HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES REPORT

for the

HEARST FOREST

Version 1.2 Completed by: Brad Ekstrom R.P.F. Dated: December 9, 2010 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Executive Summary 2 3 This High Conservation Value Forest assessment and report for the Hearst Forest has been completed 4 in partial fulfillment of the requirement (Principle 9) of the National Boreal Standard of Forest 5 Stewardship Council certification for the forest. This is the first time the HCV report has been 6 completed and as a result, only indicators associated with 9.1 can be addressed. As further planning 7 work is completed on the forest the other indicators will be addressed. 8 9 The identification of High Conservation Values (HCVs) is an ongoing process that will change over 10 time as new information becomes available. Through this evaluation a number of HCVs were 11 identified on the Hearst Forest. 12 13 Summary of High Conservation Values on the Hearst Forest Value Designation* Attribute Monitoring

Lake Sturgeon Southern Hudson Bay/James Bay Population HCV Species at Risk Sightings, OMNR Sightings, OMNR, Short eared Owl Potential HCV Species at Risk Breeding Bird Atlas Sightings, OMNR, Common Nighthawk Potential HCV Species at Risk Breeding Bird Atlas Olive Sided Sightings, OMNR, Flycatcher Potential HCV Species at Risk Breeding Bird Atlas Sightings, OMNR, Wolverine Potential HCV Species at Risk Sightings, OMNR, Bald Eagle HCV Species at Risk Breeding Bird Atlas Sightings, OMNR, Eskimo Curlew Potential HCV Species at Risk Breeding Bird Atlas Sightings, OMNR, Canada Warbler Potential HCV Species at Risk Breeding Bird Atlas Sightings, OMNR, Eastern Cougar Potential HCV Species at Risk Sightings, OMNR, Woodland Caribou HCV Species at Risk Collaring Data Edge of Range Compliance Red and White Pine HCV Populations Monitoring Edge of Range Compliance White Elm HCV Populations Monitoring Constance Lake Sources of Drinking Compliance water supply HCV Water Monitoring Large Landscape Regionally OMNR, Hearst Level Forest HCV Significant Forest Forest Management Inc., 14 * for definitions of HCV vs Potential HCV see section 2.0 15 16 17 18 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 1.0 Purpose and Scope 2 3 This report is being completed as partial fulfillment of the requirement Forest Stewardship Council 4 (FSC) Certification to identify High Conservation Value (HCV) Forests on the Hearst Forest. The 5 identification of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) is Principle #9 of the National Boreal 6 Standard of the FSC certification process. 7 8 By the FSC definition, ‘management activities in high conservation value forests shall maintain or 9 enhance the attributes that define such forests’. As outlined in FSC Principle 9, Criterion 9.1, an 10 assessment is required, at an intensity and scale appropriate to the forest management activities being 11 undertaken on the forest to determine the presence of attributes consistent with High Conservation 12 Value Forests. 13 14 HCV forests are separated into 6 categories. As defined by FSC, HCV forests are described as forests 15 that possess one or more of the following attributes (FSC 2003): 16 17 HCV Category 1 18 Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity 19 values: Species at risk 20 Endemics 21 Wildlife concentration areas 22 Critical habitat for regionally significant species 23 Outlier or range edge species 24 Protected areas and candidates 25 26 HCV Category 2 27 Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests: 28 Large landscape level forests 29 30 HCV Category 3 31 Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems: 32 Nationally rare ecosystem types 33 Declining ecosystem types 34 Remaining intact forests (where large landscape level forests are rare or 35 absent) 36 Unique and/or diverse ecosystem types 37 38 HCV Category 4 39 Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations: 40 Forests critical for drinking water quality 41 Erosion 42 Flooding 43 Fire barrier 44 Ameliorating microclimate for agriculture and fisheries 45 46 HCV Category 5 47 Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities: 48 Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities 49 50 51 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 HCV Category 6 2 Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity: 3 4 The concept of HCV Forests is intended to identify areas of forest that are considered important and 5 may be considered as candidates for conservation based on the values that the forest possesses while 6 removing it from the debate created over definitions of a particular forest type (e.g. old growth 7 forest). 8 9 For the forest manager the presence of high conservation value forests carry increased obligations 10 which require a higher level of care for those areas that other portions of the landscape and a 11 management strategy that maintains those high conservation values as well as institution of a 12 monitoring program to ensure those values are maintained. 13 14 The FSC standards recognize that forest managers may make decisions with incomplete knowledge or 15 information on how those management decisions may impact other processes on the forest and offers 16 the use of adaptive management and the precautionary principle as partial solutions. To determine 17 the effectiveness of various management prescriptions monitoring protocols are intended to ensure 18 mitigative measures are taken at the earliest possible time. 19 20 As this is the first HCVF report completed for the Hearst Forest it will only serve criterion 9.1 which 21 is the identification and assessment of the values on the forest. This assessment should be interpreted 22 as a work in progress that will be updated from time to time as continued consultations with the 23 various stakeholders on the forest including First Nations members will produce new and more 24 accurate information over time. Indicators 9.2-9.4 from the FSC Principles and Indicators involve the 25 maintenance, enhancement and monitoring of the values on the forest that will be carried out in future 26 reports. 27 28 2.0 Methodology 29 30 The identification of HCV characteristics and areas is based on a multi-scale analysis approach of 31 defining indicators and thresholds of global, regional and landscape scales. 32 33 In this report values are identified as HCV, not HCV or potentially HCV depending on following 34 variables: 35 36 HCV may be impacted by forest management activities, and may require 37 special care to maintain or enhance the value, or the impact of the current 38 forest management prescription is unknown at this time 39 40 Not-HCV is not impacted by forest management activities or can be maintained by 41 following standard forest management practices and government 42 guidelines already in place 43 44 Potential HCV the possible impact of forest management impacts is unclear at this time 45 or the distribution and abundance of the value on the forest is not known 46 at this time 47 48 49 50 51 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 3.0 Introduction 2 3 The majority of the area of the Hearst Forest is located in the Northern Claybelt of Northeastern 4 Ontario. The topography and surficial geology of the HF is the result of several glaciations. The 5 majority of the area has very little topographical relief having been overridden and depressed by 6 glacial ice and then buried beneath lacustrine deposits of glacial lake Barlow-Ojibway. However, in 7 the south and south west portions of the forest and along the northeast boundary, a mixture of glacial 8 till and lacustrine deposits and pre-Cambrian bedrock exposure causes topography to vary from 9 gently rolling to very hilly. 10 11 The Hearst Forest falls entirely within Hill’s Site Region 3E. The majority of the forest is within 12 Hills Site District 3E2 with portions of the northern section within Site Districts 3E1 and 3E3. 13 14 Figure 1 Map of Ontario showing Hill’s Site Regions in Relation to the Hearst Forest

15 16 17 The Forest is divided into two main regions of soil classification. The difference between the regions 18 is primarily the influence of glaciation: 19 20 • The north and central portions of the Forest are part of the Great Clay Belt with soils 21 generally consisting of clays through silt clays to clay loams having been deposited as 22 glacial-lacustrine sediments, and 23 • The southern, southwest and northeast portions of the Forest which have soils varying 24 from clays to loams to sands resulting from a wide range of types of glacial deposition. 25 26 Interspersed throughout the regions described above are areas of organic soils and poor drainages. 27 The extents of these areas varies ranging from insignificant to expanses large enough to influence 28 operational planning of forest management and would also have a significant impact on fire 29 occurrence, spread and behaviour. 30 31 Beyond the northern boundary of the forest are areas of poorly drained, deep organic soils that are the 32 James Bay Lowlands. 33 34 The variety of soils and landform conditions had a powerful influence over the periodicity that fire 35 would have occurred on any given piece of land on the forest. This, along with the result of fire 36 suppression in recent years has resulted in an abundance of mature and over mature forest on the HF. 37 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Black spruce is the species that dominates most of the forest occurring in varying degree as pure and 2 mixed stands on much of the forest. Black spruce dominated forest units cover approximately two 3 thirds of the forest from poorly drained lowlands to rolling uplands. In the south and southwest as 4 well as the northeast areas of the forest have higher proportions of hardwood and are also the areas of 5 the forest where significant concentrations of jack pine is found. 6 7 8 SPECIES AT RISK 9 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1, QUESTION 1 10 11 Does the forest contain species at risk or potential habitat of species at risk as listed by 12 international, national or territorial/provincial authorities? 13 14 There are 27 species of mammals, fish, reptiles, plants, insects and lichens listed by the Ontario 15 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) as being species at risk in the boreal forest of Ontario. Of 16 these 27 species, 13 are not found or expected to be found in the area of Ontario that is occupied by 17 the Hearst Forest. 18 19 Lake Sturgeon (Southern Hudson Bay/James Bay Population) 20 21 There are three distinct populations of Lake Sturgeon identified in Ontario; the Northwestern Ontario 22 population, the Great Lakes population and the Southern Hudson Bay/James Bay population. Only 23 the Southern Hudson Bay/James Bay population is present in the area of the Hearst Forest. This 24 population is listed as Special Concern, as opposed to the two other populations (Northwestern 25 Ontario and Great Lakes/St Lawrence) which are listed as threatened. 26 27 Lake Sturgeon occur in the large rivers in the Hearst area, especially in the Kabinakagami River west 28 of Hearst where there has been recent documentation of the sturgeon swimming upstream during the 29 spawning season. 30 31 The rivers where the sturgeon occurs, are large enough that no future attempts to cross these rivers 32 with permanent structures by forestry operations is likely to ever occur. Habitat protection for this 33 species would entail maintaining no harvest buffers on these rivers to ensure that no negative effects 34 i.e. erosion and sedimentation, could be caused. 35 36 Lake Sturgeon is a Potential High Conservation Value. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 2 Lake Sturgeon Range

2 3 4 Short-eared Owl 5 6 The Short-eared Owl is listed as special concern both Provincially and Nationally. They use open 7 meadows and grassland for nesting sites and hunting in open fields for small mammals, especially 8 voles. Forest clearing to create farming opportunities probably benefitted this species. However the 9 intensification of agricultural practices has made these nesting sites unsuitable. The current threat to 10 the Short-eared Owl habitat is the loss of marshes. However, the practice of draining wetlands and 11 marshes is not a practice that is carried out anywhere on the Hearst Forest. 12 13 The Short Eared Owl is identified as a species that the Partners in Flight have set a population 14 objective to increase the continental population. It is recognized that any increase in the local 15 population would contribute to the continental population objectives. 16 17 Silvicultural practices are not likely intense enough in the boreal forest to exclude the Short-eared 18 Owl from any area of the Hearst Forest. While there have been no known Short-eared Owl sightings 19 on the forest, should there be one every effort will be made to protect any nest site, should one be 20 found. 21 22 Short-eared Owl is a Potential High Conservation Value. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 3 Short Eared Owl Range

2 3 4 5 Black Tern 6 7 The Black Tern is listed as a species of special concern Provincially. The Black Tern builds floating 8 nests in marshes and wetlands. The main threat to the Black Tern is loss of nesting habitat due to loss 9 and alteration of wetlands, water pollution and human interference with the nest (boat traffic 10 swamping the floating nests). 11 12 Forest operations will maintain buffers around water bodies as currently required. Forestry 13 operations are not likely to negatively impact this species (Landriault and Mills, 2009 page 19). 14 15 Black Tern is not a High Conservation Value. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 4 Black Tern Range

2 3 4 Common Nighthawk 5 6 The Common Nighthawk (Nighthawk) is designated as special concern Provincially and Threatened 7 Nationally. Nighthawks nest on the ground in harvested and burned over areas, openings in the forest 8 and gravel lakeshores. The effects of fire suppression and reduced harvest levels and land use 9 changes in the boreal forest may have contributed to a reduction in suitable nesting sites for 10 Nighthawk. 11 12 Common Nighthawk populations have decreased between first and second Breeding Bird Surveys 13 (BBS) in the area covered by the Ontario portion of North American Bird conservation Region 8. 14 The Partners in Flight surmise that this is possibly due to a reduction in insect populations in the area. 15 This reduction in insect populations could be due to climate change, the degradation of aquatic 16 habitats or an increase in ultra violet radiation affecting the aquatic phase of some insects such as 17 dragon flies. 18 19 Forest harvesting operations may create habitat and nesting sites for this species so any forestry 20 operations other than summer regeneration work should not negatively affect this species (Landriault 21 and Mills, 2009 Page 19). 22 23 Common Nighthawk is a Potential High Conservation Value on the Hearst Forest. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 5 Common Nighthawk Range

2 3 4 Olive-sided Flycatcher 5 6 The Olive-sided Flycatcher is designated as special concern provincially and threatened nationally. 7 The Olive-sided Flycatcher preferred nesting sites are coniferous or mixed forest close to rivers and 8 other wetlands. The Olive-sided Flycatcher typically nests in conifer tree species such as white and 9 black spruce, jack pine and balsam fir. 10 11 The olive sided flycatcher is a species that uses openings in the forest to forage for flying insects, 12 especially if there are snags and residual standing tall trees in which they can perch. The draft Stand 13 and Site Guidelines include direction regarding the retention of wildlife trees that could be used as 14 hunting perches by this species. 15 16 It is unclear the reason for the decline in Olive-sided Flycatcher populations but it could be habitat 17 loss in both breeding and wintering grounds as well as a decline in insect populations. 18 19 The olive sided flycatcher is listed as a species of concern in the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan. 20 21 The population objective of the Ontario Landbird Conservation Plan is to bring the Olive-sided 22 Flycatcher population back to the levels seen in the 1970’s and the distribution to the 1980’s levels 23 while the Partners in Flight objective is to see a 100% population increase on a continental basis. 24 25 The olive sided flycatcher is a Potential High Conservation Value. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 6 Olive Sided Flycatcher Range

2 3 4 Yellow Rail 5 6 The Yellow Rail is designated as a species of special concern both Nationally and Provincially. 7 Yellow Rail are seldom seen and breeds and spends most it’s time deep in the reeds surrounding 8 marshes and shallow wetlands. 9 10 Threats to the Yellow Rail are the draining of wetlands in southern Ontario. In the Hudson Bay 11 lowlands they are experiencing habitat decline due to the expansion of Snow Goose populations 12 which may be destroying the Yellow Rail’s nesting habitat. 13 14 Forest management activities on the Hearst Forest are likely to have little effect on this species other 15 than the movement of equipment or road construction activities in occupied wetlands. The draft 16 Stand and Site Guide has guidelines for working in and around wetlands that should serve as adequate 17 protection for this species. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 7 Yellow Rail Range

2 3 4 Monarch Butterfly 5 6 The Monarch Butterfly is listed as a species of Special Concern both Provincially and Nationally. 7 The Monarch Butterfly population is thought to be declining due to logging activities in the 8 Monarch’s over wintering grounds in Mexico and the use of herbicide and pesticide applications in 9 the farm lands of Southern Ontario. 10 11 While range maps show the Hearst Forest is in the Monarch Butterfly’s traditional range, they are 12 only occasionally seen in this area. In the literature Monarch Butterfly are heavily associated with the 13 occurrence of milkweed and there is no milkweed in the area of the Hearst Forest. Website 14 www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?!d=-34. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Figure # 8 Monarch Butterfly Range 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest

1 2 3 4 Wolverine 5 6 Wolverine is on the endangered species list as threatened Provincially and special concern Nationally. 7 8 Wolverine populations in the province appear to be concentrated in Northwestern Ontario in the area 9 around Red Lake to Sioux Lookout and North to Fort Severn and across to Peawanuck (A.Magoun, 10 2004). 11 12 Wolverine are mainly solitary and maintain large home ranges, 1450 km2 for males and 525 km2 for 13 females (Magoun et.al., 2005). Very little is known about Wolverine populations and habitat 14 requirements. In Ontario they are known to occupy both tundra and boreal forest habitat types. 15 Contributing factors to there being few Wolverine is a combination of low reproductive rate and 16 relatively large home range that lead to intrinsically low population densities as well as low 17 population resilience. Although it is not legal to trap Wolverine, they are scavengers and occasionally 18 they are accidentally caught by trappers focused on other species. This incidental trapping is a threat 19 to the population given the species inherently low numbers. 20 21 At this time with so little about Wolverine population dynamics known it cannot be determined if 22 forestry operations in Northern Ontario have a positive or negative impact on Wolverine populations 23 (Magoun et. al. 2005). 24 25 Wolverine is a Potential High Conservation Value. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 9 Wolverine Range

2 3 4 Bald Eagle 5 6 Bald Eagle is listed as Special Concern in both Northern and Southern Ontario and Not at Risk 7 Nationally. 8 9 In the Boreal Forest Bald Eagles typically make their nests which are huge stick platforms high in 10 large trees, often in the forks of Trembling Aspen (populus tremuloides Moench) close to water. 11 12 Bald Eagle numbers began declining significantly in the 1960’s and 70’s when the use of pesticides 13 such as DDT resulted in reproductive failures through thinning egg shells that would break during the 14 incubating period of the eggs. 15 16 With the restriction placed on the use of these types of pesticides Bald Eagle populations have begun 17 to become healthier. Bald Eagle are still susceptible to illegal shooting, accidental trapping, 18 poisoning and electrocution. 19 20 Bald eagle is listed as a priority species in the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan. 21 22 Under the current forest management regime Bald Eagle nest sites are protected from forestry 23 operations by 200 or 400 metre no harvest reserves depending on vegetation, topography and line of 24 sight from the nest site. The standards and guidelines for operations in riparian areas recommend 25 leaving supercanopy Po trees as wildlife trees where bald eagles tend to establish nest sites. 26 27 Bald Eagle are a High Conservation Value. 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 11 Bald Eagle Range

2 3 4 Eskimo Curlew 5 6 The Eskimo Curlew is a small shore bird that is identified as Endangered both Provincially and 7 Nationally. 8 9 There are no known nesting sites for the Eskimo Curlew in Ontario and it is thought that Ontario is 10 only used as a flyway on its way to overwintering sites in Brazil. The last sighting of an Eskimo 11 Curlew was from the James Bay area in 1976. 12 13 Although the range map doesn’t show Eskimo Curlew using any areas of the Hearst Forest it is felt 14 that forestry operations would not likely have any impact on the birds if they did cross into the forest. 15 16 Eskimo Curlew is a Potential High Conservation Value. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 12 Eskimo Curlew Range

2 3 4 Canada Warbler 5 6 The Canada Warbler is listed as a species of special concern Provincially and threatened Nationally. 7 8 The Canada Warbler breed only in North America and 80% of its breeding habitat is located within 9 Canada. The Canada Warbler’s range effectively covers the entire province of Ontario except the 10 northernmost reaches of the Hudson Bay Lowlands. 11 12 The Canada Warbler makes its nest either on or near the ground. Preferred forest cover is areas with 13 dense shrub and understory vegetation to provide cover for their nest sites. 14 15 Threats to Canada Warbler are largely believed to be fragmentation of their summer habitat as well as 16 the winter habitat in South America, where deforestation is an ongoing problem. Another possible 17 cause for the decline in the population is the decline in the population spruce budworm (choristoneura 18 fumiferana, Clemens) which Canada Warbler show strong linkages to this food source i.e. when food 19 supply declines (Sleep et. al. 2009), Canada Warbler population declines. 20 21 The Ontario Landbird Conservation Plan’s population objective for the Canada Warbler is to halt the 22 current decline and maintain the population abundance and distribution level above current levels. 23 The Partners in Flight population objective for this species is to increase the population by 50%. 24 25 The Canada warbler is listed as threatened species by COSEWIC. While the species has shown some 26 level of decline in adjacent Bird Conservation Regions it appears to be stable in BCR 8. The BCR 8 27 Landbird Conservation Plan lists Canada warbler as a regional stewardship species and recommends 28 that it be used as a coarse filter indicator by modeling its habitat over the long term. Canada warbler 29 preferred habitat is immature and older intolerant hardwood and lowland conifer that is located on 30 slopes near water with dense understory growth. 31 32 Canada Warbler is a Potential High Conservation Value. 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 13 Canada Warbler Range

2 3 Figure 13: Map of Ontario showing Canada Warbler range overlaid with the 4 Hearst Forest SFL boundary 5 6 Eastern Cougar 7 8 The Eastern Cougar is listed as an Endangered Species Provincially. However at this time there is not 9 enough data on Eastern Cougar to have them listed on the National endangered species list. 10 11 Eastern Cougar is the name that is used to describe the animals inhabiting the north eastern portion of 12 North America. Cougars in Northern Ontario are of unknown origin but may have moved into the 13 Northern portion of the province from western provinces or they may be remnants of the original 14 population. Cougar in Southern Ontario are thought to be escaped pets. 15 16 Cougar have very large ranges and are often found in forest setting where there are deer but they will 17 also prey on a variety of smaller animals. Cougar in the vicinity of the Hearst Forest may be preying 18 on woodland caribou. 19 20 While there have been a number of cougar sightings over the years there has never been conclusive 21 evidence i.e. scat or hair samples, recovered. 22 23 Eastern Cougar is a Potential High Conservation Value. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 15 Cougar Range

2 3 4 Woodland Caribou 5 6 The Woodland Caribou is designated as Threatened both Provincially and Nationally. 7 8 Woodland Caribou in the Boreal Forest live in small herds and while are not migratory have 9 extensive home ranges. Caribou habitat consists of a combination of mature, even aged forests 10 composed mostly of spruce and jack pine with frequent out crops mixed with areas of lowland 11 muskeg and swamp sites. 12 13 Woodland Caribou are very sensitive to predation from wolves and other predators and for this reason 14 exist in very low densities on the landscape. Because they are very susceptible to predation the 15 Woodland Caribou is very sensitive to the creation of anthropogenic linear features such as roads, 16 pipelines and hydro corridors that can be used as travel corridors by predators increasing the 17 efficiency of their hunting. 18 19 Because moose and deer occur on the landscape at higher densities, predators such as wolf and black 20 bear can be attracted to areas with moose and deer where hunting is likely to be more productive. For 21 this reason Woodland Caribou choose to seek out habitat conditions that are not desirable to moose 22 and deer. Moose and deer browse on low woody shrubs and other plants that are associated with 23 either newer disturbances or indicative of forest that is in decline and is becoming overmature. 24 25 Forestry operations i.e. harvesting, will temporarily make the areas that have been harvested 26 unavailable for caribou habitat for the first 40 to 60 years as the regenerating forest is still supporting 27 browse species suitable for moose and deer. Following this period of time, once the new stand has 28 achieved crown closure the area will no longer support deer and moose populations making the area 29 suitable for caribou to reoccupy the area. This remains the case until, as the areas pass through 30 maturity to over maturity, if left unharvested, the forest in the area begins to break up, allowing more 31 light to reach the forest floor, resulting in the growth of a higher amount of moose and deer browse 32 species. A forest in this stage of its evolution will again attract moose and deer and along with them 33 the predator populations that the caribou are so susceptible to. 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 Little is known of the use of the Hearst Forest by Woodland Caribou or whether there are any critical 3 habitat areas i.e. calving sites, on the forest. There is a small herd consisting of 5 to 8 animals that 4 have been observed in the south western to south central part of the forest moving between the West 5 Elgie Road and Larry’s Road areas. Two cows were radio collared in the winter of 2009 and the 6 tracks have been monitored since. One of the cows however was killed by a predator in the summer 7 of 2009. Plans are being made to radio collar another 3 animals if appropriate winter weather 8 conditions occur in 2010-2011. 9 10 Woodland Caribou is a High Conservation Value. 11 12 Figure # 16 Woodland Caribou Habitat

13 14 15 16 CONCENTRATIONS OF ENDEMIC SPECIES 17 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1, QUESTION 2 18 19 Does the forest contain a globally, nationally or regionally significant concentration of endemic 20 species? 21 22 Through discussions with regional and district Ministry of Natural Resources staff it was noted that 23 there are no species that are specifically endemic to the Hearst Forest. There is however a small herd 24 of Woodland Caribou that have been observed in the south western to south central area of the forest 25 as well as the adjacent portions of the Nagagami and Big Pic Forests. 26 27 At the outset of planning for the 2007-2017 Forest Management Plan (FMP), an agreement was made 28 between the three planning teams i.e. Hearst, Nagagami and Big Pic, that were affected that this area 29 of the forests would be managed to minimize any negative impacts that may occur to the caribou 30 habitat due to harvesting operations. 31 32 There are no known areas of critical habitat i.e. calving areas, salt licks, for Woodland Caribou on the 33 forest however, with the increased research into what parts of the forest they are using through the 34 radio collaring exercise some areas may be found. 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 Figure 17 Location of Collared Caribou

3 4 Note- Green triangle is caribou location August 27, 2010 5 6 7 SEASONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF SPECIES 8 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1, QUESTION 3 9 10 Does the forest include critical habitat containing globally, nationally or regionally significant 11 seasonal concentration of species (one or several species, e.g., concentrations of wildlife in 12 breeding sites, wintering sites, migration sites, migration routes or corridors-latitudinal as well as 13 altitudinal)? 14 15 Bird Studies Canada identifies Important Bird Areas (IBA) across the country. An (IBA) is a site 16 providing essential habitat for one or more species breeding or no-breeding birds. Following review 17 of the BSC website it was seen that there are no IBA’s on the Hearst Forest. 18 19 However, the Hearst Forest is within the Ontario portion of Bird Conservation Region 8 (ONBCR8). 20 ONBCR8 has been described as North America’s ‘Bird nursery” due to its role in sustaining North 21 America’s bird life (Avifauna). 22 23 Great Blue Heron are a migratory bird species that return to the forest in the spring of the year. Great 24 Blue Heron nest in colonies of indeterminate size. There are a number of known heron rookeries on 25 the Hearst Forest. When and if they are likely to be impacted by forest operations they are protected 26 with buffer zones as laid out in the stand and site guide. The Partners in Flight BCR 8 Landbird 27 Conservation Plan noted that there appears to have been a significant population decline recently. 28 29 Other values that require protection are stick nests that the species show some level of loyalty to. 30 These are bald eagle and osprey nests that the birds can return to year after year. The active and also 31 alternate and inactive nest sites receive varying levels of protection through the forest management 32 planning process. 33 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Areas identified as moose aquatic feeding areas (MAFA’s) would also be considered a value that 2 would see if not seasonal concentration, are used by a number of animals over the spring, summer and 3 early fall seasons. MAFA’s are identified as such for the combination of characteristics that provide 4 the value. Initially there is a waterbody that contains water borne plants that are desirable to moose 5 and secondly the area is surrounded by dense conifer (black spruce) that will serve as an escape from 6 extreme summer temperatures and is convenient for the cow moose to ‘stash’ her calf where it will be 7 safe from predators while she is feeding. 8 9 Buffer areas around MAFA’s is 120 metres of standing timber that is an absolute reserve. While, in 10 the current FMP, roads are allowed in this buffer it is only where there is no other option to locate the 11 road elsewhere. If a road is put within this buffer the road right of way is limited to 20 metres wide. 12 13 An area in Newlands Township referred to as Newlands Hill located in the southwest corner of the 14 forest has been determined to be an area with a high proportion of early winter moose habitat. For 15 this reason efforts are made annually to restrict hunting pressure in this area by having the area signed 16 as a ‘red zone’. 17 18 Through the radio collaring that was done on two Woodland Caribou cows in the winter of 2009 it 19 was discovered where the two cows went to have their calves. Unfortunately one cow didn’t’ make it 20 through the summer and both she and her calf was killed. The second cow had her calf and made it 21 through the first year. The second cow has returned very close to the same (if not the same) location 22 this year to have her calf. Indications at this time are that she had her calf and is staying around the 23 same area. 24 25 26 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES 27 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1, QUESTION 4 28 29 Does the forest contain critical habitat for regionally significant species (e.g., species 30 representative of habitat type naturally occurring in the management unit, focal species, species 31 declining regionally)? 32 33 An assessment can be carried out on the provincially featured species as there are no regionally 34 featured species at this time. 35 36 The provincially featured species that are encountered on the Hearst Forest are the pine marten, and 37 Woodland Caribou. 38 39 In the fall of 2004 the Hearst area experienced the Great Gray Owl ‘explosion’. This event saw a 40 higher number of Great Gray Owls on the Hearst Forest than had been experienced any time previous. 41 This occurrence was attributed to a lack of prey (mostly voles) in the Great Gray Owl’s normal range 42 and as a result they had pressed south in search of food (pers. comm. M. Johnson, 2005). Great gray 43 owl habitat was modeled non-spatially in the completion of the 2007-2017 Forest Management Plan 44 for the Hearst Forest and found not to be limiting. 45 46 Of the 138 bird species that breed or winter in the ONBCR8, 37 (27%) have been identified as 47 priority species in the Partner in Flight ‘Ontario Landbird Conservation Plan’. Most of these priority 48 species are common boreal forest landbirds and as such this area has a high conservation 49 responsibility. 50 51 Black-backed woodpecker is listed as a species of regional sterwardship in the BCR 8 Landbird 52 Conservation Plan. In the current Forest Management Plan there is a recommendation to apply a 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 coarse filter and model habitat of the black-backed woodpecker. There is no evidence of population 2 decline of black backed woodpecker in BCR 8. This species nest in old conifer forest types and 3 populations rise and fall on populations of wood boring beetles. The Stand and Site Guide advises 4 that burns should not be fully harvested as salvage operations following wildfire to maintain foraging 5 opportunities for this species. This black-backed woodpecker is one of the mandatory species to be 6 modeled in the wood supply modeling for forest management plans in accordance with the Old 7 Growth Policy. 8 Figure # 18 Black Backed Woodpecker Range

9 10 11 The bay-breasted warbler is listed as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird 12 Conservation Plan. The plan recommends using a coarse filter for this species by modeling the 13 preferred habitat types which are immature and older forest composed of intolerant hardwood and 14 spruce-fir-cedar forest types. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure #19 Bay Breasted Warbler Range

2 3 4 In the PIF report on Bird Conservation Region 8 Landbird Conservation Report that the population of 5 black and white warbler is increasing. This species is identified as a regional stewardship species in 6 BCR 8 and it is recommended that the habitat is modeled over time to monitor the habitat for forest 7 areas used by this species as a coarse filter. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 20 Black and White Warbler Range

2 3 4 The boreal owl is identified as a species of regional stewardship in BCR 8 Landbird Conservation 5 Plan. The primary habitat types used by the boreal owl are mature and old conifer and mixedwood 6 forest types. Modeling these habitat types over time will allow the application of a coarse filter to the 7 management of other species with these habitat preferences. The boreal owl nests and roosts in 8 existing tree cavities, either previously excavated by other cavity nesters or natural cavities. It has 9 been suggested that if forest harvesting companies were required to leave trees with cavities as 10 wildlife trees following harvest it would provide the boreal owl with adequate nesting sites. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 21 Boreal Owl Range

2 3 4 The BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan identifies Bird Conservation Region 8 as having regional 5 stewardship responsibility for the Cape May warbler. Through this it is advised that the habitat 6 preferred by the Cape May warbler be modeled over time to serve as a coarse filter. The preferred 7 habitat of the Cape May warbler is immature and older conifer with spruce and balsam fir. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure #22 Cape May Warbler Range

2 3 4 The Connecticut Warbler is listed as a species of regional concern in the BCR 8 Landbird 5 Conservation Plan. While there appears to have been an increase in the population in Bird 6 Conservation Region 8 there appears to have been significant declines in other bird conservation 7 regions. It is suggested that the preferred habitat (immature to old lowland conifer) be modeled over 8 time as a coarse filter to managing forest cover. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 23 Connecticut Warbler

2 3 4 There has been a decline in the population identified in BCR 8 of Evening Grosbeak that may be the 5 result of the reduction in spruce budworm outbreaks. The evening grosbeak has been identified as a 6 species that BCR 8 has regional stewardship over. It is recommended in the PIF report to apply a 7 coarse filter by modeling the preferred habitat as well as maintain the supply of seed bearing conifers 8 within the Estimated Range of Natural Variation (ERNV). Preferred habitat of the evening grosbeak 9 is immature and mature conifer and conifer/deciduous mixed woods with spruce and fir. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 24 Evening Grosbeak Range

2 3 4 The Nashville warbler is listed as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation 5 Plan with a recommendation to apply a coarse filter by modeling this species preferred habitat supply 6 over time. The preferred habitat of Nashville warbler is sapling to mature , open, lowland conifer and 7 intolerant hardwoods but this species will use other forest types. 8 9 Figure # 25 Nashville Warbler Range

10 11 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Although the nomadic behaviour and strong predator prey relationship of the Northern goshawk make 2 monitoring and interpretation of the data difficult, this species has been identified as a special concern 3 on the Hearst Forest. AOC prescriptions for nest sites of Northern goshawk have been developed as 4 part of the 2007-2017 Forest Management Plan for the Hearst Forest. Preferred habitat of Northern 5 goshawk is identified as mature to old deciduous or mixedwood forest but can vary depending on 6 prey densities. 7 8 Figure # 26 Northern Grosbeak Range

9 10 11 The population of the ovenbird is thought to be stable in BCR 8 as well as province wide. The 12 ovenbird is listed as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan which 13 recommends that a coarse filter be applied to its preferred habitat types by modeling habitat levels 14 over time. The preferred habitat of the ovenbird is immature to old deciduous and mixedwood forest 15 types. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure #27 Oven Bird Range

2 3 4 The population of purple finch appears to have been in decline in Bird Conservation Region 8 as well 5 as other BCR’s possibly due to the reduced number of spruce budworm outbreaks in recent years. 6 The purple finch is listed as a species of regional concern in the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan. 7 The plan recommends that preferred habitat be modeled over the long term to apply a coarse filter to 8 the management of these forest types on the landbase over time. There is also direction to keep seed 9 producing conifers within the ERNV. The preferred habitat of the purple finch is immature and older 10 conifer and mixedwood forest types. 11 12 Figure # 28 Purple Finch Range

13 14 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 It is thought that the ruby crowned kinglet population has increased in BCR 8 although it may have 2 decreased in other BCR’s in Ontario. The ruby crowned kinglet is listed as a stewardship species in 3 the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan as a regional stewardship species and it is recommended that 4 forest managers apply a coarse filter by modeling it preferred habitat over the long term. Ruby 5 crowned kinglet habitat was modeled in the current 2007-2017 Forest Management Plan. Preferred 6 habitat for ruby crowned kinglet is immature and old lowland conifer, other conifer and conifer 7 mixedwood. 8 Figure # 29 Ruby Crown Kinglet

9 10 11 The sharp-shinned hawk is listed as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird 12 Conservation Plan and it is recommended that forest managers apply a coarse filter by modeling sharp 13 shinned hawk preferred habitat over the long term. Preferred habitat is conifer, particularly lowland 14 in the immature and old development stages. The population of this species appears stable however 15 the literature states that this is a difficult species to monitor and that populations are likely 16 underestimated. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 30 Sharp Shinned Hawk

2 3 4 The yellow bellied flycatcher is listed as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird 5 Conservation Plan. It is recommended that a coarse filter approach be used by modeling the preferred 6 habitat forest types over the long term. Preferred habitat for this species includes all development 7 stages of conifer and conifer-deciduous mixedwoods. 8 9 Figure # 31 Yellow Bellied Flycatcher

10 11 12 The yellow bellied sapsucker is listed as regional stewardship species in BCR 8 with a 13 recommendation to apply a coarse filter by modeling the preferred habitat for the species over the 14 long term. The preferred habitat of the yellow bellied sapsucker is mature and old deciduous and 15 mixedwood forest types. 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 32 Yellow Bellied Sapsucker

2 3 4 The chestnut sided warbler is listed as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird 5 Conservation Plan and it is recommended that the application of a coarse filter by modeling habitat 6 levels over time. Preferred habitat is pre-sapling and sapling deciduous and mixedwood forest types. 7 Population levels appear to be stable in Ontario but decreases have been observed in rest of Canada’s 8 boreal forest. 9 Figure # 33 Chestnut Sided Warbler

10 11 12 Mourning warbler is identified as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation 13 Plan and there is a recommendation that a coarse filter is applied by having the area of preferred 14 habitat levels monitored over the long term through modeling. The forest types that are preferred 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 habitat are recently disturbed second growth pre-sapling stage mixedwood and deciduous forests. 2 The literature shows that there may be an increase in the population in BCR while other BCR’s are in 3 decline. 4 5 Figure # 34 Mourning Warbler Range

6 7 8 The BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan identifies ruffed grouse as a regional stewardship species and 9 recommends that a coarse filter is applied by modeling preferred habitat. Preferred habitat for nesting 10 and drumming is immature intolerant hardwood. Preferred habitat was modeled in the development 11 of the 2007-2017 Forest Management Plan. The populations appear to be stable although local 12 populations can vary significantly due to weather and predation levels. 13 14 Figure # 35 Ruffed Grouse Range

15 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 While populations of the black throated green warbler appear to be stable this species has been listed 3 as a regional stewardship species in the BCR 8 Landbird Conservation Plan. It has been 4 recommended that a coarse filter should be applied by modeling preferred habitat over the long term. 5 Preferred habitat for this species is mature and old conifer/deciduous mixedwoods but can be found in 6 deciduous forest with small groups or single conifers that would be used for nesting sites. 7 8 Figure # 36 Black Throated Green Warbler Range

9 10 11 The population of winter wren appears to have increased in Bird Conservation Region 8 as well as 12 other regions in Ontario. Winter wren has been identified as a regional stewardship species and has 13 been recommended to use as a coarse filter species by modeling its preferred habitat over the long 14 term. Winter wren is a species of the forest interior and preferred habitat is mature and lowland 15 conifer and conifer/deciduous mixedwoods preferably with a good amount of downed woody debris. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure #37 Winter Wren Range

2 3 4 5 6 Marten require well stocked, mature forest consisting mainly of conifer. The marten guidelines 7 currently require FMP’s to leave between 10 and 20 percent of the suitable and capable marten 8 habitat that is on the forest in Marten Core deferral areas that are between 3,000 and 5,000 hectares in 9 size. These deferrals are intended to stay on the landscape for 60 years to ensure marten and other 10 species that require the forest with the same habitat characteristics in the short to medium term. 11 12 Marten guidelines were not brought into effect as a remedy to dwindling population levels but as a 13 reaction to maintaining an appropriate amount of forest with mature and old growth habitat 14 characteristics on the landscape. 15 16 Marten populations are cyclical along the predator/prey relationships and are largely unknown. 17 However, the MNR regularly ascertains population health by monitoring trapper returns. 18 19 The forest dwelling population of Woodland Caribou is currently threatened. The absolute 20 population numbers are unknown at this time and this will likely remain to be the case until proper 21 surveys are done. Evidence gathered from a recent collaring exercise shows that there is a small herd 22 of caribou of undetermined size (thought to be 8 animals in 2010) that appears to be more or less 23 resident in the south west corner of the forest if not for the whole year, for the winter months. 24 25 Caribou require two main types of habitat throughout the year. Winter habitat is generally comprised 26 of mature, tight canopy spruce and jack pine with little or no understory and has patches of ground 27 lichen (cladina stellaris) and/or arboreal lichen on which the caribou subsist over the winter months. 28 The other type of habitat that caribou rely on is refuge habitat which is generally very poor swamps 29 which other ungulates are not likely to use and therefore may be predator free. 30 31 32 33 34 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 RANGE EDGE AND OUTLIER POPULATIONS 2 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1, QUESTION 5 3 4 Does the forest support concentrations of species at the edge of their natural ranges or outlier 5 populations? 6 7 There are a number of tree species that find themselves at the northern limit of their range that occur 8 on the Hearst Forest. The occurrence of some of these species are often associated with the big rivers 9 that flow northward from the forest while others may be retreating due to some longer term climate 10 change event. 11 12 Red pine is found in a localized area on the Hearst Forest in the vicinity of the Hornepayne highway. 13 Mature red pine is found on the shores of Red Pine Lake, Corrine Lake and there are approximately 14 seven red pine located alongside the Hornepayne Highway in the vicinity of Arnott Lake. At the 15 current time there is no active regeneration of red pine on the Hearst Forest although there is a low 16 level of natural seeding of red pine under the present overstory. 17 18 Like the red pine, there are 7 mature white pine super canopy trees growing at the junction of the 19 Calstock Bypass and Rogers Roads. The white pine appears to have been successful at seeding in 20 underneath the existing canopy and there is currently regenerating white pine in the area. 21 22 There was white pine at the south end of the forest on the Boomerang Loop. This population is more 23 in the vicinity of the continuous white pine population is the Champlain Township area of the Gordon 24 Cosens Forest. There are currently no known areas in this area that white pine have regenerated 25 naturally although some white pine were mixed into the plantation that has been established in the 26 area where the pine were known to exist. 27 28 The manner and location in which the red and white pine occur on the forest would lead one to 29 believe that at some point in the past that these two species were more evenly distributed across the 30 Hearst Forest. Due to changes in climatic conditions the range of these tree species has decreased 31 over time to the degree where these small populations continue to exist. 32 33 Red and White Pine are a High Conservation Value. 34 35 There are a number of occurrences of White Elm on the Hearst Forest. These are all associated with 36 the large rivers that flow to the north from the height of land. It is likely that this is the result of the 37 transportation of the seed northward on the river, possibly during high water events that saw seed 38 being deposited. Growth of these southern species may have been facilitated by the climate 39 moderating effects of the big rivers. 40 41 White Elm is a High Conservation Value. 42 43 Review of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) indicates that the Goldwin Township 44 Islands supports an Ash/Elm community in conjunction with other species that are considered to be 45 rare on the Claybelt including wild ginger, red baneberry, and hairy Solomon’s seal. These species 46 can exist on these islands because of warmer than normal ecoclimates due to good air drainage along 47 the river. 48 49 A report of an occurrence of poison ivy was made (G. Graham pers. Comm., 2009) on the shores of 50 the Missinaibi River near Thunderhouse Falls in the summer of 2009. This species likely made it to 51 this part of the forest on the river. 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 CONSERVATION RESERVES 2 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1, QUESTION 6 3 4 Does the forest lie within, adjacent to, or contain a conservation area: a) designated by an 5 international authority, b) legally designated or proposed by relevant federal/provincial/territorial 6 legislative body, or c) identified in regional land use plans or conservation plans? 7 8 An examination of the Hearst District Land Use Guidelines, the Canadian Conservation and 9 UNESCO databases was completed in an attempt to determine if there were any areas of the Hearst 10 Forest that had previously been identified as potential future protected or conservation areas. This 11 examination showed that no areas of the Hearst Forest have be identified as potential future protected 12 or conservation areas. 13 14 There are 4 provincial parks on the Hearst Forest. Fushimi Provincial Park, north west of the town of 15 Hearst, is a Recreation park. In the central part of the Hearst Forest there is the Nagagamasis 16 Provincial Park, which is also a recreation park, along with the Nagagamasis Park Addition, a nature 17 reserve, which adds portions of Elgie, Frost and McEwing townships, North and west of Nagagamisis 18 Park and the Nagagami River which extends to the north central part of the forest and is a water way 19 park. The Missinaibi Provincial is on the east side of the forest and extends to the north to the Coal 20 River Node which is an area identified through the Lands for Life and then regulated through the 21 Ontario Living Legacy process. The Missinaibi River is a water way park. In the south of the forest 22 is the Pichogen River Mixed Forest Provincial Park. This park was brought into regulation through 23 the Ontario Living Legacy process. This park is a nature reserve. 24 25 There are also 2 Conservation Reserves as well as an Enhanced Management Area (EMA) identified 26 for recreation opportunities on the forest. 27 28 The Conservation Reserves include the Dube Creek Ice Berg Keel Marks, which is located in Irish 29 Township southwest of the Town of Hearst, and the Ste Therese Ground Moraine located in Hanlan 30 Township north of Hearst near the chain of lakes. 31 32 The EMA (recreation) is located to the north of Nagagamisis Provincial Park. This area is very 33 popular as a recreation destination with Hearst area residents for hunting, fishing and camping area. 34 35 These sites were identified in the late 1990’s and brought into regulation in 2003. 36 37 38 LARGE AND REMNANT LANDSCAPE LEVEL FORESTS 39 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES 2 & 3, QUESTIONS 7 & 10 40 Does the forest constitute or form part of a globally, nationally or regionally significant forest 41 landscape that includes populations of most native species and sufficient habitat such that there is 42 a high likelihood of long-term species persistence? 43 Are large landscape level forests (i.e. large unfragmented forests) rare or absent in the forest or 44 ecoregion? 45 46 Industrial harvesting of the forest began on the Hearst Forest in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s in 47 earnest and has been ramping up since the late 1960’s and 1970’s with the advent of mechanical 48 harvesting. Through examination of the most recent Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for the Hearst 49 Forest, it is obvious that this land, although it has been harvested has regenerated and now provides 50 an unfragmented forest landscape that serves as habitat for species of animals that require early to 51 mid successional forest conditions. 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 There are also areas of significant size that have not had access created in them and have not 2 undergone harvesting operations at this time. Some of this area is contiguous to forest areas north of 3 the Hearst Forest which is north of the area of the undertaking 4 5 The age class and species structure of the Hearst Forest is a mix of the legacy of the pattern of 6 wildfire that has been left prior to the advent of effective forest fire protection and the forest 7 harvesting patterns. Forest harvesting has been carried out on the Hearst Forest since the latter half of 8 the 20th century. It is this pattern that is sustaining the native species on the forest that have adapted 9 to these conditions. 10 11 These native species require many different types of forest over the course of their life cycles to allow 12 them to persist on the landscape. This means that not only do we need large and small areas of old 13 growth forest today, but also areas of mid age and young forest to progress and age into old forest in 14 the future. 15 16 Using the definition of intact forest that states areas of intact forest are at least one kilometre from a 17 road and not impacted by industrial activities in the past 30 to 70 years. The areas of intact forest that 18 remain on the Hearst Forest today are areas that regenerated following wildfires that occurred in the 19 early part of the 20th century, specifically the fires of 1905, 1910 and 1923. 20 21 Working from the west to east the first areas of intact forest are areas that have regenerated from a 22 wildfire that burned in 1910. Today there are four sections of this fire remaining on the forest as the 23 area has been separated north/south by Highway 11 and on the south side of Highway 11, bisected by 24 Larry’s Road. The four areas are between 2,460 and 40,680 hectares in size. These areas are not 25 regionally significant areas of intact forest. 26 27 There is an area of older forest north of this area that has been used as marten core habitat for the past 28 two planning terms. This area is 10,800 ha and is not a regionally significant intact forest area. 29 30 There are two areas that are the result of the 1923 fire in the south end of Hearst Forest. There is one 31 area in Walls and Marjorie Township which a portion forms the Pichogan Mixed Forest Conservation 32 Reserve. This area is 7,294 ha and is not a regionally significant intact forest. 33 34 The northeast area of the forest was the site of a very large forest fire that in 1905 that extended both 35 to the east and north of the Hearst Forest. This area has been broken into three with mining activity 36 north of the area of the undertaking and the construction of the Waxatike and McGowan Roads 37 beyond Friday Creek. This has resulted in one Regionally Significant Intact Forest area of 101,496 38 ha on the forest. This area is also contiguous with the undeveloped area north of the Hearst Forest i.e. 39 the area of the undertaking. Given the location of this area of intact forest with extensive intact forest 40 to the north this is not a High Conservation Value. 41 42 43 RARE, UNIQUE OR DIVERSE ECOSYSTEMS 44 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 3, QUESTIONS 8 & 11 45 Does the forest contain naturally rare ecosystem types? 46 Are there nationally/regionally significant diverse or unique forest ecosystems? 47 48 There are two locations on the Hearst Forest where black ash/white elm forest ecosystems. Both of 49 these areas are associated with large rivers on the forest and are subject to periodic flooding during 50 spring high water season. Neither of these species appear to regenerating under the existing canopy 51 (pers. Obs. 2007) while the trees in the overstory are beginning to succumb to the effects of old age 52 and weather. These sites are not likely to be maintained on the landscape without some sort of 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 disturbance and effort to regenerate them to the existing species. Given the location of these areas it 2 isn’t likely that they will be sustained on the landscape through any kind of human caused activity. 3 4 5 ECOSYSTEMS IN DECLINE 6 HIGH CONSERVATON VALUE 3, QUESTION 9 7 Are there ecosystem types within the forest or ecoregion that have significantly declined? 8 9 Locally there are two occurrences of black ash/white elm ecosystems on the Hearst Forest. As the 10 existing trees age and are dying due to the effects of age and weather events they are not being 11 replaced by younger trees of these species. It is anticipated that these tree species interactions will 12 cease to exist in the future unless there is some sort of disturbance. 13 14 15 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER 16 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4, QUESTION 12 17 18 Does the forest provide a significant source of drinking water? 19 20 The communities that are on the forest that obtain their drinking water from municipal water supplies 21 are Hearst, Mattice and Constance Lake. 22 23 The town of Hearst is the most populous town on the Hearst Forest with a population of 5,620 (2006 24 Census). The town of Hearst draws its water from the Mattawishkwia River which flows through the 25 town. The Mattawishwia River watershed is 1,140 square kilometers in size and flows through 5 26 townships (both private and crown) on it way to the Hearst townsite. 27 28 Mattice is the next largest community on the Hearst Forest with a population of 772 (2006 Census). 29 Mattice draws its water from the Missinaibi River. The Missinaibi River watershed area by the time 30 it flows into Mattice is 8,940 km2. The Missinaibi covers over 100 km of straight line distance from 31 it’s headwaters in Missinaibi Lake before reaching Mattice. 32 33 Constance Lake First Nation has the third largest population of the communities on the Hearst Forest 34 with an on Reserve population of 740 (2006 Census). The community draws its water from 35 Constance Lake with a watershed area of just over 26 square kilometers. This is the smallest 36 watershed of the three communities with municipal water systems. Most of this watershed is on 37 crown land i.e. not on the reserve, so this area could be most heavily impacted should forest 38 management activities negatively affect the area. 39 40 Constance Lake is currently experiencing a bloom of blue-green algae making the water from 41 Constance Lake not potable. The community must rely on bottled water for drinking and cooking. 42 43 Residents of other communities on the forest such as Hallebourg, Val Cote, Jogues and Lac Ste 44 Therese as well as the rural residents living outside of these and communities obtain their drinking 45 water from wells usually located on their own property. At this time there has been nothing identified 46 that would impact these wells. 47 48 Constance Lake is a High Conservation Value. 49 50 51 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 FLOOD CONTROL AND DROUGHT ALLEVIATION 2 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4, QUESTION 13 3 Are there forests that provide a significant ecological service in mediating flooding and/or drought, 4 controlling stream flow regulation, and water quality? 5 6 The Hearst Forest is largely a contiguous natural forest despite having evidence of a level of 7 anthropogenic disturbance and as a natural forest provides the ecological services of moderating 8 water flows. Having said this, there have been years where low water levels have occurred in both 9 river and the water table that have affected town water as well as some of the less productive wells in 10 the area. To combat this, the town of Hearst had to install two weirs to ensure the Town and the 11 Columbia Forest Products mill did not run out of water. 12 13 The majority of the area of the Hearst Forest is not developed and is still forested. The vegetation on 14 the land regulates the speed at which the water flows from the land following rain events by 15 absorbing and diverting water flows. 16 17 By maintaining vegetation on the landscape in general and more specifically in the areas adjacent to 18 riparian areas the risk of erosion in minimized as precipitation isn’t falling directly on exposed soils 19 that could be susceptible to erosion. 20 21 Due to the condition of the Hearst Forest being predominantly forested no specific areas are identified 22 as being of particularly high conservation value to mediate the risk of flooding and or drought. 23 24 The Hearst Forest has a number of large rivers running through it. The Pagwa, Nagagami, 25 Kabinakagami on the west side of the forest are large rivers measuring 100 metres across at points 26 and provide drainage for the area of the forest west of the Fushimi Lake. The rivers join together and 27 become the Kenogami River at the northern boundary of the forest. 28 29 The area east of the Fushimi Road is drained by a number of smaller rivers that ultimately drain into 30 the Missinaibi River before it drains into James Bay. One of these smaller rivers is the Pivabiska 31 River. The Pivabiska River starts at the end of a series of 5 lakes that are large for this area of the 32 province. This series of lakes serves as a fairly large reservoir that should any extreme rain event 33 occur would absorb a large amount of runoff should it be necessary. 34 35 The Hearst Forest is part of two Second Order Watersheds. The Kenogami watershed on the west 36 side of the forest and the Missinaibi-Mattagami Watershed on the east side of the forest. 37 38 The Kenogami watershed on the Hearst Forest is made up of portions of 4 tertiary watersheds; the 39 Upper Kabinakagami, Lower Kabinakagami, Nagagami and the Upper Kenogami. The Upper 40 Kabinakagami is located in the lower central part of the Hearst Forest and includes Kabinakagami 41 Lake. The Lower Kabinakagami watershed is located in the north central portion of the forest and 42 includes water bodies such as the Fox River and Carey Lake in the vicinity of the Fushimi Road that 43 flow into the Kabinakagami River which then flows into the Kenogami River. The Nagagami 44 watershed is located on the west side of the forest and includes the Pitopiko and Shekak Rivers which 45 flow into the Nagagami River. The Shekak River is the only waterbody on the forest that has a water 46 power facility on it. The Upper Kenogami watershed is largely not located on the forest as it is 47 mainly west and north of the forest. This watershed includes the Pagwa River before it flows into the 48 Kenogami River. 49 50 The Upper Kabinakagami is made of two 4th order watersheds which account for 152,144 hectares on 51 the Hearst Forest. The 4JA-01 watershed is 135,246 ha. Of this 5% of the area on the Hearst Forest 52 has been harvested between 1997 and 2007. The 4JA-02 watershed is 16,698 ha and this watershed 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 has not seen any harvesting operations over the time period of the last two FMPs for the Hearst 2 Forest. 3 4 Figure # 38

5 6 The Lower Kabinakagami water shed is made up of 2 4th order watersheds on the Hearst Forest; the 7 4JB-01 which is 48,330 hectares, and the 4JB-03 which is 38,717 hectares. Between 1997 and 2007 8 6% of 4JB-01, and 15% of 4JB-03 have been the subject of forest harvesting operations. 9 10 The Nagagami watershed on the Hearst Forest is made up of 9 4th order watersheds. The 4JC-01 is 11 94,484 hectares of which 4% has been cut. The 4JC-02 watershed is 87,771 hectares with 10% 12 harvested in the 1997-2007 time period. The 4JC-03 which is 56,609 ha in size has had 5% of its area 13 cut. The 4JC-04 is 41,199 ha and is contained entirely within the bounds of the Hearst Forest has had 14 6% of the area harvested in the 1997-2007 time period. The 4JC-05 watershed is 15,482 ha in size 15 and has seen 12% of the area cut in the past two planning periods. 4JC-06 is 70,069 ha in size has 16 had harvesting operation on 3% over the 1997-2007 planning terms. The 4JC-07 4th order water shed 17 is 15,477 hectares in size and has not had any harvesting activities occur between 1997 and 2007. 18 The 4JC-12 watershed is 48,291 ha of which 6,022 ha or 12% has been harvested in the last two 19 planning terms. The portion of the 4JC-13 watershed that is located on the Hearst Forest is 1,385 ha. 20 Of this 53 ha or 4% of the watershed has been harvested in the 1997-2007 time period. 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 Only 31,701 hectares of the total 271,756 hectares of the 4JD-06 4th order water shed is located on the 3 Hearst Forest. Of this 42% of the area has seen harvesting operations occur between 1997 and 2007. 4 This is largely due to the age class structure of the forest and the fact that this area was largely 5 inaccessible to the forest industry prior to the early 1990’s. 6 7 On the east side of the forest the Missinaibi-Mattagami second order watershed is made up of 4 8 tertiary water sheds: - the Upper Missinaibi which just catches the bottom corner of the forest with 9 a small portion of Legge Township; 10 - the Central Missinaibi-Mattawichewan watershed which is encompasses the 11 lower centre part of the forest and extend northward towards and beyond the 12 community of Mattice to Goldwin Township where the Mattiwishkwia River 13 flows into the Missinaibi; 14 - the Central Missinaibi-Mattawishkwia watershed extends from the Fushimi 15 Road and the Hearst Chain of Lakes and including the Town of Hearst., and 16 - the Opasatika watershed includes the eastern sections of the forest and 17 extends northward to include the Waxatike area of the Hearst Forest. 18 19 The Upper Missinaibi watershed only includes one 4th order watershed on the Hearst Forest. The 20 4LH-06 watershed is only 19,650 hectares on the Hearst Forest and none of it has seen harvesting 21 operations between 1997 and 2007. 22 23 The Central Missinaibi-Mattawishkwia watershed, on the Hearst Forest, is made up four 4th order 24 watersheds. The 4LJ-01 watershed is 33,121 hectares which has seen no forest harvesting operations 25 in the 19997-2007 planning terms. The 4LJ-03 watershed which is almost entirely within the bounds 26 of the Hearst Forest is 26,912 ha and has not seen harvest operations in the 1997-2007 time period. 27 The 4LJ-04 watershed is 168,706 ha in size and 1% of this 4th order watershed has been harvested 28 between 1997 and 2007. The 4 LJ-05 watershed is 22,084 ha in size and no operations have been 29 carried out in this watershed in the 1997 to 2007 time period. 30 31 The Central Missinaibi-Mattawishwia watershed, on the Hearst Forest is made up of four 4th order 32 watersheds. The 4LK-01 watershed is 58,569 ha in size and has had 1% of this area harvested 33 between 1997 and 2007. The 4LK-06 watershed is 102,872 ha of which 4% has been harvested in the 34 last two planning terms. The 4LK-07 watershed is 34,704 ha and entirely within the bounds of the 35 Hearst Forest . This watershed has not had any forest operations take place within it in the 1997-2007 36 planning term. The 4LK-08 watershed is also entirely within the bounds of the Hearst Forest. This 37 watershed is 194,524 ha in size and has had 2% of its area harvested between 1997 and 2007. 38 39 The Opasatika tertiary watershed that is within the bounds of the Hearst Forest is made up of five 4th 40 order watersheds. The Opasatika watershed saw a high proportion of harvest in the Waxatike area of 41 the forest through the 1997-2007 planning terms. This is the result of the age class of the area which 42 is almost all the result of a very large fire that occurred in 1905. The 4LL-01 watershed is 12,289 ha 43 of which 25% was harvested in the time period between 1997 and 2007. The 4LL-03 has a very 44 small portion of it located on the Hearst Forest with only 43 ha of the 44,525 ha total water shed 45 being located on the Hearst Forest. None of this area has been harvested between 1997 and 2007. 46 The 4LL-04 watershed has had 16% of its 14,813 ha harvested in the previous two planning periods. 47 The 4LL-05 watershed is 42,101 hectares in size of which 14% has been harvest in the 1997-2007 48 time period. The 4LL-06 watershed is 32,272 in size of which 15% of the area that is on the Hearst 49 Forest has been harvested between 1997 and 2007. 50 51 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 EROSION CONTROL 2 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4, QUESTION 14 3 Are there forests critical to erosion control? 4 5 In the case of forest management, forest harvesting operations routinely leave appropriate buffer areas 6 along water ways in an effort to prevent erosion that is the result of harvesting operations. Buffer 7 zones adjacent to waterways are of varying widths depending on the slope of the ground i.e. greater 8 slopes receive wider buffer zones. 9 10 There have been cases on the large rivers, i.e. Nagagami and Kabinakagami where the river banks 11 have collapsed into the river temporarily blocking the water flow. This is a natural phenomenon that 12 occurs a number of times over the lifespan of the river as the river ages and attempts to find the most 13 direct route to Hudson Bay. However these impacts are of natural causes and cannot be mitigated 14 through forest management activities. 15 16 Where harvesting operations are carried out in adjacent to these large rivers, buffer zones of an 17 appropriate width will be left to ensure adequate shoreline vegetation is retained to bind soils together 18 with the root mat of the vegetation and maintain stable shorelines. 19 20 One activity where the potential for erosion occurs is at the installation of water crossings, both at the 21 installation phase and then ongoing for the length of time that the water crossing remains in place. 22 Best management practices regarding the installation and monitoring and maintenance of water 23 crossings have been developed in conjunction with the operators on the forest over the years to 24 eliminate or mitigate the effects of erosion on water bodies that have been crossed. 25 Hearst Forest Management in partnership with the companies operating on the forest has developed a 26 manual describing different methods of minimizing site damage while carrying out forest operations. 27 This manual has been distributed to the harvesting operators and supervisors who work on the forest. 28 By following the practices described in the manual site damage and subsequent erosion is minimized 29 or mitigated. 30 31 32 FIRE BARRIER 33 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4, QUESTION 15 34 Are there forest that provide a critical barrier to destructive fire (in areas where fire is not a 35 common natural agent of disturbance)? 36 37 The boreal forest not only does not exclude fire, it requires periodic fire to maintain its health. 38 Periodic destructive fire serves to not only renew the forest but also to occasionally remove the build 39 up of the seed bank of tree and shrub species that impede regeneration of the forest. While there are 40 areas where fire is less likely to be a regular occurrence i.e. very wet spruce and cedar lowlands, it has 41 been seen that occasionally even these areas get dry enough that they will ignite and burn. 42 43 There are no areas of extreme topography where fire would not be expected to travel on the Hearst 44 Forest. 45 46 Active fire suppression and especially in the most recent times has helped to keep fire off the 47 landscape of the Hearst Forest by suppressing small fire before they have a chance to become larger 48 landscape changing fires. The effect of this active fire suppression has resulted in an age class 49 structure and species composition that may not be a reflection of the natural forest. For example by 50 eliminating fire from the Hearst Forest, some tree species that are very susceptible to fire i.e. balsam 51 fir and cedar, now persist on the forest in larger numbers than would occur in forest driven entirely by 52 natural processes. 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES IMPACTS 3 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4, QUESTION 16 4 Are there forest landscapes (or regional landscapes) that have a critical impact on agriculture or 5 fisheries? 6 7 Riparian forest areas provide protection for waterbodies by providing bank stability, sediment control, 8 moderating nutrient inputs and by moderating temperature fluctuations by providing shading to the 9 waterbody. 10 11 Although values information showing areas of critical fisheries habitat i.e. spawning beds, nursery 12 sites etc, this level of detail is limited on the Hearst Forest. Where these values are known, buffers as 13 well as restrictions on water crossing types and locations are put into place so as to not negatively 14 impact fisheries values. 15 16 Large scale agricultural activity in and around the Hearst Forest is limited to livestock and haying to 17 provide forage supplies for animals through the winter months. Forest operations on the Hearst 18 Forest are unlikely to affect these activities. 19 20 21 MEETING BASIC NEEDS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES 22 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 5, QUESTION 17 23 Are there local communities (includes people living inside the forest area and those living adjacent 24 to it) as well as any group that regularly visits the forest making use of the forest for basic 25 needs/livelihoods (e.g. food, medicine, fodder, fuel, building and craft materials, water, income)? 26 27 The local communities on and surrounding the Hearst Forest rely on the Forest for many aspects of 28 daily life. The recreation opportunities afforded by the forest contribute greatly to the quality of life 29 in Northern Ontario, while many others rely on the forest for cultural identity, subsistence, medicinal 30 plants and as a source of income. 31 32 First Nations 33 Although there is only one First Nations community located on the Hearst Forest, Constance Lake 34 First Nation, there are a number of other First Nations that use portions of the Hearst Forest which 35 forms a portion of their traditional territory. The Hornepayne and Moose Cree First Nations both 36 have members who have registered traplines on the Forest as well as using the forest for other 37 traditional activities such as hunting, berry picking and harvesting of medicinal plants. 38 39 During the preparation of an FMP each First Nations Community that may have members that could 40 be possibly affected by forestry operations occurring are contacted to determine whether or how they 41 want to be involved in the public consultation process FMP. The communities have the option of 42 being involved in the general process of public consultation or have a public consultation process that 43 deals exclusively with the First Nations community. This option has been available for the past 2 44 FMPs and the communities of Constance Lake and Hornepayne Cree have chosen to have a process 45 that worked separately with the First Nation. Constance Lake has also had members of the 46 community sitting on the planning team for the past two plans in an effort to more completely consult 47 with the First Nation over forest management planning issues. 48 49 As a way of obtaining First Nations values prior to beginning planning activities the Aboriginal 50 Background Information Report was completed for Constance Lake for the 1997 FMP and the 51 Hornepayne Cree for the 2002 FMP. These reports, while not complete, are a good start on getting a 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 product that can be beneficial to First Nations values protection in the forest management planning 2 process. 3 4 The winter of 1997 saw an unfortunate incident where the mill entrance to Lecours Lumber Co Ltd 5 was blockaded by members of Constance Lake First Nation as a result of the frustration the 6 community felt regarding not having equal opportunities to earn a livelihood from the forest and the 7 forest industry. The event was actually the culmination of a series of events where forest companies 8 were conducting harvesting operations on First Nations traplines with no prior consultation with the 9 trapper working in the area. 10 11 The outcome from this event was that a ‘co-existence agreement’ was struck. The committee that 12 struck this agreement was composed of local forest industry, First Nations members, the Province of 13 Ontario represented by members of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Government of 14 Canada represented by staff of the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada(INAC). The agreement that 15 was reached outlined the manner of how and when First Nations trappers would be advised and 16 consulted prior to harvesting operations taking place on their traplines. The agreement also made 17 arrangements for the existing forest companies to encourage and support the development of a First 18 Nations logging company. The agreement also addressed topics such as community compensation 19 for logging operations through the delivery of firewood to the community and the development of a 20 scholarship fund for First Nations members interested in pursuing education in natural resources 21 management. While this agreement has never been signed it has been lived up to by all of the parties. 22 23 Recreation 24 The Hearst Forest is extremely important to the people of the Hearst area and surrounding 25 communities as well as people of Ontario for the many recreational activities that can be enjoyed in 26 the forest. 27 28 Residents and non residents regularly use the area of the Hearst Forest for camping, cottaging, 29 hunting, and fishing as well as activities involving photographing and watching birds and other wild 30 life. 31 32 Many residents of both Hearst and Constance Lake pursue trapping activities in the fall and winter of 33 the year. While much of Northern Ontario was opened up through trapping and the fur trade, trapping 34 of late has become less of a economic benefit to the trappers themselves. With reports of yields for 35 the furs not amounting to enough to cover the cost of gas. many of these individuals choose to 36 continue trapping as a seasonal way of life for traditional and spiritual reasons. 37 38 The large rivers in the area are enjoyed by both residents and non residents of the area for recreation 39 and as travel corridors while pursuing other activities such as hunting and fishing. Some of these 40 rivers have been declared waterway parks and are enjoyed by canoeists from all over the world. One 41 river in particular, the Shekak, has been used by a company offering guided white water rafting tours. 42 43 Through the Lands for Life exercise which established a number of new parks and protected areas 44 across the province, the establishment of an Enhanced Management Area (EMA) was established on 45 the Hearst Forest south of Highway 11 and straddling Highway 631 for the purposes of providing 46 recreational activities to the people of Ontario. 47 48 49 50 51 52 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 Figure # 39 Map of Enhanced Management Area

2 3 4 Fuelwood 5 A number of local residents use the roads developed for logging operations to access to past and 6 present harvest areas to collect personal fuelwood. Access to the forest for this activity is considered 7 part of the traditional way of life and contributes to the quality of life for many residents of the Hearst 8 Forest. 9 10 For the fiscal year April, 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 the local MNR District office issued 105 11 firewood permits for a total permitted volume of 1012.5 cubic meters of firewood. 12 13 Forest Industry 14 There are a number of local and not so local forest industries that rely on inputs from the Hearst 15 Forest to maintain their mills and operations. Table 1 lists the wood supply commitments that are 16 outlined in Appendix E of the SFL document for the Hearst Forest. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 Table #1 Wood Supply Commitments from the Hearst Forest

Company Species Volume Special Conditions (m³) Lecours Lumber Company Ltd. Conifer 311,417 Sawlogs Tembec Industries Inc. Conifer 256,691 Sawlogs Grant Forest Products Inc. Aspen 115,057 Non Veneer Grade for Englehart Mill Levesque Plywood Limited (Columbia) Aspen 56,602 Veneer quality Aspen Birch 1,000 Veneer quality Birch Longlac Wood Industries Inc. Aspen 18,000 Non veneer quality Aspen 6,000 Veneer quality Aspen Marcel Lacroix Conifer 6,515 To be sold to Tembec or Lecours Constance Lake First Nation Conifer 13,030 To be sold to Tembec or Lecours 3 4 5 Aside from the commitments laid out in the SFL document, a variety of wood residues that are 6 byproducts of the sawmilling or plywood making processes that move from facility to facility, some 7 which are outlined in SFL documents, but also others that are on business to business agreements. 8 Table ## list the volumes and types of wood residues that were transported to other wood processing 9 facilities. 10 11 Table 2 Products Generated from Roundwood Delivered to Hearst Mills Company Roundwood Volume Volume of Product Columbia 56,602 Aspen 28,301 m³ plywood 15,283 m³ wood chips 9,222 m³ hog fuel 3,396 m³ landscaping timbers Lecours Lumber Co. Ltd 311,000 conifer 58,716,800 board feet lumber 61,578 odmt*wood chips 41,985 gmt** bark 16,172 odmt sawdust 9,019 odmt shavings

Tembec Industries Inc. 256,000 conifer 56,888,889 board feet lumber 50,688 odmt wood chips 34,560 gmt bark 13,312 odmt sawdust 7,424 odmt shavings 12 *odmt oven dry metric tons 13 ** gmt green metric tons 14 15 16 17 18 19 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 Resource Based Tourism 3 There are 17 resource based tourism establishments that use various areas of the forest in support of 4 their businesses. The resource based tourism designation covers a range of activities from remote 5 destinations to road based tourism including hunting and fishing to canoe trip outfitting, bear hunting 6 opportunities and camping. The resource based tourism establishments located on or use a portion of 7 the Hearst Forest for their operations are listed in Table#3 8 9 Table # 3 Resource Based Tourism Outfitters Business Name Based out of Crown Resource Used Bear Land Fish Moose Big Bear Outfitter Hearst √ Brunswick Lake Lodge Georgetown √ √ √ Camping Boudrias Hearst √ Doug’s Guiding Service Hearst √ Flint Wilderness Resort Longlac √ Fushimi Cabin Rentals Hearst √ √ Hearst Air Service Hearst √ √ Kap Outfitters Kapuskasing √ √ √ √ Klotz Lake Camp Longlac √ Mammamatawa Camps Constance Lake √ √ √ Rufus Lake Outfitters Kapuskasing √ √ √ √ Missinaibi Outfitters Mattice √ √ √ √ Oba Tourist Outfitters Lakeview, MI √ Pagwa Wilderness Outfitters Hearst √ √ √ Payeur Bear Outfitters Hearst √ Pro North Outfitters Hornepayne √ Timberdoodle Lodge Hornepayne √ 10 11 12 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL IDENTITY OF LOCAL COMMUNITY 13 HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 6, QUESTION 18 14 Is the traditional cultural identity of the local community particularly tied to a specific forest area? 15 16 For this question local community is interpreted as a First Nations or other Community that is entirely 17 contained within the Hearst Forest or members of a community outside the bounds of the Hearst 18 Forest but regularly spend time on areas of the Hearst Forest. 19 20 The communities that are directly located on the Hearst Forest includes: Hearst, Constance Lake 21 First, Nation, Mattice, Val Cote, Hallebourg, Lac Ste Therese, Jogues and Coppell. 22 23 Other communities with residents that may also use parts of the Hearst Forest on a regular basis 24 include: Hornepayne, the Hornepayne Cree First Nation, Opasatika, Val Rita, Kapuskasing, Longlac, 25 Moosonee and Moose Factory 26 27 Members of the above communities regularly use areas of the Hearst Forest on an almost traditional 28 basis. Moose hunters regularly hunt with the same group of hunters annually and hunt and camp in 29 the same area year after year as they learn the surrounding terrain. 2010 High Conservation Value Forest Report for the Hearst Forest 1 2 Groups of campers traditionally return with the same group to the same site on the same lake year 3 after year imparting almost a family cottage nature to the area. 4 5 First Nations and non aboriginal trappers have exclusive trapping rights on their traplines and as a 6 result maintain trails and trap cabins year after year as a part of what they consider their traditional 7 identity. 8 9 The present location of Constance Lake First Nation is not the traditional location for a large 10 proportion of the members of the community. This site was only occupied in the late 1940’s when 11 the community that had been located at Pagwa River was moved to Constance Lake in an effort to 12 provide employees to sawmills that had just been started in the area. Following this move, a number 13 of the community members continued to maintain residences and camps in the vicinity of Pagwa 14 River and this site continues to be a focus area for this portion of the Constance Lake population. 15 16 17 OVERLAPPING VALUES 18 INTERSECTION OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES, QUESTION 19 19 Is there a significant overlap of values (ecological and/or cultural) that individually did not meet 20 the HCV thresholds, but collectively constitute HCVs? 21 22 Following investigations into the location and abundance of any regionally, nationally or globally 23 significant areas of intact forest on the Hearst Forest has shown one area of regionally significant 24 intact forest in the Northeast area of the Hearst Forest. This area is also vitally important to the 25 socio-economic well being of the community of Hearst as well as the surrounding communities 26 including Constance Lake First Nation. This area is now scheduled to be managed under the 27 Dynamic Caribou Habitat Schedule as required by Provincial Guidelines and Policy. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35