independent forest audit - french-severn forest · audit team members and their qualifications are...
TRANSCRIPT
© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2012
349 Mooney AvenueThunder Bay, OntarioCanada P7B 5L5Bus: 807-345-5445www.kbm.on.ca
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... iii 2.0 Table of Recommendations ........................................................................................... 1 3.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Audit Process .......................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Management Unit Description .................................................................................................. 2 3.3 Current Issues ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit ............................................................................ 5
4.0 Audit Findings ................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Commitment ........................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement ........................................................................ 5 4.3 Forest Management Planning ................................................................................................... 6
Forest Management Plan .............................................................................................................. 6 4.4 Plan Assessment and Implementation ...................................................................................... 9
Plan Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 9 Areas of Concern .......................................................................................................................... 9 Silviculture ................................................................................................................................. 10 Access ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.5 System Support .................................................................................................................... 13 4.6 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 13
Compliance ................................................................................................................................ 13 Silviculture ................................................................................................................................. 13 Annual Reports .......................................................................................................................... 14
4.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Sustainability...................................................... 15 Achievement of Management Objectives ...................................................................................... 15 Forest Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 16
4.8 Contractual Obligations ......................................................................................................... 17 4.9 Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation .............................................................. 19
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. ii
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 20
Appendix 2 – Management Objectives Tables ..................................................................................... 28
Appendix 3 – Compliance with Contractual Obligations ........................................................................ 31
Appendix 4 – Audit Process ............................................................................................................... 37
Appendix 5 – List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................... 42
Appendix 6 – Audit Team Members and Qualifications ......................................................................... 44
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Table of Recommendations..................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Examples of Field Level Objectives from the 2004-2024 French-Severn FMP ............................ 15
Table 3. Summary and Analysis of Silviculture Success ........................................................................ 17
Table 4. Summary of the Status of the 2004 FMP Objectives ............................................................... 28
Table 5. Compliance with Contractual Obligations ............................................................................... 31
Table 6. Summary of Progress on Actions to Address the 2006 IFA Recommendations .......................... 33
Table 7. IFA Procedures Selected by the Audit Team ........................................................................... 38
Table 8. Audit Sampling Intensity for the French-Severn Forest ........................................................... 40
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the French-Severn Forest ..................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Forest Composition of Crown Portion of Forest by Forest Unit .................................................. 4
Figure 3. Stop 10 on the Ranger Bay Road, Blair Township. ................................................................. 12
Figure 4. Graph of Silvicultural Expenditures and Account Balance over the Audit Period. ...................... 18
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
All Crown forests in Ontario are required to be audited at least every five years; the requirement for independent audits arising from MNR's Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management
on Crown Lands in Ontario (2003). Regulation 160/04 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (S.O. 1994,
c. 25) (CFSA) sets out the specific requirements for conducting the audits.
This report documents the results of the Independent Forest Audit (IFA) of the French-Severn Forest (the
Forest) conducted by KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. (KBM) covering the five-year period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2011. Two forest management plans are included in the scope of this audit. Specifically,
implementation of the last three years of the 2004-2024 FMP, and planning and approval of the 2009-2019 FMP as well as its implementation for the first two year period of its term. During the audit term
the Forest was managed under a Sustainable Forest Licence held by Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc.
(Westwind). The principal auditees were Westwind and MNR Parry Sound District.
Based on the audit, seven recommendations were made. Recommendations arise from the audit team’s observations of material non-conformances, or may be developed to address situations in which the audit
team identifies a significant lack of effectiveness in forest management activities. Two recommendations
centre on consultation with Aboriginal communities; one dealing with the need for improvements in MNR’s record-keeping practices and the other with opportunities for Aboriginal communities to benefit
through forest management planning. Two recommendations address deficiencies in the approach to preparation of exceptions and to direction provided in implementation manuals. Three recommendations
focus on issues associated with the renewal program and one recommendation deals with ensuring that the content requirements of the Year 10 Annual Report are met. All audit recommendations must be
addressed through audit action plans.
Regenerating white pine on competition-prone sites is proving to be difficult and expensive as
regeneration practices are relying more on artificial methods, rather than natural seeding. In addition, the ability to evaluate regeneration status of white pine harvest blocks is being complicated by the
prolonged period between initial harvest and final assessment of free-to grow. As a result, the audit
team was unable to definitively assess the success of the white pine renewal program.
The minimum balance within the Forest Renewal Trust Account fell below requirements during two years of the audit term, as Westwind continued spending on renewal when renewal revenues had declined due
to decreasing harvest levels. The minimum balance was restored; however, this was accomplished by
significantly curtailing spending on silviculture during that time. This approach is not a long term solution. A successful renewal program requires stable funding, although this is presently difficult due to
the ongoing financial challenges faced by the forest industry, low harvest levels and the funding formula for renewal. MNR’s current tenure and pricing review may assist in addressing some of these issues.
The audit team concludes that management of the French-Severn Forest was generally in compliance
with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and
that the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sustainable Forest Licence held by Westwind Forest Management Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed
through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends that the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence 542411 for a further five years.
Rod Seabrook EP(EMSLA)
Lead auditor on behalf of the audit team
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 1
TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 1. Table of Recommendations
Recommendation on Licence Extension
The audit team concludes that management of the French-Severn Forest was generally in compliance
with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sustainable Forest
Licence held by Westwind Forest Management Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team recommends
that the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence 542411 for a further five years.
Recommendations Directed to SFL Holder/MNR District
1. MNR should make improvements in record keeping procedures for Aboriginal consultation to ensure
that records are complete.
2. MNR, in collaboration with Westwind and interested Aboriginal communities, should undertake a study to identify barriers and opportunities to Aboriginal community participation in the economic
benefits provided through forest management planning. Such a study should take into consideration a community’s willingness and capacity to participate and should identify innovative ways to participate.
3. MNR and Westwind should ensure that planning of exceptions to guide direction meet all FMPM
requirements.
5. Westwind should report the results of the stocking assessments it carries out in the white pine forest units in its annual reports beginning with the 2011/2012 AR.
6. Westwind should complete its review of an appropriate regeneration assessment method for the white pine forest units and make any changes in time for the 2012 field season.
7. Westwind should maintain a ledger of areas on which regeneration assessment is due that enables
comparison with its assessment work and its assessment obligations. This should be in place in time for the next IFA.
8. Westwind should ensure that the content requirements of future Year 10 Annual Reports are met.
Recommendations Directed to Corporate or Regional MNR
4. Corporate MNR should review the process that permits exceptions to guide direction to ensure that
forest management plans set out clear objectives in addition to a rationale, that exceptions monitoring
programs are rigorous and that the results of implementing exceptions contribute meaningfully to the knowledge base of forestry.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 2
INTRODUCTION
3.1 Audit Process
Independent Forest Audits (IFAs) are a requirement of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (S.O. 1994, c. 25) (CFSA); every forest management unit in Ontario must be audited by an independent audit team at least once every five years.
KBM Forestry Consultants conducted an independent forest audit on the French-Severn Forest for the
five-year period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2011. The audit assessed implementation of the 2004-2024 Forest Management Plan (FMP) for the period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2009 as well as the planning
and approval of the 2009-2019 FMP and the first two years of its implementation (i.e. April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2011). The on-site portion of the audit occurred from September 19-26 inclusive, with
document examination and interviews taking place prior to, during, and subsequent to this period.
IFAs are governed by eight guiding principles as described in the Independent Forest Audit Process and
Protocol. Recommendations arise from audit team observations of material non-conformances, or may
be developed to address situations in which the audit team identifies a significant lack of effectiveness in forest management activities. All recommendations made in this report are correspondingly described in
full in Appendix 1 and summarized above in Section 2. Reviews of the achievement of objectives and contractual obligations are summarized in Appendix 2 and 3 respectively.
More detailed information on the audit process is provided in Appendix 4. A list of acronyms is presented
in Appendix 5. Audit team members and their qualifications are presented in Appendix 6.
3.2 Management Unit Description
The following description of the Forest is based primarily on material included in the 2009-2019 FMP for the French-Severn Forest.
The French-Severn Forest is located entirely within the Parry Sound District, in the southern Region of the MNR. The Forest extends from the eastern shore of Georgian Bay eastward to the boundary of
Algonquin Park and the Bancroft-Minden Forest (Figure 1). The Forest is considered to be part of the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest, which is characterized by deciduous species such as sugar maple, yellow birch, beech and coniferous species such as eastern hemlock, eastern white pine, and red pine.
Figure 2 illustrates the composition of the Crown portion of the Forest by forest unit. Nearly 50 per cent of the Forest is comprised of the hardwood selection forest unit and the hardwood uniform shelterwood
forest unit. The three white pine forest units account for approximately 20 per cent.
The major communities located in the Forest are Parry Sound, Huntsville and Bracebridge. The Forest is bisected on a north-south line by Highway 11, and along the Georgian Bay coast, Highway 400 runs
north to Parry Sound and continues as Highway 69 to the French River and northward. The Forest is easily accessed by a variety of municipal, provincial and private roads as well as hiking, snowmobile and
all-terrain vehicle trails.
The area within the French-Severn Forest boundary exceeds 1.25 million ha. Westwind manages approximately 1/3 of this area. The ownership of the management unit is 55% Provincial Crown, 2%
Federal and 43% private.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 3
Figure 1. Location of the French-Severn Forest
Significant changes to the administrative and licensing arrangements for the French-Severn Forest occurred around the time of development of the 1999 -2019 FMP. Previous to that there were two 1994-
2009 FMPs developed in the Parry Sound District; one each for the former Bracebridge and Georgian Bay
Crown Management Units. Around the time of the 1999-2019 FMP, these former management units were converted to a single sustainable forest licence area.
There was no existing single forestry company operating within the area boundaries that had the capability or was positioned to assume compliance and management planning responsibilities. Westwind
Forest Stewardship Inc. was formed to deliver management planning, compliance and silviculture on the Forest. The 1999-2019 FMP was developed by MNR in cooperation with the then newly formed Westwind.
The 2004-2024 FMP represents the first FMP developed by Westwind.
Westwind is a not-for-profit, community-based forest management company that does not harvest timber but holds the Sustainable Forest Licence (SFL#542411) for the Forest. It is described as community-
based and is governed by an eight member Board of Directors, three of whom represent forestry companies. One Board position available for First Nations remains vacant. The SFL which Westwind
holds is for a twenty-year period and includes all tree species on 5,455 square kilometres of Crown land,
3,453 square kilometres of which is considered productive forest.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 4
Figure 2. Forest Composition of Crown Portion of Forest by Forest Unit (Source: 2009-2019 French-
Severn Forest FMP)
1. HDSEL: tolerant hardwoods selection (mostly on east side of unit)
2. HDUS: tolerant hardwood shelterwood;
3. PWUS: 3-cut white pine shelterwood;
4. PWUS2: 2-cut white pine shelterwood;
5. PWST: white/red pine seed tree clearcut;
6. OR1: red oak shelterwood;
7. HE1: 3-cut hemlock shelterwood;
8. MWUS: mixedwood spruce shelterwood;
9. LWMW: lowland mixedwood clearcut;
10. MWCC: mixedwood clearcut;
11. SF1: spruce-fir mixedwood;
12. PJ1: jack pine clearcut
13. INT: intolerant hardwood clearcut.
3.3 Current Issues
The IFAPP requires a review of High Priority Aspects (HPAs) of the auditees’ systems or activities. These
are areas of potential focus during the audit related to key issues or management challenges arising during the audit term. Three HPAs were included in the Audit Plan, as follows:
1. Lower than expected yields/stocking of tolerant hardwood selection stands: During the term of
the 2009 FMP, Westwind stated that they were encountering previously managed maple stands
that had stocking levels (basal area) that were lower than what was expected in the FMP. The yields in the FMP reflect growth and yield information supplied by MNR growth and yield studies.
According to Westwind, the lower realized levels are having an effect on operations, as well as renewal revenues.
2. State of Forest Renewal Trust Account (FRT): During two years of the audit term the FRT fell considerably below the minimum balance requirement of approximately $1.5 million. Westwind
submitted a two year recovery plan to MNR that was supported by the Region and District. Westwind was successful in bringing the FRT back above minimum balance by March 31, 2009
according to the plan. However, this was at a cost of having little silvicultural treatments outside of tree marking and stand improvement, with particular concern expressed by Westwind
INT15%
SF13%
HDUS24%
PWUS8%
HDSEL22%
OR13%
HE12%
MWUS1%
PWUS26%
PWST7%
MWCC3%
LWMW2%
PJ14%
INTPJ1SF1LWMWMWCCPWSTHDUSPWUSPWUS2MWUSHE1OR1HDSEL
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 5
regarding the white/red pine component of the Forest managed under the shelterwood
silviculture system.
Westwind also expressed concerns related to the impact of the new Stand and Site guide requirements
for Species at Risk, in particular Blanding’s Turtle, and how these new rules may affect the ability to
manage portions of the Forest. The full extent of the potential impacts of these new guide requirements on forestry operations and the ability to manipulate forest cover and meet forest management objectives
has not yet been determined, as the requirements are only now being implemented.
3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit
KBM used several different strategies for encouraging input to the audit process. Letters, including a one-page survey, were mailed to numerous stakeholders advising of the audit. The survey was also
available to the general public on the KBM website (www.kbmrg.on.ca). A summary of the methods and
input is provided in Appendix 4.
4.0 AUDIT FINDINGS
4.1 Commitment
The IFAPP allows that if the management unit being audited is currently certified according to CSA, FSC
or SFI standards, all commitment procedures, for either the company or the MNR, are not required to be
completed unless an issue arises in relation to the company or MNR that causes the auditor to question whether this criteria is in fact being met. No such issues arose during the audit.
4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement
The Local Citizens Committee (LCC) Terms of Reference (TOR) met the requirements of the 2004 FMPM
and incorporated suggestions for improvement from the previous IFA. The TOR included suggested numbers of meetings that should take place during both FMP writing and non-FMP writing stages. The
First Nation position, previously vacant on the LCC, has been filled.
There were a number of members on the LCC who had been active for two plans prior to the 2009 French-Severn FMP. Such experience is valuable; however, this lead to a lack of interest (or
complacency) surrounding forest management activities on the Committee.
MNR recognized seven Aboriginal Communities in or adjacent to the French-Severn Forest management
area with which they had a legal duty to consult; Dokis First Nation, Henvey Inlet First Nation,
Magnetawan First Nation, Shawanaga First Nation, Wasauksing First Nation, Wahta Mohawks and Moose Deer Point First Nation. The Algonquins of Ontario have a portion of their land claim area within the
French-Severn Forest and thus MNR acknowledges that they have an interest in the Forest but do not consider them in or adjacent to the Forest.
Each Aboriginal community that participated in an interview reported that they had an excellent working
relationship with MNR-Parry Sound Office and the Resource Liaison Officer in particular. However, likely due to the high turnover in staff within both the Aboriginal communities and MNR, all communities were
unaware of the various reports that were to be completed in a collaborative way. A common response from all Aboriginal communities interviewed was that although MNR may be following all the required
regulations, the regulations themselves are inadequate, treating Aboriginal communities like a stakeholder and not acknowledging their occupation and special interest in the territory. Furthermore,
although it is recognized that the forestry economy is depressed and has not recovered since the
recession, the Aboriginal communities felt that they were not provided with adequate opportunities to participate in the benefits of forest management planning. A recurring theme with all communities was
that the lack of financial and human resources and human resource capacity limits their ability to fully engage in the consultation process and take advantage of potential benefits.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 6
As per the 2004 FMPM requirements, MNR sent letters to the seven Aboriginal communities six months
prior to the commencement of the formal public consultation process, inviting them to participate in the preparation of the FMP and to develop a specialized consultation approach. None of the communities
have developed a specialized consultation approach at this time. Positions on the planning committee
were offered to all seven communities; however, only representatives from the communities of Magnetawan and Shawanaga elected to participate on the committee. A representative from
Magnetawan also had some involvement in the LCC.
Although the Aboriginal communities interviewed reported satisfactory communications with MNR, review
of the record provided to the audit team indicated that there were some required consultation letters and public notices missing. This is likely the result of poor record keeping rather than a failure to meet the
requirements. Building relationships with Aboriginal communities appears to be a priority of MNR; the
audit team can only assume that the letters were completed and sent but the high turn-over of MNR staff may have resulted in misplaced correspondence. Improvements in record keeping will ensure that the
record is complete even when there is staff turnover.
Recommendation 1: MNR should make improvements in record keeping procedures for Aboriginal
consultation to ensure that records are complete.
MNR and Westwind reported on a number of steps taken to improve opportunities for Aboriginal communities to participate in the benefits provided through forest management planning. Despite these
reported efforts, Aboriginal community leaders interviewed felt that they had not enjoyed economic benefits related to forest management. EA Condition 34 requires MNR to negotiate with Aboriginal
peoples for their more equal participation in the benefits of forest management planning; however, there appears to be a gap between economic opportunities that Aboriginal communities are able to take
advantage of and those that have been offered. Given this apparent gap, it is recommended that a joint
study be conducted to determine ways in which Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the French-Severn Forest can better benefit. The study should assist in focusing discussions between MNR,
Westwind and the communities regarding EA Condition 34.
Recommendation 2: MNR, in collaboration with Westwind and interested Aboriginal communities,
should undertake a study to identify barriers and opportunities to Aboriginal community participation in
the economic benefits provided through forest management planning. Such a study should take into consideration a community’s willingness and capacity to participate and should identify innovative ways to
participate.
Métis communities have asserted Aboriginal rights in the French-Severn Forest. There are Métis
community councils with territory overlapping the boundaries of the management unit. Also, the Métis
Nation of Ontario, an organization created to represent Métis people and communities in Ontario that are a part of the Métis Nation, has developed a governance structure and consultation protocols for the
Georgina Bay Traditional Territory, which overlaps with the management unit. Pursuant to these protocols, the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) wishes to be consulted based on the organization of their
regional rights-bearing community. In keeping with the direction provided in the FMPM regarding the involvement of Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the management unit whose traditional use may
be affected by forest management planning, it is suggested that MNR consult within the Métis
Community Councils and MNO to determine the most appropriate way to engage the Métis.
4.3 Forest Management Planning
Forest Management Plan
Planning Team
The established FMP planning team and terms of reference was in compliance with requirements of the
2004 FMPM. Included in the FMP planning team TOR was a detailed risk list and risk matrix which outlined the likelihood of particular forest management issues delaying the planning schedule. Survey
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 7
results, interviews with MNR staff and members of the LCC show that the planning team had sufficient
representation of interests, skills and resources in developing the forest management plan.
2009 FMP Development and Content
The development of the 2009-2019 Forest Management Plan met the requirements of the 2004 FMPM.
The document is thorough and well written, with very few (91) required alterations. The list of required alterations should be updated to explain how the alterations were implemented in the development of the
next plan.
The foundation of any forest management plan is the forest resources inventory (FRI). Ontario’s forest managers rely upon these data and computer simulation (e.g. SFMM) as part of a decision support
system in setting objectives and determining forest sustainability. A systemic problem is that Ontario’s standard FRI and most of the decision support systems are designed for even-aged forests common in
Northern Ontario. The standard tools are not particularly well suited for the uneven aged forests in
Southern Ontario. This underlies the problems identified in previous audits over the adequacy of the FRI and the determination of allowable harvest areas in excess of actual utilization.
The gap between allowable harvest area and utilization was seen as a significant problem during the previous audit. The auditors recommended that this gap be shown as a surplus but the forest managers
disagreed. By calculating a relatively high allowable harvest area, operators are given more choices to select feasible operating areas, thus hedging against the uncertainty associated with the FRI and market
conditions. There is always the risk that such an approach could lead to “high grading,” leaving even
more difficult conditions for future generations, but there is no evidence that this has occurred in the documentation or in the field; the stands that had been selected for harvest do not appear to have
exceptionally high values relative to the average condition of the Forest. In fact, some areas will benefit from being by-passed in this term, allowing the stand to gain volume and value.
A declared or undeclared surplus of area and volume (i.e. the gap) could give the impression that
economic opportunities are foregone. However, the decision support and reporting systems mandated by MNR through the FMPM do not easily differentiate between an available harvest area and an economically
feasible harvest area.
Failing to meet the forecasted rates of harvest means that socio-economic objectives and forest
composition/structure objectives may appear to be compromised. The achievement of socio-economic objectives is largely driven by forces beyond the control of forest managers (e.g. the collapse of housing
markets). The lower than forecasted harvest rates will affect the rate at which the forest composition
and structure objectives are realized, but does not necessarily lead to undesirable outcomes in the long run.
The planning team responded to this problem and some of the previous IFA recommendations (see also Appendix 3) by doing additional analyses and sensitivity tests. The plan author made an extra effort to
thoroughly explain the analysis, trends and implications of some of these systemic problems. These
commendable efforts led to reasonable outcomes (i.e. allowable harvest area) and strategies given the tools at hand.
Ontario is developing an enhanced forest inventory (eFRI) that features high resolution multi-spectral digital aerial photography. This is a significant advancement from the standard panchromatic black and
white aerial photography associated with the traditional FRI. In addition, the eFRI classification
recognizes both even-aged and uneven-aged stand conditions. The imagery is already available to the SFL-holder, although it requires investments in new computers and software. The complete eFRI will be
available by 2014, well in advance of planning for the 2009-2019 FMP.
These new data should lead to improved planning and operations. MNR should review its decision
support system requirements to take advantage of the new eFRI and the unique challenges of Southern Ontario forest conditions.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 8
Operational Planning
MNR updated values information during the planning process. Approximately $71,000 was budgeted for values collection in the two years (2007 & 2008) as the FMP was being prepared. The principal method
of values updating was through aerial moose aquatic feeding area (MAFA) surveys, with the focus being
on areas of proposed operations. New stick nests observed during the MAFA survey were added and nests no longer standing were deleted. MNR has run a stick nest survey project for several years in
which stick nests identified during winter tree marking are verified by an on-the-ground surveyor during the snow free season. Surveys of lakes to determine the presence of self-sustaining brook trout
populations were also conducted, as were stream surveys, once again focused on areas of proposed operations. Screening was also done for species at risk. Approximately 50% of the proposed allocation
was considered to have a medium to high likelihood for the presence of species at risk and 20% was
considered high for eastern massasauga rattlesnake, Blanding’s turtle and whip-poor-will. Winter deer habitat mapping and deer browse surveys were also conducted. Values information was provided to
MNR’s Natural Resource Values Information staff in Parry Sound for entry into the NRVIS database.
Area of concern planning was conducted and prescriptions were prepared to address protection of a
range of forest values. Prescriptions were typically based on direction provided in associated MNR
management guides. Resource Stewardship Agreements were signed with five registered resource-based tourist operators and three AOC prescriptions were prepared.
One exception to guide direction was developed for MAFAs. Departure from guide direction is permitted, provided a rationale is given and a monitoring program developed and implemented. The audit team
found that no rationale for the exception was provided and the monitoring program was not adequately explained. The audit team does not take issue with forest managers challenging guide direction provided
that exceptions meet the requirements of the FMPM. In addition, the audit team believes that requiring
clearly stated objectives as part of the documentation for exceptions, in addition to the requirement for a rationale and monitoring program, should assist in understanding what the intent of the exception was
and provide a measure against which to evaluate the success or failure of implementing the exception (Appendix 1).
Recommendation 3: MNR and Westwind should ensure that planning of exceptions to guide direction
meet all FMPM requirements.
Recommendation 4: Corporate MNR should review the process that permits exceptions to guide
direction to ensure that forest management plans set out clear objectives in addition to a rationale, that exceptions monitoring programs are rigorous and that the results of implementing exceptions contribute
meaningfully to the knowledge base of forestry.
Several species at risk are discussed in the 2009–2019 French-Severn FMP; specifically: eastern fox snake, eastern hog nosed snake, Massasauga rattlesnake, milksnake, ribbon snake, Blanding’s turtle,
map turtle and spotted turtle. AOC prescriptions were documented for these species. Timing restrictions for any work being conducted in the presence of these species was implemented. Confirmed or
suspected habitat used for gestation, oviposition or hibernaculum for any of these species was also protected and reserves were set. No roads were permitted in the reserves unless no other feasible
options existed and approval from the MNR District Manager was obtained. The French-Severn Forest
FMP met the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.
The French-Severn Forest is well accessed and no new primary roads were planned. Proposals for three
new branch roads followed the planning process.
Harvest area selection criteria were well documented and designed to help address the challenges of low
harvest utilization on the Forest. There was a significant amount of age class substitution relative to
other forest management units, but given the problems described above with the current FRI and decision support systems in use, the various aspects of operational planning appear to be well executed.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 9
Annual Work Schedules
Annual Work Schedules (AWSs) were developed in a manner consistent with the operational planning elements of both the 2004-2024 and 2009-2019 FMPs. MNR addressed the concerns related to one of
the High Priority Aspects identified in 3.3 (variable harvest rates over the past two decades) by working
hard on all aspects of operational planning. Forest Operations Prescriptions (FOPs) were prepared for each stand and were consistent with the FMP. Interviews and field observations revealed that
prescriptions were made by a registered professional forester. These prescriptions were consistent with the FMP objectives and appropriate for the site conditions.
4.4 Plan Assessment and Implementation
Plan Assessment
The conditions observed by the audit team in the field were consistent with descriptions of current forest conditions in the plan. Operations were also found to be consistent with the strategies outlined in the
plan.
Areas of Concern
A sample of AOCs was viewed in the field – specifically warm water fisheries, cold water fisheries, deer
wintering habitat, an osprey nest, hawk nests, and heronries. All prescriptions were appropriately
marked and implemented as required and there was no evidence of trespass into the AOCs.
Harvest
Harvest operations were consistent with the FMP, legislation and applicable guidelines. Harvest
boundaries were properly laid out and respected by the operators. Tree marking guidelines were applied on most sites and were effective at ensuring that the strategies were implemented and operations
followed the plan.
Harvest operations were also completed with little disturbance to the site. Extra care was exercised on
sensitive sites near unmapped springs and vernal pools. On several skid trails in steep terrain berms
were built across the trail to reduce erosion.
There was very little damage to residual trees. Some rub trees along skid trails could be removed in the
final stages of the harvest to further improve the appearance of the stand and to help maintain the health of the residual trees.
Utilization was excellent given the terrain, forest conditions and market challenges. All of these observations are a result of the high skill levels and experience of the operators. According to the SFL
representatives, many operators are certified tree markers.
The most common silvicultural system was the selection system in tolerant hardwoods followed by shelterwood in hardwoods and white pine forest types. There are very few clearcuts on the Forest. Tree
markers identify group selection openings in a manner consistent with plan objectives and these are cut to encourage regeneration of black cherry and other mid-tolerant hardwoods. The locations of group
selection openings were mapped using a GPS to facilitate monitoring.
One site dominated by white pine was strip cut, site prepared by ground spraying and planted with white pine and spruce. The quality of this reforestation project was poor; however, this was the only exception
to an otherwise highly effective system of management and operational control. The low performance on this project was in part result of “rushing the job” under Forestry Future Trust stimulus funding for a
beleaguered forest renewal sector in 2009. The Forestry Futures Trust Committee might consider
evidence of planting and tending quality assurance programs before releasing funds for these types of projects. Should this project area not meet FTG requirements, the SFL holder will be responsible for re-
treating the area.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 10
Silviculture
The French-Severn Forest is located in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest Region, where partial
cutting systems are the norm and where the silvicultural treatment is often effected by the harvest
operation. It is difficult to discuss the silviculture without discussing the harvest, and vice versa.
There were no silvicultural compliance issues encountered in the field. A FOP was prepared for all of the silvicultural treatments except the salvage of blowdown. A tree marking audit was carried out at each
location where tree marking was done. In every case, the locations corresponded with the AWS and the
Forest Operations Information Program confirmed that operations were conducted in accordance with the tree marking and the FOP. Logging damage appeared to be well within damage standards in every case.
It was obvious that Westwind staff and the overlapping licensees’ workers are competent and care about the Forest in which they work. Both Westwind’s staff and its overlapping licensees’ loggers should be
commended for their high standard of care and commitment.
Two silvicultural issues emerged during the audit, neither of which is unique to the French-Severn Forest.
The first is the large area of tolerant hardwood HDSEL harvest allocations that were found to be not
ready or not suitable for selection management and that were transferred to the HDUS forest unit for shelterwood removal cutting instead. This issue was being addressed by a collaborative study between
Westwind, Tembec and MNR (2009/2010 Tolerant Hardwood SEM Project, Southern Science and Information Unit). Now at the draft stage, the report is expected to confirm that many tolerant
hardwood stands managed under the selection system in the past are no longer suitable for the same
treatment because of low stand stocking and/or poor tree quality. Of those that are suitable, most will not be ready for cutting at the end of their expected 20-year cutting cycle and an additional seven years
would be needed, on average, to reach their ideal pre-harvest basal area.
The draft report discussed the possible causes of this phenomenon but did not arrive at a final conclusion. It stated that an overestimate of growth and yield and top dieback were probably not the
cause, but that the past application of selection cutting on unsuitable sites and logging damage might be
at fault. It suggested a range of corrective actions, from not cutting these allocations now and extending the cutting cycle, to allowing the cut to proceed and accepting a lesser yield. The audit team felt that
both strategies would work silviculturally but that both would create issues of wood supply and/or operability for the overlapping licensees who hold these allocations. However, the audit team is confident
that Westwind and MNR are on the right track and that no recommendations are needed on this issue.
Slower than expected growth rates are not a new problem in tolerant hardwoods, nor are they unique to
the French-Severn Forest. A study on the adjacent Minden Crown management unit identified the same problem in 1990, attributed it to hardwood decline and offered an extended cutting cycle as the solution.
Today, most FMPs in the Region have extended their cutting cycles to deal with this problem. In their allowable cut calculations, the Bancroft-Minden Forest and Ottawa Valley Forest FMPs both use a cutting
cycle of 40 years in Phase 1. The Mazinaw-Lanark Forest and the Algonquin Park Forest Phase 1 cutting cycles are 30 years and 25 years respectively.
This suggests a range of growth rates or cutting regimes across the Region, which really isn’t the case.
All of the Southern Region SFLs use the silvicultural guides to determine cutting regime and most of them
use 25 years as the cutting cycle in future FMP terms. They are simply extending the normal phase by one cutting cycle to give their past selection cuts more recovery time.
White pine regeneration is the second issue, which is not new to the French-Severn Forest. Problems
with white pine regeneration were identified as a concern in the 1999, 2004 and 2009 FMPs and in the 2009 Year 10 AR. This was confirmed by the white pine FTG assessments carried out by Westwind
during the audit period, in which fewer than 60% met the FTG standard. Competition and the difficulty
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 11
of controlling competition have been identified repeatedly as the underlying problems on all but the
shallowest of sites.
The crux of the question is whether the silvicultural activities carried out in the white pine forest units will
eventually allow cutovers to meet the FTG standards. The audit team found no default on the part of the
licensee with respect to its silvicultural obligations but, still, the audit team was unable to identify a definitive solution.
There are three reasons for this:
o There has been significant change in pine silviculture in recent years. The current FMP no longer relies on natural regeneration after shelterwood cutting and focuses more on artificial
regeneration. FTG assessments in some situations are now made after the final removal cut
and any post-removal follow-up treatment. Most final removals won’t be made until Phase 2 of the FMP, which means little of the current practice has been assessed.
o Most of the failures reported in the past occurred in areas assessed after the seeding cut and
before the first removal cut. The current SGRs call for these areas to receive further
treatment, such as chemical tending/site preparation and in-fill planting. Areas assessed as past failures may yet be turned into successes.
o There is some debate among experts about how best to measure and judge regeneration
success in white pine. The 2009-2019 FMP uses the traditional FTG stocking method and a 30% standard, while at the same time MNR is promoting its STARS methodology, which uses
site occupancy as the measure of success. Westwind is currently examining the pros and cons
of each.
Stop 10 on the field audit (the Ranger Bay Road) is a good example of the difficulties and the
complexities associated with this issue (Figure 3). Both photos were taken at Stop 10; the photo on the left has a white pine understory that meets the stocking but not the height requirement for FTG. The
photo on the right has a competitive maple understory that so far has prevented successful white pine
establishment. Stop 10 is a white pine block being managed under the three-cut shelterwood system. The soil is a variable depth, water-worked silt loam over low-profile, ridgy granitic and gneissic bedrock.
The block is a maze of very shallow-soiled microsites that are well stocked with white pine regeneration and deeper micro-sites that are choked with red maple and bracken fern. This is a common condition
and Stop 10 is a typical example.
The block was subject to uniform shelterwood seeding cuts in a patchwork of cutting and treatments from 1983 to 1989, when the area was part of the Parry Sound Crown management unit. Parts of the
block were mechanically site prepared in 1983, planted in 1984, and had two brush saw release treatments in 1983 and 1989. Other parts received basal bark release treatments in 2001 to 2003 using
Forestry Futures Trust funding. In 2009 the block had its first removal cut, turning it from a Class Z to an SFL Class X responsibility and making Westwind responsible for meeting the silvicultural standards. Class
Z Lands are defined in the licence as areas harvested prior to April 1, 1995 on which no Eligible
Silviculture Work has been initiated using funds made available to the Licence Area from either the Special Purpose Account or the Forest Renewal Trust, but on which a tending treatment may be required
to bring the area to free-to-grow status. Class X Lands are defined as areas harvested on or after April 1, 1995.
If it were assessed today, Stop 10 would not meet the FTG standards for the PWUS forest unit, but it
remains years away from final assessment. Today, the block is planned for aerial site preparation/tending, followed by in-fill planting. Its FTG assessment will be due in 2017.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 12
Figure 3. Stop 10 on the Ranger Bay Road, Blair Township.
This array of treatments over the years shows just how difficult and expensive it can be to regenerate
white pine on difficult sites. Adherence to the silvicultural guides (as was done at Stop 10) hasn’t yet
brought about silvicultural success, which brings into question the applicability of the shelterwood system and the white pine guide on competition-prone sites like these. It was fire that put white pine on the
Georgian Bay landscape in the first place and MNR’s response to 2006 IFA Recommendation #17 has done little to bring it back.
The audit team is concerned about the adequacy of white pine regeneration but was unable to determine conclusively that the silvicultural standards were not being met. Completing actions necessary to address
Recommendation 7, below, should assist in providing a more definitive answer at the next IFA.
Financial problems compound the silvicultural problem. Repeated treatments like those at Stop 10 can easily cost more than the renewal revenues the white pine harvest is able to generate. This brings into
question the feasibility of the current model in which the forestry sector carries most of the financial costs of forest management, including endangered species protection.
Stop 12 on the field audit was the exception to the rule. It too was a complex of very shallow micro-sites
and deeper, competition-prone silt loams but it was disturbed by blowdown and salvage rather than the usual extended shelterwood methods. Stop 12 received a uniform shelterwood seeding cut in 2002
followed by a heavy blowdown in 2006. It was salvage cut immediately, aerially sprayed in 2007 and planted with 1,051 trees/ha of white pine, red pine and white spruce. It differed from the usual
shelterwood regime in that the first removal cut (the salvage) followed immediately after the seeding cut and was much heavier. It was also more successful than any other white pine sites that the audit team
visited.
Access
Road construction, maintenance and water crossing installations and removals conducted during the audit period were viewed. Water crossing installations were well done with attention paid to minimizing
associated disturbance. There is an ongoing issue with decommissioned water crossings being reactivated by other forest users. An example was viewed in which the decommissioning work associated
with a portable bridge removal appeared to have been properly done but a new deck had been built by
other users to regain access. Unauthorized work of this nature is an MNR enforcement issue and beyond the scope of this audit.
Invoices for road work conducted under the Road Maintenance Agreement between MNR and Westwind were checked. Work conducted included culvert replacement, ditching, gravelling, grading, drilling and
blasting, crushing, bridge repair, and winter maintenance. The invoices were consistent with the
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 13
summary reports of expenditures and the work listed in the invoices was consistent with the condition of
roads viewed in the field.
4.5 System Support
MNR and Westwind have sufficient human resources, training and information systems in place to deliver
an effective forest management program. Maintenance of these systems is a serious issue for Westwind given the protracted market failure for forest products. These conditions make it hard for the
overlapping licensees to afford the management fees that keep the systems that support forest management in place. Training programs have also been cut back in response to these market
conditions.
The Forest Information Management (FIM) portal, an online data exchange system, helps to ensure
document control. The audit team made use of the portal to access documents and the Geographic
Information System data shared by MNR and the SFL holder in the site selection and document review portions of the audit.
These systems are constantly evolving. Problems identified by Westwind in ownership layers used in developing the planning inventory for the 2009-2019 FMP have been corrected by MNR under its Land
Tenure Information Integration Initiative. MNR is also committed to working with Westwind to
continually improve information in NRVIS and other data sets used to develop AOCs.
4.6 Monitoring
Compliance
Both MNR and Westwind developed compliance plans and implemented them in an effective manner.
Overall compliance is high; again reflecting the use of skilled operators. The audit team found the conditions in the field matched those reported in the online Forest Operations Inspection Program.
Ontario’s approach to compliance monitoring, reporting and enforcement has been effective in maintaining high standards of forestry practice. The audit team shares a concern expressed by Westwind
that an increased reliance on online training may limit the peer learning from operators that is best achieved in hands-on field settings. Online training systems are continually improving and are becoming
standard practice for professional development. Future audits will determine if the concerns over new
training methods are warranted.
MNR maintains proper oversight of the compliance and monitoring programs although there are
opportunities for improvement. Some compliance reporting issues occurred in 2009 when Westwind staff was laid off as result of the market downturn. Although the inspections were made, the reports were
delayed. The challenge in maintaining the compliance program is the same as that which threatens the
entire management system under the protracted market depression affecting Canada’s forest sector.
Interviews with MNR staff were consistent with field observations of a competently run forest
management program by Westwind and a cadre of responsible overlapping licensees. There were some issues over unauthorised hauling of logs and some problems with new operators in meeting utilization
standards and safety issues, but these were the exceptions to a good compliance record.
Silviculture
A concern was also raised about what standards should be used in monitoring the group selection system
(referred to as group openings). Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring has been a significant problem in
Ontario in general and is even more of a problem under the selection system. A case in point is the lower than expected yields in the return harvest under the selection system described in this report.
Corporate MNR is well aware of this problem and the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Guidelines (2002) are currently under review; as a result, no recommendation is required at this time.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 14
The FMPM requires the Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring (SEM) program to assess the success of
renewal activities in achieving the standards specified in the SGRs. It does not specifically require the reporting of other survey types where there is no silvicultural standard or stated plan objective.
Westwind has done a large number of stocking assessments in recent years (over 11,000 ha) and the
company shared its findings with the audit team. Westwind uses these surveys not to determine success, but to determine further treatment needs before removal cutting.
White pine regeneration is an issue on the French-Severn Forest and it has been for decades. The audit team felt that the reporting of these surveys in the AR would help other interested parties understand the
issue better.
Recommendation 5: Westwind should report the results of the stocking assessments it carries out in
the white pine forest units in its annual reports beginning with the 2011/2012 AR.
Westwind is lagging behind in its white pine regeneration assessments. If the choice of an approved methodology is one of the barriers, this should be settled soon. The present version of STARS uses FTG
stocking as the measure of success and is compatible with the SGR-FTG standard for white pine. Westwind needs to settle on an assessment methodology for its white pine FTG surveys and catch up
with its assessment obligations.
Recommendation 6: Westwind should complete its review of an appropriate regeneration assessment method for the white pine forest units and make any changes in time for the 2012 field season.
The Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario (SEMMO) requires FMP-SGRs to provide a timeframe by which stands must reach FTG and be assessed. Together, the 2004-2024 and 2009-2019
FMPs forecast an assessment requirement of 8,587 ha for the white pine forest units during the five-year audit period. ARs for the audit period show that only 781 ha of pine shelterwood cuts were assessed for
FTG during the same five-year period. The Year 10 AR acknowledged that survey levels were well below
FMP projections, particularly in the conifer (white pine) shelterwood FUs. It attributed this to an ongoing dialogue between industry partners regarding survey methods and to a disagreement with certain
aspects of the Silviculture Treatment, Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) methodology.
Recommendation 7: Westwind should maintain a ledger of areas on which regeneration assessment is
due that enables comparison with its assessment work and its assessment obligations. This should be in
place in time for the next IFA.
Annual Reports
The annual reports were well written and included a novel method for reporting of field level or tactical
objectives that support the strategic objectives of the 2004-2024 FMP. This approach emerged in response to the FSC certification audit process but was abandoned under the 2009-2019 FMP so as to
have reporting align with the 2004 FMPM requirements. The field level objective reporting deserves reconsideration as a way of improving monitoring across the Province. The current suites of indicators
are useful but for many indicators the response to management actions takes a considerable period of
time before it can be reliably detected. In addition, some indicators are objectives to carry out actions rather than outcomes of strategies. The current focus on outputs is useful under the 2009 FMPM but
understanding the effectiveness of a forest management system also requires the monitoring of inputs such as the number of trees planted.
The FMPM requires that MNR staff review the Yr 10 AR and provide comments to the plan author within
30 days of receipt of the annual report; however, this review was not done. The process requirements associated with forest management planning are numerous and complex. This is an example of an FMPM
procedure that can be overlooked in delivering a comprehensive forest management program within a large organization such as MNR. The solution to similar problems in forest management in other
jurisdictions was to implement a quality management system under ISO 9001 to minimize and correct system and process errors. MNR should consider either pursuing certification or adopting the procedures
under ISO 9001 as a means of improving the agency’s performance in delivering forest management.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 15
4.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Sustainability
Achievement of Management Objectives
The audit team’s review of documents and site inspections support many of the observations made by
the author of the Yr 10 Annual Report (2008) related to objectives achievement of the 2004-2024 FMP.
The wide spread use of selection harvests and tree marking will maintain a range of native tree species at
current levels across the Forest. The associated forest cover, wetlands, recreational use, heritage values and wildlife habitat objectives are also being met through the allocation of appropriate harvest areas,
guidelines and the application of AOC prescriptions.
The objective to increase, where practical and appropriate, under-represented tree species and forest units, in proportions similar to the pre-settlement forest will likely not be achieved given the high costs
and variable regeneration success in the white pine forest unit, as discussed in detail in the Silviculture section of this report. There is also a lack of movement in advancing prescribed fire for red oak
regeneration. Group selection or group openings are helping to encourage black cherry and other mid-tolerant species regeneration. This objective was not carried forward in the 2009-2019 FMP.
The low rate of harvest during the full term of the 2004-2024 FMP compromises the rate at which the
desired forest condition will be reached. The situation is based upon globally significant market forces and is not a reflection of the forest manager’s skills or resources. Not surprisingly, wood supply and
socio-economic plan objectives will not be realized to the same levels as those predicted in the plan.
The objective to continue to research, test and implement, viable, economical and ecologically-based alternatives… which will reduce dependence on herbicides was not met. In fact, the use of mechanical
site preparation which can reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the use of herbicides was greatly reduced.
Appendix 2 provides a tabular analysis of the audit team’s assessment of progress toward achieving the objectives set in the 2004-2024 FMP.
The use of reporting field level objective (target) performance in support of strategic level objectives was a novel approach and adds value to the analysis. Table 2 illustrates some examples.
Table 2. Examples of Field Level Objectives from the 2004-2024 French-Severn FMP
Objective Field Specific Target Five Year
Target
Current
Year
2008/09
To
Date
Balance
Forest Diversity Mechanical site prep or
burning for Yellow birch
80 ha 0 34 46 ha
Conversion of off-site hardwoods or mixedwoods to Pw/Sw/Pr (Pwus2 or Mwus)
40 Ha 11.5 28.5 ha
Planting of Red oak 20,000
seedlings
7,870 12,130
seedlings
This field level reporting is not being carried forward under the new plan, to be consistent with direction in the 2004 and 2009 FMPMs. The trend under the past and current planning manuals is to use higher
level objectives that, although they are entirely appropriate, take many years for the associated indicators to show a response to management actions.
The FMPM direction is consistent with a results-based approach where objectives are linked to outcomes
rather than inputs. Results-based management is widely embraced in all types of planning in Canada’s civil service. In fact, budget planning for the federal government uses a Results Management and
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 16
Accountability Framework. Proponents of this system would argue that Westwind’s field level objectives
are in fact strategies supporting the forest diversity objective.
Despite the semantics of strategies versus objectives, fully understanding a system requires knowledge of
inputs and outputs. The field level objectives are an example of inputs into the system. Westwind’s
approach in the Year 10 AR is worth a second look by both Westwind and the MNR and may have utility in other forests in Ontario. It is suggested that Corporate MNR consider a requirement for reporting field
level objectives/targets/strategies in the next revision of the FMPM.
Looking forward, the objectives set in the 2009-2019 FMP can be summarized as follows:
Emulate natural forest landscape pattern;
Provide forest diversity through forest structure, composition and abundance including old
growth (not necessarily tied to natural or pre-settlement levels); Maintain red and white pine forest area;
Maintain red oak and hemlock area;
Maintain or enhance habitat for forest-dependent species (non-spatial and spatial);
Maintain roads for forest operations while limiting liability
Ensure successful regeneration and improve the health of harvested stands
Protect other natural resources values;
Ensure a predictable wood supply;
Protect the environment (soil and water)
Provide opportunities for Aboriginal involvement; and,
Encourage and support involvement of the Local Citizens Committee.
The evidence compiled in this audit suggests that the factors under the control of the forest manager are
being addressed in a manner consistent with meeting the above objectives with some concern related to
meeting objectives for white pine (and to a lesser extent red oak and hemlock, as identified in the Year 10 AR).
Forest Sustainability
The Year 10 AR for the plan period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009 was reviewed and found to be generally complete and accurate, although it lacked an adequate discussion of both the achievement of
non-quantitative objectives and the implementation of the action plan associated with the previous IFA.
Recommendation 8: Westwind should ensure that the content requirements of future Year 10 Annual
Reports are met.
Overall harvest area was approximately 50% of planned during the ten years 1999-2009. Poor quality of many stands and access constraints were noted as contributing factors. A similar situation existed with
harvest volume. Regeneration of tolerant hardwood stands (primarily sugar maple) was considered to be guaranteed and therefore formal surveys were not conducted. Clearcut stands have also typically
regenerated successfully. White pine regeneration has been less certain and there was a greater reliance on artificial regeneration given the poor success of natural regeneration methods. Vegetation
management to control competition has become a required practice for pine stands. The author provided
an insightful list of observations related to pine regeneration.
The Year 10 AR summarized the achievement of five quantitative objectives. Habitat for selected wildlife
species were within acceptable ranges, total area of red/white pine was on track, total area of red oak was under target although there was no overall loss on the landbase, and targets were met for available
volume of all species groups. Managed Crown forest area for timber production by forest unit was
considered difficult to assess due to planning inventory and forest unit shifts.
The Year 10 AR author considered the determination of sustainability through AR-14 to be not particularly
useful. The author further stated that changes in approaches based on field observations, such as the creation of the white pine seed tree forest unit, are being used to address identified issues. The author
considered the forest to be on track to sustainability and that, short of a large scale catastrophe, actual forest condition will not change substantially on a broad basis.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 17
The audit team concurs with the observations and qualifying comments of the Year 10 AR author with
respect to assessing forest sustainability, i.e. it appears that forest sustainability criteria are being met, with the qualification that changes to the forest land base, cover classifications, planning and reporting
requirements pose significant challenges in measuring progress and validating the assumptions related to
forest sustainability. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP).
This determination assumes that the process and protocols of the IFAPP and the determination of sustainability, as followed by planning teams under forest management planning manuals, support a
robust definition of sustainability. This is illustrated by the following example as it relates to the IFAPP requirements of presenting a summary table and analysis of silvicultural success from the Year 10 Annual
Report (Source: Table AR 13).
Table 3. Summary and Analysis of Silviculture Success
Forest Unit
Area
Surveyed (ha)
Regeneration Success (ha)
Silvicultural
Success (ha)
Not
Sufficiently
Restocked (ha)
HDSBB 1588 1588 1588
HDSGB 29 29 29
PWUS 123
HDUS 387 387 387
Total 2004 2004 2004 123
AR 13 2004 1975 1975 123
Ignoring a summation error in Table AR-13 caused by omitting the 29 hectares of HDSGB, the table shows a remarkably high rate for silvicultural success (100%) for hardwood cover types and no success
in the white pine cover type. These results are an artifact of the convention for tolerant hardwoods used
by MNR and defined in the FMP whereby selection is always deemed to have 100% success. After all, when the stand is finished being harvested it would remain a forest with similar preharvest species
composition, albeit with a reduction in crown cover. In contrast, white pine is deemed not sufficiently restocked until the final felling and subsequent assessment of the shelterwood and there are no stands at
that stage in the period under review.
It could be argued that the total area surveyed of 2,004 ha is not enough to assess the harvested area of
approximately 21,880 hectares. However, auditing more than 10% is a significant cost burden and given
the high rates of compliance observed by the audit team it would appear to be an unnecessary cost.
The table provides an incomplete picture. Although species composition objectives are likely being met,
structural targets are not. As identified earlier in this report, the problem of second entry cuts not having the anticipated sufficient volumes of growing stock begs the question why the process assumes 100%
silvicultural success. Furthermore, the persistent problems of supporting a first class forest management
program and expensive renewal programs for white pine from forest revenues generated by harvesting timber in depressed markets questions the sustainability of the forest management program itself. This
is more than counterintuitive and supports the need for MNR to develop decision support systems suitable for Southern Ontario. MNR is well aware of the problems and has launched an independent
review of the process it uses to determine forest sustainability and silvicultural effectiveness. MNR is also
in the midst of a tenure and pricing review.
4.8 Contractual Obligations
Overall, the SFL conditions were met, (Table 5. Compliance with Contractual Obligations the most significant exception being failure to meet minimum balance requirements in the Renewal Trust Fund, as
discussed below.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 18
Westwind allowed the Renewal Trust Fund for the Forest to fall below the minimum balance required of it
in two of the five years under audit (2006-07 and 2007-08). The company produced a two-year recovery plan that was accepted by MNR and the minimum balance was restored.
This default was a product of the unanticipated economic crisis facing the entire forest sector. Plunging
prices and mill closures have reduced the harvest, which has in turn reduced renewal revenues. From a renewal point of view, the reduced harvest is less of a concern in the hardwood types where silvicultural
activity is tied to harvest and more of a concern in the pine types where treatment is still required on areas harvested years ago. It is a problem without an easy answer because raising renewal rates will
only result in a further reduction in harvest. Instead of raising renewal rates, Westwind opted (with MNR’s reluctant consent) to reduce silvicultural activities as the principal way of restoring the minimum
balance (Figure 3). The red line shows the minimum balance required on March 31st each year. This
graph shows that the balance was below the minimum in four of the five years. However, in two of these years this was due to late payment by overlapping licensees, which is not a Westwind issue as it
was MNR’s responsibility to collect these amounts. The recovery plan contained other strategies that Westwind has acted on, but without a reduction in expenditures recovery wouldn’t have been possible in
the timeframe provided. These events and associated issues are having a province-wide impact on forest
renewal. Program liabilities and funding mechanisms are currently under review by Corporate MNR.
Figure 4. Graph of Silvicultural Expenditures and Account Balance over the Audit Period.
Table 6, Appendix 3, summarizes progress towards completion of actions developed to address the 25 recommendations arising from the 2006 IFA. Overall, the audit team found that the actions developed
and implemented by the auditees were appropriate and effective in addressing the individual
recommendations, although some outcomes (e.g. use of prescribed burns) may not fully align with what the previous audit team had envisioned.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 19
4.9 Conclusions and Licence Extension Recommendation
The audit team found the French-Severn Forest to be generally well managed despite its challenging aspects. The forest managers understand these challenges and are trying to address them in a period of
severe economic downturn for the forest industry. There are several outstanding issues.
Management of the FRT is a fundamental requirement of the SFL and one important to forest sustainability. The SFL requires the FRT minimum balance be maintained as of March 31 of each year.
The SFL also requires the company to meet the silvicultural standards contained in the FMP regardless of the balance in the FRT at any time. In 2007 and 2008 no artificial regeneration activities took place on
the French-Severn Forest in order to maintain the minimum balance.
While the minimum balance was restored, the audit team found the trade-off disturbing. This was
disturbing because a reduction in silvicultural activity eventually leads to an increase in silvicultural
liability. It merely transfers the default from the renewal trust account to the forest itself, where it won't surface for many years. This is especially true in pine shelterwood situations where treatment follows the
harvest and where assessment occurs many years after that.
Westwind’s default on its obligation to maintain the minimum balance in the RTF was the result of
economic factors largely beyond Westwind’s control. A turnaround in the forestry sector would allow the
company to increase its harvest, increase its renewal revenues and catch up on any silvicultural backlog. In the meantime, Westwind is searching for ways to continue meeting its silvicultural obligations but at a
lower cost. It’s a difficult task and one deserving of support.
The determination of sustainability relies upon direction provided in the FMPM and IFAPP. The plan
author and forest manager noted many problems with the current procedures and the audit team shares these concerns. These problems related to the determination of sustainability and silvicultural liabilities
are not unique to the French-Severn Forest nor are they under the complete control of the licensee. MNR
is well aware of these problems and has launched an independent review of the process it uses to determine forest sustainability and silvicultural liabilities.
The forest management system in Ontario relies upon revenues generated by the harvest of forest products. The traditional products are not in demand and hence the system is under stress. For this
reason MNR has initiated competitions for unused wood supplies to stimulate investment in new markets.
MNR is also in the midst of a tenure and pricing review to address these systemic problems over the longer term. The audit team is reluctant to provide policy level recommendations to Corporate MNR
while these policy reviews are underway. These new initiatives will take some time to generate results, the effectiveness of which will be assessed by the next audit.
Despite the above concerns, the audit team concludes that management of the French-Severn Forest was
generally in compliance with the legislation, regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and the Forest was managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the
Sustainable Forest Licence held by Westwind Forest Management Inc. Forest sustainability is being achieved, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. The audit team
recommends that the Minister extend the term of Sustainable Forest Licence 542411 for a further five years.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 20
APPENDIX 1 – RECOMMENDATIONS
Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding
Recommendation 1
Principle 2. Public Consultation & Aboriginal Involvement
Criteria 2.5.1 Aboriginal community consultation and involvement in FMPs, amendments, contingency plans
Procedure 1. Review and assess whether reasonable efforts were made to engage each Aboriginal
community in or adjacent to the management unit in forest management planning as provided by the applicable FMPM and assess the resulting involvement and consideration in the plan or amendment.
Background Information and Summary of Evidence:
There were no media notices provided for Stage 1. Phase 1: Stage Three letters could not be located but Supplementary Document H indicates the letters were completed.
Discussion: The evidence indicates deficiencies in the District’s recording keeping. MNR cited staff turnover as the
cause of the record keeping problems.
Conclusion: Although First Nations did not report problems with consultation there are pieces of physical evidence
missing.
Recommendation: MNR should make improvements in record keeping procedures for Aboriginal consultation to ensure that records are complete.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 21
Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding
Recommendation 2
Principle 2. Public Consultation & Aboriginal Involvement
Criteria 2.5.2 Participation of Aboriginal peoples in the benefits provided through forest management
planning
Procedure 1. Review whether Aboriginal peoples were provided with, and whether they availed
themselves, of opportunities to achieve more equal participation in the benefits provided through forest
management planning and assess the results.
Background Information and Summary of Evidence:
MNR and Westwind reported working collaboratively to address issues of improved opportunities for Aboriginal community participation in the forest economy. Examples of efforts are: establishment of a
First Nation Forestry/Economic Development Steering Committee, an Economic Development Forum in
April 2010, and a board member position on Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. Other measures included addressing community requests (e.g. amending harvest allocation for Magnetawan First Nation for the
purpose of building community log homes; delivery of a two day accredited GPS course at Henvey Inlet which multiple communities attended; and financial support for cutter-skidder training). Condition 34
reports, prepared by MNR, outlined a number of opportunities provided to Aboriginal communities.
In interviews with Aboriginal community representatives they did not feel they had received any benefits provided through forest management planning. It was acknowledged that the recent economic downturn
had left the forest economy depressed; however, Aboriginal community representatives did not feel that great enough efforts had been made to ensure they had economic opportunities in the management and
harvesting of the Forest or employment for band members with companies operating in the Forest.
Representatives felt that the harvesting opportunities that were offered were too small or remote to be a feasible business opportunity and there had been no attempts to identify innovative ways for Aboriginal
communities to become involved in the forestry economy. They suggested MNR needs to work with them to remove barriers to participation and find innovative ways for participation in the depressed forest
economy.
Discussion:
Condition 34 requires MNR to negotiation with Aboriginal peoples for their more equal participation in the
benefits provided through forest management planning. Condition 20 of the SFL requires Westwind to work co-operatively with MNR and local Aboriginal communities in this regard. There appears to be a
gap between economic opportunities that Aboriginal communities are able to take advantage of and those that have been offered.
Conclusion:
MNR and Westwind report that efforts have been made to improve Aboriginal opportunities for participation in the forest economy; however, Aboriginal communities do not feel that they have received
any economic benefits. While it is noted that MNR and Westwind have taken some steps to address the requirements these efforts were not viewed as successful by the Aboriginal community representatives
who were interviewed.
Recommendation: MNR, in collaboration with Westwind and interested Aboriginal communities, should
undertake a study to identify barriers and opportunities to Aboriginal community participation in the economic benefits provided through forest management planning. Such a study should take into
consideration a community’s willingness and capacity to participate and should identify innovative ways
to participate.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 22
Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding
Recommendations 3 and 4
Principle 3. Forest Management Planning
Criteria 3.5 Planning of Proposed Operations
Procedure 1. Review the AOC prescriptions and assess whether
any exceptions to forest management guides were approved, appropriate in the circumstances
and accompanied by an appropriate effectiveness monitoring program
Background Information and Summary of Evidence:
AOC prescriptions were typically based on direction provided in associated MNR management guides.
One exception to guide direction was developed for MAFAs. Departure from guide direction is permitted provided a rationale is given and a monitoring program developed and implemented.
The 2009-2019 FMP stated that the prescription was a modification of the Habitat Management Considerations contained in the Silvicultural Guidelines for the Tolerant Hardwoods (sic), and therefore was an exception. Unlike the Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat, which
also contains direction on management of MAFAs, the Silvicultural Guide suggests that some harvesting
is permitted under certain circumstances. The FMP went on to say that the main focus of monitoring of the exception was the results of research into the effects of timber harvest on the use of aquatic feeding
sites by moose in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and transition forests. It was felt that the results of the study supported the AOC for MAFAs as set forward in the FMP.
In 2009 the MNR District conducted field surveys on 28 MAFAs and found evidence of continued use by moose in 27 cases. What was not determined was whether the frequency or intensity of use of MAFAs
that had received harvest was significantly different from those that were not harvested, or that were harvested according to the guide requirements.
Discussion:
The audit team found that no rationale for the departure from guide direction was provided and that the results of the research study, cited as the main focus of the exception monitoring, did not support the
exception. In fact the research study concluded that although moose use aquatic feeding areas next to narrow reserves (<60 m), the results of this study show that sites adjacent to 120 m reserves, as recommended in the Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat, were used the most and have the greatest potential of meeting the life history requisites of moose in all three silviculture systems. The audit team also found the monitoring conducted by the District of limited use in
better understanding the effects of timber harvesting within MAFAs.
Exceptions to guide direction should be well-rationalized and include clearly stated objectives and
comprehensive monitoring programs designed to advance the science of forestry.
Conclusion: The FMP did not meet the full requirements for planning of exceptions for the MAFA AOC. To improve
the planning process there may be benefit in having clearly stated objectives as part of the documentation for exceptions, in addition to the requirement for a rationale and monitoring program.
This should assist in understanding what the intent of the exception was and provide a measure against
which to evaluate the success or failure of implementing the exception.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 23
Recommendation: MNR and Westwind should ensure that planning of exceptions to guide direction
meet all FMPM requirements.
Recommendation: Corporate MNR should review the process that permits exceptions to guide direction to ensure that forest management plans set out clear objectives in addition to a rationale, that
exceptions monitoring programs are rigorous and that the results of implementing exceptions contribute meaningfully to the knowledge base of forestry.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 24
Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding
Recommendation 5
Principle 8. Contractual obligations
Criteria 8.1.4 Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies; provision and collection of information in
accordance with FIM
Procedure: Review FIM to determine SFL holder responsibilities with respect to inventories, surveys, tests and studies, and review a sampling of those reports to determine whether they were produced in
accordance with FIM.
Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The FMPM requires the SEM program to assess the success of renewal activities in achieving the
standards specified in the SGRs. It does not specifically require the reporting of other survey types where there is no silvicultural standard or stated plan objective. The FMPM further requires the SFL
holder to provide a summary of the SEM program in the annual report each year, in which progress toward the achievement of objectives is described and implications are discussed. Table AR-13 requires
reporting of the area assessed for regeneration success and the assessment results in years seven and
ten of the FMP.
The French-Severn 2009 FMP-SGRs for the white pine shelterwood FUs call for a stocking assessment to
be made before the removal cut and in no case more than 12 years after the seeding cut. They do not provide a stocking standard against which to judge success. Westwind had been doing stocking
assessments after white pine shelterwood seeding cuts and while it mentions them in the ARs it does not
provide results.
Discussion:
Westwind has done a large number of stocking assessments in recent years (over 11,000 ha) and the company shared its findings with the audit team. Westwind uses these surveys, not to determine
success, but to determine further treatment needs before removal cutting.
Stocking is only one measure of regeneration success and even stands that are well stocked may lack the height and freedom from competition necessary to ever attain FTG status. However, the audit team
found these stocking surveys to be very helpful in coming to a better understanding of the white pine regeneration issue. Although there is no SGR stocking standard against which to judge success, they
certainly reinforced the view contained in the 2009-2019 FMP that natural regeneration alone will not
allow pine shelterwood cutovers to meet the regeneration standards and that supplemental artificial methods are necessary.
White pine regeneration is an issue on the French-Severn Forest and has been for decades. The audit team felt that the reporting of these surveys in the AR would help other interested parties understand the
issue better.
Table AR-13 does not lend itself to the reporting of surveys like this, where there is no measure of success, but it wouldn’t be difficult or onerous to add a tabular summary of results and a descriptive
analysis in the text of AR Section 2.4.6.
Conclusion:
The team found that the stocking surveys cast an additional light on the status of white pine regeneration
and that they would be useful to other interested parties in obtaining a better understanding of the issues.
Recommendation: Westwind should report the results of the stocking assessments it carries out in the
white pine forest units in its annual reports beginning with the 2011/2012 AR.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 25
Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding
Recommendation 6
Principle 8. Contractual obligations
Criteria 8.1.4 Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies; provision and collection of information in
accordance with FIM
Procedure: Review FIM to determine SFL holder responsibilities with respect to inventories, surveys, tests and studies, and review a sampling of those reports to determine whether they were produced in
accordance with FIM.
Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The 2009 FMP allows for informal walk-through assessments and ocular estimates using experienced
personnel where stands are relatively uniform in species composition and regeneration. Of the ten audit field sites where silvicultural assessments of one type or another were carried out, all were done using
ocular methods. In all ten, the results were obvious to the eye and the use of ocular methods was appropriate.
The 2009 FMP also allows for modified survey techniques such as fixed-area plots to be used as stands
become more heterogeneous. This is often the situation in the white pine forest units, where results can vary widely with small differences in micro-site and where there are large differences in soil depth and
drainage over small areas.
Westwind has been using 2 m x 2 m fixed-area plots to assess FTG stocking in white pine and to calibrate
the assessor’s eye where ocular methods are used. The company has also been testing the MNR’s STARS
methodology, and in 2008 used STARS to assess 123 ha of white pine for FTG.
Discussion:
Assessment methods have been an issue for Westwind. The 2009 AR attributes this in part to the ongoing dialogue between industry partners who are looking for more cost-effective methods, and to
issues associated with the competition rules and the netting-out of unproductive micro-sites in STARS.
On the matter of cost effectiveness, the choice of an assessment methodology need not reduce the use of ocular estimates, where ocular estimates are appropriate. Where ocular estimates are used, however,
the assessors need to be trained and experienced in the appropriate data collection methods and they need to have their eye calibrated periodically.
Westwind is lagging behind in its white pine regeneration assessments. If the choice of an approved
methodology is one of the barriers, this should be settled soon. The present version of STARS uses FTG stocking as the measure of success and is compatible with the SGR-FTG standard for white pine. If
future versions adopt stand occupancy as the measure of success, amendment of the FMP-SGRs may be necessary.
Conclusion:
Westwind needs to settle on an assessment methodology for its white pine FTG surveys and catch up with its assessment obligations. The STARS methodology is compatible with the FMP-SGRs and there is
no need to amend the FMP if STARS is chosen.
Recommendation: Westwind should complete its review of an appropriate regeneration assessment method for the white pine forest units and make any changes in time for the 2012 field season.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 26
Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding
Recommendation 7
Principle 8. Contractual obligations
Criteria 8.1.4 Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies; provision and collection of information in
accordance with FIM
Procedure: Review FIM to determine SFL holder responsibilities with respect to inventories, surveys, tests and studies, and review a sampling of those reports to determine whether they were produced in
accordance with FIM.
Background Information and Summary of Evidence: The Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario (SEMMO) requires FMP-SGRs to provide a
timeframe by which stands must reach FTG and be assessed.
The 2004 and 2009 FMPs both provided a forecast of the amount of regeneration assessment that would
be required during their respective plan periods. Together, the two plans forecast an assessment requirement of 8,587 ha for the white pine forest units during the five-year audit period.
The actual level of assessment was much lower. ARs for the audit period show that only 781 ha of pine
shelterwood cuts were assessed for FTG during the same five-year period.
Discussion:
It is difficult to be specific about the extent of Westwind's regeneration assessment obligations in the
white pine types, as records are not kept in that way.
It is the FMP-SGRs that determine the timeframe during which assessments must be made and the
measures against which the results are to be judged. The complication is that these standards differ by FMP and FU. According to Paragraph 16.6 of the SFL, it is the FMP that was in effect at the time the
prescription was made that applies. However, records are not kept in this way. SFL holders are required to report the area of assessment they carried out, compared to the level that was forecast in the FMP.
The FMP forecast is just a forecast, not a calculation of the SFL holder's obligation.
The Year 10 AR acknowledged that survey levels were well below FMP projections, particularly in the conifer (white pine) shelterwood FUs. It attributed this to an ongoing dialogue between industry partners
regarding survey methods and to a disagreement with certain aspects of the STARS methodology. It is also possible that this issue is linked to economics and the financial crisis that the FRT has just come
through. Regeneration assessments are funded by the FRT and white pine assessments are very
expensive because of their marginal success and variable nature. Ocular estimates don't work well under such conditions.
Conclusion: Westwind is behind in its white pine regeneration assessments although the amount of the shortfall is
unknown.
Recommendation: Westwind should maintain a ledger of areas on which regeneration assessment is due that enables comparison with its assessment work and its assessment obligations. This should be in
place in time for the next IFA.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 27
Independent Forest Audit – Record of Finding
Recommendation 8
Principle 7. Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability
Criteria 7. To draw conclusions on the achievement of management objectives and forest sustainability.
To assess whether the associated analyses, reviews and reports have been prepared in accordance with the applicable FMPM and whether they are accurate and represent effective analyses and progress
reviews.
Procedure: Assess whether the report has been prepared in accordance with the FMPM requirements.
Background Information and Summary of Evidence:
The audit team reviewed the Year 10 Annual Report and found that it lacked a discussion of the
achievement of non-quantitative objectives or discussion of implementation of the action plan associated with the previous IFA, as required.
Discussion:
The Year 10 Annual Report is a key document in that it provides a summary of activities and
achievements to date. As such, it must be complete.
Conclusion:
The Year 10 Annual Report did not meet all of the content requirements of the FMPM.
Recommendation: Westwind should ensure that the content requirements of future Year 10 Annual
Reports are met.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 28
APPENDIX 2 – MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES TABLES
Table 4. Summary of the Status of the 2004 FMP Objectives
Objective Auditor Assessment and Comments
Landscape and Stand Forest Diversity
To maintain a range of native tree
species;
To increase, where practical and
appropriate, under-represented tree
species and forest units, in
proportions similar to the pre-settlement forest.
The strategies that are being implemented will
maintain a range of native tree species.
Group selection openings are being created to improve
the representation of black cherry and ash.
Progress has not been made in using prescribed fire to encourage red oak. Problems persist with white pine
regeneration and hemlock. These cover types are not on track toward pre-settlement conditions.
Genetic Diversity
To protect and conserve the genetic
diversity of indigenous tree species.
Met through extensive use of natural regeneration and
use of local seed in planting programs.
Old Growth Diversity
To increase/maintain the area of old
white pine/red pine stands.
To manage/protect representative
ecosystems of old growth white/red
pine stands
To expand the representation of old
growth stands to other forest types of the management unit, in accordance
with policy and guidance.
Met through modelling and harvest practices. Due to
the long history of logging and wildfire there is very little old growth forest left in French-Severn Forest.
The current age class structure shows many stands at
the mature stage, just entering into the old stage. This is especially true for white/red pine forest units. Old
growth targets to be met by implementation of the selected management alternative by 2034.
Wetlands
To ensure that the area and function
of wetland ecosystems are not
impacted by forest operations.
Met - appropriate AOC prescriptions to protect wetlands, water quality and fisheries were developed,
implemented and complied with.
Timber Production
To continue to provide opportunities
for local employment, including First
Nation communities, in resource sectors that are dependent on the
use of forest resources.
Met - provided a sustainable harvest level but globally
significant forces reduced market demand and
significantly reduced harvest levels.
Tourism
To minimize the impact of forest
operations on the economic viability
of the resource based tourism industry of the area.
To ensure that forest operations are
carried out so as to minimize aesthetic impact where ever possible.
Met - tourism AOCs developed and implemented to protect canoe routes, portages, trails, Georgian Bay
shoreline, recreational camps and water access points; discussions held with licensed resource based tourism
operators and three RSA agreements were signed; however, no forestry operations took place in the
areas of interest due to the market downturn.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 29
Objective Auditor Assessment and Comments
To maintain the viability of the
Tourism Industry by protecting
tourism values identified during the FMP process through the application
of Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource Based Tourism
and the use of RSAs as one method
of protecting and sustaining these values
Other Land Use
To conduct forest operations in a
manner which minimizes conflict with crown land use activities.
To ensure that forest operations are
carried out in accordance with crown land use plans.
Met – no unresolved issues; FMP conforms to land use
plans (e.g. Ontario Living Legacy initiatives).
First Nation
To ensure the protection of Native
values.
To support initiatives by interested
First Nation communities for
economic development of forest resources and forest-based uses of
the French/Severn Unit.
Improvements in communication efforts with
Aboriginal communities and greater effort placed on identifying ways for Aboriginal people to more equally
benefit from forest management are needed – Aboriginal communities remain dissatisfied (see
Recommendation 2).
Resource Access
To ensure access is provided to forest resources
which is appropriate for the purpose and frequency of use consistent with:
principles of sustainable forest use
sustainable management of other
crown resources
private landowner rights
public safety
Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use
Strategy
Met - roads planning, construction and maintenance provide for resource access; most roads are open to
the public; maintenance and safety measures were observed to be acceptable.
Recreation
To ensure that known recreational
values are identified and impacts are minimized during forest operations.
Met – recreational values are mapped and maintained
in NRVIS; AOCs were prepared and implemented; no
compliance issues were observed.
Cultural Heritage
To ensure that known and high
potential cultural heritage values are
Met – high potential cultural heritage values are mapped and maintained in NRVIS; AOCs were
prepared and implemented; no compliance issues were
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 30
Objective Auditor Assessment and Comments
identified and protected during forest
operations.
observed.
Other Values Dependent on Forest Cover
To protect and maintain natural
values dependent upon forest cover
while enabling the sustainable use of forest resources.
To maintain a forest landscape that
will supply suitable current and future habitat for selected wildlife species
over time, within the bounds of
natural variation.
Met - all indicators above minimum acceptable level for
the selected management alternative, NRVIS updates
ensure new values are captured, tree markers are trained in identifying new values; AOCs were
implemented and complied with.
Beaver habitat target was not met.
Ensure all harvested lands are regenerated to
the most silviculturally appropriate species and tended until Free-To-Grow…
Met under the conventional approach that assumes
selection cutting and tree marking is considered to be Free to Grow at time of harvest. Surveys of hardwood
shelterwoods are also successfully regenerated but
white pine shelterwood is producing inconsistent regeneration performance.
To continue to research, test and implement,
viable, economical and ecologically-based alternatives… which will reduce dependence on
herbicides
Not met - Mechanical site preparation, which can
reduce herbicide use, has been in decline due to high cost.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 31
APPENDIX 3 – COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
Table 5. Compliance with Contractual Obligations
Licence Condition Licence Holder Performance
Payment of Forestry Futures and Ontario Crown
charges
Crown charges totalling $552,190 and Forestry Futures Trust charges of $179,658 were owed by companies other than Westwind. MNR was in the process of pursuing collection of these amounts.
Wood supply commitments, MOAs, sharing arrangements, special conditions
No issues were raised during the audit.
Preparation of FMP, AWS and reports; abiding by the
FMP, and all other requirements of the FMPM and CFSA
FMP was well written; AWSs generally met
requirements; Year 10 AR was not entirely consistent with FMPM – see Recommendation 8.
Conduct inventories, surveys, tests and studies;
provision and collection of information in accordance with FIM and in the case of the Agreement in
accordance with the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act
FTG surveys were 9% of planned; Westwind has
conducted stocking surveys and silvicultural requirement assessments on over 8,000 ha.
Wasteful practices not to be committed Outstanding performance during very challenging market conditions.
Natural disturbance and salvage SFL conditions must be followed
Good performance.
Protection of the licence area from pest damage,
participation in pest control programs
There were no pest management programs of
significance.
Withdrawals from licence area No withdrawals associated with this licence condition.
Audit action plan and status report Action plan prepared and submitted on time; status report submitted 9 months late;
acceptable overall progress was made on
addressing the 2006 IFA recommendations.
Payment of forest renewal charges to Forest
Renewal Trust (FRT)
Payments were up to date for most licensees;
however, two remained in significant arrears
(approx. total $230,000) for which MNR has initiated collection actions.
Forest Renewal Trust eligible silviculture work Approximately 12% of the silviculture activities conducted between April 1, 2009 and March 31,
2010 were sampled during the audit. The
associated maps and records for these projects were consistent with the work viewed on the
ground.
Forest Renewal Trust forest renewal charge analysis Good documentation in analysis package supporting 2009 FMP.
Forest Renewal Trust account minimum balance Minimum balance met in three of the five years
of the audit term. A two year recovery plan was approved by MNR and the minimum balance was
restored.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 32
Licence Condition Licence Holder Performance
Silviculture standards and assessment program A program is in place but under review at
Provincial and Regional levels to improve cost effectiveness. Class X, Y, Z lands are now
treated as part of the normal landbase and subject to the same standards.
Aboriginal opportunities Additional collaborative effort is required by MNR
and Westwind – see Recommendation 2.
Preparation of compliance plan Compliance plans prepared and implemented.
Internal compliance prevention/education program Westwind maintained appropriate compliance
training programs.
Compliance inspections and reporting; compliance with compliance plan
Program generally conformed to FOIP requirements and compliance plans. Although
inspections were completed in 2009, reports were delayed due to company layoffs.
SFL forestry operations on mining claims Conformance to requirements confirmed through
interview and review of correspondence with claim holders.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 33
Table 6. Summary of Progress on Actions to Address the 2006 IFA Recommendations
Recommendation Auditor Comments
1. That MNR ensure that the terms of reference for the 2009 FMP include a protocol for retaining planning
records and documents
Terms of Reference were not updated but records were maintained and were adequate
for this audit.
2. That the MNR post public notices in local aboriginal media.
With the exception of Stage 1, notices were placed in Aboriginal publications for all
planning stages.
3. That the MNR re-engage the first nations to evaluate their interest in establishing a regular dialogue on
forestry opportunities and other forest issues, such as updating native values maps.
Much work was done by MNR; staff turnover within MNR and First Nation communities
requires ongoing efforts.
4. That the MNR ensure that all first nations
communities who use or have interests on the French Severn forest are sent public notices for any aerial
herbicide spraying.
MNR records confirm notices were sent.
5. That the planning team for the 2009 FMP develops strategies to ensure that public correspondence is
answered in as timely a manner as possible.
Binders were set up and all input requiring responses were responded to within 3 weeks.
The forest management plan (2009-2019) is currently being implemented and planning
records will be kept as per record retention requirements. These records were made
available to the audit team electronically.
6. That Westwind secure a new FRI coverage as soon as possible.
MNR will continue to design and develop the eFRI for the Province and interpretation is
scheduled for completion in 2014. The new
high resolution imagery is now available to assist in Phase 2 planning of the 2009-19
FMP.
7. That the company corrects the errors in Table FMP-13
of the 2004 FMP and submits an amendment consisting
of the corrected table.
FMP-13 was corrected and amended to the
plan.
8. That the planning team for the 2009 FMP set a
credible, achievable planned level of harvest on the French-Severn forest.
The scoping analysis was found to be
thorough and well documented. The harvest rate is credible but the gap between forecast
and actual is large and lead to the wood
supply competition awarding new licences. SFMM helps in setting AHA but there is a
large difference between available wood supply and affordable wood supply; SFMM
does not help in estimating the latter.
9. That the MNR and the company develop and implement a strategy to bring the planned levels of
harvest on the French-Severn forest into greater consistency with expected levels of utilization.
See above. The SFL can only go so far on this issue. The work with SFMM was well done
but SFMM is not well designed for uneven aged forests and is not well designed for
allocation problems. When faced with the
uncertainty over markets and the current poor quality of FRI a reasonable strategy is to
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 34
Recommendation Auditor Comments
plan for high levels of harvest to create many
operational options thus giving the operators maximum flexibility.
10. That the planning team for the next FMP continues to encourage innovative tactics which incorporate
current silviculture, harvesting, and economic thinking
when developing forest units, silviculture ground rules and treatment packages (and appropriately match them
to forest stands).
There is evidence of efforts to address this recommendation in the 2009-2019 FMP. A
new PWST-FU was created to deal with pine
stands of low stocking and the old HDSGB-FU, which was found unsuited to selection
management, was moved to HDUS for management under the shelterwood system.
The PWUS and PWUS2 allocations now
concentrate more on removal cutting and less on seeding cuts, to avoid massing too much
area at one stage of management. In the PW-FUs, there is less reliance on natural
regeneration and more emphasis on chemical site preparation, planting and chemical
tending, in recognition of the difficulties in
regenerating white pine on competition-prone sites. Two exceptions (not yet implemented)
appear in the 2009-2019 FMP – strip cutting tolerant hardwoods and full-tree removal
under certain circumstances.
11. That corporate MNR provide values funding sufficient to collect information for the entire year’s allocations on
an annual basis.
Adequate funding was provided for values collection leading up to production of the
2009-2019 FMP, focusing on proposed areas of operation; SAR information collection
ongoing. The District receives funding for
values information collection on an annual basis (e.g. for annual stick nest verification
surveys).
12. That MNR provide training on deer-yard management in the French Severn forest for Westwind
staff and operators, and that the training provides opportunities for discussion of the merits of the selected
approaches.
MNR provided two day workshop in the Spring of 2011 for Westwind staff and tree
markers.
13. That corporate and/or regional MNR provide direction to MNR district staff regarding the prioritization
and implementation of road and crossing management efforts related to implementation of the forest roads and
water crossings initiative.
MNR developed guidance documents, asset plans and implemented regular inspection
programs; inventory of bridges and large culverts on primary and branch roads
conducted.
14. That the planning team for the 2009 FMP, with the assistance of corporate MNR and MNR region, should
develop local interpretations of the requirements of the
natural disturbance pattern emulation guide, suitable for use in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence silviculture
practiced on the forest.
New stand and site guides and landscape guides for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Forest were not available for the 2009-2019
FMP but are available now. An amendment to the FMP identified where local interpretations
of the Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guide were appropriate and should assist in
addressing the concerns.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 35
Recommendation Auditor Comments
15. That the company institute measures to ensure that
signed and sealed copies of approved FMP amendments and AWS revisions are filed in its office promptly
following their approval.
A noticeable improvement was demonstrated.
16. That the company updates its FMP amendment
summary to include request and approval dates, and
better descriptions of the reasons for amendments.
The amendment ledger managed by
Westwind was expanded to include
denotation of impact on the AWS. As well, more information was added in the
description column to amendment proposals to date. The audit team verified with the
Area Supervisor that amendment tracking has
improved although one AWS revision was incomplete, lacking the Aerial Herbicide
Application Plan.
17. That corporate MNR review the prescribed burn cost
formula with the intent of increasing the fairness of the
formula by reducing some of the charges and facilitating greater use of prescribed burning for silvicultural
purposes.
MNR reviewed its prescribed burn manual in
2008 but MNR’s full-cost recovery policy (as
opposed to out-of-pocket cost recovery) remains a barrier to prescribed burns here
and elsewhere in Ontario. There is now an allowance for up to 20% in-kind contribution
but Westwind still did not see prescribed
burns as a viable silvicultural option on the French-Severn Forest. Its use as a silviculture
tool will likely remain minimal until costs borne by the forest industry are lowered.
18. That MNR and the company evaluate the extent of
remaining backlog, and it’s treatment requirements, and negotiate a payment from MNR that would enable the
company to fully treat the additional backlog on the forest.
This recommendation was not acted upon.
Silviculture is financed by the FRT and FFTF, not by MNR. The recommendation refers to
pre-SFL pine shelterwood cutovers that were not treated for reasons of funding or summer
access and have not regenerated naturally.
Today, both sides agree that too much time has passed for backlog in this condition to
remain treatable and that further treatment must await another shelterwood harvest first.
The 2009 FMP contains several silvicultural
strategies dealing with making old backlog harvestable.
19. That Westwind and MNR develop a strategy to manage or alleviate anticipated shortfalls in funds
available for stand improvement, silviculture and tending
without sacrificing strategic direction.
Westwind and MNR have collaborated on this recommendation. In its 2009-2019 FMP
Westwind came up with several strategies to
increase yield and reduce costs, all with the intention of maintaining a positive balance in
the FRT. Westwind produced a two-year plan to restore the minimum FRT balance that was
accepted by MNR, and the balance has since
been restored. However, this has not been without sacrifice. Many silvicultural activities
were reduced or curtailed in order to bring this about.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 36
Recommendation Auditor Comments
In fairness, the Action Plan pointed out the
limited ability to deal with this issue, given the economic crisis facing the entire forest sector
at this time. Until the economic situation improves significant challenges will remain.
20. That corporate MNR take appropriate measures to
mitigate the negative impact of deferred payments to the French-Severn renewal trust fund.
This recommendation was acted upon. In a
letter from the MNR Director of Forest Management, Westwind was advised that
MNR did not consider deferred FRT payments by overlapping licensees to be a Westwind
issue. This did not mitigate the effect on the
FRT but it did absolve Westwind of responsibility to this extent.
21. Corporate MNR, on a provincial scale, review its policy and legislation to ensure the wise use and
management of crown forest access roads and trails by
the growing community of off-road vehicle users. In the interim, Bracebridge and Parry Sound MNR offices
should work with off-road vehicle user-groups under existing policy and legislation to control and manage the
use of crown forest access roads and trails.
MNR continues to apply the Public Lands Act and associated Free Use Policy. Construction
of unauthorized access by other forest users
is an MNR enforcement issue.
22. That corporate MNR and Westwind jointly develop a strategy to bring overlapping licensees on the French-
Severn forest into compliance with the amended Bill C-45 and any other relevant health and safety legislation.
Evidence of conformance provided by MNR and Westwind.
23. That the company formally document the analysis of
compliance priorities and meet the content requirements of the monitoring inspection reporting schedule in future
annual forest compliance plans.
Review of compliance plans and annual
compliance schedules found them to meet requirements.
24. That Westwind continue to negotiate with Grant Forest Products with the aim of concluding a
memorandum of agreement to make available poplar as
per the terms in appendix e of Westwind SFL.
Grant Forest Products was sold to Georgia Pacific without an agreement with Westwind.
Westwind is no longer part of Georgia
Pacific’s government committed wood supply.
25. That the Minister of Natural Resources extend the
term of Sustainable Forest Licence #542411, held by Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. for the French-Severn
Forest, for an additional five-year period.
Licence term not yet extended.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 37
APPENDIX 4 – AUDIT PROCESS
The Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP) was developed by MNR to provide a comprehensive and consistent method of evaluating forest management activities on Crown land. The
IFAPP (2011) states that the purpose of an Independent Forest Audit is to:
a) assess to what extent forest management planning activities comply with the Forest Management
Planning Manual (FMPM) and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (S.O. 1994, c. 25) (CFSA);
b) assess to what extent forest management activities comply with the CFSA and with the forest management plans, the manuals approved under the CFSA and the applicable guides;
c) assess the effectiveness of forest management activities in meeting the forest management objectives set out in the forest management plan, as measured in relation to the criteria
established for the audit;
d) compare the forest management activities carried out with those that were planned;
e) assess the effectiveness of any action plans implemented to remedy shortcomings revealed by a
previous IFA;
f) review and assess a licensee’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the forest resource
licence.
The IFAPP is based on eight guiding principles and contains 148 procedures, 132 of which are applicable
to the French-Severn Forest. The audit procedure serves as a framework to provide a structured
approach to evaluating whether or not forest management activities meet the requirements governing forestry practices on Crown land in Ontario. The guiding principles are:
Commitment
Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement
Forest Management Planning
Plan Assessment and Implementation
System Support
Monitoring
Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability
Contractual Obligations
MNR categorized most of the IFA procedures based on complexity and their potential impact on forest
sustainability. The IFAPP directs the audit team to assess through sampling, per audit principle and
associated criteria, the three categories of procedures as follows:
Administrative procedures – low risk: 20-30% of low risk procedures to be assessed
Administrative but also having a bearing on sustainable forest management – medium risk: 50-75% of medium risk procedures to be assessed
Procedures directly related to sustainable forest management – high risk: 100% of high risk
procedures to be assessed
Table 7 summarizes the number of procedures selected by the audit team for audit based on the
direction provided by the IFAPP.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 38
Table 7. IFA Procedures Selected by the Audit Team
Procedures Audited, by Risk Category
Principle
Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk
Comments
Ap
pli
ca
ble
(#
)
Se
lecte
d (
#)
% A
ud
ite
d
Ap
pli
ca
ble
(#
)
Se
lecte
d (
#)
% A
ud
ite
d
Au
dit
ed
(#
)
(10
0%
Au
dit
ed
)
1. Commitment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Principle 1 not audited because Forest is certified to FSC Standard
2. Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement
0 0 0 6 3 50 2 2.1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 not selected
3. Forest Management Planning
5 2 40 12 6 50 37 3.1.2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.3, 3.5.1.3, 3.6.1.1, 3.10.3.2 not selected
4. Plan Assessment & Implementation
1 1 100 1 1 100 9
5. System Support 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 Procedure 5.1.1 not audited because Forest is certified to FSC Standard
6. Monitoring 0 0 0 7 4 57 11 6.2.1.3, 6.4.2, 6.4.3 not selected
7. Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability
0 0 0 2 1 50 13 7.1.8 not selected
8. Contractual Obligations 0 0 0 4 3 75 8 8.1.9.1 not selected
Totals 6 3 50 33 19 58 80
The audit process for the French-Severn Forest IFA consisted of seven components:
1. Audit Plan: KBM prepared an audit plan that described the schedule of audit activities, audit
team members and their qualifications, audit participants, and auditing methods. The audit plan was submitted to MNR, the Forestry Futures Trust Committee (FFTC), and the Chair of the
French-Severn’s LCC.
2. Public Consultation: Through individual letters mailed in August, 2011, KBM advised a sample of
MNR’s FMP mailing list that an audit would be taking place and invited their input. Newspaper ads were published in two area newspapers prior to the pre-audit meeting advising the public of
the upcoming audit: the Huntsville Forester, the Amalguin News and the Beacon Star. As per the
requirements of the IFAPP, the notices identified the purpose of the audit and invited the public to submit comments to the LCC Chair or directly to KBM.
KBM also prepared a one-page survey to solicit public input to the audit process. The survey, in addition to a general letter informing contacts of the audit, was mailed to all businesses and
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 39
organizations, and a representative sample of one-third of the individuals listed in the Forest
Management Plan (FMP) mailing list (as provided by MNR Parry Sound District). This list includes tourist operators, private land owners, trappers, baitfish licence holders, bear management area
holders, local municipalities and government agencies, independent loggers, logging contractors, shareholders and other special interest groups. The survey was also available to the general
public on the KBM website (www.kbmrg.on.ca).
3. Aboriginal Engagement: MNR Parry Sound District provided KBM with contact information for each Aboriginal community within or adjacent to the French-Severn Forest, and/or who
participate in activities on the Forest. A letter was sent out to each of the Aboriginal communities on the contact list inviting them to participate in the IFA of the French-Severn Forest. The letter
asked for their input and encouraged them to contact KBM if they wish to participate in the audit or if they require more information before making a decision. KBM also offered to arrange in-
person meetings with each of these Aboriginal communities.
4. Field Site Selection: The audit team conducted a preliminary site selection prior to the opening meeting. Annual Work Schedules and Annual Reports were used to ascertain the amount and
type of forest operations carried out on the Forest during the audit period. A stratified random sample of sites was then selected to ensure that selected sites were representative of a cross
section of all activities conducted on the Forest during the audit period. The site selection also
considered public input derived from the above procedures to focus on specific areas of interest. The auditees were informed of the site selection for the field visit.
5. Pre-audit Document Review: Prior to the five-day site visit, the audit team reviewed documents provided by MNR, including the:
a. 2004-2024 and 2009-2019 FMPs for the French-Severn Forest;
b. Annual Work Schedules and Annual Reports associated with the above FMPs;
c. French-Severn Forest Independent Forest Audit 2001-2006 Report;
d. French-Severn Forest 2001-2006 Independent Forest Audit Action Plan and the French-Severn Forest 2001-2006 Independent Forest Audit Action Plan Status Report.
The audit team also developed a questionnaire that was circulated to planning team members prior to the on-site audit to assess their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of specific
components of forest management on the French-Severn Forest. The results of the survey
provided additional focus to IFAPP prescribed interview procedures that occurred on site.
On-Site Audit: The objectives of the field site visits were to confirm that activities were conducted
according to plan, that they conformed with provincial laws, regulations, and guidelines, and that they were effective. The site visit began on September 19th. Three days were spent in the field with the
remainder spent reviewing documents and conducting interviews.
Table 8 presents the actual sampling intensity for each forestry activity examined on the ground as part of the field site visits.
The closing meeting was held in Parry Sound on September 26th, 2011. The meeting provided a forum for the audit team to present and discuss preliminary audit findings with Westwind and MNR staff.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 40
Table 8. Audit Sampling Intensity for the French-Severn Forest
French-Severn Forest
Activity
Total Area or
Number (2006-
2011)
Sample Area
Sample Size
(%)
Harvest clearcut (ha) 390 82 21.0
Harvest selection (ha) 10,979 1,153 10.5
Harvest shelterwood (ha) 8,997 961 10.7
Site Preparation mechanical (ha) 63 0 0
Site Preparation chemical (ha) 541 83 15.3
Plant (ha) 567 83 14.6
Tend chemical (ha) 429 77 17.9
Free-to-Grow (ha) 1,998 263 13.2
Area of Concern Categories (#) Minimum 10% sample achieved.
Road Construction (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved.
Road Maintenance (km) Minimum 10% sample achieved.
Specified Procedures Review (ha) 2,690 316 11.7
6. Audit Report: The audit results are presented in this report following a brief description of the audit process and the forest licence area under review. Within the report, the audit team has
made recommendations to address instances of a non-conformance to a law and/or policy, or an identified lack of effectiveness in forest management activities.
Recommendations from this audit must be addressed in an action plan developed by Westwind and MNR Parry Sound District, with input and review by MNR Regional and Forest Management
Branch representatives. MNR Forests Branch will develop an action plan to address the
recommendation applicable to Corporate MNR.
Suggestions are no longer highlighted in audit reports, nor will they be addressed in action plans.
Any suggestions of the audit team have been incorporated within the regular text of this report.
Public Response
Twelve comments were received by the audit team from members of the public responding to a mail-out
from KBM. Most responds were interested in recreational use of the forest or conservation. Issues raised included concerns over wood utilization and impacts of forest management on wildlife and other values.
IFAPP procedure 2.2.1 (Public consultation process) was not selected for audit due to sampling.
Local Citizens Committee
Letters were mailed to 100% of current members of the LCC to notify them of the audit and invite their
input. No responses were received. The audit team also offered to meet with the LCC. A meeting was scheduled but cancelled due to low planned attendance by members. An LCC member attended a
portion of the field audit and spoke to the auditors there. IFAPP procedure 2.1.2.1 (LCC purpose and activities) was not selected for audit due to sampling and therefore no LCC members were interviewed,
beyond the member who participated in the field audit.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 41
Aboriginal Communities
Letters were sent to the seven Aboriginal communities recognized by MNR to be in or adjacent to the forest management area, inviting them to participate in the audit. The letter explained that their input is
welcomed and encouraged them to contact KBM if they wished to participate in the audit or if they required more information before making a decision. The week prior to the site visit the MNR-
Resources Liaison Officer was consulted and asked to advise the best options for consultation. Attempts
were made to contact each community by telephone the week prior to the site visit to arrange a time for the auditor to meet community representatives in person.
In-person discussions were held with representatives of Dokis First Nation, Henvey Inlet First Nation, Magnetawan First Nation, and Wasuksing First Nation. Wahta Mohawks elected to not have an in person
interview however they were provided with interview questions and were encouraged to offer feedback. Contact was made with the Chief of Shawanaga First Nation however his schedule prevented him from
attending an in-person interview. MNR provided the name of a consultant as a contact for the
Algonquins of Ontario. Contact was never made with the consultant for the Algonquins of Ontario or Moose Deer Point despite attempts before, during and after the site visit. The auditor contacted the
Algonquins of Ontario directly after the first draft of the audit report was reviewed; however, they declined to comment given the short timeframe.
Overlapping Licensees, Contractors and Commitment Holders
All businesses listed in the FMP mailing list provided by the Parry Sound MNR were sent the one-page KBM survey and letter soliciting input to the audit. Commitment holders were sent a separate
questionnaire and one response was received in which no issues were raised.
SFL Holder
Planning and operations staff of Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. participated in all aspects of the audit including provision of documentation, attendance at meetings, participation during interviews and as
guides during the field audit. The audit team appreciates the support provided by Westwind staff during
the audit.
Ministry of Natural Resources
MNR District staff participated in all aspects of the audit. Interviews were held with the District Manager, Area Supervisors, Area Forester, Biologists, Technicians and other support staff. MNR District personnel
and a Regional representative also accompanied the audit team in the field.
Forestry Futures Trust Fund Committee
A representative from the Forestry Futures Trust Committee participated in the opening meeting and
during two field days.
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 42
APPENDIX 5 – LIST OF ACRONYMS
AHA Available Harvest Area
AOC Area of Concern
AR Annual Report
AWS Annual Work Schedule
CFSA Crown Forest Sustainability Act
CSA Canadian Standards Association
eFRI enhanced Forest Resource Inventory
FFTC Forestry Futures Trust Committee
FFTF Forestry Futures Trust Fund
FIM Forest Information Manual
FMP Forest Management Plan
FMPM Forest Management Planning Manual
FOIP Forest Operations Information Program
FOIR Forest Operations Inspections Report
FOP Forest Operations Prescription
FRI Forest Resource Inventory
FRL Forest Resources Licence
FRT Forest Renewal Trust
FTG Free-To-Grow
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GIS Geographic Information System
HDSEL Hardwood Selection forest unit
HDSELBB Hardwood Selection Bracebridge forest unit
HDSELGB Hardwood Selection Georgian Bay forest unit
HDUS Hardwood Uniform Shelterwood forest unit
IFA Independent Forest Audit
IFAPP Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol
KBM KBM Forestry Consultants Inc.
LCC Local Citizens Committee
LTMD Long Term Management Direction
MAFA Moose Aquatic Feeding Area
MNR Ministry of Natural Resources
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NDPEG Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guidelines
NRVIS Natural Resource Values Information System
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 43
NSR Not Sufficiently or Satisfactorily Restocked or Regenerated
PWUS White Pine Uniform Shelterwood forest unit
RPF Registered Professional Forester
SEM Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring
SEMMO Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario
SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative
SFL Sustainable Forest Licence
SFMM Strategic Forest Management Model
SGR Silviculture Ground Rule
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPA Special Purposes Account
STARS Silviculture Treatment, Assessment and Reporting System
TOR Terms of Reference
French-Severn Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2006-2011
KBM Forestry Consultants Inc. 44
APPENDIX 6 – AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS
Name/Role Responsibilities Credentials
Rod Seabrook
Lead Auditor
Wildlife & Ecology
Access
Overall audit coordination and oversight of activities of the audit team.
Assess aspects related to wildlife, ecology and access
Lead the assessment of achievement of management objectives, forest sustainability and contractual obligations
M.Sc. Biology; EP(EMSLA); 31 years forestry experience in Ontario; principal area of practice is forest management and environmental auditing; eleven years of auditing experience; participated in over 20 Independent Forest Audits for the Province of Ontario. IFA experience covers all Crown managed forest types in Ontario; conducts sustainable forest management audits under the various recognized sustainable forest management standards
Laird Van Damme
Harvesting
Planning
Compliance
Assess planning and harvest operations; and compliance; assist in assessment of achievement of management objectives and forest sustainability and contractual obligations.
R.P.F., M.Sc.F.; 26 years experience as a practising forester, educator and consultant; primary areas of practice are silviculture, forest management and forest research; completed ISO 14001 EMS Lead Auditor training; worked on 18 previous IFAs as either Lead, Harvest or Planning Auditor.
Peter Hynard
Silviculture
Assess silviculture planning and operations; assist in assessment of achievement of management objectives and forest sustainability and contractual obligations.
R.P.F., Consulting forester since 2006; Previously worked as a forester with MNR. Provincial Coordinator for the Crown Land Roads and Water Crossings Initiative as well as Project Manager for the Northeast/ Southcentral Hardwood Project.
Keith Hautala
Modeling
Review SFMM strategic planning. M.Sc.F.; 12 years of forestry experience in Ontario; Modeling Auditor on 11 previous IFAs; Secretariat on three previous IFAs.
Jennifer Keith
Aboriginal Consultation Supplementary Team Member
Under the guidance of the Lead Auditor, review Aboriginal involvement in forest management planning and compliance with contractual obligations related to Aboriginal opportunities
M.A.; An independent consultant and a PhD candidate with the Indigenous Governance Program at the University of Winnipeg.
Ian Dunn
Secretariat
Assist with audit logistics and undertake certain low or medium risk audit procedures including aspects of public consultation
M.F.C.; Involved in forest management planning projects for KBM.