TEMAGAMI MANAGEMENT UNIT Independent Forest Audit 2006 - 2011 Final Report October31,2011

fOftlSTRY CONSULTANTS INC.

© Queens Printer for Ontario, 2011 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary ...... 4 2.0 Table of Recommendations ...... 5 3.0 Introduction ...... 6 3.1 Audit Process ...... 6 3.2 Management Unit Description ...... 6 3.3 Current Issues ...... 8 3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit ...... 8 4.0 Audit Findings ...... 9 4.1 Commitment ...... 9 4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement ...... 9 4.3 Forest Management Planning ...... 10 Forest Management Plan ...... 10 4.4 Plan Assessment and Implementation ...... 12 Areas of Concern ...... 12 Harvest ...... 12 Silviculture ...... 13 Access ...... 15 4.5 System Support ...... 17 4.6 Monitoring ...... 17 Compliance ...... 17 Silviculture ...... 17 Annual Reports ...... 18 4.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Sustainability ...... 18 Achievement of Management Objectives ...... 18 Forest Sustainability ...... 18 4.8 Contractual Obligations ...... 19 4.9 Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation ...... 19 Licence Extension Recommendation ...... 19 Appendix 1 – Recommendations ...... 20 Appendix 2 – Management Objectives Tables ...... 27 Appendix 3 – Compliance with Contractual Obligations ...... 30 Appendix 4 – Audit Process ...... 31 Appendix 5 – List of Acronyms ...... 36 Appendix 6 – Audit Team Members and Qualifications ...... 38

KBM Forestry Consultants 2 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of the status of the 2004 FMP Objectives ...... 27 Table 2. Procedures selected by the audit team...... 32 Table 3. Audit sampling intensity for the Temagami Management Unit...... 34

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of the TMU in central Ontario (Provided by MNR)...... 7 Figure 2. Burning and mortality of white pine by glyphosate herbicide application...... 15 Figure 3. An example of excellent water crossing construction that is consistent with the Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings yet does not meet the specific AWS condition...... 16 Figure 4. Access control measures in place on the Temagami TMU include the use of gates...... 16

KBM Forestry Consultants 3 Addendum: Temagami Management Unit Independent Forest Audit

On page 34 of the Final Report the actual percentage was incorrectly presented in Table 3 as a percentage of minimum sampling. Corrected Table 3 provided below.

Table 3. Audit sampling intensity for the Temagami Management Unit.

Proposed Actual Population Size Actual Activity or Feature Sample Size Sample Size (2006-2011) (ha) Percentage (ha) Harvest - Clearcut 7384 1950 1950 26 Harvest - Shelterwood 798 241 241 30 Site Preparation - Chemical 235 72 72 31 Site Preparation - Mechanical 560 61 611 11 Plant 2152 379 379 18 Tending – Chemical 1584 231 231 15 Tending – Manual 540 86 86 16 Free-to-Grow 3840 435 435 11 Pre-Commercial Thinning 148 21 21 14 Area of Concern Categories (#) Minimum 10% sample achieved. Road Construction (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved. Road Maintenance (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved.

1 Two additional sites featuring mechanical site preparation were viewed by the lead auditor and the MNR forester on September 15/2011to address some issues that had been raised in the draft report over mechanical site preparation. These issues were resolved. Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Temagami Management Unit (TMU) is located entirely within the North Bay District, in the Northeast Region of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). The TMU is unique in Ontario in that it is administered and managed as a Crown Management Unit by the MNR North Bay District (Temagami Area). The TMU features large stands of majestic pines, beautiful landscapes and waterways. These biophysical features are combined with a long history of competing uses and values which has created a challenging and complex forest management environment. This report documents the results of an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) for the TMU 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 for the 2009-2019 FMP as well as its implementation for the first two year period of its term. The audit included a review of all documents and records associated with forest management of the Temagami Management Unit during the audit term. Input from the public was solicited through an online survey, advertisements in newspapers and a direct mailing of a short survey to all businesses, organizations and a representative sample of individuals listed in the FMP mailing list (as provided by MNR North Bay District). The audit team also conducted surveys and interviews with persons and groups involved with or impacted by forest management on the Forest during a one week site visit. The audit team examined a number of randomly selected sites and sites identified by the Local Citizens Committee (LCC) as having specific issues, using a helicopter and vehicles for access. All of these procedures are consistent with the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP 2011). Considering the evidence collected using the above procedures, the audit team found the TMU to be well managed. Six recommendations were made to improve the following aspects: • Annual Work Schedules ( Recommendation #1), • Forest harvest operations and slash management (Recommendations #2&3), • Tending methods to enhance the regeneration of white pine (Recommendation #4), • Silvicultural monitoring and reporting ( Recommendation#5) and • Aboriginal consultation ( Recommendation #6) The audit team concludes that management of the TMU was generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and the TMU was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Crown Management Unit. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. Unlike most forest management units in Ontario, there is no licence to extend on the TMU. The audit team suggests that the MNR consider continuing the operation of TMU by the Crown as a benchmark to measure against new forms of tenure and pricing models being considered for implementation on other forest management units across the province

Laird Van Damme, R.P.F. Lead auditor on behalf of the audit team

KBM Forestry Consultants 4 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

2.0 TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation on Licence Extension

The audit team concludes that management of the Temagami Crown Management Unit was generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and the MNR met its legal obligation. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol.

Recommendations Directed to District MNR

Recommendation #1: District MNR staff should review the AWS and any associated documents to ensure that mandatory conditions included in the AWS focus on the desired operational results rather than dictate how to achieve them. Recommendation #2: District MNR should review blocks harvested during the first two years of the 2009-2019 plan (2009/2010 & 2010/2011) to determine if all of the merchantable volume was harvested. Where all of the available volume was not harvested, and where it is practical to do so, MNR should require the licensee to complete the harvest utilizing all merchantable material. MNR must also ensure that all standing merchantable material eligible for harvest is utilized on future harvest blocks. Recommendation #3: District MNR should review its slash management program to further improve the existing program.

Recommendation #4: MNR should review its tending program to improve white pine regeneration.

Recommendation #5: MNR should review its FTG aerial survey program, silvicultural record keeping methods and reporting methods to improve consistency and veracity.

Recommendations Directed to Corporate MNR

Recommendation #6: Corporate MNR should advise District MNR on whether or not Timiskaming First Nation of Quebec should be invited as a full participant in the forest management planning process.

KBM Forestry Consultants 5 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

3.0 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 TMU for the five-year period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2011. The audit assessed the implementation of the 2004-2024 Forest Management Plan (FMP) for the period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2009 as well as the planning 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 June 20 to June 24 inclusive with document examination and interviews taking place prior, during, and subsequent to this period. IFAs are guided by a set of 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. A review 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 Temagami Management Unit (TMU) is one of 43 management units of Crown forest land in Ontario. It is one of four forest management units that is directly managed by the Crown through the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). TMU is unique in Ontario in that has been continuously managed as a Crown Unit prior to and since the Crown Forest Sustainability Act was passed in 1994. The rest of the forest management units in Ontario are managed by third parties under Sustainable Forest Licences. TMU is centred on the village of Temagami, which is approximately 100 kilometres north of the city of North Bay (Figure 1). To the north lies the Timiskaming Forest. The Sudbury and Nipissing Forests are located to the west and south respectively. Lake Timiskaming and the province of Quebec are located to the east. Municipalities located within the management unit include Temagami, Temiskaming Shores, Latchford, Cobalt, Harris, Hudson and Coleman. The Ontario Northland rail line and Highway 11, lying parallel in a north-south direction, provide major access to the unit. Highway 64 at Marten River and the Baie-Jeanne Road, which are south of the TMU, provide some access to its southern end. Access to the south-western end is provided by Highway 805 at River Valley Provincial highways 567, 558, and 65, one major railroad line and numerous municipal and forest access roadsprovide excellent access to the north-eastern portion of the unit. There are also many forest access roads throughout the unit. Lake Temagami provides excellent water access for recreational purposes.

KBM Forestry Consultants 6 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Figure 1. Map of the TMU in central Ontario (Provided by MNR).

The unique characteristics of the TMU are a result of its geographic location at the northern boundary of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and the southern boundary of the Boreal mixed wood forest regions of Ontario. The TMU extends over an area of 630,000 hectares. Ninety-two percent (92%) or 583,104 hectares of the MU is Crown land (including water); however, only 274,889 hectares (47%) of the Crown productive forest is available for forest management purposes. The remaining 53% consists of regulated provincial parks, conservation reserves or other ‘no forestry’ land use zones and ‘no-cut’ reserves of areas of concern. The TMU includes seven regulated provincial parks and 15 conservation reserves. Commercial camps in the unit are generally located on the islands of Lake Temagami, and along the Highway 11 corridor. There are also a few scattered, remote cottages and commercial sites throughout the unit. There is a considerable amount of leased and staked mining land. Several mines were active in the last 50 years but none are operating at this time. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has acquired flooding rights on Lady Evelyn Lake, Fourbass Lake, Lake Timiskaming, Bay Lake and other portions of the Montreal River, but has not seriously affected forest management adjacent to these areas in the recent past. OPG also has certain rights to the land along its transmission lines. The TMU is the homeland of the Temagami First Nation and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai and lies partially within the area of interest of the Matachewan First Nation. The Temagami First Nation homeland is known as the N’Daki Menan. It is approximately 10,000 square kilometres in size and is bordered by the Marten River in the south, Elk Lake to the north, the Montreal River in the east, and the Sturgeon River to the west. Research has confirmed the presence of the Temagami First Nation (TFN) on N’Daki Menan lands for at least 6,000 years and the forests have met the material, cultural, and spiritual needs of the N’Daki Menan people. Since February, 1999, the TFN has held an allocation of 2% of the available wood fibre on the TMU. The Matachewan First Nation is situated at the northern extent of the TMU. Traditionally the Matachewan First Nation occupied areas of the TMU and has used this forest for its traditional harvests of medicines, building materials, food and other cultural uses. A number of mills receive wood fibre from the TMU, but none of them are entirely dependent on the unit for their timber supplies. Mills which receive fibre from the TMU include the GP North Woods LP

KBM Forestry Consultants 7 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

(composite board) in Englehart, EACOM (sawmill) in Elk Lake, Goulard Lumber (sawmill) in Sturgeon Falls, Abitibi Bowater (paper) in Iroquois Falls, Domtar (pulp) in Espanola, Cheminis Lumber (sawmill) in Larder Lake and Tembec (sawmill) in Bearne QC. Smaller volumes are typically shipped to South Wabi (sawmill) in Haileybury, Leis Wood Products (shavings) in Cobalt, True North Hardwood Plywood (veneer) in Hearst, Temagami Cedar (sawmill) by Lake Temagami, Northern Pressure Treated Wood (poles) in Kirkland Lake and Portelance Lumber (sawmill) in Capreol.

3.3 Current Issues

In order to identify High Priority Aspects and current forest management issues on the TMU for inclusion in the Audit Plan, discussions were held with representatives of MNR and the public prior to the on-site portion of the audit. The following issues were identified by MNR: 1. Highly variable harvest rates over the past two decades. 2. Inaccuracies in the FRI (and delays in receiving new eFRI). The TMU is a highly valued recreational landscape and has a long history of public concern, especially for the majestic red and white pine forests (old growth). The many clear lakes (Temagami meaning deep waters) and dramatic cliffs create a beautiful landscape that is used extensively by canoe and outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds. These factors create a social landscape that is as complex as the north/south transitioning forest landscape between the Boreal and Great Lakes St. Lawrence Forest Regions. Not surprisingly, this forest has been the subject of much social controversy over the last many decades. Although the MNR identified high priority aspects that are technical in nature, the issues identified by the public were of two types and as follows: 1) site specific, linked to specific forest management practices, and 2) landscape level, based on certain land-use values. The former was addressed by examining specific sites to ensure the protection of values like viewscapes and nature trails were accounted for by properly planning, marking and following prescriptions for areas of concern (AOCs) identified in the plan. The land use issues are reviewed in section 4.3 of this audit report (Forest Management Planning) and address such questions as consistency with the Temagami Land Use plan, reduced road densities and guidelines related to Natural patterns.

3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit

KBM used several different strategies for engaging input to the audit process. Letters were mailed to numerous stakeholders advising of the audit and included a one-page survey. The survey was also available to the general public on the KBM website (www.kbmrg.on.ca). Newspaper ads were published in three area newspapers (The North Bay Nugget, Temiskaming Speaker, and Northern News) prior to the pre-audit meeting advising the public of the upcoming audit, identifying the purpose of the audit and inviting the public to submit comments to the Local Citizens Committee (LCC) Chair or directly to KBM. Letters were sent to the three Aboriginal communities on the contact list, inviting them to participate in the IFA for the TMU. The letter explained that their input is welcomed and encouraged them to contact KBM if they wish to participate in the audit or if they require more information before making a decision. During the audit team’s site visit, a fourth Aboriginal community adjacent to the forest was identified by MNR. The MNR Resources Liaison Specialist facilitated contact with the Aboriginal communities. Phone calls were made to community representatives and in-person interviews were conducted. KBM developed a questionnaire that was circulated to planning team members to assess their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the planning process. The results of the survey provided additional focus to the IFAPP prescribed interview procedures. A more detailed description of consultation and input to the audit is included in Appendix 4.

KBM Forestry Consultants 8 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

4.0 AUDIT FINDINGS

4.1 Commitment

The Province has documented its commitment to sustainable forestry principally through the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA). MNR, in turn, has documented policies and other guidance that establish its commitment to sustainable forestry and resource management, consistent with the requirements of the Act. These are communicated throughout MNR and are promoted with resource users and the general public. MNR maintains a public website where these commitments are available: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_163861.html. In its role as forest manager for the TMU, MNR demonstrated understanding of and commitment to implementing all required legislation and policy of the Ministry related to forest management. The TMU is one of a few Crown Forests remaining in Ontario. Despite the fact that the future of this unit has been uncertain for many years as regards tenure arrangements, MNR operational and planning staff continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to the principles and practices of sound forest management.

4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement

The MNR met commitments to public consultation as described in the FMPM (2004). A key aspect of public consultation is the establishment and maintenance of a Local Citizen’s Committee (LCC). LCC members were quick to give credit to the MNR in managing consultation processes and members are clearly aware of the social complexity of the TMU. Local residents as well as urban stakeholders from outside the Temagami area both have legitimate interests in the TMU but may not share the same view on the importance of different forest values . MNR staff directly engaged Environmental Non- Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) associated with the latter group. It may be worthwhile for MNR to consider the value in establishing an additional public consultation committee in developing the next management plan that deals with representation by groups with an interest in Temagami that are not necessarily local. This has been successful in other jurisdictions. At various times, joint committee meetings could be conducted to help reduce polarity among the geographically distinct groups. Interviews and meetings with LCC members revealed a great deal of pride in their contributions to the forest management process and there is evidence that their experience and capacity to contribute to planning has improved over the years. MNR staff surveys conducted by KBM reported some concerns regarding LCC function, specifically regarding the challenges with respect to consensus-based decision making and a representation by members of their constituent interests rather than personal views. The audit team agrees that this is a problem but training and engagement is already underway. These actions should be continued to elicit more productive input. There are four Aboriginal Communities in or adjacent to the TMU; Temagami First Nation (TFN), Teme- Augama Anishnabai (TAA), Matachewan First Nation (MFN) and Timiskaming First Nation located nearby in the province of Quebec (TFN-PQ). TFN & TAA have a joint council with overlapping and closely related membership. TFN has a greater involvement in forest management and forest management planning with a staff member dedicated to forestry endeavours. All requirements pertaining to notices to Aboriginal communities during planning for the FMP were met. The Aboriginal representatives interviewed did not express any issues with the FMP and were satisfied that their values were being protected. In-person discussions were held with members of TFN, TFN-PQ and MFN. No representative from TAA was available for an in-person interview. The representative from TFN felt the relationship was good with MNR and had improved considerably over the years. The representatives with TFN-PQ acknowledged that MNR had initiated communications and was keeping them informed; however the community wishes to have full involvement going forward.

KBM Forestry Consultants 9 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

The representative from TFN identified the recent economic downturn as a reason for limited economic opportunities. With the strengthening of the economy the TFN representative expressed a desire for greater participation in silviculture. The First Nation will also be pursuing partnerships to strengthen its ability to benefit from economic opportunities. Given the location of MFN, opportunities to participate in economic benefits were limited. The representative from MFN wanted to explore other non-traditional options so the community can receive economic benefit from forest management. The FMPM (2004) directs that all Aboriginal communities in and adjacent to the management unit, whose interests of traditional use may be affected by forest management activities, will be invited to be involved and have their interests considered in forest management planning. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 defines Aboriginal as Indian, Inuit and Metis people of Canada. MNR should consider engaging the Metis Nation of Ontario and the Metis Nation of Quebec to determine if they have historically occupied or used lands and resources within the management area and if they wish to participate or be informed of forest management planning activities. Timiskaming First Nation (TFN-PQ), located in Quebec, was not on the initial contact list provided by MNR. However, in discussions with the District Manager and the Resource Liaison Officer, it was acknowledged that they were adjacent to the forest and a dialogue had started. There are several first Nation communities along Ontario’s borders with treaty rights and other relationships with the Federal Government that may have legitimate interests in forest management in Ontario. A coordinated approach and advice from Corporate MNR may be helpful in advancing the MNR Districts dialogue with TFN-PQ (see Appendix 1; Recommendation #6). Consultation is an important aspect of managing public lands in Ontario but it does not guarantee satisfaction with forest management decisions. Members of the LCC and the general public used the formal issue resolution process on nine occasions and the process was completed according to the FMPM requirements. To many participants, the issues may yet remain unresolved and may never be resolved to everyone’s complete satisfaction. The 2004-2024 FMP had one Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) bump-up request. The 2009-2019 FMP had four requests for IEAs but these requests were denied by the Ministry of the Environment. The IEAs, issue resolution requests and the lack of full LCC endorsement of the 2009-2019 FMP speak to a level of dissatisfaction among some members of the public about the management of the TMU. The representative from MFN indicated that MNR may be meeting all the FMPM requirements; however, it was felt that the regulations are inadequate, treating First Nations like a stakeholder and not acknowledging their occupation and special interest in the territory. A recurring theme with all First Nations was that 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 from forest management. This situations described above are commonly associated with public land management. The audit team’s consideration of the evidence is that the process developed and followed by MNR allows for a hearing of issues and reveals decisions related to those issues in a manner that has full public disclosure. Given the nature of the complex forest and social environment in Temagami, it might be that a transparent process that recognizes the need for compromise by all parties is the best outcome that can be achieved under these challenging circumstances.

4.3 Forest Management Planning

Forest Management Plan

Planning Team

KBM Forestry Consultants 10 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

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 Forest Management Planning Manual. The document is thorough and well written, with few required alterations. The Terms of Reference was particularly well constructed and the timelines were used as a key project management tool tracking planned versus actual milestones. This simple yet effective project management method should become standard practice in developing management plans in Ontario. The foundation of any forest management plan is the forest resources inventory (FRI). The MNR identified inaccuracies in the FRI as a high priority aspect. The last inventory was completed based upon interpretation of 1989 aerial photography. However, the inventory has been updated for disturbances and a new enhanced forest inventory based upon high resolution multi-spectral aerial imagery acquired in 2009 is scheduled for completion in 2016, allowing sufficient time for developing the 2019 FMP. The long lag time from image acquisition to interpretation (7 years) is an issue about which corporate MNR and the FRI branch are well aware. For this reason, the audit team is reluctant to make recommendations to Corporate MNR at this point. Despite these administrative concerns, the new inventory should be adequate for planning purposes and will be an improvement over past inventories. Several species at risk are discussed in the Temagami FMP; specifically: bald eagle, peregrine falcon, wood turtle and southern flying squirrel. Area of Concern (AOC) prescriptions are documented for bald eagle, peregrine falcon and the wood turtle. If field staff encounters any of these species at risk, they are directed to avoid disturbing them or their habitat. Zero tolerance targets have been set for compliance infractions to emphasize the importance of protecting these species. Southern flying squirrel is found on the TMU: it is currently experiencing a northward-range extension. This species prefers large-diameter hardwood for nesting and mast producing trees such as oak and beech for feeding. These types of trees are rare in the forest, management of these trees is adapted to help prevent the destruction of the southern flying squirrel’s habitat. The Temagami MU FMP meets the requirements of the new Endangered Species Act (ESA) that was passed in 2007, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Many of the landscape and forest value based issues brought to the attention of the audit team by the public related to conserving old growth and the connectivity of various habitat types. These have been addressed in the 2009-2019 FMP by applying the appropriate guidelines and by recognizing higher level land use plans (e.g. Temagami Land Use Plan, 1997; Temagami Integrated Planning Process, 2004). These landscape concerns remain important issues in the TMU but the land use plans and the FMP alignment with these plans appears to be addressing these issues to a significant degree.

Model Development and Application Leading to Long Term Management Direction The determination of sustainability and setting the long term management direction is an iterative process of public engagement and analyses using decision-support models (e.g. Strategic Forest Management Modelling (SFMM)). The Planning team invested considerable time and effort in calibrating the models, applying them and interpreting outputs. Plan text and tables provided a consistent and accurate description of model inputs/outputs following a recommendation from the previous IFA. Plan text and associated documents (e.g. analysis package) accurately described the model assumptions and results from iterative cycles of analysis. The result is a very thorough documentation of scoping analysis and investigation of individual objectives leading to the Long-term Management Direction for the forest as defined in the Planning Manual.

Operational Planning

KBM Forestry Consultants 11 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Harvest area selection criteria were well documented and designed to help address challenges of low harvest utilization on the management unit. They provided for continuity of harvest blocks, utilized existing access, and improved block size. These measures helped mitigate the negative effects of depressed markets and low timber prices. The Plan Author and other MNR staff made direct efforts to improve harvest utilization levels. Industry was consulted and had direct input to selection of harvest blocks. Allocations to individual companies were improved to provide for a better mix of species/products associated with their core business.

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. There is a very comprehensive set of mandatory conditions contained in each AWS (AWS Appendix B). Some of these were considered overly prescriptive, stipulating the “how” rather than the “standard” that must be met. This overly prescriptive approach is at odds with a tendency to rely more on professional judgement in the compliance program. For example, the audit team found two stream crossings that were built in ways that improved stream protection but would have failed to meet the specifications in Appendix B of the AWS (Appendix 1: Recommendation #1). The District MNR had a very effective/efficient process in place to process revisions; most were completed in less than a week, some within days of submission. Of course, the Temagami Management Unit is in the unique position where the planner and regulator are overseen by one in the same agency. Although this is clearly efficient, concerns about the level of oversight from an objective regulator could be raised. These potential concerns are not an issue at this point in time, given the unique circumstances surrounding the TMU, and the high level of professionalism of the MNR staff observed by the audit team.

4.4 Plan Assessment and Implementation

Areas of Concern

Areas of concern (AOC) are identified during the planning process to protect specific values such as moose aquatic feeding areas, riparian zones or features that have or potentially have cultural heritage significance. AOCs have specific prescriptions depending upon the value of interest. AOCs are clearly marked on operational planning maps and on the ground by using paint or ribbons. All AOCs examined by the audit team were consistent with the FMPM and appear to be effective in protecting the values identified in the plan and concerns raised by the public to the attention of the audit team.

Harvest

The District MNR has prepared a District Wood Disposition Strategy (DWDS) for the TMU. Seven companies currently have harvest rights under individual Forest Resource Licences. The DWDS provides direction for assigning the Allowable Harvest Allocation (AHA) to TMU Resource Licensees and determining management fees (fees the Crown charges licensees to manage the Crown Management Unit). All of the AHA is directly licenced or committed in the FMP to the eight licensees. All licensees are expected to maximize the harvest of their allocation. Management fees are based on harvest rights, which are paid whether a licensee cuts their harvest share or not. This provides incentive for individual licensees to utilize their harvest share.

KBM Forestry Consultants 12 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Harvest utilization levels have improved dramatically in the first two years of the 2009-2019 plan (2009- 2010 & 2010-2011). District staff has generally done an excellent job at engaging local industry both in plan development and implementation. This has been a major factor in the increased harvest levels. The audit team commends the MNR district staff for their efforts. The audit team also suggests that the district document a process to review harvest utilization levels after year 3 of the 2009-2019 plan, and explore mechanisms for reallocation of areas unlikely to be harvested within the term of the plan. This should include: • consultation with each licensee; • analysis of harvest utilization levels, focusing on companies that have utilized less than 45% of their allocation after three years; • encourage licensees that are not expected to utilize their allocation to work out business-to- business arrangements for harvest utilization with other licensees or those with wood supply commitments on the management unit (this may include proportionate transfer of management fees); and, • for areas that are not licenced, consider business arrangements with existing licensees, new wood commitment holders, and potentially open market sales. Harvest blocks were approved and laid out in a manner consistent with the FMP/AWS. Site damage was minimal to non-existent. Utilization of harvested material was excellent; very minimal amounts of unutilized wood were observed by air or ground. Residual trees and forest patches within harvested areas met or exceeded the planned targets (as per the provincial Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guidelines (NDPEG)).

The audit team did observe a trend on more than 50% of the harvest blocks sampled that:

• not all of the allocated area on the block was harvested or • individual or groups of standing merchantable trees were left that exceeded planned targets (i.e. by-pass). Discussions with district staff confirmed that there may be situations where this was occurring due to the following: • overachievement of planned residual tree/forest patch retention (as per NDPEG) and viewscape requirements by operators who would rather leave “too much” rather than “not enough”; and, • reluctance of licensees to harvest species/product not part of their core business – these may be due to economics, markets, production issues, terrain. Notwithstanding the above circumstances, these by-passed areas of standing timber deserve further review to determine if additional harvesting is warranted where practical and/or compliance monitoring is required (Appendix 1; Recommendation #2). There is a slash management program in place that ensures long term site productivity, improves aesthetics and reduces fire risk. Slash from harvesting operations is piled and then burned. Many sites had some piles that were not burned or were partially burned. The slash management program has been improved over conditions identified by previous IFAs and the program is better than average in the region. The program would benefit from further efforts to completely burn the piles (Appendix 1; Recommendation #3). Silviculture

The silviculture (forest regeneration) program was relatively small because of the low harvest levels early in the audit term. The associated harvest-dependent funding in the special purposes account was also low for a two-year period. This account is used to fund forest renewal projects.

KBM Forestry Consultants 13 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

The silviculture and tending work that was completed during the audit term was well executed and featured some novel practices such as mid-rotation, non-commercial thinning. The basic program of natural regeneration, planting and tending practices are suited to the site conditions consistent with FMP and Forest Operations Prescriptions and appear to be achieving forest management objectives. The white pine shelterwood harvest was exceptionally well executed on each site examined by the audit team. There was no damage to residual stems. MNR District silvicultural effectiveness monitoring reports discuss concerns from the forest industry that branches damaged by the first felling can lead to decay and lower wood quality in the removal cuts. District MNR should continue to monitor the situation. Many sites have complex stand structures and competing vegetation. These conditions and public concerns over the use of aerial applications of herbicides have encouraged the use of alternative tending treatments. These alternatives include brush saws with herbicide applicators and ground applications using an air blaster. Some areas were tended using brush saws with herbicide applicators. MNR has followed up with a study examining this treatment. At the end of year two, the 2010 interim report found that “It is still too early to determine whether the additional cost of the Sprout-less Herbicide Applicator is warranted because it is too early to see a crop tree response from the tending treatments. Therefore, we will continue to monitor the study for another year.”1 Ground application of herbicides with an air blaster mounted on a forwarder is commonly used to control competing vegetation on many areas in the TMU. Site inspection and interviews with an application specialist confirmed that the judicious use of herbicides in this treatment leads to excellent control of competing vegetation ensuring the establishment of conifer tree species. These practices further ensure that plan objectives for conifer regeneration will be met. Despite the careful application of herbicides, white pine seedlings were being damaged by the herbicide on three sites (Figure 2). There are opportunities for improving tending practices to better ensure the regeneration of white pine (Appendix 1; Recommendation #4).

1 District SEM Report 2009-2010; Appendix 3 available frm MNR Distinct Office

KBM Forestry Consultants 14 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Figure 2. Burning and mortality of white pine by glyphosate herbicide application.

Access

Roads and stream crossings were developed and maintained to a high standard while also meeting the objective of reducing road density by arranging harvest areas in larger blocks. Exceptional care in culvert installation and erosion control measures was observed at several locations (Figure 3).

KBM Forestry Consultants 15 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Figure 3. An example of excellent water crossing construction that is consistent with the Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings yet does not meet the specific AWS condition.

Some of the block roads could be built to a lower standard to further reduce road densities through reclamation either by natural abandonment or by other reclamation measures. One washout was observed suggesting that MNR should review its road maintenance and stream crossing inventory procedures. Access control measures such as gates and removed water crossings, combined with enforcement measures appear to be effective (see Figure 4). This can be a significant issue in areas where values associated with roadless access such as canoeing or fly-in outfitting are important.

Figure 4. Access control measures in place on the Temagami TMU include the use of gates.

KBM Forestry Consultants 16 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Overall, the audit team found the planning and implementation of operations on TMU to be very effective and efficient. MNR and industry have an excellent working relationship. This has resulted in good quality operations and a practical common sense approach to implementation.

4.5 System Support

Data management and human resources are sufficient to meet the forest management requirements of the TMU notwithstanding the concerns noted above about the forest inventory. Recently, MNR moved the data management services to a private service provider. The audit team found the service provider to be knowledgeable and helpful in exchanging data required in the site selection process and field binders. Interviews revealed that one full time senior technical position related to silvicultural planning, budget forecasting and monitoring, contract administration and silviculture effectiveness and compliance monitoring became vacant and has since not been replaced. The audit team suggests the District Manager review the human resource needs associated with the TMU to ensure that staffing levels are adequate to meet present and future demands. The documentation was well organized for the field audit and Forest Information Manual (FIM) compliant. Supporting documentation was also well organized in the District Office. As further evidence of staff commitment to document control, the North Bay District Forest Information Management Project Plan was developed and approved December 7, 2010. “The purpose of this project plan is to define the roles and responsibilities with respect to information management(IM) tasks and products, as they relate to forest management activities within the North Bay District. This includes defining the data structure for the repository for both spatial data (i.e., GIS-Data) and all other digital documents (i.e., District-Data Share).” The skills demonstrated by the MNR staff reflect a high level of training. The training records were made available to the audit team. These records could be improved to list dates and ensure all FMP training modules are included and up to date for each staff member.

4.6 Monitoring

Compliance

MNR has prepared a 10 Year Forest Compliance Strategy similar to SFLs. The strategy was complete, met all criteria and adequately responded to the previous IFA recommendations. The district MNR had a very effective compliance monitoring program in place. All blocks viewed had multiple inspections conducted, and site conditions observed were consistent with the inspection reports. Normal operational details were recorded on the inspection reports and dealt with in a practical, common sense approach. The audit team commends the district and the forest industry for this approach and compliance record. The compliance information system was used effectively. During the audit term only seven Not-In- Compliance (NIC) incidents were documented. All of these were considered minor. Silviculture

The TMU has a silviculture monitoring program in place consisting of ground based plot surveys and aerial ocular surveys using helicopters. This a common approach in Ontario. The rate of surveys is keeping up with rate of harvest. There were many instances where the aerial based survey descriptions did not match the observations made by the audit team. MNR District annual Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring reports also show some discrepancies between aerial survey results and ground based observations. In addition, the audit team found some irregularities in the silviculture monitoring tables within the Annual Reports. A review of survey and reporting procedures is recommended (Appendix 1; Recommendation #5).

KBM Forestry Consultants 17 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Annual Reports

Annual reports are prepared by MNR and meet FMPM requirements. Sampled harvest, renewal, and tending were accurately reported with some variances as noted in Appendix 1; Recommendation #5. Forest Operations Information Program (FOIP) inspection reports were accurately reported. Some text elements such as compliance monitoring could be expanded upon to be more descriptive.

4.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Sustainability

Achievement of Management Objectives

Appendix 2 provides a tabular analysis of the audit team’s assessment of progress toward achieving the objectives set in the 2004-2024 FMP. It summarizes the audit team’s assessment of the extent to which the objectives were achieved including the rationale, particularly where objectives are considered not to be met. 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. However, wood supply and socio- economic plan objectives were not met. The protection of other forest values was achieved through the application of area of concern prescriptions (AOCs) and the Temagami Land Use Plan. Looking forward, the objectives set in the 2009-2019 FMP are similar to the previous FMP but there is some additional detail and an emphasis on setting measurable targets for selected indicators. Plan objectives that have been addressed in the Long-Term Management Direction for the 2009-2019 plan are summarized as: • forest landscape pattern; • forest structure, composition and abundance including old growth; • red and white pine forest area; • habitat for forest-dependent species (non-spatial and spatial); • road density; • silviculture – forest renewal; • protection of other natural resources values; • predictable wood supply; • soil function, water quality and fisheries habitat; • maintaining the land base available for timber production; • Aboriginal involvement; and, • effective involvement of the Local Citizens Committee. The evidence compiled in this audit suggest that the factors under the control of the forest manager are being applied in a manner consistent with meeting the above objectives with some areas requiring improvement, such as slash management and white pine tending techniques (Appendix 1 Recommendations #3 and #4 respectively) and consultation (Appendix 1; Recommendation #6).

Forest Sustainability Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team also concurs with the observations and comments of the author of the most recent Year Ten Annual Report that the forest sustainability criteria are being met with the qualification that forest renewal monitoring and reporting can be improved upon (Appendix 1 Recommendation #5). The economic downturn and associated impacts have significantly constrained the ability of the forest managers to achieve planned harvest levels but there has been considerable improvement in the last two years of the audit term. As a consequence, the social/economic objectives will not be fully realized.

KBM Forestry Consultants 18 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Forest-cover based objectives will not be achieved at planned rates but renewal programs have kept pace with the harvest. Forest development is moving in the desired direction.

4.8 Contractual Obligations

For the purposes of the IFA, contractual obligations associated with Crown Management Units fall into three categories: 1) payment of monies to the Crown and Forestry Futures Fund; 2) response to recommendations arising from the previous IFA; and 3) funding/implementation of the renewal program. The MNR met its contractual obligations to respond to recommendations arising from the previous IFA by fully implementing its Action Plan with a minor variance on the completion date for the Action Plan. This situation arose because of the uncertainty at that time as to whether or not the Crown would be the manager of the TMU or if the TMU would be merged into other SFLs. Harvesting operations were completed by the Forest Resource Licensees (FRL). Minor variances of FRL obligations have been corrected as part of the ongoing compliance program. Two licensees were in arrears for forest management service fees but the amounts are not significant enough to negatively impact the forest management program.

The minimum required balance was not maintained. The audit team concurs with MNR that the requirement to maintain the predetermined minimum balance in the Forest Renewal Trust Fund is a condition of SFL license documents. As the TMU has no SFL this condition does not apply. However, the MNR forest managers closely monitor their Special Purpose Account (SPA) to ensure sufficient funding exists to renew and maintain the forest in order to achieve associated FMP objectives. The MNR is adjusting the IFAPP to reflect this situation more accurately to guide future audits.

4.9 Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation

Considering the evidence collected and described above, the audit team found the TMU to be well managed. Six recommendations were made to improve the following aspects: • Annual Work Schedules ( Recommendation #1), • Forest harvest operations and slash management (Recommendations #2&3), • Tending methods to enhance the regeneration of white pine (Recommendation #4), • Silvicultural monitoring and reporting ( Recommendation#5) and • Aboriginal consultation ( Recommendation #6) Unlike most forest management units in Ontario, there is no licence to extend on the TMU since it remains a Crown management unit. The audit team suggests that the MNR consider continuing the operation of TMU by the Crown as a benchmark to measure against new forms of tenure and pricing models being considered for implementation on other forest management units across the province. Furthermore, TMU is a socially-complex setting and amalgamating the TMU with other forests may undo the achievements of the MNR/ LCC, reduce the attention of MNR on some socially important issues and could bring unneeded controversy to neighbouring forest administrators.

Licence Extension Recommendation

The audit team concludes that management of the TMU 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 Crown Management Unit. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol.

KBM Forestry Consultants 19 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

APPENDIX 1 – RECOMMENDATIONS

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding Recommendation #1

Principle: 3. Forest Management Planning Criterion: 3.10.1: The Annual Work Schedules (AWS) must be consistent with the FMP, the requirements of the applicable FMPM and any other legislative requirements and must work towards achieving the stated objectives and strategies. Procedure(s): Assess the AWS for consistency with: • the FMP • the planning requirements of the applicable FMPM including AOCs (prescriptions, conditions on roads), harvest (including bridging and second-pass operations), wood utilization, renewal, maintenance (tending and protection), renewal support, roads (including water crossings, aggregates)

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The auditors observed that a number of “Good Practices” have been inserted as mandatory conditions in the AWS. This was considered to be overly prescriptive and may not always be reasonable or desirable to achieve.

Discussion: The AWS was reviewed for consistency with the FMP and applicable guidelines. The AWS were generally complete and well done. There is a comprehensive set of mandatory conditions contained in the schedules under Appendix B, including specific references to the guide titled “Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings”. In some instances the conditions are overly prescriptive, stipulating the “how” rather than focusing on the “standard” that must be met. Examples of this include: • Conditions on water crossings including some listed as “Good Practices” from the “Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings” • Conditions detailing how to mark boundaries; these are appropriate as operational guidelines, not mandatory standards. The standard is that the licensee must stay within the licence/approval boundaries and follow AOC prescriptions • Use of feller-bunchers in shelterwood harvest; this should be acceptable providing operating standards are met (e.g. damage to residual stand, whole-tree skidding not allowed). One example of an AWS condition regarding water crossings states that “Culvert ends shall extend a minimum of 30 cm (12 inches) out from the toe of the finished banks” During the field review the audit team observed a large culvert installation that was considered to be “In Compliance” and an example of an excellent installation, meeting mandatory standards from the “Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings”. However, it did not meet the specific AWS condition described above, as the pipe did not extend beyond the toe of the finished bank.

KBM Forestry Consultants 20 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Conclusion: The AWS condition was not practical or reasonable for the site conditions encountered. Mandatory conditions should focus on achieving the desired results and not on the specifics of how to achieve it. Good Practices may be included in the document, but should be categorized properly. This overly prescriptive approach is at odds with a tendency to rely more on professional judgement in the compliance program.

Recommendation #1: District MNR staff should review the AWS and any associated documents to ensure that mandatory conditions included in the AWS focus on the desired operational results rather than dictate how to achieve them.

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding Recommendation #2

Principle: 4. Plan Assessment and Implementation Criterion: 4.3.1: To review and assess through field examination whether information used in the preparation of the FMP was appropriate and assess the implementation of the management strategy. Procedure(s): Review and assess in the field, the implementation of approved harvest operations, including whether wood utilization followed standards in the scaling manual.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: During the inspection of field operations a trend (>than 50% of the harvest blocks viewed) was observed where it appeared that not all the timber or area eligible for harvest had been cut. In every situation there where potentially valid reasons why the harvest was not completed, but the audit team felt it should be reviewed and documented.

Discussion: Harvest operations sampled: • were approved and consistent with the FMP/AWS • followed approved harvest methods consistent with the FOP/SGR • were appropriate for site conditions • met or exceeded NDPEG requirements • demonstrated excellent utilization of harvested material

The auditors did observe a trend on more than 50% of the harvest blocks sampled that:

o not all of the allocated area on the block was harvested or

o individual or groups of standing merchantable trees were left that exceeded NDPEG requirements. Discussions with district staff confirmed that there may be situations where this was occurring due to the following:

o overachievement of NDPEG and Viewscape AOC requirements – there was a tendency to leave too much standing timber

o reluctance of licensees to harvest species/product not part of their core business – these may be due to economics, markets, production issues, terrain.

KBM Forestry Consultants 21 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Conclusion: While there may be valid or practical reasons why some of the volume was not harvested the audit team concluded that the volumes and area appear to be excessive and deserves further review by MNR.

Recommendation #2: District MNR should review blocks harvested during the first two years of the 2009- 2019 plan (2009/2010 & 2010/2011) to determine if all of the merchantable volume was harvested. Where all of the available volume was not harvested, and where it is practical to do so, MNR should require the licensee to complete the harvest utilizing all merchantable material. MNR must also ensure that all standing merchantable material eligible for harvest is utilized on future harvest blocks.

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding Recommendation #3 d Principle: 4. Plan Assessment and Implementation Criterion: 4.3 Harvest Procedure: Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved harvest operations. Include the following: • assess whether: the harvest and logging methods implemented were consistent with the FOP; the FOP was consistent with the SGRs; the FOP was certified by an R.P.F. or other qualified individual, and actual operations were appropriate and effective for the actual site conditions encountered

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Most sites had piled slash which was burnt. Some of the piles were not completely burned or were burned after an area was planted. This was identified as an issue on two previous IFAs.

Discussion: While there are many options for reducing slash at roadside, piling and burning had been the preferred choice to regain maximum productive area. However, negative public comments regarding smoke, difficulty getting MNR approval to burn, saturated conditions during planned ignition periods and high costs relative to net area recovered became impediments to slash piling and burning. Nonetheless, other management units are able to complete successful slash burning programs. Many of the sites have been successfully piled and burned. Although the 2010 Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales do not set standards, the best practice is to minimize losses of productive land to roads, landings and slash to 4%. The practices in the TMU are good but further improvements can be made.

Conclusion: A review of slash pile management is warranted.

Recommendation #3: District MNR should review its slash management program to further improve the existing program.

KBM Forestry Consultants 22 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding Recommendation #4

Principle: 4. Plan Implementation Criterion: 4.5 Tending and Protection Procedure(s): 1. Review and assess in the field the implementation of approved tending and protection operations.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: Three sites had been treated with glyphosate applied on the ground by air blaster applicators to release established conifer (natural and planted) from competing vegetation. The treatment was effective in controlling the competing vegetation and released most conifer trees but burned or killed the white pine regeneration.

Discussion: White pine is more sensitive to herbicides than other conifers. Timing and rate are two factors that can be modified to reduce the likelihood of damaging the white pine. There are test procedures that can be used to determine cold hardiness of white pine and hence resistance to herbicide. Chemical site preparation or more aggressive mechanical site preparation can be used to help control vegetation and reduce the need for follow up tending. Alternative tending techniques such as the use of brush saws are available and are in use on the TMU but usually at a higher cost.

Conclusion: A review of tending program for white pine is warranted.

Recommendation #4: MNR should review its tending program to improve white pine regeneration.

KBM Forestry Consultants 23 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding Recommendation #5

Principle: 6. Monitoring Criterion: 6.3. Silviculture Standards and Assessment Program Procedure(s): 1 & 2: Review and assess, including in the field, achievement and reporting of the silviculture standards and program effectiveness.

Background Information and Summary of Evidence: MNR surveyed 3297 hectares using a mixture of extensive aerial and intensive ground plot based surveys. This met the planned targets and the information summarized from these surveys helped to update the forest inventory for the 2009 FMP and was used to calibrate the SFMM. These results were also used in the annual reports to help further rationalize silvicultural treatment packages. The audit team verified some of the survey results by assessing the FRI description for the surveyed stands against observations made from the helicopter. There were discrepancies between what was observed by the audit team during the site visit and the records of MNR for aerial ocular surveys in terms of species composition and age. Quite often stands had distinct overstory and understory compositions and only one location recorded these separately, consistent with new FRI standards. The District Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Reports also describe variances between aerial based survey records and field observations. The data collected using the above methods are summarized in the year ten 2008/09 AR 13 and these data are summarized as follows: AR-13 Totals %

Silviculture Renewal Silviculture Renewal NSR NSR Success Success Success Success Forest Unit BWCC 149 157 30 44% 91% 9% MCL 92 92 22 45% 89% 11% MHWD 58 75 60 30% 69% 31% MWCC 104 109 43 41% 83% 17% PJCC 238 238 89 42% 84% 16% PJSB 47 47 64 30% 59% 41% POCC 924 946 59 48% 97% 3% PRST 157 168 48% 100% 0% PWST 607 611 420 37% 74% 26% SFCC 75 92 34 37% 83% 17% HDUS MWUS 17 17 8 40% 81% 19% PWUS Total 2468 2552 829 42% 86% 14%

KBM Forestry Consultants 24 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Discussion: A review of the annual report tables on silvicultural effectiveness (i.e. AR 13 FMPM 2009) found inconsistencies between the Year 10 AR (08/09) and previous ARs. In the preceding AR tables silvicultural success rates were unusually high (90% plus versus 42%) but in the summary table (AR 13 Year 10), the success rates are much lower and follow trends seen on other Forest Management Units. The levels reported as Not Sufficiently Restocked (NSR) also seem quite high compared to other forest management units. Although 3297 hectares are reported as surveyed, the tables show renewal success of 2552 ha plus 829 ha NSR for a total area of 3381 hectares. Aerial ocular methods are efficient but difficult to verify in an objective manner when the species composition, stand structure and terrain is complex and these conditions dominate the TMU. There have been some advances in large scale photography that may help to provide a consistent verifiable reference for both determining Free-to-Grow status and for planning follow-up treatments if required. MNR has received new ADS- 40 imagery as part of the eFRI program that may have the scale and bandwidth suitable to verify some of the more questionable FTG information. Conclusion: A review of FTG survey methods, FTG survey results and reporting methods is warranted

Recommendation #5: MNR should review its FTG aerial survey program, silvicultural record keeping methods and reporting methods to improve consistency and veracity.

KBM Forestry Consultants 25 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding Recommendation #6 di Principle: 6. Public consultation & aboriginal involvement Criterion: 2.5 – Aboriginal Involvement in Forest Management Planning Procedure: 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: The FMPM (2004) directs that Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the management unit, whose interests of traditional use may be affected by forest management activities, will be invited to be involved in and have their interests considered in forest management planning (A-129). There are two Aboriginal communities within the Temagami Management Unit (TMU); Temagami First Nation (TFN), and Teme-Augama Anishnabai (TAA). TFN reserve is situated at Bear Island on Lake Temagami and members of the TAA do not have an official reserve. There are two Aboriginal communities who are adjacent to the TMU; Timiskaming First Nation(TFN-PQ2) and Matachewan First Nation (MFN). TFN-PQ is located near New-Liskeard, Ontario on the Quebec side of the provincial border. MFN reserve is located approximately 2 hours northwest of New Liskeard, ON. The traditional territories of all four Aboriginal communities extend into the TMU. Letters of invitation to participate were sent to TFN, TAA and MFN in July 2006. The audit team conducted on-site interviews and document review. Through interviews with TFN-PQ representative, the District Manager and the Resource Liaison Officer and Supplementary Document 13 – Summary of Aboriginal Involvement, it is apparent that the TFN-PQ was not formally invited to participate in the FMP process

Discussion: MNR’s rational for consulting with the TFN, TAA and MFN is that these are the communities that have been historically consulted on the TMU. They have begun communicating with TFN-PQ and the community has been invited to attend and provide comments at information centers in Ontario. In the interview with TFN-PQ, they identified areas of cultural importance within the TMU. They also expressed an interest in full participation including, participation on the Planning Team, the preparation and inclusion of Aboriginal Background Information reports & reports on the Protection of Identified Aboriginal Values and the opportunity to consider the development of a separate consultative approach. Conclusion: A coordinated approach and advice from corporate MNR may be helpful in advancing the MNR District’s dialogue with TFN-PQ.

Recommendation #6: Corporate MNR should advise District MNR on whether or not Timiskaming First Nation of Quebec should be invited as a full participant in the forest management planning process.

2 TFN-PQ is an acronym used by MNR in their official reports to distinguish Timiskiming First Nation from Temagami First Nation. The PQ is used because the community is located in Quebec

KBM Forestry Consultants 26 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

APPENDIX 2 – MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES TABLES

Table 1. Summary of the status of the 2004 FMP Objectives

Objectives Auditor Assessment and Comments Composition Objective This objective is being achieved with opportunities for improving white pine Increase the forest area classified as conifer forest regeneration as discussed in units (white pine, red pine, jack pine and spruce) Recommendation #4. while producing a corresponding decrease in non- conifer dominated forest (intolerant and tolerant The rate of achieving this objective is hardwoods). below planned because actual harvest levels were well below planned.

Age Class Structure Objective The rate of achieving this objective is below planned because actual harvest Over a period of 80 years, move the current age levels were well below planned. class structure for each forest cover type (generally large % in old age class relative to young age The implementation of the harvest classes) towards a more balanced one having a schedule derived by the planning process greater area represented in the younger age classes. and supported by the strategic modeling Ensure that the area contained in each forest species process will lead to achieving this objective group is “naturally” distributed within the age classes over the long term. by meeting forest unit and stage of development targets.

Disturbance Size Objective This objective is being met by applying the appropriate guides in the operational Create a mosaic of disturbance (patch) sizes that planning part of the FMP. more closely reflects the natural distribution of pattern of disturbances across the landscape by 2084.

Old Growth (late successional stage) The implementation of the harvest schedule derived by the planning process Provide a full range of age classes, including a and supported by the strategic modeling portion in the late successional stage (emphasizing process will lead to achieving this objective the forest units containing the longer lived species over the long term. The current forest such as red and white pine, white spruce and sugar condition also meets this objective in the maple) by 2084. shorter term

Parks, Conservation Reserves and Natural The allocation process and AOCs followed Heritage Areas plan in all instances sampled by the audit To ensure that a minimum of 50% (area based) of team. the forest cover is undisturbed (i.e. >=20 years of age) at any point in time around the perimeter (within 200 m) of Parks and Conservation Reserves and to protect natural heritage areas through Area of Concern planning. Wood Supply The implementation of the harvest

KBM Forestry Consultants 27 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

schedule derived by the planning process Maximize the sustainable supply of roundwood to the and supported by the strategic modeling forest industry from the Managed Crown Production process will lead to achieving this objective. Forest available for timber production while meeting volume targets.

Wood Supply This is a model constraint that was applied in determining the allowable harvest area Minimize fluctuation in the sustainable supply of and hence the objective has been met. roundwood throughout the next 150 year period to a maximum of 10% allowable decrease in wood supply in any term (10-year period).

Harvest Operators (Forest Resource This strategy was applied. Licensees) To meet the harvest disposition strategy outlined in Table 3 found in the DWDS (Appendix 20) which contains the volume targets by species group for the existing licensees operating on the Temagami MU.

Wood Utilization Not met in 2004 plan, but was met in first two years of 2009-19 FMP. To increase the utilization of tree species and products that historically have been underutilized while recognizing the need for residual trees to meet silvicultural, wildlife habitat and ecological purposes.

First Nation Opportunities Objective met with opportunities for improvement proposed in To facilitate a more equal participation by Aboriginal Recommendation#6. peoples in the benefits derived from forest management and to increase the involvement of Aboriginal peoples in forest management by providing economic opportunities to First Nation communities.

Wildlife Habitat Objective met as a model constraint in meeting LTMD (Preferred Management Maintain habitat for all native vertebrate species of Strategy in 2004 FMP) and application of wildlife with special emphasis on provincially and NDPEG. locally featured species (moose, marten and pileated woodpeckers, consistent with the guidelines). For other species, provide, as closely as possible, diversity of habitat conditions that would be created by the historic natural disturbance regime. Recreation and Resource-based Tourism Objective met by AOC and access management implementation and To minimize the impact of harvesting and the enforcement. associated road access on recreation and resource based tourism.

KBM Forestry Consultants 28 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Silviculture Objectives Objective met with opportunities for improvement in Recommendations #3-5. To effectively implement a harvest, renewal and maintenance program to ensure acceptable establishment and growth of the forest towards the desired future condition. To increase the quantity of higher quality timber products available for harvest by performing appropriate tending activities in young and mid-aged stands. Conduct prescribed burning where viable recognizing it as a useful silvicultural tool which is environmentally acceptable for site preparation and vegetation management. To utilize herbicides in areas where other manual tending methods will not appropriately reduce competition with crop species. Necessary funding is a critical prerequisite for a successful silviculture program. Therefore, it is important that with the current silvicultural funding system (which is based on revenue retention of the renewal portion of stumpage fees) that revenues remain equal to or greater than silvicultural expenditures. Other Objectives Objective met by adhering to FMPM requirements AOC planning/implementation To protect all values through Area of Concern and managing access. planning and to minimize the impact of harvesting and the associated access and road use management strategies on the other commercial users of the forest.

KBM Forestry Consultants 29 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

APPENDIX 3 – COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Contractual Obligations Level of Attainment With Reference to IFAPP 2011 Principle and Criteria 8.2 1. Payment of Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown Interview with clerk and area forester and review charges. of financial records consistent with the requirements of this obligation

2. Audit action plan and status report. Action plan was late due to uncertainty over whether or not MNR was to remain the manager of the TMU. Status report complete and recommendations had been addressed.

3. Payment of forest renewal charges to Special Interview with clerk and area forester and review Purpose Account (SPA). of financial records consistent with the requirements of this obligation

4. Special Purpose Account eligible silviculture Maps and records are maintained consistent with work. the requirements of this obligation

5. Forest renewal charge analysis. The analysis package, year Ten AR and a spreadsheet maintained by the area forester are consistent with the requirements of this obligation

6. SPA minimum balance. The minimum required balance was not maintained. The audit team concurs with MNR that the requirement to maintain the predetermined minimum balance in the Forest Renewal Trust Fund is a condition of SFL license documents. As the TMU has no SFL this condition does not apply. However, the MNR forest managers closely monitor their Special Purpose Account (SPA) to ensure sufficient funding exists to renew and maintain the forest in order to achieve associated FMP objectives. The MNR is adjusting the IFAPP to reflect this situation more accurately to guide future audits.

KBM Forestry Consultants 30 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

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, 125 of which are applicable to the TMU. The audit procedures serve 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 2 summarizes the number of procedures selected by the audit team for audit based on the direction provided by the IFAPP.

KBM Forestry Consultants 31 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Procedures Audited, by Risk Category Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Principle Comments Applicable (#) Applicable Selected (#) % Audited (#) Applicable Selected (#) % Audited # Audited

1.2.1 not 1. Commitment 0 0 0 2 1 50 0 selected 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement 0 0 0 6 3 50 2 2.6.1 not selected 3.1.2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2.2, 3.5.1.3, 3. Forest Management Planning 5 1 20 12 8 67 42 3.6.1.1, 3.6.2.1, 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 1 6. Monitoring 1 1 100 4 4 100 7 7. Achievement of Management Objectives 7.1.7 not 0 0 0 2 1 50 15 and Forest Sustainability selected

8. Contractual Obligations 0 0 0 2 2 100 4

Totals 7 3 43 30 21 70 80 Table 2. Procedures selected by the audit team.

The audit process for the TMU 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 Temagami Local Citizen’s Committee (LCC). 2. Public Consultation: Through individual letters mailed in early May, 2011, KBM advised a sample of MNR’s FMP mailing list that an audit would be taking place and invited their input. 3. Newspaper ads were published in three area newspapers prior to the pre-audit meeting advising the public of the upcoming audit: the North Bay Nugget, the Temiskaming Speaker, and the Northern News. 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

KBM Forestry Consultants 32 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

organizations, and a representative sample of one-third of the individuals listed in the Forest Management Plan (FMP) mailing list (as provided by MNR North Bay 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). 4. Aboriginal Engagement: MNR North Bay District provided KBM with contact information for each Aboriginal Community within or adjacent to the TMU, 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 TMU. 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. 5. 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 (e.g. Block Lorrain 46). The auditees were informed of the site selection for the field visit. 6. 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 TMU b. Annual Work Schedules and Annual Reports associated with the above FMPs c. TMU Independent Forest Audit 2001-2006 Report d. TMU 2001-2006 Independent Forest Audit Action Plan and the TMU 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 TMU. The results of the survey provided additional focus to IFAPP prescribed interview procedures that occurred on site. 7. On-Site Audit: The objectives of the field site visits were to confirm that activities were conducted according to plan, that they conformed to provincial laws, regulations, and guidelines, and that they were effective. The audit began on Monday, June 20, with the opening meeting in MNR’s North Bay office. Field auditors spent the remainder of the day with MNR representatives examining field stops with a helicopter. During the on-site visit portion of this audit, the audit team conducted interviews with MNR staff and with LCC members. The audit team examined documents, records and maps at the MNR offices in North Bay, and spent two days in the field viewing selected sites with representatives of MNR District, the LCC, and a representative of the Forestry Futures Trust Committee. Several stops provided the opportunity to audit multiple activities such as harvesting, renewal, values protection, etc. KBM committed to, and surpassed, a minimum of a 10% sampling of key activities and operations conducted on the Forest during the audit period. The 10% minimum sampling intensity is prescribed by the 2011 IFAPP. Table presents the actual sampling intensity for each forestry activity examined on the ground as part of the field site visits. Due to access and time restraints, the audit team relied on a helicopter to reach many of the selected field sites. The helicopter also provided opportunities for overviews of the subject areas, enabling overall examination of target blocks.

KBM Forestry Consultants 33 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

The closing meeting was held in North Bay on June 24, 2011. This meeting provided a forum for the audit team to present and discuss preliminary audit findings with MNR and members of the LCC. Table 3. Audit sampling intensity for the Temagami Management Unit.

Proposed Actual Population Size Actual Activity or Feature Sample Size Sample Size (2006-2011) (ha) Percentage (ha) Harvest - Clearcut 7384 1950 1950 264 Harvest - Shelterwood 798 241 241 302 Site Preparation - Chemical 235 72 72 306 Site Preparation - Mechanical 560 61 613 109 Plant 2152 379 379 176 Tending – Chemical 1584 231 231 146 Tending – Manual 540 86 86 159 Free-to-Grow 3840 435 435 113 Pre-Commercial Thinning 148 21 21 142 Area of Concern Categories (#) Minimum 10% sample achieved. Road Construction (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved. Road Maintenance (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved.

8. 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 MNR North Bay District, with input and review by MNR Regional and Forest Management Branch representatives. 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. Best practices may also be reported. Any practices so identified should be ‘exceptional’, not situations in which the forest manager is simply meeting a good forest management standard. Highly effective novel approaches to various aspects of forest management may represent best practices. Similarly, applications of established management approaches which achieve remarkable success may represent best practices. Public Response Out of 569 letters mailed, 13 individuals responded with observations and concerns. Issues raised included allocations close to hiking trails or canoe routes, white pine abundance, wildlife concerns and other landscape issues cornering principles of conservation of biodiversity.

3 Two additional sites featuring mechanical site preparation were viewed by the lead auditor and the MNR forester on September 15/2011to address some issues that had been raised in the draft report over mechanical site preparation. These issues were resolved.

KBM Forestry Consultants 34 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

Local Citizens Committee Immediately after contract award letters were mailed to all current members of the LCC to notify them of the audit and invite their input. Four out of 13 letters were completed and received by KBM. Two LCC members attended one field day and one attended the audit closing meeting through teleconference. Several LCC members were interviewed; three were formally interviewed, which achieves the minimum 20% sampling, while others were informally interviewed throughout the field days. Part of the interview included discussion on whether in their view the LCC has achieved its purpose, and if there are areas where the LCC may be improved. Summary of LCC comments: LCC members generally felt that the committee was effective in meeting its roles and responsibilities. Many members had long history of involvement in the committee. Several members spoke to the good working relationship with MNR. Aboriginal Communities Letters were sent to the three Aboriginal communities on the contact list, inviting them to participate in the audit. The letter explained that their input is welcomed and encouraged them to contact KBM if they wish to participate in the audit or if they require more information before making a decision. The week prior to the site visit the MNR-Resources Liaison Officer was consulted and asked to advise which were the best options for consultation. During the audit teams site visit, a fourth Aboriginal community adjacent to the forest was identified by MNR. The MNR - Resources Liaison Specialist facilitated contact with the Aboriginal communities. Phone calls were made to community representatives and in person interviews were conducted Overlapping Licensees, Contractors and Commitment Holders All businesses listed in the FMP mailing list provided by North Bay MNR were sent the one-page KBM survey and letter soliciting input to the audit. Ministry of Natural Resources Interviews were held with the District Manager, Area Supervisor, Area Forester, and Area Technician. MNR District personnel also accompanied the audit team in the field for one day including the Area Forester, the Area Biologist, and the Area Technician. The audit opening and closing meetings were attended by MNR District personnel. One representative from the Forestry Futures Trust Committee participated in the opening and closing meetings via teleconference and attended one field day. One representative from MNR Forests Branch attended one field day and participated in the pre-audit and closing meetings via teleconference. One regional representative attended the truck field day.

KBM Forestry Consultants 35 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

APPENDIX 5 – LIST OF ACRONYMS

AOC Area of Concern AR Annual Report AWS Annual Work Schedule CFSA Crown Forest Sustainability Act FFTC Forestry Futures Trust Committee FFTF Forestry Futures Trust Fund 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 GIS Geographic Information System IEA Individual Environmental Assessment 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 MFN Matachewan First Nation MNDMF Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry MNR Ministry of Natural Resources NDPEG Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guidelines NSR Not Sufficiently or Satisfactorily Restocked or Regenerated RPF Registered Professional Forester SFL Sustainable Forest Licence SFMM Sustainable Forest Management Model SGR Silviculture Ground Rule SMA Selected Management Alternative SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPA Special Purposes Account

KBM Forestry Consultants 36 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

TAA Teme-Augama Anishnabai TMU Temagami Management Unit TFN Temagami First Nation TFN-PQ Timiskiming First Nation of Quebec TLUP Temagami Land Use Plan

KBM Forestry Consultants 37 Temagami Management Unit – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011

APPENDIX 6 – AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Name/Role Responsibilities Credentials Laird Van Damme Overall audit coordination and oversight of R.P.F., M.Sc.F.; 26 years experience • Lead Auditor activities of the audit team. as a practising forester, educator and consultant; primary areas of practice • Planning Assess silvicultural planning and operations; assist in assessment of achievement of are silviculture, forest management • Silviculture management objectives and forest and forest research; completed ISO • Operations sustainability. 14001 EMS Lead Auditor training; worked on 18 previous IFAs as either Assess public consultation in forest Lead, Harvest or Planning Auditor. management planning. Peter Higgelke Review of management objectives, R.P.F., M.Sc.F.; 30 years combined • Wildlife/Ecology contractual obligations, and forest forestry experience in Ontario, sustainability. Quebec, and Germany; experience as • Aboriginal Consultation Assess AOC documentation and practices practicing consultant; completed ISO and aspects of forest management related to 14001 EMS Lead Auditor training; environmental protection and wildlife Lead Auditor on 4 IFAs, Wildlife practices. Field assessment of road Auditor on one Forest Management construction and maintenance. Agreement Review and nine IFAs; Harvest Auditor on six IFAs. Assess Aboriginal involvement. Tom Richardson Review of AWS and R documentation, and 39 years of forestry experience, • Harvesting compliance plans. including 31 years with the MNR and eight years as an independent forest • Planning consultant. Graduate of the Forest Field assessment of harvest operations Technical program at Sir Sanford Fleming College. Keith Hautala Review SFMM strategic planning. M.Sc.F.; 12 years of forestry • Modeling experience in Ontario; Modeling Auditor on 11 previous IFAs; Secretariat on three previous IFAs. Jennifer Keith Assist with Aboriginal consultation. M.A.; An independent consultant and • Aboriginal Consultation a PhD candidate with the Indigenous Supplementary Team Governance Program at the Member University of Winnipeg. Ian Dunn Assist with audit logistics and undertake M.F.C.; Ian’s work with KBM involves • Secretariat certain low or medium risk audit procedures forest management planning under the guidance of the Lead Auditor. projects.

KBM Forestry Consultants 38