 AR and provide comments to the plan author within

30 days of receipt of the annual report; however, this review was not done. The process requirements associated with forest management planning are numerous and complex. This is an example of an FMPM

procedure that can be overlooked in delivering a comprehensive forest management program within a large organization such as MNR. The solution to similar problems in forest management in other

jurisdictions was to implement a quality management system under ISO 9001 to minimize and correct system and process errors. MNR should consider either pursuing certification or adopting the procedures

under ISO 9001 as a means of improving the agency’s performance in delivering forest management.



4.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Sustainability

Achievement of Management Objectives

The audit team’s review of documents and site inspections support many of the observations made by

the author of the Yr 10 Annual Report (2008) related to objectives achievement of the 2004-2024 FMP.

The wide spread use of selection harvests and tree marking will maintain a range of native tree species at

current levels across the Forest. The associated forest cover, wetlands, recreational use, heritage values and wildlife habitat objectives are also being met through the allocation of appropriate harvest areas,

guidelines and the application of AOC prescriptions.

The objective to increase, where practical and appropriate, under-represented tree species and forest units, in proportions similar to the pre-settlement forest will likely not be achieved given the high costs

and variable regeneration success in the white pine forest unit, as discussed in detail in the Silviculture section of this report. There is also a lack of movement in advancing prescribed fire for red oak

regeneration. Group selection or group openings are helping to encourage black cherry and other mid-tolerant species regeneration. This objective was not carried forward in the 2009-2019 FMP.

The low rate of harvest during the full term of the 2004-2024 FMP compromises the rate at which the

desired forest condition will be reached. The situation is based upon globally significant market forces and is not a reflection of the forest manager’s skills or resources. Not surprisingly, wood supply and

socio-economic plan objectives will not be realized to the same levels as those predicted in the plan.

The objective to continue to research, test and implement, viable, economical and ecologically-based alternatives… which will reduce dependence on herbicides was not met. In fact, the use of mechanical

site preparation which can reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the use of herbicides was greatly reduced.

Appendix 2 provides a tabular analysis of the audit team’s assessment of progress toward achieving the objectives set in the 2004-2024 FMP.

The use of reporting field level objective (target) performance in support of strategic level objectives was a novel approach and adds value to the analysis. Table 2 illustrates some examples.

Table 2. Examples of Field Level Objectives from the 2004-2024 French-Severn FMP

Objective Field Specific Target Five Year

Target

Current

Year

2008/09

To

Date

Balance

Forest Diversity Mechanical site prep or

burning for Yellow birch

80 ha 0 34 46 ha

Conversion of off-site hardwoods or mixedwoods to Pw/Sw/Pr (Pwus2 or Mwus)

40 Ha 11.5 28.5 ha

Planting of Red oak 20,000

seedlings

7,870 12,130

seedlings

This field level reporting is not being carried forward under the new plan, to be consistent with direction in the 2004 and 2009 FMPMs. The trend under the past and current planning manuals is to use higher

level objectives that, although they are entirely appropriate, take many years for the associated indicators to show a response to management actions.

The FMPM direction is consistent with a results-based approach where objectives are linked to outcomes

rather than inputs. Results-based management is widely embraced in all types of planning in Canada’s civil service. In fact, budget planning for the federal government uses a Results Management and



Accountability Framework. Proponents of this system would argue that Westwind’s field level objectives

are in fact strategies supporting the forest diversity objective.

Despite the semantics of strategies versus objectives, fully understanding a system requires knowledge of

inputs and outputs. The field level objectives are an example of inputs into the system. Westwind’s

approach in the Year 10 AR is worth a second look by both Westwind and the MNR and may have utility in other forests in Ontario. It is suggested that Corporate MNR consider a requirement for reporting field

level objectives/targets/strategies in the next revision of the FMPM.

Looking forward, the objectives set in the 2009-2019 FMP can be summarized as follows:

Emulate natural forest landscape pattern;

Provide forest diversity through forest structure, composition and abundance including old

growth (not necessarily tied to natural or pre-settlement levels); Maintain red and white pine forest area;

Maintain red oak and hemlock area;

Maintain or enhance habitat for forest-dependent species (non-spatial and spatial);

Maintain roads for forest operations while limiting liability

Ensure successful regeneration and improve the health of harvested stands

Protect other natural resources values;

Ensure a predictable wood supply;

Protect the environment (soil and water)

Provide opportunities for Aboriginal involvement; and,

Encourage and support involvement of the Local Citizens Committee.

The evidence compiled in this audit suggests that the factors under the control of the forest manager are

being addressed in a manner consistent with meeting the above objectives with some concern related to

meeting objectives for white pine (and to a lesser extent red oak and hemlock, as identified in the Year 10 AR).

Forest Sustainability

The Year 10 AR for the plan period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009 was reviewed and found to be generally complete and accurate, although it lacked an adequate discussion of both the achievement of

non-quantitative objectives and the implementation of the action plan associated with the previous IFA.

Recommendation 8: Westwind should ensure that the content requirements of future Year 10 Annual

Reports are met.

Overall harvest area was approximately 50% of planned during the ten years 1999-2009. Poor quality of many stands and access constraints were noted as contributing factors. A similar situation existed with

harvest volume. Regeneration of tolerant hardwood stands (primarily sugar maple) was considered to be guaranteed and therefore formal surveys were not conducted. Clearcut stands have also typically

regenerated successfully. White pine regeneration has been less certain and there was a greater reliance on artificial regeneration given the poor success of natural regeneration methods. Vegetation

management to control competition has become a required practice for pine stands. The author provided

an insightful list of observations related to pine regeneration.

The Year 10 AR summarized the achievement of five quantitative objectives. Habitat for selected wildlife

species were within acceptable ranges, total area of red/white pine was on track, total area of red oak was under target although there was no overall loss on the landbase, and targets were met for available

volume of all species groups. Managed Crown forest area for timber production by forest unit was

considered difficult to assess due to planning inventory and forest unit shifts.

The Year 10 AR author considered the determination of sustainability through AR-14 to be not particularly

useful. The author further stated that changes in approaches based on field observations, such as the creation of the white pine seed tree forest unit, are being used to address identified issues. The author

considered the forest to be on track to sustainability and that, short of a large scale catastrophe, actual forest condition will not change substantially on a broad basis.



The audit team concurs with the observations and qualifying comments of the Year 10 AR author with

respect to assessing forest sustainability, i.e. it appears that forest sustainability criteria are being met, with the qualification that changes to the forest land base, cover classifications, planning and reporting

requirements pose significant challenges in measuring progress and validating the assumptions related to

forest sustainability. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP).

This determination assumes that the process and protocols of the IFAPP and the determination of sustainability, as followed by planning teams under forest management planning manuals, support a

robust definition of sustainability. This is illustrated by the following example as it relates to the IFAPP requirements of presenting a summary table and analysis of silvicultural success from the Year 10 Annual

Report (Source: Table AR 13).

Table 3. Summary and Analysis of Silviculture Success

Forest Unit

Area

Surveyed (ha)

Regeneration Success (ha)

Silvicultural

Success (ha)

Not

Sufficiently

Restocked (ha)

HDSBB 1588 1588 1588

HDSGB 29 29 29

PWUS 123

HDUS 387 387 387

Total 2004 2004 2004 123

AR 13 2004 1975 1975 123

Ignoring a summation error in Table AR-13 caused by omitting the 29 hectares of HDSGB, the table shows a remarkably high rate for silvicultural success (100%) for hardwood cover types and no success

in the white pine cover type. These results are an artifact of the convention for tolerant hardwoods used

by MNR and defined in the FMP whereby selection is always deemed to have 100% success. After all, when the stand is finished being harvested it would remain a forest with similar preharvest species

composition, albeit with a reduction in crown cover. In contrast, white pine is deemed not sufficiently restocked until the final felling and subsequent assessment of the shelterwood and there are no stands at

that stage in the period under review.

It could be argued that the total area surveyed of 2,004 ha is not enough to assess the harvested area of

approximately 21,880 hectares. However, auditing more than 10% is a significant cost burden and given

the high rates of compliance observed by the audit team it would appear to be an unnecessary cost.

The table provides an incomplete picture. Although species composition objectives are likely being met,

structural targets are not. As identified earlier in this report, the problem of second entry cuts not having the anticipated sufficient volumes of growing stock begs the question why the process assumes 100%

silvicultural success. Furthermore, the persistent problems of supporting a first class forest management

program and expensive renewal programs for white pine from forest revenues generated by harvesting timber in depressed markets questions the sustainability of the forest management program itself. This

is more than counterintuitive and supports the need for MNR to develop decision support systems suitable for Southern Ontario. MNR is well aware of the problems and has launched an independent

review of the process it uses to determine forest sustainability and silvicultural effectiveness. MNR is also

in the midst of a tenure and pricing review.

4.8 Contractual Obligations

Overall, the SFL conditions were met, (Table 5. Compliance with Contractual Obligations the most significant exception being failure to meet minimum balance requirements in the Renewal Trust Fund, as

discussed below.



Westwind allowed the Renewal Trust Fund for the Forest to fall below the minimum balance required of it

in two of the five years under audit (2006-07 and 2007-08). The company produced a two-year recovery plan that was accepted by MNR and the minimum balance was restored.

This default was a product of the unanticipated economic crisis facing the entire forest sector. Plunging

prices and mill closures have reduced the harvest, which has in turn reduced renewal revenues. From a renewal point of view, the reduced harvest is less of a concern in the hardwood types where silvicultural

activity is tied to harvest and more of a concern in the pine types where treatment is still required on areas harvested years ago. It is a problem without an easy answer because raising renewal rates will

only result in a further reduction in harvest. Instead of raising renewal rates, Westwind opted (with MNR’s reluctant consent) to reduce silvicultural activities as the principal way of restoring the minimum

balance (Figure 3). The red line shows the minimum balance required on March 31st each year. This

graph shows that the balance was below the minimum in four of the five years. However, in two of these years this was due to late payment by overlapping licensees, which is not a Westwind issue as it

was MNR’s responsibility to collect these amounts. The recovery plan contained other strategies that Westwind has acted on, but without a reduction in expenditures recovery wouldn’t have been possible in

the timeframe provided. These events and associated issues are having a province-wide impact on forest

renewal. Program liabilities and funding mechanisms are currently under review by Corporate MNR.

Figure 4. Graph of Silvicultural Expenditures and Account Balance over the Audit Period.

Table 6, Appendix 3, summarizes progress towards completion of actions developed to address the 25 recommendations arising from the 2006 IFA. Overall, the audit team found that the actions developed

and implemented by the auditees were appropriate and effective in addressing the individual

recommendations, although some outcomes (e.g. use of prescribed burns) may not fully align with what the previous audit team had envisioned.



4.9 Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation

The audit team found the French-Severn Forest to be generally well managed despite its challenging aspects. The forest managers understand these challenges and are trying to address them in a period of

severe economic downturn for the forest industry. There are several outstanding issues.

Management of the FRT is a fundamental requirement of the SFL and one important to forest sustainability. The SFL requires the FRT minimum balance be maintained as of March 31 of each year.

The SFL also requires the company to meet the silvicultural standards contained in the FMP regardless of the balance in the FRT at any time. In 2007 and 2008 no artificial regeneration activities took place on

the French-Severn Forest in order to maintain the minimum balance.

While the minimum balance was restored, the audit team found the trade-off disturbing. This was

disturbing because a reduction in silvicultural activity eventually leads to an increase in silvicultural

liability. It merely transfers the default from the renewal trust account to the forest itself, where it won't surface for many years. This is especially true in pine shelterwood situations where treatment follows the

harvest and where assessment occurs many years after that.

Westwind’s default on its obligation to maintain the minimum balance in the RTF was the result of

economic factors largely beyond Westwind’s control. A turnaround in the forestry sector would allow the

company to increase its harvest, increase its renewal revenues and catch up on any silvicultural backlog. In the meantime, Westwind is searching for ways to continue meeting its silvicultural obligations but at a

lower cost. It’s a difficult task and one deserving of support.

The determination of sustainability relies upon direction provided in the FMPM and IFAPP. The plan

author and forest manager noted many problems with the current procedures and the audit team shares these concerns. These problems related to the determination of sustainability and silvicultural liabilities

are not unique to the French-Severn Forest nor are they under the complete control of the licensee. MNR

is well aware of these problems and has launched an independent review of the process it uses to determine forest sustainability and silvicultural liabilities.

The forest management system in Ontario relies upon revenues generated by the harvest of forest products. The traditional products are not in demand and hence the system is under stress. For this

reason MNR has initiated competitions for unused wood supplies to stimulate investment in new markets.

MNR is also in the midst of a tenure and pricing review to address these systemic problems over the longer term. The audit team is reluctant to provide policy level recommendations to Corporate MNR

while these policy reviews are underway. These new initiatives will take some time to generate results, the effectiveness of which will be assessed by the next audit.

Despite the above concerns, the audit team concludes that management of the French-Severn Forest was

generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the

Sustainable Forest Licence held by Westwind Forest Management Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team

recommends that the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence 542411 for a further five years.



APPENDIX 1 – RECOMMENDATIONS

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding

Recommendation 1

Principle 2. Public Consultation & Aboriginal Involvement

Criteria 2.5.1 Aboriginal community consultation and involvement in FMPs, amendments, contingency plans

Procedure 1. Review and assess whether reasonable efforts were made to engage each Aboriginal

community in or adjacent to the management unit in forest management planning as provided by the applicable FMPM and assess the resulting involvement and consideration in the plan or amendment.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence:

There were no media notices provided for Stage 1. Phase 1: Stage Three letters could not be located but Supplementary Document H indicates the letters were completed.

Discussion: The evidence indicates deficiencies in the District’s recording keeping. MNR cited staff turnover as the

cause of the record keeping problems.

Conclusion: Although First Nations did not report problems with consultation there are pieces of physical evidence

missing.

Recommendation: MNR should make improvements in record keeping procedures for Aboriginal consultation to ensure that records are complete.




Recommendation 2

Principle 2. Public Consultation & Aboriginal Involvement

Criteria 2.5.2 Participation of Aboriginal peoples in the benefits provided through forest management

planning

Procedure 1. Review whether Aboriginal peoples were provided with, and whether they availed

themselves, of opportunities to achieve more equal participation in the benefits provided through forest

management planning and assess the results.


MNR and Westwind reported working collaboratively to address issues of improved opportunities for Aboriginal community participation in the forest economy. Examples of efforts are: establishment of a

First Nation Forestry/Economic Development Steering Committee, an Economic Development Forum in

April 2010, and a board member position on Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. Other measures included addressing community requests (e.g. amending harvest allocation for Magnetawan First Nation for the

purpose of building community log homes; delivery of a two day accredited GPS course at Henvey Inlet which multiple communities attended; and financial support for cutter-skidder training). Condition 34

reports, prepared by MNR, outlined a number of opportunities provided to Aboriginal communities.

In interviews with Aboriginal community representatives they did not feel they had received any benefits provided through forest management planning. It was acknowledged that the recent economic downturn

had left the forest economy depressed; however, Aboriginal community representatives did not feel that great enough efforts had been made to ensure they had economic opportunities in the management and

harvesting of the Forest or employment for band members with companies operating in the Forest.

Representatives felt that the harvesting opportunities that were offered were too small or remote to be a feasible business opportunity and there had been no attempts to identify innovative ways for Aboriginal

communities to become involved in the forestry economy. They suggested MNR needs to work with them to remove barriers to participation and find innovative ways for participation in the depressed forest

economy.

Discussion:

Condition 34 requires MNR to negotiation with Aboriginal peoples for their more equal participation in the

benefits provided through forest management planning. Condition 20 of the SFL requires Westwind to work co-operatively with MNR and local Aboriginal communities in this regard. There appears to be a

gap between economic opportunities that Aboriginal communities are able to take advantage of and those that have been offered.

Conclusion:

MNR and Westwind report that efforts have been made to improve Aboriginal opportunities for participation in the forest economy; however, Aboriginal communities do not feel that they have received

any economic benefits. While it is noted that MNR and Westwind have taken some steps to address the requirements these efforts were not viewed as successful by the Aboriginal community representatives

who were interviewed.

Recommendation: MNR, in collaboration with Westwind and interested Aboriginal communities, should

undertake a study to identify barriers and opportunities to Aboriginal community participation in the economic benefits provided through forest management planning. Such a study should take into

consideration a community’s willingness and capacity to participate and should identify innovative ways

to participate.




Recommendations 3 and 4

Principle 3. Forest Management Planning

Criteria 3.5 Planning of Proposed Operations

Procedure 1. Review the AOC prescriptions and assess whether

any exceptions to forest management guides were approved, appropriate in the circumstances

and accompanied by an appropriate effectiveness monitoring program


AOC prescriptions were typically based on direction provided in associated MNR management guides.

One exception to guide direction was developed for MAFAs. Departure from guide direction is permitted provided a rationale is given and a monitoring program developed and implemented.

The 2009-2019 FMP stated that the prescription was a modification of the Habitat Management Considerations contained in the Silvicultural Guidelines for the Tolerant Hardwoods (sic), and therefore was an exception. Unlike the Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat, which

also contains direction on management of MAFAs, the Silvicultural Guide suggests that some harvesting

is permitted under certain circumstances. The FMP went on to say that the main focus of monitoring of the exception was the results of research into the effects of timber harvest on the use of aquatic feeding

sites by moose in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and transition forests. It was felt that the results of the study supported the AOC for MAFAs as set forward in the FMP.

In 2009 the MNR District conducted field surveys on 28 MAFAs and found evidence of continued use by moose in 27 cases. What was not determined was whether the frequency or intensity of use of MAFAs

that had received harvest was significantly different from those that were not harvested, or that were harvested according to the guide requirements.

Discussion:

The audit team found that no rationale for the departure from guide direction was provided and that the results of the research study, cited as the main focus of the exception monitoring, did not support the

exception. In fact the research study concluded that although moose use aquatic feeding areas next to narrow reserves (<60 m), the results of this study show that sites adjacent to 120 m reserves, as recommended in the Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat, were used the most and have the greatest potential of meeting the life history requisites of moose in all three silviculture systems. The audit team also found the monitoring conducted by the District of limited use in

better understanding the effects of timber harvesting within MAFAs.

Exceptions to guide direction should be well-rationalized and include clearly stated objectives and

comprehensive monitoring programs designed to advance the science of forestry.

Conclusion: The FMP did not meet the full requirements for planning of exceptions for the MAFA AOC. To improve

the planning process there may be benefit in having clearly stated objectives as part of the documentation for exceptions, in addition to the requirement for a rationale and monitoring program.

This should assist in understanding what the intent of the exception was and provide a measure against

which to evaluate the success or failure of implementing the exception.



Recommendation: MNR and Westwind should ensure that planning of exceptions to guide direction

meet all FMPM requirements.

Recommendation: Corporate MNR should review the process that permits exceptions to guide direction to ensure that forest management plans set out clear objectives in addition to a rationale, that

exceptions monitoring programs are rigorous and that the results of implementing exceptions contribute meaningfully to the knowledge base of forestry.




Recommendation 5

Principle 8. Contractual obligations

Criteria 8.1.4 Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies; provision and collection of information in

accordance with FIM

Procedure: Review FIM to determine SFL holder responsibilities with respect to inventories, surveys, tests and studies, and review a sampling of those reports to determine whether they were produced in

accordance with FIM.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The FMPM requires the SEM program to assess the success of renewal activities in achieving the

standards specified in the SGRs. It does not specifically require the reporting of other survey types where there is no silvicultural standard or stated plan objective. The FMPM further requires the SFL

holder to provide a summary of the SEM program in the annual report each year, in which progress toward the achievement of objectives is described and implications are discussed. Table AR-13 requires

reporting of the area assessed for regeneration success and the assessment results in years seven and

ten of the FMP.

The French-Severn 2009 FMP-SGRs for the white pine shelterwood FUs call for a stocking assessment to

be made before the removal cut and in no case more than 12 years after the seeding cut. They do not provide a stocking standard against which to judge success. Westwind had been doing stocking

assessments after white pine shelterwood seeding cuts and while it mentions them in the ARs it does not

provide results.

Discussion:

Westwind has done a large number of stocking assessments in recent years (over 11,000 ha) and the company shared its findings with the audit team. Westwind uses these surveys, not to determine

success, but to determine further treatment needs before removal cutting.

Stocking is only one measure of regeneration success and even stands that are well stocked may lack the height and freedom from competition necessary to ever attain FTG status. However, the audit team

found these stocking surveys to be very helpful in coming to a better understanding of the white pine regeneration issue. Although there is no SGR stocking standard against which to judge success, they

certainly reinforced the view contained in the 2009-2019 FMP that natural regeneration alone will not

allow pine shelterwood cutovers to meet the regeneration standards and that supplemental artificial methods are necessary.

White pine regeneration is an issue on the French-Severn Forest and has been for decades. The audit team felt that the reporting of these surveys in the AR would help other interested parties understand the

issue better.

Table AR-13 does not lend itself to the reporting of surveys like this, where there is no measure of success, but it wouldn’t be difficult or onerous to add a tabular summary of results and a descriptive

analysis in the text of AR Section 2.4.6.

Conclusion:

The team found that the stocking surveys cast an additional light on the status of white pine regeneration

and that they would be useful to other interested parties in obtaining a better understanding of the issues.

Recommendation: Westwind should report the results of the stocking assessments it carries out in the

white pine forest units in its annual reports beginning with the 2011/2012 AR.




Recommendation 6



accordance with FIM



Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The 2009 FMP allows for informal walk-through assessments and ocular estimates using experienced

personnel where stands are relatively uniform in species composition and regeneration. Of the ten audit field sites where silvicultural assessments of one type or another were carried out, all were done using

ocular methods. In all ten, the results were obvious to the eye and the use of ocular methods was appropriate.

The 2009 FMP also allows for modified survey techniques such as fixed-area plots to be used as stands

become more heterogeneous. This is often the situation in the white pine forest units, where results can vary widely with small differences in micro-site and where there are large differences in soil depth and

drainage over small areas.

Westwind has been using 2 m x 2 m fixed-area plots to assess FTG stocking in white pine and to calibrate

the assessor’s eye where ocular methods are used. The company has also been testing the MNR’s STARS

methodology, and in 2008 used STARS to assess 123 ha of white pine for FTG.

Discussion:

Assessment methods have been an issue for Westwind. The 2009 AR attributes this in part to the ongoing dialogue between industry partners who are looking for more cost-effective methods, and to

issues associated with the competition rules and the netting-out of unproductive micro-sites in STARS.

On the matter of cost effectiveness, the choice of an assessment methodology need not reduce the use of ocular estimates, where ocular estimates are appropriate. Where ocular estimates are used, however,

the assessors need to be trained and experienced in the appropriate data collection methods and they need to have their eye calibrated periodically.

Westwind is lagging behind in its white pine regeneration assessments. If the choice of an approved

methodology is one of the barriers, this should be settled soon. The present version of STARS uses FTG stocking as the measure of success and is compatible with the SGR-FTG standard for white pine. If

future versions adopt stand occupancy as the measure of success, amendment of the FMP-SGRs may be necessary.

Conclusion:

Westwind needs to settle on an assessment methodology for its white pine FTG surveys and catch up with its assessment obligations. The STARS methodology is compatible with the FMP-SGRs and there is

no need to amend the FMP if STARS is chosen.

Recommendation: Westwind should complete its review of an appropriate regeneration assessment method for the white pine forest units and make any changes in time for the 2012 field season.




Recommendation 7



accordance with FIM



Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario (SEMMO) requires FMP-SGRs to provide a

timeframe by which stands must reach FTG and be assessed.

The 2004 and 2009 FMPs both provided a forecast of the amount of regeneration assessment that would

be required during their respective plan periods. Together, the two plans forecast an assessment requirement of 8,587 ha for the white pine forest units during the five-year audit period.

The actual level of assessment was much lower. ARs for the audit period show that only 781 ha of pine

shelterwood cuts were assessed for FTG during the same five-year period.

Discussion:

It is difficult to be specific about the extent of Westwind's regeneration assessment obligations in the

white pine types, as records are not kept in that way.

It is the FMP-SGRs that determine the timeframe during which assessments must be made and the

measures against which the results are to be judged. The complication is that these standards differ by FMP and FU. According to Paragraph 16.6 of the SFL, it is the FMP that was in effect at the time the

prescription was made that applies. However, records are not kept in this way. SFL holders are required to report the area of assessment they carried out, compared to the level that was forecast in the FMP.

The FMP forecast is just a forecast, not a calculation of the SFL holder's obligation.

The Year 10 AR acknowledged that survey levels were well below FMP projections, particularly in the conifer (white pine) shelterwood FUs. It attributed this to an ongoing dialogue between industry partners

regarding survey methods and to a disagreement with certain aspects of the STARS methodology. It is also possible that this issue is linked to economics and the financial crisis that the FRT has just come

through. Regeneration assessments are funded by the FRT and white pine assessments are very

expensive because of their marginal success and variable nature. Ocular estimates don't work well under such conditions.

Conclusion: Westwind is behind in its white pine regeneration assessments although the amount of the shortfall is

unknown.

Recommendation: Westwind should maintain a ledger of areas on which regeneration assessment is due that enables comparison with its assessment work and its assessment obligations. This should be in

place in time for the next IFA.




Recommendation 8

Principle 7. Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability

Criteria 7. To draw conclusions on the achievement of management objectives and forest sustainability.

To assess whether the associated analyses, reviews and reports have been prepared in accordance with the applicable FMPM and whether they are accurate and represent effective analyses and progress

reviews.

Procedure: Assess whether the report has been prepared in accordance with the FMPM requirements.


The audit team reviewed the Year 10 Annual Report and found that it lacked a discussion of the

achievement of non-quantitative objectives or discussion of implementation of the action plan associated with the previous IFA, as required.

Discussion:

The Year 10 Annual Report is a key document in that it provides a summary of activities and

achievements to date. As such, it must be complete.

Conclusion:

The Year 10 Annual Report did not meet all of the content requirements of the FMPM.

Recommendation: Westwind should ensure that the content requirements of future Year 10 Annual

Reports are met.



APPENDIX 2 – MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES TABLES

Table 4. Summary of the Status of the 2004 FMP Objectives

Objective Auditor Assessment and Comments

Landscape and Stand Forest Diversity

To maintain a range of native tree

species;

To increase, where practical and

appropriate, under-represented tree

species and forest units, in

proportions similar to the pre-settlement forest.

The strategies that are being implemented will

maintain a range of native tree species.

Group selection openings are being created to improve

the representation of black cherry and ash.

Progress has not been made in using prescribed fire to encourage red oak. Problems persist with white pine

regeneration and hemlock. These cover types are not on track toward pre-settlement conditions.

Genetic Diversity

To protect and conserve the genetic

diversity of indigenous tree species.

Met through extensive use of natural regeneration and

use of local seed in planting programs.

Old Growth Diversity

To increase/maintain the area of old

white pine/red pine stands.

To manage/protect representative

ecosystems of old growth white/red

pine stands

To expand the representation of old

growth stands to other forest types of the management unit, in accordance

with policy and guidance.

Met through modelling and harvest practices. Due to

the long history of logging and wildfire there is very little old growth forest left in French-Severn Forest.

The current age class structure shows many stands at

the mature stage, just entering into the old stage. This is especially true for white/red pine forest units. Old

growth targets to be met by implementation of the selected management alternative by 2034.

Wetlands

To ensure that the area and function

of wetland ecosystems are not

impacted by forest operations.

Met - appropriate AOC prescriptions to protect wetlands, water quality and fisheries were developed,

implemented and complied with.

Timber Production

To continue to provide opportunities

for local employment, including First

Nation communities, in resource sectors that are dependent on the

use of forest resources.

Met - provided a sustainable harvest level but globally

significant forces reduced market demand and

significantly reduced harvest levels.

Tourism

To minimize the impact of forest

operations on the economic viability

of the resource based tourism industry of the area.

To ensure that forest operations are

carried out so as to minimize aesthetic impact where ever possible.

Met - tourism AOCs developed and implemented to protect canoe routes, portages, trails, Georgian Bay

shoreline, recreational camps and water access points; discussions held with licensed resource based tourism

operators and three RSA agreements were signed; however, no forestry operations took place in the

areas of interest due to the market downturn.




To maintain the viability of the

Tourism Industry by protecting

tourism values identified during the FMP process through the application

of Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource Based Tourism

and the use of RSAs as one method

of protecting and sustaining these values

Other Land Use

To conduct forest operations in a

manner which minimizes conflict with crown land use activities.

To ensure that forest operations are

carried out in accordance with crown land use plans.

Met – no unresolved issues; FMP conforms to land use

plans (e.g. Ontario Living Legacy initiatives).

First Nation

To ensure the protection of Native

values.

To support initiatives by interested

First Nation communities for

economic development of forest resources and forest-based uses of

the French/Severn Unit.

Improvements in communication efforts with

Aboriginal communities and greater effort placed on identifying ways for Aboriginal people to more equally

benefit from forest management are needed – Aboriginal communities remain dissatisfied (see

Recommendation 2).

Resource Access

To ensure access is provided to forest resources

which is appropriate for the purpose and frequency of use consistent with:

principles of sustainable forest use

sustainable management of other

crown resources

private landowner rights

public safety

Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use

Strategy

Met - roads planning, construction and maintenance provide for resource access; most roads are open to

the public; maintenance and safety measures were observed to be acceptable.

Recreation

To ensure that known recreational

values are identified and impacts are minimized during forest operations.

Met – recreational values are mapped and maintained

in NRVIS; AOCs were prepared and implemented; no

compliance issues were observed.

Cultural Heritage

To ensure that known and high

potential cultural heritage values are

Met – high potential cultural heritage values are mapped and maintained in NRVIS; AOCs were

prepared and implemented; no compliance issues were




identified and protected during forest

operations.

observed.

Other Values Dependent on Forest Cover

To protect and maintain natural

values dependent upon forest cover

while enabling the sustainable use of forest resources.

To maintain a forest landscape that

will supply suitable current and future habitat for selected wildlife species

over time, within the bounds of

natural variation.

Met - all indicators above minimum acceptable level for

the selected management alternative, NRVIS updates

ensure new values are captured, tree markers are trained in identifying new values; AOCs were

implemented and complied with.

Beaver habitat target was not met.

Ensure all harvested lands are regenerated to

the most silviculturally appropriate species and tended until Free-To-Grow…

Met under the conventional approach that assumes

selection cutting and tree marking is considered to be Free to Grow at time of harvest. Surveys of hardwood

shelterwoods are also successfully regenerated but

white pine shelterwood is producing inconsistent regeneration performance.

To continue to research, test and implement,

viable, economical and ecologically-based alternatives… which will reduce dependence on

herbicides

Not met - Mechanical site preparation, which can

reduce herbicide use, has been in decline due to high cost.



APPENDIX 3 – COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Table 5. Compliance with Contractual Obligations

Licence Condition Licence Holder Performance

Payment of Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown

charges

Crown charges totalling $552,190 and Forestry Futures Trust charges of $179,658 were owed by companies other than Westwind. MNR was in the process of pursuing collection of these amounts.

Wood supply commitments, MOAs, sharing arrangements, special conditions

No issues were raised during the audit.

Preparation of FMP, AWS and reports; abiding by the

FMP, and all other requirements of the FMPM and CFSA

FMP was well written; AWSs generally met

requirements; Year 10 AR was not entirely consistent with FMPM – see Recommendation 8.

Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies;

provision and collection of information in accordance with FIM and in the case of the Agreement in

accordance with the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act

FTG surveys were 9% of planned; Westwind has

conducted stocking surveys and silvicultural requirement assessments on over 8,000 ha.

Wasteful practices not to be committed Outstanding performance during very challenging market conditions.

Natural disturbance and salvage SFL conditions must be followed

Good performance.

Protection of the licence area from pest damage,

participation in pest control programs

There were no pest management programs of

significance.

Withdrawals from licence area No withdrawals associated with this licence condition.

Audit action plan and status report Action plan prepared and submitted on time; status report submitted 9 months late;

acceptable overall progress was made on

addressing the 2006 IFA recommendations.

Payment of forest renewal charges to Forest

Renewal Trust (FRT)

Payments were up to date for most licensees;

however, two remained in significant arrears

(approx. total $230,000) for which MNR has initiated collection actions.

Forest Renewal Trust eligible silviculture work Approximately 12% of the silviculture activities conducted between April 1, 2009 and March 31,

2010 were sampled during the audit. The

associated maps and records for these projects were consistent with the work viewed on the

ground.

Forest Renewal Trust forest renewal charge analysis Good documentation in analysis package supporting 2009 FMP.

Forest Renewal Trust account minimum balance Minimum balance met in three of the five years

of the audit term. A two year recovery plan was approved by MNR and the minimum balance was

restored.



Licence Condition Licence Holder Performance

Silviculture standards and assessment program A program is in place but under review at

Provincial and Regional levels to improve cost effectiveness. Class X, Y, Z lands are now

treated as part of the normal landbase and subject to the same standards.

Aboriginal opportunities Additional collaborative effort is required by MNR

and Westwind – see Recommendation 2.

Preparation of compliance plan Compliance plans prepared and implemented.

Internal compliance prevention/education program Westwind maintained appropriate compliance

training programs.

Compliance inspections and reporting; compliance with compliance plan

Program generally conformed to FOIP requirements and compliance plans. Although

inspections were completed in 2009, reports were delayed due to company layoffs.

SFL forestry operations on mining claims Conformance to requirements confirmed through

interview and review of correspondence with claim holders.



Table 6. Summary of Progress on Actions to Address the 2006 IFA Recommendations

Recommendation Auditor Comments

1. That MNR ensure that the terms of reference for the 2009 FMP include a protocol for retaining planning

records and documents

Terms of Reference were not updated but records were maintained and were adequate

for this audit.

2. That the MNR post public notices in local aboriginal media.

With the exception of Stage 1, notices were placed in Aboriginal publications for all

planning stages.

3. That the MNR re-engage the first nations to evaluate their interest in establishing a regular dialogue on

forestry opportunities and other forest issues, such as updating native values maps.

Much work was done by MNR; staff turnover within MNR and First Nation communities

requires ongoing efforts.

4. That the MNR ensure that all first nations

communities who use or have interests on the French Severn forest are sent public notices for any aerial

herbicide spraying.

MNR records confirm notices were sent.

5. That the planning team for the 2009 FMP develops strategies to ensure that public correspondence is

answered in as timely a manner as possible.

Binders were set up and all input requiring responses were responded to within 3 weeks.

The forest management plan (2009-2019) is currently being implemented and planning

records will be kept as per record retention requirements. These records were made

available to the audit team electronically.

6. That Westwind secure a new FRI coverage as soon as possible.

MNR will continue to design and develop the eFRI for the Province and interpretation is

scheduled for completion in 2014. The new

high resolution imagery is now available to assist in Phase 2 planning of the 2009-19

FMP.

7. That the company corrects the errors in Table FMP-13

of the 2004 FMP and submits an amendment consisting

of the corrected table.

FMP-13 was corrected and amended to the

plan.

8. That the planning team for the 2009 FMP set a

credible, achievable planned level of harvest on the French-Severn forest.

The scoping analysis was found to be

thorough and well documented. The harvest rate is credible but the gap between forecast

and actual is large and lead to the wood

supply competition awarding new licences. SFMM helps in setting AHA but there is a

large difference between available wood supply and affordable wood supply; SFMM

does not help in estimating the latter.

9. That the MNR and the company develop and implement a strategy to bring the planned levels of

harvest on the French-Severn forest into greater consistency with expected levels of utilization.

See above. The SFL can only go so far on this issue. The work with SFMM was well done

but SFMM is not well designed for uneven aged forests and is not well designed for

allocation problems. When faced with the

uncertainty over markets and the current poor quality of FRI a reasonable strategy is to




plan for high levels of harvest to create many

operational options thus giving the operators maximum flexibility.

10. That the planning team for the next FMP continues to encourage innovative tactics which incorporate

current silviculture, harvesting, and economic thinking

when developing forest units, silviculture ground rules and treatment packages (and appropriately match them

to forest stands).

There is evidence of efforts to address this recommendation in the 2009-2019 FMP. A

new PWST-FU was created to deal with pine

stands of low stocking and the old HDSGB-FU, which was found unsuited to selection

management, was moved to HDUS for management under the shelterwood system.

The PWUS and PWUS2 allocations now

concentrate more on removal cutting and less on seeding cuts, to avoid massing too much

area at one stage of management. In the PW-FUs, there is less reliance on natural

regeneration and more emphasis on chemical site preparation, planting and chemical

tending, in recognition of the difficulties in

regenerating white pine on competition-prone sites. Two exceptions (not yet implemented)

appear in the 2009-2019 FMP – strip cutting tolerant hardwoods and full-tree removal

under certain circumstances.

11. That corporate MNR provide values funding sufficient to collect information for the entire year’s allocations on

an annual basis.

Adequate funding was provided for values collection leading up to production of the

2009-2019 FMP, focusing on proposed areas of operation; SAR information collection

ongoing. The District receives funding for

values information collection on an annual basis (e.g. for annual stick nest verification

surveys).

12. That MNR provide training on deer-yard management in the French Severn forest for Westwind

staff and operators, and that the training provides opportunities for discussion of the merits of the selected

approaches.

MNR provided two day workshop in the Spring of 2011 for Westwind staff and tree

markers.

13. That corporate and/or regional MNR provide direction to MNR district staff regarding the prioritization

and implementation of road and crossing management efforts related to implementation of the forest roads and

water crossings initiative.

MNR developed guidance documents, asset plans and implemented regular inspection

programs; inventory of bridges and large culverts on primary and branch roads

conducted.

14. That the planning team for the 2009 FMP, with the assistance of corporate MNR and MNR region, should

develop local interpretations of the requirements of the

natural disturbance pattern emulation guide, suitable for use in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence silviculture

practiced on the forest.

New stand and site guides and landscape guides for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

Forest were not available for the 2009-2019

FMP but are available now. An amendment to the FMP identified where local interpretations

of the Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guide were appropriate and should assist in

addressing the concerns.




15. That the company institute measures to ensure that

signed and sealed copies of approved FMP amendments and AWS revisions are filed in its office promptly

following their approval.

A noticeable improvement was demonstrated.

16. That the company updates its FMP amendment

summary to include request and approval dates, and

better descriptions of the reasons for amendments.

The amendment ledger managed by

Westwind was expanded to include

denotation of impact on the AWS. As well, more information was added in the

description column to amendment proposals to date. The audit team verified with the

Area Supervisor that amendment tracking has

improved although one AWS revision was incomplete, lacking the Aerial Herbicide

Application Plan.

17. That corporate MNR review the prescribed burn cost

formula with the intent of increasing the fairness of the

formula by reducing some of the charges and facilitating greater use of prescribed burning for silvicultural

purposes.

MNR reviewed its prescribed burn manual in

2008 but MNR’s full-cost recovery policy (as

opposed to out-of-pocket cost recovery) remains a barrier to prescribed burns here

and elsewhere in Ontario. There is now an allowance for up to 20% in-kind contribution

but Westwind still did not see prescribed

burns as a viable silvicultural option on the French-Severn Forest. Its use as a silviculture

tool will likely remain minimal until costs borne by the forest industry are lowered.

18. That MNR and the company evaluate the extent of

remaining backlog, and it’s treatment requirements, and negotiate a payment from MNR that would enable the

company to fully treat the additional backlog on the forest.

This recommendation was not acted upon.

Silviculture is financed by the FRT and FFTF, not by MNR. The recommendation refers to

pre-SFL pine shelterwood cutovers that were not treated for reasons of funding or summer

access and have not regenerated naturally.

Today, both sides agree that too much time has passed for backlog in this condition to

remain treatable and that further treatment must await another shelterwood harvest first.

The 2009 FMP contains several silvicultural

strategies dealing with making old backlog harvestable.

19. That Westwind and MNR develop a strategy to manage or alleviate anticipated shortfalls in funds

available for stand improvement, silviculture and tending

without sacrificing strategic direction.

Westwind and MNR have collaborated on this recommendation. In its 2009-2019 FMP

Westwind came up with several strategies to

increase yield and reduce costs, all with the intention of maintaining a positive balance in

the FRT. Westwind produced a two-year plan to restore the minimum FRT balance that was

accepted by MNR, and the balance has since

been restored. However, this has not been without sacrifice. Many silvicultural activities

were reduced or curtailed in order to bring this about.




In fairness, the Action Plan pointed out the

limited ability to deal with this issue, given the economic crisis facing the entire forest sector

at this time. Until the economic situation improves significant challenges will remain.

20. That corporate MNR take appropriate measures to

mitigate the negative impact of deferred payments to the French-Severn renewal trust fund.

This recommendation was acted upon. In a

letter from the MNR Director of Forest Management, Westwind was advised that

MNR did not consider deferred FRT payments by overlapping licensees to be a Westwind

issue. This did not mitigate the effect on the

FRT but it did absolve Westwind of responsibility to this extent.

21. Corporate MNR, on a provincial scale, review its policy and legislation to ensure the wise use and

management of crown forest access roads and trails by

the growing community of off-road vehicle users. In the interim, Bracebridge and Parry Sound MNR offices

should work with off-road vehicle user-groups under existing policy and legislation to control and manage the

use of crown forest access roads and trails.

MNR continues to apply the Public Lands Act and associated Free Use Policy. Construction

of unauthorized access by other forest users

is an MNR enforcement issue.

22. That corporate MNR and Westwind jointly develop a strategy to bring overlapping licensees on the French-

Severn forest into compliance with the amended Bill C-45 and any other relevant health and safety legislation.

Evidence of conformance provided by MNR and Westwind.

23. That the company formally document the analysis of

compliance priorities and meet the content requirements of the monitoring inspection reporting schedule in future

annual forest compliance plans.

Review of compliance plans and annual

compliance schedules found them to meet requirements.

24. That Westwind continue to negotiate with Grant Forest Products with the aim of concluding a

memorandum of agreement to make available poplar as

per the terms in appendix e of Westwind SFL.

Grant Forest Products was sold to Georgia Pacific without an agreement with Westwind.

Westwind is no longer part of Georgia

Pacific’s government committed wood supply.

25. That the Minister of Natural Resources extend the

term of Sustainable Forest Licence #542411, held by Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. for the French-Severn

Forest, for an additional five-year period.

Licence term not yet extended.



APPENDIX 4 – AUDIT PROCESS

The Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP) was developed by MNR to provide a comprehensive and consistent method of evaluating forest management activities on Crown land. The

IFAPP (2011) states that the purpose of an Independent Forest Audit is to:

a) assess to what extent forest management planning activities comply with the Forest Management

Planning Manual (FMPM) and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (S.O. 1994, c. 25) (CFSA);

b) assess to what extent forest management activities comply with the CFSA and with the forest management plans, the manuals approved under the CFSA and the applicable guides;

c) assess the effectiveness of forest management activities in meeting the forest management objectives set out in the forest management plan, as measured in relation to the criteria

established for the audit;

d) compare the forest management activities carried out with those that were planned;

e) assess the effectiveness of any action plans implemented to remedy shortcomings revealed by a

previous IFA;

f) review and assess a licensee’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the forest resource

licence.

The IFAPP is based on eight guiding principles and contains 148 procedures, 132 of which are applicable

to the French-Severn Forest. The audit procedure serves as a framework to provide a structured

approach to evaluating whether or not forest management activities meet the requirements governing forestry practices on Crown land in Ontario. The guiding principles are:

Commitment

Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

Forest Management Planning

Plan Assessment and Implementation

System Support

Monitoring

Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability

Contractual Obligations

MNR categorized most of the IFA procedures based on complexity and their potential impact on forest

sustainability. The IFAPP directs the audit team to assess through sampling, per audit principle and

associated criteria, the three categories of procedures as follows:

Administrative procedures – low risk: 20-30% of low risk procedures to be assessed

Administrative but also having a bearing on sustainable forest management – medium risk: 50-75% of medium risk procedures to be assessed

Procedures directly related to sustainable forest management – high risk: 100% of high risk

procedures to be assessed

Table 7 summarizes the number of procedures selected by the audit team for audit based on the

direction provided by the IFAPP.



Table 7. IFA Procedures Selected by the Audit Team

Procedures Audited, by Risk Category

Principle

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Comments

Ap

pli

ca

ble

(#

)

Se

lecte

d (

#)

% A

ud

ite

d

Ap

pli

ca

ble

(#

)

Se

lecte

d (

#)

% A

ud

ite

d

Au

dit

ed

(#

)

(10

0%

Au

dit

ed

)

1. Commitment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Principle 1 not audited because Forest is certified to FSC Standard

2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

0 0 0 6 3 50 2 2.1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 not selected

3. Forest Management Planning

5 2 40 12 6 50 37 3.1.2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.3, 3.5.1.3, 3.6.1.1, 3.10.3.2 not selected

4. Plan Assessment & Implementation

1 1 100 1 1 100 9

5. System Support 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 Procedure 5.1.1 not audited because Forest is certified to FSC Standard

6. Monitoring 0 0 0 7 4 57 11 6.2.1.3, 6.4.2, 6.4.3 not selected

7. Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability

0 0 0 2 1 50 13 7.1.8 not selected

8. Contractual Obligations 0 0 0 4 3 75 8 8.1.9.1 not selected

Totals 6 3 50 33 19 58 80

The audit process for the French-Severn Forest IFA consisted of seven components:

1. Audit Plan: KBM prepared an audit plan that described the schedule of audit activities, audit

team members and their qualifications, audit participants, and auditing methods. The audit plan was submitted to MNR, the Forestry Futures Trust Committee (FFTC), and the Chair of the

French-Severn’s LCC.

2. Public Consultation: Through individual letters mailed in August, 2011, KBM advised a sample of

MNR’s FMP mailing list that an audit would be taking place and invited their input. Newspaper ads were published in two area newspapers prior to the pre-audit meeting advising the public of

the upcoming audit: the Huntsville Forester, the Amalguin News and the Beacon Star. As per the

requirements of the IFAPP, the notices identified the purpose of the audit and invited the public to submit comments to the LCC Chair or directly to KBM.

KBM also prepared a one-page survey to solicit public input to the audit process. The survey, in addition to a general letter informing contacts of the audit, was mailed to all businesses and



organizations, and a representative sample of one-third of the individuals listed in the Forest

Management Plan (FMP) mailing list (as provided by MNR Parry Sound District). This list includes tourist operators, private land owners, trappers, baitfish licence holders, bear management area

holders, local municipalities and government agencies, independent loggers, logging contractors, shareholders and other special interest groups. The survey was also available to the general

public on the KBM website (www.kbmrg.on.ca).

3. Aboriginal Engagement: MNR Parry Sound District provided KBM with contact information for each Aboriginal community within or adjacent to the French-Severn Forest, and/or who

participate in activities on the Forest. A letter was sent out to each of the Aboriginal communities on the contact list inviting them to participate in the IFA of the French-Severn Forest. The letter

asked for their input and encouraged them to contact KBM if they wish to participate in the audit or if they require more information before making a decision. KBM also offered to arrange in-

person meetings with each of these Aboriginal communities.

4. Field Site Selection: The audit team conducted a preliminary site selection prior to the opening meeting. Annual Work Schedules and Annual Reports were used to ascertain the amount and

type of forest operations carried out on the Forest during the audit period. A stratified random sample of sites was then selected to ensure that selected sites were representative of a cross

section of all activities conducted on the Forest during the audit period. The site selection also

considered public input derived from the above procedures to focus on specific areas of interest. The auditees were informed of the site selection for the field visit.

5. Pre-audit Document Review: Prior to the five-day site visit, the audit team reviewed documents provided by MNR, including the:

a. 2004-2024 and 2009-2019 FMPs for the French-Severn Forest;

b. Annual Work Schedules and Annual Reports associated with the above FMPs;

c. French-Severn Forest Independent Forest Audit 2001-2006 Report;

d. French-Severn Forest 2001-2006 Independent Forest Audit Action Plan and the French-Severn Forest 2001-2006 Independent Forest Audit Action Plan Status Report.

The audit team also developed a questionnaire that was circulated to planning team members prior to the on-site audit to assess their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of specific

components of forest management on the French-Severn Forest. The results of the survey

provided additional focus to IFAPP prescribed interview procedures that occurred on site.

On-Site Audit: The objectives of the field site visits were to confirm that activities were conducted

according to plan, that they conformed with provincial laws, regulations, and guidelines, and that they were effective. The site visit began on September 19th. Three days were spent in the field with the

remainder spent reviewing documents and conducting interviews.

Table 8 presents the actual sampling intensity for each forestry activity examined on the ground as part of the field site visits.

The closing meeting was held in Parry Sound on September 26th, 2011. The meeting provided a forum for the audit team to present and discuss preliminary audit findings with Westwind and MNR staff.



Table 8. Audit Sampling Intensity for the French-Severn Forest

French-Severn Forest

Activity

Total Area or

Number (2006-

2011)

Sample Area

Sample Size

(%)

Harvest clearcut (ha) 390 82 21.0

Harvest selection (ha) 10,979 1,153 10.5

Harvest shelterwood (ha) 8,997 961 10.7

Site Preparation mechanical (ha) 63 0 0

Site Preparation chemical (ha) 541 83 15.3

Plant (ha) 567 83 14.6

Tend chemical (ha) 429 77 17.9

Free-to-Grow (ha) 1,998 263 13.2

Area of Concern Categories (#) Minimum 10% sample achieved.

Road Construction (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved.

Road Maintenance (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved.

Specified Procedures Review (ha) 2,690 316 11.7

6. Audit Report: The audit results are presented in this report following a brief description of the audit process and the forest licence area under review. Within the report, the audit team has

made recommendations to address instances of a non-conformance to a law and/or policy, or an identified lack of effectiveness in forest management activities.

Recommendations from this audit must be addressed in an action plan developed by Westwind and MNR Parry Sound District, with input and review by MNR Regional and Forest Management

Branch representatives. MNR Forests Branch will develop an action plan to address the

recommendation applicable to Corporate MNR.

Suggestions are no longer highlighted in audit reports, nor will they be addressed in action plans.

Any suggestions of the audit team have been incorporated within the regular text of this report.

Public Response

Twelve comments were received by the audit team from members of the public responding to a mail-out

from KBM. Most responds were interested in recreational use of the forest or conservation. Issues raised included concerns over wood utilization and impacts of forest management on wildlife and other values.

IFAPP procedure 2.2.1 (Public consultation process) was not selected for audit due to sampling.

Local Citizens Committee

Letters were mailed to 100% of current members of the LCC to notify them of the audit and invite their

input. No responses were received. The audit team also offered to meet with the LCC. A meeting was scheduled but cancelled due to low planned attendance by members. An LCC member attended a

portion of the field audit and spoke to the auditors there. IFAPP procedure 2.1.2.1 (LCC purpose and activities) was not selected for audit due to sampling and therefore no LCC members were interviewed,

beyond the member who participated in the field audit.



Aboriginal Communities

Letters were sent to the seven Aboriginal communities recognized by MNR to be in or adjacent to the forest management area, inviting them to participate in the audit. The letter explained that their input is

welcomed and encouraged them to contact KBM if they wished to participate in the audit or if they required more information before making a decision. The week prior to the site visit the MNR-

Resources Liaison Officer was consulted and asked to advise the best options for consultation. Attempts

were made to contact each community by telephone the week prior to the site visit to arrange a time for the auditor to meet community representatives in person.

In-person discussions were held with representatives of Dokis First Nation, Henvey Inlet First Nation, Magnetawan First Nation, and Wasuksing First Nation. Wahta Mohawks elected to not have an in person

interview however they were provided with interview questions and were encouraged to offer feedback. Contact was made with the Chief of Shawanaga First Nation however his schedule prevented him from

attending an in-person interview. MNR provided the name of a consultant as a contact for the

Algonquins of Ontario. Contact was never made with the consultant for the Algonquins of Ontario or Moose Deer Point despite attempts before, during and after the site visit. The auditor contacted the

Algonquins of Ontario directly after the first draft of the audit report was reviewed; however, they declined to comment given the short timeframe.

Overlapping Licensees, Contractors and Commitment Holders

All businesses listed in the FMP mailing list provided by the Parry Sound MNR were sent the one-page KBM survey and letter soliciting input to the audit. Commitment holders were sent a separate

questionnaire and one response was received in which no issues were raised.

SFL Holder

Planning and operations staff of Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. participated in all aspects of the audit including provision of documentation, attendance at meetings, participation during interviews and as

guides during the field audit. The audit team appreciates the support provided by Westwind staff during

the audit.

Ministry of Natural Resources

MNR District staff participated in all aspects of the audit. Interviews were held with the District Manager, Area Supervisors, Area Forester, Biologists, Technicians and other support staff. MNR District personnel

and a Regional representative also accompanied the audit team in the field.

Forestry Futures Trust Fund Committee

A representative from the Forestry Futures Trust Committee participated in the opening meeting and

during two field days.



APPENDIX 5 – LIST OF ACRONYMS

AHA Available Harvest Area

AOC Area of Concern

AR Annual Report

AWS Annual Work Schedule

CFSA Crown Forest Sustainability Act

CSA Canadian Standards Association

eFRI enhanced Forest Resource Inventory

FFTC Forestry Futures Trust Committee

FFTF Forestry Futures Trust Fund

FIM Forest Information Manual

FMP Forest Management Plan

FMPM Forest Management Planning Manual

FOIP Forest Operations Information Program

FOIR Forest Operations Inspections Report

FOP Forest Operations Prescription

FRI Forest Resource Inventory

FRL Forest Resources Licence

FRT Forest Renewal Trust

FTG Free-To-Grow

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

GIS Geographic Information System

HDSEL Hardwood Selection forest unit

HDSELBB Hardwood Selection Bracebridge forest unit

HDSELGB Hardwood Selection Georgian Bay forest unit

HDUS Hardwood Uniform Shelterwood forest unit

IFA Independent Forest Audit

IFAPP Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol

KBM KBM Forestry Consultants Inc.

LCC Local Citizens Committee

LTMD Long Term Management Direction

MAFA Moose Aquatic Feeding Area

MNR Ministry of Natural Resources

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NDPEG Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guidelines

NRVIS Natural Resource Values Information System



NSR Not Sufficiently or Satisfactorily Restocked or Regenerated

PWUS White Pine Uniform Shelterwood forest unit

RPF Registered Professional Forester

SEM Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring

SEMMO Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario

SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative

SFL Sustainable Forest Licence

SFMM Strategic Forest Management Model

SGR Silviculture Ground Rule

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SPA Special Purposes Account

STARS Silviculture Treatment, Assessment and Reporting System

TOR Terms of Reference



APPENDIX 6 – AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Name/Role Responsibilities Credentials

Rod Seabrook

Lead Auditor

Wildlife & Ecology

Access

Overall audit coordination and oversight of activities of the audit team.

Assess aspects related to wildlife, ecology and access

Lead the assessment of achievement of management objectives, forest sustainability and contractual obligations

M.Sc. Biology; EP(EMSLA); 31 years forestry experience in Ontario; principal area of practice is forest management and environmental auditing; eleven years of auditing experience; participated in over 20 Independent Forest Audits for the Province of Ontario. IFA experience covers all Crown managed forest types in Ontario; conducts sustainable forest management audits under the various recognized sustainable forest management standards

Laird Van Damme

Harvesting

Planning

Compliance

Assess planning and harvest operations; and compliance; assist in assessment of achievement of management objectives and forest sustainability and contractual obligations.

R.P.F., M.Sc.F.; 26 years experience as a practising forester, educator and consultant; primary areas of practice are silviculture, forest management and forest research; completed ISO 14001 EMS Lead Auditor training; worked on 18 previous IFAs as either Lead, Harvest or Planning Auditor.

Peter Hynard

Silviculture

Assess silviculture planning and operations; assist in assessment of achievement of management objectives and forest sustainability and contractual obligations.

R.P.F., Consulting forester since 2006; Previously worked as a forester with MNR. Provincial Coordinator for the Crown Land Roads and Water Crossings Initiative as well as Project Manager for the Northeast/ Southcentral Hardwood Project.

Keith Hautala

Modeling

Review SFMM strategic planning. M.Sc.F.; 12 years of forestry experience in Ontario; Modeling Auditor on 11 previous IFAs; Secretariat on three previous IFAs.

Jennifer Keith

Aboriginal Consultation Supplementary Team Member

Under the guidance of the Lead Auditor, review Aboriginal involvement in forest management planning and compliance with contractual obligations related to Aboriginal opportunities

M.A.; An independent consultant and a PhD candidate with the Indigenous Governance Program at the University of Winnipeg.

Ian Dunn

Secretariat

Assist with audit logistics and undertake certain low or medium risk audit procedures including aspects of public consultation

M.F.C.; Involved in forest management planning projects for KBM.

independent forest audit - french-severn forest · audit team members and their qualifications are...

Documents