report of an independent audit of forest …...report of an independent audit of forest management...

Report of an Independent Audit of Forest Management

of the Algonquin Park Forest for the Period 2002 to 2007

Audit Team:

Brian Callaghan, RPF Tom Clark

Craig Howard, RPF Mark Leschishin, RPF

Phil Shantz June 2008

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BioForest Technologies Inc. carried out an independent audit of forest management on the Algonquin Park Forest (APF) covering the period from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2007. The APF has been managed through this period by the Algonquin Forest Authority (AFA) under the auspices of a 20-year Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement (Commencing April 1, 2002 and set to expire March 21, 2022) with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) serves as the representative of OMNR on this forest. The audit examined AFA’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement and reviewed the APP’s performance in meeting its obligations on the APF. The audit included an extensive review of the plans and records of forest management activities, along with field verification visits to areas where a variety of forest management activities occurred during the audit period. Public input was solicited through a public mailing, newspaper advertising, and mail-in surveys. This audit report identifies 11 recommendations and 8 suggestions aimed at improving the management and administration of the APF. The audit has three recommendations aimed at improving planning functions on the APF. OMNR is encouraged to review the current output of planning models to ensure the long term sustainability of wildlife species has been appropriately assessed. The audit also requests OMNR ensure future management plans for APP are flexible enough to allow incorporation of new knowledge into operational prescriptions. The audit repeats a recommendation from the past IFA that a roads strategy for the APP should be completed. The audit has three recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of area of concern prescriptions used to protect values. The first directs APP to survey streams to confirm their thermal classification and determine their fish habitat status. The second directs both APP and the AFA to develop protocols for the development of aggregate pits in the headwaters of brook trout streams. Finally, the audit recommends that APP take a more flexible approach to implementing areas of concern around brook trout lakes to make sure the prescriptions are effective in protecting values without removing valid wood supply opportunities. The audit recommends APP improve its knowledge and application of use patterns in the park, in order to improve guidance on seasonal and spatial operational assignments. A second operational recommendation requests the AFA to see if there are more opportunities to improve tending operations on plantations. The audit confirms that this is a well-managed forest. Technical aspects of forest management are completed in a highly satisfactory manner. Communication between the various stakeholders on the forest is excellent and relations are professional, positive, and progressive. The AFA is satisfactorily meeting all of the terms and conditions of the forest management agreement. Algonquin Provincial Park is also meeting its overall

responsibilities associated with its role in managing this forest. The audit team confirms that, based on the evidence reviewed, management of the APF was in compliance with the legislation, policy, and regulations that were in effect during 2002-2007 audit term. The APF is being managed sustainably. The audit team has recommended that the term of the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement be extended for an additional five years.

Algonquin Park Forest 2007 Independent Forest Audit FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................... iii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi 2.0 Introduction............................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Audit Process ...................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Forest Management Context ............................................................................. 10

2.2.1 Map of the Management Unit ................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Forest Description..................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Forest Management Issues........................................................................ 13

3.0 Summary of Audit Findings.................................................................................. 14 3.1 Commitment ..................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Public Participation........................................................................................... 15

3.2.1 Local Citizens’ Committee ....................................................................... 15 3.2.2 FMP Standard Public Consultation Process ............................................. 17 3.2.3 Native Peoples’ Consultation.................................................................... 17 3.2.4 Annual Work Schedule Public Inspection ................................................ 21

3.3 Forest Management Planning ........................................................................... 22 3.3.1 Planning Team Activities.......................................................................... 22 3.3.2 Resource Stewardship Agreements........................................................... 22 3.3.3 Source of Direction ................................................................................... 22 3.3.4 Introduction............................................................................................... 24 3.3.5 Management Unit Description.................................................................. 24 3.3.6 Objectives and Strategies/Management Alternatives ............................... 25 3.3.7 Operational Planning ................................................................................ 27 3.3.8 Plan Review and Approval ....................................................................... 31 3.3.9 Plan Amendments ..................................................................................... 31 3.3.10 Contingency Plans .................................................................................... 31 3.3.11 Annual Work Schedules ........................................................................... 31

3.4 Plan Implementation ......................................................................................... 32 3.4.1 Areas of Concern ...................................................................................... 32 3.4.2 Harvest ...................................................................................................... 35 3.4.3 Renewal..................................................................................................... 39 3.4.4 Tending and Protection ............................................................................. 41 3.4.5 Renewal Support....................................................................................... 43 3.4.6 Access ....................................................................................................... 43

3.5 Systems Support................................................................................................ 46 3.5.1 Human Resources ..................................................................................... 46 3.5.2 Documentation and Quality Control......................................................... 47

3.6 Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 47 3.6.1 General Monitoring................................................................................... 47 3.6.2 Annual Report........................................................................................... 57 3.6.3 Report of Past Forest Operations (Year 10 Annual Report) ..................... 59

3.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability ................ 63 3.7.1 Achievement of Management Objectives................................................. 63 3.7.2 Review of the Year 10 Annual Report Assessment of Sustainability ...... 73

BioForest Technologies Inc. v June 2008


3.7.3 Review of Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned Versus Actual Forest Operations ...................................................................................................... 76 3.7.4 Achievement of Forest Sustainability....................................................... 77

3.8 Contractual Obligations .................................................................................... 80 4.0 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................ 83 References......................................................................................................................... 86 Appendix A – Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned vs. Actual Operations ......... 88 Appendix B – Audit Team Members and Qualifications ............................................... 129 Appendix C – Independent Forest Audit Guiding Principles ......................................... 130 Appendix D – List of Acronyms Used ........................................................................... 131 Appendix E – Summary of Input to Audit Process......................................................... 132

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sampling intensity of the audit ............................................................................ 9 Table 2 Landbase summary for managed Crown Lands on the Algonquin Park Forest

(2002-2007)............................................................................................................... 13 Table 3. Summary of compliance inspections by AP and AFA. ...................................... 51 Table 4. Summary of non compliance findings on the APF during the audit term. ......... 52 Table 5. An assessment of achievement of the forest diversity management objectives

and subobjectives from the 2000 and 2005 FMP's for the APF. .............................. 63 Table 6. An assessment of achievement of the social and economic management

objectives and subobjectives for the 2000 and 2005 FMPs for the APF. ................. 66 Table 7. An assessment of the achievement of the provisoin of forest cover management

objectives and subobjectives from the 2000 and 2005 FMPs for the APF............... 69 Table 8. An assessment of achievement of the silviculture management objectives and

subobjectives for the 2000 and 2005 FMPs for the APF. ........................................ 72 Table 9. Recommendations and suggestions arising from the audit................................ 84

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of Algonquin Park Forest. The recreation and utilization zones are the

areas where forest management operations can occur. ............................................. 11 Figure 2. AOC boundaries were well marked on operational sites viewed by the auditors.

................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3. Harvested sites consistently showed abundant residual stand structure............ 38 Figure 4 This road has been effectively decommissioned by applying fill and debris to the

road base. .................................................................................................................. 45

BioForest Technologies Inc. vi June 2008


2.0 INTRODUCTION An independent forest audit (IFA) of the Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit (APF) was undertaken in the autumn of 2007, to ensure that forest management activities were carried out in accordance with the plans, guidelines, regulations, and legislation in force during the five years from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2007. This audit was conducted in compliance with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) (Statutes of Ontario 1994) and fulfills the requirements of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 2003). The audit assessed the effectiveness of forest management activities in achieving the management objectives for the APF. The audit examined the compliance of the Algonquin Forest Authority (AFA), with the terms and conditions of its forest management agreement for the APF, initially approved in 1985 and most recently updated on February 7, 2005. Finally, the audit reviewed the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’ (OMNR) performance in meeting its obligations on the APF. The OMNR is represented by Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) at the forest level and by Southern Region at the regional level. A team organized by BioForest Technologies Inc. conducted the audit. The audit team consisted of three registered professional foresters, a biologist/ecologist, and a socio-economist. Each member of the team was assigned specific duties and responsibilities. A list of the audit team members and their qualifications is presented in Appendix B. The audit was conducted under the guidance of the 2007 Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol (IFAPP) (OMNR 2007). The IFAPP outlines eight principles upon which the audit is based; these are listed in Appendix C. The principles define the major features of forest management that were audited. Each principle is supported by a series of criteria. The IFAPP describes how each criterion should be audited and specifies the evidence that should be available for the auditors to use to assess compliance with the criteria. To measure and assess auditee performance, the audit team considered all eight IFAPP principles collectively. In total, the protocol identifies 128 criteria that were applicable to this forest and assessed as part of the audit. The audit team analyzed the findings from the audit and, where appropriate, noted any failures, non-compliances, or exceptional practices related to individual principles or criteria. This report summarizes the findings and presents recommendations and suggestions. Recommendations are presented where, in the opinion of the audit team, the auditees have not met a performance requirement, or where an observation, or a collection of observations, has led the auditors to conclude that there is an issue of concern. Auditees are required to design, document, and implement specific remedies for the issues raised through recommendations. Suggestions have been made for situations where the audit team anticipates the auditees could elevate their forest management practices above the minimum standard.

BioForest Technologies Inc. June 2008 7


2.1 Audit Process The auditors collected evidence through document review, interviews with staff and stakeholders, and physical inspection of field activities that occurred on the APF between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2007. The audit process began with an information meeting in Huntsville on May 18, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was for the lead auditor and the AFA to discuss audit logistics and for the lead auditor to collect background information and documents for the audit. Following the information meeting, an audit plan was written and distributed that outlined the audit schedule and identified the main contacts for the audit. From July 15 to August 30, 2007, the audit team reviewed documents describing forest management activities on the APF from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2007. Interviews were held with a variety of interested parties. Personnel from AFA and APP were interviewed throughout the audit. Most of these interviews took place in person, but contact between the audit team, auditees, and the public by phone and e-mail was common. Using the mailing list that APP maintains for the APF, a survey was sent to 429 stakeholders on June 20, 2007. The survey was also posted on the BioForest web page. The lead auditor attended Loggers Day at the Loggers Museum at the Park on July 28, and discussed forest management activities in APP with many of the attendees. One thousand three hundred and fifty one people attended Loggers Day. Many of them visited the audit display. The audit team received 56 responses to the survey, a return rate of about 13%. A pre-audit meeting was held in Huntsville on July 25, 2007, to discuss the audit schedule, auditee staff requirements, issues, contacts, and auditor assignments. Two auditors completed initial field site visits on the APF on July 26 and 27. Thirteen of fifteen members of the Local Citizens’ Committee (LCC) were interviewed directly. The lead auditor and biologist completed field site selections on May 22, 2007. The site visits were selected to evaluate harvest, renewal, tending/maintenance, free-to-grow (FTG) operations, areas of concern (AOC), road construction and maintenance, site preparation, water crossings, wildlife management activities, and other areas of special interest. Sites that had multiple audit values (e.g., renewal and AOC) were preferentially selected. Site visits were selected to ensure that the audit team observed all geographic areas of the APF during the field inspections. Samples were stratified to ensure that evaluations of winter and summer operations were representative of actual operations and included representative sites operated on by each of the overlapping licensees. On-site and field audit activities occurred between September 24 and 28, 2007. The objective of the site visits was to evaluate forest operations that had been carried out between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2007, assess compliance with plans and prescriptions, assess the effectiveness of management activities, and complete personal interviews with a variety of auditees.

BioForest Technologies Inc. June 20088


The audit team verified records and information systems in the AFA offices. The team split into two or three field crews at different times, each of which was accompanied by AFA or APP staff. Two representatives from the LCC accompanied an audit team for one field day each. Sampling was completed through 16 person days of field inspections. The sample was supplemented by an overview flight provided by APP on the last day of the field audit. Sampling continued until the auditors had viewed all of the selected sites and were satisfied that they had viewed enough sites to be confident in their assessment of field performance. Table 1 shows the total amount of each key activity that has occurred on the forest during the audit period, total area of the sites visited and the sample size as a percentage of the total area. The IFAPP required the audit team to sample between 10 and 20% of the area treated during the audit period.

Table 1. Sampling intensity of the audit

Feature Total in Audit period

Total Sampled Sample intensity %

Harvest ha 1551 404 26 • Clear cut 29569 3247 11 • Selection/Shelterwood

• Salvage 44 44 100 • Modified Harvest 2308 477 21

Free to Grow 10651 1490 14 Artificial Regeneration 113 49 17 Spacing. Pre commercial thinning and improvement cutting

4147 580 15

The auditors visited 59 sites, covering approximately 5,652 of the 33,473 ha planned for depletion or silviculture during the audit period. In total, the audit team inspected 49 sites that had harvest activity, 12 sites that had renewal activity, 13 sites that had been tended, and 15 sites that had been declared FTG. Over the course of the field audit, the auditors made formal observations on 69 AOC covering a wide range of values. The IFA effort was supplemented by observations made during a pre-audit conducted during the week of October 22 to 26. This pre-audit examined AFA performance in preparation for a registration audit to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z809 certification standard. This pre-audit clearly benefited from the experience gained during the IFA review. It also allowed the IFA lead auditor to have a more significant view of AFA’s environmental management system, and the sustainable forest management plan and advisory group created for the CSA program.



2.2 Forest Management Context The APF is located within APP, part of the Southern Region Administrative Unit of OMNR. Algonquin Provincial Park is administered by Ontario Parks, a branch of OMNR. One of the major provision of the 1974 APP plan was the establishment of the AFA, which is a Crown Agency established to harvest timber and produce logs and to perform such forestry, land management, and other programs as authorized. The APP plan also states the AFA “…shall conduct its operations in conformity and harmony with the provisions of the true intent and spirit of the park management plan…”. The AFA is party to the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement which specifies that the Minister of Natural Resources agrees to offer five year licenses to the AFA for a twenty year period starting April 1, 1997. This agreement further specifies companies to which the AFA will sell Crown timber produced from the forest. Forest management in APP is dominated by a need to operate in a manner that meets high operational standards and a high level of public scrutiny. Algonquin Park is often described as “the Crown Jewel” of Ontario parks. It hosts 1,000,000 visitors annually and there is little doubt that forest operations are subordinate to the recreational and ecological values APP provides.



2.2.1 Map of the Management Unit

Figure 1 Map of Algonquin Park Forest. The recreation and utilization zones are the areas where forest management operations can occur.

2.2.2 Forest Description



Table 1 presents a summary of the managed Crown land on the APF for 2002-2007. The APF is composed of two basic forest complexes. The tolerant hardwood and hemlock forest primarily occupies the Precambrian Uplands on the west side of the APP. White and red pine, poplar, and white birch are found mainly on the east side of APP. The total management unit is 763,316 ha in size. The total production forest available for harvest is 481,213 ha. Logging in the pine forests on the east side of what is now APP started around 1830. The composition of the historic forest is not dissimilar to the current forest condition. Historically, non- forested land constituted about 16.9% of the area and is about 16% today. Hemlock is not as common, largely because it was harvested to make ties for the Toronto subway in the 1960s. Yellow birch has declined due to aggressive harvesting during the Second World War, and to birch dieback in the 1950s and 1960s. Yellow birch is currently regenerating successfully and should become a more significant part of the forest in the future. Ecosites dominated by white and red pine have increased as has maple-dominated forest. Major fires occurred in APP up to, an including, the 1940s. Other significant depletions have occurred due to wind or hail damage. Losses due to insects and disease, with the exception of the birch dieback noted above, have been relatively small. The current forest is made of tree species ranging from tolerant (maple, beech, hemlock) to intermediate (white pine, yellow birch). These species thrive in silvicultural systems based on partial cutting, such as section cutting or shelterwood systems. These forest management systems maintain a continuous canopy cover, which blends well with the principle focus on wilderness recreation in APP.



Table 2 Landbase summary for managed Crown Lands on the Algonquin Park Forest (2002-2007)

Land class Area (ha) Percent total area

Non-forested

Other land 3423 .01Forested

Non-productive 47536 8.8Protection 7405 1.3

Production forest B&S/NSR 5223 1.0

Depleted --White pine 64410 12

Red pine 10610 2Jack pine 2515 0.1

Black spruce 18150 3.3Balsam fir 24607 4,6

Cedar 4229 .08Yellow birch 15141 2.8

Poplar 60630 11White birch 23505 4.3

Hemlock 30939 5.7Maple 201152 37.27

Other hardwood 19032 3.5Total production forest 481213 93.60%Total forested land 536154 99.7%Total area 539577 100.0%

Source: Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned vs. Actual Forest Operations Report for the APF (see Appendix A).

2.2.3 Forest Management Issues It is expected that the task of managing any public forest in Ontario is going to bring with it challenges and issues. The auditors used the following sources to identify recent and current issues in the APP: the 1995-2000 Report of Past Forest Operations, 2002 IFA, and Year 10 Annual Report as well as input from the planning team, LCC and the general public. The most significant issues, and the manner that they were dealt with in this report, are as follows:



a. Review of the roads management strategy – Roads are required for efficient extraction of timber and also allow access for recreation and park management activities. However, roads create opportunities for unauthorized access to the APP, thereby creating new challenges in managing the APPs sustainable resources. The Roads Management Strategy is discussed in Section 3.3.3 and is the subject of a recommendation. b. Lack of participation by Aboriginal communities – There have been challenges in establishing effective communications with Aboriginal communities. This is discussed in Section 3.2.3 of this report, and the subject of two suggestions. c. Updating the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM) as new information becomes available: Comment was received by the audit team criticizing the use of the habitat matrix in the SFMM wood supply calculation as it applies to some of the selected species. This is discussed in Section 3.3.5 of this report and the subject of a recommendation. d. Returning strip cut areas to their natural forest condition: This was the subject of a recommendation of the previous IFA. The auditors reviewed the steps taken by the AFA to bring these strips, the product of forest regeneration research, back to a more natural state. Although the strip cuts are still visible from the air, the audit team was satisfied that the actions taken are returning these sites to a more natural state in an effective manner. e. Ensuring values information is documented in the Natural Resources Values Information System (NRVIS): This issue is linked to tactical items (mapping Moose Aquatic Feeding Areas, heron rookeries and osprey nests, and confirming the ecological status of aquatic systems in the park. The impacts of tracking and managing values are discussed throughout Section 3.3 and part of the reason behind four recommendations in that section.

3.0 SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS

3.1 Commitment Within the audit, commitment is assessed in terms of the existence of policy documents that provide a vision and mission to the forest management organization, while giving long-term guidance to the management of the organization. Commitment must also be evident in the day-to-day operations of the organization. The AFA has an Environmental and Sustainable Forest Management Policy that addresses its commitment to sustainable management and has communicated this policy to its employees and contractors. Their policy commits to: “ …preventing pollution, continually improving our environmental performance, meeting or exceeding compliance with all applicable legislation and managing our forests in a sustainable manner…” These



statements were visible on-site during the audit, and were available to staff and the public on AFA’s web site (http://www.algonquinforestry.on.com/). The environmental commitment of the AFA is refined through third party verification to the International Organizations for Standardization (ISO) ISO 14001 and certification to the CSA Z809 Standard is pending. Both the AFA and APP have met the requirements to implement a compliance program in a manner that confirms the commitment of both parties to uphold all laws and regulations applicable to forest management operations on the APF. Section 3.6.1 of this report provides a detailed review of the compliance program. Tangible evidence of the commitment of the AFA beyond the regulated requirements was evident throughout the audit. Knowledge of the local forest by AFA and APP staff was excellent, a key indicator that the forest estate was being managed on a continuous basis. Relationships with stakeholders were professional and positive. In the normal course of forest management operations, the Ministry of Natural Resources is guided by hierarchical policy direction centered on sustainable forest management. This begins with the terms of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) and extends through to the policy documents, terms and requirements of the license, and forest management guidelines. Algonquin Provincial Park is unique in Ontario because of the importance of the Algonquin Provincial Park Management Plan. A number of areas of this report refer to the requirements of that plan, which constitute guidance to planning for forest management. Algonquin Provincial Park is rigorous about ensuring that all work conforms to the park plan. Implementation of these policies and guidelines is very important to maintaining the policy framework and, more importantly, to sustainable forest management. From the discussions the audit team had with staff at all levels within the APP, it was apparent that staff are familiar with corporate policies and guidelines and are committed to carrying out the mandate of the OMNR.

3.2 Public Participation

3.2.1 Local Citizens’ Committee The LCC includes a wide diversity of interests and many of the LCC members represent multiple interests. These include: cultural heritage, local business, tourism, cottage leaseholders, recreation, municipalities, local citizens, environmental and naturalist organizations, First Nations, and the forest products industry. The recent addition of First



Nations representatives has been a positive move. The LCC has also been eager to see forest management activities on the ground and, therefore, are well informed on issues and impacts prior to making recommendations. Many members are highly educated and trained, and many have significant experience that enhances their ability to provide advice on forest management in the context of APP. Because of the proximity of the park to the more densely populated areas of southern and central Ontario, and the personal attachment people have to APP, there was a large population to drawn from when creating this LCC. Members come from as far away as Ottawa in the east, Bracebridge in the west, and Toronto to the south. At present, the most northerly LCC member is from Kearney, however it would be quite conceivable to have members as far north as North Bay or Mattawa. As such, the travel time commitment on the part of LCC members is often quite significant, even though some LCC members noted that they would like to have even more involvement. It will likely be a continual challenge to find the balance between sufficient participation and wearing out committee members and the APP is well aware of this issue. Interviews were held with 13 of the members of the LCC. All members indicated that the meetings are held in an open and inclusive fashion without any one interest dominating the discussions. Most important, the LCC members are of the opinion that their input is seriously considered by both the APP and the AFA. The LCC meets the requirements of the Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forests (FMPM) (OMNR 2004). It was noted that while the LCC did have a terms of reference, it was not a true reflection of their activities. The terms of reference has been updated and is now consistent with the operations of the LCC. All the public consultation requirements of the FMPM (1996) were met in the preparation of the 2005 forest management plan (FMP). Overall, OMNR, AFA, and LCC are doing very positive work with the public in a most challenging environment.

3.2.1.1 The Canadian Standards Association Advisory Committee The AFA created a separate advisory committee as part of its preparations for securing CSA Z809 Standard certification. The role of this committee was to assist managers in establishing values, objectives, indicators, and targets as required by the CSA process. Minutes from the advisory committee meetings were reviewed. The committee met a total of eight times, normally in meetings that lasted two days. The twenty-member committee included six representatives from First Nations communities. It was a very effective group.



3.2.2 FMP Standard Public Consultation Process Algonquin Provincial Park is recognized by millions of Ontarians and is probably the most well known provincial park in the province. While the existence of forest management activities in the park has never been hidden from the public by either APP or the AFA (and, in fact, is discussed in park visitor brochures) it is likely a substantial portion of visitors and the general public are not aware of it. That being said, the preparation of an FMP for the APF does attract attention and credit goes to the APP and AFA for ensuring that the FMP consultation process is well advertised and many opportunities are given for public participation. At each stage of the 2005 FMP planning process, public notices were mailed out to 550 individuals and organizations on the mailing list and advertised in at least ten newspapers, including provincial level papers. The auditors evaluated records of mailings, correspondence, open houses, and other public notifications and found all FMP requirements were met or exceeded. In a review of public comments, no comments were made with respect to a lack of comprehension of the material presented or its usefulness. In fact, the information was clear enough for the public to formulate numerous questions, which is a reasonable indicator of the high level of importance both agencies put on stakeholder communications. Logging in Ontario’s oldest provincial park always attracts significant public attention during each FMP preparation, much of it polarized into a pro- versus anti-logging debate. The fact that the logging issue is addressed outside of the FMP process has little influence on the occurrence of the issue in public comment. However, both agencies and the LCC provided ample opportunity for logging and other issues to be discussed. The AFA and APP met requirements of the FMP standard public consultation process.

3.2.3 Native Peoples’ Consultation The involvement of aboriginal peoples in the APF is complex. The aboriginal interest in APP is from the Algonquins of Ontario (Algonquins) who have asserted aboriginal rights and titles to lands within the Ottawa River watershed, which includes the majority of APP. The Algonquins have asserted before the Governments of Canada and Ontario that they never gave up their rights through a treaty or sold or lost their territory through war. In the mid 1980s, the Algonquins of Golden Lake (now Pikwakanagan) formally submitted to the Government of Canada a petition regarding their claim. In the early 1990s the Governments of Canada and Ontario accepted the claim for negotiations. The Algonquins, are currently negotiating a settlement (or modern day treaty) with the Governments of Canada and Ontario which could contain elements that address: ownership of lands and resources; hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering rights; money and economic opportunities; provisions to promote Algonquin culture; and other items as agreed by the parties. Because



of the size and wilderness characteristics of APP relative to the balance of the claim lands, it remains an important component of the more traditional objectives of the Algonquins. The identification of Algonquin community members has been a complex and challenging issue and one that has had some ramifications for issues with respect to forest management. While the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan comprise a large part of the Algonquin population, there are nine other communities of Algonquins in the Ottawa Valley watershed. Of these nine, five plus the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan have a strong interest in the APP forest and resource management activities. During the course of the audit, the audit team met with all six of these communities: Whitney Algonquins, Algonquins of Greater Golden Lake, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation (based in Renfrew), Antoine First Nation (based in Mattawa), and the Mattawa/North Bay Algonquins. In the course of meetings with the various Algonquin communities, the deep attachment of their peoples to APP became clear. As the treaty process has extended throughout the audit term, certain issues have appeared to be particularly dynamic and have often ended up in forest management discussions, even though they go far beyond the scope of forest management decision-making in Ontario. This has presented a major challenge for both OMNR and the AFA as they have been presented with issues that are simply not under their authority to address. While it now appears that the Algonquin leaders understand the scope of forest management in Ontario in which the OMNR and the AFA operates, that was probably not the case for much of the audit period. It became clear in interviews with the Algonquin leaders, that the APF is an important, if not critical resource, to the Algonquin peoples. While the forest resource is economically significant to only a certain segment of Algonquin peoples, it is of very high importance as a cultural/social resource in that it allows them to continue to participate in traditional activities (fishing, hunting, and gathering) that are extremely important to them. A few of the Algonquin leaders noted that their communities receive very little economic benefit from the APF but it is of immense social importance to them. It is within this context that the Algonquins and forest management activities over the last five years must be considered. The representation of the Algonquin peoples and the consultation process has evolved during the course of the audit term. In preparation for the 2005 FMP, OMNR offered the Native Consultation process to the various Algonquin communities. None chose to participate, however it is clear in retrospect that both OMNR and the AFA were open to meeting with Algonquin leaders and communities whenever it was requested. The spirit behind the Native Consultation process in the FMPM was followed even though it was never formally invoked. Economic opportunities associated with forest management activities in the APF was a major interest for Algonquin peoples during the period of the audit. Algonquin people have been employed in logging operations in APP and in wood-receiving mills for a long time (likely since the industry entered the region). However, there was no formal attempt to provide opportunities to them directly prior to 2000.



A memorandum of understanding was signed in February 2000 etween the AFA, OMNR, and the three organizations that participated in the 2000 FMP: Makwa Community Development Corp. of the Pikwakanagan First Nation; Madadjiwan Economic Development Corp. of North Bay/Mattawa; and, Aboriginal Loggers Association from Whitney. The objective was to set up a series of business arrangements based on the principle of the first opportunity to be engaged for: harvest, road construction, renewal, and maintenance activities. All of these organizations received various contracts during the course of those five years. At the same time, as a result of the land claim process with the Governments of Canada and Ontario, the definition of who was an Algonquin and the official parties to the Algonquin Nation Representative process became clearer. As this occurred, concern was expressed on the part of many Algonquin community leaders about who and how they might receive potential economic benefits associated with forest management activities. Compounding the complexity of the issue was the rather broad and vague nature, objectives, and implementation guidelines associated with Condition 34 (formerly known as T&C 77); the Algonquins’ lack of understanding of the guidelines; and, the unique licence of the AFA. The combination of these factors resulted in a great deal of frustration for many Algonquin leaders. During the term of the audit, two large meetings were held with various Algonquin leaders about Condition 34 and who qualified, what was being done, and opportunities for the future. It appears now that the Algonquin community leaders understand that the AFA is the only the licence holder and, based on its mandate and legal structure, cannot provide any overlapping licence to First Nation communities. Economic opportunities associated with the forest industry can be measured in any number of ways (employment in mills, employment in woodlands, direct contracting opportunities for aboriginal people, etc.). One of the most direct ways to measure it in APP is the total value of contracting work made available to aboriginal businesses. Since 2000-2001, the total contract value of work for aboriginal businesses has grown approximately three-fold (from $1.3M to $4.1M in 2005-2006 and $3.7M in 2006-2007). Makwa Community Development Corporation, an economic development arm of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, has become one of the major contractors to the AFA and at the time of the audit were fully operational. The bulk of the Makwa operation is undertaken by Algonquin members and, at the time of the audit, Makwa represented a major portion of the actual logging occurring in APP. Both Makwa and the AFA were quite pleased with this operation. Some Algonquins also work for non-aboriginal logging contractors in APP and other Algonquins are involved in tree marking and silvicultural work. Based on interviews, many other Algonquins work at local mills and in woods operations in adjacent forests. While progress has been made on economic opportunities for Algonquin peoples, the progress is not necessarily equitable or transparent. A very common concern among the Algonquin community leaders was how Condition 34 is measured. This concern is addressed as part of a larger suggestion identified below. It is important that the AFA and OMNR demonstrate the progress that has been achieved.



The AFA indicated that they were willing to sit down and examine opportunities with any Algonquin First Nation members who had an interest in the industry and the capabilities to carry out the work. It is important that the AFA and OMNR continue to be open to this process. One of the Algonquins raised a concern regarding the tendering of silvicultural (such as tending or tree marking) and other related work. The list of potential silvicultural contractors includes all potential First Nations and native contractors. It appeared that the list of contractors originated a few years ago prior to the more formal definition of Algonquin First Nation communities. Given the evolving nature of the Algonquins’ status, the AFA should regularly update its list of qualified contractors in conjunction with the various Algonquin communities. Much of the controversy over Condition 34 stemmed from the desire of some of the Algonquin communities to have either overlapping licences, allocations, or contracts which would then allow them to sub-contract work. Algonquin communities were aware of sustainable forest licenses in Ontario where overlapping licences were available for a percent of the annual harvest area. Both the AFA and the APP confirmed that the AFA licence does not give the AFA authority to issue any overlapping licences or allocations and it appears now that the Algonquin communities understand that this is not an option. With respect to the issue of sub-contracting, the AFA stated that this is a poor model for successful forestry both in terms of quality forest management operations and in the lack of a profit margin to sustain such a relationship. It is the view of the audit team that, given the economic condition of the forest products industry in Ontario and experiences from across the province, the concept of “middle men” or “wood brokering” is likely not sustainable and is of no benefit over the long term. It should also be noted that some of the Algonquin communities have much greater experience in the forest industry than others. This situation, in and of itself, contributes to the perception of an unlevel playing field and lack of equitable opportunities. That being said, many of the Algonquin communities are still concerned about the lack of economic opportunities that accrue to them from APP and its forest resources. This has been a challenging five years for all parties involved in the issue. There are no easy or quick answers to the problems. While evidence clearly demonstrates that both the APP and AFA have been active in creating and facilitating economic opportunities, the auditors encourage all parties to continue to work towards the continued economic involvement of Algonquins where those opportunities can be implemented in a sustainable fashion. In order to do this, it is likely necessary for all parties to identify opportunities and solutions that are not easily achievable. This could include the pursuit of outside funding sources for training and education. Suggestion 1: The Algonquin Provincial Park and AFA should continue to meet with Algonquin community leaders to report on how they have viewed progress with respect to Condition 34, review contracting procedures and contracts for



silvicultural work, and determine if there are Algonquin community members who are ready and able to become more involved in forestry activities in the APF. Native Background Information Reports and Values Maps were produced for a number of the Algonquin communities for the 2005 FMP. For the most part, these were updates of maps produced in preparation for the 2000 FMP. Most of the values were associated with traditional use activities and were not point specific (e.g., spiritual, cultural, or archaeological sites). There were no concerns about forest management activities threatening any of these values. However, the Algonquins were concerned about access to forest management roads that enable them to pursue their traditional activities. Without question, the most significant issue the Algonquin leaders raised was their concern about maintaining road access to the forest. Water crossings are commonly removed following forest management activities in order to meet environmental and APP objectives. The Algonquin leaders expressed strong concern about these removals and how this impacts their resource access opportunities. They perceive that there is a lack of consultation on these removals, particularly if the removals are not identified in the FMP. This represents a very challenging issue for Algonquin leaders, whose community members strongly oppose access removals. The other major concern of Algonquin community leaders is the lack of funding to undertaken and prepare Native Background Information Reports and Values Maps. The funding most recently offered to the native communities is low and prohibits them from engaging in any serious work to collect values information. The audit team recognizes the financial constraints that the OMNR has operated under over the last decade (ECO 2006). However, the limited financial resources offered have left a negative impression among some of the Algonquin communities. One option they may want to consider is to pool the available funds amongst all the Algonquin communities and engage in one more comprehensive values exercise. This may allow the Algonquin communities to retain outside expertise to carry out some specific values research. Suggestion 2: Algonquin Provincial Park and the Algonquin communities should consider pooling funds for a more comprehensive collection of native values information. Despite the challenging issues identified above, the audit team noted many commonalities among the Algonquin community leaders, APP, and the AFA. Without question, all three entities consider the sustainability of the APF the number one concern. Second, many Algonquin leaders spoke highly of how forest management is undertaken in APP and their support for the continuance of ongoing forest management activities. Third, all involved have confirmed the situation is better than it was five years ago.

3.2.4 Annual Work Schedule Public Inspection An assessment of the various public notifications and direct mailings that are required prior to the implementation of annual operations revealed that all of the requirements are



being fulfilled. The AFA and APP have been diligent in responding to requests for further information from the public.

3.3 Forest Management Planning Forest management planning is the foundation for the sustainable use of Ontario’s forests. This audit reviewed the activities leading to the 2005 FMP. Preparations for the 2000 FMP were reviewed as part of the previous 2002 IFA. The audit team focused its field inspections on the implementation of the last three years of the 2000 FMP and the first two years of the 2005 FMP. The 2005 FMP was prepared in accordance with the 1996 FMPM.

3.3.1 Planning Team Activities The 2005 FMP was produced by a planning team established two years prior to plan approval. The terms of reference were prepared and approved according to the requirements of the 1996 FMPM. The planning team succinctly reported events in the minutes in a manner that was clear to outside observers. This provided an excellent overview of the development of the plan, as confirmed in interviews. The planning team performed professionally throughout the process. The team was experienced and this showed in the fairly low number of meetings that were held. Timelines established in the terms of reference were met throughout the planning period. The planning team was staffed with the appropriate professional and technical staff. The planning team chair was a Registered Professional Forester. The background information provided to the planning team was very good. The values information was enhanced in response to a recommendation from the 2002 IFA, which cited some values information in the APF as a weakness.

3.3.2 Resource Stewardship Agreements The AFA is not required to develop resource stewardship agreements. The APP management plan outlines strategic objectives for the management of the recreational, ecological, cultural, and timber resources within APP.

3.3.3 Source of Direction Preparation of the management plan must be done in the context of many higher level land use and policy documents. The auditors reviewed the previous plan (2000-2005) and



the annual work schedules (AWS) to confirm that these overriding guides have been given proper consideration. Algonquin Provincial Park is unique because of the importance of the park plan, which is a higher level plan than the FMP. A number of areas of this report refer to the requirements of that plan, which constitute guidance to the planning. Algonquin Provincial Park is rigorous about ensuring that all work conforms to the park plan. Compliance with higher level guides and policies is well done, with some exceptions as discussed in the appropriate sections of this audit report. The terms of reference for the FMP directed that the planning team address the NRVIS values which required significant updating, particularly the cultural heritage information. As well, the terms of reference directed the planning team to address the recommendations of the Algonquin Wolf Advisory Group Committee. Their report, accepted by the Minister of Natural Resources, recommended assessing historic deer yards and promoting beaver habitat. The FMP followed this direction. In addition, APP will be addressing in the near future the implementation of the new Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, as it was proclaimed just prior to the field work for this audit. The concept of ’ecological integrity’ will be the focus of as much discussion as ’sustainability’ was for the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The overlay of guiding documents for the next planning team is becoming overwhelming. Algonquin Provincial Park is the only place in Ontario where requirements of the Parks and Conservation Reserves Act are mingled with forest management concepts as guided by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA). Suggestion 3: Prior to the next planning cycle, OMNR needs to provide clear guidance describing legal concepts of the Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, such as ‘ecological integrity’, and how this relates to other legislation such as the CFSA. The 2002 IFA recommended a review of the roads strategy be completed by APP, in association with the AFA and the LCC. This recommendation was initiated but the effort stopped as APP waited for the outcome of a report from the Ontario Parks Advisory Committee aimed at assessing how to lighten the ecological footprint of logging in the Park. Roads are a key element in the future of the APF, not only from a timber extraction perspective but also for recreational access management. It should be clear to all interested parties what purpose a road is intended to serve, when use is permitted, and who is permitted to use it. Once the revised roads strategy has been completed, APP should proceed to develop the educational, regulatory, and operational tools to ensure effective implementation. Recommendation 1: Algonquin Provincial Park shall complete a strategy for managing access roads. The strategy must include input from the AFA and LCC. It should be completed in time to provide guidance for the 2010 FMP.



The auditors’ review of the AWSs confirmed that guide requirements, AOC prescriptions, and stand level requirements are being properly documented and carried forward from the FMP. Field observations confirmed that performance was within normal operating standards and met the requirements of the directly relevant guidance documents.

3.3.4 Introduction Introductory sections of the 2005 FMP contain the mandatory Statement of Environmental Values briefing note, which is prepared by OMNR, and the index to the environmental components of the plan. Both of these documents met the respective FMPM requirements.

3.3.5 Management Unit Description The forest description for the 2005 FMP includes all the required elements and provides the reader with an excellent introduction to the APF. The FMPM requires the plan to include: a description of the administrative structure of the AFA and its relationship to the APP; the geology, soils, and ecological sites; the historic and current forest condition; landscape patterns; habitat descriptions for 18 selected wildlife species; and, a social and economic description of the landbase. The 2005 FMP addresses all of these items clearly, and as concisely as the planning process will allow. All told, the 2005 FMP contains almost 100 pages of text to set the context for forest management on the APF. The 2005 FMP is based on a 2002 Forest Resource Inventory. The inventory data for the plan has been digitally updated to April 1, 2005. The update included changes due to harvest and natural depletions and additions of FTG areas brought back into the managed forest landbase prior to April 1, 2005. Tables 1 and 2 from the FMP were prepared based on this information and reflect the status of the forest at the time of plan preparation. Review of the values information is an important part of the audit as this provides confirmation that values identified by the public have been addressed in the FMP. The protocol requires that the audit team confirm that public values, local featured species, and rare species are properly recorded and described in the plan. The FMP document describes the challenges for key species accurately, focusing on wolves, moose and deer, and species at risk. The audit team reviewed the adequacy of the information required by the planning team. Surveys of moose aquatic feeding areas and important nesting sites were completed. Overall, information needs for non-timber values meet the requirements of the planning team. Maps for the 2005 FMP were reviewed and met requirements. Comment was received by the audit team criticizing the use of the habitat matrix in the SFMM wood supply calculation as it applies to some of the selected species. The matrix



attracts attention because it is a graphical presentation of the long-term quantity of wildlife habitat. It is a simple habitat supply model, and at times it presents results which are intuitively difficult to understand. Another problem is caused because the continuous forest cover typical in central Ontario is not well represented in the SFMM approach to habitat supply. It is noted that the best approach to actual management of species, such as the pileated woodpecker, is through the application of the tree marking guide. The pileated woodpecker was brought to the attention of the auditors because of some anomalous results printed in the FMP by managers being diligent to the FMPM requirements. As a course filter model, SFMM is only able to assess whether there is a risk to a species at a very rudimentary level. If there is other information which points to a possible risk, then the planning team must evaluate it and address the concern. In the case of the pileated woodpecker, there was additional scientific evidence brought to the attention of the audit team that was not included in the FMP. This has raised a concern that there may be a real problem that has not been considered by the planning team. This may well be just a communication problem, but it may also have some merit. Consequently, the audit team recommends that OMNR review this information. Recommendation 2: The OMNR should review the current output of the SFMM model for selected wildlife species and ensure that the long-term sustainability of those species has been considered by biologists, or is addressed by appropriate field level considerations such as the tree marking guide. Additional consideration of public values was observed in preparation for the registration of the AFA to the CSA Z809 Standard, scheduled for December of 2007. Although this process was not completed in time for consideration in the 2005 FMP, the advisory group that convened to provide public input to the CSA certification process conducted a thorough and thoughtful review of the important values that influence, or are influenced by, forest management activities in the APP. The product of their intensive work has created a new standard of values assessment. This work will increase in value as the 2010 FMP process is initiated in the coming months. Section 3.6 of the FMP summarizes the Socio-Economic Impact Model (SEIM) analysis of the plan. The analysis confirms several important points. One is that the APF is important to the local economy. Although no wood-consuming facilities operate in APP, its forest supplies over 45% of the annual Crown timber harvest in OMNR’s Southern Region. Based on an annual harvest of 520,000 m3, and using 1997 value-added data, this amounts to about $149.8 million to the Ontario economy. As well, the recreational business of APP adds another $32.4 million. The APP makes a significant contribution to the regional economy.

3.3.6 Objectives and Strategies/Management Alternatives The objectives for the 2005 FMP were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the 1996 FMPM and address the four broad categories as required by the CFSA, namely, forest diversity, social and economic matters, provision for forest cover, and silviculture.



One of the key exercises in preparing an FMP is using analytical tools to determine the expected future forest condition and estimating the implications of applying each particular management alternative relative to the desired outcomes or benefits over time. The provincially-supported forest modeling software used in Ontario is SFMM. The model requires hundreds of input records and constraints, ranging from operability limits and natural succession rates to post-harvest renewal rates and expected future yields. The auditors’ examination of the SFMM inputs used in the FMPs revealed that the inputs used were reasonable. Four management alternatives were presented in the 2005 FMP and analysed by the planning team. These alternatives covered a reasonable set of objectives and strategies. The three mandatory alternatives were modelled and analysed as required by the 1996 FMPM. Each management alternative was analyzed to identify the expected future forest condition that would result from its implementation, the implications of the management alternative in terms of its ability to ensure forest sustainability, and its ability to produce the desired benefits or outcomes over time. The analysis included an initial test of sustainability for each management alternative through the use of the non-spatial indicators of forest sustainability criteria (i.e., forest diversity indicators, managed Crown forest available for timber production, available harvest area and percentage actually utilized, and, finally, habitat for selected wildlife species). Those management alternatives that passed the initial test of forest sustainability were then assessed for their ability to achieve the desired management objective targets over time. All management alternatives were shown to the public during two information centres and public review periods. The management alternatives were also presented to the LCC for review, comment and, finally, endorsement. Model inputs and assumptions for the 2005 FMP were appropriately developed and documented using the best available information. Long-term sustainability of timber supply, forest conditions, and wildlife habitat was achieved in the selected management alternative. A detailed analysis was presented in Appendix 5 of the FMP, which covers a broader range of socio-economic topics. The planning team for the 2005 FMP analyzed SEIM results. The required socio-economic assessment was undertaken and it was documented within the appendices. The rationale for the selected management alternatives in the FMP was clear and logical. Both FMPs identified the ranking of each alternative in relation to each objective. The plans discussed the tradeoffs between the various alternatives. The analysis of management alternatives confirms a sustainable future for the APF, if the current course is maintained. The available harvest area from Table FMP-18 corresponds with the results generated by SFMM for the selected management alternative.



Roads planning was well done and fully rationalized. No additional primary roads were planned. Eligibility criteria that were consistent with the objectives and strategies were identified in the 2005 FMP.

3.3.7 Operational Planning Area of Concern is the technical planning term for a forest value that has had a detailed prescription developed to protect it from potential adverse impacts of forest management operations. Normally, an AOC is protected through a prescription outlined in specific management guidelines appropriate to the value. The APP has a strong mandate for protection of values, as detailed in the APP management plan. This makes the APF different from Crown land in surrounding areas for at least two reasons. In some places the APP management plan is quite prescriptive about the protection to be afforded to certain values. Portages for example, require a 60 m reserve on either side. This would be considerably more than elsewhere in the province and more protection than is probably required based on the auditor’s field examination, given the low visibility of partial harvest systems. Additionally, there are timing restrictions for recreational reasons that are not common in other forests. This constrains the area available for summer harvest. Since managers inside and outside of APP claim values protection is appropriate, it does open the question of which prescriptions are the “best”. The lack of a provincial guide for portages or trails, for example, means there is no provincial policy, thus leaving it up to planning teams to determine what is appropriate, everywhere but inside APP. Ironically, the APP management plan is silent on many AOC values. As well, APP has several leading-edge values prescriptions not found elsewhere in the province, including pileated woodpecker nest trees, wolf rendezvous sites and wolf den sites. It is beyond the scope of the audit to recommend that the current APP management plan be amended to update values prescriptions. Values prescriptions in the rest of the province change when new scientific information becomes available, and guides are updated. This is not possible in APP if it contradicts the higher level park plan. For example, inappropriate site and stand level prescriptions for special values, if used often, have the effect of causing forest operations to move across the landscape faster, thus requiring additional road building and maintenance. In the near future, the new provincial Stand and Site Guide for Forest Management may cause significant revisiting of these prescriptions. The next FMP for APP must be consistent with these because the new guide will represent the most up-to-date scientific opinion. That said, APP is iconic to many people in Ontario and beyond. Recreational interests can raise legitimate concerns above normal forestry practices, such as that described above for trails and portages. Many people see the park planning exercise as more relevant than the development of the FMP. Ideally the park plan would be coordinated with the FMP so that values prescriptions could be harmonized. The audit team recommends that this be done, realizing that this is a



difficult challenge because of regulatory constraints, but also recognizing the leadership role that APP has in setting Ontario direction in resource conservation and management. It is apparent that future park plans, in keeping with the new Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, need to recognize that it is awkward and sometimes regressive for a higher level planning document to direct operational, site-specific requirements of lower level plans such as the FMP. Recommendation 3: Ontario parks should try to harmonize future park management planning with operational FMP prescriptions for values at the site and stand level to ensure that new science can be incorporated into AOC prescriptions in the FMP. Values associated with water are given additional consideration in APP. Examples are wood turtle nest habitat, unidentified streams, brook trout habitat near aggregate pits, and invasive species management. Wood turtle research in APP and the prescriptions that are being consequently developed to manage this endangered species (OMNR currently designates this species as endangered --not regulated; The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designates it as a species of special concern) is exemplary. Artificial turtle nesting sites and speed bumps to slow traffic are two initiatives designed to enhance the protection and recovery of this species. Previously, streams with an unknown thermal regime were sometimes assigned as warmwater as a default status. This approach was changed recently to designate coldwater status as the default position. This is consistent with the provincial precautionary approach for operating around riparian reserves. However, there is a loss of wood supply opportunity due to this situation, as well as some biological issues. In the near future, the release of the Stand and Site Guide for Forest Management will change timber harvest around waterways, based on the latest scientific opinion. To fully implement this guide, better inventory of water resources will likely be required. Although the APP management plan will delay change, it is prudent to prepare for eventual alignment of the park plan with the FMP process. The APP is encouraged to complete assessments on these areas prior to harvest to ensure water temperatures and fish communities are accurately described and AOC prescriptions are appropriately applied. A recommendation is made to APP to address this issue. The audit team also noted that the terms of reference for the 2005 FMP, based on a recommendation from the Algonquin Wolf Advisory Group directed the planning team towards “more aggressive cutting near warm water bodies…to promote beaver habitat.” As well, Section 8.2 in the current APP management plan calls for the development of a water management plan. This type of strategy direction is not possible without an appropriate inventory.



Recommendation 4: Algonquin Provincial Park should conduct a survey of unknown streams prior to forest operations to determine thermal regimes and fish community status. During the 2000 FMP, the AFA and APP used the FMP process for recording changes and updates to values and AOCs, which proved inefficient. For example, one administrative amendment contained approximately 1600 small changes, although many of these were repetitions of the same change on different stand numbers. In preparation for the 2005 plan, the AFA put in place a new procedure and software called the AOC Revision Management System, which provides a routine means to quickly report, verify, update, and record values changes. A number of examples were reviewed by the audit team. The new approach is efficient and should provide relatively error-free values updates. There was concern raised about the impact of placing aggregate pits in the headwater area of self-sustaining brook trout lakes. The audit team visited one aggregate pit which was causing a diversion of flowing water into the pit area. Incorrect boundary location was likely the problem. In extreme situations, lowering of ground water by excavating pits can occur and that, in turn, could impact water quantity in the lakes and streams. Several opinions were expressed about different means to test for risk to groundwater prior to starting a pit. There were a number of simple operational suggestions about tests that should be part of a protocol for determining risk. It is beyond the scope of the audit to assign a corrective action, but it is apparent that APP and the AFA need to work out the protocol for submission of pit applications. Recommendation 5: Algonquin Provincial Park, in consultation with the AFA, should develop a protocol for development of aggregate pits in brook trout headwaters prior to the commencement of the next FMP. The actual AOC prescription for brook trout self sustaining lakes includes a 500m restricted access area. This specifically prevents excavation which can potentially cause ground water to bleed to the surface, thereby protecting the cold ground water source for the lakes. It also provides a constraint on access which offers an indirect mechanism to reduce fishing pressure. Ironically, the broad restricted area around the lakes may not be enough in some cases and it may be too much in others. Work is going on to improve this prescription, but the audit team has made a recommendation to reinforce the importance of this valuable resource. Recommendation 6: Algonquin Provincial Park should develop more effective and flexible AOC prescriptions for self sustaining brook trout lakes to ensure measures are effective in protecting ecological values while allowing for operational efficiencies. The monitoring of values, as in other parts of central Ontario where tree marking for selection and shelterwood is the prevailing system, is at an exceptionally high level relative to areas of boreal or transition forest. In brief, after a block is allocated in the



FMP, the managers review initial values information from NRVIS and available cruise information. Tree markers or supervisors from the AFA confirm the existence of non-timber resource values observed as areas are marked. Algonquin Provincial Park verifies the accuracy of these values, enters them into NRVIS and provides the digital values back to AFA, as specified in FIM. The AFA tree markers or contract tree markers also discover values (e.g., nests, new streams) and report these to the AFA tree marking supervisor who ensures that the information and location is correct. Values are also periodically discovered during operations. As an additional safety precaution, the identifications for blocks where work is in progress are expedited, and APP addresses these relatively efficiently. During the term of the audit there were seven species listed as Species at Risk in APP: deepwater sculpin, shortjaw cisco, eastern hognose snake, red shouldered hawk, wood turtle, bald eagle and eastern wolf. There is no requirement for special AOCs for the first three species. The wood turtle is discussed more fully below, and the three remaining species are covered in provincial guides. Prescriptions for these species were appropriately assigned in the FMP. The audit team reviewed in depth the wood turtle AOC prescriptions and restoration efforts. The AOCs are well thought out and implemented. The use of simple techniques, such as speed bumps near nesting areas at appropriate times, is creative and a big commitment on the part of staff. Steps taken to attract the turtles to artificial nest sites and away from roads is also commendable for creativity as well as the personal effort involved. It demonstrates management of Species at Risk at an exemplary level within APP. The previous IFA recommended that mappable cultural heritage sites pertinent to APP be captured on a NRVIS layer for consideration in forest management planning. In response, the managers completed updating the cultural heritage values layer in NRVIS and established a procedure for regular updating. As well, in the 2005 FMP two AOC prescriptions were updated based on the Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources (OMNR 1998). Objections from the public were received about the new AOC prescriptions, requesting that any land-altering forestry activity (site disturbance) require an assessment by an archeologist. Discussion with APP indicated that archaeological investigation is only appropriate in areas with archaeological potential. This is consistent with the new 2007 Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values (OMNR), and is a reasonable interpretation. In practical terms, the AOC prescription for known sites in the 2005 FMP requires a buffer distance of 150 m; in the new guide the distance is 200 m, with allowance for a 10 m buffer on sites with established boundaries. Updating FMPs to meet new guides that are implemented after the plan has been approved is not required. Managers would voluntarily comply if there was a genuine risk to a particular value. The 2002 IFA recommended that APP conduct pre-harvest aerial surveys to confirm and categorize moose aquatic feeding areas and conduct heron and osprey nesting site surveys



for areas that are proposed for forestry operations. This survey was completed during the summers of 2003, 2004, and 2005 for all areas to be harvested in the 2005-2025 FMP, following the procedure as described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). This information has been shown on the values maps and maps of areas selected for operations. Survey flights will occur in 2008 and beyond for harvest blocks in the 2010 FMP.

3.3.8 Plan Review and Approval The 2005 FMP was submitted for review on time. The APP review was completed effectively. A preliminary list of alterations was submitted by APP to the AFA. After review and discussion, a final list was prepared by the APP and presented to the AFA. The review and discussion was clearly useful in confirming the merit of each of the requirements. The AFA identified how each alteration was addressed. This process was well done. The plan was appropriately sealed, and certified by a Registered Professional Forester, and approved. A list of exceptions was presented in the 2005 FMP. The list was consistent with the plan itself and was all rationalized. The pages listing contributors to the FMP pages showed planning team members, plan advisors, and LCC members as required.

3.3.9 Plan Amendments There were 22 plan amendments for the 2000 FMP during the audit period and an additional 16 amendments to the 2005 FMP as of April 1, 2007. The relatively small number of amendments speaks to the high quality of both FMPs. The amendments were categorized appropriately, and were dealt with in a timely manner. Adequate documentation was provided to support each amendment, and the LCC was involved in the amendments.

3.3.10 Contingency Plans There were no contingency plans on the APF through the audit period.

3.3.11 Annual Work Schedules The AWSs were reviewed for each year of the audit period. Each AWS was submitted and approved for implementation as required. The AWSs met public consultation requirements and were approved on time. The reports contained all of the elements consistent with the requirements of the planning manuals in force at the time and were consistent with the 2000 and 2005 FMPs. The forest operations prescriptions (FOP)



included with the AWSs were prepared in accordance with the FMPM and were consistent with the silvicultural ground rules (SGR). The AWSs are not intended to be decision-making documents. Rather, they identify activities which are to be carried out over the course of a year. The audit team is concerned with approvals of AWSs for APP, which entail “stipulations, conditions, and comments”. Conditional approvals of AWSs appear to be contrary to their role as an implementation schedule rather than a decision document. All AWSs reviewed contained a number of stipulations, conditions, and comments, some of which were conditions placed upon operations and were not consistent with the FMP. For example, the 2002 FMP had conditions which specified which direction timber could be hauled on the Cameron Lake Road that was inconsistent with the road use management strategy in the FMP. Additionally, the condition identifies that “Ontario Parks may provide other conditions…” prior to operations commencing. The 2005 and 2006 AWSs had conditions affecting other roads. Many such conditions represent justified concerns on the part of Ontario Parks but it is the opinion of the audit team that these conditions should not be attached to AWSs; there are more appropriate mechanisms available to implement these operational changes, such as through plan amendments. Recommendation 7: Algonquin Provincial Park should not use the AWS as a planning tool for changing or revising primary access decisions made in the FMP.

3.4 Plan Implementation

3.4.1 Areas of Concern The auditors examined 69 AOC or other values-related sites. This included 20 water quality or fish habitat AOCs, seven portage or canoe route AOCs, 19 water crossings, nine water crossing removals, and 14 sites from the miscellaneous values category. This included AOCs for the wood turtle , road and pit rehabilitations, and cultural heritage sites. Access and road closures using gates or other means were also examined. Operational planning for the protection of values occupies a considerable amount of time during the planning process. The AOC planning and documentation met all the requirements of the planning manuals. The detailed documentation includes the consideration of alternatives where appropriate, and these are described in the supplemental documentation for the FMP. The audit team confirmed the appropriateness and the implementation of the AOC prescriptions in the field by direct inspection and discussed the challenges of implementation with the managers. The audit team also reviewed the AOC prescriptions to be sure they were in compliance with the park plan and with provincial guidance. For example, the planning team



adjusted the AOC water crossing allowed width from a 6.7 m right of way to a 9.1 m right of way, thus allowing slope gradients that prevent erosion. This is consistent with direction provided in Appendix F of the AP plan. The AOC boundaries were well marked (Figure 2). Riparian areas and other AOC boundaries were clearly marked on trees. Operators interviewed were aware of the significance of the boundary markings. The auditors did not observe evidence of operational trespass into marked AOCs.

Figure 2. AOC boundaries were well marked on operational sites viewed by the auditors. The AFA is cautious around water crossing removals and do not use any of the available seed mixes for bank stabilization for erosion control, but rely on natural revegetation of these sites along with physical stabilization techniques such as mulching. This is a precautionary practice, targeted at preventing the introduction of exotic plants into the APP.



Suggestion 4: The Algonquin Provincial Park should make efforts to find a source of native seed mix suitable for use in bank stabilization. Decommissioning is most effective with bridge removals, and this is a common practice now. The use of berms to close roads is somewhat useful but there was evidence of these being circumvented. The park is using some partially blocked roads to reduce access. One such partial closure that was created to protect sensitive species habitat while allowing restricted access to a native trap cabin was inspected. This creative technique requires a camouflaged rough passage near the closure that is passable but difficult for most four-wheeled vehicles. The AFA and APP are being creative with road closures while still allowing required access, although it is clear these efforts are not sufficiently effective. Access management remains an issue in APP and a more comprehensive approach is required. The 2002 IFA recommended that APP lead a review of a roads strategy but this has not been completed. Completing this review is required, and a recommendation to that effect is included in this audit report. There were two issues related to information collection and protection of values. Recreational use patterns within APP are collected but not sufficiently analyzed. Unlike Crown lands not in parks, every person using APP needs to have a license, permit, or some other document that shows they have the right to be there. Personnel from APP have the right to ask for that at any time. Although the government cannot harass people, there is enough information provided to form a good use pattern that is not available for non-park areas. Recently, for example, a canoe route with particularly low use was modified to remove its status as a canoe route. Information on use patterns would be useful in determining the appropriateness of AOC restrictions, as well as for risk assessment for enforcement activities. Related to this, information is collected about enforcement in APP but it is difficult to analyse what is illegal use of access from other related offences. It would be useful to know how many charges are laid against people for illegal use of the road network. The enforcement appeared to be reasonably effective, but it was difficult to be certain. Recommendation 8: The Algonquin Provincial Park should attempt to get better information on use patterns in APP and more precise information on enforcement of access restrictions. Research conducted in APP led to better understanding of some of its values. Wolves are an example of a value that has attracted research and resulted in some AOC prescriptions that are unique to APP. Wolf rendezvous sites and den sites are not listed in other FMPs in the province. The amount of area required (50 m reserves) is small for rendezvous sites. Whether these sites are critical to wolves is debatable. However, given the special status of APP and its importance to visitors from around the world, the protection provided to these sites can be considered suitably precautionary.



The Algonquin Wolf Advisory Group provided recommendations to the Minister and, as discussed above under guidance to planning, the recommendations were brought into the 2005 FMP. The FMP provides several AOC prescriptions to accommodate these recommendations and has done so in a moderate way. Overabundance of deer and beaver can be detrimental. Deer can have a serious impact on tree regeneration and beaver can have significant detrimental effects on roads and other values. Consequently, moderation is important. The use of AOC prescriptions to modify habitat for these two species is consistent with other Sustainable Forest Licenses (SFLs) in central Ontario. Deer habitat management is shown to have a positive influence on deer, as described by the Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-Tailed Deer Habitat. The audit team notes that this direction was provided from a higher level and, consequently, the planning team followed that guidance.

3.4.2 Harvest The audit team inspected evidence of harvesting operations on each of the 59 sites visited. The AFA is the only licensee operating in APP. Approximately 90% of the timber is harvested under direct contract to the AFA. Companies that have wood supply agreements for APP harvest the other 10%. The AFA has an operations supervisor assigned to each contractor to ensure that all phases of the harvest operation, including road construction and AOC protection, adhere to prescriptions, FMP requirements, and legislative requirements. Most of the contractor operations are commuter-type based, while some are based out of portable camp facilities. Most conventional harvest operations use chainsaws and wheeled skidders. The use of mechanical felling equipment (i.e., feller bunchers) combined with wheeled/grapple skidders is increasing, and approximately 25% of the current harvest is carried out using this equipment. Feller bunchers offer the advantage of felling trees in a controlled manner, thus minimizing damage to residual trees and advanced regeneration. Harvested trees are topped and delimbed at the stump, and then skidded to small landings at roadside. Algonquin Provincial Park restricts the size of such landings to 0.2 hectares. Further processing depends on the intended market, destination, or wood condition. The AFA attempts to maximize hauling treelength timber to two central processing yards located outside APP as a strategy for limiting landing sizes and debris within the park. Records indicate that 70- 80% of the timber is hauled as treelength and then merchandized at processing yards. Products are then sorted at the yards and shipped to the destination mills. Under conventional situations, log processing takes place at the landings and the logs are then hauled directly to the mills. The silviculture systems applied to APP are predominantly the shelterwood and selection systems, which employ partial cutting methods and rely on natural regeneration. According to the planned harvest for 2005-2010, 54% will be managed under the selection system, 40% will be under the shelterwood system, and 6% will be under the clearcut system.



Tree marking is a critical aspect of implementing these systems. All marking is carried out prior to harvest. The AFA uses certified tree markers who are trained to designate trees for removal or retention based on parameters established in the SGRs and in accordance with the AFA’s tree marking guidelines. Tree markers are also responsible for marking AOC reserves and making adjustments to prescriptions as they go along when unmapped values such as nesting sites, mast trees, intermittent streams, and cultural heritage sites are encountered, or when site conditions warrant an adjustment to the harvest prescription. All tree marking is audited by AFA supervisors with copies of the audit reports being sent to OMNR, who may also conduct further audits. In the end, practically every hectare of forest designated for harvest is walked at least once before it is harvested. Observations at all harvest locations visited by the audit team confirmed that utilization and harvesting practices were generally good to excellent. While there were some instances of non-compliance found during the site visits, they appeared to be minor and isolated cases. Observed non-compliances involved high stumps in areas harvested during the winter season, trees marked for harvesting that were not felled, and merchantable timber that was not hauled from the woods. Logging damage to residual trees, to regeneration, and skid trail coverage was minimal on nearly all sites visited and within the standards that have been established for APP. Site damage caused by machinery operating on soft ground conditions (i.e., rutting) was periodically observed, but was within the APP guidelines. Overall implementation was effective and in general compliance with all applicable legislation and regulations. The compliance inspection program appears to be effective. The AFA’s operations supervisors, who are all certified compliance inspectors, provide oversight on contractor operations at a minimum of once per week. In-progress harvest reports are filed monthly by the AFA supervisors for each contractor. Site inspections by the audit team verified that non-compliances detected by the compliance inspectors were reported and dealt with appropriately. Forest operations prescriptions are initially assigned on a stand basis when the FMP is prepared, based on local knowledge, experience, and anticipated site conditions. One aspect of the APF that became obvious is the high degree of variability in site conditions that were encountered within subcompartments and within stands. The forest resource inventory does not capture this diversity, therefore tree markers must be cognizant of the changing stand structure and adjust their marking approach accordingly. The AFA’s approach in these circumstances is to recognize this variability and adjust the silviculture prescription that best suits local conditions. For example, part of a stand that had originally been prescribed for selection harvest may not possess the stand structure and quality to accommodate such a management scheme. The tree marker will recommend a change to the prescription, which must be reviewed and approved by one of the AFA’s registered professional foresters. The auditors found that harvest operations were generally consistent with FOPs, but soon became aware of the variability that tree markers face. The auditors found that the prescriptions and the prescription adjustments were appropriate for the specific site conditions that were encountered. The FOPs allow



for some flexibility to finely adjust the harvest and silviculture prescriptions. A good example is the situation when an unforeseen component of mid-tolerant hardwoods is encountered in a tolerant hardwood stand. Larger openings may be created to accommodate scarification and promote regeneration of the mid-tolerant species. Application of the Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation (NDPEG) on the APF is challenging and, in many cases, inappropriate in a landscape like APP where continuous forest cover dominates. Application of this guideline requires a burdensome planning, analysis, tracking, and reporting process for planned clearcuts and final removal shelterwood harvests. As noted in the 2005 FMP, the average actual clearcut size in APP over the 2000-2005 period was 16.5 hectares. The planned average clearcut size for the 2005-2010 term is 30.1 hectares, with 88% of the planned cuts being less than 50 hectares in size. The stand level requirements for retaining residual and peninsular patches are not subject to a minimum clearcut patch size. In APP, many of the clearcut patches contain a component of shade- and mid-tolerant species that would serve as undisturbed patches. Given the residual tree retention requirements of the NDPEG, the small average clearcut size planned for the park, and the fact that only 6% of the harvest is conducted using the clearcut system, the auditors question the rationale for imposing a requirement of retaining insular and peninsular patches under these circumstances. The auditors witnessed situations where application of the guide resulted in no apparent improvement in the ecological outcome of the harvest operations. Suggestion 5: Corporate OMNR should consider reviewing the applicability of the NDPEG to the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Forest by examining actual forest conditions where this guideline has been applied. Consideration should be given to establishing minimum thresholds (e.g., clearcut size percent of total harvest by area under the clearcut system) where certain required elements of the guideline may be relaxed. The audit team understands that OMNR currently has staff reviewing the NDPEG under an action plan developed by their Environmental Assessment Committee. From the terms of reference for the action plan it was unclear if the specific issue outlined in the above suggestion is being addressed. The suggestion above could be appended to the terms of reference. According to four of the five annual reports that are available for the 2002-07 period, a total of 33,128 ha were harvested in APP, compared to the planned level of 50,235 ha (pro-rated from the 2000 FMP and 2005 FMP) – an achievement level of 66%. In terms of volume, 2,283,852 m3 were harvested during the same timeframe, compared to the planned pro-rated target of 2,041,924 m3 – an achievement level of 112%. This disparity between the achievement levels of volume versus area harvested is discussed in Sections 3.6.3 and 3.7.3. Harvest sites were virtually spotless with no industrial garbage being found. Logging debris observed at landings was minimal and many landings had been rehabilitated and



naturally re-vegetated. The AFA’s direction to leave logging debris at the stump and its effort to maximize treelength hauling has helped minimize debris at the landing sites. Harvest areas observed in the field were properly recorded in the required tables and maps that accompany the annual reports. Comparisons of the annual report depletion maps and detailed harvest tables suggest that the depletion information is accurately recorded. Inspection of the documentation revealed that harvest operations were properly approved in the FMP (or FMP amendment) and applicable AWS. All harvest sites viewed had an abundance of residual structure post harvest, as would be expected in a forest dominated by selection and shelterwood silvicultural systems. The forest type and operational practices result in ecosite disturbance patterns that are subtle compared to many other timber extraction systems. (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Harvested sites consistently showed abundant residual stand structure..



3.4.3 Renewal The renewal program in Algonquin Park relies heavily on natural regeneration, comprising 94% of the total program. The selection system is applied to good quality, uneven-aged stands dominated by shade tolerant species such as hard maple and hemlock. This is a partial cutting system where approximately 30-35% of the stems of all sizes are removed to allow sufficient light into the understory to promote natural regeneration (from seed or stump sprouts) and to release advanced regeneration and polewood stems. The aim is to maintain an ideal stand structure containing residual stems with a variety of diameter sizes. Stands managed under this system are harvested on 15 to 25 year cutting cycles. Another objective of the selection system is to improve growing stock quality by removing poorer quality and defective trees during the initial cutting cycles. The selection system is applied to about 55% of the harvest area. The shelterwood system is applied to mid-tolerant species such as white pine and yellow birch and also relies on natural regeneration. Overstory crop trees are progressively removed in a series of harvests for the purpose of recruiting natural regeneration under the shelter of the residual trees. The number of removal harvests and residual crown closure following each harvest depends on the objective tree species and initial stand conditions. For example, yellow birch may be managed under a two-stage harvest system, whereas white pine could be managed with as many as four-stages of harvest. Artificial regeneration (e.g., planting) treatments can sometimes be used should natural regeneration be inadequate. The shelterwood system is practiced on about 45% of area harvested in APP. Shade intolerant species, such as poplar, white birch, and jack pine, are managed under the clearcut system. Most of the overstory is removed in a single harvest operation. Regeneration may be through natural methods, such as retaining seed trees (e.g., red pine) or relying on coppice growth (e.g., poplar), or sites may be artificially renewed. Clearcutting is applied to 6% of the area harvested in APP. There were 25,905 ha regenerated during the first four years of the 2002-2007 audit term, which represents 70% of the planned renewal program of 37,122 ha over the same period. Natural renewal comprises 94% of the total renewal program. The auditors note that, at first glance, it appears that the AFA’s renewal program is not keeping pace with harvest levels over the first four years of the five-year audit term, for which complete information is available. However, a significant proportion of the recorded harvest consists of first and final removal cuts in the shelterwood system (8,429 ha), where regeneration is already established in the understory. When this information is factored into the calculations, the harvest area that required renewal treatment is 24,699 ha, demonstrating that the renewal program is essentially keeping pace with the harvest. The planting program (1,454 ha) exceeded the planned level of 1,393 ha.



Tree marking is the most critical aspect of the renewal program in APP, particularly for those silviculture systems that depend on natural renewal. Provincially certified and trained tree markers must adhere to the tree-marking guidelines and standards that have been developed by the AFA and ensure that marking achieves the objectives set out in the SGRs. Roughly half of the tree marking in APP is conducted by individuals employed by the AFA, with the rest of the work being contracted out. Training workshops for the marking crews are conducted annually. Marking activities are carried out in advance of harvesting, allowing time to audit the work and to make adjustments to the FOPs. All tree marking work is audited by AFA staff to ensure compliance with the marking guidelines, AOCs, and SGRs. Information collected during these audits includes: basal area by quality class and diameter class for stems marked for renewal and removal; number of cavity, mast, and supercanopy trees retained for wildlife values by diameter class; the number of tree marking infractions; evaluations for other forest values considerations; residual basal area; residual crown closure; and, residual stem quality. An overall rating of the tree-marking work is provided, based on the collected attribute information. In-progress compliance inspections also serve an important role to ensure that the harvest prescriptions are being properly applied. The audit team visited numerous examples of silviculture treatment packages at various stages of implementation on the ground. Audit team members checked, for example, selection stands to ensure that adequate residual forest cover was being maintained by measuring basal area and observing the residual stand structure, residual tree form, and quality. The auditors were satisfied that logging damage was being minimized to residual trees and to natural regeneration that was becoming established under all of the silviculture systems. In some of the uniform selection areas, appropriate adjustments had been made to allow for group selection in order to promote regeneration of mid-tolerant species and to facilitate scarification for hemlock renewal. In areas where hemlock regeneration was the objective, the results were excellent. Natural renewal under shelterwood-managed sites also appeared to be prevalent and well established. When natural renewal failed to materialize as expected, the AFA took steps to retreat the area by planting, for example. Various treatments packages were observed in the clearcut-managed areas. In blocks prescribed for natural renewal (e.g., poplar), the regeneration was prolific. The auditors also observed well-executed seed tree and tree planting treatments. Planted sites are assessed for stock survival two years following establishment through a system of sample plots. The planting program represents a small proportion of the renewal program. Planting is only used when conditions are not expected to be favourable for establishing natural regeneration. During the first four years of the audit term, 1,454 ha were planted, which represents 6% of the total renewal program over the same period. A significant proportion of the planting occurred on salvage harvest areas, where natural renewal was improbable since most overstory white pine trees were wind damaged.



Mechanical site preparation and mechanical scarification treatments normally employ bulldozers with straight blades to rearrange logging debris and create suitable microsites to assist natural regeneration (e.g., hemlock in a group selection setting, yellow birch or white pine shelterwood, or red pine seed tree harvest) or to prepare sites for artificial regeneration. Prescribed burning had not been used as a site preparation tool during the audit term, as AFA believes they are achieving good results with mechanical means which AFA states are less costly. Staff of APP claim that the ecological benefits derived from prescribed burning justify its cost and application in the park. This discourse is not a new issue, and was examined in some detail in the 2002 IFA report. That report included a suggestion that both organizations “….pursue opportunities for using prescribed burns, where costs and benefits are reasonable.” Obviously, there is a difference of opinion regarding what is considered reasonable which may never be resolved. Park staff may wish to pursue solutions that help reduce the financial risk commonly associated with conducting prescribed burns, thus creating incentives for AFA to increase its use. Prescribed burning is a site preparation treatment option identified in the SGRs in the 2005 FMP. Application of the renewal prescriptions in the field were in conformance with the SGRs and the treatments being applied appear to be effective on the renewal sites that were visited. The prescribed practices for each site and the desired future forest unit were suitable, consistent with the FOPs, and should maintain forest productivity. In general, the audit team witnessed an effective renewal program, where sites are treated promptly and with appropriate prescriptions. Observations were made in at least one planted block where competition was overtopping the planted stock and tree growth could have benefited from a tending treatment. Compliance inspections of the renewal program indicate there is excellent conformance to the AWS and other applicable legislation. There was only one minor non-compliance incident in the renewal program reported over the audit period, and the audit team did not observe any renewal non-compliance issues in the field.

3.4.4 Tending and Protection Tending activities occurred on 16,015 ha over the first four years of the 2002-07 audit term, which were comprised of 15,510 ha of stand improvement cutting in uneven-aged managed stands, 431 ha of stand improvement in even-aged stands, and 74 ha of manual tending. All of the tending achievements exceeded the AFA’s planned program. Although the APP management plan allows the use of pesticides in the recreation/utilization zones, it states that they be used as a last resort. The AFA respects this APP policy and has committed to using pesticide applications for tending purposes only as a last resort. No pesticides were used during the audit period.



Stand improvement work in tolerant hardwood stands involves the removal of low quality trees in the hardwood selection forest unit and the release of higher quality polewood from competition in the hardwood shelterwood forest units. This work occurs concurrently with, or subsequent to, the harvesting operations. In the field, the audit team observed numerous examples of tending treatments. Residual trees were generally of high quality, with exceptions being made to leave lower quality trees that served as wildlife habitat or to maintain appropriate spacing. Both artificial and natural renewal areas are inspected post-treatment to assess their status and determine if further follow-up treatment, such as tending, is required to control unwanted competition. The timing of these assessments depends on the type of renewal treatment applied. The results of the assessments form the basis for decision-making or recommendations in subsequent AWSs, when areas may be earmarked for additional treatment (e.g., tending in future years, fill-in planting) or FTG assessment. In general, the audit team witnessed an effective tending program. Much of the renewal in the stands that were inspected exhibited good growth and little sign of suppression. However, there was one instance where competition in a recent red pine plantation was growing aggressively and showing potential to negatively impact the growth and survival of the red pine. Algonquin Provincial Park completed a silviculture effectiveness monitoring audit on areas that had been declared FTG by AFA. The results suggested that some areas are in need of competition control. The OMNR shared these findings from 2005-2006 with the AFA. After the AFA was given the opportunity to evaluate the OMNR audit results and to participate in joint site inspections, it was determined that there were rational reasons for many of the findings. For example, the FTG evaluation criteria provided by OMNR’s Southern Region) were slightly different than the criteria stated in the SGRs, particularly the competition criteria. As well, APP staff may have conducted their sampling outside the areas that were treated or declared FTG due to the broad resolution used in mapping the treatment areas. The AFA believes many of the issues found in the APP audits will be resolved given that, starting in 2007, FTG spatial data must include the boundaries of the area surveyed to which the new forest stand attributes apply, and not simply the boundary of the entire FRI stand where the assessment had taken place. This information will assist APP to focus their future auditing efforts toward the appropriate locations. Silvicultural treatments were consistent with the SGRs and appeared to be effective on the tending sites that were visited. The prescribed tending for each site and the desired future forest unit were suitable, were consistent with the FOPs, and should maintain forest productivity. The audit team is of the opinion, however, that there may be additional opportunities for applying manual tending treatments. Recommendation 9: The AFA shall determine if there are more opportunities for applying tending treatments in renewing stands that are high risk and high investment (e.g., plantations) that have not yet been declared FTG.



Areas slated for treatment were approved in the 2005 FMP and appropriate AWS. Treatment areas were being accurately mapped, tracked, and reported in the required annual reports. Compliance inspections of the maintenance program indicate there is conformance to the AWS and other applicable legislation. All inspections found maintenance activities to be compliant.

3.4.5 Renewal Support The AFA supports its renewal program by collecting seed cones and contracts out its planting stock production needs. The examined documentation suggests that seed inventories and the stock production programs have been adequate to support the current and projected renewal program for the APF. The renewal program in the APF relies heavily on natural regeneration, which consequently requires a small renewal support program. Up to the end of the 2005-06 season (four of five years of the audit term), the AFA had collected 83 hectolitres (hl) of cones, comprised primarily of jack pine (77 hl), and red pine (6 hl). Over the same four-year period, nearly 1.2 million container and bareroot seedling stock were produced and planted. All seed used in the production of planting stock used for the AFA were derived from local sources (seed zone #29). The AFA does not maintain any tree improvement areas, such as seed orchards or designated seed collection areas. The auditors note that the AFA is committed to ensuring that adequate levels of seed are maintained to support its artificial renewal program; there is a recommendation to this effect in the Year 10 Annual Report.

3.4.6 Access The primary purpose of the interior road network in APP is for conducting forestry operations. Most of this network is prohibited from public use in order to protect the park’s significant natural, cultural, and recreational values. Roads restricted from public access are gated. As noted in the 2002 IFA, road access continues to be a contentious issue in APP. Access construction is strictly controlled and must adhere to a stringent set of standards established in the APP management plan and APF management plan. For example, standards governing the maximum right-of-way widths permitted in all areas apply the strictest standards to operations conducted near any values. Maximum road rights-of-



way are 13.7 m for primary and 9.1 m for secondary and tertiary roads. Widths of road rights-of-way for roads crossing no-cut timber reserves is 6.7 m. Standards have also been established regarding limitations on where roads, aggregate pits, and landings may be located relative to various values. Limitations are also set out with respect to the operation of roads (e.g., seasonal and diurnal use restrictions) and aggregate pits. The 2002 IFA recommended that APP lead a review of the road-use management strategies for existing roads in the park. This review was to be completed before the 2005-2010 FMP was prepared. The review turned out to be more complex than originally envisioned and was delayed due to other initiatives being undertaken that affected the outcome of the roads review. A recommendation to address this situation is made in Section 3.3.3 of this report. The AFA continues to expand its use of portable bridges at water crossings to help minimize in-stream work and reduce longer-term environmental impacts. The AFA now has 50 portable bridges in use. Portable bridges and culverts are removed as soon as access is no longer required for forest management purposes. The audit team observed many good examples of water crossing decommissioning that had been rehabilitated effectively. Water crossings are designed to adhere to the Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings (OMNR 1990) and the Code of Practice for Timber Management Operations within Riparian Areas (OMNR 1998a). Various types of water crossings were examined in the field. Bridges that were installed during the audit period were well-constructed, with river banks appearing virtually undisturbed. Appropriate measures such as diversion ditches, sediment traps, and rip-rap were used to control erosion around the structures. A number of older bridge decks were of the open variety, where sediments are more likely to enter the watercourse. Design standards have now progressed where the AFA now uses a closed deck design. Bridge decks observed during the audit were generally clean. Bridge maintenance was very good with very few problems observed. In general, culverts were properly installed with appropriate pipe lengths and widths and suitable sloping being employed around the structures. Materials used around the openings were non-erodable or sufficiently vegetated and stabilized to control erosion, in most cases. The AFA has a water crossing monitoring program that regularly examines their existing crossings. Crossings exhibiting signs of failure or requiring remedial work or replacement are scheduled for the required work. Algonquin Provincial Park has made some progress towards rehabilitation of roads. Road decommissioning is required for roads that are no longer needed, if they cross portages, trails, or navigable or publicly-used waterways. The auditors visited an old rehabilitation and a new one. In older rehabilitations, red pine or other species were simply planted on the road bed. A newer rehabilitation simply uses an excavator to rough up the surface of the road, and place soil and root balls on the road surface (Figure 4). In future, this relatively inexpensive treatment would be a desirable addition to bridge removals and berms. The operations staff should be commended for their use of aggregate from the rehabilitated road elsewhere in the park since this action reduces the



overall need for pit material. The AFA does not permanently decommission many roads, due to the periodic treatments required for most of the forest management activities.

Figure 4 This road has been effectively decommissioned by applying fill and debris to the road base. The magnitude of the road construction program for the first four years of the five-year audit term reflects the adequate level of existing access in APP, with no primary roads and only 11.3 km of secondary roads constructed over this period. Based on statistics only recently maintained by the AFA, about 165 km of tertiary, or operational, roads are constructed annually, with 70% of these roads involving re-construction of former roads. On average, the AFA maintains 800 km of roads yearly. The audit team traveled a total of 16 person days on the interior roads during the field audit and was satisfied that construction practices were generally good. Roads are by and large well-maintained with very few minor problems noted. Overuse of aggregate on tertiary roads is an issue in the opinion of some APP staff, and was also identified as a concern in the 2002 IFA. The concern is that tertiary roads may exceed their intended short-term design standard (i.e., exceeding the maximum five-year lifespan), thereby becoming attractive avenues for potential illegal use. Of the tertiary roads examined, the auditors were not convinced that the construction standards applied



were unusually high. Aggregate application was within reason and did not appear to be excessive. The AFA has been making efforts to minimize their aggregate use on tertiary roads and avoid constructing new operational roads. The AFA is also experimenting with methods of reducing tertiary road needs by using longer skidding distances during harvest operations. There were 47 non-compliances reported over the audit period associated with access; the majority of these were considered minor in nature. Road rights-of-way exceeding the maximum allowable widths (which also led to AOC incursions in some cases) was a leading reason for the non-compliances. Issues with water crossings and aggregate pits resulted in non-compliant reports as well. The AFA appears to have made progress in its access-related performance, as the number of non-compliances related to this activity is trending downward in most recent years. An increased number of workshops have been conducted recently by the AFA involving their staff and contractors to help improve operational practices. Selected road locations were compared against those in the 2005 FMP. In all cases, roads were located within approved corridors and locations as prescribed.

3.5 Systems Support

3.5.1 Human Resources The two criteria related to human resources focus on awareness and training of employees. The staff of both the AFA and the OMNR know their employment responsibilities. Both have well-developed policies covering the required elements of sustainable forest management and, over the last decade, they have each become part of the culture of the other. The commitment of the AFA to the CSA Z809 Standard certification and its environmental management system has meant that field staff has been well briefed on regulations, legal responsibilities, and sustainable forest management policies, objectives, and plans. Every employee is aware of this commitment and has the appropriate training modules assigned. Training materials provided by OMNR and AFA were examined. The AFA and OMNR jointly organize an annual general training session in Barry’s Bay that is attended by representatives for most operations in APP and covers a wide range of topics. Special courses are convened by the AFA for some issues such as road construction. The AFA training records were examined. They are available for every employee and for all contractors. This is an exemplary practice. Records were orderly. AFA staff collectively attended over 33 separate training courses covering a wide range of topics. Training records for the OMNR were equally orderly and available for all staff. Both organizations have a clear commitment to keeping the knowledge of their employees up-to-date.



A start-up procedure for each block during normal operations ensures workers are aware of sensitive issues, and ensures there are adequately trained personnel to meet the needs of the operation. A recommendation in the 2002 IFA to provide tree markers and other staff with training for cultural heritage values has been completed.

3.5.2 Documentation and Quality Control The audit team requested a large array of information from both OMNR and the AFA, including some obscure requests that were used to test the ability of the AFA and APP to provide information. In all cases the information was provided promptly As well, both organizations have designated individuals in charge of documentation and back up procedures in place. The AFA has a registered environmental management system for ISO, and is in the process of completing CSA Z809 Standard certification. Most operational guidance documents are maintained electronically and internally available.

3.6 Monitoring

3.6.1 General Monitoring Algonquin Provincial Park prepared a district forestry compliance plan that covered the 2000-2005 five-year period. This combined document was approved on August 1, 2003. The five-year compliance plan was submitted in response to a recommendation in the 2002 IFA, which explains its late submission date. Starting in 2005, OMNR districts are no longer required to submit five-year compliance plans. The 2000-2005 compliance plan is specifically focused on forestry aspects of APP’s enforcement mandate, providing guidance for implementing the compliance monitoring program on the AFA. The compliance plan sets the context of APP’s role in compliance monitoring by describing the applicable legislation, policies and manuals, and reporting relationship between APP and the AFA. The plan addresses forestry compliance priorities, data collection and reporting procedures, communications, and compliance training for APP staff. The priorities, objectives, and planned procedures listed in this document form the basis for developing the annual implementation schedule and standards within the annual compliance plan. APP prepared the required annual compliance plans for the last four years of the audit period. The auditors noted that the recent versions of the annual plans have become more comprehensive, which reflects recent refinements in direction related to enforcement planning policy. Planned compliance activities for monitoring the forest operations



within APP include conducting spot-checks, auditing and verification inspections of AFA activities, and joint field inspections when warranted. The frequency of target compliance inspections is given, based on risk assessment of AFA’s performance in the recent past. The plans included protocols for processing reports that record non-compliant conditions and conditions appraised as “in compliance-comments required”. Results of the compliance monitoring program are summarized and reviewed annually and are included in the annual reports the AFA prepares in fulfilling its obligations under the FMPM. Evidence gathered through the audit team’s inspection of field sites and compliance reports suggests that the level of monitoring may be suitable considering the degree of non-compliance that is detected or reported on the APF. Compliance staff report that AFA generally conducts an effective compliance monitoring program, however, there have been situations when obvious non-compliant conditions have been observed and should have been reported. These unreported incidents may be attributed to AFA’s recent policy change to file in-progress reports on a monthly basis, rather than every two weeks, providing a potential delay in APP staff receiving notice. Otherwise, submission of routine compliance reports is reported to generally be timely. There are currently seven staff with APP that are certified compliance inspectors and who conduct inspections on as part of their duties. The 2002 IFA identified APP’s compliance capacity as an issue. In response to the audit, Ontario Parks has hired one additional staff member who assists with compliance monitoring. As well, funding for seasonal compliance staff has been secured from time to time. To further address the capacity issue, Ontario Parks has had its permanent field staff trained as certified compliance inspectors. The number of staff currently trained to perform compliance inspections is adequate and the quantity of inspections being conducted by OMNR is closely meeting annual plan targets. There are seasonal variations in inspection efforts on forestry matters since APP staff are also assigned other duties. The level of compliance oversight by APP appears to be appropriate and effective. The AFA did prepare a five-year compliance monitoring plan for the APF covering the 2000-2005 and 2005-2010 periods. The most recent plan, which was approved by the OMNR (Ontario Parks) on January 18, 2005, coincides with the approval of the 2005-2010 FMP. The 2005-2010 compliance monitoring plan actually formed Section Q of the FMP’s supplementary documentation. The five-year plan compliance plan prepared by AFA met all of the requirements outlined under the OMNR’s Guideline for Forest Industry Compliance Planning (OMNR 1998b). The plan includes a background description of the APF and the AFA, a description of the forest operations, as well as a comprehensive sections dealing with goals, objectives, and strategies. Monitoring and reporting procedures are outlined, measures for training personnel and woods workers are described, and roles and responsibilities for implementing the compliance program are defined. The plan is complete and well written.



The AFA also prepared annual compliance plans of action for each of the five years within the scope of the audit. These plans of action are included as appendices in the respective AWSs, with both documents being reviewed and approved concurrently. The annual compliance plans of action include a summary and brief description of non-compliance incidents from the previous year. Additionally, the AWSs list the priority areas for compliance effort, normally based on compliance issues that have occurred during the previous year or expected high-risk areas for the upcoming operating year. The plans include a schedule of upcoming forest operations activities for the period covered by the plan and serve as notification to OMNR of when, and where, various activities will be taking place. The annual compliance plans of action were submitted and approved within specified timelines. The overall monitoring program on the APF is the direct responsibility of the AFA which conducts the compliance monitoring program with its own staff for all their operations and those of their one third-party operator. The OMNR conducts verification inspections of the submitted reports and spot check inspections in fulfillment of their monitoring responsibilities. Inspections reports are appropriately filed under the Forest Operations Compliance Inspection Program (FOCIS), used during the 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 seasons, and the Forest Operations Inspection Program (FOIP), which replaced FOCIS and has been implemented since 2004-2005. Reporting by the AFA has been completed in a satisfactory fashion and procedures outlined in the compliance plans are being followed. A review of APP’s inspection reports confirmed that the OMNR is actively monitoring, spot-checking, and auditing forest operations. Nearly all reports examined by the auditors included maps depicting the location of the area of operation that was inspected. A total of 1,503 compliance inspections were completed during the audit period; 1,156 by the AFA, and 347 by APP. Figure 5 shows the number of compliance reports filed annually by the AFA and OMNR (APP) over the audit term. The number of reports filed dropped in 2005-2006 due to a change in the AFA’s policy to file in-progress harvest reports on a monthly basis rather than every two weeks. Table 2 summarizes the compliance inspection program conducted by each organization, including the number of inspection reports filed and instances of non-compliance that were reported. A total of 57 incidents of non-compliance were reported by the AFA and an additional 57 incidents were noted by APP. Tracking the history and outcome of each of the 114 instances of non-compliance proved challenging for the audit team, due to a number of complicating factors including the transition to FOIP in the midst of the audit term. Not all of the non-compliances reported by the AFA under FOCIS were verified by APP, and the current system does not proficiently capture the status of the non-compliances when generating the annual reporting tables associated with non-compliance. The audit team notes that reporting under the FOCIS systems was not as rigorous as is required by FOIP. Some double counting of non compliances may have occurred during the first two years of the audit term. The non compliances reported in Annual Report Tables AR 12 and AR 13 was not accurate, as verified by observation and staff interviews. This is further addressed in section 3.6.2.



Number of Annual Compliance Inspections

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

AFA

MNR

Total

Number of Not-in-Compliance Reports

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

AFA

MNR

Total

Figure 5. Graphs showing the number of compliance inspections and the number of compliance reports by AP and AFA over the term of the audit.



AFA Compliance Inspections MNR Compliance Inspections 2002-2007 2002-2007

Tota

l Num

ber

of R

epor

ts

Tota

l Num

ber

of R

epor

ts

Non

-co

mpl

ianc

e

Non

-co

mpl

ianc

e

In-

com

plia

nce

In-

com

plia

nce

Activity Inspected

Activity Inspected

Access 369 347 22 Access 114 89 25

Harvest 746 712 34 Harvest 224 193 31

Renewal 31 30 1 Renewal 8 8 0

Maintenance 10 10 0 Maintenance 0 0 0

Protection 0 0 0 Protection 1 0 1

TOTALS 1,156 1,099 57 TOTALS 347 290 57

Table 3. Summary of compliance inspections by AP and AFA. Suggestion 6: Corporate OMNR should seek ways of improving the accuracy and timeliness of the annual reporting tables (i.e., Tables AR-12 and AR-13) generated by FOIP. Table 3, shows the status of the instances of non-compliance found during the audit term. Of the 103 non-compliance incidents investigated or verified by APP, for which there is information, 81 were categorized as minor and 21 were moderate. Information was not available for 11 of the non compliances. Only one was considered significant and was due to site damage caused by rutting. Non-compliances were primarily reported for activities related to harvesting or access. Harvest-related non-compliances generally involved operating inside an AOC or Crown timber not being measured according to the authority to haul (i.e., timber not being hauled to the correct or approved destination). Access non-compliances generally involved roads not being constructed to FMP standards, problems at water crossings, or operations inside an AOC. Reasons for the non-compliances varied, however, lack of communication or supervision was cited as a contributing cause in a number of instances. Since many of the non-compliances were minor in nature, they were usually resolved through voluntary self-correction by the AFA. There were a number of recurring minor non-compliances that prompted APP to take harsher action. Seventeen penalties totalling $23,853 were assessed against the AFA over the audit term. All penalties were paid by the AFA.



Level of Significance Action Taken

Activity Inspected

Min

or

Mod

erat

e

Sign

ifica

nt

Res

olve

d

War

ning

Ong

oing

Pena

lty

Tota

l

Access 38 8 0 46 1 35 2 8

Harvest 42 12 1 55 4 40 2 9

Renewal 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Protection 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

TOTALS 81 21 1 103 5 76 5 17

Table 4. Summary of non compliance findings on the APF during the audit term.

Based on the merged (AFA and APP) compliance statistics, there has been an increasing trend in the frequency rate of non-compliance reports over the first four years of the five-year audit term (Figure 5). Understandably, the high number of penalties cited above has been levied in response to the rising trend. The overall non-compliance frequency rate for the audit period, based on the merged figures, is 7.6%. However, there is an obvious disparity in the non-compliance frequency rates when the two data sources are analyzed separately. Based on the AFA’s compliance program, the non-compliance frequency rate for the audit period is 4.9% (ranging from 3.1% to 6.1% annually). The compliance program for APP for the same period shows an overall frequency rate of 16.4% (ranging from 8.8% to 24.7% annually). This inconsistency was noted as a concern by APP in its 2005-2006 forestry compliance plan where one of its priorities was to “…determine the reason(s) for the gap of reported non-compliances between Algonquin Park and AFA Compliance Inspectors….” Apparently, this determination was not completed. Based on interviews with AFA and APP personnel, the auditors offer the following possible explanations that may be causing the disparity in the frequency of reporting:

(1) Inspectors from APP tend to focus their monitoring efforts on high-risk areas, such as AOCs and water-crossings, whereas AFA inspection reports cover broader aspects of operations.

(2) Algonquin Provincial Park is better equipped in detecting infractions involving failure to follow the conditions of the authority to haul Crown wood since these infractions are not detected until the haul truck’s bill-of-lading information is entered into APP’s computer system. The system would reject the unauthorized



delivery, APP would be the first party notified of the infraction, and thus would submit the non-compliance report.

(3) Seasonal variations in inspection efforts on forestry matters by APP staff may occur since they are also assigned other duties.

(4) The AFA’s policy change in 2005-2006 to file in-progress harvest reports on a monthly basis rather than every two weeks may have resulted in changes in the number of non-compliances reported.

The auditors attempted to compare the non-compliance frequency rates on the APF to those experienced on other management units across the Southern Region and across the province. Establishing such performance benchmarks for comparative purposes proved to be difficult due to the multitude of factors that may potentially influence the results. The auditors were left to instead offer their professional opinion on compliance performance for the APF. Based on the auditor’s experience from previous audits, the APF’s non-compliance frequency rate (8.3%) during the period examined appears to be higher than average. The AFA’s past five-year compliance performance, as shown in Figure 5 does not demonstrate a trend of continual improvement. Although both the AFA and APP claimed that they have a good working relationship on compliance matters, there was sufficient evidence gathered to suggest that there is room for improvement in communicating compliance monitoring issues between the organizations. For example, the auditors heard that compliance supervisory staff from both organizations do not jointly review reported non-compliance sites in the field. Although joint inspections are not a requirement, such joint meetings would likely prove invaluable and mutually beneficial in understanding the circumstances that triggered the non-compliance, reaching a common understanding in terms of expectations, and developing an effective preventative action plan. Recommendation 10: Investigations dealing with non-compliances shall include the joint participation of AFA and APP field staff to accurately and objectively review and record the factors contributing to the incident and to confirm the performance requirements. Both organizations are starting to make efforts to improve communications on compliance matters by conducting joint workshops; a Best Practices Workshop was held in February 2007 with AFA and APP field staff to review various guidelines (e.g., rutting), study guideline application and preventive practices, and provide general awareness. Another joint workshop is planned for Spring 2008 with the goal of reaching a common interpretation on compliance issues and developing solutions to recent problems. The auditors find these efforts worthy and encourage both organizations to continue working together and strive to reduce the number of non-compliances. This approach in resolving issues may prove more productive than resorting to punitive actions. The AFA has an environmental management system in place that was registered to the ISO 14001 standard in 2001. This comprehensive environmental management system



includes strong employee training and preventative action components. As noted above, training and a review of planned operations for the upcoming operational year are provided to supervisory staff every spring. The AFA also conducts annual meetings with its contractors to reinforce messages with its forest operations work force regarding forestry practices within APP. The AFA’s operations supervisors are responsible for regularly communicating ongoing training messages to woods workers, truck drivers, and machine operators. The effort taken to conform to the requirements of the ISO 14001 standard demonstrates AFAs significant commitment to improving performance in compliance monitoring. The auditor’s field visits did not reveal any significant issues where non-compliance was not being reported. Any instances of non-compliance that were detected were considered insignificant and isolated occurrences. There was strong evidence in the field that precautions are taken to prevent or reduce the number of non-compliances. For example, since most harvesting in APF is performed under the shelterwood or selection silviculture systems, all harvest blocks are tree-marked and this is normally done approximately one year in advance of the operations. Trees designated for harvest and all AOC reserves are marked with paint. All tree-marking operations are also audited by AFA to ensure that silviculture and AOC prescriptions are being implemented according to the FMP and AWS prescriptions. A copy of the tree-marking audit is forwarded to APP for verification, whereupon APP staff may conduct an additional spot-check. Staff of the AFA conduct formal forest operations inspections on a regular schedule and are responsible for reporting any significant non-compliances within 24 hours to the APP. Harvest blocks are normally visited on the ground by AFA’s operational supervisors on a weekly or nearly daily basis. Other inspections are conducted in accordance with the program set out in the annual compliance schedule. The AFA employs ten individuals who are certified compliance inspectors and carry out these functions as a regular or semi-regular aspect of their job duties. Even though the mandate of the LCC includes “…assisting in monitoring the performance of plan [FMP] implementation…”, there is no evidence suggesting that non-compliance issues or recommendations for acting on non-compliance issues have been brought to the attention of the LCC for their comments, except, perhaps through their review of the annual reports. Involving the LCC may be helpful and may provide a different perspective or approaches to the compliance issues. Suggestion 7: The Algonquin Provincial Park and the AFA should consider seeking opinions, comments, and suggestions from the LCC on compliance issues that may arise from forestry operations. For the non-compliances that were recorded, the actions taken in response to their discovery appear to be appropriate. In all cases, the AFA took corrective action and remedied the situation soon after the infraction was discovered. All non-compliances have been reported promptly. As noted earlier, penalties, compliance orders, and



warnings were issued to the AFA during the past five years, but these actions really have not had a dramatic effect on reducing the non-compliance frequency. The auditors believe that both organizations recognize that a new approach is warranted in addressing this issue and efforts are being made to increase dialogue on this matter. The AFA has a remedial action procedure for dealing with non-compliances that are discovered through the compliance monitoring program. The procedure identifies steps that may be taken when a non-compliance discovered, depending on the nature and severity of the non-conformance. Non-conformances are recorded and related remedial actions are tracked through a Corrective/Preventative/Public Input Action Database. Non-conformances requiring further follow-up are communicated to the AFA staff and contractors. Judging from the examination of the evidence, the observations during the field visits, review of the compliance reports, and interviews with AFA and OMNR staff, the auditors conclude that the compliance monitoring program on the APF is effective, although there were numerous minor non-compliances reported during the audit term which have resulted in various penalties, warnings, and compliance orders. Virtually all of the non-compliances were minor in nature, although it is a concern that the frequency of non-compliances remains high. None of the non-compliances were viewed by the auditors as posing a serious threat to the values or sustainability of APP. There are signs that the non-compliance trend is starting to improve toward the end of the audit term. Improvement is required in the program, as evident in the recommendation and suggestions presented earlier. The AFA’s silviculture effectiveness monitoring program is documented in the text of its 2000-2020 and 2005-2025 FMPs. In the 2005 FMP, the AFA presents a description of its overall monitoring program which lists the progression of stand monitoring activities from tree-marking operations (essentially pre-harvest surveys) to harvest monitoring to FTG declaration and silviculture effectiveness monitoring. Three types of surveys are employed: (1) stocking assessments, (2) FTG assessments, and (3) stage-of-management assessments. Surveys may be extensive (i.e., ocular estimates) or may involve intensive methods (taking and recording formal measurements). Timing of the assessments is specified in the SGRs, depending on the prescriptions that have been applied to a particular forest stand. Stocking assessments are applied to areas that are artificially renewed five years following treatment, or 5 to 15 years following harvest if the area is being naturally renewed. Where careful logging techniques to protect advance growth are deployed, assessments may be conducted as soon as three years after harvest. Free-to-grow assessments are conducted to determine if prescriptions applied to treatment areas are meeting the regeneration standards specified in the SGRs. Stage-of-management surveys are used in situations where it is particularly difficult to determine the regeneration status and structure of a stand using other conventional survey methods. This survey may assist in clarifying which stage in the shelterwood system the surveyed stand may best fit. Nearly all assessments are



performed on the ground. The evaluation results are mapped and tracked using the AFA’s geographic information system. Treatment response and silviculture treatment effectiveness are assessed by comparing regeneration standards in the SGRs to the resulting forest condition determined during the various regeneration assessment surveys. The results of assessments are also utilized for planning purposes, such as confirming or adjusting assumptions about growth patterns, successional pathways, and rates of forest development. The AFA establishes planting stock survival plots on planted sites immediately following treatment. The plots are assessed two years following treatment and are used to evaluate performance of different planting stock types, evaluate regeneration condition, and determine stock survival rates. Areas harvested under uneven-aged silviculture systems are tree-marked according to prescriptions with a target stand structure, residual basal area, and growing stock quality class factors , which are considered “management standards”. Areas meeting the management standards are deemed to be successfully renewed. This approach appears to be a bit presumptuous since the assessment is being made at pre-harvest rather than post-harvest. It is noted that compliance monitoring of the harvest operations ensures that only trees designated for cutting are harvested and that logging damage to residual trees is minimized. The auditors understand that the development of parameters for evaluating silviculture effectiveness for stands managed under selection system is a topic of ongoing discussion in the Southern Region. The auditors would support a more formalized process for measuring post-harvest silviculture effectiveness of uneven-aged managed stands. Overall assessment of silviculture effectiveness is conducted on a forest-wide basis through regular reporting as required by the FMPM and the FIM. Data is compiled and evaluated annually through the annual reporting process and also summarized for a five-, seven- or ten-year period, depending on the requirements of the 2004 FMPM. The AFA is required to provide commentary and an evaluation of program achievements and effectiveness when the annual reports are submitted. The staff of APP do not accompany AFA staff on their regeneration assessments, but they have been performing audits of the AFA’s FTG assessments. A report, issued by a contractor who conducted the audits on behalf of APP found that their audit results confirmed the AFA’s findings for 86% of area surveyed. In many cases where disparities were found, the reasons were minor. Algonquin Provincial Park staff conducted additional silviculture effectiveness monitoring audits over the last two years and have recently shared their results with the AFA. The assessments focused on white pine shelterwood management and the assessment procedure used by APP was slightly different than the procedure used by AFA. The results obtained by APP indicate that a considerable number of stands did not qualify for FTG status. However, closer examination of the data and joint inspections of the sites revealed rational explanations for most of the discrepancies. The AFA and APP are continuing to discuss the results and have agreed to communicate better on issues involving silviculture effectiveness



monitoring. The auditors would certainly encourage increased dialogue on this matter to resolve any perceived differences in interpretation. The audit team’s field visits, coupled with an examination of the documentation, confirmed that the boundaries of the sampled field locations had been properly mapped and accurately recorded in the AFA’s reporting system. Observations in the field supported the AFA’s claims of FTG status and were consistent with the new stand descriptors. The auditors are satisfied that the AFA maintains a robust silviculture effectiveness monitoring program but are somewhat concerned that the actual level of monitoring is not keeping pace with the levels projected in the FMP. The Year 10 Annual Report cited that staffing difficulties played a role in the reduced monitoring program. Examination of the annual reports confirms that the level of monitoring has fallen short of AWS targets. For example, 11,349 ha were planned for assessment in 2005-2006, but only 4,316 ha were reported as assessed. In 2006-2007, only 4,367 ha were assessed, compared to 14,870 ha planned for assessment. Recommendation 11: The AFA shall ensure that the level of silviculture assessment monitoring is more closely aligned to the level projected in the approved FMP.

3.6.2 Annual Report For the first two years of the audit term, the annual report consists of two parts, a Spring submission and a Fall submission. Starting in 2004-2005, annual reports were submitted as a single package, due by November 15 of each year, and were prepared in accordance with the 2004 FMPM. The AFA has met the annual report submission date requirements. The AFA has been submitting the annual reports through the FIM Portal. This is a web-based submission site where all FIM-related information products are delivered to OMNR in electronic format, including all maps. Algonquin Provincial Park has reviewed and approved annual reports on schedule. It should be noted that there are recent developments regarding the review of annual reports, which were released to OMNR staff in 2005. The most recent direction reflects the changes embodied in the 2004 FMPM and apply to preparation of the annual reports for 2004-2005 and subsequent years. Under the new process, the OMNR District must review the Annual Reports at specified milestones, but has the option of accepting the annual report “as is” in other reporting years. Algonquin Provincial Park staff have elected to review both annual reports that have been submitted since this option was introduced, even though they were only required to review one. The annual reports have been reviewed in a timely fashion.



The format of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 annual reports conformed to the requirements of the 1996 FMPM, and the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 annual reports conformed to the requirements of the 2004 FMPM. The 2006-2007 AR is not due to be submitted until Nov 15,2007. Consequently, it was not available for review by the audit team. The 2003-2004 annual report (Fall submission) included Table AR-3 (Annual Report of Planned Clearcuts) as required under the phase-in requirements of the 2004 FMPM. The text associated with Table AR-3 is brief, since planning for all individual clearcuts was not a requirement at that time. The annual reports are generally of good quality. The level of analysis and commentary satisfactorily meets the applicable FMPM requirements. There were no discrepancies or inconsistencies noted in the tables that were sampled by the auditors. A few tables could not be completely filled out according to the requirements, as requirements for collection of the required data had changed between the 1996 FMPM and 2004 FMPM. Rational explanations were provided in the report text if tables could not be completed according to requirements. Progress towards achieving AWS targets are presented at various locations in the text of the reports. Explanations for any significant deviations between the actual level of operations and AWS forecasts are provided. The rationale and reasons provided for the deviations are reasonable. The text is missing discussion around the progress toward overall FMP targets and impacts on the long-term management direction where deviations have occurred. For example, Table AR-14 (Annual Report of Assessment of Regeneration Success) in the 2005-2006 annual report indicates significant deviations in the planned versus actual area assessed for particular forest units over the five-year term (2000-2005), but these are not fully explained. The low silviculture success for a couple of forest units could have warranted fuller discussion and an explanation of why these results were obtained. Each annual report includes a Synopsis section that provides a broad overview of the year's activities. Overall, the annual reports are sufficiently comprehensive and satisfactorily prepared. However, there are areas in the text where a bit more supportive commentary might have been helpful. The composite maps depicting harvest depletion, renewal, tending, protection, and road construction activities that accompany the annual reports are produced at a 1:50,000 scale and meet the FIM requirements. A review of the forest operations inspection section of the annual reports reveals that the AFA and OMNR have both been vigilant in submitting their respective compliance reporting tables (Tables AR-12.1 and AR-12 in the case of AFA; Tables AR-12.2 and AR-13 in the case of OMNR). From 2002 to early 2004, this tabular data was compiled from OMNR’s FOCIS, while the 2004 to 2007 tables were generated by FOIP, which replaced FOCIS.



The annual report text associated with the compliance reporting tables and issues is quite comprehensive in describing the compliance program. Detailed descriptions of the nature of the non-compliances, the reasons for their occurrence, and, in most cases, the types of responsive actions taken to address the issues for both the AFA- and MNR- reported non-compliances are provided. The tabular data did not always accurately record the punitive actions that were taken in response to the non-compliances, nor were the penalties amply described in the text. For example, based on documentation records obtained from APP, there were seven administrative penalties and two warnings assessed against the AFA during 2005-2006, yet Tables AR-12 and AR-13 indicate only one warning and one penalty being issued over the one-year term. Further investigation revealed that the tabular data listed in Tables AR-12 and AR-13 often lags behind the numbers reported in the text of the annual report. Details of the compliance monitoring program of the AFA and OMNR, including additional findings and analysis of performance, are covered under Section 3.6.1 of this report. The evaluation and analysis in the annual reports are presented in the explanatory text associated with each type of activity scheduled for implementation during the past year. Progress toward achieving AWS targets is presented for many of the activities. Terminology used for describing the achievement is usually limited to relative terms, such as “less than AWS forecasts” or “more than AWS forecasts”. Explanations for any significant deviations between the AWS forecasts and the actual level of activities are provided for many activities. The rationales provided for the AWS deviations are reasonable, where they are provided. A separate section addressing the negotiations with native communities was prepared by APP and included in the annual report as required for Part 2 of the 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 annual reports. The results of the 2002 IFA are mentioned briefly in two paragraphs in the 2003-2004 annual report. An update on implementation of the action plan is provided in the 2004-2005 annual report, which is the Year 10 Annual Report prepared for the APF. Two of the recommendations remained as works-in-progress. The status report explains in detail the progress that has been made in fulfilling the recommendations or how each will be fulfilled in future planning undertakings.

3.6.3 Report of Past Forest Operations (Year 10 Annual Report) The 2004-2005 annual report for the APF was prepared by the AFA in accordance with phase-in provisions of the 2004 FMPM and includes the Year 10 Annual Report requirements.



The AFA met all of the FMPM transitional requirements by completing all of the required tables. The introductory text of the Year 10 Annual Report helpfully describes the applicable phase-in requirements and the tables that were prepared for the report. These tables have been completed as fully as possible. In some cases, not all data elements were available, due mainly to past reporting limitations. In other cases, the AFA attempted to complete tables by interpolation. For example, although areas sampled for regeneration success did not have a silviculture treatment package designation (i.e., these areas were treated at a time that pre-dated the requirement to record silviculture prescriptions by stand), the AFA tried to fulfill the requirements by interpolating the present equivalent silviculture treatment package based on stand treatment records and the overstory. Comparisons between the annual report tables and the Year 10 Annual Report tables found that the Year 10 Annual Report tables were accurate. The Year 10 Annual Report offers comprehensive comparisons between planned and actual levels of operations. The Year 10 analysis and summary is presented as a separate section in the annual report (Section 3.0, starting on page 20). However, comments and analysis pertaining to five-year achievements and trends are scattered throughout other sections of the report as well. Explanations for the deviations from planned levels were reasonable and usually included sufficient detail. The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the data, rational explanations for deviations of planned versus actual results, and recommendations for taking corrective action. The section dealing with achievement of management objectives is very comprehensive. Each objective from the 2000 FMP, and the targets and strategies associated with them, are listed and evaluated under each criterion of the five forest sustainability indicators (i.e., biodiversity, forest condition and ecosystem productivity, multiple benefits to society, soil and water conservation, and accepting society’s responsibility for sustainable development). This section is well done and provides an informative synopsis of forest management achievements during the 2000-2005 period. Section 3.3 of the Year 10 Annual Report contains a review of the assumptions that were applied to the SFMM used for the 2000-2020 FMP. Significant changes that were made during the wood supply modeling for the 2005-2025 FMP were described. Comparisons of planned versus actual harvest volumes, and discussions of issues related to this aspect of managing the APF, are found in Section 2.2 of the Year 10 Annual Report. The text indicates that actual volumes harvested during the 2000-2005 period exceeded planned volumes. Total volume harvested over the five-year period was 2,707,146 m3, compared to a planned volume of 2,337,782 m3, which translates to 16% above the forecast. Strong markets were listed as the reason for the overachievements. Deliveries to six of the twelve mills with timber supply commitments from the APF surpassed planned volumes (from 103% to McRae Mills Ltd. to 285% to Grant Forest Products). Overall, timber supply commitments were met, with 109% of the planned volumes being delivered (2,441,777 m3). However, variations were experienced among



the mills with commitments. An additional 607,759 m3 were delivered to 26 other mills on the open market over the five-year period. The Year 10 Annual Report includes a useful discussion on emerging trends and issues in terms of harvest volumes. The difference between planned (51 m3/ha) and actual (66 m3/ha) harvest yields is raised. As a result of this deviation, a recommendation to re-examine yield curves during preparation of the 2010 FMP is included. Size and frequency of forest disturbances are presented. The text indicates that the methods used to determine disturbance size under the 2000 FMP differ from those used in the 2005 FMP. Therefore, the projected plan end and template percent values calculated in 2000 may not reflect the values that would have been calculated using the 2005 methodology. Progress is being made toward achieving the natural disturbance size and frequency targets, although movement is very gradual. For example, the template percent disturbance in the 0-130 size class is 16%, whereas the actual-to-date achievement is 95%. However, this is progress from the 100% percent measured in this size class at the start of the plan period (2000). The 2005 target for the 0-130 size class was 86%. The sluggish movement toward the template is partly attributed to changes in harvesting prescriptions, where stands originally slated for clearcutting were partially harvested instead. The Year 10 Annual Report also discusses renewal and tending activities, the success of silviculture and regeneration treatments, , related expenditures, silviculture effectiveness, and harvest/regeneration trends. Renewal and tending activities during the 2000-05 period did not reach forecasted levels, primarily due to the shortfall in harvest area over the same period. Total regeneration levels were 65% of planned levels, with natural regeneration achieving 64% of planned levels and artificial regeneration reaching 89% of planned levels. The shortfall in artificial regeneration is attributed to under harvesting in the white pine forest unit. Total tending achieved 54% of predicted levels, however, there was considerable variation among treatment types. For example, improvement cutting in even-aged stands was well above planned levels (161%), while there was a shortfall in improvement cutting in uneven aged stands (51% of planned level) due to under harvesting in the hardwood selection forest units. The report shows that overall silviculture success (treated forest units renewing to the intended forest unit) was 69%, while regeneration success (treated forest units renewing to any acceptable forest unit standard) was gauged to be 79%. Silviculture and regeneration success varies considerably among the forest units. The effectiveness of two forest unit treatments, hemlock uniform shelterwood and red pine seed tree, is discussed. These forest units are sufficiently regenerated, but require additional time to reach the FTG height requirements. The report also points out that the AFA conducts its FTG assessments ten years after the renewal treatment which is, in many cases, shorter



than the expected period when regeneration is anticipated to reach FTG standards. This is particularly the case for naturally renewed stands, the dominant form of renewal on the APF. The AFA conducts the assessments at an early stage in order to prescribe re-treatments, if needed. The AFA provides an overall conclusion that silviculture treatments in APP have been effective at renewing sites to the desired forest units, while recognizing that their records are available only as far back as 1995. This conclusion is reasonable, given the data limitations. Analysis and discussion of the harvest and regeneration trends table focuses primarily on the collection and compilation of the data and cautionary notes regarding limitations in interpreting the data presented. The harvest and regeneration trend results can only be analyzed back to 1985 since harvest data collected prior to that time were not compiled to the same standards used since 1985. Forest unit information was estimated for some stands, since forest unit specifications have changed over time. Also, information for shelterwood stands harvested during the 1985-1989 period may not have been properly classified. Another cautionary note suggests that the harvest area may not necessarily coincide geographically with the renewal treatment area. Despite these shortcomings, the AFA should be commended for attempting to provide this information as completely as possible. There are a number of conclusions and recommendations found throughout the text of the Year 10 Annual Report. A summary and evaluation of the operations that took place during the 2000-2005 period are presented. Summary, analysis, and evaluation statements directed toward the 2000-2005 FMP are also found in earlier sections of the report. The Year 10 Annual Report analyzes the five criteria for measuring forest sustainability (i.e., biodiversity, forest condition and ecosystem productivity, multiple benefits to society, soil and water conservation, and accepting society's responsibility for sustainable development) by examining the status of their indicators. For example, landscape pattern and forest diversity indices are analyzed to assess the maintenance of biodiversity. Overall, the AFA has made a good effort to assess how well their operations are achieving forest sustainability. Progress on fulfilling the recommendations from the 2002 IFA report are described in the report in broad terms. The only detailed discussion relates to one recommendation that has not been entirely fulfilled. Some recommendations have been incorporated in the 2005 FMP, while others will be implemented in the 2010 FMP. All 12 of the recommendations that were made in the Year 10 Annual Report are listed in section 5. There is ample evidence that the conclusions and recommendations in the report have been incorporated in the 2005 FMP planning process or are envisioned to be incorporated in the 2010 FMP planning process. Five of the recommendations are expected to be implemented in the 2010 FMP. Others, such as the joint MNR/AFA workshop to resolve compliance issues have already been completed.



3.7 Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability The success of forest management activities must be assessed in terms of meeting the objectives they were designed to achieve. By comparing planned activities with actual levels of achievement, it is possible to judge the success of the management plan in terms of satisfying its objectives. Forest sustainability is the overriding objective of the CFSA. By reviewing planning documents and comparing those to reports and examining trend data provided by OMNR and the AFA, the auditors can attempt to make a judgment on the sustainability of the APF.

3.7.1 Achievement of Management Objectives The AFA has presented common management objectives in both the 2000 and 2005 FMPs, which are:

• forest diversity • social and economic matters • provision of forest cover • silviculture

Each objective has a number of sub-objectives. In the Year 10 Annual Report, the AFA assessed achievement in meeting the objectives and sub-objectives. Table 4 presents an summary of that assessment, including changes made in the sub-objectives in the 2005 FMP and an assessment of accomplishments in the subobjectives as of April 1, 2007. Changes to the subobjectives from the 2000 FMP to the 2005 FMP are in bold in the table.

Table 5. An assessment of achievement of the forest diversity management objectives and subobjectives from the 2000 and 2005 FMP's for the APF.

Sub-Objective

2000 FMP Year 10 Annual

Report Assessment Sub-Objective 2005

FMP Auditor Comment

No change Partial cutting systems protect soil and water conservation by retaining the forest canopy. In addition, fisheries, water quality, and site impact guidelines are used to minimize any damage to the forest floor.

To protect the productive capacity of the soil and water in the management unit.

Auditors inspected 59 harvest operations, reviewed all compliance reports, and spent 16 person days travelling roads and water crossings. No major soil disturbance or water impacts were observed. Minor rutting was noted on fewer than 4% of sites visited. This objective is being met.



Approximately 20% of individual forest types are protected in reserves or wilderness zones. Forest descriptions show progression towards desired future forest condition, but the change is very subtle. Forest units are effectively stable on the landbase and are expected to remain so, given the predominance of the low impact selection and shelterwood silvicultural systems used on this forest. This objective is being met.

To ensure that the current biological diversity of the APF is not significantly changed, and within the limits of silvicultural requirements, is restored to pre-settlement condition.

Forest diversity and landscape indices are being maintained within the bounds of natural variation. Movement towards the desired future forest condition is tracked in Table RPFO -13.

To ensure that the current biological diversity of the APF is not significantly changed and, where desirable and practical, is restored to pre-settlement condition.

No change Total available forest area and timber supply projections show targets will be met into the foreseeable future.

Total available production forest area of white and red pine forest units has increased from 76,286 ha in 2000 to 79,987 in 2005.

Total harvest of red and white pine forest units will not be reduced to a level less than what exists in the benchmark year of 2000 (78,829 ha).

Progress is being made towards the old growth objective of 25% of the red and white pine forest. The level in old growth red and white pine forest increased 11% from 2000-2005.

No change This objective will be met. The age class distribution of the white pine forest shows 73% of the area is currently over 100 years old and 18% is over 120 years old. Baring catastrophic change in the state of the APF, this objective will be fully satisfied within 10 years.

Achieve 25% of the red and white pine forest in old growth (120 years +) on the Algonquin landscape.

To ensure silvicultural systems more closely emulate natural processes, some dominant and codominant white pine, red pine, and hemlock will be retained in clearcuts and final

An average of 16 dominant white and red pine trees per ha are retained in clearcuts and final shelterwood cuts. An average of 16 dominant hemlock trees are retained in hemlock final removal cuts.

No change The objective is addressed indirectly by a management strategy committing to implement the NDPEG and tree marking guidelines. Site inspections confirmed residual structure in all harvested stands is meeting or exceeding



shelterwood removal cuts.

the 16 trees per ha target. This objective is being met.

A reliance on natural regeneration is the primary strategy for meeting this objective. In addition, all seed used for planted stock is obtained from seed zone 29 (APP) and there is no use of exotic species in the reforestation or rehabilitation program.

No change The reliance on natural regeneration (96% of the program) and the use of local seed for planted stock ensure the genetic diversity of trees on the APF will remain intact. The AFA does not use non-native seed to rehabilitate landings, ensuring no exotic plant species are introduced. This objective is being met.

Forest management practices will maintain genetic diversity within tree species native to the unit.

The 2002 IFA noted a weakness in protecting the cultural values at Egan’s farm. Work has been done to identify and protect cultural and heritage values.

This sub-objective was moved to the Social and Economic Matters objective in the 2005 FMP and wording was added about reducing opportunities for long term public access to significant APP values.

The NRVIS process has improved over the period of the audit, ensuring identified values are incorporated expeditiously into operations. The auditors visited and confirmed three sites where staff had indicated heritage sites had been protected during operations. Efforts to satisfy this objective are ongoing, but clear progress is evident.

To protect natural and cultural heritage values found on the unit.

Maintain a minimum of 1,750 ha of jack pine forest unit in the available forest over the next 100 years.

The 2005 FMP contains a strategy (xii) to actively manage jack pine and other scarce forest types to ensure they remain on the landscape. Auditors viewed all jack pine harvests that have occurred over the audit term and found that the operations implemented will ensure the return of the sites to jack pine. The objective will have an ongoing target. Progress is evident. The objective will be met if



current practices are maintained.

Maintain a minimum of 12,000 ha of intolerant forest unit area in the available forest over the next 100 years

The 2005 FMP contains a strategy (xii) to actively manage jack pine and other scarce forest types to ensure they remain on the landscape. Auditors viewed all intolerant forest harvest and found the operations implemented that will ensure the return of the sites to intolerant hardwoods. The improvement in the markets for these species adds incentive to satisfy this objective. The objective will have an ongoing target. Progress is evident. The objective will be met if current practices are maintained.

Table 6. An assessment of achievement of the social and economic management objectives and subobjectives for the 2000 and 2005 FMPs for the APF.

Sub Objective -2000 FMP

Year 10 Annual Report Assessment

Sub-Objective 2005 FMP

Auditor Comment

To maintain the ecological productive capacity of the forest in order to provide society with a sustainable harvest of forest-based material and social values.

The ecological and productive capacity of the forest is being maintained as discussed in Objective 1. “Partial cutting systems protect soil and water conservation by retaining forest canopy. In addition, fisheries, water quality and site impact guidelines are used to minimize any damage to the forest floor”.

No change As noted in Objective 1. “Auditors inspected 59 harvest operations, reviewed all compliance reports and spent 16 person days travelling roads and water crossings. No major soil disturbance or water impacts were observed. Minor rutting was noted on fewer than 4% of sites visited.” Additionally, the 2005 FMP commits to protecting aquatic



values by implementing AOC prescriptions, applying AFA’s site impact guidelines to minimize the effects of rutting and ensure silvicultural systems emulate natural disturbance patterns. This objective is being met.

To effectively utilize the range of products that the forest will sustainably yield in a safe and efficient manner.

Table AR 4 confirms that the range of products that the forest can produce sustainably is being utilized. Merchandizing tree length wood helps. Lost time days per 1000 m3 of wood harvested have been reduced from 0.49 during the 1990-95 term to .32 during the 2000-2005 term and .37 during the current term.

No change Harvested products are being marketed and utilized. Interviews with all mills that have volume commitments with the AFA confirmed that they expect to continue to fully utilize products, although all confirmed market conditions were currently negative. The AFA has consistently not harvested all of its planned area, suggesting increased product capacity is available. Staff have indicted this will be reviewed once a new inventory has confirmed expected growth and yield rates. Until then, the AFA has implemented a precautionary approach. This is sensible in a forest made up of relatively long-lived species. Interviews with loggers confirmed a high degree of awareness of the requirements for safe operations and emergency response. This objective is being met.

The 100 year objective is to

The planned target for white pine and red

The 100 year objective is to annually produce

The 2005 Annual Report confirms that



110,000 m3 or more of white and red pine sawlogs in each of the ten-year terms, 70,000 m3 of white birch hardwood sawlogs in each of the first five ten-year terms, and 16,700 m3 of red pine poles in five or more terms.

harvest volume targets exceeded those stated in this objective, but were slightly below the targets set in the FMP. Market conditions at the time of the audit suggest the volume utilized will drop.

annually produce 110,000 m3 or more of white and red pine sawlogs in each of the ten-year terms, 70,000 m3 of hardwood sawlogs in each of the first five ten-year terms, and 10,000 m3 of red pine poles in five or more terms.

pine sawlogs, white pine poles and hardwood sawlogs was exceeded (Table AR-4). Annual production of white pine and red pine sawlogs was 113,252 m3. Production of hardwood sawlogs was 75,998 m3 and red pine pole production was 14,755m3. The value added economic contribution to the provincial and local economies for the 2000-2005 plan term was $113,486,335. as determined by the SEIM model. Future comparisons will be done in successive Year 10 Annual reports.

Maintain or enhance the value added that harvesting in AlPPark contributes to the provincial and local economies as determined by the selected management alternative at five year intervals. Baseline value is $110,280,576 for the 2005-2010 term.

No effort was made to confirm the current value-added contribution. As noted , the SEIM model will provide comparative information for the Year 10 Annual Report. However, given that the AFA exceeded its harvest volume targets, it would be reasonable to assume that the target was met in 2006, and the objective was met over the term of the audit.

Maintain or enhance the value added that harvesting in APPcontributes to the provincial and local economies as determined by the selected management alternative at five- year intervals. Baseline value is $71,148,047 for the 2000-2005 term.

Identify and implement ways of achieving more equal participation by aboriginal peoples in the benefits provided through forest management planning.

Section 3.5.5.1 of the Year 10 Annual Report details efforts made to improve aboriginal involvement in forest management activities on the APF. A memorandum of understanding was signed between three aboriginal communities, the AFA, and Ontario Parks. Work opportunities were provided in tree marking, road construction and maintenance, logging,

No change The auditors did not confirm the total value of contacts for 2006, but visited 14 sites that were logged by aboriginal companies. All First Nations with an identified interest in the APF were interviewed. It was clear that opportunities were being created and used. Progress on this sub-objective was evident. As with several other sub objectives, no final target has been identified. However, the progress is



tending and tree growing. The value of the work totalled $1.2. million in 2001, $1.4 million in 2002, $4.2 million in 2004 ,and $3.3 million in 2005.

sufficient to confirm that the intent of the sub-objective is being met.

- Maintain APP aesthetics in order to contribute to the recreational and wilderness experience of park visitors.

This is maintained largely through park zoning, the use of the partial cutting system, and through the implementation of the AOC prescriptions.

No change The auditors confirmed the evidence listed in the Year 10 Annual Report. Interviews with APP staff, a review of complaints logs, and interviews with dozens of APP visitors during Loggers Day confirm forest management is not having a negative impact on APP aesthetics from a client perspective. An flight conducted during the audit provided a view of a largely uninterrupted forest cover. This objective is being met.

The 2002 IFA noted a weakness in protecting the cultural values at Egan’s farm. Work has been done to identify and protect cultural and heritage values.

To protect natural and cultural heritage values found on the unit. (Moved to this objective from Forest Diversity objective in the 2005 FMP)

Evidence gathered during the 2005 IFA showed a high degree of awareness among AFA and APP staff and contractors of natural and cultural values. Current AOCs are being applied with rigor, and new findings by field and logging staff have been reported and efficiently entered into the NRVIS database, followed by revisions to the AWS where required. This objective is being met.

Table 7. An assessment of the achievement of the provisoin of forest cover management objectives and subobjectives from the 2000 and 2005 FMPs for the APF.



Sub Objective -

2000 FMP Year 10 AR Assessment


Auditor Comment

To plan and implement forest management activities to protect and maintain the natural values dependent on forest cover, while achieving sustainable use of forest resources and maintaining overall forest sustainability.

The continued implementation of silvicultural, wildlife, and fisheries guidelines in forest planning and operations ensures the protection and maintenance of the natural values dependent of forest cover.

No change The audit confirmed that silviculture, fisheries, wildlife, and landscape guides are being implemented on the APF. This objective is being met.

Maintain preferred habitat for all selected wildlife species above lower bound of natural sustainability for the first 100 years during the SFMM modelling process. Targets are to maintain preferred habitat in excess of the following:

Maintain preferred habitat for selected wildlife species above the level of sustainability for the first 100 years during the modelling process. Targets are to maintain preferred habitat in excess of the following:

• pileated woodpecker - 200,248ha

• pine marten - 226,324 ha

• moose -winter habitat- 88,310 ha

• white throated sparrow - 6,331 ha

Achievement of preferred habitat for the selected wildlife species is demonstrated through SFMM at the time of FMP preparation. Table RPFO 16 confirms habitat for pileated woodpecker and pine marten is being maintained above the FMP target levels throughout the first 100 years. Changes in the SFMM wildlife habitat matrix resulted in changes for both moose winter habitat and white throated sparrow habitat.

• Deer wintering habitat – to mimic natural levels over time

• moose winter habitat- > 45,000 ha

• white throated sparrow > 39,000 ha

SFMM modelling done for the 2005 FMP projects that preferred habitat requirements will meet the prescribed targets. A recommendation has been made to review the current output of the SFMM model for selected management species. With this noted, the objective in being otherwise met..

Maintain preferred habitat for pileated woodpecker at the level as determined by the selected management alternative in SFMM for the first

Achievement of preferred habitat for the selected wildlife species is demonstrated through SFMM at the time of FMP preparation. Table RPFO 16

- Maintain preferred habitat (spatial habitat from OWHAM) for pileated woodpeckers > 225,933 ha for the first five-year term.

Strategies in the 2005 FMP state that implementation will create a diversity of habitat at a variety of scales within the bounds of natural variation for each



five-year term. confirms habitat for pileated woodpecker and pine marten is being maintained above the FMP target levels throughout the first 100 years.

species. Model runs conducted based on the selected management indicate this objective is being met. Given the uninterrupted habitat that results from most of the forest operations on the APF, this objective is being met.

No net loss of preferred habitat for red shouldered hawk for the first five-year term (9,289 ha)

The 2005 FMP indicates the area of preferred habitat will increase by 0.91% over the five-year period of the plan. This objective is being met.

Maintain and improve habitat for wolf prey species, specifically moose and beaver throughout the Park, and deer south of Highway 60 and east of the Rolphton-Minden hydro line.

The FMP plans to implement the AOC for beaver habitat in order to meet this objective. OWAM and SFMM projections show moose winter habitat will be maintained. Staff of the AFA suggested beaver was soon to be a nuisance pest near road-accessed campground and logging areas. The objective is being met.

To ensure protection of recreational values.

Strategies such as the separation of forestry activities and recreation by “time and space” and the use of partial cutting systems have proven successful in minimizing impacts on recreationists. Protection of values important to society is paramount during the planning process. The AFA posts a harvest schedule map

No change The operating rules, AOC prescriptions, and care taken to avoid noise and viewscape disturbances during peak recreational periods all speak to efforts made to address this subobjective. The audit team inspected 69 implemented AOC prescriptions and found compliance to be exceptionally high.



on its internet site to assist recreationists in planning.

This sub-objective is being met.

Table 8. An assessment of achievement of the silviculture management objectives and subobjectives for the 2000 and 2005 FMPs for the APF.

Sub Objective -2000 FMP


Auditor Comment

To manage and upgrade the quality of the forest to insure the long-term needs of local industry while maintaining forest health, diversity of species, and ecosystem integrity.

Improvement in markets and harvest of pulpwood have allowed for upgrading of the forest by removing low quality pulp. Tree marking focuses on marking the poorest quality tree in order to leave a better forest behind. Full stand improvement is being completed on all selection harvest areas.

No change The auditors viewed a consistent bias in harvesting towards removing poor quality trees. It is highly likely that the next harvest of all sites visited will draw a timber product that is equal to, or higher than, the product being removed on the last harvest. This sub-objective is being met.

To ensure silviculture revenue exceeds expenditures for all terms.

Expenditures exceeded revenues by $1,089,000 over the five-year term. This is consistent with the AFA strategy of drawing down the renewal fund surplus.

No change The renewal fund balance has exceeded the minimum required by $800,000-$1,300,000 each year of the audit period. That is likely to be reduced during the current market slump. The sub-objective is currently being met.



3.7.2 Review of the Year 10 Annual Report Assessment of Sustainability The AFA was required to complete an assessment of sustainability in its Year 10 Annual Report, as directed in the 2004 FMPM. The assessment addressed the five criteria which are used to measure forest sustainability. There are a number of measurable indicators associated with each of these criteria that the APF can monitor. However, according to the phase-in requirements in the 2004 FMPM, license holders are not required to assemble the data for reporting these indicators until after 2007. There are seven tables containing data for the measurable indicators (i.e., Tables RPFO-13 through RPFO-18) that have to be completed when the Year 10 Annual Report (or Report of Past Forest Operations) is prepared. These tables have been completed to the extent that is reasonably possible. Biodiversity Operational practice on the APF, including the dominant reliance on natural regeneration and silvicultural systems providing continuous canopy on a site specific basis, provides a high level of assurance that there will be uninterrupted opportunities for flora and fauna native to the APF. It is a relatively stable ecosystem. The genetic pool that established the current forest remains available to establish future forests. As well, nature reserves, protected areas, and the zoned wilderness areas in the APP will, by land use designation and applied policy, provide an undisturbed genetic bank of plant and animal species. Two measurable indicators of biodiversity are discussed in the Year 10 Annual Report. The first indicator, landscape patterns and forest diversity indices, predicts patterns and indices over time and measures them against actual findings. Forecasts were determined in the 2000 FMP. Actual numbers were taken from the 2005 FMP. Non-spatial forest diversity indices for forest units, age class, and wildlife habitat units have maintained themselves within the bounds of natural variation. Non-spatial ecosite diversity indices from the SFMM are presented for all ecosites. Ecosite 35 (LHwd) is above the upper bound of natural variation by 240 hectares, which is not a sustainability concern. All other ecosite indices are within the bounds of natural variation. The second indicator is the frequency distribution of clearcut and wildfire sizes. The actual disturbance frequency by size class is moving toward the natural disturbance pattern as defined in the 2000 FMP. This will be achieved by migrating to larger clearcuts over time. The average size of clear cuts during the 1995-2000 period was 10 hectares. This increased to 221 hectares during the 2000-2005 term. Forest Condition and Ecosystem Productivity This criterion is measured by two indicators: net primary productivity and total productive crown forest area.



Table RPFO-17 reports the net primary productivity value for the rate of carbon storage in the APF. The value presented (5,951 kg C/ha/yr) is a sub-regional value determined by the Ontario Forest Research Institute. There is not comparative data that would allow assessment over time. Water yield is also used as a measure of net primary productivity. It is assessed by the change in the percentage of productive forest area within second order stream watersheds, which have been clearcut or burned over the last ten years. The area depleted by fires or clearcut is less than 1% of the watershed area (0.72%). This is not a level that will threaten water yield in a measurable manner. Total productive crown forest remains the same between the 2000 FMP and 2005 FMP. A virtual difference of 5,392 ha is attributed to a change in geographic information system technology. Multiple Benefits to Society This section of the report outline progress against four indicators, managed crown forest available for timber production, available harvest area utilized, habitat for selected wildlife species, and value added. The managed crown forest available for timber production shows an increase of 7,041 ha from 2000 to 2005. This is attributed to the accounting of barren and scattered areas, changes in the geographic information systems and changes in the digital APP boundaries. The forest available for production is effectively stable. Decreases are projected over time due to losses to reserves, roads, and landings. In total, the production area of the APF has decreased 6% from 1980 to 2005. The decrease is largely due to the creation of new nature reserves and wilderness-zoned area. There was 66% of the available harvest area utilized at the end of the 2005 term. This is an increase over the 50% harvested during the 1995-2000 term. New markets for hardwood pulp allowed total volume harvested to meet targets as higher yield per ha was realized. The habitat for selected wildlife species is documented in Table RPFO-16. Predicted habitat levels for all selected species fall within the bounds of natural variation. The selected management alternative in the 2005 FMP does not threaten the availability of preferred habitat for these species. The APF contributes an estimated $155.5 million value added to the Ontario economy, based on an average annual harvest of 540,000 m3.



Soil and Water Conservation Soil and water conservation were measured by the ratio of riparian reserves to length of shoreline. This was not a requirement for the 1995-2000 term, but an analysis on two operating units showed tolerant hardwood forests had a ratio of 3.2 ha of reserve per km of shoreline and a pine poplar forest had a ratio of 3.3. Other analysis done for the 2000- 2005 FMP showed ratios of 4.3 for hardwood and 3.4 for pine/poplar. The report indicates the ratio is not decreasing over time. Accepting Society’s Responsibilities for Sustainable Development The Year 10 Annual Report documents required indicators showing the number of native communities involved in forest management planning, the LCC’s evaluation of its own performance, and the percent of the silviculture budget required that is actually received. None of the native communities participated in the special native consultation process for any of the three most recent FMPs. One community sat on the planning team for the 2000 FMP and three communities were on the planning team for the 2005 FMP. This finding is supported by the observations of the auditors that First Nations are actively, effectively, and increasingly more involved with both the AFA and APP. The LCC is functioning at a high level. It reports a self evaluation rating of 8.1 out of 10. As noted elsewhere in this report, the LCC is well-educated, skilled, and engaged. Silviculture funding was in a surplus throughout the audit period. The Renewal Trust Fund was about $1.3 million above the required minimum balance. This completely met the funding requirements of the silviculture program. Conclusion The Year 10 Annual Report offers the following general conclusions:

- productive forest landbase is remaining stable - renewal treatments are effective - silviculture funding is more than adequate - volumes harvested in APP are making important contributions to local

economies - wildlife habitat is being maintained

The audit team supports these conclusions. The Year 10 Annual Report did a thorough assessment of sustainability and met all requirements of the 2004 FMPM.



3.7.3 Review of Comparison and Trend Analysis of Planned Versus Actual Forest Operations

As part of the requirements for the IFA process, the AFA has collated information from the current and previous two planning periods (1990-2005 inclusive) for the APF in order to provide trend information on forest sustainability. The trend analysis report submitted by the AFA was received in good order and provided reasons and rationale for the trends. The auditors used this report and the annual reports produced during the audit term to analyze sustainability. The APF had a slight increase of 1,734 ha (0.3%) in total managed production forest area over the 10-year period considered. The net change is attributed to a new geographic information system with improved area calculations and subsequent redefinition of digital APP boundaries. Changes in forest composition were subtle. Stands dominated by white pine, cedar and spruce increased by approximately 10% while red pine increased by 20%. Birch, balsam fir , maple, and hemlock stands changed by less than 5%. Jack pine and poplar stands decreased by four to ten percent. These subtle changes are consistent with the management objective of maintaining biological diversity over time. Forest units describe how forest stands are categorized for management purposes. Table 2 in the trend analysis describes the forest units that were used for the 1990-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000-2005 planning terms. There are currently twelve forest units. Changes in forest unit definition reflect a variety of circumstances. For example, red and white pine were separated beginning in the 1995 term when red pine was no longer managed under the shelterwood system. The amount of inventoried red pine required for the red pine forest unit was reduced from 70% to 60% in 1995. The hemlock forest unit was changed in the 2005 FMP from a uniform shelterwood to a selection forest unit in order to promote the establishment and recruitment of the new forest into the forest canopy. Planned versus actual harvest volumes are detailed for each of the three planning terms in Table 3 of the trends analysis. Harvested volume was 105% of that planned for the 1990-1995 term, 87% for the 1995-2000 term, and 84% for the 2000-2005 term. There have been significant increases in both the planned and actual volume harvested over the last 15 years. In the 1995 term, 409,000 m3 were harvested. The volume harvested in the 2000-2005 term averaged 541,000 m3 and is projected to be 677,000 m3 in the 2005- 2010 term. Generally, this increase is driven by improved markets for hardwood pulp. The area harvested on the APF has been less than planned for each of the three planning periods since 1995. Fifty percent of the planned areas were harvested in 1995- 2000, 66% in 2000-2005, and 63% in the one year sample from the 2005-2010 period. There is an apparent discrepancy in the volume and area harvested on the APF. This is quantified in the 2000-2005 period when yield per hectare was almost 30% higher than predicted (66 m3/ha actual versus 51 m3/ha planned). The trends analysis acknowledges



that yield estimates in a partial cutting system are difficult due to the impact of tree marking. It also states that volume estimates have been improved principally through use of the SFMM. It is commendable, to a point, that the AFA has taken a conservative approach to harvest, leaving in excess of 30% of the planned area untouched for the last ten years. However, by leaving this area, the important economic, social, and environmental benefits of forest harvesting are foregone. The AFA is encouraged to explore options for meeting its area harvest targets. Suggestion 8: The AFA should explore markets and methods that would more fully utilize sustainable harvest area and volume. The trend analysis shows, as might be expected, that forest regeneration was closely related to harvest activity. In perfect conditions, every hectare harvested should be followed by a documented effort to regenerate that area and, in a naturally regenerating hardwood forest, this outcome is virtually guaranteed. Table 4 of the trend analysis shows the total area harvested during the 1995-2006 period averaged 2.088 ha/yr, while Table 6 of the trend analysis shows the total area regenerated during that period, including naturally and artificially regenerated areas, averaged 1,770 ha/yr. The apparent shortfall is mainly because some harvest areas (e.g., shelterwood removal cuts) are already regenerated). The area on the APF categorized as barren and scattered has been reduced by about 50 ha over the 2000-2005 period but, at its greatest, amounted to just over 2% of the production forest.

3.7.4 Achievement of Forest Sustainability The CFSA defines its purpose as “to provide for the sustainability of Crown forests and in accordance with that objective, to meet social, economic and environmental needs of present and future generations.” It further states that determination of sustainability shall be consistent with two principles. They are:

• large healthy diverse and productive Crown forests and their associated

ecological processes and biological diversity shall be conserved, and; • the long-term health and vigour of Crown forests should be provided for by

using forest practices, that within the limits of silvicultural requirements, emulate natural disturbances and landscape patterns while minimizing adverse effects on plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values, including recreational values and heritage values.

This audit, as directed by the IFAPP, puts great weight on the assessment of the planning and performance of activities relating to timber extraction and how it influences the environment. The audit team has concluded that these activities are being conducted as planned, and the forest environment is responding as predicted. Timber extraction is completed in a manner that supports the sustainability of the environment on the APF.



Evidence to support these statements starts with an assessment of impacts on the soil. Road construction has the greatest impact on soils. The act of building a road results in complete removal of topsoil, compaction of the surface and subsurface layers, and the creation of a site that supports greatly retarded and modified vegetation. The impacts are obviously greatest on primary roads, diminish as the roads become less permanent, and are barely detectable on winter-access-only roads or on block skid trails. Given that roads provide the only realistic access to timber and that their impacts are, therefore, accepted as a matter of realizing the economic benefits associated with timber extraction, it is reasonable to assume planning roads in a careful manner minimizes the impacts. The auditors reviewed access planning on the APF and found it to be very well done. The primary road network on this forest is virtually complete and planning effort is largely focussed on maintaining or modifying the network in a manner that optimizes timber extraction with other park activities. The actual location of roads directly benefited from an evaluation of potential impacts on fish, wildlife, recreation, and other ecological considerations through the planning process. The audit team concludes that planned roads on this forest are located in a manner that reduces their impacts on the forest environment to an acceptable level. It is noted that a recommendation has been made to complete strategic access planning for the APP. Road construction and maintenance is always an important part of any timber extraction operation and, arguably, is even more important in this ecosystem that requires repeated re-entry to extract timber but is also a highly valued recreational destination. The audit team spent a total of 16 person days driving the forest roads of APP. Roads in the APF are narrower than found elsewhere in the province. They are well built, with the obvious expectation of repeated use. The ecological footprint is likely permanent for most secondary roads in the park. However, the silviculture system that applies to most of this forest demands reuse of roads into most stands on a regular 15 to 25 year interval. These well built roads will mitigate future needs to create new ecological footprints, and mitigate future timber extraction costs. Road construction and maintenance in APP inevitably means crossing streams and rivers. Well constructed and maintained roads minimize input of sediment to streams. The audit team inspected 17 water crossings or water crossing removals and reviewed compliance reports from the five-year period of the audit. The slopes leading to the crossings were well planned and managed. There will be some input of sediment to streams over time, but, on the crossings inspected, the opportunity for sedimentation was acceptably low. Water crossing removals had been bermed, sloped, and re-vegetated. Water crossings themselves, both culverts and bridges, were well constructed. The use of portable bridges on this forest has increased over the period of the audit. These bridges are a significant improvement over culverts or permanent bridges, and provide the triple benefit of efficient installation and removal, significantly reduced potential for environmental damage, and an effective means to manage unauthorized access where required.



Harvest operations had little visible impact on soil. Rutting, which might be expected in some parts of the APF hardwood areas, was noted on only three site visit forms. This is commendable since auditors normally bias their site inspections towards low-lying areas likely to have sensitive soils. A review of the operating procedures of the AFA confirmed that contractors receive clear direction on acceptable limits for site disturbance. The impacts of harvesting on water quality were assessed at both water crossings and on harvest sites adjacent to aquatic habitat. Comments on water crossings are noted above. Operations adjacent to aquatic habitats were consistently within practice standards established for operations in riparian zones. The audit team made a recommendation to develop a protocol for aggregate pit development in brook trout stream headwaters. The audit team walked through the riparian vegetation to the high water mark on 13 sites to assess the integrity of the protection provided to the riparian zones. In all cases, the streams were left with sufficient vegetation to mitigate potential erosion from harvest sites and to provide shade to the streams to diminish changes in water temperature. The recovery of vegetation following timber harvest is well documented through normal operational records. The forest types harvested on the APF have evolved through a history of natural disturbances and are naturally resilient. All hardwood sites inspected that had been prescribed for natural regeneration were growing back as expected. Planted sites that were growing softwood and depending on tending treatment had sufficient hardwood, shrub, and forbs to maintain vegetative diversity. Red pine seed tree treatments showed variability in success, from inadequate regeneration to exemplary success. The failed sites have been scheduled for site preparation and planting in the next operating year. The park biologist for the APF spent a significant amount of time with the audit team and wildlife management was thoroughly discussed. Timber harvest planning in Ontario is nested within a forest management framework and, as such, all proposed harvest areas are evaluated spatially and temporally to assess impacts on wildlife habitat. The spatial analysis tests for the provision of suitable habitat for moose, wetland and terrestrial furbearers, marten, black bear, heron, raptors, songbirds, and the pileated woodpecker. These species have effectively been used as indicators for other species that occupy similar habitat on the forest. Harvest is managed so that there is sufficient habitat on the APF for each of these species for a planned period of 100 years. Sufficiency has been defined by OMNR as provision of habitat area within 20% of the bounds of normal variation. This approach assumes that if suitable habitat is provided on a continuous basis, populations of species will occupy that habitat continuously. In that sense, current operations and planned operations on the APF will provide a continuous and predictable supply of habitat on the forest in a sustainable manner and, therefore, ensure a continuous population of species on the APF.



Algonquin Provincial Park and the AFA have done some effective and creative work to ensure survival of the wood turtle. Seasonal speed bumps near turtle nest sites were practical and effective. The creation of turtle nest sites goes well beyond a normal requirement to simply identify and buffer preferred habitat. Landscape level assessments on the APF are done at the forest planning stage and consider two indicators. The percentage of productive forest area disturbed within second order stream watersheds is less than 1%. Net primary productivity was not measurably changed through the planning period. In summary, the ecological components of the APF, which are most likely to be influenced by forest operations, are being managed in a sustainable manner. The audit team is confident that the APF, if managed as currently planned, will be maintained for the benefit of future generations as proclaimed in the CFSA. The CFSA also speaks to sustainable social and economic benefits from the forest. The premise of the audit team is that if the structural integrity of the forest is sustained, the opportunity for social benefit will be maintained as well. Discussions during the audit with First Nation peoples, recreationists and others clearly indicated that the APF is most commonly used for reasons other than timber extraction. Algonquin Provincial Park, the AFA, and regional First Nations have made significant progress in confirming the cultural values the APP has for Aboriginal people and in creating real economic opportunity for native communities in the area. Algonquin Provincial Park may be the most valuable publically-owned natural resource in Ontario. This is a statement of economics; the combined value added contributions to Ontario’s economy of timber extraction and recreational operations in APP conservatively totals about $180 million annually. The audit team appreciates that the value of APP, as measured by most Ontario citizens, has little to do with economics. The APF is managed sustainably and in a manner that will ensure ecological sustainability over the foreseeable future. The APF will remain a base from which social, environmental, and economic benefits can be generated into the foreseeable future.

3.8 Contractual Obligations The APF is currently managed under the terms of the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement # 551047, which was most recently approved April 14, 2005. The Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement has a number of contractual obligations that must be fulfilled. This section reviews the AFA’s success in meeting their obligations. The 2002 IFA report for the APF included 26 recommendations directed at the AFA and OMNR. The action plan developed in response to the audit was approved on December 9, 2003. The audit team found compliance with the required procedures after the tabling



of that audit report. The action plan was endorsed by the Regional Director and approved by both OMNR’s Assistant Deputy Minister, Forests Division and OMNR’s Assistant Deputy Minister, Field Services Division. According to the status report, and the evidence reviewed in this audit, the AFA and APP have acted upon the recommendations and action plan items from the 2002 IFA. It is clear that the AFA and APP have addressed most of the audit recommendations in an effective manner. One recommendation is repeated in this audit. Algonquin Provincial Park should lead and complete a review with the AFA and the LCC of the existing roads strategy. The recommendation to complete a roads strategy for APP was addressed but the effort stopped as APP waited for the outcome of a report from the Ontario Parks Advisory Committee to on how to lighten the ecological footprint of logging in the Park. Roads are a key element in the future of APP. It should be clear to all interested parties what purpose a road is intended to serve, when use is permitted, and who is permitted to use it. Once this strategy has been completed, APP should proceed to develop the educational, regulatory, and operational tools to ensure effective implementation. The last audit recommended that APP increase its capacity to participate in the forest management mandate, as it applies to values collection and compliance monitoring. The audit team was impressed with the effort made by APP to train staff and allocate responsibilities to upgrade their performance. The AFA is working to return the strip cuts to a natural forest condition as recommended. These experimental cuts, conducted 40 years ago, are still visible on the landscape, and are a clear deviation from the landscape patterns that dominate APP. This audit team notes the gradual progress at integrating these sites back to a natural forest condition. Algonquin Provincial Park has an ongoing program to conduct pre-harvest surveys of moose aquatic feeding areas, heron rookeries, and osprey nests. The AFA has made significant progress towards using treelength haul systems, as recommended in the past two audits. Consequently, very few sites and landings with residual logging material left on site were viewed during this audit. Other recommendations addressed administrative issues. For example, the LCC was requested to meet more often, APP was requested to complete a five year compliance plan, tree markers were required to receive better training to recognize cultural heritage artefacts, and the NRVIS system needed to be brought up to date in preparation for the 2005 FMP. All of these have been addressed by the appropriate party. The Trust Fund balance has increased from $ 2.4 million in 2003 to a level of $2.8 million in 2007. The minimum balance is the amount of funds sufficient to perform renewal on the unit. The minimum required for the APF is $1.5 million.



The AFA has satisfied its planning obligations under the terms of its license and their performance in terms of monitoring and reporting has been very strong. The AFA is conducting compliance inspections as proposed in the compliance plans and annual reports are submitted by the required deadlines. The AFA supplies designated volumes of wood to ten wood supply commitment holders. The volume received by each commitment holder is assigned by the Minister of Natural Resources. It is up to the AFA to negotiate with each recipient with respect to delivery timing, quality, and price. Volumes received by commitment holders, based on the year10 annual report, varied from a high of 285% of forecast commitments to a low of 44%. The auditors spoke to representatives from all ten companies. No company commented that they were receiving less volume than desired, and interviews with commitment holders support a general conclusion that the mills are getting the volumes needed. Mill requirements are strongly impacted by the strength of their individual markets and can be expected to vary on an annual basis. In general, most, but not all, of the receiving companies are satisfied with the performance of the AFA. The AFA is not supplying the least or most expensive wood for any party, but there is general comment that the volume management process is a good one. There are current issues with timing of delivery, as most mills have inventory on hand, and the AFA has an interest in earning continued revenue by delivering wood. Given the economic downturn that is dominating the solid wood business as this report is written, these issues will likely continue. However, mills have the option to reject committed wood, and AFA has the option of offering this “rejected” wood to other commitment holders or to the open market. This is a reasonable process for managing harvest volumes generated from the forest. An assessment of the AFA’s performance in meeting its obligations related to compliance monitoring is discussed under Section 3.6 of this report. The AFA has met its obligations in this regard. The AFA scales all wood that is harvested from the forest. Volumes reported in annual reports are those generated by the MNR Timber Scaling and Billing system and the Timber Resources Evaluation system. The AFA maintains its own data set on delivered volume, which, as explained in Appendix A, does a more comprehensive job of differentiating volumes harvested by final product use. As explained, wood destined for sawmills is normally tracked by the MNR system as sawlog volume, whereas the AFA system assigns the volume according to final destination. In the example provided, the portion of a sawlog that is delivered as chips to a pulp mill is reported as pulp product. The AFA maintains this provides a more accurate assessment of ultimate product destination. In any event, the audit team is convinced harvest volume from the AF is scaled and accounted for.



The AFA’s performance in meeting its obligations related to observing the provisions of the SGRs is covered under Sections 3.3.7, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4 of this report. The findings of the audit team confirm that the AFA has met its obligations with respect to this matter. The performance of the AFA in meeting its obligations to prepare the required FMPs, AWSs, and associated reports is covered elsewhere throughout this report. The AFA has met its obligations on this matter in all respects. The AFA’s performance in meeting its obligations related to the assessment of harvested areas is discussed under Section 3.4.2 of this report. The AFA has met its license obligations in this regard. The AFA was compliant with FIM requirements throughout the audit period. Reporting performance is assessed throughout section 3.6. Makwa Community Development Corp. has been a successful harvesting and silvicultural presence on the APF. As noted in Section 3.2.3 of this report, there is a sense of improvement within several Algonquin Communities with the progress in creating economic opportunities in the APF. The AFA has met its contractual obligations in a highly effective manner. The audit team found the AFA’s operating relationships with OMNR, Ontario Parks, LCC, contractors, mills, tourist operators and other stakeholders were positive and progressive. As in the previous audit, the audit team has recommended that the Minister of Natural Resources extend The Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement for an additional five years.

4.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The audit confirms that this is a well-managed forest. Technical aspects of forest management are completed in a highly satisfactory manner. Communication between the various stakeholders on the APF is excellent and relations are professional, positive, and progressive. The AFA is satisfactorily meeting the terms and conditions of its contract. Algonquin Provincial Park is also meeting its overall responsibilities associated with its role in managing this forest. The audit team confirms that, based on the evidence reviewed, management of the APF was in compliance with the legislation, policy, and regulations that were in effect during the 2002-2007 audit term. The APF is being managed sustainably. Given the effective performance in managing all aspects of the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement, the audit team has recommended that the term of agreement be extended for an additional five years. Conclusion: The auditors recommend that the Minister of Natural Resources should extend the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement for the APF for an additional five-year period.



This audit report identifies 11 recommendations and 8 suggestions aimed at improving the management and administration of the APF. Table 4 summarizes the recommendations and suggestions by each broad audit principle.

Table 9. Recommendations and suggestions arising from the audit.. Principle 1: Commitment Principle 2: Public Participation Suggestion 1: The Algonquin Provincial Park and AFA should continue to meet with Algonquin community leaders to report on how they have viewed progress with respect to Condition 34, review contracting procedures and contacts for silvicultural work, and determine if there are Algonquin community members who are ready and able to become more involved in forestry activities in the APF. Suggestion 2: Algonquin Provincial Park and the Algonquin communities should consider pooling funds for a more comprehensive collection of native values information.

. Principle 3: Forest Management Planning Suggestion 3: Prior to the next planning cycle, OMNR needs to provide clear guidance describing legal concepts of the Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, such as ‘ecological integrity’, and how this relates to other legislation such as the CFSA. Recommendation 1: Algonquin Provincial Park shall complete a strategy for managing access roads. The strategy must include input from the AFA and LCC. It should be completed in time to provide guidance for the 2010 FMP. Recommendation 2: The OMNR should review the current output of the SFMM model for selected wildlife species and ensure that the long-term sustainability of those species has been considered by biologists, or is addressed by appropriate field level considerations such as the tree marking guide. Recommendation 3: Ontario parks should try to harmonize future park management planning with operational FMP prescriptions for values at the site and stand level to ensure that new science can be incorporated into AOC prescriptions in the FMP. Recommendation 4: Algonquin Provincial Park should conduct a survey of



unknown streams prior to forest operations to determine thermal regimes and fish community status. Recommendation 5: Algonquin Provincial Park, in consultation with the AFA, should develop a protocol for development of aggregate pits in brook trout headwaters prior to the commencement of the next FMP. Recommendation 6: Algonquin Provincial Park should develop more effective and flexible AOC prescriptions for self sustaining brook trout lakes to ensure measures are effective in protecting ecological values while allowing for operational efficiencies. Recommendation 7: Algonquin Provincial Park should not use the AWS as a planning tool for changing or revising primary access decisions made in the FMP. Principle 4: Plan Implementation Suggestion 4: The Algonquin Provincial Park should make efforts to find a source of native seed mix suitable for use in bank stabilization. Recommendation 8: The Algonquin Provincial Park should attempt to get better information on use patterns in APP and more precise information on enforcement of access restrictions. Suggestion 5: Corporate OMNR should consider reviewing the applicability of the NDPEG to the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Forest by examining actual forest conditions where this guideline has been applied. Consideration should be given to establishing minimum thresholds (e.g., clearcut size percent of total harvest by area under the clearcut system) where certain required elements of the guideline may be relaxed. Recommendation 9: The AFA shall determine if there are more opportunities for applying tending treatments in renewing stands that are high risk and high investment (e.g., plantations) that have not yet been declared FTG. Principle 5: Systems Support Principle 6: Monitoring Suggestion 6: Corporate OMNR should seek ways of improving accuracy and timeliness of the annual reporting tables (i.e., Tables AR-12 and AR-13) generated by FOIP. Recommendation 10: Investigations dealing with non-compliances shall include the joint participation of AFA and APP field staff to accurately and objectively review



and record the factors contributing to the incident and to confirm the performance requirements. Suggestion 7: The Algonquin Provincial Park and the AFA should consider seeking opinions, comments, and suggestions from the LCC on compliance issues that may arise from forestry operations. Recommendation 11: The AFA shall ensure that the level of silviculture assessment monitoring is more closely aligned to the level projected in the approved FMP. Principle 7: Achievement of Management Objectives and Forest Sustainability Suggestion 8: The AFA should explore markets and methods that would more fully utilize sustainable harvest area and volume. Principle 8: Contractual Obligations Conclusions Conclusion: The auditors recommend that the Minister of Natural Resources should extend the Algonquin Park Forestry Agreement for the APF for an additional five-year period.

REFERENCES Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2007. Doing Less with Less:

How Shortfalls in Budget, Staffing and In-House Expertise are Hampering the Effectiveness of MOE and MNR. A Special Report to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 83 pp.

OMNR. 1990. Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings.

Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 65 pp. OMNR. 1996. Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forests.

Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 452 pp. OMNR. 1997. Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of Deer. Toronto:

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 452 pp. OMNR. 1998a. Code of Practice for Timber Management Operations in Riparian Areas.

Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 9 pp.



OMNR. 1998b. Guideline for Forest Industry Compliance Planning. Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources Forest Policy Series. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 13+ pp.

OMNR. September 1991 . Timber Management Guidelines for Protection of Cultural

Heritage Resources. Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Culture and Communications

OMNR. 2000. Significant Wildlife habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch.

151p OMNR. 2001a. Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation,

Version 3.1. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 40 pp. OMNR. 2001b. Forest Information Manual. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 400

pp. OMNR. 2004. Forest Management Planning Manual for Ontario’s Crown Forests.

Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 440 pp. OMNR. 2007Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol. February 2007. Toronto:

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 26 pp + appendices. OMNR. 2007 Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values. Ontario Ministry

of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto:84 p. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. 2003. OMNR’s Class Environmental

Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands In Ontario. Declaration Order June 25, 2003. 48 pp.

Statutes of Ontario. 1994. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Queen’s Printer,

Toronto, Ont. 32 pp. Voigt, D., JD Broadfoot and Baker. 1997 Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White Tailed Deer Habitat. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. OMNR #51076, ISBN 0-7794-2335-6


Algonquin Park Forest 2007 Independent Forest Audit

APPENDIX A – COMPARISON AND TREND ANALYSIS OF PLANNED VS. ACTUAL OPERATIONS Note: Information in this report is appended as submitted by Algonquin Forest Authority.

BioForest Technologies Inc. 88 June 2008

A-1

Introduction

This report describes the Algonquin Forestry Authority’s perspective on the "Comparison and Trend

Analysis Tables" that form part of the 2007 independent forest audit. Data for this analysis has been

summarized from available information from the current 2005-2010 term, as well as the two previous

terms (1995-2000 and 2000-2005). Actual numbers are only available for the first year of the current FMP

term due to the timing of Annual Reports. Forest Management Plans for all of these terms were prepared

and implemented by the Algonquin Forestry Authority. Numbers have been grouped into working group

or forest unit categories, as required, to facilitate the comparison of areas and volumes over the 3

planning periods within the scope of this analysis. Appendix 1 of this report contains the tables discussed

below.

Summary of Total Area Under Management

Table 1 provides a summary of the total area under management for the Algonquin Park forest

management unit. Total production forest area in the recreation/utilization zone has remained stable

between 1995 and 2005. The minor increase in production forest land (0.3%) is attributed to a change

in geographic information systems and the incorporation of a slightly revised digital park boundary with

the 2005 FMP. The 2000 FMP used a SPANS (raster GIS system) with an Albers Equal Area Conic

Projection, and a NAD 27 datum. The 2005 FMP is using an Arc Info (vector GIS system) with a UTM

Projection and a NAD83 datum with seamless data. These improvements in data and systems has

resulted in a more accurate area calculation. The increase in total forested land is also attributed to the

reclassification of some non-forested land to forested land during inventory updates.

The reliance on partial cutting systems and natural regeneration means very little area is classified as

barren and scattered (B&S) after harvest. Barren and scattered area has been reduced with each

successive term in this report. The current level of B&S will remain relatively constant over time as

clearcut and blowdown stands are depleted, become B&S and are then renewed.

Area by working group over this time period has remained relatively constant for most working groups.

This is consistent with the current FMP objective of maintaining biological diversity over time. Analysis

of individual working groups indicate that:

• Area available for poplar is decreasing over time due to natural succession to pine and tolerant

hardwoods;

• Area by working group for white and red pine is increasing over time. This results from the post-

harvest succession of many poplar and white birch stands to pine. Many of these stands are

mixed and are reclassified to other forest units for management (ie. Po4Pw3Pr2Sw1 is classified

as a white pine forest unit and is managed for pine). This trend is also a result of effective natural

and artificial regeneration to maintain these forest units over time;

• Area available for tolerant hardwood and hemlock management is remaining constant.

A-2

Description of Forest Units

Table FMP-8 (Appendix 1) from the 2005-2025 FMP identifies the current forest units in the Algonquin

Park forest, the forest unit criteria and their relationship to FRI working groups. Table 8 from the 2000-

2020 FMP and Table 4.11 from the 1995-2015 TMP have also been included. There are currently 12

forest units in the Algonquin Park forest.

In some instances, forest unit comparisons from one term to the next are difficult, due to changing forest

unit standards from one FMP to the other. Forest Unit changes that have occurred over time are

summarized below:

• The current white and red pine forest units were separated beginning in 1995 with red pine

no longer being managed under the uniform shelterwood system;

• Criteria for the red pine forest unit was revised in 2000 such that red pine had to comprise

only 60% of the stand (reduced from 70% in 1995);

• Mixedwood forest unit (uniform shelterwood) was introduced in 1995. This forest unit

contains primarily mixed poplar and white birch stands that were previously classified under

clearcut forest units;

• The tolerant hardwood forest unit of 1995 was split out into the current selection, hardwood

uniform shelterwood and the red oak forest unit as per the criteria identified in FMP-8;

• The hemlock forest unit was changed in the 2005 FMP from a uniform shelterwood forest

unit to a selection forest unit (HeSEL). This was done to more effectively manage

regeneration and promote its establishment and recruitment into the forest canopy. The

hemlock forest unit has also increased in size due to a 10% lowering of the minimum species

composition of hemlock from 50% to 40%. This was done to more closely resemble the

criteria identified for the regional standard forest units;

• The black spruce forest unit that was part of the spruce (all) forest unit in 1995 and has been

separated out in the 2000 FMP and managed under the clearcut system;

• The old poplar and white birch forest units were combined into one new forest unit in the

2005 FMP called the intolerant clearcut (INTCC) forest unit. These forest units were both

managed under the clearcut silvicultural system and had similar growth and yield

characteristics;

• The other conifer forest unit name was changed to lowland conifer (LCUS) to be consistent

with regional standard forest unit terminology;

• The 2000 FMP SpUS and BfUS forest units were combined into one forest unit in the 2005

FMP - the Spruce-Fir uniform shelterwood forest unit (SFUS).

Summary of Planned and Actual Harvest Volumes

Table 3 is a summary of planned and actual annual harvest volumes for the current term and the two

previous terms. Actual harvest volume numbers are those generated from the MNR Timber Scaling and

Billing System (TSBS) and the MNR Timber Resources Evaluation System (TREES) as reported in annual

reports (net m ). The volumes for the current term are the 2005/06 annual report volumes - one year only.3

A-3

Actual harvest volumes were above planned volumes in the 1995-2000 term and below planned volumes

for the 2000-2005 term and for 2005/06. There has been an increase in both planned and actual volumes

over the 3 terms of this report. In the last complete term of this report (2000-2005), 87% of the total

planned volume (utilized+unutilized) was harvested.

Harvest levels showed a steady increase during the 1995-2000 term. Planned volumes were exceeded

due to the salvage of blowdown areas that occurred in July of 1999. This blowdown salvage operation

yielded an additional 80,000 m of timber in 1999/2000. Demand was positive for sawlog and better3

products in this term, but the limiting factor in total harvest volume was the lack of demand for pulp quality

products.

Demand for these pulp quality products increased dramatically since 2000, and the total harvest increased

by 32% from the previous term. Pulp quality products now comprise 57% of the total harvest from the

Algonquin Park forest, and approximately 90% of the total available annual pulp volume available in the

2005-2025 FMP (Source: AFA data on product recovery - Appendix 2 (gross m3)). It is important to note

that harvesting of pulp quality products aids the achievement of forest management objectives.

Percentages of pulp volumes referred to in this report are based on AFA data, not the MNR TSBS or

TREES. The MNR system does not always differentiate volumes by product. For example, wood destined

for a sawmill is often classified exclusively as sawlog material within TREES, even though the final

destination for some of this wood may be a pulp mill (in the form of chips). This is a limitation of using

the TREES numbers for product level comparisons, and can lead to misleading conclusions. The AFA

data provides a more realistic estimate of product recovery and pulpwood utilization because the AFA

system tracks wood consistently based on a product specification, not just a destination.

It is important to realize when dealing with partial cutting that the estimation of volumes to be harvested

is difficult due to the impact of tree marking. It is not possible to gather the type of data required on tree

species and quality and the effect of tree marking on final available volumes. None the less, strides in

volume estimation have been made as a result of using the “Strategic Forest Management Model” and

the yield curves it contains in forest management planning. Use of these improved yield curves resulted

in an increase to the available harvest volume in the past two terms.

Currently, market conditions have taken a significant downturn. Demand for oak veneer, pine sawlogs

and poplar for oriented strand board has softened significantly. At the same time, price for maple 1

common and better has hit lows not seen since around 2000. Most of this is related to the decline in the

United States housing industry. Reduced home construction in the United States, global competition, the

cost of fuel/energy and a higher valued Canadian dollar has resulted in a difficult economic climate for

Ontario's forest industry.

A-4

Summary of Planned and Actual Depletion Area

Table 4 provides a summary of planned and actual annual depletion area and a graph of planned vs.

actual harvest area. The 1995-2000 actual numbers are from the 1995-2000 RPFO and the 2000-2005

actual numbers are from the 2004-05 Year 10 Annual Report. The 2005 term numbers are the first year

numbers from the 2000-2001 annual report (an estimate for the full term).

Planned harvest area has averaged approximately 13,000 hectares per year over the 3 terms of this

report. Actual harvest area has increased over the past 3 terms, from 7,566 hectares per year in 1995-

2000 to 8,459 hectares per year in 2005/06. Percent of actual to planned harvest area was 50% for the

1995-2000 term and 67% for the 2000-2005 term. This percentage has dropped to 63% of planned area

harvested in the 2005 term (2005/06 numbers only). The main reason for the under-harvest in the two

previous terms was discussed in the previous section on volumes. Several mills declined deliveries at

given years over this time frame. Also, increased utilization of pulp quality products, primarily in the

tolerant hardwoods and poplar/mixedwood stands have resulted in higher total yields and less area

harvested.

Natural depletion area has also been presented on the Actual Depletion Area table. On July 5, 1999 a

severe windstorm affected approximately 6,154 hectares of forest on the east side of Algonquin Park to

varying degrees. Operational efforts in 1999-2000 were redirected from harvesting of planned areas to

salvage of blowdown. Had this redirection of efforts in 1999/2000 not been required, a higher percentage

of the planned area would have been harvested. In July of 2006 another windstorm travelled through the

north part of Algonquin Park resulting in approximately 3,000 hectares of blowndown area. This area is

currently being summarized and will be reported in the 2006/07 annual report.

There is not a direct correlation between percent of area harvested and percent of volume cut. This is

a result of difficulties in the estimation of volumes to be harvested as discussed previously. In addition,

the following factors contribute to the difference between planned and actual yield per hectare:

• Changing utilization standards (i.e. harvesting under-sized material) and the inclusion of

undersize volume in the annual report volumes;

• Salvage of unplanned blowdown area;

• Conservative forecast volume “net down” calculations;

• Stand description inaccuracies in the planning inventory;

• Changes in planned to actual silviculture system based on actual site conditions;

• AFA’s strategy to capitalize on strong pulp markets and utilize more lower quality, higher

yielding forest units, and

• Harvest of higher stocked stands than the average condition represented in modelling.

Based on historic data, the average yield achieved from 1990 to 2003 is 51 m3/ha, which is consistent

with the forecast in the current and past Forest Management Plans.

A-5

Summary of Managed Productive Forest by Forest Unit

Table FMP-9 (by forest unit) from the current FMP and 2000-2005 FMP along with tables 4.8.3/4.9 (by

working group) from the 1995-2000 TMP have been included in Appendix 1 as a summary of the

managed productive forest over time. Table 1 of this report also summarizes WG/FU areas over the 3

terms. Details of working group areas and forest unit changes that have occurred over time are discussed

in sections 1 and 2 of this report.

The current FMP has a forest diversity objective “to ensure the current biological diversity of the Algonquin

Park forest is not significantly changed, and where desirable and practical, is restored to a pre-settlement

condition”. The silvicultural systems that are used in Algonquin Park rely heavily on natural regeneration

which result in the perpetuation of existing forest cover types over the long term. Supplemental artificial

regeneration is also used where it is required to maintain existing forest cover types.

The forest inventory for Algonquin Park shows a lack of younger age classes (40 years and less) due to

the use of the uniform shelterwood and selection systems. Under the uniform shelterwood harvest system

the new forest is developing under the canopy of the original forest and the age of this new forest won’t

be depicted in the FRI until the original forest canopy is harvested.

Summary of Renewal, Tending and Protection Operations - Planned vs. Actual

Table 6 provides a summary of renewal, tending and protection operations. Total regeneration activities

have averaged approximately 6,500 hectares per year since 1995. Natural regeneration has varied in

proportion to area harvested, being lower in terms where less area is harvested. This is a direct reflection

of the fact that natural regeneration of areas cut under the selection system is virtually guaranteed

following harvest. Dedicated forest management funding via the renewal portion of the stumpage matrix

has resulted in a consistent program of tree marking, artificial regeneration, site preparation (includes

scarification) and tending work as indicated in the table. The level of planned natural regeneration

shelterwood cuts is down dramatically in 2000-2005 as a result of an increase in first and final removal

shelterwood cuts which already have established regeneration.

Site preparation, tree planting and scarification for natural pine regeneration will maintain a level of 350-

400 ha. per year in the white pine forest unit until about the year 2010 and then will be reduced as more

first and final harvests in this forest unit are encountered.

Area tended has increased from 3,428 hectares per year in the 1995-2000 term to 4,147 hectares per

year in 2005/06. The majority of this work (3,500 hectares per year) has been uneven-aged stand

improvement in areas harvested using the hardwood selection silvicultural system.

A-6

Harvested Area Successfully Regenerated

Table 7 is a summary of regeneration surveys for the area harvested from 1992 to 1997. As prescribed

by the Independent Audit Protocol, a standard 10 year delay has been applied to the audit term in order

to determine the total area harvested (i.e. 2007-10 = 1997 - 5 years = the 1992 to 1997 term).

A total of 39,383 hectares was harvested between 1992 and 1997. Of that area 21,836 (55%) was

uneven-aged management and 17,547 ha. (45%) was even-aged management area. Natural

regeneration is the dominant method of regenerating the forests of Algonquin Park and is for the most

part successful.

Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring for the selection system (uneven-aged management) has been a

subject of discussion in the Southern Region in the recent past. It is agreed by all, for the selection

system, that silvicultural effectiveness is more a matter of meeting management standards (residual BA,

increase in AGS percentage, stand structure etc) than of meeting regeneration standards. Table FMP-28

in the 2000 and 2005 FMP contain targets for Assessment of Regeneration Success (including the

selection system), the results of which are now being reported in table AR-14 (starting with the 2005/06

annual report). Therefore, the area managed in the HdSEL forest unit which has met management

standards, as per AFA treemarking inspections, and which has been harvested and inspected during the

1992 to 1997 period, has been included in this report as successfully regenerated.

For the even-aged areas harvested between 1992 and 1997, 61% of the area was surveyed. Of the

10,651 hectares surveyed, 65% has been classified as successfully regenerated. Of the remaining 35%,

1,855 hectares was scheduled for further silvicultural treatment and 1,847 hectares was regenerated, but

was not yet free-to-grow and requires further monitoring.

The remaining 39% of the even-aged harvested area (un-surveyed area) is comprised of area not

required to be surveyed such as poplar and white birch natural regeneration areas, and shelterwood

removal cut areas. These areas are re-classified with regular FRI updates every 5 years. Also, the

requirement to survey all forest units only became effective with the 2005 FMP and therefore applied only

to the final harvest year area of this report (1995-96). Also, the regeneration assessment program in

2005-2006 was less than planned due to staffing difficulties. AFA is committed to meeting FMP

commitments and monitoring all depleted areas for regeneration success. In 2006-2007, 4,367 hectares

were surveyed.

Of the total even-aged successfully regenerated area, 91% has been classified as meeting the

regeneration standards of the original forest unit (silvicultural success). The other 9% of area is classified

as meeting standards of a variety of other forest units (regeneration success). Natural succession towards

white pine is common throughout the eastern landscape of Algonquin Park. Management practices such

as red pine seed tree instead of shelterwood for red pine, and artificial regeneration of jack pine are being

implemented to maintain species diversity over the long term.

Silvicultural practices in Algonquin Park are consistent with the FMP renewal and maintenance objective

A-7

of “managing and upgrading the quality of the forest to ensure the long term needs of local industry while

maintaining forest health, diversity of species and ecosystem integrity”. Partial cutting systems with the

targeting of undesirable growing stock for harvesting is resulting in higher percentages of sawlogs and

better quality timber in second cuts. AFA tree marking practices ensure the maintenance of species

diversity and forest health at the stand level. At the landscape level, results from regeneration surveys

indicate a high percentage of successful regeneration to original cover types, and the maintenance of

species diversity in the Algonquin Park forest management unit over the long term.

Appendix 1

Forest Unit and

Forest Structure Tables

Algonquin Park Forest

2007 Independent Forest AuditTable 1 - Summary of Total Area Under ManagementPast and Current Plans - Crown ManagedMU: Algonquin Park Forest

Area in hectares Past Plans Current

Land Type Plan Term 1995 2000 2005Non-Forested

Other Land 5,094 4,595 3,423 Forested

Non-productive 44,418 44,389 47,536 Productive

Protection 5,826 5,499 7,405 Production Forest

B&S / NSR 10,067 6,089 5,223 Depleted - - - Forest Stands by Working GroupPw 57,183 60,613 64,410 Pr 8,806 10,526 10,610 Pj 2,687 2,803 2,515 S 16,131 17,318 18,150 B 25,431 24,506 24,607 By 14,988 15,447 15,141 C 3,955 4,124 4,299 He 30,030 30,654 30,939 Po 67,788 65,216 61,630 Bw 24,736 24,564 23,505 Mh 200,168 198,790 201,152 H 17,509 19,118 19,032

Total Production Forest 479,479 479,768 481,213 Total Forested Land 529,723 529,656 536,154

Source: Tables FMP-1, FMP-2

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

Non-productive

Protection Forest

B&S / NSR

Depleted

Pw

Pr

Pj

S

B

By

C

He

Po

Bw

Mh

H

Area in hectares

200520001995

MANAGEMENT UNIT NAME: Algonquin Park ForestPLAN TERM: April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010

Note 1 : Ecosites presented are only those that make up >=1% of the forest unit. Other ecosites may have been assigned to some stands.

Note 2: PF Type = Provincial Forest Type, NDPEG Type = Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guide Forest Type 139

FMP-8 DESCRIPTION OF FOREST UNITS

Forest Unit Forest Main Site Sil vicultural FRI Parameters Additional

Code Name Type Working Group Type(s)* System & Criteria Information**

HDSEL Hardwood

Selection

tolerant

hardwood

sugar maple ES 28, 29,

25, 27

selection Includes all sugar maple and other hardwood

working group stands that do not meet the

uniform shelterwood criteria for hardwoods, or

stands that do not meet the hemlock forest unit

criteria.

Does not include stands that

would have 40% or > of white

and red pine.

PF Type = TOL

NDPEG Type = TolHwd

HDUS Hardwood

Uniform

Shelterwood

tolerant

hardwood


25, 17,

30, 27

shelterwood Includes all Yb, Ms, and Ash working groups.

Mh stands that are less than 80 years of age or

have stocking < 40% or are site class 3. OH

stands that are less than 80 years of age or

have stocking < 40% or are site class 3.

Tolerant hardwood stands

that do not meet ‘HDSEL’

FRI parameters and criteria

and do not have acceptable

levels of AGS have been

classified as HDUS.

PF Type = TOL

NDPEG Type = TolHwd

HeSEL Hemlock

Selection

conifer hemlock ES 28, 30 selection All stands in the hemlock working group where

hemlock is >=40% by species.

PF Type = MCU

NDPEG Type = TolHwd

INTCC Intolerant

Clearcut

intolerant

hardwood

poplar ES 17, 18,

21, 14, 11

clearcut Working group equals poplar or white birch and

percentage white birch plus poplar in the w.g.

must be >=70%.

PF Type = POP

NDPEG Type = InTol Hwd

LCUS Lowland

Conifer

Uniform

Shelterwood

conifer cedar ES 33, 32,

31, 34,

16, 22

shelterwood Includes cedar and larch working group and

lowland black spruce not meeting the SbCC

criteria. Does not include stands that meet the

white pine forest unit criteria.

PF Type = MCL

NDPEG Type = Lowland

Conifer







MWUS Mixedwood

Uniform

Shelterwood

intolerant

hardwood

poplar ES 17, 18,

14, 27,

21, 11

shelterwood Comprised of poplar and white birch working

group stands, but does not include stands that

meet the intolerant or pine forest unit criteria.

A range of tree species, in

small quantities are present

in these forest stands. Ie.

Pw, Pr, Sw, Po, Bw, Mh, Ms

and By.

PF Type = MIX

NDPEG Type = GLSL

Mixedwood

OrUS Red Oak

Uniform

Shelterwood

tolerant

hardwood

red oak ES 14, 23 shelterwood All red oak working group stands, except for

stands that meet the white pine forest unit

criteria.

PF Type = TOL

NDPEG Type = TolHwd

PjCC Jack pine

Clearcut

conifer jack pine ES 15, 13,

11, 19

clearcut Includes all jack pine working group stands. PF Type = PJK

NDPEG Type = Upland

Conifer

PrCC Red Pine

Clear Cut

(Seed Tree)

conifer red pine ES 12 clearcut All forest stands that have a percentage of red

pine >=60%.

PF Type = PWR

NDPEG Type = GLSL Pine

PwUS White pine

Uniform

Shelterwood

conifer white pine ES 11, 14,

18, 20,

27, 21, 17

shelterwood Includes all stands in the white pine working

group, red pine working group stands that do not

meet the red pine forest unit criteria and all

stands that have a percentage of white and red

pine >= 40%.

PF Type = PWR

NDPEG Type = GLSL Pine







SbCC Black Spruce

Clearcut

conifer black spruce ES 16, 31 clearcut Comprised of black spruce working group and

stands must have >=70% of black spruce plus

the poplar/white birch and the white/red pine

component must be <30%.

PF Type = MCL

NDPEG Type = Lowland

Conifer

SFUS Spruce Fir

Uniform

Shelterwood

conifer balsam fir ES 22, 18,

30, 16,

29, 33,

21, 27

shelterwood All forest stands in the balsam fir working group

and all white spruce stands or black spruce

stands that do not meet black spruce forest unit

criteria.



plus red pine.

PF Type = MCU

NDPEG Type = Upland

Conifer



Forest Unit Forest Main Site Silvicultural FRI Parameters Additional

Code Name Type Working Group Type(s) System & Criteria Information

BfUS Balsam Fir conifer balsam fir ES 14, 16,

17, 18, 19,

20, 21, 22,

27, 28, 29,

30, 32, 33,

34, 35

shelterwood All forest stands in the balsam fir working group. Does not include stands that


plus red pine.

BwCC White Birch intolerant

hardwood

white birch ES 17, 18,

21, 27

clearcut Working group equals white birch and

percentage white birch plus poplar in the w.g.

must be >=70%.

HeUS Hemlock conifer hemlock ES 28, 30 shelterwood All stands in the hemlock working group where

hemlock is >=50% by species.

HwdUS Hardwood

Shelterwood

tolerant

hardwood


26, 27, 28,

29, 30, 32,

33, 34, 35

shelterwood Includes all Yb, Ms, and Ash working groups.

Mh stands that are less than 80 years of age or

have stocking < 40% or are site class 3. OH

stands that are less than 80 years of age or

have stocking < 40% or are site class 3.

Tolerant hardwood stands

that do not meet ‘HwdUS’

FRI parameters and criteria

and do not have acceptable

levels of AGS have been

classified as HwdUS.

MixUS Mixedwood intolerant

hardwood

poplar ES 11, 13,

14, 16, 17,

18, 19, 20,

21, 22, 23,

27, 28, 29,

34, 35

shelterwood Comprised of poplar and white birch working

group stands, but does not include stands that

meet poplar, white birch and white pine forest

unit criteria.

A range of tree species, in

small quantities are present

in these forest stands. Ie.

Pw, Pr, Sw, Po, Bw, Mh, Ms

and By.

OCFU Other Conifers conifer cedar ES 21, 22,

29, 30, 31,

32, 33, 34

shelterwood Includes cedar and larch working group, but

does not include stands that meet the white pine

forest unit criteria.



Forest Unit Forest Main Site Silvicultural FRI Parameters Additional

Code Name Type Working Group Type(s) System & Criteria Information

OrUS Red Oak intolerant

hardwood

red oak ES 14, 17,

23, 24, 25

shelterwood All red oak working group stands, except for

stands that meet the white pine forest unit

criteria.

PjCC Jack pine conifer jack pine ES 13, 15,

19

clearcut Includes all jack pine working group stands.

PoCC Poplar intolerant

hardwood

poplar ES 14, 17,

18, 19

clearcut Only poplar working group stands and

percentage poplar plus white birch in the w.g.

must be >=70%.

PrST Red Pine conifer red pine ES 12 clearcut All forest stands that have a percentage of red

pine >=60%.

PwUS White pine conifer white pine ES 11, 12,

13, 14, 16,

17, 18, 20,

21, 27, 30

shelterwood Includes all stands in the white pine working

group, red pine working group stands that do not

meet the red pine forest unit criteria and all

stands that have a percentage of white and red

pine >= 40%.

SbCC Black spruce conifer black spruce ES 16, 31 clearcut Comprised of black spruce working group and

stands must have >=70% of black spruce plus

poplar plus white birch and the white and red

pine component must be <30%.

Sel Selection tol.hwd. sugar maple ES 25, 26,

27, 28, 29

selection Includes all sugar maple and other hardwood

working group stands that do not meet the

uniform shelterwood criteria for hardwoods, or

stands that do not meet the hemlock forest unit

criteria.



and red pine.

SpUS Spruce conifer white spruce ES 16, 18,

19, 20, 22,

27, 30, 31,

32, 33, 34

shelterwood Includes all white spruce stands or black spruce

stands that do not meet black spruce forest unit

criteria.



and red pine.

TABLE 4.11SILVICULTURAL GROUND RULES FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS

for the five-year termfrom April 1, 1995 to March 31, 2000

ALGONQUIN PARK MANAGEMENT UNIT

FRIWG

SITE DESCRIPTIONPRO.FU

SILVICULTURALSYSTEM METHOD OF HARVEST

PREFERREDRENEWAL TREATMENT

DESCRIPTIONSite Preparation/Regeneration

STOCKING

DesiredSTANDARDS

Minimum

TOTALHEIGHT

HEIGHTINCREMENT

FTGTIME

FRAME

MTCE TREATMENTDESCRIPTION

Treatment/Protection

PwPrPjPoBw

Site Class X, 1 & 2.Fresh to moist sands and cobbleswith rapidly drained surfacetexture in the Ottawa Lowlands.On the western PrecambrianUplands Pw is found on moisttills and loams growing inassociation with toleranthardwoods.

Pw, Pr Shelterwood 4 cut uniform shelterwoodPrep Cut61-80 years of age.Full crown spacing to develop crownsof seed trees (1).Seeding (Regeneration) Cut81-100 years of age or about 20 yearsafter prep cut.Minimum of 50% full sunlight shouldget through forest canopy.1/2 crown spacing (2).Removal Cut101-120 years of age. Maintain 40%crown closure to protect againstweeviling.Final Cut121-140 years of age. Overstoryremoved when regen reaches 6m inheight.

1. Natural regeneration.2. Mechanically site prep for natural.3. Mechanically site prep and plant.4. Mechanically site prep , herbicide and plant.5. Understory prescribed burn to prepare seed bed.

60% Pw, Pr,Sw, Sr, Or,He

min. 40%PwPr

40% Pw, Pr,Sw, Sr, Or,He

min. 30% PwPr

1.0 m Current years growth greaterthan or equal to previousyears.

Natural 15 years

Artificial 7 years

Manual and /orchemical tending asrequired betweenseeding and firstremoval cut.

Herbicides will be usedonly as a last resort torelease desirablespecies.

PwPrPjPoBw

Site class 3.Dry outwash Plains or shallowtill over bedrock sites.

Pw, Pr Shelterwood As above Natural regeneration. As above As above 1.0 m Current years growth greaterthan or equal to previousyears.

15 years None

PjPoBw

Site class 3. Dry sandy soilsFine soils and silty sands.

Pw, Pr Shelterwood 2 cut uniform shelterwood.Release cut to maintain FTG status.Minimum of 50% full sunlight shouldget through forest canopy.Final cut when Pw is 6m in height.An intermediate cut may benecessary.

None. Natural Pw (Pr)regeneration established beforerelease cut.

As above As above 1.0 m Manual and/orchemical cleaning asrequired. Herbicides will only beused as a last resort torelease desirablespecies.

(1) Full Crown Spacing: average distance between crowns of trees is the distance of the average crown diameter. (2) 1/2 Crown Spacing: average distance between crowns of trees is the distance of the average crown radius.




FRIWG



PREFERRED ALTERNATIVESRENEWAL TREATMENT


STOCKINGDesired

STANDARDSMinimum

TOTALHEIGHT

HEIGHTINCREMENT

FTGTIME

FRAME



Pr Dry sandy soils. Pr Clearcut - Seed Tree

Seed tree. Space seed trees at adistance equal to 1/2 the height of thetrees. Remove seed trees when regenis FTG.

1)Natural.2)Mechanically site prepare for natural seed.3)Mechanically site prepare and plant.

60% Pr, Pw,Sw, Sr, Pj

min. 40%Pr

40% Pr, Pw,Sw, Sr, Pj

min. 30%Pr

1.0 m Current years growthgreater than or equal toprevious years.

Natural 10 years

Artificial 7 years

Manual or chemicalrelease on fresh sites.

Manual tending whenstand is 25 - 30 yearsold.

Pj Dry sandy soils. Pj Clearcut Clearcut at 70 years of age. 1)Natural.2)Mechanically site prepare for natural regeneration. 3)Mechanically site prepare for artificial seeding or planting.4)Prescribed burn for natural orartificial seeding or to plant.

Artificial regen to be done 5 to7 years after harvest.

60% Pj, Pw,Pr, Sp

40% Pj, Pw, Pr,Sp


Natural 10 years

Artificial 7 years

None.

Sb Most frequently occupies thelower elevations where watertables are high, such as alongwater ways, lower slopes andsphagnum bogs.

Sb, Bf,Sw (3)

Shelterwood 2 cut uniform shelterwood. most areais adjacent to waterways andclearcutting is not used to maintainvalues

1)Natural.2)Mechanical SIP and plant if stocking not obtained or expected in 5 to 7 years.

50% Sb, Bf,Sw

40% Sb, Bf, Sw 1.0 m Current years growthgreater than or equal toprevious years.

Natural 15 years

Artificial 7 years

Manual cleaning asrequired.

Sw Grows in association with Po,Bw, Bf, Pw, Pr, Pj and toleranthardwoods on well drained butmoist silty soils.

Sw, Pw,Pr, Bf(3)

Shelterwood 2 cut uniform shelterwood.Clearcutting is not used because ofthe large number of tree speciespresent. Goal is to maintain thisdiversity.

1)Natural regeneration.2)Mechanically site prepare for natural.3)Mechanically SIP and plant.4)Prescribed burn and plant.

Artificial regen used if stockingnot obtained or expected in 5 to 7years.

60% Sw, Pw,Pr, Bf, Sr, Sb

40% Sw, Pw,Pr, Bf, SrSb


Natural 15 years

Artificial 7 years

Manual or chemicalcleaning as required.

(3) Proposed working group to be determined at time of prescription assessment.




FRIWG





STOCKINGDesired

STANDARDSMinimum

TOTALHEIGHT

HEIGHTINCREMENT

FTGTIME

FRAME



Bf Grows on lower slopes wheremoisture is plentiful and upperslopes where soils are sandy andrelatively dry.

Bf, Sw,Pw, Pr

Shelterwood,Clearcutting.

2 cut uniform shelterwood.

Clearcut areas severely damaged bybudworm.

1)Natural regeneration.2)Mechanically site prepare or prescribe burn and plant Sw orPr where grass and shrub invasion is expected.

50% Bf, Sp,Pw, Pr

40% Bf, Sp,Pw, Pr


Natural 15 years

Manual and/or chemicalcleaning as required.

MhMsAOrOHHePoBwBe

Soil materials are of 3 maintypes.a) moulded tillb) dumped till (ground orrecessional moraine)c) Stratified glaciofluvialdeposits (waterlaid sand andgravel)

Conditions a) & b) are usuallyreferred to as Sherborne landtypewhile c) is referred to as thePetawawa Landtype.

Tol.Hwd1

Tol.Hwd2

Selection

Shelterwood

An average cutting cycle of 20years. Minimum criteria forselection is 6.9 sq. m./ha of goodquality, tolerant species 26 cm. indiameter and up or 9.2 sq.m. /ha,10 cm and up. Tol. hwd. standsthat do not meet this criteria willbe managed using uniformshelterwood.

2 cut uniform shelterwood with 20years between cuts.

Management of toleranthardwoods will be according to themanual `A Silvicultural Guide tothe Tolerant Hardwoods WorkingGroup in Ontario'.

Natural regeneration - no sitepreparation.

Site90% Mh, By,Or, Bd, Aw,Cb, Be,He, Pw,OH

Site80% Mh, By,Or, Bd, Aw,Cb, Be,He, Pw,OH

Class X,180% Mh, By,Or, Bd, Aw,Cb, Be,He, Pw,OH

Class 2,370% Mh, By,Or, Bd, Aw,Cb, Be,He, Pw,OH

1.0 m Height increment willvary greatly, dependingon species regenerated,whether of seed originor vegetativereproduction, whetherestablished prior to orsubsequent to thedisturbance. The totalheight and time framecriteria are felt to be ofgreater value in makingthe FTG decision.

5 years

NOASSESSMENT

Tending of polewoodstands and good qualitymature stands.

By Prefers fresh to moist sites. Mostproductive on moist lower slopeswith deep soil and moving watertable.

By Shelterwood Uniform shelterwood.

Note: By occurs primarily insporadic pockets rather than purestands.

1)Natural regeneration.2)Mechanical SIP or prescribed burn for natural.3)Natural supplemented by seeding if stocking not obtained in 5 years.

Fresh60% By, Mh,Aw, Bd, Or,Cb, Be,Pw, He

Moist60% By, Sw,He

Sites40% By, Mh,Aw, Bd, or, Cb,Be,Pw, He

Sites40% By, Sw,He

1.0 m As above. 5 years

ASSESS IF SIPIS DONE


`OH' includes black cherry, basswood and white elm.




FRIWG





STOCKINGDesired

STANDARDSMinimum

TOTALHEIGHT

HEIGHTINCREMENT

FTGTIME

FRAME



He Hemlock is adapted to manysites, but is most abundant onnorthern aspects. It grows onrocky acid soils and on loams andsilt loams near neutral inreaction.

He Shelterwood 3 cut uniform shelterwood with 20years between cuts.First Cut leaves 70% to 80% crowncover (23 sq.m./ha).Second Cut reduces crown cover to50%.Third Cut removes overstory whenregeneration is well established.

1)Natural regeneration.2)Mechanically SIP for natural.3)If harvested in winter, mechanically SIP and seed.4)Mechanically SIP and Plant He, Sr or Pw where required.5)Prescribed burn.

60% He, Pw,Sw, Sr, By

min.40% He

50% He, Pw,Sw, Sr, By

min.30% He

1.0 m Current years growthgreater than or equalto previous year.

20 years Manual cleaning asrequired.

MhMsAOrOHHe

As described under toleranthardwood section.

Mixedwood(He,Hwd)

Selection Maintain 16.1 sq.m./ha 26 cm andup. If He regen doesn't occur thanHe shouldn't be cut in the future.Patches of He .04 ha in size andlarger will be managed using HeU.S.

1)Natural regeneration.2)Mechanically site prepare for natural He regeneration.

80% Mh,He, By,Or, Bd,Aw, Cb,Be

70% Mh,He, By,Or, Bd,Aw, Cb,Be

1.0 m Height incrementwill vary greatly,depending on speciesregenerated, whetherof seed origin orvegetativereproduction,whether establishedprior to or subsequentto the disturbance. The total height andtime frame criteriaare felt to be ofgreater value inmaking the FTGdecision.

5 years

NOASSESSMENT


CeLOC

These species are usually foundin wet, low-lying areas.

OC These areas will be managed forwildlife habitat. Cutting will onlycarried out to improve wildlifehabitat.




FRIWG SITE DESCRIPTION

PRO.FU




STOCKINGDesired

STANDARDS

Minimum

TOTALHEIGHT

HEIGHTINCREMENT

FTGTIME

FRAME



Po Poplar grows best on fresh siltysands and tills.

Po Clearcut Clearcut with standards at rotationage of 65 years leaving good qualitytrees of Pw, Pr and Sw wherepresent, and spacing trees inpatches (5 or more trees withinterlocking crowns) to half crownspacing.

Natural regeneration - no SIP. 70% Po,Bw,Pw,Pr,Pj,Sp,He,Mh,By,Be,Or,Bd,Aw,Cb

60%Po,Bw,Pw,Pr,Pj,Sp,He,Mh,By,Be,Or,Bd,Aw,Cb

2.0 m Height increment willvary greatly, dependingon species regenerated,whether of seed originor vegetativereproduction, whetherestablished prior to orsubsequent to thedisturbance. The totalheight and time framecriteria are felt to be ofgreater value in makingthe FTG decision.

5 years

NOASSESSMENT

None

Bw Occurs on a variety of soils,but does best on well-drainedsandy to silty loam soils.

Bw Clearcut Clearcut with standards at rotationage of 65 years leaving good qualitytrees of Pw, Pr and Sw wherepresent, and spacing trees inpatches (5 or more trees withinterlocking crowns) to half crownspacing.

Natural regeneration - no SIP. 70% Po,Bw,Pw,Pr,Pj,Sp,He,Mh,By,Be,Or,Bd,Aw,Cb


2.0 m As above 5 years

NOASSESSMENT

None

Po,Pine

Site Class X, 1 & 2.Fresh to moist sands andcobbles with rapidly drainedsurface texture in the OttawaLowlands.

Mixedwood Shelterwood 2 - 3 cut uniform shelterwood. Leave good quality trees of Pw, Prand Sw where present, and spacingpine trees in patches (5 or moretrees with interlocking crowns) tohalf crown spacing. Space Po to 1crown spacing where managing forpine.

Natural regeneration. 60% Po,Bw,Pw,Pr,Pj,Sp,He,Mh,By,Be,Or,Bd,Aw,Cb


1.0 m Current years growthgreater than or equal toprevious year.

15 years

NOASSESSMENT

None

2007 Independent Forest AuditTable 3 - Summary of Planned & Actual Harvest VolumesMU: Algonquin Park Forest

Average Planned Annual Harvest VolumesVolumes are annualized for the indicated 5 year period

Volume in '000's cubic metres Past Plans Current

Species 1995 2000 2005Pwr 90.0 126.6 159.2Pj 0.3 10.5 9.1Sp 23.9 26.5 31.3OC 6.3 44.8 60.2Po 55.0 135.9 96.1Bw 28.6 37.5 29.2Tol 183.4 238.8 292.2

Total Planned Volumes 387.5 620.6 677.3

Actual Harvest Volumes (TREES)Volumes are annualized for the indicated 5 year period

Volume in '000's cubic metres Past Plans Current

Species 1995 2000 2005Pwr 132.4 154.4 164.3Pj 2.8 7.2 2.8Sp 17.3 18.6 20.4OC 8.6 19.0 16.1Po 73.0 109.7 115.0Bw 18.3 19.2 13.4Tol 157.5 213.4 242.9

Total Actual Volumes 409.9 541.4 574.7

Source: Planned: Tables FMP-23Actual: Tables RPFO-4, 4a and 2005/06 Table AR-4

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

1995 2000 2005

Year

Ann

ual V

olum

e '0

00 m

3

Total Planned Volumes Actual Harvest Volumes

2007 Independent Forest AuditTable 4 - Summary of Planned & Actual Depletion AreaPast and Current Plans

MU: Algonquin Park Forest

Area is annualized for the indicated 5 year period Planned Annual Harvest Area Actual Depletion Area

Area in hectares Area in hectares Past Plans Current Past Plans Current

Plan term 1995 2000 2005 1995 2000 2005 FU/WG Harvest Natural Harvest Natural Harvest NaturalPwr 2,040 1,984 2,253 975 788 1,331 2,068 Pj 27 92 72 13 34 60 7 Sp 364 171 934 95 26 194 0 222 OC 1,337 762 1,107 466 41 385 1 581 Int 336 445 577 140 86 269 3 163 Tol 9,213 7,607 7,315 4,014 112 5,017 13 4,644 Mixed 1,704 1,203 1,099 633 144 926 1 774

Total Area: 15,021 12,263 13,357 6,335 1,231 8,181 18 8,459 -

Planned vs. Actual Depletion Area

Source: Planned: Table FMP-18Actual: 1995 term - Table RPFO-1. 2000 and 2005 terms - Tables AR-1 and AR-6

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1995 2000 2005

Year

Are

a in

hec

tare

s

PlannedActual

Management Unit Name: Algonquin Park ForestPlan Term: April 1, 2005 TO March 31, 2010

Protection Forest Production ForestUnavailable Available

Forest Age Area Volume Area Volume Stage of Area VolumeUnit Class (ha) (m3) (ha) (m3) Management (ha) (m3)

HDSEL 1-999 973 119,203 278 34,058 172,542 23,487,100

HDUS B&S B&S 553 01-20 Seeding 3,111 4121-40 91 236 Seeding 3,756 10,80841-60 Seeding 1,804 61,16761-80 13 1,186 Seeding 3,637 368,58281-100 Seeding 3,437 408,14081-100 34 2,136 Final 1,415 98,771101-120 350 38,424 93 10,210 Seeding 4,044 493,247101-120 170 12,459 Final 3,683 299,907121-140 16 1,798 Seeding 2,831 353,513121-140 56 4,199 Final 2,076 172,926141-160 99 10,740 12 1,302 Seeding 4,433 534,362141-160 48 3,310 Final 4,669 357,677161-180 44 5,061 Seeding 2,689 343,702161-180 21 1,393 Final 4,183 308,210181-200 Seeding 884 110,989181-200 Final 2,263 178,506201-220 Seeding 625 77,649201-220 Final 1,538 125,264221-240 Seeding 104 11,420221-240 109 10,206 Final 159 16,494241-260 Seeding 97 11,427241-260 10 1,048 Final 36 4,160261-280 Seeding 36 3,086261-280 20 1,349 Final 29 2,147Subtotal 1,081 93,543 105 11,512 52,090 4,352,193

HeSEL 1-999 301 34,790 131 15,141 30,321 3,893,924

INTCC B&S B&S 2,328 01-20 42 63 456 75621-40 38 1,527 901 40,23541-60 9 807 778 77,50861-80 320 31,090 76 7,384 5,308 573,02481-100 303 38,943 43 5,526 15,709 2,243,245101-120 1 130 196 25,485 11,734 1,695,203121-140 5 400 1,371 121,800141-160 155 7,127Subtotal 718 72,959 315 38,396 38,740 4,758,900

LCUS B&S B&S 75 021-40 Seeding 16 17341-60 Seeding 281 5,67061-80 Seeding 765 54,11881-100 12 960 Seeding 1,156 102,77281-100 13 734 Final 248 15,544101-120 Seeding 935 88,382101-120 13 663 Final 444 25,166121-140 Seeding 732 62,789121-140 Final 298 14,881141-160 Seeding 294 21,202

FMP-9 Summary of Managed Crown Productive Forest by Forest Unit

142





141-160 7 320 Final 205 10,426161-180 Seeding 82 5,333161-180 Final 63 2,229181-200 Seeding 67 5,659181-200 Final 23 1,218201-220 Final 10 468Subtotal 32 2,013 13 663 5,695 416,030

MWUS B&S B&S 5 01-20 12 28 Seeding 37 9621-40 71 2,689 Seeding 286 12,03041-60 Seeding 753 54,23061-80 109 8,401 Seeding 3,490 298,87181-100 192 21,141 32 3,524 Seeding 12,723 1,556,61981-100 83 5,946 Final 4,331 344,750101-120 96 11,564 104 12,528 Seeding 11,417 1,528,149101-120 120 8,924 41 3,049 Final 8,464 699,421121-140 18 1,691 17 1,597 Seeding 1,088 113,532121-140 Final 1,563 102,915141-160 Seeding 537 55,431141-160 Final 231 13,132161-180 Seeding 33 3,471161-180 Final 14 495181-200 Final 13 924241-260 Seeding 28 3,287Subtotal 701 60,385 194 20,698 45,012 4,787,355

OrUS B&S B&S 58 0 1-20 8 0 Seeding 0 041-60 Seeding 253 9,49861-80 Seeding 145 16,68581-100 167 18,649 70 7,817 Seeding 1,355 168,13881-100 47 2,617 Final 218 13,485101-120 1873 215,106 201 23,084 Seeding 6,456 823,785101-120 444 28,212 70 4,448 Final 864 61,015121-140 110 12,362 Seeding 789 98,537121-140 11 779 Final 62 4,906141-160 13 1,796 Seeding 64 9,768141-160 17 918 Final 12 710Subtotal 2,682 280,438 349 35,349 10,277 1,206,527

PjCC B&S B&S 353 01-20 65 14921-40 213 5,785 205 6,18141-60 82 7,176 356 34,65461-80 462 55,54281-100 594 85,639101-120 15 1,972 756 110,427121-140 51 4,469Subtotal 310 14,933 2,843 297,061

PrCC B&S B&S 481 01-20 333 103

143





21-40 101 5,744 995 62,85541-60 19 1,733 262 26,57761-80 28 5,556 122 26,88381-100 5 1,005 1,017 227,189101-120 4 756 2,052 431,273121-140 398 77,583141-160 20 4,977161-180 28 6,177201-220 11 1,908Subtotal 148 13,032 9 1,761 5,719 865,524

PwUS B&S B&S 392 01-20 Prep. 3,874 6,02921-40 62 917 Prep. 1,897 31,16741-60 71 5,797 Prep. 946 85,80161-80 18 2,014 Prep. 710 88,28681-100 32 5,537 17 2,942 Seeding 4,611 886,51481-100 12 1,362 50 5,674 First 6,306 795,17081-100 Final 933 67,440101-120 208 35,357 Seeding 11,903 2,248,130101-120 11 1,259 31 3,548 First 27,364 3,480,207101-120 Final 2,559 186,221121-140 44 6,705 53 8,076 Seeding 2,777 470,204121-140 93 10,020 29 3,124 First 6,202 742,460121-140 1 58 Final 744 48,123141-160 15 2,137 Seeding 207 32,768141-160 46 4,588 First 1,683 186,541141-160 Final 245 15,579161-180 Seeding 73 12,992161-180 First 442 46,246161-180 Final 2 115181-200 Seeding 14 2,075181-200 First 78 9,236201-220 Seeding 34 4,982201-220 First 104 10,261201-220 Final 85 3,711221-240 Seeding 4 635241-260 First 72 7,974Subtotal 344 33,670 449 65,447 74,261 9,468,867

SbCC B&S B&S 85 01-20 3 0 141 021-40 217 96941-60 314 14,93161-80 1,638 130,81281-100 14 1,429 1,628 184,600101-120 19 1,923 1,224 137,639121-140 949 99,050141-160 15 1,183 256 22,419161-180 94 7,837Subtotal 51 4,535 6,545 598,257

SFUS B&S B&S 848 0

144





1-20 Seeding 419 24321-40 Seeding 717 9,87041-60 Seeding 2,288 147,46841-60 Final 396 19,76961-80 Seeding 13,792 1,444,93861-80 32 2,049 4 256 Final 3,632 258,45281-100 18 2,173 24 2,898 Seeding 6,341 850,73881-100 Final 2,791 255,839101-120 2 268 Seeding 1,261 187,432101-120 12 980 Final 1,615 146,483121-140 0 0 Seeding 354 41,097121-140 Final 430 38,268141-160 Seeding 192 15,327141-160 Final 7 736161-180 Seeding 64 11,391161-180 Final 6 432181-200 Seeding 58 6,019181-200 Final 37 441201-220 Seeding 42 2,430201-220 Final 8 758241-260 Seeding 1 60Subtotal 64 5,470 28 3,154 35,298 3,438,191

TOTAL 7,405 734,970 1,871 226,179 479,343 57,569,929

145


FMP-9 SUMMARY OF MANAGED CROWN PRODUCTIVE FOREST BY FOREST UNIT

1

Protection Forest Production ForestForest Age Unavailable Stage of AvailableUnit Class (ha) (m3) (ha) (m3) Management (ha) (m3)

PwUS B&S 1,610 1-20 2,625

21-40 42 696 1,266 24,335 41-60 280 26,024 61-80 33 6,329 Prepatory Cut 1,070 193,570

81-100 12 1,845 100 16,970 Seed Cut 7,273 1,197,937 81-100 First Removal 9,761 991,937 81-100 Final Removal 1,581 91,236

101-120 122 22,580 148 28,195 Seed Cut 13,955 2,577,869 101-120 First Removal 22,998 2,628,378 101-120 Final Removal 2,779 181,799 121-140 18 3,581 11 2,152 Seed Cut 1,803 354,648 121-140 First Removal 3,585 447,486 121-140 Final Removal 384 27,456 141-160 19 3,862 Seed Cut 253 51,418 141-160 First Removal 866 113,782 141-160 Final Removal 128 9,588 161-180 Seed Cut 108 21,912 161-180 First Removal 358 47,030 181-200 Seed Cut 15 3,043 181-200 First Removal 91 11,955 201-220 Seed Cut 43 8,703 201-220 First Removal 146 19,143 201-220 Final Removal 12 897 221-240 Final Removal 4 299 241-260 Final Removal 71 5,308

Subtotal 227 35,031 278 51,179 73,065 9,035,753

PrST B&S 217 1-20 223 418

21-40 95 2,850 809 24,790 41-60 294 39,510 61-80 175 36,205

81-100 3 699 1,775 411,230 101-120 1,855 436,091 121-140 184 40,848 141-160 20 4,200 161-180 28 5,852




2

181-200201-220 11 2,299

Subtotal 95 2,850 3 699 5,591 1,001,443

PjCC B&S 5 1-20 104

21-40 211 10,223 117 3,385 41-60 341 32,137 61-80 537 70,395

81-100 1,065 155,322 101-120 15 2,220 624 91,162 121-140 15 1,005

Subtotal 226 12,443 2,808 353,406

SbCc B&S 659 1-20 80

21-40 185 423 41-60 451 23,266 61-80 1,259 107,685

81-100 14 1,708 1,480 171,894 101-120 19 2,372 1,261 166,641 121-140 861 109,689 141-160 15 1,800 257 30,788 161-180 94 10,434 181-200201-220

Subtotal 48 5,880 6,587 620,820

SpUS B&S 1,182 1-20 22

21-40 329 1,229 41-60 459 23,108 61-80 Seed Cut 2,458 199,130 61-80 Final Removal 780 57,798

81-100 13 1,521 Seed Cut 1,724 190,248 81-100 Final Removal 1,571 161,656

101-120 2 256 Seed Cut 1,206 154,891 101-120 Final Removal 1,676 202,628




3

121-140 Seed Cut 306 37,524 121-140 Final Removal 475 57,475 141-160 Seed Cut 90 10,509 141-160 Final Removal 79 9,354 161-180 Seed Cut 53 5,830 161-180 Final Removal 4 440 181-200 Seed Cut 25 2,531 201-220 Seed Cut 17 1,649

Subtotal 15 1,777 12,456 1,116,000

BfUS B&S 243 1-20 23

21-40 358 4,072 41-60 Seed Cut 2,129 134,014 41-60 Final Removal 672 21,269 61-80 31 2,696 12 1,200 Seed Cut 11,850 1,168,890 61-80 Final Removal 4,041 194,405

81-100 29 3,480 17 2,040 Seed Cut 3,758 456,977 81-100 Final Removal 1,096 66,222

101-120 Seed Cut 181 24,685 101-120 Final Removal 65 4,485 121-140 Seed Cut 18 1,818 121-140 Final Removal 10 504 141-160 Seed Cut 116 9,033 161-180 Seed Cut 4 292 181-200 Seed Cut 34 2,380 181-200 Final Removal 37 1,672 201-220 Seed Cut 43 1,853 221-240241-260 Seed Cut 1 43

Subtotal 60 6,176 29 3,240 24,679 2,092,614

HeUS B&S 48 1-20

21-40 29 29 41-60 18 936 61-80 4 404 88 8,140

81-100 Seed Cut 51 6,902




4

81-100 First Removal 33 2,884 101-120 13 2,073 Seed Cut 243 38,771 101-120 First Removal 123 12,133 121-140 12 1,932 Seed Cut 995 158,119 121-140 First Removal 112 11,835 141-160 15 2,280 Seed Cut 4,292 657,406 141-160 First Removal 1,227 128,560 161-180 Seed Cut 2,181 329,331 161-180 First Removal 826 85,326 161-180 Final Removal 50 4,697 181-200 23 3,427 52 7,748 Seed Cut 1,401 209,160 181-200 First Removal 809 82,638 181-200 Final Removal 143 6,637 201-220 21 3,108 Seed Cut 2,004 296,592 201-220 First Removal 994 100,394 201-220 Final Removal 108 4,968 221-240 36 5,328 29 4,292 Seed Cut 1,651 244,348 221-240 First Removal 871 87,971 221-240 Final Removal 57 2,622 241-260 Seed Cut 1,054 155,992 241-260 First Removal 527 53,227 241-260 Final Removal 66 3,036 261-280 Final Removal 66 6,686

Subtotal 124 18,552 81 12,040 20,067 2,699,340

OCFU B&S 108 1-20 12

21-40 4 3 41-60 51 714 61-80 Seed Cut 362 15,324 61-80 First Removal 92 2,406

81-100 Seed Cut 689 44,382 81-100 First Removal 217 8,784 81-100 Final Removal 20 810

101-120 11 902 Seed Cut 905 73,278 101-120 First Removal 397 19,494 101-120 Final Removal 35 1,719




5

121-140 Seed Cut 434 32,132 121-140 First Removal 200 9,318 121-140 Final Removal 15 699 141-160 14 932 Seed Cut 215 14,480 141-160 First Removal 192 8,079 141-160 Final Removal 21 884 161-180 Seed Cut 80 5,010 161-180 First Removal 66 2,566

Final Removal 13 506 181-200 Seed Cut 66 3,889 181-200 First Removal 10 359 201-220221-240241-260 Seed Cut 10 570

Subtotal 14 932 11 902 4,214 245,406

Sel all 806 114,509 299 44,793 180,987 21,921,951

HwdUS B&S 903 1-20 101

21-40 27 162 4,947 10,397 41-60 1,330 40,166 61-80 4,890 388,730

81-100 48 5,664 93 11,811 Seed Cut 2,675 292,805 81-100 Final Removal 1,478 94,289

101-120 215 31,519 11 1,320 Seed Cut 4,991 641,857 101-120 Final Removal 2,855 209,429 121-140 121 14,568 Seed Cut 2,768 339,960 121-140 Final Removal 1,995 144,084 141-160 22 2,574 Seed Cut 4,743 550,835 141-160 Final Removal 6,579 458,819 161-180 68 7,796 Seed Cut 1,590 182,160 161-180 Final Removal 4,076 280,982 181-200 Seed Cut 796 90,367 181-200 Final Removal 2,793 191,471 201-220 Seed Cut 653 73,789 201-220 Final Removal 2,015 137,423 221-240 120 13,560 Seed Cut 36 4,068




6

221-240 Final Removal 114 7,775 241-260 Final Removal 31 2,114 261-280 Final Removal 15 573

Subtotal 621 75,843 104 13,131 52,374 4,142,093

MixUS B&S 15 1-20 77

21-40 82 1,001 512 9,639 41-60 5 380 454 32,678 61-80 122 12,902 Seed Cut 3,239 339,289 61-80 First Removal 1,493 68,454

81-100 103 13,505 40 5,206 Seed Cut 8,508 1,096,039 81-100 First Removal 12,021 674,696 81-100 Final Removal 355 5,561

101-120 90 12,211 54 7,398 Seed Cut 7,177 968,871 101-120 First Removal 9,021 548,129 101-120 Final Removal 1,410 26,311 121-140 Seed Cut 509 51,740 121-140 First Removal 1,445 70,193 121-140 Final Removal 167 3,184 141-160 Seed Cut 30 1,920 141-160 First Removal 323 13,295 161-180 Seed Cut 24 1,464 161-180 First Removal 17 657 181-200 Seed Cut 22 1,342 181-200 First Removal 17 647 241-260 FirstRemoval 29 1,086

Subtotal 402 39,999 94 12,604 46,865 3,915,195

OrUS B&S 57 1-20 9

21-4041-6061-80 19 2,128 126 13,232

81-100 304 42,546 119 17,493 Seed Cut 1,403 194,545 81-100 Final Removal 389 26,216

101-120 1,823 287,537 145 22,765 Seed Cut 6,044 953,536 101-120 Final Removal 1,809 140,935




7

121-140 92 13,026 Seed Cut 288 41,354 121-140 Final Removal 163 12,714 141-160 Seed Cut 34 4,506 141-160 Final Removal 11 829

Subtotal 2,238 345,237 273 40,258 10,324 1,387,867

PoCC B&S 894 1-20 64

21-40 738 28,090 41-60 110 14,296 650 68,232 61-80 302 51,482 74 12,950 3,138 536,568

81-100 111 20,940 67 12,690 12,288 2,304,545 101-120 49 9,212 9,017 1,608,496 121-140 5 470 758 60,344 141-160 167 4,509 161-180181-200

Subtotal 528 87,188 190 34,852 27,714 4,610,784

BwCC B&S 148 1-20

21-40 49 4,018 72 594 41-60 38 4,017 285 23,230 61-80 8 1,008 15 1,770 4,589 487,277

81-100 4,107 495,162 101-120 1,321 164,666 121-140 120 10,396 141-160 18 666

Subtotal 95 9,043 15 1,770 10,660 1,181,991

Total 5,499 755,460 1,377 215,468 478,391 54,324,663

TABLE 4.8.3 AREA SUMMARY OF THE RECREATION-UTILIZATION ZONE

for the five-year term from April 1, 1995 to March 31, 2000

SUMMARY OF TOTAL AREA (Ha) Water Non-Forested Land 5,094

Forested Land -Non-Productive Forest 44,418 -Productive Forest 485,305

529,723

Total Area 534,817

SUMMARY OF PRODUCTIVE FOREST (Ha)

PRODUCTION FOREST

WG

Protection

Forest SC 4 & Islands

B&S and/or NSR 2-6

PFR Regular Subtotal

TOTAL

Pw 99 3,504 1,453 55,730 60,687 60,786 Pr 137 309 247 8,559 9,115 9,252 Pj 226 94 166 2,521 2,781 3,007 Sp 491 491 491 Sb 57 825 43 10,104 10,972 11,029 Sw 2 1,496 46 5,447 6,989 6,991 B 48 399 168 25,263 25,830 25,878 He 258 49 1,895 28,135 30,079 30,337 Ce 14 212 11 3,779 4,002 4,016 L 165 165 165 A 71 5 207 212 283 Mh 844 1,406 3,383 196,785 201,574 202,418 Ms 114 11 135 5,581 5,727 5,841 By 345 133 78 14,910 15,121 15,466 Or 2,570 23 1,555 8,546 10,124 12,694 OH 29 153 1,332 1,485 1,514 Po 712 1,340 2,310 65,478 69,128 69,840 Bw 300 261 1,842 22,894 24,997 25,297

TOTAL 5,826 10,067 13,485 455,927 479,479 485,305

TABLE 4.9

SUMMARY OF CROWN PRODUCTION FOREST AREAOF THE RECREATION-UTILIZATION ZONE

BY WORKING GROUP BY AGE CLASS



WGAGE

CLASSAREA(Ha) WG

AGECLASS

AREA(HA)

Pw B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-220221-241subtotal

3,504 909156256

1,42725,71524,8682,658

58628624110

7160,687

Sw B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180Subtotal

1,49616235

3562,0881,830 944

2519

346,989

Pr B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140Subtotal

309220829165680

4,7562,049

1079,115

Sp B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120Subtotal

13

40286

152491

Sb B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200Subtotal

825226 86

1,244 2,6652,5141,9571,313

6676

10,972

Pj B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140Subtotal

9419

169241810

1,187221

402,781

TABLE 4.9





WGAGE

CLASSAREA(Ha) WG

AGECLASS

AREA(HA)

B B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180Subtotal

399 107412

5,93117,4781,265

193041

6625,830

Ce B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-220221-240Subtotal

212

51477

1,1121,165

56824613925

74,002

He B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200201-220221-240241-260261-280Subtotal

4944

52126464630

3,6707,3522,2686,3755,5922,978

406 73

30,079

L

AMhMsByOrOH

B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140Subtotal

58 3848

21165

212201,574

5,72715,12110,1241,485

TABLE 4.9





WGAGE

CLASSAREA(Ha) WG

AGECLASS

AREA(HA)

Po B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200Subtotal

1,340 5141,085

71310,50436,47416,6751,813

8

269,128

Bw B&S1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-120121-140141-160161-180181-200Subtotal

2615015

1,29710,8549,2262,566

5619667

424,997

TOTALALL WG

479,479

2007 Independent Forest AuditTable 6 - SUMMARY REPORT OF RENEWAL, TENDING AND PROTECTION OPERATIONS (RPFO-7)Average Planned and Actual Annual Renewal Tending and Protection AreaMU: Algonquin Park Forest

Area Summary of all Forest Units (ha)

1995 2000 2005Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual*

RenewalRegeneration

Uneven-Aged ManagementSelection Cut - Harvest 7,879 3,572 6,607 4,190 7,300 4,510

Total Uneven-Aged Management 7,879 3,572 6,607 4,190 7,300 4,510Even-Aged Management

Natural RegenerationClearcut 228 128 567 281 627 154Strip Cut 0 0 0Seed Tree Cut 43 34 69 13 50Uniform Shelterwood Seed Cut 6,319 2,658 1,621 1,475 2,590 1,566

Subtotal Natural 6,590 2,820 2,258 1,769 3,218 1,770Artificial Regeneration

Planting 270 401 365 324 397 113 Seeding direct 4 1

with site preparationScarification

Subtotal Artificial 274 402 365 324 397 113Total Even-Aged Management 6,864 3,222 2,623 2,093 3,614 1,883

Total Regeneration 14,743 6,794 9,230 6,283 10,914 6,393Site Preparation

Mechanical (includes scarification) 414 530 469 410 499 382ChemicalPrescribed Burn

Total Site Preparation 414 530 469 410 499 382Tending

Cleaningmanual 71 38 20 20 12chemical - ground - aerialmechanicalprescribed burn

Spacing, pre-commercial thinning, improvement cuttingeven-aged 601 434 152 245 149uneven-aged 3,000 2,956 6,607 3,366 6,278 4,147

CultivationTotal Tending 3,672 3,428 6,778 3,631 6,439 4,147

Protection (Insect Pest Control)accelerated harvestsalvage manual protectionground insecticide aerial insecticide

Total Protection* Note: 2005 Actual numbers are based on a partial term - one year only (2005/06)

Source:Planned: 1995-2015 Table 4.19, 2000-2020 and 2005-2025 Table FMP-25Actual: 1995-2000 RPFO-7, 2000-2005 Year 10 AR-7, 2005/06 AR-7

2007 Independent Forest AuditTable 7 - Harvested Area Successfully Regenerated - Summary of All Forest Units

MU: Algonquin Park Forest

AREA IN HECTARES (All Forest Units Combined)

AREA IN HECTARES (All Forest Units Combined)

Even-aged Management Uneven-aged ManagementTotal Area Harvested (1992-97) 17,547 21,836 Total Area Surveyed for Regeneration Success 10,651 21,836 Total Unsurveyed Area 6,896 - Total Area Declared Successfully Regenerated

6,950 21,836 Total Area Surveyed Not Successfully Regenerated 3,701 -

Further Treatment Required 1,855 - Monitor - may or may not require further treatment 1,847 -

Not Available for Regen. (eg. Roads & landings) - - Other - -

Percent of Area Surveyed Declared Successfully Regenerated 65% 100%

Source:Area Harvested: Annual reports table AR-1Area Surveyed: AFA NSR/SEM Database (AR tables do not correspond directly with 1992-97 area harvested)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Even-aged Management Uneven-aged Management

Hec

tare

s

Total Area Harvested (1992-97)

Total Area Surveyed forRegeneration Success

Total Area DeclaredSuccessfully Regenerated

Total Unsurveyed Area

Appendix 2

Product Volumes Harvested

Algonquin Park Forest


APPENDIX B – AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS AND QUALIFICATIONS Craig Howard, R.P.F., CEA (SFM) – Lead Auditor Education: B.Sc. Forestry, University of New Brunswick, 1983. Experience: 25 years experience in forestry, 12 years in private practice, 3

years in the OMNR. Previous Audits: 15 Independent Forest Audits, 10 Sustainable Forest Initiative

Verifications, 2 Forest Stewardship Council Assessments. Mark Leschishin, R.P.F – Forester Education: B.Sc. Forestry, Lakehead University, 1978. Dip. For. Tech., 1974. Experience: 27 years experience in forestry in Ontario. Previous Audits: 10 Independent Forest Audits. Tom Clark – Ecologist Education: M.Sc., H.B.Sc. Experience: Forest ecologist and biologist with 26 years experience in habitat

ecology. Previous Audits: 12 Independent Forest Audits, 13 Forest Stewardship Council

Assessments. Phil Shantz – Socio-economist Education: M.E.S, R.P.P. Experience: Registered professional planner with 14 years experience in forest

auditing/certification, resource and socio-economics, land-use planning and public consultation.

Previous Audits: 11 Independent Forest Audits, 11 Forest Stewardship Council Assessments.

Brian Callaghan, R.P.F. – Forest Management Planning Analyst Education: B.Sc.F., University of Toronto, 1982. Experience: 24 years experience in forestry in Ontario. Previous Audits: 19 Independent Forest Audits, 12 Sustainable Forest Initiative

Verifications, 9 Forest Stewardship Council Assessments.



APPENDIX C – INDEPENDENT FOREST AUDIT GUIDING PRINCIPLES Commitment Commitment is reflected in vision, mission and policy statements of

the AFA. Vision and mission statements are intended to provide long-term guidance for the organization. Policy statements reflect how the organization’s vision and mission will be achieved. These statements must be reflected in the day-to-day operations of the organization.

Public Participation The process of sustainable forest planning, implementation and monitoring is conducted in an open consultative fashion, with input from all members of the planning team, Local Citizens Committee, native groups, and other parties with an interest in the operations of the forest unit.

Forest Management Planning

The forest management planning process involves the input of a number of individuals and groups to describe the current condition of the forest, the values and benefits to be obtained from the forest, the desired condition of the forest in the future, and the best methods to achieve that goal. Certain minimum standards and procedures have been established upon which all management units are evaluated.

Plan Implementation Verification of the actual results of operations in the field compared

to the planned operations is required to be able to assess achievement of the plan objectives and compliance with laws and regulations. In conjunction with the review of operations, the reporting tables are tested to ensure accurate results are reported.

Systems Support

System support concerns resources and activities needed to support plan implementation so as to achieve the desired objectives. Appropriate control, documentation and reporting procedures must be in place and operational. Planned action should occur at planned times, in planned places and to the planned degree.

Monitoring

The activities and the effects of these activities in achieving management objectives must be regularly measured and assessed. In particular, the indicators of achievement must be assessed and their effectiveness reviewed.

Achievement of Management Objectives & Forest Sustainability

Periodic assessments of the management of the forest unit operations and the forest unit must be made in order to determine whether forest sustainability and other management objectives are being achieved. This includes comparing the actual values of the predetermined indicators against the planned values and assessing the reasons for any significant deviations.

Contractual Obligations The licensee must comply with the specific license requirements.



APPENDIX D – LIST OF ACRONYMS USED AFA – Algonquin Forestry Authority AOC – Area of Concern APP – Algonquin Provincial Park APF – Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit AWS – Annual Work Schedule CFSA – Crown Forest Sustainability Act CSA – Canadian Standards Association FIM – Forest Information Manual FMP – Forest Management Plan FMPM – Forest Management Planning Manual FOCIS – Forest Operations Compliance Information System FOIP – Forest Operations Inspection Program FOP – Forest Operations Prescription FTG – Free-to-grow IFA – Independent Forest Audit IFAPP – Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol ISO – International Organizations for Standardization LCC – Local Citizens’ Committee NDPEG – Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation NRVIS – Natural Resources Values Information System OMNR – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources SEIM – Socio-Economic Impact Model SFL – Sustainable Forest License SFMM – Strategic Forest Management Model SGR – Silvicultural Ground Rule



APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF INPUT TO AUDIT PROCESS General Public: Using the mailing list that the OMNR maintains for the APF, a survey was sent to 429 stakeholders on August 1, 2007. The audit team received 22 responses to the survey, a return rate of about 4%. The survey was also posted on the BioForest Technologies Inc. web page. In addition to the mailouts, the lead auditor attended Loggers Day on July 28 in APP, speaking with a significant number of the 1300 people who attended that event. The auditor had a modest booth on site and interview forms to guide discussions with interested attendees. Local Citizens’ Committee: A member of the audit team directly interviewed 13 members of the LCC. The individual interviews allowed LCC members to comment on the effectiveness of the LCC and the performance of both the AFA and APP. In addition to the interviews, members of the LCC attended the field portion of the audit. LCC members were generally supportive of the management activities taking place on the APF. Aboriginal Communities: During the course of the audit, the audit team met with all six of the Algonquin communities: Whitney Algonquins, Algonquins of Golden Lake, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation (based in Renfrew), Antoine First Nation (based in Mattawa), and the Mattawa Algonquins. The deep attachment of the Algonquin peoples to APP became clear. Discussions with Aboriginal Communities contributed to two suggestions in section 3.2.3 of this report. Volume commitment holders: Representatives from ten companies that hold volume commitments from the Minister of Natural Resources were directly interviewed by the audit team. The audit occurred during a significant downturn in the markets for most commitment holders. Most, but not all, expressed support for the management activities if the AFA and a slightly smaller number were supportive of the work of the APP. All recognized the extraordinary history and opportunity created by harvesting timber within the mandate of Ontario’s largest Provincial Park. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: The APP area supervisor, area forester, area biologist, and technician participated in the opening and closing meetings of the field audit, as well as the field audit itself. The APP superintendent attended the pre-audit meeting and one pre-audit field day, the opening and closing meeting, and a field day during the audit. Regional OMNR staff attended the opening meeting by conference call and the closing meeting in person. Two main office OMNR staff attended three days of the field audit. AFA: The AFA general manager, chief forester, foresters, and supervisors participated throughout the audit.


report of an independent audit of forest …...report of an independent audit of forest management...

Documents