Five-Year Environmental Assessment Report on Forest Management (2008-2013)

Executive summary

The Five-Year Environmental Assessment Report on Forest Management (Five-Year EA Report) describes the implementation of the conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Declaration Order MNR-71 provides Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) approval for forest management on Crown lands in the Area of the Undertaking in Ontario. Declaration Order MNR-71 extended and amended the original EA Act approval, which was granted in April 1994, following a 4-½ year public hearing of the Environmental Assessment Board. Declaration Order MNR-71 has no expiry date, and provides for an adaptive management approach to forest management with reporting and amending provisions.

The 55 conditions of MNR-71 are organized under six categories:

• Forest Management Planning
• Monitoring
• Reporting
• Negotiations with Aboriginal Peoples
• Continuing Development and Programs
• Administration of Conditions

Condition 52 of Declaration Order MNR-71 requires MNR to provide a report to Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the public every five years. This report, the second Five-Year EA Report that MNR has produced, addresses the content requirements of Condition 52 for the reporting period from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013. In particular, the report describes significant initiatives, major results and MNR’s implementation experience during the reporting period. The report also includes responses to implementation concerns that MNR has identified during the reporting period, and the manner in which those concerns have been or may be addressed. A discussion of other significant matters of government and public interest related to forest management is also included.

Forest management planning

In March 2008, MNR initiated the Forest Management Planning Manual Revision Project to address recommendations from the Forest Process Streamlining Task Force Forest. In December 2008, MNR posted a Regulation Proposal Notice on the Environmental Registry to seek comments on proposed revisions to the manual. In December 2009, the Forest Management Planning Manual (2009) was approved through an amendment to Ontario Regulation 167/95. The regulation was published in the Ontario Gazette on December 26, 2009.

MNR is required to provide a description of the implementation of the forest management planning process during the reporting period in the Five-Year EA Report. Highlights of the description include:

• 30 forest management plans prepared and approved, including 3 plans using the full requirements of Declaration Order MNR-71 and the Forest Management Planning Manual (2009)
• 6 Phase II operational plans prepared and approved using the full requirements of Declaration Order MNR-71 and the Forest Management Planning Manual (2009)
• 76 per cent of Aboriginal communities invited to participate in the forest management planning process participated in one or more opportunities
• 940 amendments to forest management plans were prepared and approved, including 44 minor amendments and 6 major amendments
• 86 of 121 issue resolution requests or 71 per cent were resolved, including 66 per cent by the MNR Regional Director
• 40 requests for an individual environmental assessment were made on 15 forest management plans

Monitoring

In 2008, the Forest Compliance Handbook was revised to incorporate a forest management approach to forest compliance rather than the previous enforcement approach. This change in approach resulted in a significant reduction in the number of directives and procedures in the handbook. Seven e-learning modules were developed as part of the certification training for new inspectors so that currently certified compliance inspectors could be recertified online. The process for establishing operational compliance status was changed; four directives and procedures were revised; 65 industry and 68 MNR inspectors were certified; and 160 industry and 131 MNR inspectors were recertified. The total number of reports submitted to the Forest Operations Information Program indicated that 97 per cent of operations were in compliance.

In 2011, to create a more efficient competitive procurement process, the audit program changed to a Vendor of Record arrangement rather than using a Request for Proposal. In 2012, Ontario Regulation 160/04 was amended to allow the interval between audits to be extended, in limited circumstances, from five to seven years to properly align the audit and forest management planning processes, and sustainable forest licence reviews. Also in 2012, an audit modernization project was initiated to explore ways to make the audit process more efficient and effective.

Forty-six independent forest audits were completed during the reporting period. For the 35 management units with sustainable forest licences, 94 per cent of the audits reported that these units were managed in overall compliance with the legislative and policy requirements. Since 1998, 91 to 94 per cent of all management units were managed in overall compliance with the legislative and policy requirements in effect during the audit periods.

Almost 790,000 hectares were assessed under MNR’s Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Program with 91 per cent of the assessed area declared free-to-grow. For the remaining nine per cent, free-to-grow status was not yet achieved or forest renewal did not meet an acceptable renewal standard, and additional silvicultural treatments might be required. In 2012–13, MNR undertook a Silvicultural Enhancement Initiative to coordinate efforts to improve policies guiding its silviculture program. A comprehensive review of MNR’s silviculture program was undertaken and a number of opportunities for improvement were identified to ensure that the policies guiding forest renewal are effective and efficient, yet responsive to emerging considerations such as climate change.

In 2009, MNR updated the program plan for the Provincial Wildlife Monitoring Program and in 2010, made the plan available to the public on the Environmental Registry. Partnerships with organizations such as Bird Studies Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service were maintained and enhanced to support the program. In 2013, MNR began implementation of the Ontario Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring field program to provide long-term data on the status and trends for a range of wildlife species and associated habitat conditions using a consistent set of survey protocols.

During the reporting period, the status of wildlife populations varied widely among different taxonomic groups and individual species. Evidence suggests that the populations of provincially featured species have generally been stable to increasing since the last reporting period.

Studies to test the effectiveness of guides continued. Analysis of the information collected for the Moose Guidelines Evaluation Project from GPS-collared moose to determine annual and seasonal home ranges was completed. Results regarding calving sites, moose aquatic feeding areas, mineral licks, and summer and winter thermal cover analyses were incorporated into the Stand and Site Guide.

In the Aquatic Effects Program, a number of GIS-based tools were developed to predict the location of small unmapped streams that may serve as fish habitat, and the hydrologic connection between aquatic and terrestrial areas. The tools were shared with MNR staff and the forest industry to help support forest management planning. A large scale collaborative project was initiated to compare natural and forest management disturbance patterns within watersheds, and to compare their impacts on riparian structure and stream habitat.

In the Tourism Effects Project, current forest management policies and practices were found not to impair the viability or profitability of the float plane accessible, resource- based tourism industry between 2000 and 2010. Two approaches to determine the effectiveness of limiting traffic on access roads were assessed. The most effective methods included a combination of road decommissioning and closure with a Public Lands Act sign, and closure for part of the moose the hunting season using only Public Lands Act signs.

In the Boreal Silviculture Program, two assessment methodologies in MNR’s Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario used to determine free-to-grow status in young, regenerating forest stands were evaluated. The results of the evaluation indicated that both methods provide similar results. Results of a study related to the silvicultural and ecological productivity of black spruce/jack pine mixedwoods indicated that plantation grown black spruce trees produce high quality lumber between 40 and 50 years of age. Findings from a study to examine the site quality and density effects on tree growth in juvenile stands concluded that in mixed conifer stands, jack pine has a strong competitive effect on the growth of black spruce, while black spruce has only a weak competitive effect on jack pine.

In the Spatial Ecology Program, a study was initiated to address whether emulation of natural disturbance patterns and processes from conducting forest management activities result in a community of forest songbirds similar to that found in forests arising from natural disturbances.

Reporting

MNR produced a Provincial Annual Report on Forest Management each year of the reporting period and in 2011, produced a State of Ontario’s Forests report. In 2012, MNR undertook a Reporting Synergies Initiative to identify and implement opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of forest reporting and information management. Recommendations from the initiative included consolidating content requirements among reports while ensuring that appropriate information is available to MNR’s stakeholders and the public.

Negotiations with Aboriginal peoples

MNR District Managers continued to negotiate with Aboriginal peoples at the local level regarding opportunities to increase benefits to Aboriginal peoples from participation in forest management. Results of the negotiations for each MNR district are provided in Appendix 1. Aboriginal peoples were involved in seeking new tenure arrangements, including enhanced forest resource licences and the establishment of the first Local Forest Management Corporation, and in seeking new opportunities to increase economic development opportunities through agreements and community based land use planning. MNR is examining methods to collect additional information related to Condition 34 to better determine the effectiveness of the implementation of the condition at the district and provincial levels, and to support improvements to the requirements of the condition.

Métis communities and organizations were increasingly interested in forest management. MNR has, and continues to be, inclusive of Métis communities whose interests or traditional uses may be affected by forest management activities. During the reporting period, Métis involvement in forest management included membership on planning teams, issuance of licences for harvest, and contracts for road construction and biomass hauling. MNR and the forest industry will continue to work with Métis communities to ensure that they achieve a more equal participation in the benefits provided through forest management.

Continuing development and programs

MNR continued to maintain regional and provincial level committees to provide advice to MNR on forest management and related matters. As MNR continues to transform, modernize and update its organizational design and business practices, MNR will examine its advisory committees to determine if changes to the current committee structure are required to ensure that advisory committees continue to provide effective support to MNR’s forest management program.

MNR continued to develop new guides and review and revise existing guides used in forest management planning and implementation. During the reporting period:

• the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St Lawrence Landscapes and Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales were approved
• the science and information used, and the tools created in the development of the Landscape Guides, were incorporated into the Ontario Landscape Tool
• the initial draft of the silviculture guide, which will replace four existing guides, was distributed in early 2013 for a practitioner review
• a review of the Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism resulted in a recommendation that the guide undergo a minor revision
• a 2012 review of the Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values concluded that the guide was still relevant and a revision was not required

MNR continues to invest $10 million annually in the enhanced Forest Resources Inventory Program. During the reporting period, imagery was acquired for all of the planned area. More than 27,800 calibration plots were established and measured for 19 management units. Photo interpretation and digital data delivery was completed for 10 management units amounting to approximately 7 million hectares or 14 per cent of the planned inventory lands. Poor weather has resulted in some delays to the program. The Provincial Forest Inventory Advisory Committee continues to provide advice to program staff on scheduling, changes in technology, new inventory processes and future inventory design.

MNR continued to develop and enhance information management systems to improve data collection, transfer and storage to support forest management planning. The Geographic Information Systems Application Architecture Renewal project, which was completed in 2013, resulted in a new GIS architecture infrastructure in place at a state of the art data centre. In 2012, the Natural Resources and Values Information System was replaced with the Land Information Ontario Editor and Mapper. The editor and mapper provide MNR and OPS staff with a new, modern system for viewing, editing and managing geographic information. The Forest Management Support Tool was replaced with The Learning Compass – a new website to house forest management training materials. During the reporting period, modifications were made to the Forest Information Portal, the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas, the Forest Operations Information Program and the Find a Forest Management Plan website. Other tools were developed to improve data collection, transfer and storage to support forest management planning, including development of a database to store exceptions monitoring information.

The Ecological Land Classification Program continued with production of new and revised interpretation manuals to assist in the use of the program in forest management planning, and further improvements in inventory and mapping technologies. During the reporting period, technology transfer and training were emphasized, with training provided to MNR staff and partners across the province. Special emphasis was directed to the delivery of new tools and formats for the enhanced Forest Resources Inventory Program, including training of photo interpretation staff, external consultants involved in field calibration, and forest industry partners.

During the previous reporting period, MNR, in consultation with government agencies and the forest industry, prepared of a draft protocol for review of water crossings. A review of the protocol was undertaken in 2007 to assess its effectiveness. Revisions to the protocol have been delayed for several reasons, including recent changes to the federal Fisheries Act. Despite the delay, the protocol continues to be used by planning teams for the review and approval of water crossings proposed in the forest management planning process.

MNR continued to collect data from permanent sample plots for the Growth and Yield Program to improve understanding of the growth, productivity and dynamics of Ontario’s forests. During the reporting period, more than 400 plots were re-measured. An extensive reconnaissance exercise was undertaken on 572 plots to identify plots for which identification might be at risk, and approximately 15 new plots were established. A large-scale stem analysis program was initiated to study stem form and height over age development for jack pine and black spruce grown in plantations. Program staff worked closely with MNR’s Forest Modelling and Analysis Unit to develop the Modelling and Inventory Support Tool to support forest management planning.

The scientific studies to investigate the effects of full-tree logging and full-tree chipping on long-term forest productivity continued. The major results from the analysis of data collected from the long-term soil productivity installations suggest that there are few consistent differences between tree length harvesting and full-tree harvesting for any of the measured response variables. Preliminary results in the tenth year assessment data in the Shallow Soil Quality Exceptions Monitoring Project suggest that there are no trends to indicate that one logging treatment performs better than the other in terms of soil nitrogen availability, regeneration potential and early tree growth. In 2012, a new research trial was established to examine the potential impacts of biomass harvesting in second growth, mid-rotation jack pine plantations.

MNR, in collaboration with research partners, continues to ensure that tending and protection activities are conducted in accordance with current science. MNR continued to be a member of the Spray Efficacy Research Group International and the Ontario Invasive Pest Council. Advances in scientific research and technical developments, including improvements to application technology continue to be incorporated into MNR’s tending and protection programs. Direction on the application of herbicides was incorporated into MNR’s Stand and Site Guide. During the reporting period, jack pine budworm pest management programs were conducted on 81,500 hectares in northeastern and northwestern Ontario. MNR continues to initiate and support research efforts to detect and develop control methods for invasive species, which pose a serious risk to the sustainability of Ontario’s forests. MNR was a founding member of the Invasive Species Centre which was established in 2011.

MNR continued to investigate and develop methodologies for use in forest management planning to address: socio-economic analyses; biodiversity; landscape management and wildlife habitat supply; and spatial modelling. Socio-economic analyses were undertaken to support MNR’s modernization of its forest tenure and pricing system process and to support the development of forest management guides. Additional capability was added to the Socio-Economic Impact Model to conduct social and economic impact assessments at a community level scale. The Provincial Impact Assessment Models, a series of generic forest management models, were developed to examine a range of policy questions at a variety of scales. A multi-modal transportation network was developed for the analysis of transportation problems using provincial level datasets. New yield curves were developed to enable the estimation of available volumes of undersized and defective wood. During the reporting period, MNR developed the Zone Delineation Tool to support policy development initiatives.

Comprehensive training programs continued to be developed and implemented to ensure that the knowledge of persons involved in the planning and implementation of forest management activities is continually upgraded. During the reporting period, MNR held 264 education and training sessions with more than 7,700 participants, focusing on forest management planning, forest operations compliance and the application of guides. A process to transfer, store and make available knowledge from employees who have led key forest management related projects was also developed.

MNR continued to participate in public education on forest management, directly and in partnership with organizations including the Ontario Forestry Association, Canadian Forestry Association and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. MNR provided funding for the Ontario Forestry Association’s Focus on Forests curriculum and for the Canadian Forestry Association’s Teaching Kit Series, and was actively involved in the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers International Forestry Partnership Program. MNR also produced and distributed a variety of public education materials, including an updated brochure to help the public to participate in forest management planning.

In 2008, MNR initiated a review of the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy. The review was intended to examine current major wood supply challenges and provide recommendations for revisions to the strategy. The review was postponed due to several reasons, including the major downturn in the forest industry and resulting decrease in demand for wood, and the temporary realignment of the business aspects of forestry from MNR to the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry in 2009. A project is being undertaken to update the strategy to provide a more strategic approach to wood supply availability and wood supply issues. The proposed new approach will require the development of a small and focused set of strategies to influence forest management planning, timber allocation and licensing, policy, and science and research priority setting.

In 2011, MNR completed the review of the Old Growth Policy which began in 2009. It was determined that the policy was still relevant and would continue to be maintained. During the reporting period, direction from the Old Growth Policy was incorporated into the guides that address the conservation of biodiversity at the landscape and stand and site scales.

Administration of conditions

MNR has prepared this report as the second Five-Year EA Report under Declaration Order MNR-71. In its Request for Amendment to MOE, MNR requested that the content requirements of the Five-Year EA Report be revised to reduce duplication among reports required by Declaration Order MNR-71, while ensuring that appropriate information continues to be available to MNR’s stakeholders and the public.

In 2010, MNR submitted a request to MOE to amend Declaration Order MNR-71. Most of the changes requested related to the forest management planning conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 and were discussed in MNR’s first Five-Year EA Report. MNR’s request was updated in January 2013 in response to MNR’s Transformation Plan.

Implementation experience

During the reporting period, MNR reviewed the implementation of the conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 and identified concerns and issues with the implementation of some of the conditions. Most concerns and issues identified have been addressed through actions, including training messages, updated guide direction and more efficient procurement processes. Other concerns and issues will be addressed through ongoing initiatives, reviews and studies. No problems were identified which would require MNR to seek improvements to the conditions of the declaration order. Ongoing initiatives, reviews and studies may inform future changes to MNR’s Forest EA approval.

Other significant matters

MOE and Ontarians expect MNR to demonstrate leadership in the management of Ontario’s Crown forests. This expectation requires MNR to be aware of other significant matters of government and public interest related to forest management, and to determine if adjustments to Declaration Order MNR-71 or related legislation or policies are required. The matters discussed are: the current economic situation and forest industry status; forest tenure and pricing modernization; global trade issues; climate change and carbon management; the Endangered Species Act; and invasive species.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Environmental Assessment Act approval for forest management

Ontario’s forest management program for Crown forests is based on a legal and policy framework that has sustainability, public and Aboriginal involvement, science and technical development, and adaptive management as key elements. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 and the Environmental Assessment Act, 1990 provide the legislative framework for forest management on Crown lands in Ontario.

In April 1994, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) ^{footnote 1[1]} received Environmental Assessment (EA) Act approval for the undertaking of timber management on Crown lands in management units in Ontario in the Area of the Undertaking. The approval was granted after a comprehensive 4-½ year hearing (1988-92) of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Board, and was subject to 115 terms and conditions. The majority of those terms and conditions prescribed forest management planning requirements that must be fulfilled for each management unit before forest operations can proceed. Other terms and conditions prescribed requirements for monitoring and reporting, and continuing development of MNR’s forest management program.

In 1994, the Ontario government enacted the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to govern the sustainable management of Ontario’s Crown forests. At that time, the government also determined that the EA Act approval for the undertaking of timber management would apply to forest management. This government decision reflected the EA Board’s expectations that management of Ontario’s Crown forests would continue to evolve beyond management of the trees for timber, to the management of forests for multiple objectives.

Term and condition 90 of the 1994 EA Act approval required MNR to incorporate the terms and conditions that prescribed forest management planning requirements into MNR’s timber management planning manual. Those terms and conditions were incorporated into the Forest Management Planning Manual (1996), a regulated manual under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, along with requirements under the act that addressed provisions for sustainability. The manual replaced the 1986 Timber Management Planning Manual for Crown Lands in Ontario.

Term and condition 113 of the 1994 EA Act approval provided approval for nine years (1994-2003). Term and condition 114 required MNR to undertake a review of the implementation of the terms and conditions of the approval during the eighth year, and to make recommendations regarding an extension and amendment of the approval. Term and condition 114 also required MNR to submit the review to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) ^{footnote 2[2]} , and to make the review available so that the public had an opportunity to comment on the review documentation and MNR’s recommendations.

MNR undertook the required review in 2001-02; submitted MNR’s Timber Class EA Review report to MOE in July 2002; and made the report available for public comment. As a result of the MOE and public review, MOE granted an extension and amendment of the original 1994 EA Act approval through Declaration Order MNR-71 in June 2003. Declaration Order MNR-71 is subject to 55 conditions, half of which prescribe forest management planning requirements. Other conditions maintain or enhance requirements for monitoring and reporting, and continuing development of MNR’s forest management program. Administration requirements of the declaration order were also added.

Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to incorporate the 26 conditions that prescribed forest management planning requirements into MNR’s Forest Management Planning Manual. Those conditions were incorporated into the Forest Management Planning Manual (2004), along with updated provisions that addressed Crown Forest Sustainability Act requirements for sustainability. The manual was approved by an amendment to Ontario Regulation 167/95 under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act on June 9, 2004. The regulation was published in the Ontario Gazette on June 26, 2004.

A number of the requirements of Declaration Order MNR-71 had to be addressed immediately (e.g., making the most current version of the Forest Management Planning Manual available on MNR’s website) or by June 2004, one year after the declaration order was approved (e.g., developing a program for the mandatory training and certification of forest operations inspectors). MNR complied with the requirements of the conditions and reported the actions taken to ensure compliance with the requirements to the MOE Director, Environmental Approvals Branch.

In September 2006, MOE formally notified MNR of proposed amendments to specific conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 as part of MOE’s EA Reform agenda. MOE also proposed a number of administrative amendments to various conditions of the declaration order, primarily to reflect MNR’s compliance with the requirements imposed since the declaration order was granted in 2003. MOE received approval of Amending Order MNR-71/2 by the Lieutenant Governor in Council in March 2007. Consequently, changes to the Forest Management Planning Manual (2009) were made to incorporate MOE’s approved amendments to Declaration Order MNR-71.

In February 2008, MNR submitted a request to MOE for EA Act coverage for the Whitefeather Forest through a declaration order. The Whitefeather Forest is located in the northwestern part of Ontario, directly north of and adjacent to the Area of the Undertaking. In its request, MNR proposed that the existing measures to prevent, minimize and mitigate potential adverse effects of forest management on the environment in Declaration Order MNR-71 apply to the Whitefeather Forest. MNR also proposed to add three additional measures to address notable circumstances in the Whitefeather Forest:

• continuation of Pikangikum customary stewardship
• implementation of a strategic approach to access planning
• conservation of woodland caribou

MOE agreed with MNR’s request and granted EA Act coverage for the Whitefeather Forest through Declaration Order MNR-74 in April 2009.

In November 2010, MNR submitted a Request for Amendment to the conditions of Declaration Orders MNR-71 and MNR-74 to the MOE Director, Environmental Approvals Branch. MNR’s Request for Amendment was based on the proposals for changes and improvements identified in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report (see section 1.2) and recommendations of the forest management planning streamlining project, as discussed in section 10.2 of that report. In January 2013, MNR submitted an updated request to MOE in consideration of MNR’s Transformation Plan (see section 3.2).

1.2 Five-year environmental assessment reports

MNR’s Forest EA approval for the undertaking of forest management is an evergreen approval, subject to regular reporting on the implementation of the conditions and amending provisions to ensure that the approval continues to be up-to-date. Condition 52 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to prepare a report (Five-Year EA Report) on the implementation of the conditions of the declaration order in the sixth year of the approval and to continue to produce a report every five years thereafter. MNR prepared its first Five-Year EA Report for the April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2008 reporting period, submitted the report to MOE in June 2009, and made the report available to the public (EBR Registry Number: 010-6945). The report described significant initiatives, major results, and MNR’s implementation experience during the reporting period. The report also included responses to implementation concerns that MNR identified during the reporting period, and related proposals for changes and improvements to specific conditions. A discussion of other significant matters of government and public interest related to forest management was also included in the report.

MNR has prepared this report, its second Five-Year EA Report, for the April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013 reporting period ^{footnote 3[3]} . Table 1.1 lists the requirements of Condition 52 and identifies the specific section of this report that addresses each of the requirements. The information in this report provides a base to support MNR’s adaptive approach to forest management, and MNR’s continued commitment to ensure that Ontario’s Crown forests are managed sustainably.

1.3 EA Act coverage for forest management in Ontario’s Far North

As described in the previous section, Declaration Order MNR-71 applies to the Area of the Undertaking. The northern boundary of the Area of the Undertaking is an administrative line based on the northerly limit of management units that existed at the time of the original Forest EA approval in 1994. North of the Area of the Undertaking (Ontario’s Far North), the area is sparsely populated, largely remote and its population is almost entirely Aboriginal. Economic development opportunities are limited and unemployment is high. First Nations in the Far North are actively seeking ways to improve their economic situation through resource development and stewardship. Forested areas in the Far North that are suitable for forest management are of considerable interest to First Nations in terms of protection of values, contribution to livelihood activities, and a potential means of economic development.

In 2000, the Ontario government established the Northern Boreal Initiative to respond to First Nations’ interest in economic development opportunities associated with resources, and in particular, forest management. The focus area of the initiative included 70,000 square kilometres directly north of the Area of the Undertaking, which MNR determined to have the potential for commercial forest management. Community based land use planning must be completed and the approved plan must identify forest management as a permitted activity in designated land use zones before MNR can seek EA Act coverage to enable forest management opportunities. To facilitate community based land use planning in the Far North, MNR has been working with Aboriginal communities in the focus area to collect information on the biophysical, social and economic components of the environment.

The first community based land use plan, which was approved in 2006 for the Whitefeather Forest, identified forest management as a permitted activity in designated land use zones. As described in section 1.1, in April 2009, EA Act coverage for forest management on the Whitefeather Forest was granted through Declaration Order MNR-74.

The Far North Act, which was passed in 2010, provides a legislative foundation to support and extend land use planning across the Far North. The community based land use plan for Cat Lake and Slate Falls, the first plan to be approved under the Far North Act in 2011, identifies forest management as a permitted activity in designated land use zones. An implementation action in the land use plan directs MNR to seek EA Act coverage to enable the forest management opportunity.

Land use planning initiatives continue with a number of First Nations adjacent to the Area of the Undertaking, including Eabametoong, Mishkeegogamang, Constance Lake and Moose Cree. These planning initiatives could result in the identification of additional opportunities for forest management in areas north of the Area of the Undertaking, and EA Act coverage will be required before forest management can proceed.

1.4 Availability of Declaration Order MNR-71

See Declaration Order MNR-71 online.

2.0 The undertaking

The undertaking, which is the subject of the EA Act approval provided by Declaration Order MNR-71, is:

Specifically, the undertaking consists of the following sequence of interrelated activities:

• provision of access to harvestable timber
• harvest of the timber for transport to wood-processing facilities
• renewal of the forest, which involves
  • preparing the site for regeneration
  • regenerating the forest by natural or artificial means and
• maintenance of the forest, which involves
  • tending to ensure successful growth of the new forest
  • protection of the forest from insects and disease

The same undertaking, granted under Declaration Order MNR-74, also applies to the 1.2 million hectares of Crown land that comprise the Whitefeather Forest.

Figure 2.1 portrays the locations of the 41 management units in the Area of the Undertaking and the Whitefeather Forest as of April 1, 2014.

Enlarge this map of Management units in Ontario as of April 1, 2014 (PDF)

Table 2.1 lists the 41 management units in the Area of the Undertaking, the Whitefeather Forest in Ontario’s Far North and the number used for administrative purposes for each unit as of April 1, 2014.

Table 2.1: Management units in the Area of the Undertaking and the Whitefeather Forest (as of April 1, 2014)

• Abitibi River Forest: 110
• Algonquin Park Forest: 451
• Bancroft Minden Forest: 220
• Big Pic Forest: 067
• Black Spruce Forest: 035
• Caribou Forest: 175
• Crossroute Forest: 405
• Dog River-Matawin Forest: 177
• Dryden Forest: 535
• English River Forest: 230
• French-Severn Forest: 360
• Gordon Cosens Forest: 438
• Hearst Forest: 601
• Kenogami Forest: 350
• Kenora Forest: 644
• Lac Seul Forest: 702
• Lake Nipigon Forest: 260
• Lakehead Forest: 796
• Magpie Forest: 565
• Martel Forest: 509
• Mazinaw-Lanark Forest: 140
• Nagagami Forest: 390
• Nipissing Forest: 754
• Northshore Forest: 680
• Ogoki Forest: 415
• Ottawa Valley Forest: 780
• Pic River Forest: 965
• Pineland Forest: 421
• Red Lake Forest: 840
• Romeo Malette Forest: 930
• Sapawe Forest: 853
• Spanish Forest: 210
• Sudbury Forest: 889
• Temagami: 898
• Timiskaming Forest: 280
• Trout Lake Forest: 120
• Wabigoon Forest: 130
• Whiskey Jack Forest: 490
• Whitefeather Forest: 990
• White River Forest: 060

3.0 Implementation of Declaration Order MNR-71

3.1 Introduction

The 55 conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 are organized under six categories:

• Forest Management Planning
• Monitoring
• Reporting
• Negotiations with Aboriginal Peoples
• Continuing Development and Programs
• Administration of Conditions

3.2 Amendments to conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71

Condition 53 of MNR-71:

• enables MNR or any person or organization to request an amendment to the conditions of the declaration order
• enables MOE to propose amendments or add amendments to a request from MNR, persons or organizations
• describes the procedure and consultation requirements for requests or proposals for amendments

Condition 52 of Declaration Order MNR-71 requires MNR to prepare a Five-Year EA Report on the implementation of the conditions of the declaration order. Condition 52(b)(ix) requires MNR to provide a description of the number, type, and disposition of proposed amendments to the conditions of the declaration order during the reporting period. In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR described changes and improvements it intended to request to the conditions of the declaration order to address problems and issues with specific conditions.

In November 2009, MNR formally notified MOE that it would be initiating the process to request amendments to the declaration order to achieve the changes and improvements identified in the Five-Year EA Report. In November and December 2009, MNR undertook information sessions to discuss MNR’s proposals with a number of organizations which have a history of active participation in EA Act matters related to forest management on Crown lands.

During 2009–10, MNR prepared MNR’s Suggested Amendments to the Conditions of Declaration Orders MNR-71 and MNR-74 based on input received from stakeholders, and further development of the changes and improvements identified in the Five-Year EA Report.

In May 2010, MNR posted an information notice on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number: 010-9448) to seek comments on the suggested amendments. In addition to the Environmental Registry notice, MNR provided direct notification to approximately 1,100 organizations, individuals, Aboriginal communities, tribal councils, treaty organizations, and MOE’s Government Review Team, to advise them of MNR’s intention to request amendments, and direct them to the information notice on the Environmental Registry for more information.

During the 45-day comment period for the Environmental Registry posting, MNR also offered information sessions to organizations (e.g. Environmental Non-government Organizations, forest industry) to provide information on the contents of the suggested amendments. MNR also held an information session with Pikangikum First Nation and staff of the Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation to review and seek comment on the amendments.

During the preparation of MNR’s Request for Amendment: Declaration Orders MNR-71 and MNR-74, MNR reviewed and considered the comments received from the public. MNR’s Request for Amendment was submitted to MOE on November 29, 2010. The majority of MNR’s requested amendments involved the conditions of the declaration orders that prescribe forest management planning requirements (i.e. the planning conditions). Most of MNR’s requests for changes and improvements to the planning conditions were based on the experiences of MNR and forest industry staff who implement the requirements of the conditions. A number of the requests responded to the recommendations of the forest management planning streamlining project, as discussed in section 10.2 of the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report.

In January 2011, MNR submitted a supplemental submission to the Request for Amendment to MOE. This request included additional minor changes to MNR’s original request for seven of the forest management planning conditions. These changes maintained the intent of the original requested amendments, and provided further clarification of the requirements resulting from additional discussions with MNR forest management planning staff.

As a result of a number of government initiatives, the amendment process was put on hold in early 2012. In March 2012, MNR’s deputy minister announced a three year plan to reshape and transform MNR’s role in managing Ontario’s natural resources (e.g., moving toward a landscape approach to natural resource management). As part of this Transformation Plan, MNR undertook a review of all of its Environmental Assessment Act approvals. The purpose of the review was to determine if there were opportunities to improve implementation approaches and internal business practices while maintaining a high standard of environmental protection. For the Forest EA approval, MNR identified a modest number of opportunities and developed amendments to enable these opportunities. In January 2013, MNR submitted an updated request to MOE which included these amendments. MOE determined that the amendments in the updated request were administrative based on the requirements of the amending condition of Declaration Order MNR-71.

In October 2013, MOE posted a Regulation Proposal Notice on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number: 011-9374) for a 45 day comment period. The Environmental Registry posting included:

• proposals based on MNR’s request (e.g., changes to the forest management planning structure)
• MOE proposals (e.g., development of a guidance document for use by the public, Aboriginal communities or any other interested parties on how to participate in or become involved in the forest management planning process)
• a proposal to revoke both declaration orders and replace them with one new declaration order because of the similarity of the conditions in Declaration Order MNR-71 and Declaration Order MNR-74

MOE considered the comments received during public consultation, finalized the amendments and is preparing a new declaration order. The new declaration order is expected to be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council sometime in 2014.

3.2.1 2009 revision of FMPM (2004)

In 2007, MNR initiated a forest management planning streamlining project, with participation from MNR and forest industry staff, to address specific forest management planning-related recommendations proposed in the May 2006 Forest Process Streamlining Task Force report. In March 2008, the project team made a number of recommendations related to the contents of the Forest Management Planning Manual, and recommended changes to a number of the planning conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71. Also in March 2008, MNR initiated the Forest Management Planning Manual Revision Project to address the recommendations related to the contents of the manual. In December 2008, MNR posted a Regulation Proposal Notice on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number: 010-5349) to seek comments on the proposed revision to the manual.

During the revision project, MOE granted approval of Declaration Order MNR-74 for the Whitefeather Forest. Declaration Order MNR-74 included the existing measures to prevent, minimize and mitigate potential adverse effects on the environment in the Forest EA approval, and added three additional measures to address variations from the Area of the Undertaking in the Whitefeather Forest (see section 1.1).

The Forest Management Planning Manual revision project:

• addressed a number of the recommendations from the forest management planning streamlining project
• incorporated Conditions 5 to 33 (the planning conditions) of Declaration Order MNR-74 which were not currently included in the Forest Management Planning Manual
• addressed changes to legislation, including:
  • providing direction for incorporation of protection of species at risk habitat regulated under the Endangered Species Act
  • incorporating exemptions, operational standards and reporting requirements for forestry aggregate pits previously contained in standards under the Aggregate Resources Act

The Forest Management Planning Manual (2009)^{footnote 4[4]} was approved through an amendment to Ontario Regulation 167/95 on December 10, 2009. The regulation was published in the Ontario Gazette on December 26, 2009.

4.0 Environmental, social and economic benefits of the undertaking

4.1 Introduction

Forest management provides environmental, social and economic benefits, and requires good planning, and skilled workers and professionals who understand and incorporate the concepts of sound forest management into forest management activities. Sustainable forest management contributes to goals beyond economic revenues from timber production.

The purpose of the EA Act is to ensure that undertakings which may affect the environment, particularly Crown undertakings, provide for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment. Human activities have the potential to affect the environment, and forest management is no exception. MNR’s entire forest management philosophy is one of preventing, minimizing and mitigating adverse environmental effects, while benefiting through management actions.

Under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, MNR manages Ontario’s forests

to provide for the sustainability of Crown forests and, in accordance with the objective, to manage Crown forests to meet social, economic and environmental needs of present and future generations.

The Act states, and MNR ensures that:

The Forest Management Planning Manual shall provide for determinations of the sustainability of Crown forests in a manner consistent with the following principles:

1. Large, healthy, diverse, and productive Crown forests and their associated ecological processes and biological diversity should be conserved.
2. 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.

MNR continues to ensure that forest management is environmentally, socially and economically sound, through a continued commitment to adaptive management. MNR’s dedication to ongoing forest science and research is fundamental to the concept of adaptive management, as well as practical application, monitoring and reporting. MNR takes an active approach to incorporate lessons learned and findings into policies, guidelines, manuals, planning processes and related reporting systems.

4.2 Biophysical environment

Forest management guides are required to be used during the forest management planning process. The application of the direction in the guides helps ensure the maintenance of long-term forest health, a key aspect of which is the conservation of biodiversity. Emulation of natural disturbances and landscape patterns through forest management directs how to conserve biodiversity. The Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St Lawrence Landscapes and the Forest Management Guide for Boreal Landscapes (the Landscape Guides) provide direction on conserving biodiversity to sustain forest health at the landscape scale, while the Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales (the Stand and Site Guide) provides direction on planning and conducting forest operations at the stand and site level.

Temporary openings in the forest canopy from disturbances such as wildfires, insects and diseases allow sunlight to reach the forest floor and stimulate herbaceous growth. Harvesting also creates these temporary openings. Forest succession is the replacement of tree species or tree associations over time. Each stage of succession creates the conditions for the next stage and adds to the biodiversity in a forest. In a study of plant communities in Canada, Haeussler et al. (2002) ^{footnote 5[5]} demonstrated that species richness was 30-35 percent higher five to eight years after harvest compared to the old forest. As a result of increased abundance of herbaceous species, several mammals, such as rodents and cervids, benefit. Some predators such as red fox, wolves and lynx, benefit from the increased abundance of rodents and cervids.

Trees consume large amounts of precipitation. Harvesting trees causes an increase in water available for forest streams. Canopy removal by harvesting and thinning temporarily increases the amount of precipitation and sunlight reaching the forest floor, reduces transpiration rates and causes soil moisture to increase, leading to more favourable conditions for decay microorganisms.

Site preparation using machinery is beneficial for some vascular plants adapted to disturbances. Haeussler et al. (2002) demonstrated that species richness of vascular plants peaked after moderately severe site treatment, and that the removal of soil organic layers resulted in a higher abundance of species regenerating from seeds.

In Ontario, all forests that are harvested must be regrown or renewed through either natural or artificial methods. Between 2009 and 2012, more than 500,000 hectares were regenerated using these methods. As they grow, trees sequester carbon. A healthy landscape has a mixture of young, faster growing stands of trees absorbing carbon more rapidly, and older stands absorbing carbon more slowly. Disturbances keep an ecologically appropriate portion of the forest as younger stands. During the past 100 years, suppression of wildfires has led to some forests made up of overmature dead and dying trees. Too many overmature stands would affect biodiversity and reduce forest carbon sequestration, as old trees die and release carbon dioxide as they decay. Insect outbreaks and disease often accelerate this process. When there is a disturbance like harvesting, carbon sequestration is maximized by silvicultural practices that regenerate forests quickly and increase tree growth rates.

Sustainable forest management, as practised in Ontario, ensures an increase in the combined carbon stocks in forest and wood products. Life cycle assessments, the scientific measure of the environmental impact of products throughout their lives from resource extraction through manufacturing, distribution, use, and end-of-life disposal, have shown that using wood instead of energy-intensive materials such as steel, concrete or plastics, significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and will help decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. Numerous life cycle assessment studies conducted worldwide have indicated that wood products yield clear environmental advantages over other building materials at every stage.

Most construction lumber stays in use for decades. Even after wood products are no longer used and end up in landfills, they continue to store carbon. Results of studies undertaken by MNR staff at the Ontario Forest Research Institute show that about 75 per cent of carbon in wood products in landfills is retained for more than a century. Figure 4.1 shows the tonnes of carbon dioxide per cubic metre emitted from wood and non-wood building materials.

Net CO₂ Emissions: how wood compares

4.3 Social environment

Forests have always had a central role in the cultural, economic, and social development of Ontario. For more than 100 years, Ontario has supplied world markets with a growing array of high quality wood products, from pulp and paper, to lumber and veneer. Ontario’s Aboriginal peoples depended on the forest for their food, shelter and clothing, and for their spiritual needs. When Europeans first arrived, they viewed the forest as a source of furs or an obstacle to agriculture and industry. But these early settlers were heavily dependent on the forest, as they used logs to build homes and barns, poles for fencing livestock, fuelwood to heat homes, and the forest for grazing livestock. Over time, Ontario’s forests were used as a source of wood for the development of the great European navies of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, as European forests had been largely depleted.

In the 20^th century, Ontario’s forests supported the rapid development of the pulp, paper, veneer and sawmill industries. Ontario’s forests continue to play a critical role in the province’s economy. Forest-based jobs provide an above average share of fulltime jobs, with compensation above the provincial average. Fulltime jobs tend to increase the number of permanent residents in a community, contributing to the local business and tax base, which provides value to society by helping to maintain stable communities and strengthen and diversify local economies.

In 2012, more than 55,000 direct jobs were provided by the forest industry in Ontario. Tens of thousands of other Ontarians owe their livelihood to the forest, including jobs in resource-based tourism businesses, fishing and hunting, equipment manufacturing, transportation, trapping, and retail and service industries.

Ontario government initiatives during the past 20 years to increase the benefits to Aboriginal peoples from participation in forest management (see Chapter 9) have also resulted in increased social and economic benefits to many Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal peoples. In addition, thousands of Ontarians and many visitors to the province take advantage of the many recreational opportunities associated with forest management. For example, roads used for forest management provide access into the forest for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, berry picking and other related activities.

4.4 Economic environment

Ontario’s forest companies are leaders in sustainable forest management. Through effective government regulation and company initiatives, the forest industry is well-placed to meet emerging international standards of forest sustainability and environmental protection.

4.4.1 Ontario’s forest industry

Ontario’s forest industry is comprised of the logging industry and two major forest products industry sectors: the wood products manufacturing industries; and the paper and allied industries.

The logging industry consists of forest company operations affiliated with company-owned mills, and large and small contractors. Contractors work independently or directly for company-owned mills. The wood products manufacturing industries include facilities such as sawmills, veneer mills, and structural board and lumber mills that produce construction materials and specialty wood products. Pulp and paper mills are the largest types of facilities for converting timber fibre to forest products. Mills that use more than 1,000 cubic metres of timber annually must obtain a facility licence from government. As of March 31, 2013, 113 facilities were licensed in Ontario.

Forest companies gain access to timber supplies on Crown lands in Ontario through forest resource licences. The larger licences are sustainable forest licences, which are effective for 20 years and may be renewed every five years, based on a review by the Minister of Natural Resources and informed by the results of independent forest audits (see section 10.3.2.1). Sustainable forest licences require forest companies to:

• collect information
• prepare forest management plans
• implement, monitor and report on forest operations
• pay Crown charges for the harvest of forest resources

Part of the Crown charges is deposited into Ontario’s Consolidated Revenue Fund for general use to fund government programs, and part is deposited in the Forest Renewal Trust and the Forestry Futures Trust (see Chapter 8) to fund renewal and maintenance activities. A market-based pricing system is used by MNR to calculate the Crown charges.

When market prices are strong for forest products, the charges are higher; in times of poor market prices, the charges are lower.

Forest companies must practice sustainable forest management. Effective government regulation and company mandates have ensured that forest companies are in a position to independently meet international standards of forest sustainability and environmental protection, an increasingly important factor in the forest products marketplace. Ontario is committed to forest legislation and policy that ensures sustainable forest management.

4.4.2 Forest certification

Forest companies in Ontario are well-positioned to meet the requirements of any third party forest certification standard or registration system. Many of Ontario’s sustainable forest licensees are certified under one of three certification standards of independent third-party organizations: the Sustainable Forest Initiative; the Canadian Standards Association Sustainable Forest Management Standard; or the Forest Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Forest Management.

Certification assists the forest industry to maintain access to markets, and contributes to a more innovative and thriving economy. For example, the introduction of illegal logging legislation in Europe has forced European Union importers to carefully consider their supply chains, and has resulted in many companies seeking alternative sources of forest products. Ontario can use this opportunity to position itself as a credible supplier of sustainably and legally produced forest products.

As of January 1, 2013, 27 out of the 32 management units with sustainable forest licences were certified by an independent third-party organization. The remaining management units are the responsibility of the Crown and do not have sustainable forest licences. Current information on forest certification is available on the Government of Ontario website at Forest Certification in Ontario.

4.4.3 Contributions to the provincial economy

The forest industry continues to make a significant contribution to the provincial economy. In 2011, the forest industry produced more than $11 billion of forest products. Wood products manufacturing industries accounted for more than $3 billion, while paper and allied industries accounted for more than $7 billion. The logging industry is valued at nearly $1 billion. The sale of forest products abroad is also vitally important to the province’s balance of trade. In 2011, the value of forest products exports, primarily to the United States, was $4.1 billion. The main exports are softwood lumber, wood pulp and newsprint.

In addition to being a major employer, the forest industry makes significant investments in capital improvements and mill expansions each year. In 2012, capital expenditures by the forest industry were approximately $425 million. Many communities in northern Ontario continue to depend on the forest industry, and thousands of jobs in southern Ontario also depend on the forest products industry. The forest industry continues to diversify and evolve through better use of timber and timber by-products, and value-added manufacturing.

As discussed in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR invested $25 million to establish the Centre for Research and Innovation in the Bio-economy. Some of the projects that the centre has invested in include partnerships with:

• the new School of Architecture at Laurentian University on a demonstration building that will showcase the use of solid wood and cross laminated timber
• Domtar Inc. to develop a new approach to converting underutilized wood to fuel
• GreenCore Composites to develop a new green technology process that will allow wood fibre to be used in a number of new products for the packaging and building applications, such as pallets and various containers

5.0 Provincial wood supply strategy summary

As required by Condition 52(b)(ii), the summary of the most current Provincial Wood Supply Strategy is available on the Government of Ontario website.

6.0 State of Ontario’s Forests Report

As required by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and Condition 33 of Declaration Order MNR-71, the State of the Forest Report (now the State of Ontario’s Forests report) is produced every five years. The report provides a periodic, comprehensive examination of the sustainable management of Ontario’s Crown forests. A hierarchical criterion and indicator framework consisting of criteria, elements and indicators is used to assess the state of Ontario’s forests. Criteria, which reflect provincial forest sustainability goals, are intended to consider public values and the long-term desired outcomes for Ontario’s forests. Criteria are subdivided into elements with each element conveying a specific objective that supports forest sustainability goals. Elements are composed of multiple indicators – measurement tools used to assess progress towards the achievement of overall sustainable forest management goals and objectives.

Approximately 50 MNR subject matter experts are involved in the preparation of the report. Current indicator information, and information from past reports, is used to provide a trend analysis to determine the state of Ontario’s forests. For each indicator, the subject matter experts rate the state, trend, and adequacy of information.

In the preparation of this Five-Year EA Report, MNR examined trend information for relevant indicators in the most recent State of Ontario’s Forests report to determine if the information could be used to support MNR’s reporting on the implementation of the conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71. For example, indicator 1.2.2, Provincially Featured and Monitored Forest-associated Wildlife Species, is applicable to Condition 30, the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program, and Condition 31, Guide Effectiveness Monitoring. Where information reported in the State of Ontario’s Forests report supported preparation of this Five-Year EA Report, that information is included in this report.

One of the difficulties encountered in using the information from the State of Ontario’s Forests report is that the reporting periods for the two reports do not align (i.e. the reporting period for the most recent State of Ontario’s Forests report is April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009, while the reporting period for this Five-Year EA Report is April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013); therefore, while some of the information in the State of Ontario’s Forests is applicable to this Five-Year EA Report, the most current information is not available.

MNR is attempting to better align State of Ontario’s Forests and Five-Year EA reporting by:

• updating criteria and indicator information related to the status of Ontario’s Crown forests as data to support the indicators become available
• requiring State of Ontario’s Forests indicator information to be used in future Five- Year EA Reports to support the discussion related to the implementation of the conditions of MNR’s Forest EA approval (see section 11.3.1)

MNR has produced three State of the Forests/State of Ontario’s Forests reports since the EA Board Decision in 1994. As required by Condition 52(b)(iii), the summary of the most recent report is available on the Government of Ontario website.

7.0 Forest management planning

7.1 Introduction

As stated in section 1.1, Ontario’s forest management planning system for Crown forests is based on a legal and policy framework with sustainability, public involvement, Aboriginal involvement and adaptive management as key elements.

For management purposes, Crown forests are divided into management units. For most management units, individual forest companies manage the forests under sustainable forest licences. The licensee is responsible for carrying out the activities of forest management planning, access road construction, harvest, renewal and maintenance, monitoring and reporting, subject to MNR regulations and approvals. A number of management units are managed by the Crown under the same terms and conditions as units managed under a sustainable forest licence.

Before any forest management activities can be undertaken on a management unit, an approved forest management plan must be in place. A forest management plan is prepared for a ten-year period and is approved when the MNR Regional Director is satisfied that plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Forest Management Planning Manual and provides for the sustainability of the forest.

In addition, an annual work schedule must be prepared for a management unit each year to permit approved forest operations from the forest management plan to proceed for the year. A Management Unit Annual Report must be submitted to MNR each year to report on the forest operations that were implemented during the previous year. Additional requirements exist for the year three, seven and ten annual reports. For the year three annual report, a determination of whether the long-term management direction remains valid for the second five-year term is made. For the year seven report, an assessment, analysis and review of the implementation of the first seven years of the forest management plan is required, and any significant events that have affected the achievement of plan objectives are identified. This report is used in the development of the next forest management plan. For the year ten report, an assessment, analysis and review is completed to reflect the full implementation of the forest management plan. This report is used in the development of the planned operations for the second five-year term of the next forest management plan.

7.2 Implementation of the forest management planning process

As required by Condition 52(b)(iv) of Declaration Order MNR-71, this chapter provides a description of the implementation of the forest management planning process during the reporting period. The description addresses:

• forest management plans, and the associated time and cost for their preparation, review and approval
• contingency plans
• plan amendments
• a discussion of related consultation
• disposition of requests for individual environmental assessments

7.2.1 Forest management plans

Forest management plans are prepared every ten years in accordance with the requirements of the Forest Management Planning Manual. As stated in section 3.2.1, a new Forest Management Planning Manual was approved in 2009. During the reporting period, both the 2004 and 2009 manuals were used to prepare forest management plans. Forest management plans are normally prepared for a ten-year period with two five-year operational terms. The strategic, long-term planning and the planning of operations for the first five year operational term occurs during Phase I of the process, and includes five stages of consultation. The planning of operations for the second five-year term occurs during Phase II of the process and includes three stages of consultation.

During the reporting period, 30 forest management plans were prepared and approved. The details of operations for the second five-year term (Phase II operational plans) for six forest management plans were also prepared and approved as follows:

• 15 forest management plans were prepared using the requirements in the 2004 manual
• 12 forest management plans were prepared using the requirements in the 2004 and 2009 manuals
• 3 forest management plans were prepared using the requirements in the 2009 manual
• 6 operational (phase II) plans were prepared using the requirements in the 2009 manual

Preparation of the operational plans for the Ogoki, Wabigoon, and Caribou forests, which were scheduled for implementation on April 1, 2013, were delayed; and, therefore, not approved during the reporting period. Information related to these plans will be included in the next Five-Year EA Report.

Tables 7.1–7.4 lists the forest management plans and Phase II operational plans that were prepared and approved during the reporting period.

7.2.1.1 Time and cost to prepare and approve forest management plans

As stated previously, forest management plans are prepared for a ten-year period with two five-year operational terms. Phase I planning requires the development of the long-term management direction for the ten-year period of the plan, and detailed planning of operations for the first five-year term. For Phase II operational planning, if the long-term management direction remains valid, only the detailed planning of operations for the second five-year term is required.

Five stages of consultation, including two public information centres are required during Phase I planning. Three stages of consultation and one public information centre are required during Phase II operational planning.

Phase I Forest management plans

The time required to prepare, review and approve a Phase I forest management plan is approximately three years. The cost to prepare a Phase I forest management plan ranges from approximately $1.3 million to $1.7 million depending on the size of the management unit and is shared between MNR and the sustainable forest licence holder. The single greatest cost, approximately $1.0 million, involves the development of the long-term management direction. This cost is relatively fixed because for every forest management plan, the same analysis must be undertaken. Operational planning costs vary from approximately $300,000 to $700,000 depending on the size of the management unit.

Consultation requirements, including the number of locations for public information centres, the number of Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to a management unit, and the number of Aboriginal communities that request a customized consultation approach also influence costs of plan preparation. For some management units, the required information centres are held in several communities.

Phase II operational plans

The time required to prepare, review and approve a Phase II operational plan is approximately 18 months, and begins during the fourth year of plan implementation. The cost to prepare a Phase II operational plan is lower than for a Phase I plan as only operational planning for the second five-year term is required. As stated previously, the estimated cost of operational planning ranges from approximately $300,000 to $700,000.

For Phase II operational plans, information centres are typically held in the same number of communities as in Phase I planning; however, only one information centre is required. This requirement makes the cost of public consultation for Phase II operational plans less than for Phase I forest management plans.

Management unit amalgamations

To achieve greater efficiencies in planning and administration, MNR occasionally amalgamates management units. In 2009, the Area of the Undertaking included 46 management units. By 2013, the number of management units had decreased by 6 to 40. Table 7.5 identifies management units that were amalgamated during the reporting period.

Table 7.5: Management unit amalgamations

• Old Management Unit: New Management Unit (year)
  • Cochrane-Moose River Forest: Abitibi River Forest (2010)
  • Iroquois Forest: Abitibi River Forest (2010)
  • Nighthawk Forest: Abitibi River Forest (2010)
  • Smooth Rock Falls Forest: Abitibi River Forest (2010)
  • Lake Nipigon Forest: Lake Nipigon Forest (2011)
  • Armstrong Forest: Lake Nipigon Forest (2011)
  • Black Sturgeon Forest: Black Spruce Forest (2011)
  • Spruce River Forest: Black Spruce Forest (2011)
  • Black River Forest: Pic River Forest (2013)
  • Pic River Ojibway: Pic River Forest (2013)

7.2.2 Contingency plans

A contingency plan is an interim forest management plan that is required when special circumstances affect the preparation and approval of a plan (e.g., a delay in the approval of a plan or adjustments made to plan schedules). Table 7.6 lists the contingency plans that were prepared and approved during the reporting period and the reasons why contingency plans were required.

During the reporting period, 11 contingency plans were prepared and approved compared to 5 contingency plans prepared and approved during the previous reporting period. Most of the contingency plans in the current reporting period were required to accommodate management unit amalgamations and new requirements for the supply of caribou habitat.

For eight of the contingency plans, operations were planned for the first annual work schedules using the long-term management direction endorsed for the forest management plans under preparation. For three of the contingency plans, operations were planned for one to three years, consistent with the long-term management direction in the current approved forest management plans.

7.2.3 Plan amendments

During the implementation of a forest management plan or contingency plan, amendments may be required. Amendments range from simple corrections to the text of the document to substantial alterations that require comprehensive planning and public and Aboriginal consultation.

Amendments are categorized as administrative, minor or major. The MNR District Manager is responsible for determining if an amendment should proceed, and the categorization of the amendment, in consultation with the Local Citizens Committee. Amendments form part of an approved plan and are filed in the same publicly accessible locations as the plan. Amendments can be requested and approved at any time during the implementation of a forest management plan; therefore, some of the amendments approved during this reporting period were for plans approved during the previous reporting period.

Table 7.7 identifies the number of amendments to forest management plans and contingency plans that were prepared and approved during the reporting period.

All forest management plans being implemented during the reporting period had administrative amendments. Twenty-five plans had minor amendments, and six had major amendments. During the reporting period, 940 amendments were approved:

• 890 or 95 per cent were categorized as administrative
• 44 or 5 per cent were categorized as minor
• 6 or less than 1 per cent were categorized as major

Figure 7.1 illustrates that the number of plan amendments decreased during the current reporting period. This reduction is because of the downturn in the forest industry and resultant reduction in forest operations, and continued improvements in the preparation of plans.

Forest management plans may need to be amended for a number of reasons. Figure 7.2 shows the number of amendments by principal reason for the 2003—2008 and 2008—2013 reporting periods.

Seventy-one per cent of all plan amendments (666 of 940) involved changes to planned operations (access, harvest, salvage, and renewal and tending). The majority of these amendments (62 per cent) related to access. Ninety-one per cent of minor amendments (40 of 44) involved changes or additions to operations, shared equally between access and harvest. For the six major amendments, four were related to access and two were related harvest.

The number of amendments related to values and area of concern prescriptions decreased from 326 or 22 per cent of all amendments in the previous reporting period to 51 or 5 per cent of all amendments during this reporting period. This decrease may be attributed to:

• the downturn in the forest industry and the reduction in forest operations
• more accurate forest resource inventories
• training messages regarding development of area of concern prescriptions

Generally, the number of plan amendments continues to decrease. Figure 7.3 shows the downward trend in the number of amendments by year since 2003–2004.

7.2.4 Requests for individual environmental assessments

Condition 8 provides the opportunity for any person to make a request to the MOE Director, Environmental Approvals Branch for an individual environmental assessment of specific proposed forest management activities in a forest management plan, a major amendment to a forest management plan, or an insect pest management program. Condition 8(e) includes a requirement for MNR to submit information to the MOE Director for consideration in making a decision on an individual environmental assessment request for a forest management plan, normally within 15 days of receipt of a request for information from MOE. Condition 8(e) also includes a provision for the MOE Director to make a decision, normally within 45 days of receipt of MNR’s response to a request for information from MOE. Condition 8(f) includes similar requirements to 8(e); however, it applies to major amendments to forest management plans and insect pest management programs. The timeline for MNR to submit information to the MOE Director for consideration in making a decision on a request for an individual environmental assessment for a major amendment to a forest management plan or insect pest management program is similar to the requirements in condition 8(e). The timeline for the MOE Director to make a decision on a request for an individual environmental assessment for major amendments to forest management plans and insect pest management programs is normally 30 days.

7.2.4.1 Number of requests for an individual environmental assessment

During the reporting period, 40 requests for an individual environmental assessment were made on 15 forest management plans. Fourteen plans had one to five requests, and one plan had 10 requests, all of which related to wildlife habitat concerns. Table 7.8 shows the number of forest management plans, the number of plans with requests for an individual environmental assessment, and the total number of requests.

Generally, the number of requests for an individual environmental assessment is decreasing. Figure 7.4 shows: the number of forest management plans approved since 2004; the number of requests for an individual environmental assessment since 2004; and the downward trend in the number of requests.

As stated previously, 40 requests for an individual environmental assessment were submitted during the reporting period; however, for this analysis, only 38 requests were considered. For one request, the identified issue related to licensing, which is not subject to the EA Act. The other request was withdrawn by the requester early in MOE’s review process.

For the 38 requests that were considered, MOE’s decision time after receipt of the request ranged from 46 to 266 days, with an average decision time of 128 days. Upon receipt of a request for an individual environmental assessment, MOE completes an initial review of the request. The purpose of the review is to determine if the request has been submitted within the 30 day period for public inspection for a forest management plan, and is related to specific proposed forest management activities in a plan. During the reporting period, MOE’s initial review time ranged from 15 to 103 days, with an average initial review time of 39 days.

After the initial review is completed, MOE usually requests information from MNR for use in MOE’s review of the request. MNR’s response time to MOE’s request for information on requests ranged from 13 to 61 days, with an average response time of 20 days. The reason for the variation in MNR response times is related to the amount of information requested by MOE.

Of the 38 requests for an individual environmental assessment on 15 forest management plans that required an MOE decision, 24 requests on 12 plans were denied and 14 requests on three plans were denied with conditions. Examples of conditions attached to the denied requests included:

• removing contingency harvest areas in proximity to a canoe route and portage
• requiring MNR to request that a plan author meet with a resource-based tourism outfitter to continue discussions to achieve a resolution on outstanding area of concern prescriptions
• ensuring direction provided for in MNR’s Caribou Conservation Plan is incorporated into forest management plans

7.2.4.2 Subjects of individual environmental assessment requests

Most of the requests for an individual environmental assessment included more than one subject. Figure 7.5 shows the number of requests by primary subject for the 2003–2008 and 2008–2013 reporting periods.

During the reporting period, most of the concerns in the requests related to access and harvest operations, and wildlife habitat concerns. These three categories make up 32 of the 38 or 84 per cent of all requests. Access related requests decreased slightly from 25 of 58 or 43 per cent of requests during the previous reporting period to 11 of 38 or 39 per cent of requests during the current reporting period. Requests related to harvest operations increased slightly from 17 of 58 or 29 per cent of requests during the previous reporting period to 12 of 38 or 32 per cent of requests during the current reporting period. While the number of requests related to wildlife habitat concerns remained the same at nine, the percentage of requests in this category increased from 16 to 24 per cent.

Access concerns included:

• proposed road linkages between management units
• effects of access on values
• use management strategies for road networks including public access restrictions

Harvest concerns, which were raised in 12 or 31 per cent of requests, were largely related to harvest levels and the effects of harvest operations on natural resource features, land uses, and values including tourism facilities and species at risk. Habitat concerns were largely related to the implications of forest operations on caribou habitat, distribution of old growth and the impact on different animal species, and the density of roads and the impacts on wildlife.

7.2.4.3 Individual environmental assessment requesters

Requests for an individual environmental assessment were made by a variety of individuals and groups. Figure 7.6 shows the number of requests by requester category for the 2003–2008 and 2008–2013 reporting periods.

During the reporting period, the categories of requesters remained the same. The only category of requester for which requests increased was environmental groups, which submitted 10 of the 38 or 26 per cent of the requests. Their concerns related mainly to access and harvest operations and the impacts of those activities on wildlife habitat.

The number of requests submitted by each of the remaining categories of requesters decreased during the reporting period. The tourism industry and recreationalists, which includes cottagers, anglers, hunters, and ATV and snowmobile clubs, each submitted 9 of the 38 or 24 per cent of the requests. Their concerns largely related to access and harvest operations. For the tourism industry, the reasons for the decrease in the number of requests may include:

• a reduction in the area harvested by forest companies during the past five years
• increased use of the direction provided in the Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism, the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding by both the tourism and forest industry
• more effective use of the issue resolution process

Members of the public submitted seven of the 38 or 18 per cent of requests. The subjects of the requests included harvest operations, wildlife habitat, access roads and forest sustainability. Trappers raised concerns related to the sustainability of forest management plans in relation to wildlife habitat and harvest operations on individual traplines.

During the reporting period no requests were submitted by the forest industry or Aboriginal peoples.

7.2.4.4 Individual environmental assessment requests and issue resolution

In the preparation of a forest management plan, it is reasonable to expect that a request for an individual environmental assessment would be made when a person is not satisfied with the outcome of the issue resolution process. For example, in the previous reporting period, each of the 23 issue resolution requests that were not resolved by the MNR Regional Director resulted in a request for an individual environmental assessment. During this reporting period, 25 of the 32 issues that were not resolved using the issue resolution process resulted in requests for an individual environmental assessment.

For nine of the 38 or 24 per cent of requests, the issue resolution process was not used prior to submission of the request, as compared to 60 per cent during the previous reporting period. This decrease indicates that the issue resolution process is increasingly being used to resolve issues.

Figure 7.7 shows the number of requesters, by category, who did not use the issue resolution process.

During the reporting period, the number of requests for an individual environmental assessment decreased. More and more, the issue resolution process is being used prior to a request for an individual environmental assessment being submitted to MOE. For 29 of the 38 or 76 per cent of requests, the requesters participated in the issue resolution process before submitting the request. During the last reporting period, in 35 of the 58 or 60 per cent of requests, the requesters participated in the issue resolution process before submitting the request. Figure 7.8 shows the number of requests for an individual environmental assessment in which the issue resolution process was used and not used for the 2003–2008 and 2008–2013 reporting periods.

The data collected and analyzed regarding participation in the issue resolution process prior to submitting a request for an individual environmental assessment indicates:

• 100 per cent participation for the general public
• 89 per cent participation for recreationalists
• 77 per cent participation for the tourism industry
• 50 per cent participation for environmental groups

7.2.5 Consultation in forest management planning

Consultation is a key component of the forest management planning process and provides all stakeholders with an opportunity to influence how Crown forests are managed. Several consultation opportunities are provided in the forest management planning process, including:

• membership on Local Citizens Committees
• formal public consultation
• customized consultation approaches for Aboriginal communities
• opportunities to resolve issues using the issue resolution process

7.2.5.1 Local citizens committees

The Crown Forest Sustainability Act and Condition 5 of Declaration Order MNR-71 require a Local Citizens Committee for each MNR District or each management unit, to provide advice to the planning team and MNR District Manager. A Local Citizens Committee is normally comprised of local citizens, including Aboriginals, who represent a range and balance of interests, and ensure that these interests are considered in forest management planning. The committee can nominate a member to participate on the planning team.

Involvement in forest management plans

For the 36 forest management plans (i.e. 30 Phase I and six Phase II operational plans) prepared during the reporting period, 33 planning teams had Local Citizens Committee representatives. As provided by Condition 5, four management units (Algoma, Lake Nipigon, Timiskaming, and Crossroute forests) had two Local Citizens Committees. The Abitibi River Forest, which is the largest management unit in the province as a result of an amalgamation of three previous units (see section 7.2.1.1), had three Local Citizens Committees. Condition 5(b) identifies that the purpose of each committee is to participate as an integral part of the forest management planning process, including:

• participating in the public consultation process
• participating in the development, identification and description of objectives and strategies
• providing advice to MNR District Managers when discretionary decisions are made (e.g., issue resolution decisions)

During the reporting period, all Local Citizens Committees were involved in the preparation of forest management plans with most committees involved in key areas such as the development of management objectives, planning of access roads, and development of area of concern prescriptions.

Examples of concerns that were addressed by Local Citizens Committees during the preparation of forest management plans included:

• road access (e.g., use management strategies, and locations)
• the application of pesticides
• development of area of concern prescriptions
• wood supply levels

As required by Condition 5(f), for each committee, a report which describes the activities of the committee in the preparation of the forest management plan was produced, including concerns addressed by the committee. Most reports (72 per cent) met all the requirements described in the Forest Management Planning Manual; some reports (19 per cent) met most of the mandatory requirements; and one report met few requirements.

In these reports, Local Citizens Committees continued to identify recommendations to help improve their performance in plan preparation, including simplifying materials for review (e.g., presenting technical information in the form of graphs); providing materials well in advance of committee meetings; and allowing more time to fully understand the components of the forest management plan before they have to make decisions and recommendations.

Most Local Citizens Committees reported a high degree of cooperation with MNR and the plan author. They generally expressed satisfaction with the overall effectiveness of the committees’ structure and were in general agreement with their associated plans. These conclusions are consistent with the conclusion in surveys of Local Citizens Committee members conducted in 2001, 2004 and 2010, which indicated:

• general satisfaction with the forest management planning process
• agreement that the process and outcomes are fair
• that Local Citizens Committees are effective (State of Ontario’s Forests, 2011)

During the reporting period, some Local Citizens Committees identified improvements which could enhance their participation in the forest management planning process, including:

• increasing their involvement in the implementation of forest management plans
• ensuring that technical information is easy to understand
• ensuring that training opportunities and responses to requests for information continue to be provided throughout the planning process

For some management units it has been difficult to find representatives for all interest groups at the local level. Some Local Citizens Committee members are unable to attend all scheduled meetings due to work conflicts and meeting locations. Some committees have made presentations at local high schools and placed advertisements in local newspapers in an effort to attract new members. Others have initiated succession planning to ensure that replacement members who join during the planning process do not have to catch-up in order to participate effectively.

Involvement in contingency plans

Local Citizens Committees were involved in the preparation of the 11 contingency plans prepared during the reporting period (see Table 7.3). For example, if a contingency plan was required due to a delay in approval of a forest management plan, the Local Citizens Committee would have been involved throughout the preparation of the plan.

The contingency plans for the Black River, Kenora and Whiskey Jack forests all had Local Citizens Committee representatives on the planning teams. These representatives participated in the planning process by assisting with the planning of access roads, design of information centres and the development of area of concern prescriptions. Each committee:

• prepared a report which described the committees’ participation
• noted that MNR and the plan authors cooperated fully
• expressed general agreement with the contingency plan

Involvement in plan amendments

Local Citizens Committees are involved in the review and categorization of requests for plan amendments. Most committees have made arrangements to defer decisions on administrative amendments to the MNR District Manager. For requests for amendments that are categorized as minor and major, Local Citizens Committees are consulted and provide advice to the MNR District Manager.

For each of the six major amendments prepared and approved during the reporting period, Local Citizens Committees were involved in the categorization and preparation of the amendment. For the major amendment to the Contingency Plan for the Whiskey Jack Forest, the Local Citizens Committee was involved through presentations during the preparation of the amendment and through a review of the information centre materials.

The Local Citizens Committee was consulted on the categorization of the major amendment to the Forest Management Plan for the Spruce River Forest. Since this amendment coincided with the preparation of the Forest Management Plan for the Black Spruce Forest, the Local Citizens Committee had a member on the planning team and participated in the preparation of the amendment. For the major amendment to the Forest Management Plan for the Lake Nipigon Forest, a Local Citizens Committee member was not assigned to participate directly in the preparation of the amendment; however, members were encouraged to attend the information centre. During the preparation of the amendment for this plan, the Local Citizens Committee was kept informed through regular meetings.

7.2.5.2 Public consultation

Forest management planning is an open and consultative process and includes opportunities for interested and affected parties to participate through formal public consultation processes.

Involvement in forest management plans

In the preparation of a forest management plan, the formal public consultation process provides opportunities for public participation at five stages during Phase I planning, and at three stages during Phase II operational planning. During the preparation of Phase I plans, public participation continues to be greatest when the proposed operations and draft forest management plans are available for review. At these stages, opportunities are provided for the public to attend information centres to view and comment on proposed operations in a forest management plan.

During the preparation of Phase II operational plans, public participation is greatest when an information centre is provided to assist the public with the review of proposed operations for the second five-year term of the plan.

For the 30 Phase I plans prepared during the reporting period, close to 4,000 members of the public attended the information centres. Attendance was highest (2,425 or 60 per cent) at the information centres for the review of proposed operations.

For the six Phase II operational plans, more than 500 members of the public attended the information centres. For 20 of the Phase I plans, information centres were held at two or more locations in the management unit. The number of information centres is dependent upon the size of the management unit and the number of communities in the management unit. Information centres may also be held in communities adjacent to a management unit and in communities that use resources from a management unit. For example, because the Abitibi River Forest is a large management unit, and communities adjacent to the unit rely on resources from this unit, information centres were held in eight communities.

As in the previous reporting period, most public comments were received during the Review of Proposed Operations (for 23 of 30 Phase I forest management plans). For the plans for the Ottawa Valley, Sapawe and Temagami forests, more comments were received during the review of the draft plan. For the Temagami Forest plan, more than 800 hundred form letters were submitted, requiring MNR to expend considerable resources to respond to those letters.

As stated previously, while Phase I planning has five stages of consultation, Phase II operational planning has three stages. As in Phase I planning, the six Phase II operational plans received the majority of comments during the Review of Proposed Operations stage of consultation.

Involvement in contingency plans

Public consultation requirements for the preparation of a contingency plan are consistent with the public consultation requirements for a forest management plan. The public consultation undertaken during the preparation of a forest management plan may meet the requirements for public consultation for a contingency plan. Regardless of the consultation completed during the preparation of a forest management plan, a minimum of one formal opportunity for public consultation is required during the preparation of a contingency plan.

For the eight contingency plans that used the annual work schedules for the first year of the forest management plans under preparation, public consultation opportunities were provided in the preparation of those plans. The Abitibi River Forest planning team provided an opportunity for the public to comment on the draft 2012–2013 contingency plan during the information centre for the review of proposed operations. For the Contingency Plan for the Lake Nipigon Forest, areas selected for operations were non-contentious areas identified in the draft plan. These areas were reviewed by the public during the review of proposed operations.

Information centres were held to provide the public and Aboriginal communities with the opportunity to review the draft contingency plans for the Whiskey Jack, Kenora and Black River forests. For these plans, some areas proposed for operations were identified in the previous plan. These areas were available for the public to view and provide comment on at information centres during the draft plan review. More than 100 members of the public attended these information centres. Few comments were received on these plans.

Involvement in plan amendments

In the preparation of a major amendment to a forest management plan, the formal public consultation process provides opportunities for public participation at two stages. For each of the six major amendments that were prepared and approved during the reporting period, an information centre was held for public review of the proposed operations. More than 225 people attended the information centres and 32 comments were received. For two plans, the major amendments involved the addition of primary road corridors on the management unit. The comments related to the potential for increased hunting pressure in the area and the proximity of the planned access corridors to cottaging lakes.

The major amendment to the Forest Management Plan for the Martel Forest involved the addition of new harvest area. The information centre for the amendment was attended by 20 members of the public; however, only two comments were received.

7.2.5.3 Aboriginal consultation

Aboriginal communities continue to demonstrate an interest in forest management planning, and MNR District Resource Liaison Officers continue to encourage and assist with their participation. In the forest management planning process, opportunities for Aboriginal community involvement are available and include:

• development of a customized consultation approach
• membership on planning teams
• membership on LCCs
• participation in the standard consultation approach

Involvement in forest management plans

For the 30 Phase I forest management plans prepared during the reporting period, 86 Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the management units were invited to participate in forest management planning processes. The number of communities per management unit for these plans ranged from one to ten. Some communities were invited to participate in more than one forest management plan (e.g., Brunswick House First Nation was invited to participate in four plans).

During the reporting period, MNR District Managers contacted Aboriginal communities 171 times to discuss opportunities to be involved in the planning and implementation of forest management plans. Seventy-six per cent of the time, the Aboriginal communities chose to participate in the forest management planning process. One hundred Aboriginals, including Métis community members, were representatives on planning teams; however, only 22 were representatives on Local Citizens Committees. Customized consultation approaches were developed for 26 communities (i.e. 7 of the 30 plans), and special information centres in the formal public consultation process were held in 20 communities (i.e. 11 of the 30 plans).

Examples of Aboriginal participation in the forest management planning process during the reporting period include:

• Gordon Cosens Forest
  • Three of the nine Aboriginal communities that were invited to participate had representatives on the planning team.
  • All nine communities developed a customized consultation approach.
• Lake Nipigon Forest
  • Eight of the nine Aboriginal communities that were invited to participate had representatives on the planning team.
  • All eight communities developed customized consultation approaches.
• Algonquin Forest
  • Three of the ten Aboriginal communities that were invited to participate had representatives on the planning team.
  • All ten communities used the standard consultation process.
• Abitibi River Forest
  • Five of the seven communities invited to participate had representatives on the planning team.
  • All five of these communities chose to use the standard consultation with special information centres.
  • One community used the standard consultation approach.

For the six Phase II operational plans prepared during the reporting period, 24 Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the management units were invited to participate in the planning processes. The number of communities per management unit ranged from two to eleven. Some Aboriginal communities were invited to participate in more than one Phase II plan during the reporting period (e.g., Constance Lake First Nation was invited to participate in three plans).

During the reporting period, MNR District Managers contacted Aboriginal communities 31 times to discuss opportunities to be involved in the planning and implementation of Phase II operational plans. Thirty-two per cent of the time, the Aboriginal communities chose to participate. Ten communities had representatives on planning teams and three had representatives on Local Citizens Committees. Customized consultation approaches, which for some, included community meetings, were developed for seven communities.

As part of the background information used in forest management planning, an Aboriginal Background Information Report is produced for Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to a management unit. The report summarizes the locations of natural resource features, land uses and values of interest to the Aboriginal communities, and forest management-related concerns of the communities. If applicable, for each new planning process, the existing report is reviewed and updated by representatives from each Aboriginal community and MNR for inclusion in the next forest management plan. Thirty-six Aboriginal Background Information Reports were produced during the reporting period and Aboriginal communities provided input on 32 or 89 per cent of those reports.

During the preparation of a forest management plan, a Report on Protection of Identified Aboriginal Values is produced to document how Aboriginal interests, including values identified in the Aboriginal Background Information Report which could be affected by proposed operations, have been addressed. The report was produced for each for the 36 plans prepared during the reporting period. Aboriginal communities provided input on 22 or 61 per cent of the reports.

Involvement in contingency plans

For the eleven contingency plans prepared during the reporting period, 41 Aboriginal communities in or adjacent to the management units were invited to participate in the planning process. For the eight contingency plans that used the annual work schedules for the first year of the forest management plans under preparation, Aboriginal communities were involved in the preparation of seven of the plans.

Six communities were invited to participate in the planning process for the contingency plans for the Whiskey Jack, Kenora and Black River forests. Some communities were invited to participate in more than one contingency plan, (e.g., Naotkamegwanning First Nation was invited to participate in two contingency plans). In total, seven communities were involved in the development of these contingency plans, five of which participated in one or more of the available opportunities. Three communities had representatives on planning teams; however, no Local Citizens Committees had Aboriginal representatives.

Customized consultation approaches were developed for 23 Aboriginal communities for five plans and special information centres were held in seven communities. The standard consultation approach was also used by Aboriginals to participate in the forest management planning process. For example, during the preparation of the 2011-2013 Abitibi River Forest and the 2009-2012 Whiskey Jack Forest contingency plans, Aboriginals attended the public information centres.

Involvement in plan amendments

For the six major amendments that were prepared and approved during the reporting period, five of the 27 or 18 per cent of Aboriginal communities contacted participated in the preparation of the amendments. All 27 communities were provided the opportunity to have a special information centre within the community and to review and comment on the proposed operations in the amendment; however, no special information centres were requested.

A major amendment to the Forest Management Plan for the Martel Forest involved a request to add harvest area due to changes to the long-term management direction. One community raised concerns about the amount of cedar planned for harvest and the potential impacts on water quality from harvesting near water bodies. MNR and the licensee met with community representatives and clarified that the amount of cedar planned for harvest was less than the community had expected, and agreed to increase the reserves adjacent to water bodies to mitigate potential effects on water quality. The community did not request formal issue resolution related to their concerns.

7.2.5.4 Issue resolution

During the forest management planning process, a concerned person or group may identify an issue for specific attention. Conditions 8(a-c) describe the provisions of a formal process for the resolution of issues. The process begins with a requirement for the concerned person or group to submit a written request to the plan author. If there is no satisfactory resolution of the issue at the plan author stage, the requester can proceed to the MNR District Manager. If there is no satisfactory resolution of the issue at the MNR District Manager stage, the requester can proceed to the MNR Regional Director.

During the reporting period, 118 requests for issue resolution were made on 29 forest management plans, and three requests for issue resolution were made on one contingency plan.

Table 7.9 summarizes the number of issue resolution requests received during the reporting period by stage of the process.

Figure 7.10 shows the number of issues received at or carried over from a previous stage, and the number of issues resolved at each stage of the process.

Eighty-eight of the 121 issue resolution requests or 73 per cent were initiated in the plan author stage; 18 or 15 per cent of requests were initiated in the MNR District Manager stage; and 15 or 12 per cent of requests were initiated in the MNR Regional Director stage.

Eighty-six of the requests (71 per cent) were resolved as follows:

• 4 of the 88 requests (4 per cent) by the plan author
• 20 of the 99 requests (20 per cent) by the MNR District Manager
• 62 of the 94 requests (66 per cent) by the MNR Regional Director

Most of the requests that were not resolved by the plan author and MNR District Manager proceeded to the MNR Regional Director. These figures are consistent with those reported in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report and further support MNR’s request to MOE to remove the plan author stage from the issue resolution process and advance the MNR District Manager stage.

Twenty-five of the 32 requests that were not resolved by the Regional Director resulted in requests for an individual environmental assessment (see section 7.2.4.4).

7.3 Forest management plan preparation schedule

As required by Condition 1(d), by January 31 of each year, MNR must produce a list of management units and the associated schedule for the preparation of forest management plans. The list is provided to MOE annually and is made available to the public on MNR’s website.

The most current version of the list of management units and the associated schedule for the preparation of forest management plans is available on the Government of Ontario website at Forest Management Plan Schedule.

8.0 Forest renewal trust, forestry futures trust and special purpose account

8.1 A summary and discussion of contributions to the Forest Renewal Trust, the Forestry Futures Trust and the Special Purpose Account

8.1.1 Introduction

To provide for the sustainability of Ontario’s Crown forests, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act established two funds to finance renewal and maintenance activities: the Forest Renewal Trust; and the Forestry Futures Trust. Forest resource licensees contribute to the funds through a portion of the charges paid to the Crown for harvested Crown timber. Those contributions include the Forest Renewal Charge and the Forestry Futures Charge.

The purpose of the Forest Renewal Trust is to provide for long-term sustainable funding of eligible silviculture work carried out on Crown lands where forest resources have been harvested in the Area of the Undertaking. The Forest Renewal Trust Advisory Committee, which is comprised of members from the forest industry and MNR, was established to provide recommendations to the minister and to act as a liaison between the forest industry and government.

The purpose of the Forestry Futures Trust is to fund eligible silvicultural activities to respond to unforeseen events such as natural disturbances, licensee insolvency, intensive stand management and insect pest control, and for other purposes specified by the minister (e.g., independent forest audits). The Forestry Futures Committee, an independent committee appointed by the minister, advises the minister on the criteria to be used in making payments from the trust, and issues directions to the trustee on the amount of funds to be paid out in a year.

A Special Purpose Account funds eligible silvicultural activities for those management units which have never been managed under a sustainable forest licence. When a sustainable forest licence is granted for such a management unit, the Special Purpose Account is closed and the funds are transferred to the Forest Renewal Trust. The Special Purpose Account is managed by MNR.

8.1.2 Contributions to the Forest Renewal Trust, the Forestry Futures Trust and the Special Purpose Account

Table 8.1 provides a summary of forest industry payments into the Forest Renewal Trust, the Forestry Futures Trust and the Special Purpose Account during the reporting period.

8.2 A summary and discussion of expenditures from the Forest Renewal Trust, the Forestry Futures Trust and the Special Purpose Account

Table 8.2 identifies expenditures for renewal and maintenance activities by funding source during the reporting period. Forestry Futures Trust expenditures declined in 2012-13. The decline was a result of: a decrease in the value of silviculture projects because of the economic downturn in the forest industry; a decrease in the number of independent forest audits conducted (see Table 10.1); and in mid-2012, changes to the payment procedures for forest resource inventories. The changes resulted in partial reimbursement of funds to the trust for 2012-13 forest resources inventory expenditures. The balance of those expenditures was reimbursed in 2013-14.

The Forest Renewal Trust continues to provide a secure source of funding for the renewal of the Ontario’s Crown forests.

During the previous and current reporting periods, the forest industry encountered significant economic difficulties as a result of: the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S.; the slowdown in the U.S. housing market; fluctuations in the Canadian dollar; and increased energy costs. Some sustainable forest licensees experienced financial problems and were unable to make payment of Crown charges, including payments to the trust funds.

In March 2008, the Government of Ontario advanced funds to the Forest Renewal Trust and Forestry Futures Trust to cover the payments owed by the licensees. These funds allowed renewal and maintenance activities to continue on affected management units. The debts of the licensees were transferred from the specific management unit accounts in each of the trusts to the provincial Consolidated Revenue Fund. Ultimately, between 2009 and 2012, fifteen large forest industry companies either restructured or went bankrupt. MNR has worked through the appropriate processes to claim the amounts owing to the Crown. In situations where licensees did not restructure or go bankrupt, MNR has: taken compliance action; issued invoices for the outstanding amounts; and entered into repayment agreements.

In response to recommendations by the Ontario Internal Audit Division, improvements to the invoicing procedures of the trusts were implemented in 2008 and 2009 to strengthen MNR’s oversight of the trusts. One of the improvements involved returning the review of invoices for eligible silviculture treatments and the monitoring of payments from the trust funds, from the trustee, back to MNR.

The 2011 Auditor General’s report included a recommendation related to ensuring that the trusts are sufficiently funded. In response, MNR indicated that it is continuing to work on improvements to the trusts’ procedures. MNR remains committed to the sound management and use of the trusts, and is improving silvicultural planning through an examination of previous and forecast expenditures on renewal and maintenance activities.

In 2012, MNR established the Silviculture Enhancement Initiative (see section 10.3.2.2). One of the purposes of the initiative is to address the Auditor General’s recommendations, including ensuring that the trusts are sufficiently funded. A comprehensive review of the silviculture program is being undertaken to ensure that the policies guiding forest renewal result in an effective and efficient silviculture program which also enables MNR to respond to emerging challenges such as climate change.

The Forestry Futures Trust continues to provide funding for silviculture treatments for intensive stand management and unforeseen events on the forest. The Forestry Futures Trust is also used for other purposes as designated by the Minister of Natural Resources. All of these funds are sourced from dedicated revenue (per cubic meter charge) that is incremental to the base forestry futures charge, with some exceptions such as: independent forest audits; scientific memberships for the Forest Engineering Research Institute, Forest Genetics Ontario and Forintek Canada Inc.; and the enhanced Forest Resources Inventory (see section 10.4.2.1).

In November 2009, MNR announced the Forestry Futures Trust Job Stimulus Program. The purpose of this one year program was to provide up to $6 million in additional work for the silviculture service industry (e.g. greenhouse operations, site preparation, and planting contractors) to carry out efficient, effective and incremental forest renewal activities on Crown lands. Priority was given to areas of natural disturbance. The results of this program included:

• creation of more than 3,100 person weeks of employment
• production of more than 12 million seedlings
• planting of 14,000 hectares of Crown forest

Expenditures from the Special Purpose Account funded renewal and maintenance activities on Crown managed units.

8.3 Continuing developments

MNR is instituting a web-based database to handle the claim procedures for the Forest Renewal Trust and anticipates that all licensees will be operational by 2013–2014. This database will allow MNR and licensees to submit claims online. This information can then be uploaded to the trustee for payments, reducing the need to duplicate information entry by the licensee, MNR and the trustee. The Forestry Futures Trust will be incorporated into the database in the future.

MNR remains committed to the sound management and use of the trusts and is continuously examining how to make improvements.

9.0 Negotiations with Aboriginal peoples

9.1 Introduction

Condition 34 requires MNR District Managers to negotiate with Aboriginal peoples at the local level regarding opportunities to increase benefits to Aboriginal peoples from participation in forest management planning. These negotiations take different forms given the unique needs, capacities and situations of Aboriginal peoples and the available opportunities. Implementation of the condition can involve individual Aboriginal peoples or groups of peoples with common interests.

While responsibility for implementing Condition 34 rests with MNR, involvement of other parties is critical to its success. Such involvement includes participation of Aboriginal peoples, the forest industry, other Ontario ministries, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Natural Resources Canada.

Since the original Forest EA approval in 1994, Aboriginal peoples have benefited from increasingly diverse forest economic development initiatives. MNR and the forest industry have continued to explore and develop opportunities for Aboriginal peoples to be involved in forest management.

9.2 Provincial developments

MNR continues to seek ways to improve the benefits for Aboriginal peoples from participation in natural resource management not only at the local level, but also through broader provincial initiatives. During the reporting period, MNR initiated negotiations or discussions with Aboriginal communities or groups on tenure arrangements; with First Nations on the Far North Land Use Planning Initiative; with Métis communities regarding increasing interest in forest management; and with provincial organizations, including the land claim discussions with the Algonquins of Ontario and the Forestry Memorandum of Agreement with the Union of Ontario Indians.

Significant initiatives during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

9.2.1 Negotiations with Aboriginal communities

9.2.1.1 Far North land use planning initiative

For the past 15 years, MNR has worked with a number of First Nation communities in the Far North to respond to their interests in forest management. The majority of eligible communities have been involved in community based land use planning to support a framework of orderly development, which began in 2000 under MNR’s Northern Boreal Initiative. The Far North Act, 2010 provides a legislative foundation for land use planning across the Far North. Community based land use plans identify areas for protection and areas available for sustainable economic development opportunities, including forest management, which can lead to greater prosperity for the First Nations.

Four community based land use plans have been approved for the Far North. The community based land use plan for Pikangikum First Nation, which was approved in 2006, identified forest management as a permitted activity in certain land use designations. As described in section 1.1, in April 2009, MOE granted EA Act coverage for forest management on the Whitefeather Forest through Declaration Order MNR-74. The community based land use plan approved for Cat Lake and Slate Falls in 2011 also identified forest management as a compatible and desirable activity in certain land use designations. MNR is working with Cat Lake and Slate Falls to prepare a request for EA Act coverage for forest management on the Cat-Slate Forest to help enable the identified forest management opportunity.

MNR is continuing to work with additional First Nations whose traditional lands are adjacent to the Area of the Undertaking on land use planning initiatives, including Eabametoong, Mishkeegogamang, Constance Lake and Moose Cree. These planning initiatives could result in the identification of additional opportunities for forest management in areas north of the Area of the Undertaking.

9.2.1.2 Tenure arrangements

Since 2009, the government has been investigating, creating, and is now encouraging new business models and tenure arrangements in the forest sector to:

• make the allocation of Ontario’s wood more responsive to market demand
• create new opportunities for new entrants and existing facilities
• provide opportunities for meaningful involvement by local and Aboriginal communities in the forest sector

First Nations and Métis people have been active participants and are increasingly pursuing opportunities for involvement in forest management and the forest sector. Developments related to tenure arrangements during the reporting period are discussed in the following section.

Co-operative sustainable forest licence holders

As reported in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. includes Aboriginal partners as shareholders in the co-operative sustainable forest licence company. The economic downturn created difficulties for the company and the shareholder agreement is being revised to a single board consisting of harvester stakeholders, with 90 per cent of the shares controlled by four First Nation-owned businesses, amounting to 85 percent of the harvest volume.

In October 2010, Weyerhaeuser Company, the Government of Ontario, Wabaseemoong Independent Nations, Naotkamegwanning First Nation, Ochiichagwe’Babigo’Ining First Nation, and other forest companies and contractors signed a shareholder-managed sustainable forest licence for the Kenora Forest. Under the licence, First Nations and industry shareholders became responsible for forest management on the Kenora Forest through a limited partnership. The arrangement also provided an entry mechanism for additional First Nations to join the new company.

In September 2011, Miisun Integrated Resource Management Company, a 100 per cent First Nations owned business based in Kenora, began operations. Miisun was developed to promote First Nations opportunities in forest management. Miisun has an evergreen management agreement for the Kenora Forest with Miitigoog General Partner Inc.

Local forest management corporations

In May 2012, Ontario established Nawiinginokiima Forest Management Corporation, the province’s first Local Forest Management Corporation. The communities of Pic Mobert First Nation, Ojibways of Pic River First Nation, Hornepayne Aboriginal community, White River, Marathon, Manitouwadge and the Township of Hornepayne are partners in the corporation. Nawiinginokiima manages and oversees forest management and the sale of timber in four management units – Nagagami Forest, White River Forest, Big Pic Forest and the Pic River Forest.

Forest resource licences

Forest resource licences issued under section 27 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act can give Aboriginal peoples and local communities opportunities to participate in the forest sector to increase their knowledge, experience, and skill sets. These opportunities may lead to opportunities to become sustainable forest licence holders.

In July 2012, Ontario entered into a partnership with Obishikokaang Resources, a forest management corporation owned by Lac Seul First Nation, by issuing a forest resource licence to create jobs and support the local economy. This short-term licence was the first forest resource licence that enabled a First Nation community to not only harvest wood, but to manage the forest from which the wood is harvested. The licence has provided opportunities for Lac Seul First Nation to gain practical experience in forest management while stimulating local economic development and creating jobs. The First Nation also has been provided opportunities to fully participate in negotiations about a new tenure model for the forest.

Also in 2012, MNR worked with the board of the Rainy Lake Development Corporation to develop a business plan for the establishment of a company to provide forest management services on the Sapawe Forest. The corporation includes representatives from Couchiching First Nation, Seine River First Nation, Naicatchewenin First Nation, Mitaanjigamiing First Nation, Rainy River First Nation, and Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nation. In May 2012, Rainy Lake Tribal Resource Management Inc. was awarded a forest resource licence for five years to manage the Sapawe Forest.

In 2013, MNR began discussions with Chapleau Cree First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, the forest industry and community partners to explore a new tenure arrangement for the Martel and Magpie Forests. The Northern Superior Regional Chiefs’ Forum, in conjunction with MNR and the forest industry, conducted community engagement sessions to provide information on the transition to an enhanced forest resource licence, and to discuss potential economic opportunities associated with this type of tenure arrangement. The discussions are ongoing.

9.2.1.3 Métis communities

Increasingly, Métis communities and organizations are expressing interest in the benefits provided through participation in forest management. MNR continues to develop tools and resources to assist staff in their discussions with these communities and organizations.

Some examples of MNR’s and the forest industry’s involvement with Métis during the reporting period include:

• In MNR’s Dryden District, a Métis community is involved in harvesting through overlapping licence (i.e. a licence issued for an area in a management unit that is already under licence).
• In Fort Frances District a number of licences and contracts have been awarded to Métis owned companies for harvest, road construction and biomass hauling.
• In Sault Ste. Marie District, discussions have been held between a sustainable licence holder and the Métis Nation of Ontario Historic Sault Ste. Marie regarding harvesting opportunities.
• In Chapleau, Tembec Inc. hosted the Métis Nation of Ontario Historic Sault Ste. Marie Traditional Territory Consultation Committee to provide information on forest management activities on the Martel Forest.
• In Thunder Bay District, a Métis owned company has been awarded contracts to plant close to one million trees.

MNR has and continues to be inclusive of Métis communities whose interests or traditional uses may be affected by forest management activities. Because of the unique nature of Métis communities, those communities situated in a management unit and those whose interests or traditional uses may be affected are offered opportunities to increase benefits from participation in forest management. MNR and the forest industry will continue to work with Métis communities to help achieve a more equal participation in the benefits provided through forest management.

9.2.2 Negotiations with Aboriginal organizations

9.2.2.1 Negotiations with the Algonquins of Ontario

In the 1980s, the Algonquins of Ontario formally submitted a land claim to Canada and Ontario asserting that the Crown never entered into a treaty with the Algonquins. The land claim covers 36,000 square kilometres in eastern Ontario located within the Ottawa and Mattawa River watersheds. In the early 1990s, the governments of Canada and Ontario agreed to enter into negotiations with the Algonquins. Ontario’s negotiating team included representation from MNR.

In December 2012, a Preliminary Draft Agreement-in-Principle regarding the land claim was made available for public review. The draft agreement, which is considered a work in progress and subject to revision, sets out the main elements of a potential settlement, including:

• the transfer of 117,500 acres of Crown lands to Algonquin ownership
• $300 million as settlement capital provided by Canada and Ontario
• defined Algonquin rights related to lands and natural resources

Chapter 7 of the draft agreement speaks to the importance of forest management to the Algonquins, including:

• the development of economic opportunities and measures to increase Algonquin involvement in the forest industry
• training opportunities in the forest industry, including silviculture
• measures to develop Algonquin capacity to play a meaningful role in the forest industry
• a commitment for Ontario to consult with the Algonquins regarding any new forest policy initiatives that apply in the settlement area, including tenure and pricing

In March 2013, information centres were held throughout Eastern Ontario to discuss the proposed content of the draft agreement with members of the public. The agreement has been submitted to the Algonquins for a ratification vote. If the agreement is ratified by the Algonquins, it will be submitted to the governments of Ontario and Canada for approval. If approved, the draft agreement will form the framework for future negotiations towards a final agreement, which is still a number of years away.

9.2.2.2 Negotiations with the Union of Ontario Indians

In 2008, MNR began negotiations with the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI), a political advocate and secretariat for the Anishinabek Nation, to establish a forestry Memorandum of Understanding. The purposes of the negotiations were to enable the Anishinabek Nation to have more involvement in forest management planning, and to enable additional opportunities for economic development and capacity building in the forest sector.

MNR invested approximately $1.5 million over three years in the negotiations. In March, 2011, the Draft Anishinabek Nation/Ontario Forestry Memorandum of Understanding and an implementation plan resulted from the negotiations. The memorandum set direction for UOI involvement in forest policy, local forest management planning and community economic development. Unresolved debate over broadening the scope of the memorandum resulted in the draft memorandum not being ratified by the UOI.

Although no plan currently exists to prepare a final Memorandum of Understanding, MNR continues to work with the UOI to address matters of mutual interest regarding forest management. MNR will continue to consider the knowledge gained through negotiations with Aboriginal communities and organizations in its ongoing policy development initiatives.

9.3 District progress reports

Through ongoing negotiations conducted among MNR District Managers, Aboriginal peoples and the forest industry, implementation of the requirements of Condition 34 continues to advance. Arrangements and agreements have been developed to increase benefits to Aboriginal peoples from participation in forest management, including a licence term and condition that requires sustainable forest licence holders to work co-operatively with the Crown and local Aboriginal communities to identify and implement ways of achieving a more equal participation by Aboriginal communities in the benefits provided through forest management planning.

Appendix 1 provides a summary of progress in these negotiations for each MNR district. Much of the information was provided in the Provincial Annual Reports on Forest Management for which there is a similar reporting requirement.

MNR districts reported on the progress of negotiations with Aboriginal peoples under four categories:

• relationships and participation
• contracts
• licences and allocation
• training, recruitment and employment

Highlights from the district progress reports are summarized for each category.

Relationships and participation

• Aboriginal communities were increasingly involved in forest management planning including 100 Aboriginal and Métis representatives on planning teams and 22 on local citizen committees.
• Customized consultation approaches were developed for 26 communities.
• Aboriginal peoples increasingly expressed interest and participated in preparation of Aboriginal Background Information Reports, including collection of Aboriginal values for consideration in forest management planning.

Contracts

• More than 14 million cubic metres of wood was allocated to, harvested or offered to Aboriginals.
• Contracts worth more than $5.6 million for road construction and maintenance, information gathering, and education and training were negotiated and completed.
• Silvicultural contracts included tree marking (more than 3,200 ha), tree planting (more than 5 million trees), cone collection, pre-commercial thinning (more than 4,500 ha) and slash pile burning were completed.
• Operation of several tree nurseries by First Nations continued with sales of more than 26 million trees to the forest industry.
• Close to $32 million of timber was sold to the forest industry.

Licences

• An increase in the number of forest resource licences and overlapping licences granted contributed to the increase in harvest by Aboriginal peoples.
• Aboriginal peoples were increasingly interested and participated in the negotiation of new tenure models, including enhanced forest resource licences and Local Forest Management Corporations.

Training, recruitment and employment

• MNR continued to work with Aboriginal peoples to increase their capacity to become more involved in forest management activities.
• Training opportunities included training in forest management planning, tree marking, compliance monitoring, equipment and certification, Geographical Information Systems, forest resources inventory, etc.
• Employment opportunities included continuation of the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program, support for the First Nations Natural Resources Youth Employment program, and continued participation in the Ontario Stewardship program (e.g., Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Earthwalker program). Many Aboriginal people are employed by the forest industry in forest operations and in mills.
• Increased business-to-business relationships between the forest industry and Aboriginal peoples included:
  • funding community forestry liaison positions
  • contributing in-kind to community projects
  • supporting youth development
  • supporting post-secondary education, job sharing and training
  • contributing to community infrastructure, training and certification programs for forestry operations

10.0 Significant initiatives and major results

10.1 Introduction

Condition 52(b)(vii) requires MNR to include a discussion of significant initiatives related to implementation of the conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 and specifically requires a summary of major results from conditions 30, 31 and 39 to 45. This chapter reports on the significant initiatives and major results for those conditions with the exception of condition 39. As reported in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, the requirements of condition 39 were met and the work was completed. Table 10.1 identifies the conditions that are addressed in this chapter.

Table 10.1: Conditions addressed in Chapter 10

• Forest Management Planning: 1-25(a) and 26
• Forest Operations Inspections: 27
• Audit Program: 28
• Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring: 29
• Wildlife Population Monitoring: 30
• Scientific Studies – Monitoring Guide Effectiveness: 31
• Regional Advisory Committees: 35
• Provincial Forest Policy Committee: 36
• Provincial Forest Technical Committee: 37
• Review and Revision of Guides: 38
• Forest Resources Inventory: 9(a)
• Inventory, Information and Management Systems: 40
• Forest Ecosystem Classification System: 41
• Water Crossing Review Protocol: 25(b)
• Growth and Yield Program: 42
• Full-tree Harvest and Full-tree Chipping Studies: 43
• Tending and Protection Improvement Programs: 44
• Data Systems and Analytical Methodologies: 45
• Professional and Technical Training Programs: 46
• Public Education on Forest Management: 47
• Provincial Wood Supply Strategy: 48
• Old Growth: 49

10.2 Forest management planning – Conditions 1–25(a) and 26

As discussed in Chapter 10 of the 2003–2008 Five Year EA Report, MNR implemented a forest management planning streamlining project, with participation from MNR and forest industry staff, to address specific forest management planning-related recommendations identified in the Forest Process Streamlining Task Force Report (2007). In March 2008, the project team made a number of recommendations related to the contents of the Forest Management Planning Manual (2004) that did not require changes to the forest management planning conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 and changes to MNR’s legal framework.

Subsequently, MNR initiated the Forest Management Planning Manual Revision Project to address the recommendations related to the contents of the manual that did not require changes to the declaration order. The objective of the recommendations was to make the forest management planning process more efficient, while adhering to the requirements of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and Declaration Order MNR-71. Most of the recommendations from the report introduced efficiencies to the planning process or plan contents, or clarified the requirements contained in the manual. MNR’s proposed revisions included direction regarding:

• the use of new and revised forest management guides in the forest management planning process
• updates to the Forest Compliance Handbook
• use of the new Prescribed Burn Manual
• consideration of climate change during the preparation of a forest management plan
• the results of a number of review exercises and new policy direction (e.g., reviews of the Old Growth Policy, Forest Resource Assessment Policy and the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol, approval of Ontario’s Forest Biofibre Directive)

Following public consultation, a decision was made to proceed with the changes to the Forest Management Planning Manual and to incorporate the following:

• the forest management planning conditions of Declaration Order MNR-74 for the Whitefeather Forest
• exemptions, operational standards and reporting requirements for forestry aggregate pits, previously known as category 14 aggregate pits under the Aggregate Resources Act
• direction for incorporation of protection of species at risk habitat regulated under the Endangered Species Act
• changes based on comments received from the public through the Environmental Registry proposal notice

The Forest Management Planning Manual (2009) was approved through an amendment to Ontario Regulation 167/95 under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act on December 10, 2009 and published in the Ontario Gazette on December 26, 2009.

The Forest Process Streamlining Task Force Report also recommended changes to a number of planning conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71. MNR identified the need to seek these and other changes and improvements to the conditions of the declaration order in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report. The changes and improvements related to the following:

• the forest management planning structure (i.e. a change from a ten-year plan with two five-year operational terms, to a ten-year plan with planning of operations for the full ten-year period
• the issue resolution process and the process for requests for individual environmental assessments
• road planning requirements
• clarification of:
  • public and Aboriginal consultation requirements
  • background information and forest management plan documentation requirements
  • planning requirements for the identification of areas of operations
  • planning requirements for silvicultural ground rules, prescribed burns and aerial applications of herbicides
• refinement of requirements for contingency plans
• expansion of plan amendment provisions to enable an extension to the period of a forest management plan
• separation of requirements for annual work schedules and project planning for prescribed burns, aerial pesticide projects and road water crossings

As stated in section 3.2, in 2009, MNR formally notified MOE that it would be initiating the process to request amendments to the declaration orders to facilitate the proposals for changes and improvements identified in the Five-Year EA Report. MNR’s Request for Amendment, which included changes to the conditions of the declaration orders that prescribe forest management planning requirements (i.e. the planning conditions), was submitted to MOE in 2010 and updated in 2013. Once the amendments have been approved and a new declaration order is issued, MNR will incorporate the new forest management planning requirements into the Forest Management Planning Manual.

10.3 Monitoring

10.3.1 Management unit level monitoring

10.3.1.1 Forest operations inspections – Condition 27

Monitoring for compliance with approved forest operations in forest management plans and any other requirements and conditions imposed on operations by legislation is carried out through MNR’s Forest Operations Inspection Program. Term and Condition 78 of the original Forest EA approval described the monitoring and reporting requirements for inspections on each management unit. Term and Condition 88 required MNR to produce a handbook to provide guidance for MNR field staff who carry out the inspections. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on MNR’s implementation of the inspection program, the development of MNR’s Forest Compliance Handbook, and the evolution of the program into a shared responsibility between MNR and the forest industry.

Condition 27 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue to implement the Forest Operations Inspection Program and to maintain the Forest Compliance Handbook. Condition 27 includes requirements for: public availability of individual forest operations inspection reports; internet posting of annual summary tables of inspections for each management unit; and mandatory training and certification of forest operations inspectors.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• the Forest Operations Information Program, a web-based reporting and data management system used to report forest operations inspections
• development of annual compliance schedules by sustainable forest licensees
• updates to MNR’s policy and procedures for forest operations inspections
• mandatory training and certification of inspectors
• a major restructuring of the Forest Operations Inspections Program and update of the Forest Compliance Handbook

As required by Condition 27(c), individual forest operations inspection reports continue to be made available at each MNR district office. As required by Condition 27(d), the Management Unit Annual Report tables, which summarize forest operations inspections, continue to be available on the Government of Ontario website.

Significant initiatives in the forest operations inspections program during the current reporting period are described in the following discussion.

In July 2008, a decision notice was posted on the Environmental Registry regarding the revised Forest Compliance Handbook. This revised handbook incorporated a forest management approach to forest compliance rather than the previous enforcement approach. This change in approach resulted in a 60 per cent reduction in the number of directives and procedures in the handbook. The revision also included changes to clarify direction on the application of remedies. In addition, the handbook was made available electronically on the Government of Ontario website. Hard copies were discontinued and the electronic version became the sole official and approved copy of the handbook.++++++

In 2008–09, a joint MNR/forest industry team was formed to review and revise other sections of the handbook, including: directives and procedures for forest compliance planning; compliance inspector certification and recertification; and forest compliance monitoring. Seven e-learning modules were developed as part of the certification training for new inspectors so that currently certified compliance inspectors could be recertified online (see section 10.4.3.6). Inspectors must complete the modules and pass a test on the material in the modules before they can be recertified.

During the reporting period, the process for establishing operational compliance status was also changed. In compliance with comments was removed as a compliance status. Under the revised process, an operational issue is created when a concern with the compliance of forest operations is identified. MNR then uses an issue management process to determine the compliance status as either in compliance or not in compliance. In March 2010, the revisions were posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment and in June 2010, a decision notice on the revisions was posted on the registry (EBR Registry Number: 010-8224).

In 2012, MNR revised four directives and procedures – one related to the certification of inspectors, and three related to the application of remedies.

During the reporting period, 65 industry and 68 MNR inspectors were certified, and 160 industry and 131 MNR inspectors were recertified. Industry inspectors submitted 13,000^{footnote 7[7]} reports to the Forest Operations Information Program, of which 98 per cent were for operations in compliance. MNR inspectors submitted more than 4,000 reports of which 91 per cent were for operations in compliance. When all reports submitted to the program are taken into consideration, 97 per cent were for operations in compliance.

Also during the reporting period, seven e-learning modules were developed, and a number of training sessions related to the Forest Compliance Handbook revisions were developed and delivered to certified compliance inspectors.

As reported in the most recent State of Ontario’s Forests report, the Forest Operations Inspections Program was introduced in 1995. Compliance performance has increased significantly from 80 per cent during 1994–1999, to 97 per cent during 2008–2013.

10.3.2 Provincial level monitoring

10.3.2.1 Audit program – Condition 28

MNR’s audit program is undertaken each year on management units to ensure compliance with provincial forest management legislation, policies, and manuals. Independent forest audits are conducted by qualified auditors from the private sector who are contracted by MNR.

Terms and Conditions 86 and 87 of the original Forest EA approval established the requirements for independent forest audits. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on the development of the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol in 1995, the conduct of audits, and major problems identified by the audit program.

Condition 28 of Declaration Order MNR-71 requires MNR to:

• continue to conduct independent forest audits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 160/04, a regulation under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act governing the conduct of independent forest audits
• prepare action plans to respond to the audits
• review audit processes and protocols every five years
• notify the public of the availability of audit reports and action plans on MNR’s website

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• production of Ontario Regulation 160/04 governing the conduct of audits
• a review of the audit program and an update to the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol
• the results of five years of audits which identified that 94 per cent of the forests were being managed in overall compliance with the legislative and policy requirements
• best practices and recommendations for improvements reported by auditors

Significant initiatives and major results during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

In 2007, the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol was updated for use in audits beginning in 2008. Key changes to the protocol included:

• simplifying the instructions for auditors so that the process is easier to understand
• adding a risk management approach for each procedure
• adding a requirement to document recommendations, which relate to broad MNR policy direction, separately from recommendations that relate to management units

In 2006 and 2011, reviews of the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol were undertaken as required by Ontario Regulation 160/04. Key changes to the protocol resulting from the reviews include:

• in 2008, a risk management approach including revised sampling intensities based on risk and consideration of forest certification status was incorporated
• in 2011, a Vendor of Record (i.e. an arrangement that authorizes qualified vendors to provide services for a defined period) for the procurement of auditors was initiated to create a more efficient procurement process
• better access to information required to conduct audits, including providing access to the Forest Information Portal (see section 10.4.2.2) and use of trend analysis information prepared for year ten Management Unit Annual Reports to meet audit reporting requirements

In 2012, Ontario Regulation 160/04 was amended to allow the interval between audits to be extended, in limited circumstances, for up to seven years, to properly align the audit, forest management planning process, and sustainable forest licence reviews. The amendment was filed by the Registrar of Regulations on April 18, 2012.

Also in 2012, an audit modernization project was initiated to explore ways to make the audit process more efficient and effective. The project team is considering options, including:

• ways to make audit reports publically available in a more timely manner
• additional synergies with the forest certification process (see section 4.4.2)
• the possibility of using a risk-based approach to determine audit scope

Summary of audit reports

During the reporting period, 46 independent forest audits were conducted. Table 10.1 summarizes the results of 35 independent forest audits conducted for management units with sustainable forest licences during the reporting period.

Thirty-three of the 35 independent forest audits or 94 per cent reported that forests with sustainable forest licences were managed in overall compliance with the legislative and policy requirements in effect during the audit period and recommended licence extension (i.e. extend the licence or extend the licence with conditions). In two audits, auditors found substantial deviations from some of the legislation and policy requirements and/or some of the licence obligations. For one management unit, the auditors recommended that the licence should not be extended; for the other, the auditors recommended that MNR consider cancelling the licence. MNR has undertaken a review of these management units and will report on the outcome of the review in the next Five-Year EA Report.

Independent forest audits were also conducted on 11 Crown management units. Crown management units (i.e. units managed by MNR) do not have sustainable forest licences and recommendations are not made by auditors on licence extension. Nine of the eleven Crown management units were found to be managed in overall compliance with the legislative and policy requirements in effect during the audit period. For one of the two units found to be not in compliance with the legislative and policy requirements, a sustainable forest licence holder had been responsible for all aspects of forest management in effect during the audit period; however, the unit was returned to the Crown just before the audit was conducted.

Figure 10.1 shows that since 1998, 91 to 94 per cent of all management units were managed in overall compliance with the legislative and policy requirements in effect during the audit periods.

During the reporting period audit reports contained a number of positive observations (i.e. best practices) on forest management, including:

• establishment of an ongoing multi-partner woodland caribou study on two management units that provided significant science-based contributions to forest management planning
• development of a GIS application for compliance monitoring data on two management units
• development and implementation of a forest renewal tracking system

Independent forest audit reports recommend improvements, and MNR and sustainable forest licensees address all audit recommendations through the development of action plans and follow-up status reports. The action plans provide a mechanism to improve performance on a management unit and, where applicable, bring the management unit into compliance with the current legislation, regulations, and policies.

Subsequent audits examine implementation of the action plans and determine if actions taken were effective in addressing the audit recommendations. The following recommendations were common in a number of audit reports during the reporting period:

• an assessment of the capability of the Forest Information Portal (see section 10.4.2.2) to accurately and simply track milestone dates associated with the submission, review and approval of forest management planning documents is required
• collection of values information needs to be completed in a timely way to support planning and operations
• improvements to slash management are required to minimize the loss of productive forest area
• improvements are required to the reporting process for assessing silviculture effectiveness (see section 10.3.2.2)

The most recent audit reports and action plans are available on the Government of Ontario website.

10.3.2.2 Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring – Condition 29

Monitoring of the effectiveness of silvicultural operations is carried out on each management unit through MNR’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program. Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring examines the planned operations in forest management plans and the actual operations implemented, and determines the success of forest renewal. Successful forest renewal (i.e. regeneration to an acceptable renewal standard) is expressed as free-to-grow. Term and Condition 96 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to improve its existing program and report results to the public. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on implementation of silvicultural effectiveness monitoring and improvements to the program, including preparation of the Silviculture Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario, which provided direction for silvicultural effectiveness monitoring.

Condition 29 of Declaration Order MNR-71 requires MNR to continue to implement a silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program and to maintain provincial direction for the program.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• a comprehensive review of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program
• the number of hectares assessed and the number declared free-to-grow
• re-assessment of areas declared free-to-grow by forest companies
• preparation of a training manual to support silvicultural effectiveness monitoring, and to provide additional direction for MNR field staff involved in MNR’s review of silvicultural efforts undertaken by the forest industry

Significant initiatives and major results during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

MNR continued to undertake a number of initiatives to improve the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program. In 2012–13, MNR began a Silvicultural Enhancement Initiative to coordinate efforts to improve policies guiding its silviculture program. A comprehensive review of MNR’s silviculture program was undertaken, and a number of opportunities for improvement were identified to ensure that the policies guiding forest renewal are effective and efficient while being responsive to emerging considerations such as climate change. The initiative is expected to be completed in 2014 and MNR will report on the outcome in the next Five-Year EA Report.

In the forest management planning process, silvicultural ground rules are developed for all forest units. Prescriptions outlined in the ground rules identify silvicultural treatment packages intended to result in a prescribed future forest unit, and also identify other future forest units that will be accepted should the prescribed result not occur. When the results of a regeneration assessment indicate that regeneration standards associated with the preferred future forest unit have been met, the result is deemed a silvicultural success. If the regeneration standard met is associated with an acceptable future forest unit, the result is deemed to be a regeneration success. Forest companies are required to carry out assessments of regeneration and silvicultural success on each management unit and report results annually in Management Unit Annual Reports.

Annually, MNR compiles the results for the province and reports on the area assessed and declared as free-to-grow in the Provincial Annual Report on Forest Management to meet the requirements of Condition 32(b)(vii). Table 10.3 and Figure 10.2 provide a summary of the area assessed, area declared as free-to-grow and area declared not free-to-grow during the reporting period.

During the reporting period, almost 790,000 hectares were assessed and more than 723,000 hectares or almost 91 per cent were declared as free-to-grow. For the remaining area (nine per cent), free-to-grow status was not yet achieved (e.g. , height requirements were not met) or did not meet an acceptable renewal standard and additional silvicultural treatments, including tending and additional tree planting, might be required.

Area assessed, area declared free-to-grow and area declared not free-to-grow from 2002–03 to 2012–13 is shown in Figure 10.3.

10.3.2.3 Wildlife population monitoring – Condition 30

Provincial wildlife population monitoring is undertaken to determine whether healthy populations of forest wildlife continue to inhabit the Area of the Undertaking, and to contribute to an understanding of how forest management affects wildlife populations. Term and Condition 81 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to develop and implement a wildlife population monitoring program. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on the development and implementation of the program, which was initiated in 1995 through partnerships with other monitoring agencies, and establishment of MNR’s Wildlife Assessment Program in 1996. Staffing support for program maintenance and implementation activities is based in Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Thunder Bay, North Bay, and Peterborough.

Condition 30 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue to implement a Wildlife Population Monitoring Program and to investigate wildlife population monitoring methods. Part (b) of the condition specifically required MNR to prepare a program plan that outlines the priorities, representative species to be monitored and proposed activities and schedules for the program.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• preparation of the program plan for the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program
• continued monitoring of species
• maintenance of program data in a central database
• maintenance and enhancement of monitoring partnerships with external parties

Significant initiatives and major results during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

In 2013, MNR began implementation of the Ontario Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring field program. The purpose of the program is to provide long-term data on the status and trends for a range of wildlife species and associated habitat conditions using a consistent set of survey protocols. Permanent sample plots that will be surveyed regularly are being established. The core survey protocols include: camera traps to record the presence of medium to large mammals; audio recorders for forest birds and calling amphibians; artificial cover boards to detect salamanders; and live trapping and release of small mammals. Vegetation sampling is also conducted at monitoring sites to provide information on habitat conditions important to wildlife.

In 2010–11, a program trial evaluation was undertaken in Ecoregion 3W (the Lake Nipigon ecoregion). The information from the trial is being used to support the final design of the program. Field implementation of the program design began in 2012 with the establishment of 47 plots in south-central Ontario. The data generated from the program will help determine whether wildlife populations are being maintained at broad regional scales (e.g., ecoregions) in managed forests. A draft Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring program design document describing the monitoring objectives, sampling design, and survey protocols was prepared and will be revised to include findings from the 2013 field season before it is published.

As stated in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR was investigating survey methods that could improve the overall reliability to investigate means of improving trend monitoring of forest birds in Northern Ontario. During the current reporting period, three initiatives were undertaken:

1. In 2011–2012, through partnerships with Bird Studies Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service, additional funding was provided to enhance the Breeding Bird Survey by assessing sampling requirements and increasing volunteer participation in Northern Ontario. The program was moderately successful in increasing the number and spatial coverage of stations; however, gaps remain in remote areas where human populations are sparse.
2. New research was published on the use of unattended bird song recording devices. The researchers concluded that unattended bird song recording devices were useful in situations where: the number of experienced bird observers is limited; access is difficult (e.g., remote northern areas); multiple samples at the same site are desirable; and it is desirable to eliminate inter-observer, time-of-day and time-of- season effects.
3. Planned implementation of the Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring program that employs programmable digital audio records and a spatially balanced random sample design across northern portions of managed forests in Ontario is expected to greatly improve coverage for forest birds.

As described in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR undertook a pilot study on a monitoring survey of small mammals, forest birds and amphibians. Findings from the study are described in the following sections.

Small mammals

The small mammal study demonstrated that a broad-scale approach to assessing small mammal trends is effective for four common species (i.e. red-backed voles, deer mice, eastern chipmunks, northern short-tailed shrew). The study found that a minimum of 20 sample sites per MNR region is sufficient to detect 75 per cent declines over four years for these species. Additional effort, alternative sample techniques (e.g., bait or trap type), or sampling specific habitat types is required to detect significant declines in other species. Lower catch rates for other species of small mammals will limit their value as indicators of sustainable forest management in long-term monitoring. Small mammal populations undergo large annual fluctuations in response to environmental conditions and may be spatially synchronous over large distances, which supports the need for long timeframes to detect trends of conservation concern. These findings were also used to support development of protocols and sample size requirements for the Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring field program.

Forest birds

Findings from the forest bird component of the project indicated that:

• The use of distance sampling to estimate bird density will not meet MNR trend monitoring objectives for birds because of the effects of sample size limitations, and inaccuracy of distance estimation by observers to generate reliable data.
• Statistical analysis of the 2001–2004 data indicated that 180 sites spread across the study area, with each visited twice, would permit detection of 3 per cent decreases per year for 36 bird species.
• Detailed recommendations were made for survey protocols suitable for using species occupancy as a trend indicator (e.g., number of sites, length of point counts, timing). Bird survey data was used to estimate site occupancy rates and the sample size required to detect a relative change of 20 per cent or greater in the proportion of monitored sites with detections between two points in time. Sample size requirements varied among species in relation to detection rates.

The findings from this work, along with findings from the digital audio recorder study, were used to inform development of the sampling effort and plot layout design for the MSIM program.

Salamanders

Findings from the salamander component of the project indicated that:

• Coverboard surveys were labour-intensive but effective for detecting salamanders, whereas the area-search technique was not effective. Surveys for red-backed salamanders that include repeat visits within a survey season are expected to be adequate for detecting change in population abundance among survey years. Findings apply to the area of core red-backed salamander range in Ontario, overlapping managed forests.
• The abundance of salamanders varied with habitat type. Tolerant hardwood stands had the highest average number of salamanders followed by intolerant hardwoods, mixedwood stands, pine stands and lowland conifers. Tolerant hardwood stands had significantly more salamanders than all other habitat types, while lowland conifer had significantly less than all other habitat types. The observed habitat association patterns suggested that salamander distribution and abundance may vary with changes in forest condition. Further investigation is required to understand whether long-term population change is affected by forest management practices.

A study was also conducted by external collaborators (i.e. the Canadian Forest Service), on the usefulness of terrestrial salamanders as indicators of sustainable forest management in the southern boreal zone, near the northern limit of red-backed salamander range. Salamanders occurred at low densities, with high variability in detection success during surveys. As a result, population trend monitoring at the northern limit of the red-backed salamander range was suggested to be expensive, with an inability to detect significant declines without prohibitively large increases in survey effort. These findings do not reflect the usefulness of salamanders as indicators of sustainable forest management in core salamander range in forests dominated by tolerant hardwoods. Furthermore, the use of occupancy as a monitoring index under the Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring field program is expected to be valuable for monitoring changes in salamander distribution, which may be particularly important at the edge of known species ranges. Further evidence of the usefulness of salamanders as forest management wildlife indicators, and documentation of the range boundaries of salamanders, will be assessed using the Multi- Species Inventory and Monitoring field program.

Analysis of existing survey data for birds, mammals, and amphibians from the pilot study suggested that more than 100 sampling sites would be needed to acquire sufficient data to detect a 20 per cent relative change in the proportion of sites, with detections between two survey periods, and for approximately 75 per cent of the 42 species assessed. Findings from this analysis supported design considerations for the Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring program to meet monitoring objectives.

As reported in the recent State of Ontario’s Forests report, in 2010, MNR initiated a population range monitoring program at the local population range level to support a range management approach to caribou recovery. Data is being collected across all contiguous caribou range in Ontario. The program will complete its first monitoring cycle in 2014. Terrestrial Assessment Program staff supported the draft monitoring strategy development and telemetry monitoring program.

Population results summary

MNR directly or indirectly monitors terrestrial wildlife specified in the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan to provide long-term assessment information and to support forest management guide effectiveness monitoring. During the reporting period, the status of wildlife populations has varied widely among different taxonomic groups and individual species.

Evidence suggests that the populations of provincially featured species have generally been stable to increasing since the last reporting period. During the 2008–2013 reporting period, MNR conducted 62 moose aerial surveys on more than 2,000 sample plots, each 2.5 km by 10 km in size. Ontario’s moose population is generally stable; however, a decline in moose calf recruitment has been evident in some areas.

Direct population data for marten are not available to estimate long-term provincial or regional trends. Marten harvest information suggests that province-wide harvest rates have declined during the reporting period, compared to the harvest rates observed in the mid–1980s and 1990s; however, since 2009, harvest per trapper has shown slight increasing trends. Harvest declines were most notable in the northern core of marten distribution in the northwestern, north-central and northern fur zones. The declines were similar regardless of whether harvest quotas were applied or not. Declines in the mid-2000s, particularly in the northern fur zone, were related to a collapse in small mammal populations, particularly red-backed voles, as identified during a marten research study. Trappers were encouraged to reduce marten harvest during this time in that zone. Marten harvest along the southern edge of distribution (i.e. the Algonquin and northeastern zones) was relatively stable during the same time period (1993–2011).

A study conducted by the University of Guelph, MNR, and the Canadian Forest Service between 2003 and 2007 revealed that marten populations showed high inter-annual variation in abundance, and abundance was consistently lower in mechanically harvested stands than in mature uncut stands. Growth rates of marten populations were related to annual variation in prey abundance, but at any given level of prey abundance, population growth rates were lower in regenerating forests than in more mature uncut forests.

Deer trends are determined from hunter harvest statistics. These statistics indicate that total harvest and harvest rate relative to hunter effort remained relatively stable during the reporting period. Following expanded hunting opportunities and successive severe winters in 2007–08 and 2008–09 in central and southeastern Ontario, the deer population was observed to decline to levels more consistent with previous management objectives.

MNR continued its support for Bird Studies Canada to collect long-term population data for the bird migration monitoring, breeding bird survey, nocturnal owl survey and woodcock survey, and with the University of Guelph to monitor small mammals in Algonquin Park. Migration monitoring data for forest bird species indicated that some species are experiencing long-term declines while others are increasing. Short-term trends in monitored resident bird species do not indicate any notable decreases. Understanding the causes of broad-scale population change, including possible relationships with forest management activities in Ontario, would require more tailored research, which is currently beyond the scope of MNR’s existing broad-scale wildlife monitoring activities.

A 2009 analysis of all forest bird surveys undertaken by the Canadian Wildlife Service, MNR, Bird Studies Canada and the Canadian Forest Service showed more than 60 per cent of all forest species to be stable or increasing in the Boreal Hardwood transition (central Ontario), and more than 80 per cent of all forest birds in the Boreal Softwood Shield (Northern Ontario) were stable or increasing. The breeding bird survey is a spatially explicit roadside survey; however, gaps in coverage in Northern Ontario occur due to low human population and poor access, making it difficult to get enough volunteers to conduct the surveys. As a result, trend reliability was poor for the Boreal Shield area. The MNR has provided funding to Bird Studies Canada to pay travel costs for volunteers so that the number of stations surveyed in key northern areas with gaps can be increased. The Multi- Species Inventory and Monitoring program survey will also help to address this issue.

Small mammal abundance in Algonquin Park between 2008 and 2012 was within long-term ranges of variation with high annual variation, which is similar to long-term patterns. Small mammal captures (all species) in 2012 represented a substantial increase following two consecutive years of declines, and represented the highest abundance of small mammals since 2003. The woodland jumping mouse showed two years of consecutive declines following record high numbers in 2010. Small mammals exhibit high year-to-year variation in their populations which is believed to be primarily because of changes in food supply.

For many species and/or locations in Ontario, limited data is available for analysis and assessment of long-term trends. Most monitoring efforts for amphibians, reptiles and small to medium-sized mammals have limited geographic representation and replication through time. Furbearers and medium-sized mammals, including marten, are monitored through trapper fur returns or at very fine scales through research projects. In contrast, the nocturnal owl survey and the long-term province-wide trend inventory for moose provide annual data using standardized protocols and spatial coverage for much of the Area of Undertaking. As stated previously, MNR initiated field implementation of the Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring program in 2012 to address the need for improved taxonomic and geographic representation.

Program plan

As required by Condition 30(b), the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan was revised and made available to the public on the Environmental Registry in 2010 (EBR Registry Number: 010-4230).

10.3.2.4 Scientific studies – Monitoring guide effectiveness – Condition 31

MNR maintains a program of scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of MNR’s forest management guides. Term and Condition 80 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to undertake long-term scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of the three provincial guidelines for moose habitat, fish habitat and tourism values. MNR’s Timber EA Class Review (2002) reported on the results of those studies to date, and the insights that the long-term studies provided into MNR’s guideline approach to forest management. Condition 31 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue a program of scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of these guides. Also, Condition 38(f) requires each forest management guide to contain a description of an approach that will be undertaken to monitor the effectiveness of the guide. The goal of guide effectiveness monitoring is to determine whether the direction in the guides is effective in producing anticipated outcomes. Guide effectiveness monitoring is a key component of MNR’s adaptive approach to forest management.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on five initiatives, including:

• Moose Guidelines Evaluation Project
  • More than one million location records collected from GPS collars
  • Development of the Home Range Extension software for ArcView to manage, analyze and interpret the data and spectral classification of satellite images to determine annual and seasonal home ranges for analysis of habitat use
  • Sponsorship of two Master’s theses, the results of which have been incorporated into MNR’s new forest management guides
• Aquatic Effects Program
  • Completion of the Coldwater Lakes Experimental Watersheds project
  • Results of the Comparative Aquatic Effects Program including that the aquatic effects of forest management activities have been shown to be minimal, and that sedimentation is not a concern of harvest, but can be for roads if roads and water crossings are not properly planned and constructed
• Tourism Effects Project
  • Effectiveness of access control
  • Development of models to assess the effectiveness of natural abandonment of roads on recreational angling effort and protection of resource-based tourism values
  • Testing of monitoring devices
  • Research to determine the reasons for conflicts in road access management
• New Research Studies
  • Studies using Landscape Scripting Language, a multiple-scale modelling tool used to analyze habitat supply models, and development of songbird habitat models
• Boreal Silviculture Program
  • Establishment of a new program to complement MNR’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program

Significant initiatives and major results during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

Moose guidelines evaluation project

MNR’s Moose Guidelines Evaluation Project, the long-term research project to assess the effectiveness of MNR’s moose habitat guidelines, continued. As reported in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, information from 128 GPS-collared moose was used to determine annual and seasonal home ranges. During the current reporting period, analysis of the information was completed. The results indicate that:

• wetlands (brush, alder and treed wetlands) and lowland conifer are used when summer temperatures are 14°C and above
• wetlands (brush and alder) and upland conifer are used when winter temperatures are greater than -5°C
• temperature thresholds of 14°C and -5°C are not very useful in identifying heat stress in moose

Forest stands used by moose under temperature extremes were found to have the following characteristics:

• larger than 10 hectares and typically larger than 30 hectares in size
• greater than 10 metres in height and usually more than 35 years old
• a 60 to 80 per cent canopy closure
• less than 200 metres from moose aquatic feeding areas in summer
• close to 50 per cent of stands greater than 10 metres in height and with 60 to 80 per cent canopy closure stocking are used in both summer and winter
• stands used in both summer and winter are larger than stands used only in the summer or only in the winter

Results of the Moose Guidelines Evaluation Project regarding calving sites, moose aquatic feeding areas, mineral licks and summer and winter thermal cover analyses were incorporated into the Stand and Site Guide (see section 10.4.1.1). To support the upcoming review of the guide, re-analysis of moose habitat use related to calving sites and response to temperature was undertaken using updated methods that were developed since the original analysis was conducted. MNR will report on the results of the analysis in the next Five-Year EA Report.

Aquatic effects program

MNR’s long-term Aquatic Effects Program to assess the effectiveness of direction regarding aquatic ecosystems continued during the reporting period. The program includes both empirical measurement and modeling of the effects of harvest on aquatic ecosystems, and the evaluation of efforts to emulate natural disturbance patterns in watersheds and riparian zones in Northern Ontario. During the reporting period, the main initiative of the program was the development and implementation of an effectiveness monitoring program related to the Stand and Site Guide direction to maintain ecological functions of aquatic ecosystems. The purpose of the initiative was to ensure that application of the direction in the guide effectively minimizes physical disturbance within catchments (i.e. areas drained by rivers or bodies of water) so that hydrological, chemical and biological effects resulting from forest management activities do not exceed those observed in naturally disturbed catchments, and do not exceed acceptable levels for specific parameters such as methyl mercury. This project involves the development of modeling tools and survey methodology, and the validation of indicators of stream ecosystem structure and function (e.g., fish abundance, invertebrate community, temperature, water chemistry).

The program included a project which monitored small, forested watersheds for two years before, and five years after harvest. Results indicate that forest harvesting causes increased water yield and an increased rate of movement of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, potassium) and metals (e.g., mercury). However, subsequent research showed that mercury levels in fish and invertebrates in small, boreal streams were not related to the extent of forest harvesting. To help mitigate these impacts, program staff have developed a number of GIS-based tools to predict the location of small unmapped streams that may serve as fish habitat, and the hydrologic connection between aquatic and terrestrial areas. The tools, which are used to reduce site disturbance, were validated through field surveys and shared with MNR staff and the forest industry to help support forest management planning.

In 2012, a large scale collaborative project was initiated to compare natural and forest management disturbance patterns within watersheds, and to compare their impacts on riparian structure and stream habitat. Support for the project is provided by MNR, the Canadian Forest Service, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and the forest industry through the Forest Ecosystem Co-operative. Preliminary analyses of stand replacing disturbance in several management units indicate that the proportion of a watershed disturbed was similar between fire and forest management activities in all watershed sizes measured; however, the number of watersheds impacted by forest management during a given time period is greater than those impacted by fire.

Tourism effects

MNR’s research program to assess the effectiveness of MNR’s Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism continued during the reporting period. The research focused on two main themes:

1. the effects of forest management activities on the profitability and viability of resource-based tourism operations
2. the effectiveness of different management approaches at limiting recreational- based vehicle travel on resource roads in Ontario

The effects of forest management activities on profitability and viability were assessed by replicating and extending a previous study. The study related the extent of forest management activity near lakes with float plane-accessible, resource-based tourism establishments, to the decisions by individuals to operate these establishments (viability), and to prices for fishing packages at these establishments (profitability). No evidence was found to implicate forest management activities as having an impact on the viability or profitability of these tourism establishments. This result contrasted with the previous study which suggested that forest management activities had a small, but measurable and negative effect on the profitability of the resource-based tourism industry. This changing effect suggests that current forest management policies and practices did not impair the viability or profitability of the float plane-accessible, resource-based tourism industry between 2000 and 2010.

Two approaches to determine the effectiveness of limiting traffic on access roads were assessed. The first approach utilized traffic counting devices, which were placed on access roads with and without various methods to limit traffic (e.g., sign-based closures, deactivating roads by placing boulder or earthen berm impediments). Traffic was monitored on a sample of these roads on weekends during moose hunting season when recreational traffic is highest. The most effective methods to limit traffic included a combination of road decommissioning and closure with a Public Lands Act sign, and closure for part of the moose hunting season using only Public Lands Act signs. Access roads that were fully closed with signs were significantly less effective at reducing traffic than were roads that utilized the other methods.

The second approach included developing and applying recreational demand models including social-ecological system models (e.g., Landscape Fisheries Model). These models were used to estimate how demand for recreational activities would vary among different circumstances, including around areas with and without tourism values. The models were also used to assess how recreational demand is influenced by naturally occurring variations in the quality of access roads and trails. The results of these studies provide insights into the interest levels that recreationalists have for areas with tourism values, and the potential consequences of unauthorized road and trail access to these values.

The results of the research were considered during the review of MNR’s Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism (see section 10.4.1.1.).

Boreal silviculture

As reported in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR established a Boreal Silviculture Program to complement MNR’s silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program. The programs components include:

• silvicultural effectiveness
• commercial thinning in black spruce plantations
• silvicultural and ecological productivity of black spruce/jack pine mixedwoods
• effects of site quality and density on regenerating jack pine stands
• technology transfer

Significant initiatives and major results during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

Silvicultural effectiveness

Silvicultural activities are undertaken to achieve a desired future forest condition and ensure that current harvest levels are sustainable. As stated in section 10.3.2.2, Condition 29 requires MNR to continue to implement its Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Program to determine if these goals are being met. During the reporting period, Boreal Silviculture Research Program staff identified historic records, including harvest and other silvicultural treatments, as far back as 1937. Records for the Lake Nipigon Forest were digitized and stored in a geo-database. These records will be used to evaluate the long- term effectiveness of a wide range of silvicultural activities and treatments that have been applied historically.

Boreal Silviculture Program staff also evaluated the two assessment methodologies currently approved in MNR’s Silvicultural Effectiveness Monitoring Manual for Ontario (i.e. Free-Growing Regeneration Assessment, and Silviculture Treatment, Assessment and Reporting System) for determining free-to-grow status in young, regenerating forest stands. The results indicated that both methods provide similar results. Suggestions for simplification and improvement to the methodologies were provided, including eliminating one step in the assessment of well-spaced trees in the Free-Growing Regeneration Assessment methodology to provide a method for calculating statistically defensible confidence limits around the estimate of free-to-grow density with fewer plots, and combining aspects of the two methodologies into one approved method.

Silvicultural and ecological productivity of black spruce/jack pine mixedwoods

Black spruce and jack pine occur together in mixedwood stands throughout the boreal region of Ontario and may have the potential to provide increased yields compared to single species stands. In 2006, a three-year study was initiated to examine the potential for managing these species using some of the techniques described in the Silviculture Guide to Managing Spruce, Fir, Birch and Aspen Mixedwoods in Ontario’s Boreal Forests. The objective of the project was to quantify the potential gains in fibre production from managing for both species, and to suggest silvicultural practices that can take advantage of the relationship between black spruce and jack pine and their environment.

Results of the study indicated that plantation grown black spruce trees produce high quality lumber between 40–50 years of age. High density at establishment, combined with slightly below average site index, produced the highest yield machine stress rated lumber, which ensures a minimum strength performance in engineered applications. Machine stress rated lumber pricing scenarios explored suggest that this grading can improve revenues for lumber producers.

Commercial thinning in black spruce plantations

Commercial thinning has the potential to capture fibre volumes that would otherwise be lost to mortality, and provide additional benefits, including increased employment, lower future harvest costs, and improved stand growth. Commercial thinning is currently not recommended primarily due to lack of information. In 2006, a detailed study of the physiological, ecological, silvicultural and economic impacts of commercial thinning in the oldest intensively managed black spruce plantations in northwestern Ontario was undertaken. Initial results of the study suggest that lumber recovered during thinnings from these black spruce plantations can meet strength and quality requirements for use in construction. Analysis of stand- and tree-level growth responses five years after thinning treatments will be completed in 2014. During the establishment of the experiment, a model to estimate whole tree leaf area from branch diameters was developed to facilitate investigation of the physiological basis for any observed responses.

Effects of site quality and density on regenerating jack pine stands

Findings from a study to examine the site quality and density effects on tree growth in juvenile stands concluded that in mixed conifer stands, jack pine has a strong competitive effect on the growth of black spruce, while black spruce has only a weak competitive effect on jack pine. Jack pine trees make greater use of deeper portions of the soil profile when grown in mixture with black spruce. Overall, competitive reduction in mixed jack pine and black spruce stands is likely to improve above-ground productivity.

Jack pine forests typically regenerate naturally at very high densities. Aerial seeding can also produce high density stands. Density can have a positive or negative effect on height growth, depending on site quality. Established jack pine experimental plots, planted at different densities on two contrasting site types, were examined. Site quality had the greatest effect on height, diameter and gross total volume growth for a jack pine/black spruce chronosequence (i.e. stands that share similar attributes but are of different ages), whether the stands were mixtures or single species stands. Silvicultural treatments that reduce competition from shrubs and/or other trees (i.e. herbicide use or thinning) resulted in a measurable effect on volume growth for both species.

Caribou habitat in the managed forest project

In 2010, the Caribou Habitat in the Managed Forest project was initiated to investigate the demographics of woodland caribou in relation to predation risk and landscape disturbance.

The project is part of a larger collaborative study led by the University of Guelph. More than 200 managed and unmanaged stands have been surveyed, with about one-third of those stands occupied by caribou during the summer.

A key attribute examined in the stands surveyed was the abundance of lichen – an important food resource for woodland caribou. Biomass estimates of terrestrial and arboreal lichen in relation to canopy cover were completed and delivered to the University of Guelph, and will be used in the development of a caribou movement model. Initial results indicate that ground lichen abundance is higher in conifer dominated stands, particularly where canopy closure is below 80 per cent. No significant differences in lichen abundance were found between stands that had been naturally disturbed and those that had been harvested, nor was stand age found to be a significant determinant of lichen abundance in conifer dominated stands. Older plantations that had been site prepared using fire were also compared to similarly aged stands that were site prepared using mechanical treatments. Prescribed burning may facilitate an increase in ground lichen abundance over mechanical site preparation; however, a larger sample size is required to confirm the initial findings.

Technology transfer

In 2011, MNR published a technical report entitled Silvicultural Practices for Eastern White Cedar in Boreal Ontario, to provide information to planning teams to improve understanding, and assist in the development of silvicultural prescriptions for managing cedar in the boreal forest. Critical silvics of cedar, including climatic range, common site conditions, reaction to competition and susceptibility to frost, flood, drought, fire, diseases and insects; and genetic considerations, reproduction methods, seedbeds, stand structure and dynamics, site quality and growth rates, are discussed in the report.

Boreal Silviculture Research Program staff contributed significantly to the publication of A Decision Framework for Developing Regeneration Standards (TM–009). This technical report provides a systematic decision framework to help forest managers develop regeneration standards linked to mature stand objectives (e.g., specific wood quality objectives).

Preparation of several manuscripts is also continuing, including:

• an examination of silvicultural characteristics of used and available woodland caribou habitats in two landscapes that differ in terms of forest management history
• an examination of the competitive effects of aspen and spruce on white spruce growth and foliar nutrition in plantations
• an examination of changes to the arrangement of white spruce crowns in pure stands and mixed stands with aspen

Spatial ecology program

As stated in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, Spatial Ecology Program staff developed models to form the foundation for the approach to monitor the effectiveness of MNR guides. Between 2009 and 2011, a number of workshops and meetings were held to develop a framework that could be referenced in the new guides, and to identify monitoring priorities and general science-based monitoring principles, to guide the development and implementation of new monitoring programs for forest management guide evaluation. The Provincial Forest Technical Committee was involved in the review of the framework, and several presentations were made to the committee as the framework was developed.

During the reporting period, Spatial Ecology Program staff were asked to implement monitoring to address whether emulation of natural disturbance patterns and processes from conducting forest management activities result in a community of forest songbirds similar to that found in forests arising from natural disturbances. An associated objective was to evaluate the performance of spatial habitat models used in support of guide development.

Spatially explicit habitat models for 13 forest songbird species were developed for evaluating options during the development of the Landscape Guides, and these species were treated as focal species for guide effectiveness monitoring. Survey design included five Landscape Guide Regions, stratified by forest origin and cover type, age and landscape pattern (e.g., fragmented with many small clearcuts which create a mixture of young and old forest), or unfragmented (e.g., within a homogeneous landscape where all the forest is a similar age). Control sites originating from natural disturbance processes were compared to young and old forest harvest sites. The songbird research focused on three questions:

• is occupancy rate lower than variations expected under a natural disturbance regime
• is occupancy declining over time
• is occupancy lower in control sites compared to harvested sites

During the reporting period, three study areas were assessed using acoustic recorders. One additional area was planned to be sampled in 2013. The five study areas (which include one area assessed during the previous reporting period) will continue to be sampled on a five- year schedule. A detailed evaluation and report on monitoring costs, and a comparison of cost-effectiveness with the traditional point count monitoring approach, in which a trained observer records all the birds seen and heard from a point count station for a set period of time, is being prepared.

The comparison of occupancy rates for the 13 focal species between control sites and harvested sites indicates similar rates of occupancy for some, but not all, species. For example, preliminary analysis shows that Bay-breasted Warbler and Red-eyed Vireo have higher rates of occupancy in harvested sites than in control sites, but Brown Creeper has lower occupancy in harvested sites. Data collected between 2003 and 2009 indicated that occupancy rates declined overall for Bay-breasted Warbler and Red-eyed Vireo; however, when the data were stratified by harvest versus control sites, harvest sites had higher occupancy rates. For Brown Creeper, the 2003–2009 data indicated that occupancy rates had increased overall, but when the data was stratified, it was found that control sites had higher occupancy rates than harvested sites.

More detailed analysis is required to understand differences between comparable control and harvest sites. Progress is being made on guide effectiveness monitoring, and this study will continue to investigate whether the direction in the guides is effective in producing anticipated outcomes. MNR will report on further findings from the study in the next Five- Year EA Report.

10.3.3 Advisory committees – Conditions 35, 36 and 37

Condition 35 requires MNR to maintain Regional Advisory Committees to advise MNR Regional Directors on forest management planning and related matters. Condition 36 requires MNR to maintain a Provincial Forest Policy Committee to advise the Deputy Minister on provincial forest policy and related matters. Condition 37 requires MNR to maintain a Provincial Forest Technical Committee to advise the Assistant Deputy Minister on how to ensure that forest management guides are kept current with respect to scientific knowledge and management practices. Each committee is comprised of individuals who represent a range of interests and expertise in forest management.

During the reporting period, MNR maintained three Regional Advisory Committees which met 30 times – the Northwestern Region committee met 12 times, and the Northeastern Region and Southern Region committees each met 9 times. MNR Regional Directors sought advice on matters including: woodland caribou conservation; tenure modernization; species at risk; sustainable forest licences returned to the Crown; climate change; and land use planning.

During the reporting period, MNR maintained the Provincial Forest Policy Committee which met 14 times. The MNR Deputy Minister sought advice on matters including: the Softwood Lumber Agreement; forest sector competitiveness; the Endangered Species Act; State of the Forest Report; forest access roads; the Far North Strategy; forestry education in Ontario; caribou policy; the independent forest audit review; and requests for an individual environmental assessment.

During the reporting period, MNR maintained the Provincial Forest Technical Committee which met 16 times. The MNR Assistant Deputy Minister sought advice on the following forest management guides: the Landscape Guides; Stand and Site Guide; Silviculture Guide; Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-based Tourism; and the Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values.

As stated in section 3.2, MNR undertook a plan to reshape and transform its role in managing Ontario’s natural resources. One of the initiatives of this Transformation Plan was the consideration of a broader landscape approach to forest management. As MNR continues to transform, modernize and update its organizational design and business practices, MNR will examine its advisory committees to determine if changes to the current committee structure and purposes are required to ensure that advisory committees continue to provide effective support to MNR’s forest management program.

10.4 Continuing development and programs

10.4.1 Guides

10.4.1.1 Review and revision of guides – Condition 38

MNR is required to use approved forest management guides, which must be reviewed every five years, in the planning and implementation of forest management activities. Three terms and conditions of the original Forest EA approval addressed MNR’s guides. Term and Condition 20 identified the guides that MNR had to use in forest management planning. Term and Condition 93 required guides to be reviewed on a five-year cycle and to be revised or amalgamated, as necessary. Term and Condition 94 required the silvicultural guides to be reviewed and revised, and a number of new guides to be prepared.

MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on the implementation of the three terms and conditions, and a consultant’s review of all of MNR’s existing guides. The main recommendation resulting from the review was the amalgamation of the existing guides into a more concise set of documents.

Condition 38 of Declaration Order MNR-71 maintained the requirements for the use of guides in forest management planning, and regular five-year reviews of the guides. Condition 38 also added provisions for a list of guides on MNR’s website. Additional requirements for each revised, amalgamated or new guide, including pilot testing and a description of an effectiveness monitoring approach, were also prescribed.

Condition 37 requires MNR to maintain a Provincial Forest Technical Committee to advise MNR on how to ensure MNR’s guides are kept current (see section 10.3.3). The committee acts as a review board for proposed changes to existing guides, and recommends priorities for work on new or existing guides. In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• the availability of guides on MNR’s website
• development of new guides that address the conservation of biodiversity at landscape, and stand and site scales
• reviews of four guides and revision of a number of guides, including the silviculture guides, tree marking guide, cultural heritage guide and protection of osprey nests
• the role of the Provincial Forest Technical Committee in the development and review of guides
• development and availability of Ontario’s Forest Management Guides: An Introduction

Significant initiatives during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

Guides on the Government of Ontario website

As required by Condition 38(b), a list of the current versions of MNR’s guides is maintained on the Government of Ontario website. The list is reviewed at least annually and updated when necessary to reflect the approval of new and revised guides. In addition, all guides and supporting documents are posted on the Government of Ontario website. MNR’s current forest management guides are available at Forest Management Guides.

Guides that address the conservation of biodiversity at landscape, stand and site scales

In the past, a number of MNR’s forest management guides were structured such that one dealt with a single species or group of species of wildlife, and another dealt with forest pattern. As stated in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, a decision was made to replace these guides with guides that address the conservation of biodiversity at landscape, stand and site scales. The new guides address biodiversity in a holistic manner to ensure that there is suitable habitat across the entire forest landscape for wildlife, birds, fish, plants, etc., as well as protection for specific habitat features (e.g., nests, species at risk).

The new guides use a combination of coarse and fine filters to address the conservation of biodiversity. The coarse filter creates a diversity of ecosystem conditions through space and time, based on the concept of formulating natural patterns and processes, to provide habitat for the majority of native species of plants and animals. Fine filters are applied when the ecological requirements of particular species may not be adequately addressed by the coarse filter alone, or when societal and/or economic aspects of sustainable development require more or less habitat than the coarse filter alone would provide. The coarse and fine filter direction is based on a strong foundation of scientific knowledge and operational experience.

Forest management guide for landscapes

In 2002, MNR began to develop the Forest Management Guide for Landscapes to provide direction for the entire province; however, passage of the Endangered Species Act in 2007, and new policy direction for managing caribou habitat, resulted in a decision that separate volumes of the guide would be developed for the Boreal and Great Lakes-St Lawrence forest regions. The Great Lakes-St Lawrence volume was posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment from November 2008 to January 2009, and was finalized and approved in May 2009. The guide provides direction for forest management activities to maintain or enhance natural landscape structure, composition and patterns that provide for the long-term health of forest ecosystems in an efficient and effective manner. The guide also includes an approach to guide effectiveness monitoring to ensure that the direction in the guide is effective in producing anticipated outcomes.

As required by Condition 38(a), training on the application of the guide was provided in 2009 to forest management planning teams whose plans were in preparation. In March 2010, the guide was published following posting of a decision notice on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number: 010-5226). Implementation of the guide began with forest management plans approved for implementation on April 1, 2011.

Completion of the Boreal guide was delayed due to the development of other policy documents related to caribou habitat management. The draft guide was posted for public comment on the Environmental Registry in September 2013, and finalized and approved in February 2014 (EBR Registry Number: 011-9810).

The science and information used, and the tools created in the development of the Landscape Guides, were incorporated into the Ontario Landscape Tool. The tool provides a direct link to science and information packages which contain summaries of inputs, rationale, simulation results and decision support tools that can be used in the preparation of a forest management plan or for testing model inputs, assumptions and results. During the reporting period, the Ontario Landscape Tool and its data resources were used to assist with the preparation of forest management plans and development of policies to address: caribou, moose, and deer habitat at a provincial level; fish habitat in MNR’s Nipigon District; and land-use planning in the Madawaska Highlands.

Forest management guide for conserving biodiversity at the stand and site scales

As discussed in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, in 2003, preparatory work for the Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales (Stand and Site Guide) was undertaken, and development of the new guide continued throughout the reporting period. A final draft of the guide was completed, and in November 2008, the guide was posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment. The guide was finalized and approved, and in May 2010, a decision notice was posted on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number: 010-5218). The Stand and Site Guide provides direction on various aspects of conserving biodiversity including: aquatic and wetland habitats and shoreline forests; special habitat features; and habitat for species at risk. The guide also addresses: road and water crossing construction and maintenance; soil and water conservation; and salvage and biofibre harvest operations. An approach to guide effectiveness monitoring is also included to ensure that the direction in the guide is effective in producing anticipated outcomes.

As required by Condition 38(a), training on the application of the guide was provided with an initial province-wide introduction to the guide for all planning teams in 2009. Implementation of the guide was mandatory for forest management plans approved for implementation in 2011 and discretionary for forest management plans approved for implementation in 2010. Guide training has continued, with annual detailed training sessions provided that are directed primarily to field staff and equipment operators who implement the direction on the ground. The training sessions, which began in 2010, are provided for practitioners who are implementing the Stand & Site Guide for the first time.

To address common and frequent questions regarding implementation of certain aspects of the new guide, clarification or interpretation notes have been prepared as required. To date, topics addressed in the notes include: the protection of low potential sensitivity water values; protection of Blanding’s turtles and their habitat; and cutting to the shoreline of lakes and streams.

Silviculture guide

In 2005, a review of the Silviculture Guide to Managing Black Spruce, Jack Pine and Aspen on Boreal Ecosites in Ontario, the Silvicultural Guide for the Great Lakes-St Lawrence Conifer Forest in Ontario, and the Silvicultural Guide for the Tolerant Hardwood Forest in Ontario was undertaken to determine if revisions were necessary. The review concluded that the silviculture guides were still relevant, but required revision to address three key topics: commercial thinning; management of cedar in the boreal forest; and harvesting on shallow sites. A recommendation was made to revise the guides after completion of the new Landscape Guides and Stand and Site Guide. Similarly, a review of the Silviculture Guide to Managing Spruce, Fir, Birch, and Aspen Mixedwoods in Ontario’s Boreal Forest, originally published in 2003, was conducted in 2008. The outcome of the review was a recommendation to revise the guide in association with the other three silviculture guides.

In 2009, revision of the silviculture guides was initiated. An advisory team comprised of MNR and forest industry staff was established, and a number of workshops were held across the province to obtain expert advice from field practitioners. In addition to traditional policy development and research techniques, a new methodology for incorporating expert opinion (i.e. the development of Bayesian belief networks) was investigated. A Bayesian belief network is a graphical model that portrays the probability that relevant variables will influence a specified goal. In basic terms: trees need soil, water, and light to grow; silvicultural treatments influence soil, water, and light. The Bayesian belief networks developed to support the guide revision attempt to describe the probability of reaching certain future forest conditions given different combinations of soil, water, light, and silvicultural treatments. The variables used, the structure of the network, and the underlying probabilities are based on a combination of data and experience. The information in the network, combined with simple decision analysis techniques, is used interactively to investigate different options for direction in the guide. This methodology, which supports an adaptive management approach, was extremely useful during the guide revision.

All four silviculture guides that apply to the Area of the Undertaking are being incorporated into a single guide, with appendices and supporting documents prepared to provide species-specific direction and background rationale. In March 2013, the initial draft of the guide was distributed for a practitioner review. The draft guide was posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment in February 2014.

Management guidelines for forestry and resource-based tourism

In 2006, a review of the 2001 Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism concluded that, while the guide did not require revision, research studies needed to be undertaken to address some knowledge gaps that would assist in the next review of the guide. The required research was undertaken at MNR’s Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research and was made available during a review of the guide undertaken in 2011.

MNR was assisted in the review by representatives of the forest industry, resource-based tourism industry and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. The review team concluded that the guide remains relevant and the objective-based approach continues to work. The team noted that some references in the guide were outdated, some content needed to be enhanced, and that the guide required a description of an approach to address effectiveness monitoring. These observations led to a recommendation that the guide needed a minor revision, and that the revised guide would provide an opportunity to increase the awareness of the guide with the forestry and resource-based industries. The reviewers also identified areas of further scientific study that need to be investigated during the next five years, including:

• an improved description of noise from forest operations, and establishment of parameters to mitigate noise
• continued assessment of access road use management, and development and application of an approach to assessing the effects on tourism businesses of non- compliance and unplanned access
• a description of techniques for viewscape analysis, their application, and strengths and weaknesses

The reviewers also suggested that a standard approach to distributing the results of scientific investigations (e.g., a technical note) be considered.

In 2012, the Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism was revised with the support and advice of the forest industry, resource-based tourism industry, Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters, and MNR field staff, some of whom helped to prepare the original guide in 2001. MNR anticipates that a draft of the revised guide will be posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment in 2014.

Staff at MNR’s Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research have developed a proposal to address questions related to the scientific studies identified during the review.

Forest management guide for cultural heritage values

The revised Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values was finalized and approved in April 2007. Training on the revised guide was undertaken for planning teams whose forest management plans would be approved for implementation as of April 1, 2008. Guide effectiveness studies took place in summer 2010 and were completed in 2011.

As required by Condition 38(c), a review of the guide was undertaken in 2012. The review included: a survey of field practitioners; workshops with MNR and forest industry staff, and representatives of Aboriginal communities; a review of similar documents from other jurisdictions; and confirmation that the direction in the guide did not contradict the policies of other ministries, such as the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport.

The review team was composed of MNR staff (including staff from MNR’s Aboriginal Policy Branch), Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport staff, and representatives from the forest industry. The results of the review were documented in a report that was presented to the Provincial Forest Technical Committee. The report was finalized and shared with review participants, and MNR and forest industry field staff, and was also provided to the MOE Director, Environmental Approvals Branch. The reviewers concluded that the guide was still relevant and a revision was not required. The reviewers recommended that additional training on the guide is required to ensure that field staff are able to effectively implement direction in the guide. An addendum to the guide will be prepared to correct outdated administrative references.

10.4.2 Information collection and management

10.4.2.1 Forest resources inventory – Condition 9(a)

A reliable and up-to-date forest resources inventory is required for use in forest management planning. Term and Condition 15 of the original Forest EA approval required updated forest resources inventory data to be available for each management unit for use in the preparation of forest management plans. MNR’s Timber EA Class Review (2002) reported on improvements to the forest resources inventory program, including availability of the inventory in digital format for each management unit, and inclusion of the requirements for the forest resources inventory in the Forest Information Manual (2001).

Condition 9(a) of Declaration Order MNR-71 requires updated inventory data to be available for each management unit for use in forest management planning.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• MNR’s re-assumption of the responsibility for the production of the forest resources inventory
• enhancements to the program, including moving from a 20-year to a 10-year production cycle, and evolution from a periodic to a continuous inventory model
• investments of $10 million annually
• establishment of a Provincial Forest Inventory Advisory Committee to ensure the enhanced inventory program remains current and accurate
• acquisition of a suite of new digital data products
• acquisition of imagery for 300,000 square kilometres
• completion of fieldwork and interpretation, and field calibration for a number of management units

Further advances in the program during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

MNR continues to have forest resources inventory data available for each management unit in the Area of the Undertaking for use in forest management planning, and continues to invest $10 million in the program annually. Enhancements to the forest resources inventory are ongoing, and include an improved field sampling component, which creates closer linkages with the Growth and Yield program (see section 10.4.3.2), and provides more accurate estimates of wood supply to support forest management planning. MNR’s enhanced Forest Resources Inventory Program also includes lands north of the Area of the Undertaking for which MNR determined to have the potential for commercial forest management.

Imagery to support the enhanced program has been acquired for all management units. More than 27,800 calibration plots were established and measured for 19 management units. Data collected from the measurement of the plots provides photo interpreters with valuable information concerning forest conditions. Permanent forest inventory ground plots and permanent forest inventory photo plots were also established. Data collected from these plots provides information for monitoring, reporting, and modelling purposes. Additional plots continue to be established.

Photo interpretation and digital data delivery was completed for 10 management units amounting to approximately 7 million hectares or 14 per cent of the planned inventory lands (Table 10.4 and Figure 10.1).

In fall 2009, MNR held a series of workshops across the province to introduce the enhanced Forest Resources Inventory Program. The workshops were attended by MNR and forest industry staff, academic representatives, forest inventory contractors, Forestry Futures Trust Committee members and some members of the Provincial Forest Inventory Advisory Committee. Certification courses for photo interpreters and field sampling sessions for field crews are regularly provided.

Enlarge forest resources inventory production schedule (PDF)

In 2012–13, the program increased the number of photo interpretation certification courses from two to four in an effort to ease capacity issues. Inventory program staff and the Forestry Futures Trust Committee have also begun to work together to organize a series of workshops, information products and training sessions designed to help users become more proficient in managing and viewing digital aerial imagery.

The Provincial Forest Inventory Advisory Committee continues to provide advice to program staff on scheduling, changes in technology, new inventory processes and future inventory design.

10.4.2.2 Inventory, information and management systems – Condition 40

MNR continues to develop and enhance information management systems to improve data collection, transfer and storage to support forest management planning. Term and Condition 95 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to accelerate its program of inventory and information collection, and to enhance the development of its information management systems for information retrieval. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on the implementation of the condition, including the development of MNR’s Natural Resource Values Information System. This system established data mapping standards for forest-related values and provided for regular update, maintenance, storage and retrieval of information.

Condition 40 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue to develop and enhance information management systems to support forest management planning.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• initiation of the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Application Architecture Renewal project to review MNR’s GIS services and application portfolio
• a major re-design of the Natural Resource Values Information System
• initiation of the Forest Information Portal to allow information to be shared with multiple partners
• availability of the Ontario Crown Land Use Policy Atlas on MNR’s website
• introduction of the Roads and Water Crossing Tool and Forest Management Support Tool
• submission of forest management plans through the Forest Information Portal and public availability of those plans on MNR’s website

Developments and enhancements during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

Geographic Information Systems application architecture renewal project

As stated in the previous Five-Year EA Report, MNR undertook the GIS Application Architecture Renewal project to review MNR’s GIS and the application portfolio. The project, which was completed in 2013, resulted in a new GIS architecture infrastructure in place at a state of the art data centre in Southern Ontario. The new infrastructure required less customization than the previous system and provided greater access to tools for sharing data with partners. Database size was also reduced, which provided significant improvements in the delivery of information to forest industry.

Natural resources and values information system

The ability to manage GIS information digitally is essential in the management of natural resources and fundamental to forest management planning. The Natural Resources and Values Information System was the system used in Ontario to map geographic information in tabular and spatial forms.

During the reporting period, upgrades were made to the system to: effect small application changes; correct errors; implement new data classes; and manage data layer enhancements (i.e. data having similar characteristics). In 2008–09, new versions of the underlying software – ArcGIS, Oracle and Citrix were installed. Improvements were made to forest health information (i.e. layers), including development of a layer to enable MNR’s forest health technicians to review and approve information from MNR districts before the information was accepted into the corporate data management system. Other additions included:

• new data classes and classes related to land tenure
• Ontario hydrographic information
• nesting sites of vulnerable, threatened and endangered species

Edits to information in the Natural Resources and Values Information System were migrated to the Land Information Ontario warehouse each night to provide next day access to the information for warehouse clients. In May 2012, the Natural Resources and Values Information System was replaced with the Land Information Ontario Editor and Mapper. The editor and mapper provide MNR and OPS staff with a modern system for viewing, editing and managing geographic information.

Forest information portal

The Forest Information Portal, which was initiated in 2003, is a single-window, cost- effective, user-friendly, centralized approach to exchange information between MNR and the forest industry. During the reporting period, modifications were made to the portal to:

• improve performance, particularly during data transfer
• accommodate Forest Management Planning Manual and Forest Information Manual Technical Specifications revisions
• make adjustments to the automated data validation routines based on user input

Automated linkages were added to the registration system database to provide forest management planning dates, including plan periods for each management unit, plan terms and associated fiscal years. This addition resulted in reduced user input error and supported accurate migration of information to MNR’s Find a Forest Management Plan website. Functionality was also added to enable the forest industry to submit project plans that involve the aerial application of pesticides. Following MNR review and approval, MOE is able to access, review and approve the project plans, and issue permits for the application of aerial pesticides via the one-window access approach of the portal.

In 2012, base and values spatial data was made available in multiple exchange formats including File Geodatabase and Shapefiles. The smaller file size of these additional formats allows for all data attributes to be delivered to the forest industry more efficiently. The data was made available to the forest industry ahead of schedule so that the information was available for use in the preparation of 2012–13 annual work schedules.

In 2012, a project was initiated to review the processes, procedures and tools associated with the sharing and exchange of forest information between MNR and the forest industry, and to assess the effectiveness and usability of the information provided to engage the public in forest management planning. It is anticipated that the benefits of the project will include:

• a completed framework and approach from which to redesign the Forest Information Portal
• streamlined data exchange processes and supporting systems
• improvements to MNR’s Find a Forest Management Plan website
• streamlined data submission and review
• improved transparency and public engagement

The results of the project will be reported in the next Five-Year EA Report.

Ontario Crown Land Use Policy Atlas

In 2003, the Ontario Crown Land Use Policy Atlas became available on MNR’s website. The atlas provides public access to the official source of area-specific land use policy for Crown lands in much of Ontario. The atlas enables MNR, the forest industry and the public to use an interactive web-based browser to view the boundaries of Crown land use areas and associated land use designations and policies, and to access a series of downloadable maps. The atlas is continually updated when changes to Crown land use direction are approved. During the reporting period, amendments were made to the atlas to:

• permit the disposition of Crown land for the purpose of agricultural land-use, including non-traditional forms of agricultural development (e.g., commercial blueberry production), to accommodate additional economic development opportunities in MNR’s Chapleau District
• incorporate Crown land use policy direction from the Cat Lake-Slate Falls, Little Grand Rapids and Pauingassi community based land use plans

Forest management support tool

During the previous reporting period, MNR implemented a web-based Forest Management Support Tool to provide MNR and forest industry staff with a centralized repository of forest management planning-related information. The tool was decommissioned in January 2009 because of declines in usage, increased site maintenance costs, and the introduction of a new website to house forest management training materials (see The Learning Compass).

Electronic forest management plans

In the past, when members of the public wanted to view a forest management plan, they had to visit a location where a copy of the plan was stored: the appropriate MNR district or regional office; the office of the sustainable forest licensee; or the Government Information Centre in Toronto. In December 2008, forest management plans and associated documents (i.e. annual work schedules, maps, Management Unit Annual Reports, and amendments to forest management plans) were made available on the Find a Forest Management Plan website. The website is integrated with MNR’s Forest Information Portal, which migrates information submitted through the portal to the website. The public can find a forest management plan and associated documents by choosing the appropriate management unit from a drop down list or by clicking on the management unit on the map provided on the website. Since 2008, more than 60 plans have been submitted to MNR using this technology and in 2013–14, the site was accessed by unique IP addresses more than 135,000 times.

The Learning Compass

In 2009, The Learning Compass, a learning management website that houses training materials related to forest management was implemented. The Learning Compass was developed by customizing learnflex commercial, off-the-shelf software. The website, which is hosted externally to enable broad access, is available to a wide range of people involved in forest management, including MNR and forest industry staff, Local Citizens Committee members, and Aboriginal planning team members. The Learning Compass provides forest management practitioners opportunities to register for training, including face to face learning, e-learning and webinars, and to view training materials.

Forest operations information program

The Forest Operations Information Program is a web-based application used to report and track forest operations inspections carried out by MNR and forest industry compliance inspectors. During the reporting period, the program was enhanced to be consistent with the revisions to, and streamlining of, the Forest Operations Inspections Program (see section 10.3.1.1), and to ensure continued reporting to the public on the compliance of Ontario’s forest operations. Additionally, enhancements to the application have improved the ease of use and increased functionality. These enhancements provide clarity regarding data input and data management which improves accuracy and quality control.

Other

During the reporting period, other tools developed and enhancements made to information management systems to improve data collection, transfer and storage to support forest management planning include:

• enhancements to the Stand and Site Guide water classification tool to allow MNR districts to directly utilize current water values data, rather than having to maintain information in two separate spatial data layers
• development of a database to store exceptions monitoring information to enable forest practitioners to use the results of exceptions monitoring in forest management planning
• development of direction to ensure consistency in the mapping and management of data associated with habitat for species at risk when species observations and species occurrences are recorded during the implementation of forest management plans

10.4.2.3 Forest ecosystem classification program – Condition 41

The Ecological Land Classification Program, formerly the Forest Ecosystem Classification Program, is mandated with the establishment of a comprehensive and consistent province- wide framework for ecosystem description, inventory and interpretation. Term and Condition 97 of the original Forest EA approval directed MNR to continue work on the development and delivery of ecosystem classification manuals and inventory approaches across the Area of the Undertaking, and to support the program with enhanced transfer and training efforts for users and practitioners to ensure competency. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on developments in the program from 1994 to 2002, and described the evolution of the Forest Ecosystem Classification Program into the much broader Ecological Land Classification Program.

Condition 41 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue the development of the program.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• continued development of the program, including production of interpretation manuals to assist in the use of the program in forest management planning, and improvements in inventory and mapping technologies
• a complete revision of the approaches and products in the program
• development of numerous classification tools and reports
• technology transfer and training initiatives

Further advances in the program during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

During the reporting period, MNR’s development of the Ecological Land Classification Program continued. New and revised interpretation manuals to assist in the use of the program in forest management planning were produced, and inventory and mapping technologies were improved. The program is maintained across the province with emphasis on technology transfer and training programs to ensure staff competency.

The following classification tools and reports were developed and distributed to MNR and forest industry staff or are in preparation:

• Ecodistricts of Ontario (Crins, Gray, Henson, Wester, Uhlig), expected to be completed in 2014
• Draft regional manuals for Ecosites of Ontario
• Factsheets including:
  • Boreal Treed Ecosites of Ontario – Version 3.0
  • Boreal Non-treed Ecosites of Ontario
  • Great Lakes-St Lawrence Treed Ecosites of Ontario – Version 2.0
  • Great Lakes-St Lawrence Non-treed Ecosites of Ontario
• Completion of a vegetation and topo-profile graphics library and topo-profile diagrams
• Completion of boreal treed vegetation types as part of the Ecological Land Classification program, which is a component of the Canadian National Vegetation Classification, and factsheets for both the provincial program and the national application
• Ongoing analysis for the treed vegetation types of central and southern Ontario which led to revised classification products for these areas
• Revised classification and support materials for A Field Guide to the Substrates of Ontario in collaboration with the University of Guelph and Agriculture Canada
• Literature review, synthesis report and database collation for Ontario’s Far North was initiated in 2013 with support from Far North Branch
• Ongoing literature and data discovery in support of the Catalogue of the Ecosystems of Ontario – Annotated Bibliography
• Contributions to revised policy and program documents, including the Old Growth Policy review, the review of MNR’s silviculture guides, Significant Wildlife Habitat Schedules, and the Ontario Wetlands Evaluation System
• Further development and revision of training and support materials for a wide variety of audiences, including MNR, MOE, municipalities, conservation authorities, universities, colleges, and environmental consultants

Significant progress has been made in the delivery of the Ecological Land Classification Program through improvements in inventory and mapping technologies. As described in section 10.4.2.1, the enhanced Forest Resources Inventory Program, which is ecologically based, will provide an updated inventory for the entire Area of the Undertaking. The Ecological Land Classification Program has supported the development of the enhanced FRI through:

• new aerial photo interpretation approaches and manuals
• contributions to ground calibration and permanent plot data collection methods
• training of aerial photo interpretation staff and ground calibration data collection crews

During the reporting period, technology transfer and training were emphasized and will continue to be an important component of the program. Training courses have been provided to MNR staff and partners across the province. Basic ecological land classification skills and specialized curricula were delivered for a wide range of audiences. Special emphasis was directed to the delivery of new tools and formats for the enhanced Forest Resources Inventory Program, including training of photo interpretation staff, external consultants involved in field calibration, and forest industry partners.

10.4.3 Scientific research and technical developments

10.4.3.1 Water crossing review protocol – Condition 25 (b)

In 2000, MNR began the Forest Roads and Water Crossings Initiative to review the planning, construction and maintenance of water crossings in response to concerns about the status and condition of water crossing infrastructure on Crown lands. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on concerns with water crossings, particularly with respect to the federal Fisheries Act, and proposed planning, review and approval requirements in annual work schedules, in addition to the requirements in forest management plans. Conditions 13, 14 and 25 of Declaration Order MNR-71 prescribed the additional planning requirements for water crossings in annual work schedules, and provisions for Fisheries Act reviews.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• preparation of a draft protocol for review of water crossings
• training workshops throughout the province
• a 2007 review of the protocol to assess its effectiveness

Revisions to the protocol have been delayed for several reasons (see section 11.5.2.1). Despite the delay, the protocol continues to be used by planning teams throughout Ontario for the review and approval of water crossings proposed in the forest management planning process. The use of the protocol has proven to be an effective and efficient approach to:

• ensure fish and fish habitat sustainability
• provide timely approvals for water crossing construction and decommissioning activities
• facilitate compliance with the federal Fisheries Act when conducting forest management operations in or near aquatic environments

MNR is investigating opportunities to provide refresher training to planning teams on the use of the protocol during forest management planning training in 2014.

10.4.3.2 Growth and yield program – Condition 42

Information on forest growth and yield is essential in the forest modelling used in forest management planning. Term and Condition 100 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to design and implement a provincially coordinated program to obtain information on forest growth and yield as influenced by site, forest structure, silvicultural treatments and natural events. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on the design and implementation of MNR’s Growth and Yield Program, including the establishment of 1,100 permanent sample plots in the Area of the Undertaking in partnership with the forest industry.

Condition 42 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue supporting and implementing a provincially coordinated Growth and Yield Program. In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• continued collection of field data to improve understanding of the growth, productivity and dynamics of Ontario’s forests
• establishment of new sample plots and re-measurement of existing plots
• development of initial growth and yield estimates for a number of tree species
• development of yield curves for use in forest management planning
• work with partners including universities, the forest industry, the Ontario Forest Research Institute and the Canadian Forest Service to develop new models used to predict growth and yield of common tree species
• incremental development of 1,000 ground and photo-based monitoring plots in participation with the Canadian Forest Service to incorporate a growth and yield approach in the National Forest Inventory
• inclusion of direction in the Forest Management Planning Manual to incorporate growth and yield information in forest modelling during the development of the long-term management direction of a forest management plan

Further developments in the program during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

In 2008, an internal program review was initiated. The review documented numerous successes in the program and, in particular, the development and implementation of new yield models for use in forest management planning. However, the reviewers noted that the program has only achieved 26 per cent of its planned establishment target for permanent sample plots, and that these plots are being measured on a 43-year cycle instead of the planned 5-year cycle.

Growth and Yield Program staff continued to work with a wide range of partners which provide a major source of new growth and yield information. During the reporting period, the program invested more than $375,000 in its partnership with the Forest Ecosystem Science Co-operative. Growth and Yield Program staff were actively involved in methodology development, network design, setting measurement priorities, and the development of compilation and reporting tools. Through this partnership, close to 300 permanent growth plots were re-measured each year.

Partnerships were also successfully established with conservation authorities and municipalities in southern Ontario to undertake the re-measurement of permanent sample plots located within their administrative boundaries. Numerous permanent sample plots are re-measured annually through these partnership arrangements.

During the reporting period, more than 400 permanent plots, located primarily within the Area of the Undertaking and distributed across all forest types, were re-measured. As stated in the previous Five-Year EA Report, in 2007, MNR committed to establish more than 1,000 ground plots utilizing the National Forest Inventory Grid over a ten-year period. During the reporting period, 375 Permanent Forest Inventory Ground Plots were established on the grid. This plot network may ultimately serve as the foundation for an integrated terrestrial monitoring program.

An extensive reconnaissance exercise was undertaken on 572 plots to identify plots for which identification might be at risk because of erosion of the numbers painted on the trees or tree-tags being embedded in the tree as they grow. Approximately 15 new plots were established to replace those lost to wind, fire and harvesting.

A large-scale stem analysis program was initiated across the boreal forest to study stem form and height over age development for jack pine and black spruce grown in plantations. Site index equations currently used for growth and yield predictions include assumptions that climate does not change, and that potential site productivity is constant for any given forest stand; however, these assumptions are no longer valid. Growth and Yield Program staff have been working with researchers to include climatic variables (e.g., moisture and temperature) in site index prediction equations. New volume and taper equations for jack pine and black spruce have been developed, and data was provided for the development of new site index equations for these species. These equations will allow various climate change scenarios to be considered in future predictions of growth in jack pine and black spruce.

The Growth and Yield Program has contributed to the development of models and tools used in forest management planning to determine sustainable levels of harvest and to predict the future growth and development of forests. During the reporting period, much of the data collected through the program involved jack pine, black spruce, white spruce, red pine, white pine, white birch and poplar. The data was used to develop and improve growth and yield estimates of these species for use in forest management planning. Program staff worked closely with MNR’s Forest Modelling and Analysis Unit to develop a support tool for forest management planning. The Modelling and Inventory Support Tool provides an interface between forest resources inventory data and the strategic forest management models used to determine forest sustainability (see section 10.4.3.5). This support tool calculates existing stand volumes and biomass, and predicts future stand growth and yield. The tool has significantly changed the input assumptions used in forest management planning. The model continues to evolve and improve as new data becomes available.

Data on eastern white cedar, larch and black ash is being collected. While it is still too early to build a rigorous model for these tree species, the data collected to date has improved modelling input assumptions.

During the reporting period, the Forest Management Planning Manual continued to provide direction for planning teams to incorporate growth and yield information in forest modelling during the development of the long-term management direction of a forest management plan.

10.4.3.3 Full-tree harvest and full-tree chipping studies – Condition 43

During the 1988–1992 EA hearing, concerns were raised about the effects of the full-tree logging method on sites with coarse-textured or shallow soils, particularly nutrient losses and the associated effects on forest productivity. Term and Condition 101 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to design and implement a study to address the effects of full-tree harvest and full-tree chipping on long-term forest productivity. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on progress in MNR’s 20-year scientific research study that examined harvest-related nutrient removal on sites with shallow and coarse-textured soils for black spruce and jack pine forest types.

Condition 43 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue the study. In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• measurement of the nine sites that were experimentally harvested in 1994 and 1995
• the comprehensive review of the project in 2005 which resulted in the review panel conclusion that the project was well run with strong scientific credibility
• completion of soil and foliar analysis
• preliminary results which suggested that shallow-soiled site types are not as sensitive to productivity loss following full-tree harvest as previously anticipated, and that ecological stability can be maintained with appropriate lengths in harvest rotations

Developments in the program during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

The full-tree harvesting project began in 1991 with the establishment of nine black spruce- dominated sites. Two years of pre-harvest inventory and an examination of rates of various nutrient cycling processes including litterfall, litter decomposition, and nitrogen mineralization followed. Beginning in 1994, a series of experimental harvests was conducted and followed up with a monitoring program to compare pre- and post-harvest nutrient cycling processes.

The fifteenth year assessments of soil chemistry, understory vegetation community structure, tree growth and nutrition were completed on the nine black-spruce dominated sites harvested in 1994, and on nine Canadian Forest Service jack pine-dominated sites. During the reporting period, research efforts were directed at:

• database management
• data analysis and interpretation
• presentation and publication of results, including 21 conference presentations and 14 journal papers accepted or submitted

These efforts included a comparative analysis of tenth year results from 45 long-term soil productivity installations from across North America, which included the 18 sites in Ontario. The major results from this analysis suggest that there are few consistent differences between tree length harvesting and full-tree harvesting for any of the measured response variables.

Shallow soil quality exceptions monitoring project

As reported in the previous Five-Year EA Report, a project was initiated in 2002 to monitor full-tree harvest on shallow-soiled (<20 cm) sites in northwestern Ontario, an exception in the silvicultural ground rules of some forest management plans. The Shallow Soil Quality Exceptions Monitoring Project consists of detailed, repeated (pre- and post-harvest) soil and vegetation surveys on eight Level I case study sites (consisting of both full-tree and tree length treatment blocks), and 99 Level II post-harvest surveys located across MNR’s Northwest Region.

During the reporting period, the fifth year and tenth year assessments for the Level I case study sites were completed. These assessments consisted of collecting data to determine:

• levels of available soil nitrogen (index of soil quality)
• regeneration status (stocking and density)
• jack pine or black spruce performance (tree growth and foliar nutrition)

Although data analysis is ongoing, preliminary results in the tenth year assessment data suggest that there are no trends to indicate that one logging treatment (i.e. tree length versus full-tree harvesting) performs better than the other in terms of soil nitrogen availability, regeneration potential and early tree growth. It is likely that the rugged landscape and undulating topography of the case study sites, typical for these ecosites, have more influence on the variability in the data than do the harvest treatments. Results from the tenth year assessments were presented to the Provincial Forest Technical Committee and were considered in the revision of the silviculture guides.

New biomass harvest trial

In 2012, a new research trial was established in northeastern Ontario to examine the potential impacts of biomass harvesting in second growth, mid-rotation jack pine plantations. Small, unmerchantable trees and roadside slash, which was processed for use at a local cogeneration facility, were removed. The research efforts have been expanded beyond the examination of tree growth, soil nutrient supply, and stand nutrition to an examination of the effects on microbial communities, soil micro- and mesofauna and understory plant communities.

10.4.3.4 Tending and protection improvement programs – Condition 44

During the 1988–1992 EA hearing, concerns were raised about the use of chemical pesticides in tending and protection activities of forest management, and critics proposed the use of alternative methods. Term and Condition 102 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to ensure that tending and protection activities are conducted in accordance with current scientific knowledge, and that MNR support investigation and testing of, and research on, new technologies and alternative methods. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on MNR’s participation, with its partners, in investigations, tests and research projects on alternative methods for tending and protection activities.

Condition 44 of Declaration Order MNR-71 maintained requirements for MNR to ensure that tending and protection activities are conducted in accordance with current science, and that MNR collaborate with research partners on tending and protection research initiatives.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• continued membership in the Spray Efficacy Research Group
• MNR’s contributions to studies that resulted in the registration of the herbicide Imazapyr
• technical developments which enhanced delivery of tending and protection improvement programs

Developments in the program during the current reporting period are described in the following discussion.

MNR continues to be a member of the Spray Efficacy Research Group International. The primary aim of the group is to improve application technology and pest management methods associated with the use of pest control products in integrated forest pest management.

As stated in the previous Five-Year EA Report, MNR was a founding member of the Ontario Invasive Pest Council. The mandate of the council is to provide leadership, expertise, and a forum to engage and empower Ontarians to take action on invasive plant issues. Since its inception in 2007, the council:

• created a network of over 600 people to receive and post information on invasive plants
• held invasive plant symposia
• established committees to help increase awareness of invasive plants across the province, review legislation and identify gaps, and maintain communication between those working in invasive plant management, control and outreach
• published
  • Grow me Instead, a guide to encourage gardeners to use native alternatives to non-native invasive plants
  • a series of best management practices for the control of important invasive plants
  • Look Before you Leave!, a cleaning guide to address important pathways for the spread of invasive plants

During the reporting period, emerald ash borer, which was first thought to have entered Ontario by way of Detroit in 2002, continued its spread to northern and eastern Ontario. Ongoing research continues to provide information on the biology and ecology of this insect. Sampling methods, and trapping and monitoring techniques continue to improve. Potential biological control agents, including use of the entomopathogenic^{footnote 9[9]}fungus, Beauveria bassiana are being studied, and strategies are being developed to adapt to the insect. TreeAzin, a new systemic insecticide, has been registered for use and is very effective in controlling this pest.

Introduced insects including Asian long-horned beetle, brown spruce longworm beetle, European oak borer, European woodwasp, and banded elm bark beetle have been the focus of research, including basic biology, ecology and the components of integrated pest management. Some of these insects have been found in Ontario. Others have been found in North America and pose a threat to Ontario’s forests.

Jack pine budworm and spruce budworm are native insects which affect commercial tree species. Major infestations of these insect pests can have negative economic effects on the forest industry (e.g., wood supply losses) and MNR (e.g., the development and implementation of insect pest management programs). Studies to develop decision support systems and predictive population models, including in response to climate change, will help to guide responses to future infestations of these insects. During the reporting period, jack pine budworm pest management programs were conducted on 81,500 hectares in northeastern and northwestern Ontario.

Mountain pine beetle is a native insect that has devastated pine forests in western Canada. The ability of the insect to use jack pine as a host, and the probability of the insect becoming active in eastern Canada, are the subjects of ongoing research, including a survey and discovery of entomopathogens associated with, and infecting mountain pine beetle in North America.

Forest vegetation management studies have been undertaken to evaluate conifer response to competition at the individual tree and stand level. During the reporting period, the effect of herbaceous vegetation control and aspen stem density on boreal mixedwood stand development was studied. Research evaluating alternatives to herbicides, including modified silviculture and harvest systems, mechanical site preparation, prescribed fire, large planting stock, and cover crops were reviewed and published. Science of vegetation management workshops continued to be held to transfer the most current science to forest practitioners.

During the reporting period, improvements continued to be made to application technology in collaboration with the Spray Efficacy Research Group International. These improvements included:

• evaluation of aerial pesticide application equipment to generate data to allow researchers to more realistically model forest pesticide applications
• development of a spray application decision support system to model deposition from aerial pesticide applications
• a calibration clinic to train aerial applicators, who apply pesticides in Ontario’s forests, in the theory and practice of how to calibrate their aircraft for optimum accuracy, effectiveness and environmental safety

Forest pathology projects, including efficacy of endophytes^{footnote 10[10]}for white pine blister rust, identification techniques for dogwood anthracnose, and registration for use of a biological control agent for Fomes root rot are in progress. Workshops were held during the reporting period to transfer knowledge on the management of Fomes root rot and white pine blister rust to forest practitioners.

Advances in scientific research and technical developments continue to be incorporated into MNR’s tending and protection programs, and direction on the application of herbicides was incorporated into the Stand and Site Guide.

As reported in the current State of the Ontario’s Forests report, MNR continues to initiate and support research efforts to detect and develop control methods for invasive species which pose a serious risk to the sustainability of Ontario’s forests. The survey and control of invasive species is generally led by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. MNR works closely with the agency and the Canadian Forest Service on all aspects of invasive species. MNR delivers the Ontario Forest Health Monitoring Program, which includes the monitoring of invasive species. The program continues to play an important role in the early detection and management of invasive species in Ontario.

In 2011, MNR, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Forest Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding which outlined the need for greater cooperation and coordination of efforts to address terrestrial and aquatic invasive species issues. To advance this collaboration, in April 2011 the Invasive Species Centre was established to facilitate and improve coordination, collaboration, efficiencies and decision making in invasive species prevention, management, research, training, education, and information management. MNR will continue to support the initiatives being undertaken by the Invasive Species Centre and report on those initiatives in the next Five-Year EA Report.

10.4.3.5 Data systems and analytical methodologies – Condition 45

Three terms and conditions of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to investigate and develop methodologies and technologies for use in forest management planning. Term and Condition 104 required the investigation of methodologies to address social and economic considerations; Term and Condition 107 required continued investigation of wildlife habitat supply modelling and landscape management methodologies to address biological diversity matters; and Term and Condition 108 required continued development of GIS technology. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on MNR’s investigation and development of methodologies and technologies.

Condition 45 of Declaration Order MNR-71 amalgamated requirements of the terms and conditions of the original Forest EA approval into a single condition that requires MNR to: continue to maintain and further develop socio-economic and landscape management methodologies and GIS technology; to support use of spatial modelling; and to ensure that staff are trained in the use of the methodologies and technologies.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• the use of the Socio-Economic Impact Model in forest management planning
• initiation of socio-economic analyses in the development of forest management guides
• investigation and development of methodologies to address the conservation of biodiversity, landscape management and wildlife habitat supply in forest management planning
• development of Landscape Scripting Language and the Ontario Landscape Tool used in the development of the new landscape guides
• experience with the use of spatial models in forest management planning
• creation of MNR’s Forest Analysis and Modelling Unit to support forestmanagement planning teams
• training and support initiatives

Developments during the current reporting period are described in the following discussion.

Economic analysis methodologies

In 2009, MNR began a process to modernize its forest tenure and pricing system (see section 12.1.2). A number of socio-economic analyses were undertaken to support the modernization process, including completion of a spatial analysis of competitiveness conditions in the forest sector under different utilization scenarios, and development of models to determine available harvest area by balancing multiple objectives while optimizing the arrangement of management units.

Since 1996, the Socio-Economic Impact Model has been used in forest management planning. During the reporting period, the model was used to conduct social and economic impact assessments to support the review and development of policies related to the Endangered Species Act and forest tenure. Additional capability was added to the model to conduct social and economic impact assessments at a community level scale. Previously, the analysis could only be conducted at a regional/district level. The model is continually updated with information from Statistics Canada.

A social and economic assessment framework continues to serve as a reference for conducting socio-economic analyses in the development of the long-term management direction in the preparation of forest management plans. The framework includes timber and non-timber value assessments using the Ontario Natural Resources Economic Model, Socio-Economic Impact Model, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Direct Employment Calculation and Opportunity Cost Analysis.

MNR also continued to conduct socio-economic analyses in the development of forest management guides. As stated in the previous Five-Year EA Report, a socio-economic analysis was carried out to quantify the impacts of the application of the Forest Management Guide for Cultural Heritage Values. During the reporting period, analyses were conducted on wood supply and wood costs during the development of the Stand and Site Guide and Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes.

Significant advancements were made in the development and maintenance of provincial scale base data layers used to support social economic evaluations, policy analysis, and reporting. Information exchanged with the forest industry under the requirements of the Forest Information Manual, and other data sources, are now regularly aggregated and updated to provide consistent, standardized provincial scale GIS data layers. Provincial data layers have enabled and streamlined the development of analytical methodologies and tools to conduct provincial and regional level policy analyses and resource assessments.

The Provincial Impact Assessment Models are a series of generic forest management models based on the Woodstock modelling platform. The models are used to examine a range of policy questions at a variety of scales (i.e. provincial, regional, multiple and individual management unit). The model structures are similar to base models created during the forest management planning process and permit large scale and long-term wood supply analysis and spatial optimization. Carbon models with carbon lifecycle components have been integrated into the Provincial Impact Assessment Models to allow for the evaluation of carbon management policies (e.g., cap and trade systems, offset projects) on forest management.

MNR has developed a multi-modal transportation network for the analysis of transportation problems using provincial level datasets. This network has been used to support tenure modernization and related policy analysis by allowing the modelling of delivered wood cost, and simulation and optimization of the forest supply chain. These analytical methodologies will continue to be maintained and developed, with some components currently under consideration for integration into the forest management planning process.

In 2009, a requirement was added to the Forest Management Planning Manual for planning teams to provide estimates of volumes of undersized and defective wood in forest management plans that may be available for bioproducts (e.g., wood pellets). In response to this requirement, MNR developed new yield curves to facilitate the estimation of available volumes of undersized and defective wood. These yield curves were incorporated into models used in forest management planning.

Methodologies to address biodiversity

MNR continues to investigate and develop methodologies to address the conservation of biodiversity, landscape management, and wildlife habitat supply in forest management planning, including the use of GIS technology in analytical models and tools. The use of computer-based information and analytical tools has become a necessity for the preparation of forest management plans. Sophisticated models and tools are required to analyze natural processes and forest management scenarios for large forest areas over long periods to balance the achievement of multiple management objectives.

The information and tools used in forest management planning continue to evolve and improve to meet the requirements of the planning process, new forest management policies, and advances in forest management science. MNR has investigated, developed and acquired a number of new analytical tools during the reporting period.

As stated previously, in 2010, the Forest Management Guide for Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Landscapes was approved. The objective of the guide is to direct forest management activities to maintain or enhance natural landscape structure, composition and patterns that provide for the long-term health of forest ecosystems, in an efficient and effective manner. This guide, and the Forest Management Guide for Boreal Landscapes, are accompanied by regional and wildlife specific science and information packages. The packages provide detailed methodologies on how to estimate biodiversity indicators at various scales, and include rationale for the direction, simulation results, historic summaries, and desirable levels of biodiversity indicators. The packages are updated annually as new information becomes available.

As stated in section 10.4.1.1, MNR also developed and released Ontario’s Landscape Tool which houses estimates of biodiversity indicators needed to apply these guides. This complex spatial system allows forest managers to measure the condition of their landscapes and make comparisons against various management scenarios specific to biodiversity indicators.

Milestones for landscape indicators on each forest management unit were developed and are included in the appendices of the Landscape Guides. The milestones provide planning teams with realistic biodiversity goals for short- and long-term planning horizons. Success in achieving and maintaining milestones will ensure that the biodiversity in Ontario’s Crown forests emulates a natural forest as outlined in the principles of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The Provincial Impact Assessment Models framework is also being used to develop advanced analytical approaches to address matters such as climate change and species at risk habitat, including woodland caribou. Using the models, a simulated re-planning modelling technique was investigated for its potential to assess the impact of events such as natural disturbances and changing conditions over time (e.g., climate change impacts on yields, disturbance rates, or forest succession) on biodiversity.

Spatial modelling

Since 2005, MNR has carried out a program to promote and advance spatial forest planning and to provide technology transfer in conjunction with the Forestry Research Partnership. In 2008, MNR approved the Patchworks spatial model for use in forest management planning. During the reporting period, the model was used in the preparation of forest management plans for the Romeo Malette, Gordon Cosens and Martel forests. MNR directly supported this effort by coordinating and convening core teams to identify issues and opportunities, providing training and knowledge extension for planning team members, and supporting research and trials on spatial modelling procedures.

In 2009, the Forest Management Planning Manual was revised to provide additional direction for the use of spatial strategic models in forest management planning, and improved consideration of spatial conditions when developing management strategies (whether spatial or non-spatial models are used). In 2011, a spatial planning workshop was held to review and record the experiences from using Patchworks in forest management planning. One of the outcomes of this workshop was that the Hierarchical Modelling Best Practices document was updated. Updates included the application of the model to address requirements that differ among management units (e.g., application of the caribou mosaic where caribou exist). MNR also continues to provide support to planning teams using spatial forest models by providing software and training to MNR regional analytical staff, and spatial modelling best practices to planning teams.

Another significant initiative related to spatial modelling is the first release of the Model Inventory Support Tool to planning teams. The tool, which replaced the Sustainable Forest Management Modelling Tool, is used to classify the forest resources inventory and prepare modelling inputs for strategic modelling such as yield curves. The change in name reflects a change in focus to provide a more generic platform for preparing model inputs (regardless of the strategic model being used), with an emphasis on integrating best available science for developing model inputs. A modular design permits science-based empirical models to be transferred and maintained, and allows for easy transfer to planning teams.

During the reporting period, various empirical models were integrated into the Model Inventory Support Tool to support the development of strategic modelling inputs, including the empirical yield model, biofibre yield model, and genetic gain model. Additional initiatives that are currently ongoing and expected to be included in the tool include an empirical yield model for predicting yield by product type, and an empirical model for forest succession (natural and post-renewal). MNR will report on the results of these initiatives in the next Five-Year EA Report.

During the reporting period, MNR developed the Zone Delineation Tool. The tool is currently being used to support policy development initiatives, including determining if the tool can be used to delineate strategic and operational management zones within management units based on user-defined spatial criteria (i.e. wood cost, accessibility, etc.), to better align strategic and operational planning.

10.4.3.6 Professional and technical training programs – Condition 46

Advancements in forest management, including legislation, policy, science, and the use of technology, require continual upgrading of the knowledge of MNR and forest industry professional and technical staff. Term and Condition 109 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to continue to develop training programs. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on the development and delivery of MNR’s training programs, including forest management planning training and MNR’s Forest Management Competency Program, and the initiation of a requirement for members of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association to maintain their professional competency.

Condition 46 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to ensure that comprehensive training programs are maintained so that the knowledge of persons involved in the planning and implementation of forest management activities is continually upgraded.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• major revisions to courses for the development of the long-term management direction
• enhancements to training courses and materials
• technological advancements, including use of Webex, e-learning packages, and a pilot project using the Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment, an e-based course management system
• information on the mandatory training, certification and recertification of forest operations inspectors and development of e-learning modules on compliance
• other forest management training courses and materials
• the requirement by the Ontario Professional Foresters Association for registered professional foresters to record hours of continuing education to maintain their professional competency

Developments during the current reporting period are described in the following discussion.

In late 2008, MNR created the Forestry Skills Assurance and Education Unit to ensure that professional and technical skills development is delivered, and public education and awareness is undertaken to support the sustainable management of Ontario’s forests. Among other responsibilities, the unit is responsible for the development and delivery of forest management training and certification of forest operations compliance inspectors.

During the reporting period, MNR held 264 education and training sessions with more than 7,700 participants.

Forest management planning

The passage of the Endangered Species Act in 2007, and the introduction of the revised Forest Management Planning Manual and Forest Information Manual in 2009, required MNR to revise training courses for forest management planning and develop new training materials. In 2009, The Learning Compass (see section 10.4.2.2), a web-based learning management system used to house forest management planning training materials, was developed. The website, which is hosted externally to enable broad access, is available to a wide range of people involved in forest management, including MNR and forest industry staff, Local Citizens Committee members, and Aboriginal planning team members.

During the reporting period, 54 forest management planning training sessions were held with more than 3,200 attendees from MNR, the forest industry, Local Citizens Committees and Aboriginal communities. Other forest management materials and training during the reporting period included:

• development and delivery of training courses related to the planning of forest management operations for the second five-year term of a ten-year forest management plan
• addition of a Tools and Templates section to The Learning Compass to make approximately 100 documents related to forest management planning available
• collaboration with MNR’s Ontario Forest Research Institute and Climate Change Office to develop a series of e-learning modules on Ontario’s Forests and Climate Change, and subsequent climate change dialogue sessions
• development of materials specifically related to the Whitefeather Forest to support forest management planning
• modification and development of e-learning modules for Local Citizens Committees, and development of a welcome package for new committee members
• development of an Annual Report Protocol which was provided to planning teams
• development of a quarterly e-newsletter for forest management planning training instructors

Forest operations compliance

As described in section 10.3.1.1, Condition 27(e) requires MNR to provide mandatory training and certification for forest operations compliance inspectors. During the reporting period, compliance training activities included:

• development and modification of seven e-learning modules
• training for MNR staff regarding revisions to the Forest Compliance Handbook
• several sessions to certify or recertify MNR and forest industry forest operations inspectors

Guides

As described in section 10.4.1.1, Condition 38(a) requires MNR to provide training on the application of guides. During the reporting period, 28 training sessions with more than 1,000 participants were held. Guides training activities included:

• training on the Stand and Site Guide for MNR staff, forest industry staff and stakeholders, which included a high level awareness of the guide, its relationship to previous guides, and a focus on new or revised direction for the preparation of forest management plans, and the rationale for those changes
• year one of a multi-year initiative for equipment operators who implement the Stand and Site Guide direction on the ground

Other training, materials and initiatives

A number of other forest management training courses and materials were also provided by MNR, including:

• forest health workshops on dogwood anthracnose, Fomes annosus, beech bark disease, white pine blister rust and vegetation management, and development of e- learning modules on white pine blister rust
• a silviculture prescription reviewers workshop
• a boreal mixedwood practitioners course
• annual Science Matters workshops which brings researchers and forest policy staff together to discuss topics of interest, including climate change impacts, forest health and forest policy
• tree marking courses
• an emerging issues workshop focusing on biotechnology and forest tenure
• forester intern lectures aimed at providing information to new MNR staff on forest management
• development of a process to transfer, store and make available knowledge:
  • from employees who have led key forest management related projects and are leaving the work unit or MNR
  • when information that led to decision making for current projects needs to be documented
  • when projects are completed

Continuing education

In addition to MNR’s training programs, the Ontario Professional Foresters Association and the Canadian Institute of Forestry have requirements related to competency and/or provide continuing education opportunities.

The Ontario Professional Foresters Association requires registered professional foresters to maintain their professional competency and the capability to perform at a high professional level. The association’s continuing education program requires that competency maintenance be addressed through education on general forest management, and education required for the maintenance and enhancement of personal competency. Professional foresters are required to maintain a rolling balance of 60 hours of continuing education credits (e.g., attendance at conferences and training courses, reading professional publications and books, etc.).

The Canadian Institute of Forestry provides a National Electronic Lectures Series. The weekly, one hour lectures feature experts and practitioners from across Canada on subjects ranging from boreal mixedwood ecology to forest sector innovation. In the past two years, MNR’s Forestry Skills Assurance and Education Unit has hosted more than 50 of these lectures through WebEx sessions, which are made available to MNR staff.

10.4.3.7 Public education on forest management – Condition 47

Numerous public organizations and individual members of the public actively participated in the 1988–1992 Timber Class EA hearing. Continued public education is required to ensure that organizations and members of the public can knowledgeably participate in the management of Ontario’s Crown forests and forest management planning. Condition 91 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to produce a brochure to assist members of the public to participate in forest management planning. Condition 92 required MNR to expand its public education program with particular emphasis on improved public understanding of boreal forest disturbances, clearcutting and the use of pesticides in forest management. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on MNR’s development of educational publications and training materials, including A Guide to Forest Management Planning in Ontario, and MNR’s educational partnership with the Ontario Forestry Association.

Condition 47 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue to participate in public education on forest management, directly and with partners, and to produce an updated brochure to assist members of the public to participate in forest management planning.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• MNR’s partnerships in public education efforts
• Ontario’s membership in the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers and the Great Lakes Forest Alliance
• the production and updating of a variety of public educational materials which were showcased and distributed at conferences, tradeshows, workshops and MNR offices, and provided in response to public inquiries
• production and distribution of the brochure entitled Help Shape the Future of Our Forests – Get Involved in Ontario’s Forest Management Planning Process

Developments during the reporting period are described in the following discussion.

Public education materials

During the reporting period, MNR and its partners produced and updated a variety of public education materials. These materials were showcased and distributed at conferences, tradeshows, workshops, and MNR offices, and provided in response to public inquiries. Examples of public education activities and materials include:

• production of numerous displays including Grow in Ontario, Ontario’s Forests and Climate Change, Wood is Good, and the role of Local Citizens Committees
• a Grow Your Forestry Career brochure
• a duck decoy Wood Species of Ontario display
• participation at International Plowing Matches, Toronto Sportsmen’s Shows, Green Living Show and Royal Agricultural Winter Fair with display booths and information showcasing forest management in Ontario
• fact sheets, including Purchase Ontario Forest Products with Confidence, Dog- Strangling Vine and When Invasive Species Threaten Your Woodlot, and several fact sheets on climate change
• partnering with the Canadian Forest Service to produce a video on the boreal forest for use on YouTube and at tradeshows
• updating of the Don't Move Wood invasive pests display to meet new format requirements and add information
• continually adding information to improve MNR’s Ontario’s Forests website, and answering hundreds of public inquires

The brochure, Help Shape the Future of Our Forests – Get Involved in Ontario’s Forest Management Planning Process, was updated in 2012 and is available on the Government of Ontario website.

Partnerships

The Ontario Forestry Association and the Canadian Forestry Association have been major partners in MNR’s public education efforts. Until 2012, MNR provided annual funding to the Ontario Forestry Association for Focus on Forests, a curriculum for Ontario teachers, which provides students with an opportunity to observe and understand trees and forests, and to the Canadian Forestry Association for the Teaching Kit Series, which provides educators with the tools to help young people better understand the value of forests and the importance of forest protection and conservation.

Between 2010 and 2013, MNR contributed more than $210,000 to the Ontario Forestry Association’s Forestry Connects educational program. The program educates youth about forest management planning, forest sector career opportunities, and the nature of Ontario’s forests, through direct experience and teaching resources such as classroom lesson plans, videos and online materials.

As discussed in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, Ontario was a member of the Great Lakes Forest Alliance. In 2012, the alliance published 2,000 copies of the Family Forest Owner Toolbox. The toolbox is a collection of 11 fact sheets specifically designed for private land owners throughout the Great Lakes basin. MNR staff associated with the Ontario Stewardship program played an important role in contributing to and reviewing the technical content of the fact sheets, to ensure that the content was relevant to land owners in Ontario. The information was distributed by MNR at events including the 2012 International Plowing Match, and in partnership with the OFA. An online version of the material is also available.

In 2013, the Great Lakes Forest Alliance undertook an internal review which focused on the role and mandate of the organization. It was concluded that the organization had become less relevant because of the overlap with numerous other organizations active within the Great Lakes basin. Consequently, a decision was made to dissolve the organization.

As also discussed in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, Ontario was a member of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers and was actively involved in the council’s International Forestry Partnership Program. In 2010, a management review of the council’s activities was undertaken. A decision was made that the council could have a greater impact if it focused on a smaller number of key strategic issues. As a result, resources were directed toward climate change, forest pests, wildfire management, and forest sector transformation issues. The program responsible for these issues is called Forests in Mind.

During the reporting period, Forests in Mind program staff undertook activities designed to position Canada as a world leader in sustainable forest management and environmental stewardship, to protect and enhance market access for Canadian forest products. Communications materials were developed, and distributed through the program’s website, social media, and in partnership with staff at Canadian embassies. International policy developments were monitored in key export markets. Canadian positions were developed in response to the introduction of illegal logging legislation in the U.S., Europe and Australia (see section 12.1.3), and the development of bioenergy sustainability standards in Europe. The program also made significant progress in efforts to educate key stakeholders about sustainable forest management policy and practices in Canada.

In 2012, deputy ministers from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers initiated a process to investigate key topics related to forest management through a series of strategic workshops. Three of these workshops focused on labour market issues, innovation, and First Nations issues. The council is undertaking work to implement several key actions identified during these workshops, and additional workshops are being planned.

In 2013, the council ended a multi-phase climate change program (see section 12.2.1). The primary goal of the program was to provide members of the forest sector with state-of- the-art tools and new knowledge to allow them to assess the vulnerabilities, risks and opportunities associated with climate change. The vulnerability assessment tools and techniques are described in a series of inter-related reports, specifically designed for forest management decision-makers. The task force also developed a framework to guide ongoing efforts to deal with climate change impacts.

10.4.3.8 Provincial wood supply strategy – Condition 48

In the preparation of MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002), MNR undertook public consultation on the draft document. During consultation, the forest industry and other stakeholders identified the need for MNR to develop a wood supply strategy that focused on issues related to projected declines in wood supply, primarily associated with the changing age class structure of Ontario’s forests. In MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002), MNR proposed a condition that would require the development of a provincial wood supply strategy.

Condition 48 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to develop a provincial wood supply strategy, in consultation with the forest industry and interested parties, within one year.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• implementation of the provincial strategy
• development and continual updating of the wood supply and demand database
• the public availability of the database on MNR’s website as an appendix to the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy

Developments during the current reporting period are described in the following discussion.

In 2008, MNR initiated a review of the strategy. The review was intended to examine current major wood supply challenges and provide recommendations for revisions to the strategy. The review was postponed due to several reasons, including:

• the major downturn in the forest industry and the significant decrease in demand for wood;
• the 2009 realignment of the business aspects of forestry from MNR to the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry ^{footnote 11[11]}
• the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry’s modernization of the forest tenure and pricing system
• initiation of the Provincial Wood Supply Competitiveness Process

A project is being undertaken to update the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy to provide a more strategic approach to wood supply availability and wood supply issues. Efficiencies are expected to be found through integration of the analysis and reporting of wood supply issues into existing information systems, communication networks, and the web-based reporting protocols of the Ontario Available Wood Reporting Initiative. Wood supply which is not committed to forest industry companies, and is available for use, is reported monthly on the Government of Ontario website by management unit, species and type, for parties interested in new economic development opportunities in Ontario’s forest industry.

MNR is investigating moving from a static provincial strategy to a more dynamic approach to provide more timely and responsive information on anticipated wood supply issues. The proposed approach will require the development of a small and focused set of strategies that will influence forest management planning, timber allocation and licensing, policy, and science and research priority setting, and allow for:

• anticipated wood supply issues and related strategies to be identified and reported on more frequently, and in response to significant changes in wood supply or demand
• updates to the information that target a specific species group or region

10.4.3.9 Old growth – Condition 49

During the time of the EA hearing, old growth was a subject of interest and concern in forest management. Term and Condition 103 of the original Forest EA approval required MNR to investigate old growth ecosystems and to develop a policy for old growth. MNR’s Timber Class EA Review (2002) reported on the work of the Old Growth Forest Policy Advisory Committee and MNR’s development of an old growth policy proposal.

Condition 49 of Declaration Order MNR-71 required MNR to continue to investigate old growth ecosystems and to develop a policy for old growth by May 18, 2003.

In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on:

• finalization of the Old Growth Forest Definitions for Ontario
• finalization and approval of the Old Growth Policy for Ontario’s Crown Forests
• MNR’s intention to initiate a review of the old growth definitions and policy in 2009 to determine if revisions were required

Developments during the current reporting period are described in the following discussion.

In 2011, MNR completed the review of the Old Growth Policy which began in 2009. It was determined that the policy was still relevant and would continue to be maintained. During the reporting period, direction from the Old Growth Policy was incorporated into the guides that address the conservation of biodiversity at the landscape and stand and site scales.

11.0 Implementation experience

As stated in section 1.2, MNR’s Forest EA approval for the undertaking of forest management is an evergreen approval, subject to regular reporting on the implementation of the conditions. This adaptive approach to forest management ensures that the effects of the undertaking on the environment of Ontario’s Crown forests are prevented, minimized or mitigated. MNR’s Five-Year EA Report provides a base to support this adaptive approach to forest management, and MNR’s continued commitment to ensure that Ontario’s Crown forests are managed sustainably.

Conditions 52(b)(xi) and (xii) require the Five-Year EA Report to include:

• a discussion of issues and problems that MNR encountered in implementation of the conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71
• the manner in which MNR addressed those issues and problems during the reporting period
• the actions that MNR will undertake to improve the implementation of the conditions.

Information related to the implementation of the conditions of this declaration order is continually gathered and analyzed. If issues or concerns are identified, where possible, MNR takes action to address those issues or concerns to improve the implementation of the conditions.

MNR’s analysis of the information gathered during the reporting period confirms that:

• MNR can address or has addressed issues or concerns which have been identified by taking action to improve implementation of the conditions of the declaration order
• MNR does not need to seek changes to the conditions of the declaration order to address issues or concerns

This chapter describes issues and concerns with the implementation of specific conditions identified during the reporting period and MNR’s actions to address those concerns and issues. The discussion in this chapter is organized under the following categories of Declaration Order MNR-71:

• Forest Management Planning (Section 11.1)
• Monitoring (Section 11.2)
• Reporting (Section 11.3)
• Negotiations with Aboriginal Peoples (Section 11.4)
• Continuing Development and Programs (Section 11.5)

11.1 Forest management planning

11.1.1 Local citizens committees – Condition 5

Condition 5 describes the requirements for a Local Citizens Committee to assist in the preparation and implementation of a forest management plan and permits the MNR District Manager to establish additional Local Citizens Committees or variations of Local Citizens Committees. In the 2003–2008, Five-Year EA Report MNR reported on its implementation experience with Local Citizens Committees, including:

• exploring variations of Local Citizens Committees, including sub-committees to address difficulties in coordinating the participation of multiple Local Citizens Committees
• continuing to seek representatives from all of the interest groups to ensure that Local Citizens Committees reflect a range and balance of local interests to address difficulties in finding local representatives for each of the 19 main interest groups
• developing enhanced training materials for Local Citizens Committees, and continuing support to the committees in fulfilling their role in forest management planning to address challenges related to the workload associated with the complexity and time-consuming nature of forest management planning

During the reporting period, MNR’s implementation experience with the involvement of Local Citizens Committees in forest management planning was consistent with the previous reporting period. The forest management planning process is complex. The workload, time commitments, technical expertise required to provide meaningful participation, and membership recruitment and retention issues to ensure the committees are effective continue to challenge MNR and the committees. Local Citizens Committee members also expressed concerns with their continued involvement in the implementation of forest management plans (e.g., the committees play a larger role in the preparation of forest management plans and a lesser role in the implementation of those plans).

As discussed in section 10.4.3.6, MNR continues to develop and deliver forest management planning training to Local Citizens Committees. MNR continually modifies and improves training materials to ensure the committees can provide meaningful input into forest management plans. For example, training materials were updated to introduce the concept of Phase I and Phase II planning associated with Forest Management Planning Manual (2009).

Local Citizens Committees are integral to the forest management planning process. MNR will continue to support Local Citizens Committees in fulfilling their role in forest management planning.

11.1.2 Public consultation – Condition 6

Condition 6 describes the requirements for formal public consultation in the development of a forest management plan. In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on its implementation experience related to public consultation in the development of FMPs, including:

• the effectiveness and efficiency of the various stages of public consultation
• the applicable stages when notices request contributions to the background information and when notices request comments on material available for review
• the responsibility for MNR to provide written responses to comments and submissions that relate to proposals in an FMP
• the requirements for written responses to multiple identical submissions

During the reporting period, MNR identified further issues with public consultation in the forest management planning process including the:

• time required for preparation, review and approval of information notices which are required to be posted on the Environmental Registry for each stage of consultation
• protection of public information provided under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act and the requirements to contact the public regarding forest management activities
• time required to deal with public concerns regarding matters not directly related to forest management planning (e.g., crown land use planning)

Public consultation is a key component of Ontario’s forest management planning process and is conducted in an open and transparent manner that encourages direct involvement with stakeholders, interested and affected persons and organizations, and Aboriginal peoples. MNR is exploring options to ensure that Environmental Registry information notices are posted in a timely manner and that the posting requirements do not cause delays in the forest management planning process.

MNR intends to prepare a document which provides direction for persons or organizations interested in participating in the undertaking of forest management on Crown lands in Ontario. This document will provide information, including:

• MNR’s limitations under Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act related to access to contact information, and to encourage the public to contact MNR if they are interested in becoming involved in the undertaking of forest management
• matters that are not subject to MNR’s Forest EA approval and which should be addressed through other government processes

11.1.3 Aboriginal consultation – Conditions 2(d) and 7

Condition 2(d) provides an opportunity for a representative from each Aboriginal community in or adjacent to a management unit to participate on the planning team for a forest management plan. Condition 7 provides an opportunity for each Aboriginal community in or adjacent to the management unit to discuss the development of an approach for consultation. In the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR reported on its implementation experience related to Aboriginal consultation in forest management planning, including:

• exploring various approaches for participation of Aboriginal representatives on planning teams
• providing forest management planning training and support to Aboriginal planning team members

Although Aboriginal communities continue to have an interest in forest management, and Aboriginal participation in the forest management planning process increased during the reporting period, the capacity of communities to participate effectively continues to be a concern. As stated in section 7.2.5.3, 76 per cent of the Aboriginal communities invited to participate in the forest management planning process participated in one or more of the available opportunities, compared to 66 per cent during the last reporting period. Aboriginal communities continue to participate in a range of natural resource matters (e.g., renewable energy, mining, etc.), and for some, participation in forest management may not be a high priority. As stated previously, the forest management planning process is also complex and time-consuming and creates challenges for effective participation.

As described in section 9.2, a number of initiatives involving provincial Aboriginal organizations and Métis communities are being undertaken to improve their participation in forest management planning. MNR will continue to investigate ways to better involve and support Aboriginal and Métis communities in forest management planning.

11.1.4 Management unit description – Condition 10

Condition 10 requires an FMP to describe several attributes of the current management unit, including:

• a description of the forest, based on the most up to date forest resources inventory
• a description of fish and wildlife information, based on fish and wildlife inventories and habitat information
• a report identifying Aboriginal interests, concerns and values
• maps identifying locations of natural resource features, land uses and values

In the preparation of a forest management plan, MNR produces values maps in accordance with the Forest Information Manual. The maps provide a summary of the geographic locations of known natural resource features, land uses and values for the management unit, and are used primarily as background information in planning. It is difficult for MNR to collect and maintain values information in a timely manner, particularly with increased and changing requirements to collect information on species at risk (e.g., Blanding’s turtle, whip-poor-will) in a challenging fiscal environment.

MNR has historically focused collection of values information on management units – a labour intensive and costly approach. Ecological considerations and fiscal realities have required MNR to reassess the best scales for its natural resource management programs. As stated in section 3.2, MNR is investigating taking a broader landscape approach to natural resource management, including forest management. New or different approaches, including integrating and coordinating programs, may be required to continue to provide relevant values information to planning teams.

Notwithstanding potential changes to its approach to natural resource management, MNR will continue to collect and maintain values information to ensure that forest management planning teams have the most up-to-date information to support the preparation of forest management plans.

11.1.5 Planning long-term management direction – Condition 11

Condition 11 contains the requirements for the establishment and documentation of a long-term management direction for a management unit in a forest management plan. The long-term management direction, which provides for the sustainability of the forest within a management unit, is a strategic component of a forest management plan which considers management objectives, indicators, an assessment of sustainability, a social and economic assessment, and levels of activities required to achieve the desired forest and benefits. Condition 11(b) requires that analytical methodologies, models and tools be used in the development of the long-term management direction and to determine the available harvest area for every forest unit on a management unit.

While a non-spatial model like the Strategic Forest Management Model is used to determine the available harvest area, this model does not determine the specific geographic location of harvest areas in a management unit. A spatial model like Patchworks determines both the available harvest area and the specific geographic location of harvest areas in a management unit.

During the reporting period concerns were raised regarding the variations between strategic planning (i.e. the long-term management direction) and operational planning (i.e. identifying the geographic location of harvest areas) using non-spatial models. Reasons for the variations relate to modelling assumptions, including that:

• the entire management unit is accessible and wood is able to be harvested from all areas (i.e. geographic impediments, including steep ridges and large rock outcrops, do not restrict harvest)
• all wood in the management unit is able to be harvested economically
• markets are available for products derived from all species of trees on the management unit

MNR is investigating analytical methodologies and policy initiatives to improve consideration of operational and economic constraints in the development of the long- term management direction. These initiatives include incorporation of more accurate modelling assumptions into non-spatial models to enable better alignment between strategic and operational planning. The next revision to the Forest Management Planning Manual will include additional indicators to assess economic objectives, and additional direction regarding the selection of areas of operations.

11.1.6 Forest access roads – Conditions 12, 13 and 14

Conditions 12 and 14 describe the planning requirements for primary, branch, and operational roads, including:

• the identification of primary and branch corridors
• use management strategies for each new primary and branch road
• use management strategies for all operational roads with the area of operations (i.e. road network)

Roads constructed for forest management purposes benefit many other users and provide part of the rural infrastructure for emergency preparedness and response. Roads or road networks that are the responsibility of the sustainable forest licensee require use management strategies which must be documented in forest management plans. Use management strategies outline the purposes and description, and define the roles and responsibilities related to use, maintenance, use control, abandonment and monitoring of roads or portions of roads.

MNR has responsibility for some roads within a management unit that are also used by the forest industry. Roads that are the responsibility of MNR are not required to be identified in a forest management plan or to have use management strategies; however, the need to upgrade and perform routine maintenance on these roads is critical to support the infrastructure of management units.

During the reporting period, issues were raised regarding existing roads, which are the responsibility of MNR and are used by the forest industry, not being documented in forest management plans and not having use management strategies. MNR provided direction to planning teams to:

• identify existing roads that are the responsibility of MNR that are also used by the forest industry in forest management plans
• prepare use management strategies for these roads in forest management plans

MNR intends to incorporate this direction into the next revision to the Forest Management Planning Manual.

11.1.7 Silvicultural ground rules – Condition 16

Condition 16 describes the planning requirements for the development and documentation of silvicultural ground rules in a forest management plan. Silvicultural ground rules:

• are required to be prepared for all of the forest unit-ecosite combinations on the management unit
• serve as the prescriptions for the areas of operations
• are required to be prepared using MNR’s silvicultural guides and certified by a Registered Professional Forester

For areas managed under the clearcut silvicultural system, harvest may be planned using the two-pass harvest method. The two-pass harvest method involves removing trees in stages, with different species or products targeted in each stage or pass. This harvest method can have implications on regeneration success. For example, regeneration established after the first pass may be damaged in the following pass. The longer the delay between the first and second passes, the greater the risk to the established regeneration. In the preparation of a forest management plan, planning teams are required to describe how the area planned to be harvested in two passes will achieve the silviculture objectives identified in the long-term management direction of the plan.

During the reporting period, issues were raised about the timely completion of two-pass harvest operations. As discussed in section 10.4.1.1, MNR’s silviculture guides are being revised and incorporated into a single guide. The draft guide identifies a best management practice that proposes avoiding use of the two-pass harvest operation where possible; however, where use of this operation is the only option, the delay between the first and second harvest passes should be less than two growing seasons. This practice should help to ensure that the silvicultural treatments associated with two-pass harvest prescriptions are completed in a timely and cost effective manner. The draft guide also provides direction to enable forest managers to evaluate the success of silvicultural treatments within stands that may have two-pass harvest prescriptions using a results-based approach.

11.1.8 Monitoring programs – Condition 21

Condition 21 describes the planning requirements for the monitoring of operations conducted in accordance with a forest management plan. During the reporting period, MNR identified concerns with two requirements of the condition, including:

• a description of a monitoring program used to determine the effectiveness of operational prescriptions for areas of concern which are exceptions to the specific direction in MNR’s approved guides
• a description of the program for carrying out assessments of regeneration success for naturally and artificially regenerated areas

Condition 18 (h) describes the requirement to identify in a forest management plan any operational prescriptions that differ from specific direction or recommendations in an approved guide as an exception. The Forest Management Planning Manual contains requirements for exceptions, and the planning, design and reporting of exceptions monitoring programs. When individual planning teams develop operational prescriptions that differ from specific direction or recommendations in an approved guide (i.e. exceptions), they must also develop monitoring programs for those prescriptions.

During the reporting period MNR identified the following issues with the development of exceptions monitoring programs:

• lack of a consistent approach to the development of and implementation of monitoring programs
• that the results of individual exceptions monitoring projects are not routinely summarized for all management units
• that the results of exceptions monitoring projects are not often being used
  • to inform the need for or design of future monitoring programs
  • during the review and revision of forest management guides

MNR intends to revise the Forest Management Planning Manual to include:

• additional requirements regarding the methodologies used to carry out exceptions monitoring programs and consistency in application of those methodologies
• additional requirements to report on the results of exceptions monitoring projects so that the operational prescriptions used, and the effectiveness of the implementation of those prescriptions, are
  • available to be considered for use in the preparation of forest management plans
  • used in the review of forest management guides

In addition, to enable forest practitioners to use the results of exceptions monitoring in forest management planning, MNR has developed a database to store exceptions monitoring information. It is anticipated that implementation of these additional requirements will provide increased opportunities to apply new knowledge and promote more efficient and effective use of resources.

MNR has identified concerns in which exceptions monitoring programs cannot be used for species at risk values if the operational prescription developed deviates from the direction in a forest management guide. MNR will explore options to enable exceptions to operational prescriptions for species at risk to provide flexibility in the conduct of forest operations, while ensuring species are provided the appropriate protection. Appropriate rationale for exceptions would be required (e.g., changing a timing restriction based on local knowledge of a species’ behaviour).

During the reporting period, concerns were also raised regarding variations in the application of programs, procedures and methodologies used to conduct regeneration assessments. As stated in section 10.3.2.2, in 2012–13, MNR undertook a Silvicultural Enhancement Initiative to coordinate efforts to improve policies guiding its silviculture program. A comprehensive review of MNR’s silviculture program was undertaken and a number of opportunities for improvement were identified to ensure that the policies guiding forest renewal are effective and efficient, yet responsive to emerging considerations such as climate change.

11.1.9 Amendments to FMPs and contingency plans – Condition 22

Condition 22 describes the planning requirements for amendments to forest management plans and contingency plans, including level of planning, factors to consider in the categorization of amendments, and documentation and consultation requirements for categorized amendments. Amendments are categorized as administrative, minor or major. The MNR District Manager is responsible for determining if an amendment should proceed, and the categorization of the amendment, in consultation with the Local Citizens Committee. If an amendment is categorized as administrative or minor, no formal public consultation is required before MNR approval. For a minor amendment, a provision for public inspection of the approved amendment is provided. If an amendment is categorized as major, formal public consultation is required at two stages – review of proposed operations and inspection of the amendment.

Forest management planning requirements are applicable to the preparation of amendments to a forest management plan and include requirements regarding tables, supplementary documentation, and maps. Amendment documentation must be submitted to MNR through the Forest Information Portal in accordance with the Forest Information Manual. Amendments form part of an approved forest management plan and are filed in the same publicly accessible locations as the plan.

During the reporting period issues were raised regarding inconsistencies in:

• the approach used to categorize amendments
• documentation prepared for amendments to forest management plans
• submission of amendments to the Forest Information Portal

In 2012, MNR provided additional direction to MNR District Managers to address inconsistencies in the approach used to categorize amendments, which included key questions for District Managers to consider in the categorization of amendments to forest management plans. MNR is considering improving the direction regarding categorization of amendments to forest management plans in the next revision to the Forest Management Planning Manual.

MNR has provided, and will continue to provide, training messages to MNR and forest industry staff to ensure that the requirements in the Forest Management Planning Manual regarding the preparation and documentation of amendments to forest management plans, are met. MNR will also ensure that the requirements in the Forest Information Manual regarding the submission of information products associated with amendments to forest management plans through the Forest Information Portal, are met.

11.2 Monitoring

11.2.1 Independent forest audits – Condition 28

Independent forest audits are an integral part of MNR’s forest management and contribute to an adaptive management approach to forest management. Condition 28 requires independent forest audits to be conducted for each management unit in the Area of the Undertaking; describes requirements for audit processes and protocols; prescribes public notification requirements for independent audit reports and action plans; and requires the reports to be tabled in the legislature. As described in Section 10.3.2.1, the requirements of Condition 28 were incorporated into Ontario Regulation 160/04 under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

During the reporting period some issues with the requirements of the independent forest audit program were identified. MNR provides independent forest audit reports to the legislature for tabling before the reports are made available to the public. The tabling is often delayed, which contributes to delays in the public availability of the reports. MNR spends about $1 million annually on independent forest audits, which creates challenges during the current period of fiscal restraint. The number of qualified auditors has also been decreasing which adds to the cost of conducting audits.

As stated in section 10.3.2.1, during the reporting period, MNR undertook a modernization project to explore ways to make the audit process more efficient and effective, and address issues with the program, including:

• ways to make the reports publically available in a more timely manner
• additional synergies with the forest certification process (see section 4.4.2)
• the possibility of using a risk-based approach to determine audit scope

MNR will report on the outcome of the independent forest audit modernization project in the next Five-Year EA Report.

11.2.2 Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring – Condition 29

Condition 29 requires MNR to ensure that silvicultural effectiveness monitoring is carried out on each management unit and provide direction for reporting of results. Under the requirements of the Forest Management Planning Manual, forest companies assess regeneration and silvicultural success and report results in Management Unit Annual Reports.

As described in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR initiated a comprehensive review of the silvicultural effectiveness monitoring program to:

• define and standardize the requirements for determining and reporting on silvicultural success
• include areas of natural disturbances
• improve tracking of forest renewal from the time of disturbance to free-to-grow

In 2011, Ontario’s Auditor General also commented on possible adjustments to MNR’s stocking standard, and on adequate justification by forest industry companies for less intensive regeneration treatments than planned for in the approved forest management plan.

As stated in section 10.3.2.2, in 2012, MNR began a three-phased Silviculture Enhancement Initiative to review its silviculture policies. Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring is a core component of the initiative. The proposed outcome of the initiative is to update policies and procedures, including establishing regeneration standards which better ensure that forests stands are achieving the desired future stand condition, and enhancements to the methodology to determine whether a forest stand is free-to-grow. The initiative is expected to be completed in 2014 and MNR will report on the outcome in the next Five- Year EA Report.

In the next revision of the Forest Management Planning Manual, MNR will clarify that forest industry companies must include information in their annual reports to demonstrate that actual silviculture activities are consistent with the approved forest management plan, and that justification will be required where there are changes from the planned activities.

11.2.3 Wildlife population monitoring – Condition 30

Condition 30 requires MNR to implement a provincial wildlife population monitoring program. Condition 30(a) describes the types of species to be monitored, including species that inhabit early and late stages of forest development.

In his 2011–12 annual report, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner raised concerns about MNR’s progress in implementing the Wildlife Population Monitoring Program. The commissioner identified deficiencies in the spatial coverage of survey efforts across the Area of Undertaking, gaps in species representation, and the adequacy of temporal coverage to assess long-term trends under existing program activities. The commissioner also identified the need for better clarification of how the program will inform forest management policy and determine whether forest management has impacted wildlife populations in the Area of Undertaking, a requirement of the program.

Deficiencies in spatial coverage and species representation are being addressed through the recent initiation of the Ontario Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring field program. As stated in section 10.3.2.3, the purpose of the program is to provide long-term data on the status and trends for a range of wildlife species and associated habitat conditions using a consistent set of survey protocols. The sampling design is intended to provide broad spatial coverage of the Area of the Undertaking using a spatially balanced sample of survey sites. The protocols will provide data for multiple species of forest songbirds, small mammals, medium to large sized mammals, and terrestrial salamanders.

Detecting wildlife populations and monitoring population trends can be expensive and challenging in a province as large and diverse as Ontario. The province is characterized by a high degree of ecological variation and many areas have limited road access, which makes access to representative sampling sites difficult. Determining whether forest management affects wildlife populations is also challenging, as wildlife populations are affected by factors that are not related to forest management activities (e.g., climate change, mining activities).

The new Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring program will provide an opportunity to refine existing wildlife habitat models used in forest management planning and develop new models to fill existing knowledge gaps. These models are a key element for understanding how species distributions are affected by variation in forest communities, and will provide predictive tools of wildlife response to forest management that can be evaluated against observed changes through time from monitoring data. Technical details of these initiatives will be described in subsequent reports of the Wildlife Population Monitoring Program.

Program staff have also established a variety of partnerships with other MNR program areas and external agencies and have been successful in working through these partnerships to undertake wildlife population monitoring activities that support the implementation of the condition.

11.3 Reporting

11.3.1 Management Unit Annual Reports – Condition 26
Provincial Annual Report on Forest Management – Condition 32
State of the Forest Report – Condition 33
Five-Year EA Report – Condition 52

Declaration Order MNR-71 requires MNR and sustainable forest licence holders to prepare a number of reports. Condition 26 requires the preparation and submission of Management Unit Annual Reports to MNR on the implementation of forest operations in the preceding year for each management unit. Condition 32 requires preparation of the Provincial Annual Report on Forest Management and for the report to be tabled in the legislature and made available to the public. Condition 33 requires preparation of a report on the status of Ontario’s Crown forests every five years and for the report to be tabled in the legislature and made available to the public. Condition 52 requires MNR to prepare a report on the implementation of the conditions of Declaration Order MNR-71 every five years, submit the report to MOE and make the report available to the public.

Preparing the reports required by Conditions 32, 33 and 52 is time consuming and costly and for some reports, content requirements overlap (e.g., independent forest audit results in the Provincial Annual Report on Forest Management, the State of Ontario’s Forests report, and the Five-Year EA Report). For the reports that require tabling in the legislature, government priorities can influence the timing of tabling and public availability of the reports. During the reporting period, MNR examined ways to prepare these reports more efficiently, and to improve public availability of the information in the reports.

In 2012, MNR began a Reporting Synergies Initiative. The purpose of the initiative was to identify and implement opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of forest reporting and information management. Proposed opportunities include:

• tabling an executive summary style Provincial Annual Report on Forest Management in the legislature to:
  • facilitate public use of the report
  • decrease the time and cost of preparing the report
  • potentially enable more timely public availability of the report. This summary report will include tables and text which will provide more details on the activities outlined in the report.
• updating criteria and indicator information related to the status of Ontario’s Crown forests as data to support the indicators become available
• consolidating content requirements among reports (e.g., Management Unit Annual Reports, the Provincial Annual Report on Forest Management and the Five-Year EA Report) while ensuring that appropriate information is available to MNR’s stakeholders and the public

MNR will report on the outcome of the initiative in the next Five-Year EA Report.

11.4 Negotiations with Aboriginal peoples – Condition 34

Condition 34 requires MNR District Managers to negotiate at the local level with Aboriginal peoples whose communities are situated in a management unit regarding opportunities to increase benefits to Aboriginal peoples from participation in forest management planning.

The requirements of the condition are virtually identical to the original term and condition in the 1994 EA Board Decision. Some of those requirements are difficult to implement as MNR’s business model has changed significantly from 1994 when MNR was responsible for the delivery of Ontario’s silvicultural program, including growing nursery stock, planting trees, and preparing sites for planting. As a result, MNR has concerns with some requirements of the conditions (e.g., providing job opportunities and income associated with forest and mill operations).

MNR works in partnership with its stakeholders to increase benefits to Aboriginal peoples from participation in forest management. As stated in Chapter 9, a number of Ontario and MNR initiatives with provincial Aboriginal organizations and Métis communities are addressing improvements to Aboriginal participation in forest management. As also stated in Chapter 9, as a requirement of their licences, sustainable forest licence holders must work co-operatively with the Crown and local Aboriginal communities to identify and implement ways of achieving a more equal participation by Aboriginal communities in the benefits provided through forest management planning.

MNR is also examining methods to better determine the effectiveness of the implementation of the condition at the district and provincial levels, and to support improvements to the requirements of the condition.

11.5 Continuing development and programs

11.5.1 Information collection and management

11.5.1.1 Forest resources inventory – Condition 9(a)

Condition 9(a) requires MNR to have forest resources inventory data for each management unit for use in forest management planning. As described in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, MNR re-assumed responsibility for the Forest Resources Inventory Program in 2005, and developed an enhanced inventory program to meet MNR and forest industry needs. The 10-year production cycle for the enhanced inventory, which began in 2007, was scheduled for completion in 2017.

The program relies on skilled and competent photo interpreters and field staff to produce the inventory. Capacity continues to be an issue due to a shortage of qualified air photo interpreters and field sampling staff in the private sector, and has impacted production of the inventory. In an effort to ease the capacity issue, program staff have increased the number of photo interpretation certification courses from two to four. Program staff also work with colleges and Lakehead University to ensure that critical components of the photo interpretation program are included in the curriculum. The Forestry Futures Trust Committee and Forest Resources Inventory Program staff have also begun to work together to organize a series of workshops, information products, and training sessions designed to help users become more proficient in managing and viewing digital aerial imagery.

In 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11, consistent poor weather conditions made imagery capture difficult and imagery acquisition had to be postponed until 2011–12. In 2011–12, the bankruptcy of a company that held three contracts created production delays. Program staff worked with MNR’s Legal Services Branch to assign the work to a different contractor instead of having to begin a new procurement process. In 2012, the program shifted to a Vendor of Record procurement process to make the hiring process more efficient.

11.5.1.2 Inventory, information and management systems – Condition 40

Condition 40 requires MNR to continue to develop and enhance information management systems to support forest management planning. MNR continues to face challenges to meet evolving information systems requirements, especially web-enabled and computer applications. As stated in section 10.4.2.2, the Forest Information Portal was initiated in 2003 to enable information to be exchanged between MNR and the forest industry. Information from the portal is used to populate MNR’s Find a Forest Management Plan website. Since 2003, the level of use of the portal has increased beyond its original design and purpose and as a result, it has become difficult to maintain.

In 2012, a project was initiated to review the processes, procedures and tools associated with the sharing and exchange of information between MNR and the forest industry and to assess the effectiveness and usability of the information provided through the portal to more effectively engage the public in forest management planning. In the project, a review of the use of the portal, which included consultation with MNR and forest industry users, was undertaken. The reviewers concluded that the portal is critical to the forest management planning process but requires upgrading to ensure the system remains functional.

The project is ongoing. MNR is conducting a business analysis to: provide options regarding improvements to the portal; determine the preferred option; and develop a strategy to implement the preferred option. MNR will report on the outcome of the project in the next Five-Year EA Report.

11.5.2 Scientific research and technical development

11.5.2.1 Water crossings – Condition 25(b)

Conditions 13 and 14 describe the planning requirements for each area of concern crossing of primary, branch and operational roads. Condition 25(b) requires MNR to maintain a protocol to efficiently conduct the review of water crossings to assist in the timely approval of water crossings.

During the reporting period, issues related to water crossing planning and approvals were identified, including:

• submission of significantly more potential water crossing locations by industry annually to avoid future revisions and/or delays in water crossing approval after operations begin
• the need for water crossings previously approved in an annual work schedule that were not constructed to be reapproved in a subsequent annual work schedule to allow those crossings to be constructed
• the workload required to review and approve consistently and predictably low risk water crossings

As stated in section 10.4.3.1, following the 2007 review to assess the effectiveness of the protocol, revisions were being considered; however, those revisions were put on hold because of the development of MNR’s Request for Amendment to Declaration Orders MNR-71 and MNR-74. In addition, recent changes to the federal Fisheries Act have created uncertainty regarding the responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of the act in Ontario. Until the role of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is clarified in Ontario, and the new legislative requirements of the Fisheries Act and supporting policy are implemented and understood particularly as they relate to forest management planning in the Ontario, significant changes to the protocol cannot be considered.

Once the amendments to Declaration Order MNR-71 have been approved, the Forest Management Planning Manual will need to be revised and concurrent revisions to the water crossing protocol will be required. These revisions will need to reflect the new requirements of the Fisheries Act and the recommendations and comments received during the 2007 effectiveness monitoring review of the protocol. Changes to the review and approval processes are under consideration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

MNR will report on the status of the revisions to the protocol in the next Five-Year EA Report.

11.5.2.2 Growth and yield program – Condition 42

Condition 42 requires MNR to support and implement a provincial growth and yield program. During the reporting period, fiscal challenges continued to limit the advancement of the program. As described in section 10.4.3.2, Growth and Yield Program staff have developed a number of partnerships to help share costs and workload associated with maintaining a long-term network of sample plots.

Growth and yield monitoring generates large amounts of data from a wide range of partners, and requires significant information and management support. The volume of data involved exceeds the capability of desk-top computer database solutions. The data also needs to be housed on a server in a secure software environment. Server based databases require dedicated information management resources and support, and software that is compatible with all elements of the data collection process.

During the reporting period, sql server, a Microsoft database platform was evaluated and tested as a storage site for the program’s data and was found to be highly suitable and fully scalable to Growth and Yield Program needs. Program staff are working to move data into an sql database located on a central server. This process will take considerable time because of the volume of data and the different methodologies MNR and its partners use to collect the data.

11.5.2.3 Provincial wood supply strategy – Condition 48

Condition 48 requires MNR to review and revise, as MNR considers appropriate, the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy. As discussed in section 10.4.3.8, MNR is undertaking a project to revise the strategy to provide a more strategic approach to wood supply availability and wood supply issues. Since Condition 48 was added to MNR’s Forest Class EA approval in 2003, technological advancements have allowed MNR to collect and analyze large amounts of information, and to provide the information to its stakeholders in a more timely manner by posting the information on its website.

MNR is investigating moving from a static provincial strategy to a more dynamic approach by providing more timely and responsive information on anticipated wood supply issues. The proposed new approach will require the development of a small and focused set of strategies that will influence forest management planning, timber allocation and licensing, policy, and science and research priority setting.

MNR will continue to investigate wood supply opportunities and issues, and develop strategies and develop and maintain tools, to address those opportunities and issues through the development and implementation of forest policy and forest management plans.

12.0 Other significant matters

MOE and Ontarians expect MNR to demonstrate leadership in the management of Ontario’s Crown forests. This expectation requires MNR to be aware of other significant matters of government and public interest related to forest management, and to determine if adjustments to MNR-71 or related legislation or policies are required.

Other significant matters of government and public interest are identified by conducting environmental scans which include:

• following public discussions on government policy and legislation
• reviewing experience with the implementation of Declaration Order MNR-71 and related legislation and policies
• identifying new information sources
• reviewing science and research findings
• reviewing requests for individual environmental assessments
• being aware of specific campaigns of organizations, stakeholders and interested parties

This chapter provides a discussion of other significant matters of government and public interest in the management of Ontario’s Crown forests. Actions that MNR has undertaken to become knowledgeable about and address these other significant matters of interest are described.

12.1 Economic situation

12.1.1 Current economic situation and forest industry status

During the reporting period, Ontario’s forestry industry continued to struggle as a result of the economic downturn. The sector faced unprecedented challenges, including increasing global competition, poor market conditions and lower product demand, a rise in the Canadian dollar, high energy prices, and escalating wood delivery cost, which caused the industry to focus on reducing costs, including renegotiating labour agreements.

The global financial crisis and slowing product demand had a significant impact on Ontario’s forest industry. Reduced product demand resulted in mill idling or closures, reduced production, and related job losses. Harvest levels declined from 23.2 million cubic metres in 2003–04 to 11.8 million cubic metres in 2012–13, a significant difference from that amount of wood that is available for harvest in approved forest management plans. This decline in the harvest and utilization of available wood supply identified in approved forest management plans represents a substantial loss of economic and social benefits for Ontarians.

In 2003 and 2008, Ontario’s forest industry employed approximately 88,000 and 63,000 people respectively. In 2012, Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey reported that 55,600 people were employed directly in Ontario’s forest industry, a decrease of more than 35 per cent from 2003, and 12 percent from 2008. Many of the province’s sawmills and pulp and paper mills have been closed or have scaled back production as a result of the challenges facing the industry during the past five years.

As a result of the downturn, sustainable forest licences for the Big Pic, Lac Seul, Sapawe, Whiskey Jack, Kenogami, Armstrong, Black River and Pic River Ojibway Forests were returned to the Crown. Upon surrender of a sustainable forest licence, the forest management activities which provide for the sustainability of Crown forests in the licence area become the responsibility of the Crown. These increased responsibilities have created additional burdens for MNR during a time of economic challenges and fiscal restraint.

In early 2013, new-home construction in the United States started to show signs of a recovery, and lumber and panel products prices rose substantially. In North America, paper products are in a secular decline because of rising adoption of electronic media. Newsprint has experienced year over year declines for the past ten years; however, globally, pulp and paper consumption continues to rise.

Ontario’s forest product exports declined from $5.7 billion in 2007 to approximately $3.5 billion in 2012. While the forest industry continues exports to expanding markets in China and India, almost 95 per cent of Ontario’s exports go to markets in the United States.

During the reporting period, MNR undertook a number of initiatives to help transform Ontario’s forest sector, including:

• modernizing the forest tenure and pricing system (see section 12.1.2)
• identifying unused wood and offering it through a competitive process to attract new investment in the forest sector, and support new and innovative ventures
• grant and loan guarantees for new product enterprises or efficiency projects
• encouraging the production of new wood and fibre-based bioproducts
• working with partners across Ontario to strengthen the business climate by
  • building consumer awareness of Ontario-produced wood products (e.g., the Ontario Wood Initiative)
  • assisting the forest industry to expand export capacity and access new markets for their products

MNR will continue to work to maintain and enhance the competitiveness of the forest industry while ensuring that Ontario’s Crown forests are managed sustainably.

12.1.2 Forest tenure and pricing modernization

Forest tenure is the term used to describe the allocation and licensing of timber from Crown forests. Ontario’s forest tenure system is governed by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. In June 2011, the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act was passed to support forest tenure modernization.

A sustainable forest licence grants the licence holder the right to harvest the forest resources available on a management unit. In return, the licence holder is responsible to undertake forest management activities, including forest management planning, implementation of operations, and compliance monitoring of those activities. While this system creates a level of accountability which improves forest management planning and implementation, it also provides wood-consuming mills and companies that hold sustainable forest licences significant control over the management of the forest resource. In many areas of the province, this system limits opportunities for new entrants, access to timber and in some cases, jobs and investment.

The recent recession revealed flaws in Ontario’s forest tenure system. As stated in section 12.1.1, factors, including the rise in the Canadian dollar, global competition, and a major decline in the U.S. housing market resulted in the idling and closure of numerous mills. Jobs were lost and some forest dependent communities were left without a major employer.

During this time, wood that was allocated to those mills was left unused. Dialogue with the forest industry and rural, northern and Aboriginal communities, confirmed that the system needed to be modernized.

Two forest tenure primary models were created to enable tenure modernization – local forest management corporations and enhanced sustainable forest licence companies. Local forest management corporations are Crown agencies governed by a predominantly local board of directors responsible for managing Crown forests and overseeing the marketing and sale of timber in a given area. An enhanced sustainable forest licence company is established through a business agreement, such as a shareholder or partnership that reflects the Principles for Enhanced Sustainable Forest Licence Implementation. The sustainable forest licence holder would be expected to operate in a manner that will meet the objectives of tenure modernization. The new models will help make the allocation of Ontario’s wood more responsive to market demand, create new opportunities for entrepreneurs, and provide more opportunities for Aboriginal and local involvement in the forest sector.

Ontario’s transition to new forest tenure models began in May 2012 when the province’s first local forest management corporation, the Nawiinginokiima Forest Management Corporation, was established (see section 9.2.1.2).

12.1.3 Global trade issues and Ontario’s forest industry

Global trade issues, including restrictive legislation and policies, can affect the economic viability of Ontario’s forest industry, both negatively and positively. Over the past 25 years, the U.S. lumber industry frequently sought restrictions on Canadian softwood lumber imports through the application of countervailing duties and antidumping laws. In 2011, an international tribunal limited an additional export tax on Ontario softwood lumber to only one-tenth of one per cent (0.1 per cent); a significantly lower amount than the 20 per cent tax originally requested. The tribunal rejected many of the U.S. claims and found that Ontario’s forest management programs had no significant adverse impact on U.S. producers.

Illegal logging, mostly in third world countries, can have consequences for Ontario’s forest industry through the introduction of foreign trade legislation and policies. These consequences can be as simple as increased paperwork required to satisfy importers about the legality of a shipment, or as challenging as restrictions to not allow lumber from primary forests, or forests that have not previously been logged, to be imported. The latter could have negative consequences for Aboriginal peoples in Ontario’s Far North who hope to realize an economic opportunity by enabling forest management in their traditional areas (see section 1.3).

Conversely, the introduction of illegal logging legislation in Europe has forced European Union importers to carefully consider the legality of their supply chains, and has resulted in many companies seeking alternative sources of forest products. Ontario can use this opportunity to position itself as a credible supplier of sustainably and legally produced forest products.

12.2 Climate change and carbon management

Climate change is a variation in the long-term weather patterns of temperature and precipitation. These variations can result in a climate that is warmer or colder or wetter or drier. Normally, climate naturally varies slowly over thousands of years, but because of increased industrialization and greenhouse gases associated with human activities, the Earth’s climate is warming. In Ontario, we can expect average temperatures to rise by three, to as much as eight degrees Celsius over the next century. Warmer temperatures may result in milder winters, longer growing seasons and a higher frequency of severe weather events such as record-breaking storms, floods, droughts and heat waves.

The expected changes in our climate will have a significant impact on Ontario’s ecosystems; therefore, it is important to determine how the climate is changing and to identify approaches to manage carbon and mitigate the impacts of climate change. In Ontario, MNR has undertaken a number of science and research programs to study climate change and related effects on the environment. Work on these programs continues to provide a better understanding of implications for forest management.

This section provides an overview of some of MNR’s efforts to: understand the potential impacts of climate change on Ontario’s forests; identify actions that might be required to adapt to those impacts; and evaluate options for carbon management.

12.2.1 Understanding and adapting to climate change in Ontario’s forests

To depict possible future climate in Ontario, MNR has used international climate scenarios that portray changes in temperature and precipitation over time. MNR scientists have reviewed scientific literature and considered climate projections to examine anticipated impacts of climate change on Ontario’s forests. The anticipated impacts include increased natural disturbances, expansion of invasive species in forest ecosystems, and changes in forest vegetation. Forest productivity is likely to decrease in areas that are now or will become drier, and is expected to increase in northern areas that are currently cooler.

During the reporting period, MNR:

• revised the Forest Management Planning Manual to include climate change considerations
• participated in the completion of a project focused on adapting to a changing climate with the Canadian Council of Forests Ministers
• examined the challenges imposed by the effects of climate change and expanding economic activity in the Far North in relation to its fire management program

MNR prepared a number of reports regarding adaptation to climate change. In 2011, A Practitioners Guide to Climate Change Adaptation in Ontario’s Ecosystems was prepared in response to the Expert Panel on Climate Change Adaptation (2009) recommendations, the commitments contained in Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (Government of Ontario, 2011), and MNR’s strategic priorities on climate change. The guide introduces the concepts of climate change adaptation, vulnerability, and risk. It also describes vulnerability and risk assessment tools and techniques, and a framework that can be used to support adaptive management in a rapidly changing climate. In January 2013, MNR published Adapting Sustainable Forest Management to Climate Change: A Systematic Approach for Exploring Organizational Readiness, a report that describes a systematic approach that practitioners can use to develop and answer a specific set of questions that will help them assess their readiness to adapt to the effects of climate change.

MNR added two items related to climate change to the Forest Management Planning Manual: MNR’s climate change strategy was added to the list of documents planning teams should use as a source of direction to provide guidance for decision-making; and climate change was added as a management consideration in the development of the long-term management direction, and in the planning and implementation of operations.

As reported in the 2003–2008 Five-Year EA Report, under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, MNR staff participated in the completion of a project focused on adaptation. Phase 1 ended in 2010 with the publication of two reports: Vulnerability of Canada’s Tree Species to Climate Change and Management Options for Adaptation; and A Framework for Forest Management Offset Protocols. These reports have been widely distributed to forestry organizations and are being used to help inform policies and practices.

Phase 2 addressed adaptation at the forest ecosystem and forest sector levels, responding directly to a key objective of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers that consideration of climate change and future climatic variability is needed in all aspects of sustainable forest management. The primary goal of Phase 2 was to provide members of the forest sector with state-of-the-art tools and new knowledge to allow them to assess the vulnerabilities, risks and opportunities associated with climate change. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers vulnerability assessment tools and techniques are described in a series of inter-related reports specifically designed for forest management decision- makers.

Climate change projections predict that Ontario will experience warmer temperatures, generally drier conditions in most regions of the province, particularly the Far North, and the likelihood of more extreme weather events. MNR’s forest fire management program is continuing to examine the challenges imposed by the effects of climate change and expanding economic activity in the Far North, including:

• longer and more severe fire seasons
• increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events
• changes in forest conditions resulting from windstorms, pests and disease
• increased occurrence of drought
• an increase in the number of fires that require action to reduce the threat to people and infrastructure in the Far North

MNR is currently reviewing its Forest Fire Management Strategy for Ontario to adjust to the anticipated fire conditions and to determine the level of protection to provide. MNR will report on the outcome of the review in the next Five-Year EA Report.

12.2.2 Climate change studies

Researchers at MNR’s Ontario Forest Research Institute study Ontario’s forests to help ensure that forest management policies, planning and practices have a strong scientific foundation. Among those studies, researchers are studying how climate change is affecting Ontario’s forests, as well as how to help forests adapt to a changing climate, including:

• vulnerability assessment and adaptation options for Ontario’s Clay Belt in northeastern Ontario
• genecology studies to support forest adaptation to climate change
• evaluating management practices to increase resilience of forests through promotion of species diversity

In response to the Ontario government’s Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan, 2011–2014, MNR sponsored vulnerability assessments for selected natural resources in the Lake Simcoe watershed and Ontario’s Clay Belt as part of a pilot study to help Ontarians develop adaptive solutions to a changing climate. For the Clay Belt, a multi- step vulnerability assessment and adaptation framework was used to explore how ecosystems may be vulnerable to change. The Clay Belt vulnerability assessment aims to:

• establish where and how this ecodistrict is vulnerable to climate change
• assist in identifying potential adaptation options to cope with climate change impacts
• identify potential support for forest management plans and activities by examining multiple environmental themes

Integrating climate change adaptation into forest management requires an understanding of the known and potential impacts of climate change and the corresponding vulnerability of, and risks to, ecosystems and the people who rely on them. As Ontario’s understanding of climate change and ways to mitigate the impacts evolves, MNR has begun to consider adaptations to forest management planning and forest operations.

MNR is conducting genecology studies to support forest adaptation to climate change, including assisted migration and genetic conservation. Historical provenance trials established across a range of climatic conditions were re-measured. In these trials, seeds collected from various geographic locations were planted under climatic conditions different from their geographic origin. The trees that grew from these seeds, some now more than 50 years old, are being examined to determine how trees from across species’ ranges have responded to planting at warmer and cooler or wetter and drier sites. The assessment can provide information on sensitivity of existing forests to warming temperatures and the potential to plant trees adapted to warmer temperatures in more northerly locations, which are expected to become hotter in coming decades. This type of information will help inform future forest managers of options for seed source selection to match seed to future climate, as assisted migration will be a key tool to help forests adapt to climate change. The information will provide insights into the growth potential and adaptive capacity of existing stands under climate change, which will help practitioners ensure a better match between seed source and planting site. Results of this research are expected in three to five years. The project team will also be working with MNR forest policy staff to guide implementation of future assisted migration in Ontario.

Biodiversity is an important component of ecological resilience or the ability of ecosystems to absorb and recover from natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Erosion of biodiversity by climate change through extirpation of species and species populations is a serious threat to ecosystem resilience, sustainability and continued provision of ecological goods and services.

MNR staff are evaluating management practices to increase resilience of forests through promotion of species diversity. The evaluation is part of a larger study being undertaken across North America and in Poland to research primary productivity related to wood and soil carbon sequestration.

12.2.3 Approaches to carbon management

As part of the effort to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, MNR is examining ways to manage carbon to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Some of the approaches are specific to the management of carbon in our forests, while others are broader in scope and relate to other carbon sources and economic factors. These approaches include efforts within Ontario, and in partnership with agencies and associations across Canada and globally, to develop effective carbon markets.

MNR staff has participated in the National Forest Sinks Committee providing input into national-level forest carbon accounting. MNR also developed a carbon budget model for Ontario to enable the determination of the flow of carbon through forest ecosystems in the Area of the Undertaking, and to simulate the effect of wildfire on forest carbon. The model is being expanded to assess and project carbon storage in Ontario’s Far North, in harvested wood products, and life cycle emissions from forestry and wood-using industries.

12.3 Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act, 2007 provides protection for species at risk and their habitats in Ontario. When a species is newly listed as endangered or threatened, the habitat of that species is automatically provided protection under the act. The act requires the development of recovery strategies for endangered and threatened species, and management plans for special concern species. The recovery strategies and management plans provide advice to government on steps to take to protect and recover species at risk. The act obligates the Minister of Natural Resources to prepare a Government Response Statement that summarizes the actions that the government intends to take in response to a recovery strategy or management plan, and the government’s priorities with respect to taking those actions.

Since the Endangered Species Act received royal assent, habitat regulations for 13 forest dependent species have been enacted. The habitat regulation for peregrine falcon was rescinded in 2012 when the species was reclassified from threatened to special concern. For many forest dependent species at risk that do not have a habitat regulation, direction for conducting forest management activities is provided in the Stand and Site Guide.

In 2009, the Caribou Conservation Plan, the Government Response Statement to the Woodland Caribou Recovery Strategy, was released. The Caribou Conservation Plan documents key elements that are considered vital to the overall recovery of caribou in Ontario. Some of these elements have direct implications for forest management planning. The plan states that forest management plans will include provisions for caribou and ensure the supply of sufficient habitat and the renewal of harvested areas as future habitat for caribou populations. These provisions will be managed through the use of dynamic caribou habitat schedules within forest management plans. To ensure sufficient future habitat is available, forest management plans must be consistent with the Caribou Conservation Plan. Direction for the use of dynamic caribou habitat schedules is contained within the Forest Management Guide for Boreal Landscapes (see section 10.4.1.1).

To address the cumulative impact assessments, MNR prepared a draft Range Management Policy in support of woodland caribou conservation and recovery. Draft documents to support implementation of the policy include: Guidance for Assessing Impacts of Activities on Woodland Caribou and their Habitat; and Integrated Assessment Protocol for Woodland Caribou Ranges in Ontario. These documents were posted on the Environmental Registry in August 2013.

As stated in section 10.3.2.2, MNR is undertaking a Silvicultural Enhancement Initiative. The initiative will look at making improvements to silvicultural policies to provide greater assurance that areas selected for harvest, which are suitable for caribou habitat, will be renewed to a suitable condition to provide for future caribou habitat.

In February 2012, MNR released a policy Categorizing and Protecting Habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The policy provides context for determining whether a proposed activity is likely to damage or destroy habitat protected under subsection 10(1) of the Endangered Species Act.

In November 2012, MNR established an Endangered Species Act Stakeholder Panel with membership that reflected a broad and balanced range of interests and expertise. Panel membership included Environmental Non-government Organizations (e.g., Ducks Unlimited, CPAWS Wildlands League) and industry representatives (e.g., the Ontario Forest Industries Association, Ontario Home Builders’ Association and Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association). The panel was given a mandate to provide advice and recommendations to MNR that focused on implementation of the act, while recognizing the context of MNR’s modernization framework. A report issued in January 2013 contained several recommendations including that MNR should:

• assess where existing regulatory frameworks and planning processes contribute to or achieve the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, and reduce or eliminate unnecessary process and burden
• recognize the equivalency between the Endangered Species Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and develop a regulation under Section 55(1)(b) of the Endangered Species Act which recognizes that the primary objectives of the act are met through the Environmental Assessment Act, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and associated forest management plans

In November 2012, MNR formed two task teams to conduct a policy gap analysis between the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and the Endangered Species Act and make recommendations. The recommendations from the task teams addressing the linkages between the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and the Endangered Species Act were presented to MNR senior managers. One of the task teams specifically addressed woodland caribou, and the other task team addressed all other forest dependent species at risk.

In July 2013, the habitat of 65 more species received general habitat protection under the Endangered Species Act. Some of these transition species are forest dependent and include woodland caribou, wolverine and Blanding’s turtle. Also in July 2013, an exemption regulation was issued under the act for a period of five years. The regulation exempts forest operations conducted under an approved forest management plan from section 9(1)(a) and 10(1) of the act as long as the conditions under section 22.1 of Ontario Regulation 176/13 are met. These conditions include:

• requirements regarding the conduct of the forest operations in accordance with operational prescriptions for areas of concern in an approved forest management plan
• requirements regarding the conduct of the forest operations in accordance with conditions on regular operations in an approved forest management plan
• preparation of prescriptions for areas of concern or conditions on regular operations where none exist in a forest management plan

The five-year period will provide time for MNR to review the linkages between the Endangered Species Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act to facilitate orderly implementation of the Endangered Species Act, and provide more certainty for the forest industry to continue forest management activities in Ontario.

In July 2013, MNR posted nine general habitat descriptions for forest dependent species at risk on its website. Direction for four of these species is also included in the Stand and Site guide. For the term of the exemption, regulation direction in the guide is to be followed. For the five other species that have a general habitat description, if an operational prescription for an area of concern or conditions on regular operations are required, they must be consistent with the guidance in the general habitat descriptions.

A policy that will provide context for determining whether a proposed activity is likely to harm or harass a species at risk under subsection 9(1)(a) of the Endangered Species Act was posted on the Environmental Registry in August 2013.

12.4 Invasive species

Invasive species are an urgent and growing threat to Ontario’s ecosystems, and the social and economic systems that depend upon those ecosystems. The impact of invasive species on wood supply and harvest activities is identified as one of the most immediate and potentially damaging threats to Canadian forest industries. Ontario has the highest risk of species invasions compared to other Canadian provinces and territories, as Ontario’s highly industrialized, urbanized, and mobile society creates opportunities for the introduction and spread of species. As stated in section 12.2.1, increased expansion of invasive species in forest ecosystems is an anticipated impact of climate change.

Once established, invasive species can be extremely difficult and expensive to control and eradicate. Emerald ash borer has already killed more than one million trees in southwestern Ontario, with removal and replacement costing millions of dollars. Beech bark disease, which has spread throughout most of Ontario where beech occurs, has already killed hundreds of trees in Killbear Provincial Park. Beech trees are used for flooring, furniture, railway ties, pulp, and firewood, and the tree’s nuts are an important food source for black bears, deer, birds, and other animals.

As stated in section 10.4.3.4, MNR is a partner in the Invasive Species Centre, which opened in 2011, to facilitate and improve coordination, collaboration, efficiencies and decision making in invasive species prevention, management, research, training, education, and information management. In 2012, MNR led the development of the Ontario Invasive Species Strategic Plan. The objectives of the plan are to:

• prevent new invaders from arriving and surviving in Ontario
• slow, and where possible, reverse the spread of existing invasive species
• reduce the harmful impacts of existing invasive species

The plan contains 27 strategic actions and numerous tactics that can be undertaken to achieve these objectives, which include the development of rapid response protocols for use when a new invasive species is detected. These protocols need to be developed with an understanding of the social, economic and environmental impacts associated with invasive species.

MNR is also proposing that enhancements be made to Ontario’s current prevention and management framework. The framework could include new risk-based policy tools, as well as regulatory and legislative measures to address gaps, and be supported by continued voluntary initiatives, better engagement of partners, and investments in science and information management.

MNR will continue to explore strategies and implement tactics to ensure that invasive species can be dealt with rapidly to protect the sustainability of Ontario’s forests.

13.0 Conclusion

The submission of this Five-Year EA Report fulfills MNR’s requirements under Condition 52 of MNR-71 for the April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013 reporting period. The information in the report demonstrates MNR’s adaptive approach to forest management and supports MNR’s continued commitment to the sustainable management of Ontario’s Crown forests.

MNR’s analysis of the information gathered during the reporting period confirms that MNR does not need to seek changes to the conditions of the declaration order. This report also provides information on ongoing initiatives, reviews and studies that may inform future changes to MNR’s Forest EA approval.

The next Five-Year EA Report is anticipated to be prepared for the April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2018 reporting period and be submitted to MOE in June 2019.

Appendix 1: District progress report highlights – Condition 34

Algonquin Park

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Algonquin Park is part of the traditional territory of several Algonquin communities located near the provincial park, including Antoine Algonquins, Mattawa/North Bay Algonquins, Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation, Whitney Algonquins, Algonquins of Greater Golden Lake, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation (Golden Lake), Snimikobi (Ardoch) Algonquin First Nation, Algonquin Nation Kijicho Manito (Bancroft), Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Nine communities had representatives on the planning team
• Two communities had representatives on the Local Citizens Committee
• Participation in aerial moose inventories, nursery creek, moose aquatic area and stick nest surveys, and fish stocking
• MNR aircraft used for a community to view its traditional area to observe and find values and view potential forestry areas
• MNR helped organize a cultural weekend for one community that included providing use of provincial park facilities and providing speakers

Contracts

• 3,200 ha of tree marking
• 81 ha of site preparation
• 750 ha of tending
• 146 ha of hardwood stand improvement
• More than $1,400,000 paid to purchase timber
• More than $2,000,000 in contracts

Licences and timber allocation

• No licensing opportunities available

Training, recruitment and employment ^{footnote 12[12]}

• Employment in forest operations ranged from 25 to 45
• Attendance at forest management planning training and meetings and funding provided for participation in training
• Attendance at Algonquin Forestry Authority training sessions including tree marking, careful logging, water crossings, and identifying canoe grade white birch trees
• Employment by Ontario Parks
• Attendance at the Provincial Scaling course for one community member

Bancroft and Kemptville districts

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Whitney Algonquins, Snimikobi (Ardoch) Algonquin First Nation, Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, Ojibways of Hiawatha First Nation, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation (Golden Lake), Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation, Algonquins of Greater Golden Lake, Algonquin Nation Kijicho Manito (Bancroft), Chippewas of Rama Mnjikaning First Nation, Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Six communities had representatives on planning teams
• One community had a representative on a Local Citizens Committee

Contracts

• Nothing reported

Licences

• Nothing reported

Training, recruitment and employment

• Bancroft District hired an Algonquin Forest Resource Technician who is directly engaged in forest management as a forest technician and a certified forest compliance inspector

Chapleau District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Brunswick House First Nation, Chapleau Cree First Nation, Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation, Mattagami First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Flying Post First Nation, Mississauga #8 First Nation, Sagamok Anishnawbek First Nation, Serpent River First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Seven communities had representatives on planning teams
• Five communities are involved in the Chapleau Area Aboriginal Resource Team, which brings forward Aboriginal perspectives on natural resource management issues. MNR provided funding support for these meetings.
• Funding to Mushkegowuk Environmental Research Centre for a workshop concerning Aboriginal and western knowledge of cedar to determine the interest in developing a joint approach to best practices for cedar management
• Resources provided to develop a building site for a Resource Centre and lodging facilities, and in-kind contributions including lumber for gatherings and equipment to operators in support of community projects
• Support for a blueberry cultivation project including providing mapping information, review of the project plan, review of the project EA, and identification of Crown land disposition procedures
• Discussions with Chapleau Cree First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, the forest industry and community partners to explore a new tenure arrangement for the Martel and Magpie Forests

Contracts

• $130,000 for information gathering
• Fuelwood processing

Licences and timber allocation

• 275,000 m³ allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Attendance at Tembec’s annual, week-long training each April that includes training opportunities in Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations, Due Diligence Incident investigation, Workplace inspections, WHMIS, chain saw safety, and bird nest identification
• Attendance at forest management planning training sessions, and species at risk and Stand and Site Guide training
• Employment in forest operations
• Employment through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program
• Training for Chapleau Area Aboriginal Resource Team members including strategic and operational planning in forest management planning, Heritage Assessment Tool training, options for harvesting around waterbodies and a Forest Stewardship Certification presentation on High Value Conservation Forests

Cochrane District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Moose Cree First Nation, Wahgoshig First Nation, Taykwa Tagamou Nation, Mattagami First Nation, Matachewan First Nation, Flying Post First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Five communities had representatives on the planning team
• One community had representatives on a Local Citizens Committee
• Three communities were involved in the Shareholder Agreement negotiations for the Abitibi River Forest
• In-kind support was provided to assist in the development of an all-weather access road into a community
• Financial support was provided for youth initiatives and infrastructure repairs

Contracts

• More than $6,000,000 worth of timber purchased
• $460,000 of road construction and maintenance
• $2,500 for information gathering

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 2,300,000 m³ of timber allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment through the First Nations Natural Resources Youth Employment Program
• Funds provided to one community to support an on-reserve adult education program for community members to receive a Grade 12 certificate. More than 20 adults graduated from the program.

Dryden District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities Aboriginal People of Wabigoon, Eagle Lake First Nation, Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Wabauskang First Nation, Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, Naotkamegwanning Anishinabe First Nation, (Whitefish Bay), Grassy Narrows First Nation, Northwest Métis Council

Relationships and participation

• Five communities had representatives on a planning team
• One community had a representative on the Local Citizens Committee
• Two communities developed customized consultation approaches
• Contact initiated with the Northwest Métis Council and the Sunset Country Métis Council
• Attendance by members of several communities at meetings regarding forest tenure
• Purchase of cleaning products manufactured by one community
• Financial and in-kind contributions provided to a number of communities

Contracts

• More than 21,000,000 seedlings grown
• 430 ha of tending
• $43,000 of road construction and maintenance

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 350,000 m³ of timber allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment provided through the First Nations Juvenile Spacing Training and Employment Program
• Employment provided by MNR through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program
• Employment provided through the First Nations Natural Resource Youth Employment Program
• Employment provided by MNR to an Aboriginal Forester Intern
• Training provided on operating to Sustainable Forestry Initiative certification levels
• Attendance at forest management planning training

Fort Frances District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Big Grassy First Nation, Couchiching First Nation, Lac La Croix First Nation, Rainy River First Nation, Naicatchewenin First Nation, Seine River First Nation, Mitaanjigamiing First Nation, Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nation, Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing, Naotkamegwanning Anishinabe, Ojibways of Onigaming, Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation, Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, Métis communities

Relationships and participation

• Four communities had representatives on planning teams
• Two members of one community are representatives on a Local Citizens Committee
• Two communities developed customized consultation approaches
• Work with the Rainy Lake Tribal Development Corporation to build capacity and establish a company to provide forest management services on the Sapawe Forest (see section 9.2.1.2)

Contracts

• More than $24,000,000 of timber purchased
• $3,600,000 in road construction and maintenance
• More than $5,600,000 for roadside brushing, beaver control, tending, water crossing inspections, tree planting and cone collection
• More than 475,000 tonnes of biomass ground and hauled

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 1,700,000 m³ of timber allocated
• Ten forest resource licences issued
• A five-year forest resource licence issued to Rainy Lake Tribal Resource Management to provide forest management services on the Sapawe Forest
• Fuelwood and personal use licences issued

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment in forest operations and mills ranged from 29 to 71
• Attendance at forest management planning training
• Employment in an Aboriginal owned nursery
• Training in conducting silvicultural field surveys

Hearst District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Constance Lake First Nation, Hornepayne First Nation, Taykwa Tagamou Nation, Moose Cree First Nation, Brunswick House First Nation, Chapleau Cree First Nation, Mattagami First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Flying Post First Nation, Matachewan First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Three communities had representatives on planning teams
• Nine communities developed customized consultation approaches
• Continued work with one community on its community based land use planning initiative, including several workshops
• Continued work on production of a forest resources inventory for the land use planning area
• Funding for a Trapper Coordinator to support the engagement of trappers with the preparation and implementation of forest management plans
• Cooperative Sustainable Forest Licence discussions with one community

Contracts

• More than $200,00 for tree planting, work on the forest resources inventory, tree planting, beaver control and tending

Licences

• More than 315,000 m³ of timber allocated
• 116,000 m³ of biomass hauled

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment in bush operations and mills ranged from 3 to 43
• Employment provided through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program
• Employment in road construction

Kenora District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Big Grassy First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation, Grassy Narrows First Nation, Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation, Wabaseemoong Independent Nations, Obashkaandagaang First Nation, Wauzhushk Onigum First Nation, Ochiichagwe'Babigo'ining First Nation, Shoal Lake No. 40 First Nation, Northwest Angle No. 33 First Nation, Northwest Angle No. 37 First Nation, Anishinaabeg of Naongashiing , Ojibways of Onigaming, Naotkamegwanning Anishinabe, Kenora Métis Council.

Relationships and participation

• Four communities had representatives on planning teams
• Four communities developed customized consultation approaches
• Natural Resource Career Day hosted at Grassy Narrows High School which brought together various MNR natural resource management programs, including forestry, fish and wildlife, parks, enforcement to show students and graduates various opportunities that are available to them in forestry and other areas of natural resource management
• Discussions were held with 4 communities regarding poplar harvest on First Nations lands
• Ongoing discussions with Grassy Narrows as part of the Memorandum of Understanding and Process Agreement signed in 2008

Contracts

• Close to $550,000 in road construction and maintenance
• $340,000 for forest management services, slash piling and burning, beaver control and tree planting
• A multi-year service agreement was entered into with Miisun Integrated Resource Management for forest management services on the Whiskey Jack Forest

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 900,000 m³ allocated
• Miitigoog, a partnership between five First Nations and industry, holds the sustainable forest license for the Kenora Forest Training, Recruitment and Employment
• Training provided in harvest and equipment operation
• Employment opportunities provided in a local mill
• Employment through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program

Kirkland Lake District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Wahgoshig First Nation, Matachewan First Nation, Beaverhouse First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Six communities had members on the planning team
• Three communities had members on the Local Citizens Committee
• Attendance at numerous meetings with the Aboriginal Community Advisory Committee to provide guidance and input on Aboriginal issues related to the Forest Management Plan for the Timiskaming Forest

Contracts

• 250,000 trees planted
• 465 ha of tending

Licences and timber allocation

• 450,000 m³ of timber allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program
• Training costs provided for a GIS course was provided for a community member
• Youth and Elders from each Aboriginal community were invited to attend a FireSmart Workshop
• Economic opportunities provided to a First Nations partnership resulting from the clean- up of Mid-Canada Line radar sites

Nipigon District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation, Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation, Red Rock Indian Band, Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek, Fort William First Nation, Whitesand First Nation, Namaygoosisagagun, Animbiigoo Zaagi'igan Anishinaabek First Nation, Aroland First Nation, Long Lake #58 First Nation, Ginoogaming First Nation, Constance Lake First Nation, Pays Plat First Nation, Poplar Point First Nation, Eabametoong First Nation, Marten Falls First Nation, Ojibways of Pic River, Pic Mobert First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Six communities had representatives on planning teams
• Two communities had representatives on Local Citizens Committees
• In May 2008, an agreement was signed to transfer the sustainable forest licence for the Lake Nipigon Forest to Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. which included shares held by First Nation businesses and representation by First Nations without shares (see section 9.2.1.2)
• Community based land use planning activities undertaken with communities in the Far North
• Seven communities are involved in tenure

Contracts

• More than 3,000,000 trees planted
• 355 ha of site preparation
• More than $1,700,00 for road construction and maintenance, information collection and tree planting

Licences and timber allocation

• Close to 2,300,000 m³ allocated
• Forest resource licences issued, including an enhanced licence to Ne-Daa-Kii-Me-Naan, a company comprised of members of 7 communities

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment in forest operations and mills
• Employment through the First Nations Natural Resources Youth Employment Program
• Employment though the First Nations Ranger Program

North Bay District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Temagami First Nation, Nipissing First Nation, Dokis First Nation, Antoine Algonquins, Mattawa/North Bay Algonquins, Matachewan First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Seven communities had representatives on planning teams
• Three communities had representatives on Local Citizens Committees
• Aboriginal Working Group meetings

Contracts

• More than $1,100,000 in silvicultural contracts
• 600,000 trees planted
• More than 1,000 ha tended

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 255,000 m³ allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment in forest operations and mills for up to 34 individuals
• Forest operations compliance training provided

Parry Sound District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Wasauksing First Nation (Parry Island), Henvey Inlet First Nation, Shawanaga First Nation, Magnetawan First Nation, Dokis First Nation, Wahta Mohawks, Moose Deer Point First Nation

Relationships and participation

• Two communities had representatives on the planning team
• One community had a representative on the Local Citizens Committee

Contracts

• $21,500 provided for information gathering

Licences and timber allocation

• Fuelwood and sawlog harvest

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program
• Temporary assignment provided as an MNR Conservation Officer
• GPS training
• Funding provided for chainsaw and cutter-skidder training and certification

Pembroke District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation (Golden Lake), Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation, Antoine Algonquins, Mattawa/North Bay Algonquins, Algonquins of Greater Golden Lake, Snimikobi (Ardoch) Algonquin First Nation, Algonquin Nation Kijicho Manito (Bancroft), Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, Whitney Algonquins

Relationships and participation

• Nine communities had representatives on the planning team
• Continued involvement in plan amendments
• One community had a representative on the Local Citizens Committee
• Algonquin land claim negotiations (see section 9.2.2.1)

Contracts

• No contracts

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 36,000 m³ allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment in forest operations and mills for up to 40 individuals
• Funding and training for the Algonquin Earthwalker Program
• MNR employment in Fire Management and Administration
• Tree marking certification training

Red Lake District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Pikangikum First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Cat Lake First Nation, Wabauskang First Nation, Slate Falls First Nation, Grassy Narrows First Nation, Pauingassi First Nation, Little Grand Rapids First Nation, First Nations peoples living off reserves in Red Lake and Ear Falls, Northwest Métis Nation of Ontario Council, Kenora Métis Council

Relationships and participation

• Two communities had representatives on planning teams
• One community developed a customized consultation approach
• Work with Pikangikum First Nation to prepare a request for EA Act coverage for the Whitefeather Forest that resulted in the granting of Declaration Order MNR-74
• Funding provided for implementation of the land use strategy for the Whitefeather Forest
• Formation of the Adjacent Aboriginal Community Working Group to provide information on and input to the Forest Management Plan for the Whitefeather Forest
• Involvement by the Whitefeather Elders Steering Group – senior indigenous knowledge holders and trappers who were involved in plan preparation and consultation opportunities on the first Forest Management Plan for the Whitefeather Forest
• Presentation by the MNR Provincial Vegetation Management Specialist to discuss the effects of herbicide spraying from a scientific perspective in Lac Seul communities
• Meetings held with trappers to discuss values

Contracts

• 2,200,000 seedlings grown

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 42,000 m³ allocated
• Fuelwood harvest

Training, recruitment and employment

• MNR contributed to the Board of Directors of Whitefeather Aboriginal Skills and Education Program initiative. One objective of initiative is to educate Pikangikum youth. This education will provide an opportunity to complete a recognized college forestry education program.
• Employment by MNR in Fire Management
• Employment by the Whitefeather Management Corporation
• Employment in silvicultural activities such as tree planting, tending and silviculture effectiveness monitoring
• Employment by MNR of co-op students from the Pikangikum Forest Ecosystem Technician program

Sault Ste. Marie District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Serpent River First Nation, Ojibways of Garden River, Mississauga #8 First Nation, Thessalon First Nation, Ojibways of Batchewana, Aundeck Omni Kaning First Nation, Métis Nation of Ontario/Sault Ste. Marie Métis Council

Relationships and participation

• Four communities had representatives on planning teams
• One community had a representative on a Local Citizens Committee
• Ongoing dialogue with the Métis community in Sault Ste. Marie to explore harvest opportunities
• Attendance by five communities at a meeting to discuss forestry opportunities on the Northshore Forest
• Participation in the 2012 Northshore independent forest audit
• Presentations to MNR by Aboriginal and Métis communities on their culture and interest in natural resources

Contracts

• More than 2,000,000 seedlings grown
• More than 650 hl of cones collected
• Aerial surveys

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 100,000 m³ of wood allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment in forest operations and mills
• Attendance by 15 members of a community at a Forestry 101 session hosted by MNR and the Northshore sustainable forest licence holder
• Employment through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program GIS support to two communities to facilitate access to values information
• Funding provided for one individual to attend a provincial wetland evaluation course

Sioux Lookout District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Mishkeegogamang First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Cat Lake First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Slate Falls Nation, Métis Nation of Ontario.

Relationships and participation

• Two communities had representatives on planning teams
• One community had a representative on the Local Citizens Committee
• Involvement in forest certification
• Jackpine Budworm management information sessions held in two communities
• Information sessions held in 2 communities to discuss the draft Caribou Mosaic and Caribou Conservation Plan
• Preparation and approval of the community based land use plan for the Cat Lake–Slate Falls planning area
• Involvement in preparation of a request for EA Act coverage for forest management on the Cat-Slate Forest
• MNR and LacSeul developed a youth employment program

Contracts

• Road construction and maintenance

Licences and timber allocation

• Forest resource licence issued to Lac Seul (see section 9.2.1.2)

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment in the First Nations Ranger Program
• Employment in fire management and in building a forward attack base
• Employment in the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program
• Funding to support the First Nations Ranger Program· Employment in silvicultural activities
• Participation by communities involved in land use planning initiatives in a Forestry Awareness Field Tour to build capacity and to provide a better understanding of forest management planning

Sudbury District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Dokis First Nation, Henvey Inlet First Nation, Mattagami First Nation, Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation, Mississauga #8 First Nation, Sagamok Anishnawbek First Nation, Serpent River First Nation, Temagami First Nation, Wahnapitae First Nation, Whitefish Lake First Nation, Whitefish River First Nation, Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve, Zhiibaahaasing First Nation, Sheguiandah First Nation, Aundek Omni Kaning First Nation (Ojibways of Sucker Creek), M’Chigeeng First Nation (West Bay), Sheshegwaning First Nation, Brunswick House First Nation.

Relationships and participation

• Six communities had representatives on planning teams
• Four communities developed customized consultation approaches

Contracts

• More than 1,000,000 seedlings grown
• 188,000 trees planted
• More than 1,000 ha of tending

Licences and timber allocation

• More than 895,000 m³ allocated
• Fuelwood harvest

Training, recruitment and employment

• GIS training provided to several communities
• Funding provided for tree marking certification training
• Forest compliance training
• Participation in aerial surveys

Thunder Bay District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Whitesand First Nation, Namaygoosisagagun (Community of Collins), Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation, Fort William First Nation, Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation (Gull Bay), Red Rock Indian Band, Métis Nation of Ontario.

Relationships and participation

• Four communities had representatives on planning teams
• Three communities had representatives on Local Citizens Committees
• Discussions with several communities regarding inclusion as shareholders in Lake Nipigon Forest Management
• Annual meetings to discuss herbicide use with one community

Contracts

• More than 950,000 trees planted through contracts with a Métis owned company
• 750 ha tended
• 100 ha site prepared
• Road construction and maintenance

Licences and timber allocation

• Close to 2,000,000 m³ allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Employment through the Aboriginal Youth Work Exchange Program
• Employment in forest operations and mills
• Employment through the First Nation Natural Resource Youth Employment Program
• Employment through the First Nations Juvenile Spacing Training and EmploymentProgram
• Employment in road construction and maintenance

Timmins District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Mattagami First Nation, Flying Post First Nation, Matachewan First Nation, Moose Cree First Nation, Taykwa Tagamou Nation, Wahgoshig First Nation, Beaverhouse Aboriginal Community, Wahnapitae First Nation, Sagamok Anishnawbek First Nation, Whitefish Lake First Nation, Temagami First Nation, Temiskaming First Nation, Northern Lights Métis.

Relationships and participation

• Four communities had representatives on planning teams and participation by the Northern Lights Métis in the planning process
• Two communities were involved in a Herbicide Alternatives Project
• Mattagami has a Land and Resources Coordinator position at the community level. The coordinator is involved in forest management, the First Nation Advisory Committee, and in Crown Land Dispositions.
• Financial support for community events and activities

Contracts

• Contracts provided for harvest, trapline repatriation and beaver control

Licences and timber allocation

• One community holds an overlapping licence
• More than 92,000 m³ allocated

Training, recruitment and employment

• Support to one community toward the development of a Trapper’s Council
• Ecological Land Classification workshop provided for one community
• Climate Change and Forest Management Planning training session
• Financial support and in-kind contributions for the First Nations Natural Resources Youth Employment Program
• Construction and saw filing training

Wawa District

First Nations and Aboriginal communities

Ojibways of Pic River (Heron Bay), Pic Mobert First Nation, Hornepayne First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Pays Plat First Nation, Long Lake #58 First Nation, Ginoogaming First Nation (Long Lac #77), Constance Lake First Nation.

Relationships and participation

• 8 communities had representatives on planning teams
• 2 communities had representatives on Local Citizens Committees
• 4 communities developed customized consultation approaches
• 3 communities are partners in Nawiinginokiima Forest Management Corporation (see section 9.2.1.2)

Contracts

• Preparation of the Phase II operational plan for the Magpie Forest
• Information collection
• Preparation of annual work schedules and Management Unit Annual Reports

Licences and timber allocation

• 475,000 m³ allocated
• One community holds an overlapping licence

Training, recruitment and employment

• Up to 63 Aboriginals employed in mill operations
• Forest management planning training