1
ARMSTRONG FOREST
2014 INDEPENDENT FOREST AUDIT
MANAGEMENT UNIT ACTION PLAN
STATUS REPORT
FINAL
2
Table of Contents
Status Report Signature Page ... 3
Introduction... 4
Recommendations... 4
Recommendation #1: ... 4
Recommendation # 2: ... 6
Recommendation # 3: ... 7
Recommendation # 4: ... 7
Recommendation # 6: ... 8
Recommendation # 7: ... 9
Recommendation # 9: ... 11
Recommendation # 10: ... 12
Recommendation # 11: ... 12
Recommendation # 12: ... 13
Recommendation # 13: ... 14
Recommendation # 14: ... 15
3
Status Report Signature Page
Prepared by:
Bertha Strickland, R.P.F.
Management Forester
MNR Thunder Bay District
Original signed on March 10, 2014
Submitted by:
Frank Miklas
District Manager
MNR Thunder Bay District
Original signed on March 10, 2014
Jim Fry
A/District Manager
MNR Nipigon District
Original signed on March 10, 2014
Approved by:
Allan Willcocks, R.P.F.
Regional Director
MNR Northwest Region
4
Introduction
In September, 2011, an Independent Forest Audit (IFA) was conducted on the
Armstrong Forest by Arbex Forest Resource Consultants Ltd. for the period April 1, 2006
to March 31, 2011. The final audit report was received February 23, 2012. The action
plan was approved April 18, 2012.
This final status report is required to be submitted by April 18, 2014. The status report
includes the original approved actions for each of the recommendations from the
Management Unit Action Plan. The progress to date of each action is listed below the
actions required. Future tracking is shown for any actions not yet completed.
Recommendations
Recommendation #1:
OMNR must fully meet its responsibilities as the forest manager of the Armstrong
Forest.
Actions Required:
1. Thunder Bay District is developing a program to address outstanding silvicultural obligations by:
surveying areas that are not free-to-grow to determine whether renewal or
tending treatments are required, whether the areas are regenerated (e.g.
natural regeneration or previous treatments), or whether the areas are
free-to-grow. (Also refer to recommendations #6, 9)
reporting areas that are regenerated or free-to-grow in the Annual Reports
confirming the actual treatments required and scheduling in the
appropriate AWS and reporting in the Annual Report
2. Thunder Bay District is working with Northwest Region, the MNR Nipigon District, Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. (the SFL holder on the former portion of the Lake Nipigon Forest) as well as aboriginal communities towards finding resolution on the long term management structure for the amalgamated Lake Nipigon Forest.
Progress to Date:
1. Ongoing. Since January 2012, Thunder Bay District has compiled all available digital spatial information to ascertain the full scope of survey work necessary. It was determined that approximately 46,000 ha (gross area estimate) required some type of survey, i.e. Free-to Grow (FTG), regeneration assessment – including possible vegetation management and post-harvest forest operation prescriptions (FOPs). Information in the form of a database has been created to identify areas that still require surveying.
5
A three-year timeline was established to complete survey of the areas given the total area to be assessed, the age of the depletions and the year of artificial treatment, i.e. nothing on the Armstrong portion of the Lake Nipigon Forest is less than four years old. 2012 was the first year (Phase 1) of a proposed three year timeline to complete the assessments.
During 2012-2013 Thunder Bay District signed a contract to proceed with Phase 1 of the outstanding silviculture work. The project consisted of surveying
approximately 15,000 hectares of harvested area and was sub-divided into three main components: post-harvest forest operation prescriptions,
regeneration/vegetation management assessment and FTG assessments. A portion of the area identified for regeneration/vegetation management was expected to meet FTG standards and as such the appropriate FTG assessment was completed.
The results from the 2012 surveys were compiled and reported in the 2012-2013 Annual Report submitted November, 2013. Results from the 2012 survey are reported in the Annual Report Regeneration Treatment Layer (RGN) or the Free-to-Grow Layer (FTG).
During 2013, Thunder Bay District signed a contract to proceed with Phase 2 of the program. The project consisted of surveying 6,262 hectares of harvested area and was subdivided in two components: regeneration/vegetative
management assessments and FTG assessments. It was expected that the area identified for regeneration/vegetation management may meet FTG standards and as such the appropriate FTG assessment was completed.
Phase 3 is identified for 2014-2015 with 6,000 hectares planned for survey in the 2014-2015 Annual Work Schedule. It is expected that the original three year timeline will be exceeded and the required surveys may take an additional 2 years to complete. The amount of area scheduled for survey is dependent on funding availability and resources. Completion of this work will depend on the alignment with the ongoing eSFL discussions.
Further analysis of the data has resulted in consideration to have a portion of the original 46,000 hectares be interpreted with the new FRI for the forest. The FRI for the Armstrong portion of the Lake Nipigon Forest is scheduled to be FRI cruised during the summer of 2014 with photo-interpretation scheduled to begin December, 2014. Details on the amount of area appropriate for inclusion in the interpretation exercise are still being finalized
2. Ongoing. The MNR Forest Industry Division worked with MNR Region/District staff, Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. and Whitesand First Nation to explore opportunities to develop business interests and prepare for enhanced SFL (eSFL) discussions on the amalgamated Lake Nipigon Forest consistent with Ontario’s forest tenure modernization plans. ESFL discussions commenced in August 2013 and are ongoing as of the writing of this Status Report.
6
Future Tracking
1. The required assessments, determining of subsequent treatments and reporting will continue with all areas forecast to be assessed by the end of the 2016-2017 fiscal years. Results for Phase 2 will be reported in the 2013-2014 Annual Report due November 2014. Responsibility: Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor. Method of Tracking Progress: Spatial database (silvicultural obligations), Annual Reports, AWSs. 2. The stated action will continue to be implemented with formal Enhanced SFL
discussions expected to be finalized by the end fiscal 2014. Responsibility: Thunder Bay District Manager (lead), Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor. Method of Tracking Progress: SFL on the amalgamated Lake Nipigon Forest.
Recommendation # 2
:
In the development of future forest management plans, the FMP Steering Committee
must fulfill its Terms of Reference responsibilities and provide adequate support to the
FMP process.
Actions Required:
The following will be documented within the applicable sections of future Terms of Reference and Project Plans of Phase II (2016-2021) of the current Lake Nipigon Forest 2011-2021 FMP and subsequent FMPs:
The Project Manager will ensure that issues that impede the planning team are brought to the Steering Committee.
Re-visiting of planning decisions will not occur without good cause. This applies to all involved in the FMP planning process (Plan Author, Area Forester, Project Manager, District Manager, SFL Manager, Planning Team, Steering Committee).
The District Manager and SFL Manager will determine the financial and human resources necessary to ensure the plan proceeds on schedule. The advice of the Steering
Committee will be obtained if funding or resources are insufficient.
Regular updates by the Project Manager to the Steering Committee will occur during FMP development to ensure the planning process milestones are being met.
The Project Manager will seek and incorporate guidance from the Steering Committee and MNR FMP Specialist if delays are encountered to ensure that modified timelines are realistic for the remainder of plan development.
Outcomes related to the above actions will be documented (e.g. minutes or other records of discussion) by those noted in actions above.
Progress to Date:
Not completed. As noted in the approved action plan the actions required are to occur for the Phase II 2016-2021 Plan beginning in 2014 and ongoing until plan approval expected by March 31, 2016; ongoing for subsequent FMPs.
Future Tracking
The stated action will occur for the Phase II 2016-2011 Plan beginning in 2014 and ongoing until plan approval expected by March 31, 2016, and will be ongoing for subsequent FMPs. Responsibility: Preparation of Terms of Reference & Project Plan: MNR Northwest Region
7
Planning Forester; Approval: MNR Nipigon District Manager, MNR Thunder Bay District Manager, and MNR Northwest Region Director. Implementation during plan development: MNR (Project Manager, NWR Planning Forester), SFL (Plan Author, General Manager), as well as all other Planning Team and Steering Committee members. Method of Tracking Progress: Terms of Reference and Project Plans of Phase II (2016-2021) of the current 2011-2021 FMP and
subsequent FMPs; Outcomes to actions documented in minutes or other records of discussion.
Recommendation # 3:
OMNR and LNFMI should assess whether the inclusion of all non-FTG areas as available
forest in Term 1 of SFMM resulted in an appropriate increase in the area available for
harvest.
Actions Required:
To address this audit recommendation the manner of incorporating the non-FTG area in the model needs to be reviewed. It is not a matter of running the model (SFMM) with the non-FTG areas excluded for the current 2011-2021 FMP. Area cannot be removed if it is not free-to-grow (FTG) at the moment. It is inappropriate to conduct forest analysis in the long-term without dealing with the entire land base. At some point or another in modeling, portions of the forest area are not free-to-grow. Accordingly, a regeneration delay is assumed in the analysis for future harvest as is a likely success rate based on the most recent surveys for recent harvest. It is a matter of whether the modeling assumptions are appropriate, not
whether or not the area is included. In development of modeling assumptions for the next FMP the survey data and assumptions of how the non-FTG area was incorporated in the 2011-2021 FMP, and any available additional survey information that has occurred since then, will be reviewed to ensure that only appropriate area is included.
Progress to Date:
Not completed. As noted in the approved action plan the actions required are to occur for the 2021-2031 FMP Analysis Package forecast for completion in 2019.
Future Tracking
The stated action will occur for the 2021 – 2031 FMP Analysis Package forecast for completion in 2019. Responsibility: MNR Northwest Region Planning Forester (lead for working with SFL holder), MNR NWR Regional Analyst. Method of Tracking Progress: 2021-2031 FMP Analysis Package.
Recommendation # 4:
OMNR should explore opportunities to benchmark yield curves in SFMM against actual
harvest yields.
Actions Required:
Block level harvest volumes will be assessed as compared to predicted volumes to support the development of yield curves in next 2021-2031 FMP based on the following:
8
Determining and documenting appropriate field sampling of snow storm damaged stands and undamaged stands. The sampling will also consider the forest units in the plan, age, various stocking and site classes, number of blocks and location;
Issuing separate Harvest Approvals for blocks and using corresponding volumes in MNR’s TREES invoicing system to compare against predicted FRI volumes.
Progress to Date:
Ongoing. Very little harvesting has occurred on the forest to date. Two blocks have been licenced with separate harvest approvals. There has been little activity in both locations to date and no field sampling has been completed to date in these licenced blocks. One approval location shows the majority of stands in the Block assigned with management consideration “DAMG” in the planning composite. Volumes delivered and tracked under this approval may be useful as a comparison to predicted FRI volumes once harvesting has been completed in the block. The action is not yet completed as the approved action plan indicated the actions
required were to begin April 1, 2012 and continue to March 31, 2019 for inclusion in the 2021 – 2031 FMP Analysis Package.
Future Tracking
The stated actions will continue to March 31, 2019 for inclusion in the 2021 – 2031 FMP Analysis Package. Responsibility: NWR Planning Forester, MNR Northwest Region Analyst. Method of Tracking Progress: Record of field sampling plan, record of Block Harvest Approval volumes compared to predicted volumes, 2021-2031 FMP Analysis Package.
Recommendation # 6:
OMNR must ensure that conifer renewal sites are monitored and that when required
tending is undertaken to ensure that conifer regeneration is consistent with the
achievement of the planned future forest condition.
Actions Required:
1. MNR will continue and refine efforts to identify area that will require monitoring to determine if tending treatments are necessary. (Also, refer to recommendation #1) 2. Areas surveyed and determined to require tending will be prioritized based on risk as
well as silviculture and management intent. The area will be scheduled in the appropriate AWS for tending dependant on funding availability. A possible complicating factor in the timely completion of chemical tending activities on the Armstrong Forest is the current and historical strong local opposition to the use of herbicide as a tending method. This may result in operational delays as dialog
between forest managers, the LCC and Aboriginal/First Nation communities continue.
Progress to Date
:1. Ongoing.
Phase 1 (2012-13) of the silviculture obligations program (referred to in R#1) prioritized assessments based on areas that were of similar age and geographic area. Consideration was also given to the total area, outstanding renewal, age of depletion and treatment. The method heavily weighted “newer” area (i.e.
9
area depleted since 2000) as well as untreated areas. The intent was to ensure conifer renewed sites were captured in the Phase 1 program to determine future tending needs. Refer to action 2 below regarding specific areas identified for tending to-date.
Phase 2 (2013-2014) of the silviculture obligations program (Referred to in R#1) focused more on prioritizing assessments based on geographic area.
Consideration was also given to the age of depletion and treatment. The FTG survey area breakdown included the following; 2,780 hectares natural; 360 hectares seeded; 3,120 hectares plantations; 400 hectares plantation regeneration assessment.
2. Ongoing.
Phase 1 (2012-2013) Survey Results – After a detailed review of the factors (including the remaining “window of opportunity” in tending sites to significantly alter species composition, the time line to implement a tending program, and the available funds in the renewal trust account) it was determined that the best course of action was to report those areas identified as FTG with the current species composition.
Phase 2 (2013-2014) survey results have not yet been reviewed. Next steps include a more detailed review of the survey results to prioritize areas recommended for tending as well as scheduling in the appropriate AWS. A preliminary review of the survey results suggests that most of the area survey will meet FTG standards. Availability of funding and resources as well as consideration of the remaining “window of opportunity” for tending as noted above may result in no further activity.
Future Tracking
1. Outstanding conifer renewal sites will continue to be monitored to determine tending requirements as part of the surveys being scheduled annually. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester (lead), Planning and Information GIS. Method of Tracking Progress: Spatial database.
2. The stated action will continue to be implemented annually. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Method of Tracking Progress: AWSs, Annual Reports.
Recommendation # 7:
The OMNR must immediately implement a water crossing management strategy to
reduce the potential for environmental damage and public safety hazards associated
with deteriorating temporary water crossing structures.
Actions Required:
1. MNR Thunder Bay District has completed an inventory on the majority of temporary water crossings during the fall of 2011 with the remainder scheduled for inspection in 2012.
2. MNR Thunder Bay District developed a strategy to address deteriorating temporary water crossing structures based on risk and use beginning with removals scheduled in 2012-2013 AWS. Crossing removal is dependant on funding availability.
10
3. MNR Thunder Bay District will continue its efforts to request funding.
Progress to Date:
1. Ongoing. MNR Thunder Bay District continues its effort to update the inventory information for all water crossings located on the MU. Water crossing inventory efforts continued during 2012 and 2013 on updating the water crossing data with focus based on geographic location versus the temporary nature of the crossings. Due to other priorities and the progress to date on temporary water crossing
inspections, no other temporary water crossings were inspected during 2013-2014. 2. Ongoing. Three temporary water crossings were removed during 2012-2013. MNR
Thunder Bay District tried on 3 different occasions to procure services for the removal of 7 of the scheduled 13 water crossing during 2013-2014. In the end, one contract was awarded, which resulted in the removal of 3 temporary water
crossings. As well, Nipigon District contracted for the removal of 5 temporary structures located in the Ombabika Bay area. These removals were unsuccessful due to unforeseen complications. Fifteen temporary structures are scheduled for removal in the 20142015 AWS along with the replacement of one temporary
crossing. Crossing removals and replacements are dependant on funding availability. Completion of this work will depend on the alignment with the ongoing eSFL
discussions.
3. Ongoing. MNR Thunder Bay district was successful with obtaining funding for the removal of the crossings in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Funding requests have been submitted for crossing removals and replacements for 2014-2015. The status of this funding request is not known at this time.
Future Tracking
1. Temporary water crossing not yet inspected will be scheduled for inspection during 2014-2015. A number of temporary crossing inspected during 2011 were
recommended for inspection by an Engineer. MNR Thunder Bay District is coordinating the inspection of these crossing with MNR Regional Engineers early spring once road become drivable. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay IRM Technical Specialist (lead), Resource Management Technician. Method of Tracking Progress: Water crossing inventory information on file.
2. Deteriorating temporary water crossings will continue to be addressed based on risk with 15 structures scheduled for removal during 2014-2015. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester (lead), IRM Technical Specialist. Method of Tracking Progress: Water crossing inventory information, AWSs and Annual Reports.
3. MNR will continue in its efforts to request funding. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor (lead), IRM Technical Specialist. Method of Tracking Progress: Capital funding request/budget.
11
Recommendation # 9:
OMNR must address the backlog in area requiring assessment of regeneration success
(artificial and natural renewal) and maintain an annual regeneration assessment
program approximating the annual allowable harvest area.
Actions Required:
1. MNR will continue and refine efforts to determine the total area that requires free-to-grow assessment for previously depleted areas. The areas will be organized in an annual survey program dependant on funding availability. (Also refer to R#1) 2. Going forward MNR will maintain an annual free-to-grow survey program depending
on the actual harvest area and the year to assessment targets as per the FMP silviculture ground rules.
Progress to Date:
1. Ongoing. As noted in Recommendation 1 progress to date it was determined that 46,000 ha required some type of survey.
During 2012-2013 Thunder Bay District proceeded with Phase 1 of the outstanding silviculture work. This project included surveying approximately 5,000 hectares for FTG. As well, a portion of the area identified for
regeneration/vegetation management was expected to meet FTG standards and as such the appropriate FTG assessment was completed.
The results from the 2012 surveys were compiled and reported in the 2012-2013 Annual Report submitted November, 2013.
Phase 2 of the program resulted in a contract to survey 6,260 hectares for Free-to-Grow (FTG), and 400 hectares for regeneration assessments. As well, it was expected that some of the area identified for regeneration assessments was expected to meet FTG standards and as such the appropriate FTG assessment was completed. Results for this portion of the survey will be reported in the 2013-2014 Annual Report due November, 2014.
An additional 6,000 hectares is scheduled for survey in the 2014-2015 Annual Work Schedule. It is expected that the original three year timeline will be exceeded and the required surveys may take an additional year or two to complete.
As noted in Recommendation 1 consideration is being given to having some of the outstanding survey area captured by the new FRI interpretation which is scheduled to begin December, 2014. Details on the amount of area appropriate for inclusion in the interpretation exercise are still being finalized.
2. Ongoing. Since the IFA only a small amount of harvesting as occurred at the end of 2012-2013. This area will be scheduled for FTG in accordance with the SGR of the FMP.
Future Tracking
1. The required FTG assessments will continue with all outstanding areas to be assessed by the end of the 2015-16 or 2016-2017 fiscal years. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester (lead); Planning and Information GIS System Officer. Method of Tracking Progress: Spatial database (silvicultural obligations), Annual Reports, AWSs.
12
2. The stated action will continue to be implemented annually. Responsibility: MNR
Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Method of Tracking Progress: AWS’s, Annual Reports.
Recommendation # 10:
OMNR must complete the survey of XYZ category lands.
Actions Required:
Category X, Y, Z (previously harvested) lands apply to Sustainable Forest Licences. Since, the Armstrong Forest is no longer an SFL, these land classifications are no longer applicable. Since this recommendation is about surveying previously harvested lands this recommendation is addressed by the actions outlined in recommendations #1, 6, and 9.
Progress to Date:
Refer to R# 1, 6, and 9.
Recommendation # 11:
In the preparation of the next forest management plan, OMNR should ensure that
SFMM modelling assumptions related to renewal pathways are re-assessed in light of
the results of free-to-grow surveys and silvicultural effectiveness monitoring.
Actions Required:
The development of SFMM renewal pathway modelling assumptions for the next 2021-2031 FMP, including those related to caribou habitat objectives, will include consideration and analysis of
the actual silviculture success (i.e. area regenerated to the intended forest unit) compared to regeneration success (i.e. area regenerated to forest unit that was not intended) achieved from implementation of the silviculture ground rules (SGRs);
modifications necessary to the SGRs to improve silviculture success and achieve plan objectives e.g. how to reduce transitioning of pure conifer forest units to conifer mixedwood forest units;
all survey data including free-to-grow surveys and MNR silviculture effectiveness monitoring (SEM) data will be used.
Progress to Date:
Not completed. As noted in the approved action plan the actions required are to occur for the 2021-2031 FMP Analysis Package forecast for completion in 2019.
Future Tracking
The stated action will occur for the 2021 – 2031 FMP Analysis Package forecast for completion in 2019. Responsibility: MNR Northwest Region Planning Forester (lead), MNR NWR Regional Analyst. Method of Tracking Progress: 2021-2031 FMP Analysis Package.
13
Recommendation # 12:
In its assessment of progress on the achievement of the 2011 LNF FMP objectives in
the Year 3 Annual Report, OMNR should consider alternate approaches to achieving
caribou habitat objectives or alter current objectives to make them feasible to
implement on the former Armstrong Forest portion of the Lake Nipigon Forest.
Actions Required:
1. The model for the 2011 Lake Nipigon Forest FMP did not split the management
unit or the caribou mosaics on the old management unit boundary. Therefore it
is not possible with the model from the approved 2011 Lake Nipigon Forest FMP
to conduct analysis on the impacts of the achievement of objectives for only the
old Armstrong Forest portion of the new Lake Nipigon Forest.
The year three (2013-2014) Annual Report for the 2011-2021 Lake Nipigon
Forest FMP “Progress Toward Achievement of FMP Objectives” will include the
following:
Assessment of progress related to implementation of caribou
habitat/caribou mosaic objectives
(e.g. potential implications of under harvesting) and potential issues will
be identified. This will serve as input to the development of the next
2021-2031 FMP. As well, measures will be proposed to implement during
the remainder of the plan to offset or reduce negative impacts
(e.g. considerations in issuing harvest approvals for the remainder of the
plan).
A discussion on alternative approaches available to achieve caribou habitat
Allowing more wild fire to burn naturally;
Implementing a prescribed burn program;
Accelerating the harvest;
Prioritizing where possible harvest operations within caribou mosaic A
blocks during the 2016-2021 period where harvest operations are nearing
completion.
2. As required of the 2009 FMPM the year three (2013-2014) Annual Report will
contain one of the following recommendations relating to the validity of the
long-term management direction (LTMD) of the FMP, with rationale: the LTMD
remains valid and planning of operations for the second 5 year term proceeds;
the LTMD remains valid but requires minor adjustments to the level of renewal,
tending, protection activities in the second 5 year term and planning operations
for the second 5 year term proceeds with modifications; the LTMD is no longer
valid and an early plan renewal is required.
Progress to Date:
1. and 2. Not Completed. The actions have not been completed as the approved action plan indicates the AR submission is due November 15, 2014 and following MNR review the resubmitted AR for MNR endorsement is due by Feb 15, 2015.
14
Future Tracking
1. The stated action will be completed with the AR submission due November 15, 2014 and following MNR review the resubmitted AR for MNR endorsement is due by Feb 15, 2015. Responsibility: MNR Nipigon District Management Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester, MNR Nipigon District Area Biologist, with advice from MNR Northwest Region, Planning Forester. Method of tracking progress: Regional Director endorsement of year 3 Annual Report (2013-2014).
2. The stated action will be completed with the AR submission due November 15, 2014 and following MNR review the resubmitted AR for MNR endorsement is due by Feb 15, 2015. Responsibility: MNR Nipigon District Management Forester (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Method of tracking progress: Regional Director endorsement of year 3 Annual Report (2013-2014).
Recommendation # 13:
The District Manager must ensure that the Action Plan and Action Plan Status Report
are submitted within the specified time frames.
Actions Required:
1. MNR Thunder Bay District, NW Region and Forest Branch have developed an Action Plan production and review schedule beginning with the Draft Final Report to ensure the Action Plan is submitted by at least 2 weeks prior to the deadline.
2. Regular scheduled meetings will occur during the development and review of the Action Plan.
3. MNR Thunder Bay District and the NW Region will develop a Status Report production and review schedule at least 6 months prior to the deadline and develop, review, and submit the Status Report according to this schedule.
Progress to Date:
1. Completed. An action plan production and review schedule was developed
February 23, 2012. The action plan was due for submission by the District
Managers by April 23, 2012. The action plan was signed as submitted one
month ahead of schedule by the Thunder Bay District Manager (on March 23,
2012) and the Nipigon District Manager (on March 27, 2012).
2. Completed. The MNR District and NWR meet on February 10, 2012 to develop a
preliminary draft action plan and determine follow up items based on the draft
final audit report. Subsequent meetings were held March 5 and March 9, 2012
to complete the draft action plan based on follow up work done from the initial
meeting and the final audit report. The action plan was also co-ordinated with
the Lake Nipigon Forest 2011 IFA Action Plan development prior to finalization
for recommendations that applied to both forests.
3. Completed. An interim status report was required to be submitted by April 18,
2013 for the actions associated with recommendations 1, 6, 7, 9, and 14. A
schedule for preparation of this status report along with a status report template
was prepared January 29, 2013. The District and Regional MNR meet on April 4,
2013 to review the draft status report and also coordinated with the Lake
15
Nipigon Forest 2011 IFA interim status report for recommendations that applied
to both forests. The interim status report was submitted ahead of schedule on
April 11, 2013 by the Thunder Bay District Manager and April 12, 2013 by the
Nipigon District Manager.
The final status report is required to be submitted by April 18, 2014 for all audit
recommendations. A schedule for preparation of this final status report along
with an updated status report template was prepared January 8, 2014. An
updated status report was prepared March 3, 2014 and was reviewed during a
meeting on March 4, 2014. The final status report was submitted ahead of
schedule by the Thunder Bay District Manager and the Nipigon District Manager
as noted in the signature page of this status report. Status Report preparation
was also coordinated with the Lake Nipigon Forest 2011 IFA final status report
for recommendations that applied to both forests.
Recommendation # 14:
OMNR must address the imbalance in FRTF revenues and expenditures to ensure
adequate funding is available to meet planned silviculture targets and address existing
backlogs.
Actions Required:
1. MNR Thunder Bay District will continue its efforts to identify and request funding to address outstanding silvicultural obligations on the forest.
2. Survey results completed under recommendation #1, #6 and #9, the required treatments and associated costs will be determined and prioritized.
3. Required treatments will be scheduled in the AWS and implemented on an annual basis dependant on resources and sufficient financial resources.
4. An annual review of the renewal rates will be conducted to ensure the levels are appropriate.
Progress to Date:
1. Ongoing. MNR Thunder Bay District requested and was provided MNR funding to
complete the Phase 1 survey during 2012-2013 and Phase 2 surveys during
2013-2014. A funding request has also been submitted for Phase 3 surveys
scheduled for 2014-2015. The status of this request is unknown at this time.
2. Ongoing. As identified in recommendation 1 above survey results for 2012-2013
were compiled and reported in the 2012-2013 Annual Report. No additional
treatments are planned for these areas. The survey results for the 2013-2014
surveys have been submitted. It is anticipated that this information will be
reviewed and prioritized during the upcoming months. Availability of funding and
resources as well as consideration of the remaining “window of opportunity” for
tending as noted in Recommendation 6 Action 2 above may result in no further
activity.
3. Ongoing. The survey results for 2012-2013 were reported in the 2012-2013
Annual Report. No additional treatments are planned for these locations. As
16
noted in response to action 2 above, the review of results for the 2013-2014
surveys have not yet been completed, to determine, if future scheduling is
required. It is anticipated that this information will be reviewed and prioritized
during the upcoming months. Availability of funding and resources, as well as,
consideration of the remaining “window of opportunity” for tending as noted in
Recommendation 6 action 2 above may result in no further activity.
4. Ongoing.
For 2012-2013 there was a renewal rate review and no changes to the
renewal rates were made to the Lake Nipigon Forest (former Armstrong
and Lake Nipigon Forests).
2013-2014 renewal rates were reduced for the Armstrong portion of the
Lake Nipigon Forest by Thunder Bay District. Harvesting has been very
limited on the forest since the surrender of the SFL in 2008 with no
renewal activities implemented during Term 1 of the current FMP. In
consideration of the challenges faced by operators attempting to initiate
operations on the forest, including distance to markets, the lack of detail
on actual costs to implement a program due to inactivity in recent years, a
lower renewal rate was given consideration and approved. This approval
was provided with the recognition that close attention will need to be
given in the future to ensure that renewal rates are appropriate to address
silviculture targets.
Renewal rates for 2014-2015 will remain the same as 2013-2014.
Future Tracking
1. The District will continue its efforts to identify and request funding annually to address outstanding silvicultural obligations on the forest. Responsibility: Thunder Bay North Area Supervisor (lead); MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Method of Tracking Progress: Capital funding request/budget.
2. The required action will continue to be implemented annually. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Method of Tracking Progress: Spatial database, treatment cost records.
3. The required action will continue to be implemented annually. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Method of Tracking Progress: AWS’s, Annual Reports.
4. Costs associated with future renewal treatments will be closely monitored annually to ensure that the renewal rates are appropriate. Responsibility: MNR Thunder Bay District Manager (lead), MNR Thunder Bay District Management Forester. Method of Tracking Progress: Documentation of annual review of renewal rates.
